Howard breaks his silence: Work Choices should've stayed

[heads_down]

First time Ex Prime Minister John Howard talks in yonks
and he still thinks Work Choices was the best thing since Vegemite despite being booted out of his constituent over Work Choices

Make darn sure the opposition do not get in in case of an early election or you'll see Work Choices creep in slowly but surely.

That's a true nutter this Howard.

THE Rudd Government's stimulus packages and its abolition of Work Choices have made the economic situation in Australia worse, not better, former prime minister John Howard has said in one of his first interviews since losing office.

Mr Howard also gave his support to embattled Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull during the 40-minute interview, broadcast on Sky News last night.

Asked what he would have done to combat the global economic crisis, Mr Howard immediately pointed to the abolition of Work Choices, saying that by overturning the controversial industrial legislation the Rudd Government had added to unemployment.

"Work Choices helped give us the lowest unemployment rate in 33 years," Mr Howard said.

"The biggest challenge that the Government now faces is stopping unemployment going too high and they are now, by dismantling our industrial relations reforms, they are adding to unemployment.

"If the name of the game is to protect jobs, why do you follow policies that destroy jobs?"

The former PM, who lost the top job in 2007 to Kevin Rudd, said the Rudd Government's multi-billion-dollar stimulus packages had worsened the economic situation in Australia by increasing debt.

Instead, they should have followed policies such as a "payroll holiday", which would have encouraged business to retain jobs, Mr Howard said.

"I wouldn't have thrown money around and given cheques to people," he said.

"I would have actually said to the states, 'We'll give you, I think it is $16 billion collected throughout Australia for payroll tax', give them payroll tax relief for a year in order to lift the burden of payroll tax, and that would have helped firms to keep staff.

"By splurging all of this money and adding to our debt enormously, Mr Rudd has actually worsened the situation that has been exported to Australia.

"The big thing he had going for him was that we left him with the strongest budget in the Western world, and the lowest unemployment for 30 years. We left him with that inheritance, so he got off to a flying start, but when the tsunami hit he has actually made it worse."

Mr Howard endorsed current Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull when asked who he thought should be in charge at present: the member for Wentworth or former Treasurer Peter Costello.

"Peter did not offer himself," Mr Howard said.

"Malcolm is the leader. I thought he gave a great reply last night and he has my goodwill and my full support, as did Brendan Nelson.

"Malcolm is very capable and I think he demonstrated last night not only a good grasp of economics, but also quite a good political touch.

"I think he basically called the prime minister's bluff, all this silly nonsense from Mr Rudd about an early election. It's complete nonsense."

Despite his support for Mr Turnbull, Mr Howard admitted it would be tough to beat Mr Rudd at the next election, with the Labor leader riding so high in the polls.

"Anything can happen. It's hard to win when you've been in opposition for one term," he said.

"It will be tough. The public always cuts a new leader a lot of slack."

In the interview, Mr Howard attacked his successor as lacking a firm set of beliefs.

Asked which Labor leader he regarded the highest after 30 years in office, Mr Howard nominated Bob Hawke, and not Mr Rudd.

"The most talented person I faced in the Labor Party was undoubtedly Hawke. He just had more intelligence than any of the others, and he actually did have a theme to him, a set of beliefs," Mr Howard said.

"Kevin Rudd's problem is epitomised in that 7000-word essay (published in The Monthly magazine). I read it and it was a bit of a chore. It was intellectually flawed, internally inconsistent, and historically inaccurate.

"You finished reading it and you had absolutely no idea of what he stands for."

[Angle of Attack]

I am not even going to enter in to this but hey let's bring on the double dissolution! Better to push them further into the backwater than they are now! hehe!

Do you believe that regulating the workplace and increasing penalty rates increases employment?

Do you really think much has changed FFS? Almost nothing...

If not lets go to an early election, whether you like it or not for once you are completely in the minority Frozo, thats whats making me happy for at least the last couple of years! hhheeh!

[YoDawg]

As a has-been, Howard's opinion is now worth less than a pinch of s**t.

Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull have both announced the end of the policy as far as the Opposition is concerned.

So wtf is this thread really about?

And when is Krudd going to erase the WorkChoices he hates so much?

Always amusing when the peanut gallery start passing off uninformed opinion as political commentary... :rolleyes:

Let's give away some more taxpayers' money to the kiwis and poms...

[ferris]

Do you believe that regulating the workplace and increasing penalty rates increases employment? No. It does, however, restore fairness to those that do have jobs, rather than relying on employer goodwill :yuk: Case in point- proposing to give business tax relief (via a payroll tax holiday) and relying on them to use the money to retain jobs, instead of adding it to their bottom line! Just fantasy.

By splurging all of this money and adding to our debt enormously, Mr Rudd has actually worsened the situation Please explain how not spending money creates/retains jobs. In fact, there is not much at all that is correct about Howards' statement, P-A-F.

[Angle of Attack]

PAF -> PWNED!:ok:

[Wiley]

I was living out of the country for all of John Howard's tenure in office, so, watching from afar, I'm unable to share the passion against him that some (quite a few, actually) display here. The fact (from where I stand, at least) that his government got it wrong on occasion is undisputed. The one area (and by no means the only) that immediately comes to mind is their failure to commit a lot of the money they had at their disposal in such good times to large, long term infrastructure projects, in particular a major water project along the lines of the almost century old Bradfield Scheme. (To back that sentiment up, I understand that after the recent heavy rains in North Queensland, the equivalent of six Sydney Harbours a day were pouring over the spillway of the Burdekin Dam.)

Particularly towards the end of the Howard Government, I believe they were suffering from collective hubris, much as was the MacMahon Government that lost to Gough Whitlam in 1972. For someone old enough to recall that time, there are parallels between the Whitlam 'experiment' and what Rudd is doing now. In both cases, it was and is a bit like watching any one of the 'Lethal Weapon' series or an Eddie Murphy cop flic – great entertainment, with lots of great, immensely gratifying to the eye car crashes, but with little to no regard to the poor bastards who, if you took a moment from eating your popcorn, you knew in the real world would have to come along behind Mal or Eddie and clean up – and pay for - the wreckage.

Howard got the boot for a number of reasons, one of the main ones being that Joe (or should that be 'Bruce'?) Oz 'didn't like him'. (And if Joe/Bruce didn’t initially, 90% of the Australian print and television media and 100% of the ABC told him he didn’t repeatedly until it became an almost religious mantra.)

With Howard, I’m reminded of the commercial management of the airline I work for. 95% of the pilots in the airline – (I don’t think this is too strong a word) – dislike them, some with a passion bordering upon hatred. However, you’d struggle to find 5% among that same group who wouldn’t accept that those same commercial managers do a rather good job raking the money in and keeping the company expanding and in the black, even (or should that be ‘particularly’?) in these troubled times.

Perhaps because of television, too many people these days seem to want a leader they can like rather than one who can deliver the goods, (even if the delivery of said ‘goods’ sometimes involves pain for some, a la Work Choices). Some of the most successful leaders of the last hundred years wouldn’t get a look into a political leadership role today because they couldn’t deliver their lines for television the way today’s leaders must. Sadly, that means we are now getting a succession of actors rather than leaders, and like too many actors, when these ‘leaders’ don’t have a script to follow, they have nothing to say. (I’m not sure if Kev fits into this ‘good actor class’, but Howard certainly didn’t.)

As I said in my opening paragraph, I don’t think Howard got it right on many occasions, but I’m really uncomfortable about the size of the debt Rudd is saddling the country with and can’t share the sentiments of those earlier in this thread who have (it would seem to me) blithely asked “what’s the big deal about operating under a deficit?”

I’d recommend anyone interested in what’s happening re our burgeoning deficit to read this article by Lenore Taylor in today’s ‘Weekend Australian’: I dreamed I saw a truthful treasurer | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25489448-7583,00.html)

[ditch handle]

I’d recommend anyone interested in what’s happening re our burgeoning deficit to read this article by Ross Gittens in today’s ‘Sydney Morning Herald’:

Big deficit is a good step for more jobs (http://business.smh.com.au/business/big-deficit-is-a-good-step-for-more-jobs-20090515-b61k.html)

[bulstrode]

Howard just had good old fashion dumb luck.He happened to be in power when the greatest post war boom was happening.Virtual full employment had nothing to with him.
In this time he could have built roads,railways and improved ports around the country.He did squat.The children overboard charade was Howard at his worst.Appealing to the xenophobia of ill informed.
He did crack the double though...losing the election and his own seat.
Justice in my book

[Wiley]

'The Sydney Morning Herald', over the last few years, the Australian edition of 'The Guardian'.

[ditch handle]

Gittinomics - Book Reviews - Books - Entertainment - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/book-reviews/gittinomics/2007/02/16/1171405430172.html)

Well worth a read.........

[Chimbu chuckles]

For all those whining that Howard never built any infrastructure I will just point out that he was ringed by Labor State Govts. And its Labor State Govts who are still fcking this country up the clacker...Desalination plants instead of dams is a classic example.

Howard tried to nationalise water but ran out of time...so we get to watch Labor State govts privatise what, historically, fell from the sky for free.

[snoop doggy dog]

Howard did a lot...............

He sold everything that we owned as citizens of Australia to private enterprise :ugh: Telecom, Airports and so on........

Then he wouldn't spend on Education and Health for the majority of Aussies.

The list goes on.

I used to love him his bullsh!t line of "the economy is great, we're in a surplus (some of the cooked books anway)." Most people I knew were going backwards due to inflationary effect he was having on everything.

He had good advisers and they knew when and what to spin..... :=

[woollcott]

I opened this thread with immense trepidation - I expected the majority of posters to agree with Howard.....so it was a great pleasure to see that most people think the way I do - ie: Howard was the worst and most devisive PM this country has ever seen. The slimiest and meanest excuse for a human being that literally made me feel ashamed to be Australian.
Getting kicked out of his own seat was the sweetest revenge I have ever had to pleasure to experience.
For 10+ years he enjoyed the greatest post war boom this country has ever seen, and yet we look on them as the wasted years.......
I will never forget the little prick and his "non-core promises" and children overboard. Good Riddance!!!!!!

[8888]

Wow, Woolly! That's hilarious. A 5 year old child has tantrums so similar to that it's uncanny. Like a child, the Australian voter will learn the hard way. By watching their country spiral into a financial cesspit and as someone who doesn't plan on returning for a while I hope rational thought will prevail at some stage in the future. As far as 'luck' goes... Well, isn't it peculiar how 'unlucky' "labour" seems to have been when you correlate the country's national debt with who was in power at the time?

[HotDog]

The first time I was old enough to vote, I voted for Bob Menzies. There never was a prime minister that that came anywher near Bob since then. Except John Howard! I bet some of his detractors would gladly vote for the Communist party if it was still around.:rolleyes:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Speaking of Super...those of you in industry funds watch as they dry up "investing" in Krud's policies. Don't worry. KRudd says only those funds who want to will put up the funds.....for the simple....thats code for Union Funds.

While KRudd plays at spin, we are going down the gurgler. 48billion in hand outs plus another 56billion deficit this year? Ute Man must be hurting every time he buys a carton of Black Cans and must be wondering by now if he made the right choice. When you think that government changed over by less than 10000 votes it makes it hard to believe the price paid by the unions to buy those votes.

Those of us that lived in QLD during the Goss years know what playbook KRudd and Swan are running....we are in for a wild ride...and the pantry is empty, there is nothing left to sell except Aussie Post.

Now we have reports that our soldiers should consider taking out their own life insurance to cover their deaths in serving our country?????:yuk:

Hey Froz, checked out any good premiums to cover death by AMRAAM?

[ferris]

Ok, I'm going to have to withdraw from this discussion, PAF. Ok Ferris. So you advocate people losing jobs. At least your honest. If you twist my words and argue with the intellectual depth of an eight year-old, I'm on a hiding to nothing (as is anyone else with a differing opinion). I don't advocate people losing jobs, but given the choice of a job with dignity, or it's slave-labour alternate under Workchoices, I'm with the majority of people who think the draconian way was tried, and...voted out. It seems like most people don't want to live under a system where exploitation is not just possible, but almost guaranteed.
Why doesn't the government borrow $5 trillion dollars and spend it. it will create jobs right? Your logic is that just spending money creates jobs right? I think this statement sums up your unbridled hatred of Labour. The government is, in principle, doing EXACTLY what you are saying. They may not be borrowing $5 trillion, but they are borrowing and spending. The trick is getting the balancing act right- how much to borrow/spend (because if you borrow TOO much, then it causes problems in the future). And if you think that if Howard/the Liberals/Turnbull were in power they would be doing any different, you are kidding yourself. The budget reply was, in effect, just quibbling over WHAT the money was being spent on. There will always be differences of opinion on whether the govt should be spending 50 billion or more or less. Even within parties. But there certainly isnt ANY serious opinion for NOT spending. Why would anyone want to DEEPEN the recession?
By all means, continue with your schoolboy passion and hysterical support for your ultra-conservative position. Why not try doing it with some intellectual rigour? Otherwise, I'll leave you to your rabid, illogical rants.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Ferris, FDR kept his country in recession longer because of his "New Deal" policies.

[Chimbu chuckles]

FDR actually turned recession into depression with his new deal policies...remarkably similar with what many politicians (especially US politicians) around the world are doing right now.

No one argues that a govt needs to go into a level of debt in a recession...its what that money is spent on that counts. By all means borrow and spend on infrastructure that will give Australia a competitive advantage when good times return. That creates employment now and creates wealth down the track...so we can pay off the debts in a reasonable time frame.

Dams and other water infrastructure that helps balance out our countries water supply and keeps this most basic need as cheap as possible...not privatisation by stealth which is what desal plants are...that will drive the price of water through the roof.

More and better coal fired power stations that will provide the second basic need, electricity, at the cheapest possible price to both private consumers and commercial consumers so they can make better profits and employ more people...not semi privatised power companies who's only answer is rationing power...and killing many old/sick people during extremes of both hot and cold weather because blackouts stop their aircon etc. Believe it, it happens. Certainly not treating our most bountiful competitive advantage - shedloads of cheap coal - as if it was pure poison.

Better roads, rail, port and airport (ALL kinds of airports) so that goods can be transported efficiently.

All the above means the other basic need, food, is cheaper. People can afford better quality...producers, retail etc are more profitable and can afford more staff.

Can you imagine these morons running the place back in the 50s...we would NEVER have had the Snowy River scheme just for starters.

The $900 checks mailed out to most people was grotesque waste. Same with the pink batts/schools and, if it actually goes ahead, so will the internet broadband plan. The ETS is the worst piece of legislation since Federation.

$100 billion I believe is the approximate number for the handouts/pink bats/BB internet.

It costs $2 billion to build a dam and maybe several billion more and we could have a pipe network connecting the northern water storage systems with the southern ones...probably 50 sydney harbours/annum of free fresh water to distribute from the wet north to the drier south. Imagine the employment this sort of modern day snowy scheme would create for the next several years at least - and the benefits to our society.

Anyone heard about that plan? Thought not.

Instead lets throw billions at the car industry - and subsidise the production of something few people in Australia want to buy at the moment let alone need...a new car. If the car industry disappears from our shores that is NOT the end of the world.

The Libs were not perfect...I agree they were getting a little too full of themselves...but Labor/Greens will fck this country just like every other time they have been in power.

As far as workchoices goes...well where did you get the idea that a good job/certain level of wages was a right?

We are born with certain rights...Life, Freedom, Free speech, a right to own property...that is it...everything else is aspirational. Economic 'rights', which are what you talk about when you rail against IR legislation like Workchoices, are not actually rights.

[ferris]

Oz, pretty pointless arguing what might or might not have been the result if someone in history had done something differently.

PAF.
I'll give you a couple of examples of why I am going to discontinue engaging with you. I explained that I would, and why. You show a staggering lack of understanding of basic economics If I do, it is not because of the justification you give. At no point did I argue that dismantling Workchoices would NOT cost jobs. It may well do. The only thing I said in relation to that was that the majority of aussis don't like Workchoices, and seem to be prepared to wear the consequences of it's dismantling. People of your ilk rarely seem to grasp the whole concept of "it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees". I realise it's an abstract concept about human dignity, and does not have a 'monetary value', and is therefor lost on 'staunch' types such as yourself.
You then go on to confuse my comments about intellectual rigour with what the government is doing. I would have no problem with you calling into question what the government is spending money on, setting out your reasoning, and offering an alternative. Confusing the issue with straw man argument leads me to believe that my first instinct was correct, and that you are incapable of interesting me in further exchanges. It's not the gravity of the economic situation that I find "school-yard", it's your ability and style of arguing. Is that clear?

Finally, I am not an apologist for the Rudd government. I believe they are making some mistakes. But the Lib side of politics arguing that a conservative government wouldn't be spending it's way into a deficit is, well, disingenuous at best. Regardless of your economic 'school', external credit restraints and demand drivers are limiting the governments monetary control, necessitating increased fiscal stimulus. That PAF, is economics 101.

[Wiley]

Chimbu mentionedThe $900 checks mailed out to most people was grotesque waste. Same with the pink batts/schools and, if it actually goes ahead, so will the internet broadband plan.I think Chimbu's phrase "if it actually goes ahead" will apply to quite a few of the Rudd Government's plans, (and in particular, some of their rather fanciful, huge money plans in the Defence sector in their recent White Paper).

Re the broadband scheme: an acquaintance who is pretty senior with the #2 telcom in Oz tells me that the money Kev is committing to high speed fibre optic cables would be far better spent on putting in another undersea cable connecting Australia with the WWW.

His reasoning? Much if not the vast majority of Australian internet users are for much of their time online attempting to gain information from sources outside Australia, so the bottleneck will be in gaining access to the rest of the world. Even if the average user has the (very expensive :*) fastest fibre optic connection to his home or office from his ISP, he's going to be limited in his download speed by the cable linking him to the world unless he only requires information from within Australia.

[lowerlobe]

Hey PAF.....You're back and you were away for such a long time....:oh:

What happened??????

Anyway..this is more about which side of the political fence you are on and nothing to do with reality...You could argue for both cases but Work No Choices was the critical point.If you are an employer you wanted Howard and if you were not then you wanted him out.

This is also about another politician who is bitter and bruised about losing an election......when he was doing so much for Australian employers...

Or are you upset about the rules changing about the tax rules on earning money offshore PAF???

Remember Mr Honesty who would never bring a GST in:=:=:=

Not to mention something called the Tampa...:oh::oh::oh:

[Arnold E]

You say " The new IR legislation will result in higher unemployment " (sorry I dont know how to do that blue box quote thing ) please explain how! (exactly)

[ZEEBEE]

Remember Mr Honesty who would never bring a GST in
Well, as I recall JH went to the electorate on that and returned with a greater majority, so I can't see your point.

Not to mention something called the Tampa...
Hmmm! the recent debacle about denying the fact that the boat was deliberately set on fire (fact as it turned out) doesn't seem that different to me.

I can't add much more than was aptly stated by Chimbu but I have to wonder about individuals who think that their job is so sacrosanct that it must be rewarded EVEN if it has little or no value.
Work choices at least allowed those that had something to bargain with (ie their capabilities) to achieve a better outcome than someone who, for various reasons, wasn't worth as much.
Make no mistake, anyone who was valuable to an organisation should have been treated well because they had something to contribute.
If an employer didn't recognise that and provide appropriate remuneration then they were in turn, not going to be competitive because they didn't have the right people.
Having a job is desirable and even necessary for most, but it is not a right.
The current soft communist government (no, they haven't gone away) will slowly steer us back to egalitarian principles even though we are not as a people equal.

(standing by for the usual socialist drivel)

[Arnold E]

How do you do that quote in the blue box thing?
Maybe someone could PM me
Tar

[lowerlobe]

I find it amazing and very funny to watch Liberal supporters explaining away examples of BSWell, as I recall JH went to the electorate on that and returned with a greater majority, so I can't see your point.
Well,ZEEBEE...
If you think not being able to believe a politician is not problem then I can understand why you voted for Honest John.

He said a GST would not be be introduced by his government.....and yet it was....
standing by for the usual socialist drivel
And we have to read this McCarthyistic rubbish from anyone who did not vote for Honest John
But in reality is that different from a capitalist autocratic who you can't believe?

[Point0Five]

I think this statement sums up your unbridled hatred of Labour.

And I think this statement proves that you're so ignorant that you can't even spell Labor.

:rolleyes:

[sockedunnecessarily]

I've seen Joe Hockey interviewed about the budget deficit.

After bleating on for about 5 mins about the government being on an irresponsible spending spree, he was asked the following questions:

1. If the coalition was in power, would their budget be in deficit ... he said "the Labor government are on a spending spree, when will it stop?"

2. How would the Coalition budget differ and in what areas would you cut spending to reduce the deficit (and would the deficit be reduced to zero) ... he said "the Labor government are on a spending spree, when will it stop?"

3. Surely SOME money being spent on infrastructure to keep people in jobs is a good long term investment in Australia's future ... he said "the Labor goverment are on a spending spree, when will it stop?"

Socked's interpretation of Joe Hockey:
"We don't really have any answers to any of the hard questions and can't say we'd be doing anything different. But it gives me a good chance to sit here on my fat arse and complain."

The fact of the matter is, nearly every government in the world is in the same situation. And the Coalition would be in it too if they were in power.

I am a swinging voter. I vote for who I think is the right government for me at the time. I think both major parties have the positives and negatives and over the years, have voted for both several times.

But while the Liberals have Joe Hockey the whinging, fence-sitting sook, they won't get my vote.

[Point0Five]

He said a GST would be be introduced by his government.....and yet it was....

You're right Lowerlobe, how can we trust a man that says he's going to do something, and then actually does it!

[lowerlobe]

Ahh...yes typo error thanks for that.
how can we trust a man that says he's going to do something, and then actually does it!
That would be novel for a politician but in honest Johns case it was not....

I voted for Rudd and voted Labor for the first time in my life because I wanted to get rid of Howard and Work No Choice.

I believed at the time that a defeat would help the Libs wake up and I thought that with MT it would be different but he is dithering back and forwards like some teenager.

If the Libs get back in Work No Choice will be back but in a different name only...

Howard is like a lot of other leaders who's ego won't allow them to accept defeat and move on with their lives....

[Mr. Hat]

Good to see you back PAF. As much as I disagree with your views sometimes, it still makes for an interesting read.

Now for a Howard bash. In the biggest boom known in this country, with money flowing down streets like water in rivers JWH did fckall to improve infrastructure, indeed it got worse whilst he was at the helm. Privatising everything he could get his grubby little hands on, he gradually edged us closer and closer to the standard of that mighty sh!thole: the US of A. Year in year out he'd tell us all of the mighty surplus he and cut-throat-costello had achieved for this country. Well done, my grandma (who’s been dead for several years) could have done the same or better. Selling off silverware and being given money by the Chinese during a mining boom is not economic management ol' mate! Then he chimed in with Work With No Choices and people finally got the sh!ts. Now there was one thing he could have done that would have impressed me. That would have been telling the long term unemployed to get a job or starve but he didn't. So you've got to wonder WTF did JWH stand for? I think basically he wanted to make the working person suffer whilst the big boys enjoyed their millions and the unemployed carried on in their merry way.

In comes Rudd. Now I did vote for him but let face it people would vote for Charles Manson to get rid of JWH! Whilst I do like him to a degree I must admit there are a few things that he's done that are starting to make me think twice about voting for him again. Starting with that summit thing where Cate Blanchet's baby seemed to be the focus. Celebrities - who cares about their ideas really! There seems to be a lot of talk about ideas and it all sounds promising. But 2 years on we've still got all the doubling up of politicians with state and federal junkets continuing and we've still also got endless red tape (see the bushfires for example). In comes the GFC and the cash hand outs start (Mr. Hat thinks to himself: are you kidding Rudd?). Stimulus to build what Howard neglected? Fine, great idea. Could we have just one airport that’s at least a standard of a second world country for once? Then the idea about cutting the 50k in super to 25k. At this point I've got to say I started to wonder if Mr. Hockey would do a better job. I actually think that the 50k hurts the everyday Australian who is trying to set up a retirement. You might for example have a person that has a second job and salary sacrifices it all into super therefore avoiding the extra tax. Not anymore under that scheme!

So 15 years later - crap infrastructure, heaps of people on the dole and handouts long term, crap medical system, crap airports, fees everywhere you turn, a worsening crime rate and deficit for years to come. JWH did the main damage and Rudd, well he seems like he's going to finish it off. Might vote for some unkown little party next time.

[Mr. Hat]

Maybe we could get Aircraft back. He'd be loving life right now - pilots on the back foot no jobs..

[Arnold E]

and is that distinct from the conservative drivel?

[Taildragger67]

Chimbu,

Rudd and Swan are a joke.

You may be right, but if I may be allowed to suggest something:

Lib/Nat are generally the better managers; but, just like any management, they run out of ideas after a while and need to either move on, or be 'moved on'. Certain recent changes in commuters to an address on Coward St., Mascot come to mind...

Anyhoo, Little Johnny came in with good ideas. Along the way, he had a few stuff-ups, told a few egregious, outright lies and did a few embarrassing things, but was generally not too bad, especially when measured against his peers.

But, success went to his head and when he ran out of good ideas, he turned ideological; then it was time to go. But he became a gripper (ie. a w@nker who won't let go) and started giving the Conservative side a bad name.

So I'm glad he got rolled, so the next Lib/Nat administration (hopefully 2010) will be refreshed, renewed & invigorated with new ideas. And hopefully will take good advice as to when to give the next lot of up-and-comers a go.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I would agree with all that....I was hoping they would get returned with a much reduced majority...I wanted the Libs/nats to get a fright and a lessen in humility rather than see the socialists back in the driver's seat.

For those still whinging that Howard never achieved much in the way of infrastructure while in power I would again point out that infrastructure is mostly a State Govt matter...he tried to take water off them because he could see the State Labor Govts, particularly Vic, stuffing it up on a grand scale...he ran out of time on that one. The blame for the sad state of infrastructure in Australia lies squarely with Labor. One would assume the state Labor Govts would be much more amenable to co-operating with a Federal Labor Govt in this regard but I see no sign of it.

Howard was no more intrinsically dishonest than any other politician...politicians lie, all of them.. and I would argue at least Howard truly believed what he was doing was in Australia's best interest - I don't believe for one minute that the same claim will EVER be made of Rudd.

[ferris]

You speak a lot of sense, Chuck. There are some points I would differ in my opinion on, but hey, it'd be boring otherwise. I especially like your water ideas. A grand scheme of the scope you talk about- bringing water from north to south- would, indeed, be a sensible, popular and stimulating endeavor.

I take issue with your ideas about Workchoices, and a worker's 'rights'. IMHO, workers do have rights. Rights that were fought for and gained over many years becoming enshrined in conditions (such as penalty rates) enforced on employers via 'awards' etc. That they needed enforcement reflected the power-relationship between an employer and employee. It is an unequal relationship. To have those conditions, built up/refined/diluted over many years, swept away in 1 piece of legislation shifted the power most unequally. I had the opportunity to be both an employer and an employee during Workchoices. My time as an employer demonstrated the flexibility that was available to me - and the opportunity for the unscrupulous. Heaven- from an employers p.o.v. My time as an employee demonstrated that there were any number of employers willing to use Workchoices in an extremely negative way. Not a happy time. I just don't have any faith in human nature to allow people the opportunity to 'do the right thing'- or not! It may be ok for highly skilled and sought after workers to negotiate on an individual basis with their employer (and they always will anyway), but not across the spectrum.

As far as dismantling the Howard health scheme- go for it. I cannot, for the life of me, understand anyone wanting to move closer to the US health system. The oz system (medicare) may not be perfect (and I have plenty of simple ideas how it could be improved), but it is a quantum leap better than the yank's. Some things just need to be socialized. Getting the balance right is the trick. And is usually where the 'pendulum swings' occur.

[Pole Vaulter]

What a useless debate. Fascists on one side that would make the worst dictator proud and the other view which is totally rejected by above. Each side can say what they like and they will never convince anyone but themselves what they are rambling on about. What has this to do with aviation apart from extremists being able to see their names on the screen. Like the 89 debate no matter how many words are poured onto the screen nothing will ever convince the opposing view of changing.

[Mr. Hat]

For those still whinging that Howard never achieved much in the way of infrastructure while in power I would again point out that infrastructure is mostly a State Govt matter

Excellent, so because a state government is in charge of something then "we can't do anything about it". Unless of course we are approaching an election at which point we may take over a hospital in a marginal seat for a few political points. Come on, he was the PM its up to him to take the lead and do something if the state governments are doing nothing.

Rudd is no Angel but at least he's saying that he'll take responsibility for it.

The long term solution is get rid of this state and territory double up crap.

[Arnold E]

You say " If the car industry disappears from our shores that is NOT the end of the world " From this I can take it that you believe, that IF all aircraft maintenance and pilot hiring went offshore, you would have no problem with this and that this would not be the end of the world? Whilst advocating the demise of industries that dont concern us, should we or should we not consider where we sit? I dont know, just asking.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I agree, it would be a very boring, and unjust, world if everyone was of the same ilk.

I think we need to define 'rights' and having done so I would be a little surprised if we don't agree on a great deal.

The very word 'right' has been co-opted by various segments of politics and has come to be misused in my view. It gets used, for instance, when politicians and sundry groups with an agenda should really be using 'aspirations'...maybe 'societal aspirations'...better yet 'priviledges'. If they used words appropriately then society would be a very much better place...we all know politicians twist the meaning of words and have been doing so more and more in modern times...particularly since the 1960s. Look up the meaning of the word 'Government', 'Leader' or 'Minister' and see the disparity between the true meaning and common usage/practice let alone comparing the meaning to the behaviour of people in those positions.

We are all born, in western societies anyway, with individual rights which are intrinsic because they are moral. I have an intrinsic, moral right to my life, to my freedom (of speech/thought/action), to own property and to, as the Yanks say, the pursuit of happiness (however I define that)...and SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE. These rights are said to be 'self evident' and 'inalianable' because they are moral.

We exist and prosper, or otherwise, based on our judgement...by viewing the world around us rationally and making sensible judgements about cause and effect...that is what the 'right' to life actually means. I have 'a right' to go about my life as I see fit, working in whatever job I can get, keeping unto myself a maximum amount of the fruits of my labour, owning property and using it as I see fit all based on my best judgement to make myself, and those for whom I am responsible 'happy'

Govts and Laws exist to protect those individual human rights because the ONLY thing that can stop me exercising my individual rights is force.

Think the raping and pillaging hordes of history and that is why Government evolved - to protect the basic individual, moral rights of it's citizens.

If someone forces me to do something against my better judgement, by threat of violence or whatever, they have stopped me exercising my intrinsic and moral rights, my judgement. individual rights can be violated only by means of physical force. The very basis of our society, or any civil society, is that using force on another individual, whether it is the Govt or an individual applying that force, is illegal and no Law could ever by bought into force that could change that because that would be immoral...to the extent that society allows it anyway...we all can point to cases of individual rights to property being forcibly removed by local/state govt...but society has 'agreed' to this...although I think its obscene.

And I am not talking about criminals...they by their actions have violated another's individual rights and this have no claim to protection of their own rights to life/liberty etc. This is just an example of where society has decided to draw a line in the sand to ensure society survives.

I don't have a right to steal, speed, drive drunk etc etc because by doing so I am infringing on another persons individual human rights. If I drug some girl to have sex with her I have removed her ability to exercise her judgement which would probably tell her not to have sex with me...I have violated her most basic human right...to live her life as she sees fit based on her judgement and rational decision not to have sex with me.

So do I have a right to a job?

No...because to exercise that 'right' someone else must be forced to provide that job...I have removed his/her basic, individual human right to live their life, utilise their property, exercise their freedom of thought/action or words based on their best judgement...thus no such right to a job can exist...I can aspire to a job, that's all.

If something I want to do has NO EFFECT on someone else's individual human rights then I have every right to do it...if it does then I cannot.

If an employer refuses me employment has he infringed on my individual human rights?

No. I am still free to exercise my judgement to look for another job, get better qualified, offer my labour at a lower rate or use my property as I see fit.

If an employer sacks me because he has found a better employee has he infringed my rights? If I have no employment contract then no...see the previous paragraph...my individual human rights are intact. That we have Laws that FORCE an employer to maintain the employment of someone their judgement deems should be sacked actually infringes on the employers individual human rights and as such is an immoral Law.

No employer is going to risk damaging his business by sacking good employees or risking them taking their skills to a rival employer...unless they are an idiot..and they do exist. But they have not infringed anyone's rights by so behaving.

Ditto 'rights' to a certain level of wages.

If an employer offers crap T&Cs to low time CPLs and 'requires' them to wash aeroplanes, drive buses etc does that infringed that pilots rights?

No, they may be guilty of breaking other laws with respect of duty time limitations but no-one has had his right to use his best judgement to rationally decide the effects of this requirement...to exercise his freedom of action/words/thought to remove himself from that situation and seek alternative employment. His rights are intact and so are those of the employer.

Does AIPA have 'a right' to take action through the courts to limit the career potential of pilots employed by QF subsidiaries? While AIPA members would without doubt say YES the in fact absolutely DO NOT. By doing so they are seeking to forcefully remove the rights of others to live their lives by rational application of their best judgement. If QF wants to offer employment to an individual on certain T&Cs and said individual agrees then NO ONE's individual rights have been infringed and thus QF and that individual have EVERY RIGHT to proceed.

Those AIPA members would suggest they are merely acting with the best interests of said individual and some/many members actually believe that in a heartfelt way..but its not reality.

Do I have a right to free health care?

No because someone else must be forced to pay for it...in this case everyone, via higher taxation. That society has deemed universal affordable/free health care as a worthy aspiration and decided to pay those extra taxes is a different thing altogether...but no 'right' exists.

Do I have a right to free education?

No...it is a privilege based on society's aspiration to provide it which is itself based on good public policy...but it isn't a right.

People believe they have all sorts of rights but only because someone with an agenda has told them these aspirations/privileges are actually rights.

When words were used more thoughtfully...or perhaps more literally...only a generation or two ago...people knew the difference between rights and privileges and responded accordingly...and society was a better place.

[ozbiggles]

Broken election promises, core and non core policy
Not telling the whole truth about boat people incidents
Massive travel bills
Taking pay rises while telling others to accept less or none
The last government to do this
Kevin 07
At least when Johnnie was in he paid the bills and didn't just rack it up on the credit card.

[cunningham]

I had some very good friends at uni who were red as they come. I used to enjoy listening to them bleating on about how they hated the Libs for introducing Hecs (not sure if they did) and GST. Last time I checked we had a Labor government and both schemes are still in place.

[Arnold E]

Jeez Chimbu, your making me think here ( not easy after a few pale ale's) but I still have to ask, does the government, and therefore by default, the populace at large (including employers) have any sort of moral obligation? It is easy to say that if you are not happy with your lot, move on! Some people dont have that option. Is there any obligation on society to support these people or do we simply cut them loose? Pass- A -Frozzo would have us do that, but the interesting thing is that these people that, maybe, some would cut loose, are still necessary for the system to operate. So Chimbu, should we support anybody? and if so who? or is it every man for himself? Are you comfortable with the aircraft maintenance, pilot hiring scenario or not?

[Chimbu chuckles]

Arnold I tend to look at most things through the prism of the basic Individual inalienable rights.

Would I like it if all aircraft maintenance/pilot hiring moved offshore? (it isn't possible but lets ignore that for a minute)

No I wouldn't but have anyone's basic rights been trammeled? If I am a well trained, experienced engineer I can go offshore myself and earn more money, probably tax free. The Airline just shot themselves in the foot...which is their right...and I have exercised mine without hindrance.

What is the effect of the car industry being subsidised?

Well you and I are FORCED to provide employment/wages for people in an unsustainable industry. By being so forced you and I, and all tax payers, are being denied out individual human rights.

If those subsidies are not put in place people lose their jobs and may have to move in order to gain employment, may have to retrain/upgrade their qualifications/may have to accept lesser remuneration but their rights have not been infringed upon. Having to do so might mean they could be better off....or not...but their rights have not been infringed...their opportunities have not been hindered...you could argue that by subsidising their employment you are actually hindering them. And that subsidy money is available to benefit those or other people in various ways that society may decide on. They may be offered the opportunity of free training...see free education later.

There is no such thing as someone who CANNOT move to find work...only people who WILL NOT...maybe because they are convinced they have rights that they do not actually have.

I have worked in 4 countries in my chosen career. I have trained and studied and upgraded my skills and got to fly bigger aircraft and get paid more. I have thoughtfully exercised my inalienable individual rights to life, freedom and property to live my life based upon my best rational judgement.

But I don't have a right to the job I currently hold or the level of pay I get.

If tomorrow my employer decides I am out of here then I am out of here (and it has happened to me in the past) but my rights have not been infringed. Same if my employer decides to cut my pay by X% or remove staff travel privileges, as an example. My basic rights are intact - I can leave and take my skills with me - if enough of my workmates do the same by exercising their rights then my employer is in the ****..if not...

Society has chosen to provide a certain minimum level of social security for when people lose their jobs but a (growing) % of society has come to look upon social security as a right and sundry socialist political groups have raised it to the point people actually don't NEED to work anymore. Social security is NOT a right because you and I are FORCED to pay them that money and THAT infringes on our rights.

We must all recognise that within society there are all sorts of people who are possessed of all levels of skill/work ethic/education etc.

A LOT of people are being paid too much money for what they produce..great for them but it means everything they produce costs more and YOU AND I are FORCED to pay that increased amount of money.

Houses, cars, food, clothes, movies, electricity...GOVERNMENT.

Next time you walk into a Govt department (CASA??), shop etc and get served by some sullen, barely literate, lazy employee ask yourself what YOU would pay that person based on your own best rational judgement if YOU owned the business...or would you employ them at all?

If a person only deserves or can command $10/hr then paying them $10/hr might actually motivate them to get off their ar$e and be better/improve themselves via education/increased qualifications..or not.

Paying them $40/hr and/or giving them a gold plated Govt pension only benefits them at everyone else's expense...Good idea:ugh:...ever wonder why YOU work so hard to fund your life aspirations and a reasonable retirement? Because you're being forced to fund, via taxation, the perceived 'rights' of an enormous number of people that, if you were their employer, you'd sack.

Paying them $10/hr doesn't infringe their basic inalienable rights...paying them $40/hr infringes yours.

MORAL OBLIGATION?

I have a moral obligation to provide my daughter with a good home, good education, clothes, medical care, moral guidance etc. I would argue she has a moral obligation to make best use of those things I provide.

We have a moral obligation to be honest in our day to day lives and respect the individual rights of EVERYONE we deal with every day while insisting ours are also so honored.

There is no such thing as moral obligation to give someone I have never met 'rights' to surf all day funded by the dole, or rights to a job or to an artificial wage. To believe so is foolish.

We, as a society, used to believe in privileges. The difference between a privilege and a 'right' is a 'right' does not have attendant responsibility whereas a privilege does.

I have a an absolute right to freedom of thought/speech. Despite what people think I have absolutely no responsibilities associated with those rights. There is NO RIGHT to not be insulted - if I think your religion sucks then I have a right to say so and you have a right to disagree but you don't have a right to shut me up because that infringes my basic individual right to free speech. I DO NOT have a right to act on my beliefs and seek to harm you or stop you practicing your religion because that infringes YOUR fundamental individual right to life and freedom of thought/speech. If your religion seeks to enslave me to its ideals against my will then you/it have infringed my fundamental rights. Think about the societies that actually allow that to happen - countries where there is no separation of church and state - Saudi Arabia/Iran/Palestine spring to mind.

If society allows me the privilege of free education then I have a responsibility to society to make the best possible use of that privilege. If I am given free health care I have a responsibility to use just what I need and no more. If I think I have a right to these things those responsibilities disappear.

We allow the Govt the privilege of levying taxation to pay for stuff that society deems to be good public policy...in our best interest if you like. A govts ability to Tax its citizens is NOT a right because a right carries no responsibility and a Govt has an absolute responsibility not to over tax or waste tax. Governments of both persuasions ditched this responsibility at least 30 years ago...and we let them.

Think about the superannuation black hole (the govt has a different name for it that escapes me at the moment) that we have been hearing about for a decade or more. They're not talking about your pension they are referring ONLY to public service defined benefit schemes...a scheme the politicians/public servants believe they have 'a right' to. We have just been told that the amounts self funding retirees can sock away at reduced tax rates for their old age has been cut in half - our fundamental individual right to life has been infringed by our Govt so that they may fund their own/public service retirement schemes that we cannot be part of as they were deemed too expensive 30 years ago. Do you think public servants/politicians need to sock away ANY money each month for their retirement? No they don't...you're FORCED to do so for them. You and I will be means tested and have just been told we will be working two extra years before we get fck all.

Do you wonder any longer why the Govt CANNOT provide a decent pension to mr and mrs average...or below average..who slaved their guts out for 40 years, paying too much tax, and just managed to pay off their home and educate 3 kids before age and/or health caught up to them at 65 and they find themselves retired with 40k in the bank and a likelihood of living another 15 years in relative poverty?

Do we have a greater 'moral responsibility' to them or to non productive people who relied on their 'right' to social security for 40 years?

Where is the outrage?

If we all INSISTED on our basic, inalienable, individual rights and RESPECTED those of others society would be a healthier place.

[tinpis]

Coalition closes poll gap - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/18/2573000.htm)

Turnbull be nuts to go for a double diss . Wait, let this mob compost down a bit.

[peuce]

Chuckles ..... :D

[Buster Hyman]

I can't stand it when former PM's think we need to hear their opinions. This is one that crosses political boundaries for me. They've had their time in the sun & we're paying them a huge pension to STF up!:*

(PS. Nice work CC!)

[ferris]

No man is an island, Chuck...

I'm not going into a big reply, except to highlight a point you touched upon; living in a society confers privileges, and requires concessions in return. e.g. taxation, agreeing to abide by laws etc. The disputes arise over the interplay and quantities within those myriad rules, concessions, rights etc. As you point out, people have choice. If you think your rights are being infringed by an increased taxation burden to pay for unemployment benefits to lazy people who will not move to get work, you are free to move somewhere else. Is that irony not lost on you?

Sometimes, paying people more than a subsistence can be in your interest, Chuck, lest a majority of people decide to shift some of the parameters of the society, and you find more than your ability to speak your mind is 'trammeled'. If you get my drift.

Australia has a remarkable ability to oust the government if the pendulum shifts too far one way or the other. I hope that continues.

[blackhander]

For those who still believe the coalition are such great economic managers try this article from the noted left wing paper The Australian





Meganomics Blog | The Australian (http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/meganomics/index.php/theaustralian/comments/budget_honesty_in_the_eye_of_the_beholder/)

[bulstrode]

Dixon and Howard have a lot in common.Sense of entitlement.Belief in their divine right to rule.Vertically challenged.Manipulative.In short Machiavellian.
Every morning I get up go the bathroom and send a little Johnny to the coast.Great way to start the day.
Howard is yesterdays toast.Old and cold.He lost the election and his own seat.Only the second Prime Ministerto do so.A fitting end for the little runt.

[D.Lamination]

Chimbu (post 56) and Ferris (post 59), agree with some points both of you have made but I must say I lean 70% towards Chimbu - well said.:ok:

I believe in a strong civil society but we have gone too far along the road of taxing productive workers and business to death and drowning them in red tape whilst the pile of "dead wood" we have to support grows ever larger (I'm talking about you and your Govt. KRudd + most state Govts.).:yuk:

[Chimbu chuckles]

No man is an island, Chuck...

I'm not going into a big reply, except to highlight a point you touched upon; living in a society confers privileges, and requires concessions in return. e.g. taxation, agreeing to abide by laws etc. The disputes arise over the interplay and quantities within those myriad rules, concessions, rights etc. As you point out, people have choice. If you think your rights are being infringed by an increased taxation burden to pay for unemployment benefits to lazy people who will not move to get work, you are free to move somewhere else. Is that irony not lost on you? Not lost on me at all...I have been a non resident of Australia for over 22 years

Sometimes, paying people more than a subsistence can be in your interest, Chuck, lest a majority of people decide to shift some of the parameters of the society, and you find more than your ability to speak your mind is 'trammeled'. If you get my drift. I think i do but contemplate the moral hazard society faces when when a large % of the population are paid MORE than they earn and subsequently become convinced this is their 'right'.

Australia has a remarkable ability to oust the government if the pendulum shifts too far one way or the other. I hope that continues.

Me too ferris...but what happens to the political process and ultimately civil society when the majority of people are voting to maintain perceived rights that are actually privileges that carry responsibilities? If I am convinced that I have all these spurious 'rights' then I will vote for the person who protects those spurious rights with no sense of responsibility to the society that I expect to provide them. That is the moral hazard I speak of above...and Australia is very far down that hazardous path.

If everything is viewed through a prism of the few basic, inalienable, individual rights it gives great moral clarity. It repairs that sense of absolute moral right and wrong that the Left denies exists and the right claims is only conferred through religious mandate.

When society has a clear understanding of right and wrong it solves a great many of the problems we face today. It puts responsible political power back where it belongs...with the people.

As just one example of a 'problem' that would be fixed by people insisting on their moral, basic, inalienable, individual rights and demanding that those same rights apply self evidently to all people, take 'illegal' immigration/boat people.

If I believe that ALL people have a basic right to Life, freedom of thought/words/movement/actions and Property then I must accept that people born in places that forcefully deny those rights have the RIGHT to leave and go somewhere where they CAN lead their lives using their own best judgement based on rationally looking at the world around them and deciding how they will use those rights to make them 'happy'.

Instead of society spending billions on stopping people, on risking their lives (something no govt or individual has the moral right to do) we instead welcome them and use those billions more productively.

But people will say "look at all the problems uncontrolled immigration causes...look at the gangs in western sydney...they will destroy our standard of living because they work for less $ etc"

No, these problems arise because the left has convinced immigrants (or more accurately their children) that they have rights they do not actually have.

For starters we have no 'right' to a minimum wage so if an immigrant is offered employment by an employer and accepts that employment NO-ONES rights have been infringed...by seeking to forcefully stop them we, as a society, are infringing their rights.

If instead we sat new immigrants (and every Australian born child) down in a room and outlined EXACTLY what rights they have and DO NOT have and the ABSOLUTE requirement to defend and respect those same rights in ALL other people and the results of them NOT so doing, as deemed appropriate by our democratic society, then few problems would exist...and Australia would benefit.

[mostlytossas]

Chimbu,you have to be one of the biggest right wing loony fool I have ever heard of with comments like that. So there should not be a minimum wage huh? I therefore assume you are quite comfortable with immigrants being brought into this country from wherever radical right wingers like you can source them from and undercut Aussie wages until we are either unemployed or join them in the race to the bottom. So long as it's not you or your family ofcourse. I bet you hate the idea of pensions too huh? Hell everyone should provide for themselves shouldn't they? Afterall we are all free to do so. Ofcourse with good fortune and health people like you are right,but this is where your ideology falls down. It has no compassion for the sick, handicapped, retarded,etc. Let them beg huh? Works well in places like India where no doubt you would source your workers.

[Chimbu chuckles]

You need to read and comprehend what I have written again.

Where did I say I don't believe in social security per se?

I think you will find in post 53, from memory, that I rail against the inability of govt to provide a living retirement pension to people who need it because they waste so much of your taxes on people who don't need it. Legitimately unable to work? No problem we as a society will help you in meaningful way...well we would if we were not WASTING resources on the bone idle. I would dearly love to see the old age/disability pension doubled or trippled but because we waste so much of our limited capital resources on spurious rights we are stopped from being as compassionate a society as we could otherwise be.

Should the pension be means tested. Do I think the dole should have an expiry date for the healthy? Absolutely.

But the fundamental, inescapable fact is that the basic definition of a 'right' is that it CANNOT infringe on another right.

Society can aspire to a minimum wage if it so chooses and Australia has done so...Great!!!

But it isn't a right.

My Daughter has in the last two years or so left home and gone off to college, gained qualifications and in the last 11 months entered the work force...initially part time while still at college in the place she now works full time...they were determined to get her full time within weeks of her starting there...she had to keep asserting herself by knocking back extra shifts because they interfered with college..she even asserts her right to time off because she KNOWS that not doing so will mean she can't function to her employers best advantage...they respect her for doing so.

She was told by many of her mates she could not possibly get a job at this place because she had no relevant experience (as a barmaid) so she should get a job at some lowly pub first...she went to the interview and told them what she COULD do, what she had done and the boss just said "when can you start?"

She is possessed of a great work ethic, self discipline in most things (except bloody boys:ugh:) and within mere months of starting work has been picked out of the crowd of work peers for promotion and grooming for management positions. Her pay has gone up. She chooses to remain full time casual because she gets paid for every minute she works and recognises that in return she does not get sick/holiday pay. Her employer values her and has said so...asked her what her aspirations are and is facilitating those aspirations in a reasonable and timely manner...putting extra training resources into her (significant free education - she has received free what many parents pay several $1000 for) while still paying her a wage...she feels a very real sense of responsibility to her employer that she notes is lacking in most of the kids that work in the same establishment who instead display a sense of entitlement to their wage while doing just the minimum amount of work and nothing more. She is happy and feels she has found an employer that allows her to use her best judgement (to even make the odd mistake- rare because she has a good head on her shoulders and asks questions - and never twice) and she wants to stay with that employer and work her way to the top.

She has moved from barmaid to events supervisor in a very large business in 6 months...she is 20. She has proved, and continues to prove, her worth and potential and stated clearly her aspirations and the owner of said business has responded with the statement "Chelsea I need you to help control these other dickheads...this is a multi million dollar business that I cannot put a 20 year old in charge of..but one day you will be in charge of it." and she has examples of other staff who have been there 15-20 years (the business has been there 30+ years and always owned by the same fella) and earn a VERY good wage and have been treated extremely well (maternity leave with their job waiting when they are READY to return- as one example a women had 2 years off ( I assume not all paid) and her job was there when she came back) by the owner of the business...because he recognises good employees and is desperate to keep them out of enlightened self interest.

If the boss was a moron she would exercise her basic rights to go somewhere else and his business would suffer as a result.

But she knows she has no right to any of this...she has to earn it and continue to earn it....she didn't get that way by pure fluke. If giving my child the ability to be happy makes me one of the biggest right wing loony fools I have ever heard then so be it...mea culpa:ok:

And I will give you an example of the sort of thing she DID that got her where she is now. When she was 17 she had basically finished school here in Asia (English system) and didn't want to do yr 12 and 13 as there was no requirement for her chosen profession in hospitality/event management. My position was you're either in school or working...no middle ground. Where can I get a job I am an expat kid? Ask xyz (Australian female GM) at blah blah hotel (6 star) who has talked to you at school. She rang and told this women the situation and was told to expect a call from HR. She went for the 'interview' and had a plan laid out in front of her to work as an intern in each department of the hotel for one month each, starting in events...pay was Sin$200/MTH. She smiled sweatly, returned home and said "Dad they are taking the piss...$200/mth!!!"

What qualifications do you have that would justify a certain wage?

None.

So?

OK.

She went to work and so impressed the event manager that she refused to release her from the department and just a few months later she organised and ran the British High Commission Christmas Party and earned high praise from the high commissioner and many others...and worked 50+ hrs a week for $200/mth. And was happy and learned heaps and looks back on those achievements with justified pride.

[BrissySparkyCoit]

Geez, some of the arguments here are akin to Geoff Dixon blaming the 1hr late departure of a flight today on Alan Joyce's decision to scrap the segmentation of engineering.

There was no global economic crisis when Howard was here. There is now. It is very easy to blame the current government for a whole host of things. How can we know for certain that things would be better under a Liberal government?

In my opinon, the Liberals threw the last election because they knew what was around the corner. Easier to govern when times are good than when they are tough.

How did Keating put it? Costello spent 10 years in the hammock. That's not an insult, it's merely the situation he found himself in at the time.

[ampclamp]

How did Keating put it? Costello spent 10 years in the hammock

:ok: love it.

Costello did have a pretty cruisy ride.Money flowing from the gst fountain and mining taxes and royalties to burn. He did make super much less complex to his credit, far too generous for the big end of town but what the heck all things must pass. I could have looked like an economic genius under those conditions.
Staying a back-bencher now is to his benefit.His halo still intact.

Fact is I don't think either side really saw what was coming.

For mr howard to claim "work choices" was responsible for the low unemployment is a gross exaggeration.
I do think the libs will look back on his era as a huge missed opportunity to govern for 2 decades minimum. Handover of power and subtle policy changes for a new generation cost them dearly imho.

by the way, "fasces" was a bundle of sticks or rods, largely ceremonial, carried by the lictors before the consuls of the roman senate symbolising their position and power.

[parabellum]

The Liberals lost the last election because the left leaning press 'demonised' Howard.

Howard couldn't stand aside for Costello because he knew that Costello didn't have the balls for the job. So did the left leaning press, which is why they so wanted Costello to get the job, that would have given them several miles of copy on the subject of Howard's judgement and Costello's failure.

[ozbiggles]

I think he had demonstrated that with his behavior before and since the election. He is very happy to damage his own party waiting for HIS time to come rather then just get on with it. i.e doesn't have the balls!
IMHO the Libs lost their way when people like Costello, B.Joyce and a few others spent more time backstabbing Howard then coming up with new policy. The media smelt blood (or extra advertising sales) and started and stayed on that angle.
As they say, disunity is death in politics and people like those two and their circles have the blood on their hands.
But as also has been said....it may have been a good election to lose!!

[blow.n.gasket]

Some of you guys must have missed the basis of Industrial legislation in this Country that was in place for well over 100 years prior to Little johnny and WorkChoices.
Have a read of what Henry Bourne Higgins who was the second President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration wrote many moons ago.
He described the unregulated industrial relations environment of the 19th Century as the " rude and barbarous process of strike and lockout" which were replaced by a "new province for law and order", namely the system of compulsory conciliation and arbitration.
One only has to read the "Harvester Case" which was the precident for the basis of fair and reasonable rumuneration " the normal needs of an average employee ,regarded as a human being in a civilised community. In other words the Aussie concept of a fair days pay for a fair days work which led ultimately to the formation of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
WorkChoices was the culmination and essence of greed distilled from the
fervent minds of people such as Dixon and "big business" in general. One only has to read anything from the HR Nicholls society to get a glimpse of the Liberal Party and big business mindset under Howard.
Howard and big business wanted WorkChoices for the simple reason of "supply and demand". As the numbers of people in western society ages so to will the number of eligible workers decline. A bit of a conundrum for the hard line capitalists. That was the whole point of WorkChoices ,to nutralise the ability of workers to collectively bargain their position thereby nullifying any negotiating advantage going into the future.
Smacks of a return to the unregulated industrial relations environment of the 19th century that HB Higgins wrote about. That would have been the so called progress we would have gotten under Howard.

[blow.n.gasket]

What are you on about PAF?
That was the whole point of WorkChoices, to stop workers wages rising when supply of labour drops, duh! That's why big business wanted to nutralise the ability of those workers to collectively bargain.
What do you want? Sweat shops and kids in coal mines?

[parabellum]

Pass-a-Frozo - I think that had Costello shown he had the balls for the job JH would have stepped aside, no challenge required. Personally I do like Turnbull and I think that Rudd and his crew come across as cheap plastic imitations who are already showing signs of buckling under union pressure.

[ozbiggles]

What's stopping him now PAF, or any day since the election?....I suggest lack of balls!!!! He had the numbers the day after, but he coudn't man up like everyone expected him too. There wasn't any other captain in the cockpit then, he was number one on the seniority list then.
I think politics (please tell me if you think I'm wrong here:E) is different to applying for a job. If you can't play according to the rules (a point I think you like) then you should leave that job....a point you made. If Costello didn't like the boss he should have gone to the back bench if he didn't have the balls to make the challenge....and by all accounts at the end he might well have had the numbers(just not the ....). As you have said....if you don't like your job and conditions leave!!!!!
Sooooo please explain what point I missed again?

Or he just enjoys creating havoc and damage for his own party!

[teresa green]

How great it is to live in a democracy, where we can all rant and rave about our favorite teams be it AFL, NRL, or the game made in heaven Rugby, or our favorite people etc KRudd or the hated Howard, depending on our political leanings, none of you are right and none of you are wrong, time only will tell, and that my friends you should be truly grateful for, as most of you are pilots or cabin crew you know the success of the flight comes under the experience of the Captain, and you can only hope Krudd knows what he is doing, because if he doesn't the future for this great country, well, God help our kids and grandkids, because it is their future they are gambling on, of that there is no doubt.

[fearcampaign]

Frozo,

Your last statement is totally incorrect.

In an economic downturn private sector spending naturally drops, hence why any government steps in to create demand i.e infrastructure projects. To say it is all private sector driven is rubbish.
3/4 of China's growth this year is due to government spending(latest addition of the economist).
If the government were to do nothing then the consequences for job losses/economy would be far worse.The private sector is cutting not spending.

The problem we have is that both Labor supporters or Liberals take respective political sides over reality/facts/figures. Political spin with big scary words such as Debt and Deficit are being flung out with no substance in counter policy.

This global problem needs to be above politics,sadly not a realistic outcome.

The Libs were fortunate that they had the benefit of such large company tax receipts hence a large budget surplus. Some could argue that they should have spent the surplus of a lifetime on badly needed infrastructure.Instead they handed out a fair amount of middle class welfare. Tax cuts and big tax breaks to super in particular.The so called frugal Libs dished it out too.

Labor and indeed any government in the current environment must spend or at least act. This lesson was learnt the hard way in the depression.

I think history will judge Labor's $900 payments very,very poorly.
To imply that a Liberal government would suddenly turn the budget into surplus or to have acted in a far different way though is naive.

Workchoices was a killer for the Liberal party.To try and argue it as the savior of a worldwide recession is rubbish and puts in jeopardy a Liberal return to office.

I was a young liberal in my uni days and I am disappointed that Turnbull did not provide more substance in his budget reply.
Whilst I agree that tobacco tax is a good alternative to slugging the option of private health care, Turnbull failed to give details of an alternate Liberal plan.

By playing the spin game and failing to provide rational alternatives the Libs have let themselves down.

[Wiley]

Can't agree on 'lack of balls' as PC's reason for not stepping forward immediately after the Lib defeat. Politics is a dirty business, and the bunny (a word I use after some search for the right descriptor) who leads the Opposition immediately after such a defeat is (mixing my metaphors horribly) a sacrifical lamb. Whatever he does, he's going to be perceived by the voters to be a failure (or at least associated with failure), so no leader with aspirations of a successful punt for the Big Job some time in the future wants to be placed in that position if he can avoid it.

Costello might "be convinced" to step forward in the near future, but I suspect he'll wait until the threat of a double dissolution (hopefully) passes, because I don't think he wants to take Our Kev on in another election just yet. The poster who mentioned above that the Libs wanted to throw the 2007 election because they knew a bad time was approaching isn't the first to say just that. I saw the same opinion in an article in The Australian long before JH called the 2007 election. (However, I think I'd be safe in saying they didn't know just how bad it was going to be!)

However, nothing's a given in politics, and who knows who else might have come to the fore in the meantime? We can only hope there's someone out there among the younger crop of Libs who might come into the light to take the reins.

[ampclamp]

If costello had the NUMBERS not just the balls he would have been leader.
Fact is he isnt regarded highly enough (then or now) to get the top job.

There is no doubt he wanted the gig but he just didnt have the numbers or if he did he failed to act.Its a numbers game and he didnt have them, or, could not count when the chance came.
Mouthing off about it did him some harm too.

The last thing the libs needed was another lurch to the right.Costello is one of those most responsible for work choices and prominent in the HR Nicholls society. His political attachment to that fact would have been electorally unpopular.

[Ultralights]

my prediction is Costello will be leader of the opposition, and will lead Liberal to an election victory in 4 yrs. obviously if we don't have a double dissolution beforehand.
sure, he is a backbencer now, but he keeps his face in the public with little press releases here and there. making sure he is not forgotten.

[sumtingwong]

Private industry creates wealth. Government does not. P.A.F comment on page 1.

P.A.F as we have seen all to well, private industry creates wealth for private individuals, a group that has and continues to get more and more exclusive.

No a government does not create wealth, that is not it's job. It's job is to try to redistribute the wealth that private enterprise creates (for the benefit of few).

In that fundamental aim of governance, Howard failed spectacularly, but that was his intention now wasn't it.:ugh:

[tsalta]

No a government does not create wealth, that is not it's job. It's job is to try to redistribute the wealth that private enterprise creates (for the benefit of few).


That is definitely NOT the role of the government, unless of course you live in one of those splendid communist countries.

In those lovely places, the government claims to be redistributing the wealth however all they really do is line their own pockets to a far greater extent than private industry ever does and stamp on your civil rights.

It is not the role of the government to create either jobs or wealth. They come from private enterprise.

As you point out Mr Wong, private individuals create private wealth. As a private individual, YOU are entitled to engage in your own enterprise and create some of your own private wealth. Don't expect anyone else to risk their own money, create some wealth and then have it distributed to you because you are too lazy or scared to have a go yourself.

tsalta

[sumtingwong]

Well Tsalta, if the role of government is not to create jobs, wealth or redistribute any of the above as you claim, what role does it have?

Do you really need to reference the failed experiment of communism to make your point? How does my claim of governments redistributing wealth through taxation and similar, have anything to do with communism?

I take no pleasure in the fact that people with extreme political leanings always go to the other pole to make their point

[tsalta]

How does my claim of governments redistributing wealth through taxation and similar

Where to begin? I could go on for hours but I should be studying.

Governments DO NOT create. They CONSUME, CONSUME, CONSUME.

Taxes are levied to provide services to the country. Services such as education, defence, health etc. They are not as you suggest, supposed to be mailed out to all and sundry as a fundamental aim of the government.

One of the aims of communism is to have an entirely level country where all the population are equally well off (poor off most likely) which seems to be what you are suggesting. Redistributing wealth to those who do not deserve it.

One of the main problems which has led the country and the world into this financial mess is the populations mindset of the government being there to catch your fall. "The government will look after me". I contend that it is the governments responsibility to let institutions and individuals fail. A real danger of failure would perhaps make people more circumspect in their financial lives.

tsalta

[sumtingwong]

Perhaps you should study your posts or mine a little better, as you make my point for me. And for the record the only one harping on about communism is you.

Your point - Services that governments provide such as education health and defense are paid for how? By the redistribution of wealth. Which was my point. Are you so narrowed by your dogma that you still think I'm talking about communism. Nor am I talking about the welfare state. Take a breath and try to see another point of view.

You said:

One of the main problems which has led the country and the world into this financial mess is the populations mindset of the government being there to catch your fall. "The government will look after me"..

Are you serious :bored:....No really.:ugh:

And here was I thinking it was greedy banks, sub prime, ridiculous borrowing to acquire for asset stripping purposes and an over leveraged equities and derivatives market. The whole time it was the average Joe who sits in the middle of the bell curves fault. I'll make one claim however. It is average Joe taxpayer who is bailing the big institutions out through his taxation contributions. (I am referring here mainly to the United States)

I contend that it is the governments responsibility to let institutions and individuals fail. A real danger of failure would perhaps make people more circumspect in their financial lives.Ummm governments do let individuals fail financially...all the time. Can you say the same about institutions? Why don't you ask that question in Detroit Michigan, or perhaps in the financial district of New York.

[tsalta]

Dude, there is sumtingwong with your head.

Redistributing wealth is not the same as paying for essential services.

Redistributing wealth is taking it from someone who has earned it and giving it to someone who has not.

Taxation to provide services is not the same as redistributing wealth.

Yes I am serious, and yes for a large part it is the lower and middle class who lived beyond their means for so long who have created this mess.

Then voting for a welfare minded government with no economic credibility vastly exacerbated the situation.

tsalta

[lowerlobe]

One of the aims of communism is to have an entirely level country where all the population are equally well off (poor off most likely) which seems to be what you are suggesting. Redistributing wealth to those who do not deserve it.
On the surface you're right but can you name a communist state that does not do the exact opposite and have an elitist level of the population at the expense of the rest?
One of the main problems which has led the country and the world into this financial mess is the populations mindset of the government being there to catch your fall.
Err No.... the reason we are in this mess is because of a simple human attribute called greed....and it is not greed at the bottom of society that caused it.....it was the greed at the top.

You don't have to look much further than the board rooms of some very large concerns to see who has done it and is still doing it.

I'm certainly no Nazi but if you want an example of a government that was
as far removed from communism as possible then Adolf's was it.After the great depression Hitler went on a spree of public works such autobahns, railways,public areas such as lakes and housing.He basically revived the German economy and reduced unemployment in Germany from six million to zero in just six years.After that he sort of went of the rails but it shows what a government can do and it explains the reason why he was so popular (at the start at any rate).

With all the surpluses that the Howard government received they could have made a huge difference with public works and infrastructure...but no they gave a lot of it away with tax cuts and changes to the super laws............and who did that benefit?

Of course the anti Rudd people here are not happy with the $900 cheque they received but how many gave it back?

Also there is the small matter of honest John giving handouts when his brothers factory went belly up.....but thats different isn't it?

Now for those anti labor people here who are telling us that a government cannot create wealth are just carrying on with the usual Liberal party drivel.Nick Minchin has said on many occasions that the government has no right to interfere with private business but that did not stop Howard doing exactly that by giving business Work Choices.

This argument will not stop because it all depends on what side of the fence you vote for.If you were a Howard supporter then you will not rest until labor is out of office and it does not matter how good a job Rudd does.

[tsalta]

On the surface you're right but can you name a communist state that does not do the exact opposite and have an elitist level of the population at the expense of the rest?

I had said the same thing a couple of posts back.

Look where it got Germany. So far they are in the hurt locker for two world wars and a world cup. A real winning strategy there!

Err No.... the reason we are in this mess is because of a simple human attribute called greed....and it is not greed at the bottom of society that caused it.....it was the greed at the top.

It was greed at the top that spawned obscene remuneration at the top. It was greed in the middle that provided them with the opportunity to do so.

tsalta

[sumtingwong]

Redistributing wealth is not the same as paying for essential services.
It isn't because you say it isn't. Not that you'll answer the question but how else do governments redistribute wealth. Essential services are for the use of all, not just those who can afford it. That is redistributing wealth.

Yes I am serious, and yes for a large part it is the lower and middle class who lived beyond their means for so long who have created this mess.
Ahh so sub-prime was caused by bogans paying for plasma's with their credit cards. How did these people live beyond their means? It had nothing to do with corporate greed and unscrupulous lending practices.

As you've resorted to puerile personal attacks, and have addressed none of my questions, I think I'll leave it there. I really do hope you never fall on hard financial times, because surely with your views, you could never take a cent of support from the government, or even a concession ticket to ride the bus...you didn't earn it remember

[tsalta]

Not that you'll answer the question but how else do governments redistribute wealth

They try and do it by handing out $900 cheques and over taxing higher earners to give benefits to those who should get off their posteriors and improve themselves.

Ahh so sub-prime was caused by bogans paying for plasma's with their credit cards

Yes, but more so buying houses on their credit cards.

How did these people live beyond their means?

Isn't it obvious? They were buying houses on their credit cards.

unscrupulous lending practices.

Oh, my poor bleeding heart. Some nasty banker took advantage of me. It's not my fault I haven't invested in my financial education and can't tell the difference between an asset and a liability. Best we break out the violins.

you could never take a cent of support from the government, or even a concession ticket to ride the bus...you didn't earn it remember

I'm all for supporting those who CAN'T support themselves. I have a big issue supporting those who WON'T support themselves. If you, me or anyone else falls into the CAN'T box, then a civilised society should support them. If you, me or anyone else falls into the WON'T box, don't expect any sympathy or support.

tsalta

[ferris]

You were going pretty well there, tsalta, until you tried to blame sub prime on the lower echelons. That is patently ridiculous, and indicates a dogmatic level of belief that clouds your judgement.

Perhaps we drop the idea that everybody can improve their situation by education or some other method of "self improvement"? If every single man, woman and child went out and earned a PhD, we would still need shelf-packers, barmen, and people to ask if you would like fries with that. It's a painful lesson in life; some people never get paid what they are worth, yet others can never be worth what they are paid.

[tsalta]

If every single man and woman spent less than they earned then, yes, every man and woman could improve their situation and we would not have the financial mess we have now. That takes financial education, self improvement. Not necessarily a PhD.

Sure, I'm being harsh just blaming the lower echelons. Yes, the government has to share some blame for insufficient regulation, yes the corporates have to share some blame for predatory tactics but at the end of the day each individual is responsible for their own actions. Not the government, not the teachers, not the media, not the institutions, but the individual.

Responsibility.

For decades, governments of both sides have been trying to absolve the individual of individual responsibility; And they have both been wrong.

tsalta

[Arnold E]

Wow! some people here have realy demonstrated what nasty people they are, and what total disregard they have for other people. Chimbu, you are obviously proud of your daughter (and so you should be), and I am proud of my kids (daughter, a teacher and son, a LAME) and they didnt get ther on the back of anybody. But I also know a guy (and his family) who cleans aeroplanes for a living and is on the bottom of the earnings tree. He is, however one of the best people I have had the pleasure to meet. He is not a "bludger" and has "got off his arse" and is working to his capability. Do I think he could use some of your tax money for a leg up, dam right I do! Some here would have it that because he does not fly a block of flats with a computer and get hundreds of thousands of dollars for doing it, then thats too bad. I would sooner see this guy get some help by the system than see some of the people on this forum get any more than they have now, even if they think they deserve it. Damm! there are some nasty people here. I wont be back BOBL

[Torres]

P.A.F comment on page 1.

P.A.F as we have seen all to well, private industry creates wealth for private individuals, a group that has and continues to get more and more exclusive.

No a government does not create wealth, that is not it's job. It's job is to try to redistribute the wealth that private enterprise creates (for the benefit of few).

In that fundamental aim of governance, Howard failed spectacularly, but that was his intention now wasn't it.

(My bold italics.)

No, it was not Mr Howard's aim and I am very sure it is not Mr Rudd's aim.

sumtingwong. Your post is unbelievable! Word for word, straight out of Karl Heinrich Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx)!! Why do you believe you are entitled to a social welfare Utopia at the expense of my superannuation investments and the superannuation investments of every other working Australian? :confused:

If history proved Karl Marx philosophies did not work in the USSR, North Korea, China, Cuba etc, why do you believe his theories should be the basis for socially responsible governance and community wealth distribution in contemporary Australia? :confused:

If those philosophies are where the current Government is taking Australia, stop the bus - I want to get off! :yuk:

Before you dig a deeper hole for yourself by responding with more ludicrous, inappropriate Socialist dogma, I suggest you read About Australia: Democratic Rights & Freedoms (http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/democratic_rights_freedoms.html) and other Australian internet references to the principles of responsible democratic governance.

:=

[Fliegenmong]

:hmm:I do believe I have posted this (or similar)before...tis but a smidgeon of a slice of aust. demographics...but......I grew up in a household where 'Labor Party' was indeed a very dirty word....I voted Liberal.....I could not bring myself to vote labor... a few years of Howard actually allowed me to easily become a 'swing' voter...when Howard announced that my children and their children should look forward to a life of a bowl of rice a day so that the big end of town could continue to grow I called bull****...at the expense of some of my (then) better performing stocks....why?....Why? If you have to ask you simply do not get it.....

And further to my little story of which I have told before, a very dear friend of mine who grew up in a reasonably affluent East Sydney suburb, espoused to me for a good while how good life was under "Workchoices" (I should add that he had very well off friends, and a family that always blindly followed Liberal party policies no matter what).....................

So along came the last Federal election, my mate blinldly followed, as he always has done and voted Liberal.......unquestionably...............the union came by and showed him just how worse off he was working under workchoices.....he earns considerably more now working under a collectivley agreed award......Feel sorry for the poor guy kinda.... I mean he earns more money now, but doesn;t have the gall to admit that his family history of voting Liberal, to which he feels almost obliged to do, now realises that he can no longer vote Liberal, because as a loyal \blind follower, he now realises they were screwing him to the hilt......

.........He's now lost as a pre-conditioned Liberal voter....42 years of unquestioned loyalty and being indoctrinated lost.........'cos of Howards desire to screw the less fortunate........Well done JWH!, I know not from where the term "Johnny's battlers' came from....but I do know these "Johnny's Battlers" will keep your side of politics on the opposition benches for a good while to come....:8:ugh:

[sumtingwong]

Torres.

sumtingwong. Your post is unbelievable! Word for word, straight out of Karl Heinrich Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx)!!No it isn't.:ugh:

Why do you believe you are entitled to a social welfare Utopia at the expense of my superannuation investments and the superannuation investments of every other working Australian?I don't and have posted nothing remarking social welfare, superannuation, yours or anyone else:ugh:


If history proved Karl Marx philosophies did not work in the USSR, North Korea, China, Cuba etc, why do you believe his theories should be the basis for socially responsible governance and community wealth distribution in contemporary Australia?I don't believe that for a moment. That's why I posted nothing of the sort:ugh:

Torres you made a incorrect assumption and then added on with more incorrect assumptions. I've told your assumptions about what I said are wrong, up to you what you do with that.

Finally

Before you dig a deeper hole for yourself by responding with more ludicrous, inappropriate Socialist dogma, I suggest you read About Australia: Democratic Rights & Freedoms (http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/democratic_rights_freedoms.html) and other Australian internet references to the principles of responsible democratic governance.Thanks for the tip, read it, enjoyed it. Perhaps I can patronise you in kind and state that before you dig a deeper hole for yourself by responding with more ludicrous, inappropriate, hysterical dogma of your own, I suggest you read my posts:rolleyes:

[RedTBar]

Look where it got Germany. So far they are in the hurt locker for two world wars and a world cup. A real winning strategy there!
What are you referring to tsalta?
What do you mean by 'it'?

[tsalta]

RedTBar

I meant either an autocratic, dictatorship or communist government.

tsalta

[Torres]

OK. Rather than a p!ssing contest, lets keep it simple.

Your statement:

No a government does not create wealth, that is not it's job. It's job is to try to redistribute the wealth that private enterprise creates (for the benefit of few).

Neither sentence in that statement is correct in fact or principal.

[Trojan1981]

Who cares what Johnny boy says. He is gone forever and thank goodness.

He can make these statements 'till true blue in the face but his shadow will never again darken the floor of Parliament.:ok:

He just needs to face up to the fact its over.

[lowerlobe]

Little honest Johnny is probably drumming up a bit of publicity for his talkfest circuit where incredulously people pay a small fortune to listen to him....

Or maybe it's that they are not anymore.....and thats why he coming out with these interviews...

[tinpis]

They're all pretty creepy.
18 months ago I felt a lot happier with the creeps creeping around Canberra than the creep we got now.
At least they were older and had any reformist crap well and truly kicked out of them
Its only your money they chucking around buying themselves a career after all.



Self retired fundee.

[ferris]

These acts forced banks to loan Man, you crack me up!! I can just picture all the poor/unemployed people travelling the world, selling their bundled mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps, then making off to the Bahamas! :rolleyes:

Whatever helps you sleep at night.....

[ferris]

Why did mortgage backed securities, etc. start to turn bad? You seem to have lost the plot. The problem didn't arise because people stopped paying their mortgage- that was an unavoidable consequence of the practice of writing mortgages to people who bankers/brokers knew would default, then bundling those "assets" with legit securities with high-grade investment ratings, then selling them off to unsuspecting investors (such as local councils in Australia). The problem arose because of the deceit involved. Is that really lost on you? You are so caught up in your dogma that you believe it was the fault of the people who believed the sales pitch of bankers/brokers- criminals- so desperate to expand their businesses that they engaged in this sham/con? Madoff is not the problem- it's the stupid people who invested with him? That's what this was- a con on a massive scale.

[FOCX]

P.A.F. You are full of the proverbial! The sub-prime was just the start of it. You seem to be forgetting the effect of corporate debt in the form of CDOs and other variations of derivatives that the likes of WB and other analysts were pointing out for some time. These were taken up by nearly every greedy bank around the world plus everyone wanting everything now and on credit!

PAF, having read your diatribes for the last 12 mths is just too much. I'm tired of pilots, especially ex ADF types full of their own self importance. We don't create anything, just move people around in an ally tube:yuk:

[max autobrakes]

Hows business development at the Q going PAF?

[ditch handle]

He's quite obviously beyond help.

[ferris]

Ferris: I find it astounding you equate the two. Well, I do, because loaning money you know won't be paid back, but selling the debt onwards for someone else to have the default after disguising the nature of the debt is fraud, too. But I digress. You really don't see that wasn't the point of my post? My point was that the crisis wasn't generated by the people defaulting on their mortgages, it was generated by the people who made lots of money writing mortgages to people who they knew would default, then shifting those toxic "assets" on, disguised as something else, before the $**** hit the fan. I'm not going to continue to post the same thing over and over.

If you continue to ignore the obvious, then I'll leave you to it. An inconvenient truth, for you, is it? I know your type well. People are poor etc. because they are stupid and it's their own fault etc. etc. so when highly educated, smart devious and ethically barren 'suits' take advantage of them it's the fault of the poor etc. The only problem, in this case, is those suits created a fraud so massive that it impacted lots of other suits (and eventually all of us). Still, you stick to your guns. Whatever helps you sleep.....

[FOCX]

No PAF, I don't agree! The sub-prime was just the first domino to fall, the SP lenders were just the first to run out of money when to came to refinance their loans exacerbated by the start of the housing price collpase and therefor not having the equity to refinanace. Surely PAF you're also aware of all the games the SP lenders got up to when it came to getting loans approved?

As to dropping the keys off when a lender gets sick of paying a home loan that's out of the money, well that's been a US thing for years and has nothing to do with the direction for banks to loan to "risky" lenders. Anyway, my understanding was it was a threat, do it or else! They could have called the bluff. Plus look at the behaviour of the bigwigs at Freddie and Fannie, they paid themselves a fortune on their turnover and also did as much as they could to hide how risky their loans were.

Sorry, but YOU also don't create anything! I suggest you go back and review your posts to other PPruners and if you don't like my vomiting on you, sorry but you earned it IMO!

[Angle of Attack]

Oh God people just don't bother replying! It's much easier that way!:ok: Just sit in the comfort that PAF's heroes are in dissaray and confusion in opposition! Its just so relaxing when you think of it that way! And it will last for a long time to come!:} Now where were we? Yes getting another big pay rise from our employers! Let's go! :ok:




It's all in jest people if someone was getting stirred up! , all in jest! :)

[FOCX]

Sorry PAF, but I'm really disappointed in you! You seem to have forgotten that the last 8 yrs Bush was in charge, what, he couldn't get rid of them? The 2 Fs had been donating money to BOTH parties for years and BOTH parties let them go on their merry ways and, yes, banks did just lend to people who couldn't afford it without legislation (from what I've read in US papers), just the threat of what will happen if they don't lend to the very less well off, claiming it was a form of discrimination not to! In addition to this I don't believe it had to be unlimiting, from what I recall they wanted the lending to these people increased. I bet they just saw the ability to make money in the short term.

As to telling people what you do.....uh!! I just gathered from your posts and other Pruners posts you are ex Mil. Why should that disturb you?

[FOCX]

I wasn't going to post anymore on this, but PAF I just have to. YOU lack the most basic of critical thinking skills I've read.

I may be wrong about the ex Mil tag, but you exhibit that right wing dogma I seen so often of former military people, especially when they have joined at a young age. Are you pilot or politician? Maybe you should consider a career change and save us all.

And no I don't dislike the military, especially the Army, just those who have an even greater sense of self importance than even the average airline pilot displays.

Plus PAF, you are so easy to wind up that there would be very little enjoyment for those who's aim it is. You need to get a life and not spend it all on here.

[parabellum]

Blind freddy now knows the true villians behind our present woes are PAF's fellow comprehensively discredited "neo-liberal" travellers, along with like-minded, untramelled greed worshipping, risk-shifting financial industry parasites.

That is simply rearranging history to suit your own version of events and ignoring the root cause of todays financial problems Jaded Boiler.

Had Clinton and his Democratic gang not insisted that the financial institutions lend to people who had no hope of repaying then a whole lot of todays trouble would have been avoided as the 'risk-shifting financial industry parasites' would not have had dodgy risks to shift. The democratic/socialist solution of throwing other peoples money at a problem has spectacularly failed, again!

[jaded boiler]

Codswallop. Do a little more research (that consisting of something more substantial than the re-reading and subsequent regurgitating of a certain P. Akerman's opinion pieces).

[ferris]

Yes- reading indeed. The guilty parties crying "the government made us do it!" doesn't stand even a cursory investigation of the facts.

Doesn't stop the apologists finding their red herring, though.

[Chimbu chuckles]

There is more than enough guilt to go around...but at the very heart is policy settings put in place by Democrats. Republicans tried to rein it in but failed for a variety of reasons...mostly to do with self serving, gutless politicians of both sides but predominantly the left. Once you have put a policy of 'affordable housing' in place and made damn sure everyone knows about it how brave does a politician need to be to stand against that even when it makes perfect sense to do so and is ACTUALLY in everyone's best interest...including the people suddenly finding themselves in 'their very own house'. There is not a polly on the planet that brave...they spend there lives totally dedicated to getting re-elected (2 year senatorial terms in the US) so it would be a brave Republican indeed who would allow his Democrat competition the sort of free shot being labelled as 'anti affordable housing' would provide.

Socialist policy settings allowed human nature to do the rest. I never get over the stupidity, or more likely dishonesty, of people claiming to be caught out by 'the Law of unintended consequences'...to my mind this is just a cop out..."Its not my fault, I didn't expect that to happen".

Utter BS!

Human Nature being what it is, it is usually pretty damn easy to work out the logical consequences of an action.

You lean on a couple of Govt backed banks like Feddie and Fannie to facilitate home ownership for people who would otherwise not qualify.

They make it known to banks far and wide that they will buy up such mortgages.

Banks get fees and loan officers get a % of the loan 'products' they sell. Historically they were constrained by prudent banking practices but now they get to pass on all the risk to a third party that is Govt backed.

What happens next is not a result of the law of unintended consequences...its perfectly predictable....Millions of people get home loans they wouldn't have got before before and banks/Mortgage brokers/loan officers make lots of money from fees while the banks they actually work for have zero risk. Pretty soon the banks are inventing all sorts of new loan products as they continue to lower the bar to get more 'risk free' loans out the door and fees in the door.

For a fair old while Fannie/Freddie make lots of money...the housing market is booming (that's what lots of cheap money sloshing around does...it creates bubbles) soon the actual street banks want a piece of the action too. What can go wrong after all...house prices always go up...don't they? If a % of the mortgages go bad we just sell em up...no worries....WE CAN'T LOSE!!!!

And while we are at it lets extend them lines of credit (yet another new product) to buy 'stuff' based on the 'ever' increasing 'equity' in their homes....we REALLY cannot lose remember.

As an aside a mate who IS old enough to remember 16% interest rates and the last recession, and the one before that, said to me about a year ago "Chuck boom and bust is a thing of the past - 'they' are smarter than that these days".:ugh:

Hell even that moron Brown got up in front of an audience and said that - Boom and bust is a product of human nature - it will NEVER be a thing of the past.

When well educated successful people convince themselves of that what hope for mr and mrs average min wage worker?

Apparently the tech bust with its attendant unemployment of LOTS of VERY, VERY, VERY smart mathematicians gave us CDSs, CDOs and sundry other credit derivatives...they went to work for the investment banks.

Banks like to insure against risk..the people actually selling the product may be too young to remember the last recession but the people RUNNING the banks certainly are old enough to know better.

Pretty soon credit derivatives are a boom money producer too...EVERYONE piles in to get their piece of the action...this is what happens near the end of a boom cycle...its no mystery its just human nature...it has always happened this way...but everyone is also 'insuring' themselves against default...AIG et al are making a KILLING on selling insurance for CDSs/CDOs etc.

All this credit was VERY highly leveraged...The US Government repealed Laws that dictate, for VERY good reasons, how much leverage is allowed...they deregulated laws put in place after the Depression that were designed to mitigate against just what has happened...because what has just happened in the last year is pretty much what happened in 1929/30.

But of course Greenspan et al were much smarter than the people running things in the 1920s:ugh:

I think it is a little tough to 'blame' those who took out the mortgages...human nature being what it is you could hardly expect them to say no to cheap money to buy their own home...but you can certainly blame the pollies and the CEOs of Fannie/Freddie/AIG/Morgan Stanley etc etc etc.

But it starts with the Politicians and their policy settings...everything else flows from there.

The world is experiencing a MASSIVE de-leveraging of credit...that is what puts the lie to Swan/Rudd/Henry's claims of 4+% growth in just a year or twos time and why they will never get the budget back in the black. For that sort of growth we need to US/Japan/China etc to be buying lots of stuff...but the de-leveraging will assure that sundry greatly reduced asset values won't allow credit to be extended in the way it has been lately...without that credit we can't have 4+% growth any time soon.

It will likely be 60 years before we see 'growth' like we experienced in the last 10. It will take that long for everyone who experienced this one to die and for direct human memory to fade and the next Alan Greenspan and sundry pollies to be so arrogant as to believe they 'know better' again.

Its just human nature.:ugh:

[parabellum]

Codswallop. Do a little more research (that consisting of something more substantial than the re-reading and subsequent regurgitating of a certain P. Akerman's opinion pieces).


It is when I see a post like this that I know I can confidently totally ignore the highly contrived, left leaning posts of Jaded Boiler without losing sight of the facts.

[teresa green]

Jeesus, I just wish Howard had stayed, never mind work choices, now look at the freckin mess we are in, at least with Howard we would have had a experienced treasurer at the end of the prong, and as you all know when in severe turbulance, hand it back to a very experienced Captain, regardless what you think of him, NOT to three Second Officers. (No blight on S/O's we were all one once) but the ship needs real experience now, not three blokes running around like blue arsed flies, trying to cope.:( Anybody who watched Lateline, their blood would have run cold.

[Point0Five]

This may prove informative: CDO Powerpoint SubPrime Primer (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2190705/CDO-Powerpoint-SubPrime-Primer)

[jaded boiler]

Well I'll take my posts being described as "contrived", defined as "planned with ingenuity", as a compliment.

The only leaning I do is as a result of advancing years. I have always considered myself a centrist. Unfortunately I don't suffer fools, ideologues or those so welded to their dogma that they are unable to countenance conflicting viewpoints.

[parabellum]

I don't suffer fools, idealogues or those so welded to their dogma that they are unable to countenance conflicting viewpoints.


So you won't have too many friends amongst the ALP/Kevin Rudd supporters here then?

[ruprecht]

Hey PAF, why the extra 'z' in your name?

[Point0Five]

Oh, haven't you heard?

Ever since the PM declared war on ADF catering, all flying rations have been increased in size to accommodate his palate: hence the extra "z" in Frozzo.

[FOCX]

Ok PAF, this is my last post or I'll never get away from you and this thread!

What is it with you guys and your love affair with the Howard gov. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Rudd much at all, but I would have voted for him just to see the rear end of Howard et al. I can't see why anyone would think they did such a brilliant job. Go and read what a majority of commentators have said, Hawke and Keating did a lot for getting Australia back on the road.

The last 5-6 yrs they had more money from the resources boom than you could poke a burnt stick at. Yeah, they retired all the debt then set about spending up big with middle class welfare, which may have still left them with a surplus, but was growing at a rate that was more than the Govs historical revenues could sustain. A large number of commentators, including past supporters of Howard have stated that it had left Swan with a huge problem in balancing the budget, such that even without the cash splash that the budget would still be in deficit for yrs. Costello has been quoted a number of times on how Howard kept on wanting to throw the money around when there was less need to and the game he (Costello) played in misleading Howard on the true forecast surplus. Howard and co failed to set this country up for when the boom ended. I know, they paid out all the debt, but there's more to it than just that. They also used 457 visas to bring in cheap labour/trades because they are responsible for ruining the apprenticeship system along with industry believing it wasn't something they should have to be involved in. No Gov intervention until it suits them! Youth unemployment was still way higher than it should have been.

I don't like Rudd, I agree with the pension handout last year and increase this year and any handout (if there was) to low income earners, the rest was just a bloody stupid waste (infrastructure aside). I choke when I read of people earning north of 150k whinning about the private health insurance rebate. IMO if your getting north of 130k you shouldn't get a cent. I read in the SMH of one couple earning between 160-240 bleating about maybe having to go back to the public system; good luck, I say! No means testing on child care payments, for F...s sake! Everyone these days, no matter what they earn wants to suck on the public tit.

My last bugbear is reading posts here complaining about our reward for what we do, comparing to a "mate" allegedly earning 1Mil + in finance etc. Sorry, but not many earning that. Try engineering, which I know fairly well and a experienced engineer will be on about 180-220K unless he's in very senior management, or up in China/Africa or where ever! A close friend (lawyer) said an Associate Partner would be on 180-200K and working there arse off. My biggest complaint is companies having you pay for your endorsements and the attitude towards crew in general. If as I'm told a J* captain will actually earn around 180K don't complain, if you think you are I suggest you go and have a REAL close look at the outside world and you'll be bloody surprised at not just the money, but the hours. And no, I dislike management as much as the rest of you.

PAF seriously, I don't want to see you post for 48 hrs, you have to wean yourself off this site!! Otherwise I'll have to have a word with CASA that you may not be stable! See ya.

[jaded boiler]

If finding the revisionism, mindless nastiness, haughtiness, distortions and counter-intuitive sententious nonsense spouted by individuals on the far right repugnant defines me as a far leftist in your eyes PAFF, then so be it. I guess the view to the centre is a long way left from where you're standing.

Although that does leave me a tad perplexed. If I am a far leftist, where would that place a communist on the ideological spectrum?

And no parabellum, I don't have any friends who are ALP members. I do have several comrades however who are supporters of Rudd, and some who happen to be union members. Strangely enough they appear as astute, rational and contemplative as several other balanced, non-extremist coalition supporters of my acquaintance.

[Angle of Attack]

FOCX Spot On!:ok:

People complaining about the private Health Insurance rebate on salary's above the cutoff oh please...

Jaided

the revisionism, mindless nastiness, haughtiness, distortions and counter-intuitive sententious nonsense spouted by individuals on the far right

Don't worry, remember they are now in the minority! They lost! :ok:
The extreme right are always like that, just enjoy life while they are sidelined in the gutters where they belong! Hey lifes good! :) Forget about intelligent debate, I mean look at what happened to the US under the perfect example of right politics?! LOL! It shouldn't be funny but in fact it is and was so predictable. Howard was a complete umitigated disaster! I said it years ago and I still say it now! History will look bleak on that pathetic individual.

[Trojan1981]

Mods, What does this thread have to do with Aviation? It is largely a slanging match between the extreme-right PAF and everyone else. It is also largely irrelevent.

[FOCX]

Who invited the horse in?

[Here to Help]

I agree with Trojan, send this to Jet Blast.

[Wiley]

I have to agree that this has become Jetblast grist.

What surprises me is the number of 'intelligent, well-balanced' individuals* (see footnote) who appear to reserve a visceral, almost pathological hatred for John Winston Howard that's way up there with the feelings many 89ers reserve for one robert hawke (sic). Did Howard have as detrimental an effect opon these people's lives as hawke (sic) did on so many in the Aviation industry?

As I've said earlier in this thread, you don't have to like the individual or everything he does to deem him, of those offering their services, the more capable manager of your country. As much as I disagreed with many of the things Howard and his Party did, after experiencing the Whitlam years first hand, I feared before the 2007 election, and fear even moreso now, that we're going to pay an enormous price just so these intelligent, well-balanced individuals can feel good about having a more acceptable (to them) leader in place than John Howard.

It's scary to think - when you consider the enormous effect they had on the Australian economy - that there were only three 'Whitlam years'. I wonder if taxpayers in years to come, as they (attempt to?) pay off the huge debt the country is currently incurring, will be saying something similar about the Rudd years?

-------------

*(I know they are 'intelligent, well balanced' individuals, because they've told us all that one automatically becomes so if one is not of the far right wing persuasion in one's political leanings)

[Jet_A_Knight]

That CDO Primer Powerpoint has been doing the rounds for over a year.

"Nobody knew":hmm:

[bilbert]

Actually it was Labor who introduced Work Choices back in that unmentionable year after 1988. Choice was, you either work on an Individual contract or don't work at all. Short memories eh!.

[HotDog]

History will look bleak on that pathetic individual.

Including on a lot of pathetic individuals on this forum.:rolleyes:

[Fliegenmong]

:D Quote:
Including on a lot of pathetic individuals on this forum. :rolleyes:

:E

Indeed!. C'mon Howy!..., give the Ruddster more of what he needs.....that is you (Kim-Il)in the news!! Many in the country would now associate the Coalition with the following 'mind map'...Coalition = Howard (and those left..hockey, turnbull, bishop (Gee wasn't she good! Does she write her own material? Thought not :E), Minchin, Costello, Andrews, Robb etc etc) = bowl of rice a day..bowl of rice a day..bowl of rice a day..bowl of rice a day

Liberal = Bowl of rice a day...Liberal = bowl of rice a day....Liberal = Bowl of rice day ...Liberal bowl of rice a day...Liberal (Sunday) = bowl of rice, dash of sauce......Liberal = bowl of rice.....:ugh:

Their own worst enemy.....:rolleyes:

Come out with some more Howy, just as Ruddster starts to slide in the polls, Ki Il helps him out by...just making an appearance..........Priceless
:D

Bowl of rice, bowl of rice, bowl of rice.......can't wait for Sunday......Mr Turnbull will spit some sauce in my bowl......

[parabellum]

Well said bilbert, such short memories some of our ALP supporting/left leaning PPRuNers have, and for some a frontal lobotomy would be a distinct improvement!

[jaded boiler]

I must have a short-term memory issue, possibly induced by one too many socialist chardonnays, however, that being the case, stating that work choices was enacted by a Labor government in 1989, is, to use restrained language, factually incorrect.

[tinpis]

Well I remember the Whitlam gulag Wiley.

Of course,
Comparisons with the economic turmoil under the Whitlam Labor government in the 1970s, while looking increasingly justified, would be lost on many youngvoters.








It's scary to think - when you consider the enormous effect they had on the Australian economy - that there were only three 'Whitlam years'. I wonder if taxpayers in years to come, as they (attempt to?) pay off the huge debt the country is currently incurring, will be saying something similar about the Rudd years?

Rudd on the road to ruin | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25537559-5015019,00.html)

[Wiley]

The many comments under the article tinpis has provided the link to are probably more illuminating than the article itself.

The article is possibly misnamed. Perhaps it would be more accurately named "Australia on the Road to Ruin Under the Rudd Helm".

[ditch handle]

...........for the right wing fascists who skulk around here ?

Australia best placed to beat recession: survey (http://business.smh.com.au/business/australia-best-placed-to-beat-recession-survey-20090526-blrg.html)

[Wiley]

ditch handle, since it can be assumed that in backing Our Kev, you're quite obviously an intelligent, well balanced individual (see my post #146 above), I would have thought you'd have saved Danny the unnecessary use of bandwidth in using such a tautological term as 'right wing fascists'.

I suppose that in being unable to see Our Emperor Kev's new clothes - and believeing him and his policies will leave not just hiim, but all of us stark bollocky naked, I have to put myself in there among the tautological right wing fascists.

[ditch handle]

Tautology?

Really:rolleyes:

From wiki on Fascism.

"According to scholars of fascism, there are both left and right influences on fascist ideology, and argue that fascism is a search for a third way among all these views.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] Roger Griffin claims that fascist movements have become more monolithically right-wing, and fascism has become intertwined with the radical right.[36][37]"

[jungle juice]

I'm not sure which is more interesting Wiley.
One,that you admit that Howard supporters are tautological right wing fascists or secondly,that you didn't know that fascists are not necessarily right wing.
It's good to see that Howard supporters can still be taught something.

[Wiley]

...and you, an intelligent, well balanced individual, use Wikipedia as a reference? Says a lot, that does, quite a lot. Take a look in a real dictionary. A left wing fascist is called a communist. The only real difference between the two is that for a communist, the 'people' (aka 'the State') replace Big Business as the entity (usually, in both cases mis)running the show.

Point score not accepted.

The Libs, for all their (by me) admitted faults, weren't quite in the fascist camp, although they certainly attracted some who would like to be - just like Kev's Mob certainly attracts a few who wish they could run what many would call a communist system. (Inaccurately, I must admit, but certainly socialist, which in relationship to communism, is bit like being 'just a little bit pregnant'.)

Our Kev's recent 7000 word essay comes immediately to mind...

[jungle juice]

Wiley,
I don't need Wikipedia to be able to understand political and ideological distinctions.
A left wing fascist is not a communist.While a narrow focus can find areas in which fascism and communism might share some similarities, a broader and deeper view suggests that they are quite the opposite. It is significant that in historical terms the two movements have been bitter enemies, and this confirms the impression that in terms of principle they are really opposite.
Therefore to say a left wing fascist is a communist is a contradiction in terms.
Communist movements can be sectarian in terms of ideology, but while fascism attacks what people intrinsically are, communism attacks only their behavior. The difference is fundamental, for socialism seeks to develop everyone, while fascism excludes or eliminates all but a group that therefore ends being statically pure.
While communist movements can be nationalist at certain points and national movements socialist, they don't seem intrinsically so.

In particular, communists are principled internationalists, while fascists are quite the opposite, aiming at exclusion, not inclusion.

In any case I think Howards comments regarding Work Choices are like many other ex PM's who still can't handle the fact that they lost an election and in Howards case his seat as well.

[HotDog]

Including on a lot of pathetic individuals on this forum


Fliegenmong, I'm not sure you interpreted my remarks correctly.:E

[Chimbu chuckles]

communists are principled internationalists,

I don't think I have ever read anything so naive, and utterly without basis in historical fact, in my life.

You forgetting the 10s of millions of people murdered by communist regimes...or just denying it happened?

[jungle juice]

Chimbu Chuckles,
Your post is actually one of the most naive I have seen in this thread.
It looks as though you have no idea what an internationalist is or what is meant by the statement "principled internationalists".

Are you telling us that only communist regimes have murdered millions of people?
There have been countless totalitarian states both left and right wing that have murdered millions.To suggest that it is only communist states that have committed genocide is not only myopic but dangerously naive.

When I saidcommunists are principled internationalists, while fascists are quite the opposite, aiming at exclusion, not inclusion.
I was talking in an ideological sense.Obviously you like many other Howard supporters use the terms left wing,socialist and communist with any real knowledge of what you are talking about.

From the beginning communists have always emphasized international solidarity. As Marx and Engels expressed in the Communist Manifesto, "Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things ... they labor everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries."

That is what I meant by communists being principled internationalists.

This is the opposite of fascism where the basic dogma is one of superiority and inferiority and the resultant exclusion of certain races.Fascism never sought to protect itself by spreading world revolution as communism does or did!

It was Marx who said workers have no country.That is what I meant by an internationalist.

[Ovation]

MODERATOR/S.......Where are you?

This thread belongs in Jet Blast.

[StallBoy]

This all started when the slaves in our society were given pay rises by the industrial commissions and found that they could then afford to fly around the world:ok: Give the workers cake, remove economy class from aircraft and make them WALK.:uhoh: Now will that make all the well paid airline workers happy:eek:

[Dark Knight]

Resurgent unions up ante in new round of workplace demands

Ewin Hannan and Patricia Karvelas | May 28, 2009
Article from: The Australian

`UNIONS will challenge the Rudd Government to lift restrictions on pattern bargaining and strikes while urging federal support for a national charter of union rights that would force companies to pay employees when they are conducting union activities.

In a sweeping workplace agenda to be considered at next week's national ACTU Congress, unions will call on Labor to embrace a second-term workplace blueprint that removes obstacles to industry-wide bargaining, repeals penalties for industrial action and bans restrictions on the content of workplace agreements.

The Australian has obtained a series of policies and motions to be considered by congress, including union proposals to change Labor's Fair Work bill where it does "not comply with the ACTU's expectations for fair industrial laws".

Its proposed industrial relations policy calls on a second-term Labor government to allow workers to strike in support of pattern bargaining and remove obstacles to "industry-level bargaining".

As part of a broader agenda, unions will also consider campaigning to lift the minimum wage to $600 a week within two years; will push to dramatically extend paid parental leave; and will run a test case to provide paid leave to new mothers for child-bonding.

Unions will call for an end to all future free trade agreements and demand local regional companies be given a 25 per cent price advantage when bidding for government contracts under a revamped Buy Australia campaign.

The union movement will use the agenda mapped out at congress to press the Government to support more pro-union proposals at the ALP national conference in July and August.

Despite gains made during the Government's first term - centered on the winding back of the Howard government workplace laws - many unions want the ALP to take a second wave of workplace changes to voters at the next federal election, describing the push as "unfinished business".

But Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard has told union leaders not to expect another raft of major changes after the Fair Work Bill becomes law on July1.

Strategies to try to rejuvenate union membership levels will dominate the congress, with a proposed national charter looming as a centerpiece of the ACTU's recruitment plans.

Unions will be asked to support a charter of workplace union delegate rights the ACTU will seek to have enshrined in law and included in workplace agreements.

Under the charter, union delegates would have the right to reasonable paid time off to participate in the operation of a union, and to attend union education.

Delegates would have the right to paid time during normal working hours to consult with union members; represent the interests of members to an employer and industrial tribunals; and the right

to "reasonable information" about a business.

Delegates would also have reasonable access to telephone, facsimile, photocopying, email and internet facilities to carry out union business, and the right to take reasonable leave to work with the union.

According to the policy, union delegates must receive recognition for the key role they play. "These rights should not have to be bargained," it says. "They should be universally accepted rights in a decent society."

The charter was a "guide for fair standards for all union delegates and will be pursued by unions for inclusion in collective bargaining agreements, award entitlements and in Australian law as rights for endorsed workplace union delegates".

"These rights are basic and fair," it says. "Union delegates are entitled to know their role is recognised and respected. Unions will campaign to build these rights over time into workplaces across the country."

At the congress, left-wing unions will put forward a series of radical positions, including a government-funded infrastructure bank and increased limits on skilled immigration.

In a document to be distributed next week at the congress, the unions have created a single position called "A union response to the GFC", which calls for a major overhaul of government positions in light of the collapse of the financial system.

The combined position calls for a change to the Fair Work bill in areas such as right of entry, prohibitions on pattern bargaining and "excessive penalties against workers and trade unions" as a priority, and the removal of the mandatory 24-hour notice for accredited union officials to enter workplaces.

They also call for the establishment of a new financial institution - "the National Infrastructure Development Corporation" - which would act as a government-owned investment bank for infrastructure, with a commonwealth guarantee and an appropriate amount of seed capital, to leverage "deals that better protect the public interest". The corporation will also seek money from superannuation funds and private capital. They will push for the abolition of all potential free trade agreements, and that all major trade agreements contemplated by Australia, bilateral and multilateral, to be independently assessed to ensure they not only support "but strengthen international standards on the environment, labour rights as set by the ILO, human rights; and sustainable development and environmental protection for all regions of Australia".

They also want tight controls over companies that win Government contracts so that they fulfil the ACTU's Infrastructure Expenditure Principles which emphasise the apprentice/trainee ratios, local content (supplies and equipment), local labour (limits to 457 visa and other guest workers). and consultative workplace relations. And the left wing unions want the Rudd Government to redirect all current Government subsidies to the private health sector ($4.8 billion in 2007-08) to public hospitals.'
____________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________

Couple this with Labor's (Union) new industrial relations laws, the Emisions Trading Scheme, Climate Change legislation and the Global Financial Crisis and employment, jobs, manufacturing industries will continue to increasingly flee overseas.

One continues to be surprised that the Neanderthals have learnt little over the years.

DK

[lowerlobe]

DK...

Let me see if I understand you and other supporters of the ousted John Howard.....

Labour is run by the unions and a vote for Labour is a vote for the unions.....

An article in the Australian comes out saying that the unions are not happy with the Labour governments policies....

So in effect the unions don't run or dictate policy of the Labour government because they disagreed with the Liberal Party as well....so the unions do whatever they want whoever is in government.

Which one is it or do you guys want to keep going with more senseless rubbish.

[parabellum]

No Lowerlobe, it isn't "senseless rubbish", as you suggest.

The ALP said one thing in opposition and in particular during the run up to the last election but now that they are in power they are not keeping their word to the unions, hence, unions pissed off. very simple really.

[lowerlobe]

parabellum....

The strange part about politics is that both parties will tell you without blinking that the other aprty are a bunch of thieves and misfits...

If Howard or Costello or whoever is the leader of the Liberal party had a certain plan and by sheer chance the Labour party came out with the same concept the Libs would tell everyone that the plan was the worst thing for Australia even though they think it's the best...

Howard supporters were spitting the dummy and posting comments like yours 2 minutes after it was realised that Howard was going to lose.It does not matter how good Rudd is or the Labour party government does you and others would still be posting senseless rubbish.

Whatever party is in opposition will tell you that the government does not know what it is doing....you will always disagree with what Rudd does so there is no point in any continuation of this thread....

Between politics and religion there will never be agreement....

[Dark Knight]

lowerlobe

If you continue to talk of individuals with their supposed success or failings there will, of course, never be agreement.

However,results are what count.

Are you saying that St Kevin & Labor are doing a great job and providing for the future of this country?

DK

[Fliegenmong]

Now here's a queer thing......My mate the traffic controler rang up tonight. He is owed about 7k in wages lost under his 'workchoices' agreement. His bosses called him and all their employees in tonight for a meeting with the Union, and his company urged all the employers to join the union......his company urged all of the workers to join the union.....

He asked me why.....I of course have no friggin idea........

His employer asked him and all of his felllow employees, urged them...to join the Union....AWU.

Their thoughts are that by entering an EBA they can somehow remove themselves from an obligation to re pay all the lost wages incurred during his time on workchoices.......:=

It's really very confusing as to why a company would approach a union and say "We're holding a meeting and we're going to ask all our workforce to join your Union" :confused::confused::confused:

One thing remainds a constant though....a once lifelong Liberal voter will never vote for them again...:=



Oh....and if I find out why a private company would approach workers union and offer them all their workforce for sign up day, I'll let you know :sad:

[Wiley]

Jungle juice, the communism you refer to is the textbook or theoretical version, which anyone would have to say is a wonderful ideal. Unfortunately, it doesn’t allow for human nature and (like its cousin socialism) that rather large slice of society who want something for nothing. Every group of individuals who have practised the Marxist system since Comrades Trosky and Lenin have practised something rather radically different to that ideal.

Without exception, they have brooked no opposition, stolen and/or rigged elections (which was how the Bolsheviks originally came to power, with something like 25% of the popular vote, [as did Adolph Hitler, with about 30% of the vote]) and insisted – at the point of a gun or the secret policeman’s knock on the door at 3:00am – that everyone adhere absolutely to their interpretation of what’s good for ‘the people’ while the inner circle indulges themselves in a life of luxury. (I refer to the revered Chairman Mao and the current North Korean leadership as two prime examples of this trait.)

In practice, the system, with a very few exceptions, soon becomes one of ‘equal misery for all’. The theory’s great, but have you ever actually spoken to someone who has lived under a communist system? I have, and unless they belong to that ‘elect’ (NOT ‘elected’) inner circle, it soon becomes apparent why so many quite literally risked their lives to escape it. How many people – (I admit there were a few – a very, very few) – ‘escaped’ the Western capitalist democracies, with all their admitted faults, to live the life offered by any one of these communist systems?

Someone said earlier in the thread that fascism and communism were arch enemies because they were so different. I would posit that this is not so: I would suggest that they were and are arch enemies because they are so alike, just the two extremes of what is in fact the same system. The fascists are a little less sophisticated about it – they quite openly admit that a small industrial and commercial elite run the show. The communists pretend that ‘the people’ run the show, but in fact, very few of ‘the people’ have any say in anything – and any who try usually find there’s a knock on the door at 3:00am which results in a quick trip to the Gulag or worse.

Now, what this has to do with John Howard speaking up about Work Choices, I’m not really sure – except that ‘fascist’ is the pejorative term beloved of the Left for anyone not enlightened enough to see that their version of society is the one we should all love and follow.

I’ll have to retire from the debate, at least with you, jungle juice, because it’s simply not possible to debate the issue with someone coming from such an utterly different place to me as you are.

[Wiley]

However out of hand he got, he didn't declare war on a group of the citizens he was elected to represent and force over 1000 of them to move overseas, like the silver bodgie did.

[Fliegenmong]

Turnbull = Bowl of rice,bowl of rice, bowl of rice, and so on until next election when the leadership changes again.. and then

HOCKEY/ABBOT/COSTELO/MINCHIN/(WHOEVER FROM THE NICHOLSON INSTITUTE..from here on known as Liberal party) state after AND ONLY AFTER (IF) they won an election....that once again the vast majority face a life time of Bowl of rice bowl of rice, bowl of rice Sunday Liberals spit some sauce in your bowl, for which you should be eternally thankfull that they wasted saliva on you.....then...bowl of rice bowl of rice bowl of rice....

10 hours a day is not enough,,,,now you must work 13 hours a day for a bowl of rice, bowl of rice, bowl of rice....come Sunday Kindly Mr Liberal leader will hack gob of sauce in your bowl...AND YOU SHOULD BE LUCKY!

Come Monday though, 13 hrs bowl of rice, bowl of rice, bowl of rice, can't wait until a liberal party member spits used sauce in my bowl as a Sunday treat!!...until then 13hrs bowl of rice...bowl of rice



You know its true.......If we can't get the local populace to work for a bowl of rice a day, then we'll take our business offshore to those who will....threatening the jobs of the people who won't work for a bowl of rice a day, so leave them unemployed (or try harder to pay them a bowl of rice a day) pay them a bowl of rice a day, ultimately you deprive a society the means to pay for the very goods you're trying to spruik.

But it'll never be your fault......never...if only those serfs agreed to work for a bowl of rice a day..maybe..maybe ..the last bit of their if any expendable income could have been spent on supporting your unsustainable position of raping a populace....

Thank Christ I do not have to depend on a bunch of out of control rampant vampires who disguise their morally corrupt greed under the pretence that if they conducted business any other way everyone would suffer.....

Thankfully we can see beyond it...:8:=:ok:

[lowerlobe]

lowerlobe

If you continue to talk of individuals with their supposed success or failings there will, of course, never be agreement.

However,results are what count.

Are you saying that St Kevin & Labor are doing a great job and providing for the future of this country?

DK
DK....

Why do Howard supporters talk in absolutes and then contradictory terms...

You tell me if I continue to talk about individuals we will never agree....

Then in the same breath you facetiously ask me about an individual?

You wonder why people like me deride Liberal supporters assessment of politics?

[ruprecht]

.....so why the extra 'z' in your name, PAF?

Just asking...

[Acute Instinct]

Hey Frozzo, your hero Johnny induced my parents into selling there blue ribbon belt Bondi home to prop up ther super. $1m tax free or there abouts. My folks have been asking lately whether or not Johnny and his mate George 'W' had touched on the subject of their respective economies being made of false creative accountancy and whether an immenent collapse was inevitable. No, didn't see this crap coming, did they. Duped, like all us liberal voters. Trolls we are.
Damn, wonder what the unemployment queue would look like now, given work choices and human nature of employers to do the right thing. 8 weeks pay and you are on your own. Dogs are greedy around a dinner table. Even after they are fed.
Wish John was back, Geoff too! Screw the workers, who do they think they are! Labour, for the little people, but what about us, we are starving!

[parabellum]

Hey Frozzo, your hero Johnny induced my parents into selling there blue ribbon belt Bondi home to prop up ther super


Very doubtful for a start and was that their only home? Doesn't sound like it.

[jungle juice]

Wiley,
Jungle juice, the communism you refer to is the textbook or theoretical version,
Thats incredible Sherlock,because if you read my first line you would have grasped that
I was talking in an ideological sense.
At no point was I giving communism an indorsement in fact far from it.In reality I was showing the folly of your statement that a left wing fascist was a communist and that you could or do not understand the fundamental difference between the two ideologies.
have you ever actually spoken to someone who has lived under a communist system?
Probably more than you because my wife is Russian and moved here with her parents.Their extended family still live in Russia and I have more experience than most with the utter contradiction and falseness of the communist system.Personally I do not find any real benefits ideologically speaking or otherwise of communism.In fact I find it just as just as self serving and repulsive as I do of far right politics.

However,it is your complete lack of understanding of the term internationalist that shows your ignorance of the ideological difference between fascism and communism.As such this debate is not only an exercise in futility but a waste of time.

[Here to Help]

Funny how so many Australian aviation related threads (which are arguably more related to RPT than GA and Charter) get moved out of Reporting Points and this thread does not get moved to Jet Blast.

[Andu]

jungle juice, first you tell us that "communists are principled internationalists", and then, when your tailplane is shot to ribbons by people pointing out how asinine that comment is, you tell they're "theoretically principled" but in fact, really bad people. If you think you've scored a point with any reader here with your last post, I'd suggest you increase your meds.

[jungle juice]

Andu,

It's not too often we see two philistine's posting on the same page but Wiley and yourself have managed wonderfully.
By showing that not only are both of you unable to understand the basic differences in political ideology you are also unable to mount a successful rebuttal.

[Ovation]

Here to Help wrote:

Funny how so many Australian aviation related threads (which are arguably more related to RPT than GA and Charter) get moved out of Reporting Points and this thread does not get moved to Jet Blast.

Couldn't agree more - I'm speculating our esteemed Moderators' been quarantined with Swine flu since Rudd's spin merchants tapped into PPrune with this one.

Here's a reality check - the words inept, hasty, ill-considered and naive come to mind. The one thing Rudd's government has done really well - manipulate the media with spin and hype. :ugh:


http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff123/OvationGX2/Krudd.jpg

(Adelaide Advertiser 01 June 2009)

[Mr. Hat]

Medicare struggling; Australia headed towards US user-pays system | National News | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25580013-421,00.html)

We pay tax to hand out money to people that don't want a job, to government junkets, to overlapping of state and federal governments and to $900 gift vouchers at liquorland. I don't care which side you bat for but a medical system such as that in the US really is the end. I've lost hope in someone from either side turning up and cleaning out the waste of tax payers money. Rudd looked like he was going to do it but in the end he's just like the rest of them. You'd think in a time like this that radical restructuring would take place. Its not and if its not going to happen now it never will happen.

[Dark Knight]

`Reflecting the Government's determination to stare down the unions at the coming ALP national conference, Mr Ferguson, MP, has fuelled tensions by accusing building unionists of indefensible behaviour.

"I would have thought that in the middle of the global financial crisis our priority is keeping people employed, not changes to the industrial regulatory system," the Resources Minister told The Weekend Australian.

"This Labor Government learned early on that for working families, having a job is far more preferable than being unemployed.'

Hmmmmm? I seem to recall a former Prime Minister name of John Howard PM, stating this - perhaps this Labor are starting to grasp some realities of a real world and maybe, just maybe, Mr Howard well and truly understood what he was stating!

DK

[Arnold E]

Hmmmm, Dark Knight, since it seems you are grasping "some realities of the real world", I would expect that you will go to your employer first thing in the morning and implor him to reduce your salary to a sensible amount given the current economic situation. if you dont do that, then your post has no credibility:ugh:

[Dark Knight]

Arnold E; a rather simplistic, myopic reply The party responsible for introduction of individual awards now introduces legislation returning industrial relations to yesteryear equivalents with the unions wanting to go even further.

Not only does Martin Ferguson, MP, ex ACTU head honcho, condemn the union push but is accompanied in his remarks by Ms Gillard and now Federal Cabinet Minister and former ACTU president Simon Crean has accused unions of pursuing a narrow agenda, bluntly rejecting their push to wind back the powers of the building industry watchdog.

Mr Crean joined Julia Gillard and Martin Ferguson in rejecting the union movement's bid for a second wave of workplace laws.

It appears some in the Labor party do recognise having a job and therefore, an income, is highly preferable to unemployment as former Prime Minister John Howard stated.

Do I presume AE, you disagree with this statement?

It would appear some in the current Labor government recognise some realities rejecting the ACTU's current `Alice in Wonderland' wish list and push for greater union presence throughout the workplace.

Afterall, it was a Labor government which introduced individual contracts resulting in pilots, today, paying for their own manuals, uniforms, employment interviews, aircraft ratings, etc. Some sleeping in their cars or residing in the local caravan park whilst training for a rating in the `hope' of getting a job which will pay a subsistence pittance called a salary.

The current new industrial relation laws are not necessarily going to improve this and certainly not in the short term regardless of the ACTU pie in the sky wish list.

DK

ps>> as a current card carrying union member with a fair bit of experience in more than a few union positions including successful negotiations at the highest level, rule one was never to kill the Golden Goose; couple this with a little common sense, proportion, worldly realities with sound membership support then much can be achieved.

[Here to Help]

Interesting quote from Moderator Tail Wheel in another (new and now closed) thread:
Aviation content = zilch.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/Woomera/Closed-1.gif
__________________
Tail Wheel
Dunnunda Forum Moderator

That thread actually had a little bit to do with aviation (ie about the activities of well known and influential aviator) and only lasted 2hr 17min, whereas this thread has been allowed to continue in DG&P for 169 posts and 10 days with no aviation content.

[Dark Knight]

HtH: read para 7 in above post. (must be an increasing amount of myopia within the aviation community?)

The results of how government handle the economy & industrial relations will have a huge effect on aviation and jobs within the aviation industry.

DK

[Here to Help]

DK, sorry missed that - Correction: Aviation content in para #7, post #169, page #9, Day #10 of the thread. And apologies if I missed any other incidental mentions of aviation that may be scattered sparsely throughout.

My point being, one post gets jumped on almost immediately and closed (not even moved) and another gets left this long. If the OP had some aviation content in their post, or even the immediate replies, then fine, leave it here, but if not then that is what Jet Blast is for.

Sorry for the thread drift.