We all believe that the voters got it wrong at times -

Yes we do. I think those times are extremely rare. I’d say 2, maybe 3, times since federation. Voting Fraser back in for the third time, Keating (the biggest mistake in Australian history), and maybe Gorton in 69.

So, since you ask, I think the GST is a regressive form of taxation, so Im not a huge fan

Yes, but what it replaced, the Sales Tax, was even more regressive and a hell of a lot less equitable.

Agree entirely with your description of the Workchoices legislation, though. They must have had a rush of blood to the head when they came up with that.

If the voters weren’t stupid, why would they replace a competent government with an inept opposition? What Abbott doesn’t get, obviously, is that people are assessing the Government on their terms, not his.

I’m not stupid and I vote.

Im not actually an ALP voter, myself, so I must confess I dont find myself in much of a bind here.

So, since you ask, I think the GST is a regressive form of taxation, so Im not a huge fan – but of course its also a revenue stream that can be put to positive, or negative use by governments.

And Workchoices is simply an illiberal, undemocratic, anti-freedom of association, union bashing measure, dressed up as a piece of “economic reform”.

It aint worthy of the title, and voters have seen through it – where they have supported reform agendas in the past, even where they are threatening, they will reject this one and the government that introduced it, without consultation before the last election.

And that, in a nutshell, Tones, is why you lot are on the nose.

Alex on the Bus: “Well he could always drop everything and return to the seminary – there’s always a place for rabid, pro-life, anti-gay ultra-right-wingers in the Catholic clergy.”

Don’t forget “corporal punishment-loving child abuser!”

He was licking his lips a few weeks ago talking about bringing back corporal punishment for bullies.

That’s 10 out of 10 for pedantry, 0 out of 10 for reading comprehension.

You’re right that in classical Greece hubris wasn’t necessarily a religious concept, but my (vague) recollection was that in modern times it was thought to be so (ie. it has been a Western tradition, albeit an inaccurate one, that the Greeks employed the concept of hubris in an exclusively religious way). I’m happy to be corrected on that, though. Your reference to apparently secular Greek tragedy in tandem with a hubris/nemesis dichotomy is confusing and unhelpful because of course Nemesis was the goddess of divine retribution.

Cheers
BBB

“Hubrisâ€? isn’t a religious concept – it’s an old Greek concept and the basis of many a classic Greek tragedy. Hubris challenges nemesis; nemesis stomps hubris; hubris goes gaga. The end.

1. I am more than aware it is a Greek concept. I even italicised the word.

2. Religion and ‘Greek’ are not antithetical. In fact the ancient Greeks were EXTREMELY religious.

3. Hubris does not challenge Nemesis. Nemesis was god who wrought divine retribution on those who committed the sin of hubris.

4. The classic example of hubris was Xerxes’ crossing of the Hellenspot as depicted in Aeschylus’ The Persians. The superb necromancy starring Xerxes’ father, Darius and his mother, Attosa is a meditation on Nemesis’ wreaking her punishment on Xerxes. Bridging the Hellenspont was a transgression of boundaries set by the gods.

The tragedy was a plea to Pericles not to allow his imperialist grandeur to bring Nemesis upon the Athenians.

Question is – what did you do to earn a stomping from nemesis? It’s obvious from your comments that you must have, some time in your dim dark past.

One does not “stomp” on Nemesis as she was a sky god (though not an Olympian).

I reckon Howard could conceivably win this election by coming out and saying: “We hear you loud and clear. We stand by our record: we’ve done x, y and z. But we also recognise that your justifiably high expectations are not being met. So we’ve decided to change.

BBB…don’t you mean mutate…?

how stupid do you think the public is? they barely went w/ this Govt. in past elections…a few swing voters let their isolationist tendencies & desire for a few family-based handouts & fear of ‘the outsider’ & distrust of Men who waffle &/or Men who shake hands in vice-like fashion, override their common-sense. Consequently they’ll pay thru the nose for yonks for all & sundry but for the ‘cheap & longevity allergic’ goods that line our SUPER market shelves.

Mr. “who do you trust?” looks like an early morning TV, shonky motivational speaker these days…offering fools gold & visions of a silk-tied future that leads to ’sturm und drang’ for the indebted many.

Rudd’s the GO.

Man for all seasons who can peruse the books, cut the waste, manage the Future…w/out resorting to the excesses of Mad Monks & Media Moguls.

John Howard has led the Commonwealth Government.

That does not make him the leader of the nation, North Korea style.

Abbott, by the way, sounds like a man who is resigned to his fate, which if the opinion polls are reflected on actual votes, is not just losing his ministerial big white car, but losing his seat.

But we also recognise that your justifiably high expectations are not being met. So we’ve decided to change. We’re going to take this once-in-a-generation resources boom opportunity and kick-start a new round of nation-building. This includes short-term spending (on a range of things), but also huge new perpetual funds for schools, hospitals, first-home buyers assistance, etc.

Hear! Hear! I’d vote for any party that’d lay it out that clearly.

“Hubris” isn’t a religious concept – it’s an old Greek concept and the basis of many a classic Greek tragedy. Hubris challenges nemesis; nemesis stomps hubris; hubris goes gaga. The end.

Question is – what did you do to earn a stomping from nemesis? It’s obvious from your comments that you must have, some time in your dim dark past.

Sure they were important. But importance is not really the issue. Desirability is the main game. Are you saying all of the desirable microeconomic reforms were already done by 1996? Doesn’t that strike you as implausible, given the principles underpinning those reforms remain the same but have not yet been fully extended across our economy/society?

Back OT: While disclosing a degree of disconnection with reality, I don’t think these comments reflect a contempt for democracy that you suggest. It’s more exasperation and his own apparent refusal to fully embrace the idea (which he must surely believe deep down) that the only way you can win the hearts and minds of an affluent electorate is to spend big on the high-visibility touchstones of education, health, housing etc.]

I reckon Howard could conceivably win this election by coming out and saying: “We hear you loud and clear. We stand by our record: we’ve done x, y and z. But we also recognise that your justifiably high expectations are not being met. So we’ve decided to change. We’re going to take this once-in-a-generation resources boom opportunity and kick-start a new round of nation-building. This includes short-term spending (on a range of things), but also huge new perpetual funds for schools, hospitals, first-home buyers assistance, etc. – all of them modelled on the Future Fund/HEEF and all of them to provide for our children and our children’s children. By the way, you cannot trust the ALP to get things right, interest rates will be higher, blah blah blah.” Now to me that is somewhat frightening language, and to some degree dishonest, but it might just work. The peripheral issues like Iraq, indigenous health, terror legislation, etc. can be overcome if Howard chooses to storm the ALP’s traditional strongholds. Sure they are ALP strengths, but Howard can trump them with overall strength of incumbency. It would be important to explicitly say that the change in approach is because of the polls. It’s OK to be poll-driven if you believe the polls accurately reflect a considered negative electoral view of the Government’s performance (which it is, in my view – the punters are generally on top of things). More than ever, Abbott and his Coalition colleagues must free themselves from hubris. In view of the last few months’ events, and these recent raido comments, it may be that they are incapable of achieving that.

Now the next question is can all of that fix the electoral train-wreck that is WorkChoices? Sounds hard to me, particularly with the devastating Rudd/Gillard IR rhetoric machine in full swing (while Gillard is a seriously dangerous person, she is also a seriously good political performer – she is the best interviewee amongst both the ALP and Coalition). The end-game may be Howard jettisoning even WorkChoices from the Coalition platform. It sounds implausible, but Howard is generally not a conviction politician.

Sorry for the stream of consciousness – I’ve just realised how long that was!

Cheers
BBB

I am surprised you are so excited by the Hawke/Keating economic reforms. My father reliably informs me that Labor’s base hated Keating for these reforms you now cheer.
After all, Keating’s main political strength was being able to kick heads to bring Thatcherism to Australia.

I wonder what you thought of the GST? A GST was always Keating’s holy grail.