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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

howard v costello v turnbull
 

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.

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.

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:

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

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

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

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:

.

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)

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.

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

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?
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.

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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