Anyone who’s been watching commercial tv recently would have noticed lots and lots of ads for Kevin Rudd’s National Health and Hospitals Network. Although they come in the guise of information, they strongly mirror the Prime Minister’s rhetoric. Now we’ve got acres of newsprint devoted to the Resources Super Profits Tax, supposedly justified by the national interest.
There is only one way to assess this – it’s brazen political hypocrisy. Rudd’s defenders may (rightly, in my view) argue that the misinformation and lies of the mining industry need countering. But the way to do that is by winning the political argument, and if an advertising campaign is necessary, it should be the ALP who is paying for it. Just as the Coalition is no doubt wallowing in mining industry donations, so too could the Labor party source donations from the superannuation industry, who stand to benefit big time from the RSPT.
The irony is that the government was just getting some traction in the RSPT fight, but now the focus is back on its own tactics.
As Possum observes, parsing the latest Essential Research poll, it’s no great wonder that we seem to be disgusted with both the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader.
This is just another example of the ALP being NO different from the Liberals, despite the assertions of some on this board. Both lie, both change the rules when it suits, both abuse taxpayers’ money and treat the public like fools. The ALP is really demonstrating that anything it says – from ETS to stopping abuse of taxpayer funded advertising cannot be believed. Abbott may admit he does not always tell the truth. The ALP puts these words into actions and balatantly treats us with contmept.
I support the tax on the mining industry but as I have said before, I will be putting the ALP last. They lie to us, betray us and betray the unions and then expect us to re-elect them. The ALP and Liberals are different factions of the same party and both are horrific wasters and abusers of taxpayers’ money.
This is just another example of the ALP being NO different from the Liberals, despite the assertions of some on this board. Both lie, both change the rules when it suits, both abuse taxpayers’ money and treat the public like fools. The ALP is really demonstrating that anything it says – from ETS to stopping abuse of taxpayer funded advertising cannot be believed. Abbott may admit he does not always tell the truth. The ALP puts these words into actions and balatantly treats us with contmept.
I support the tax on the mining industry but as I have said before, I will be putting the ALP last. They lie to us, betray us and betray the unions and then expect us to re-elect them. The ALP and Liberals are different factions of the same party and both are horrific wasters and abusers of taxpayers’ money.
Others have pointed out to me in other threads (and they are right) that the ALP have the odds stacked against them with a biased and hostile media and mining interests with deep pockets and master spinners. (Indeed who can fail to note how the mining companies and the opposition have successfully changed the glossary of the debate so that instead of taxes on mining companies we talk about taxes on ‘miners’.)
The issue is the idealistic and naive (like myself) somehow expect the ALP to prevail against this without becoming what they hate.
I can see the points of some of the others who have opposed my views in other threads but…I think this is going to result in a kicking for Rudd. Unlike Howard he has more to live up to.
Others have pointed out to me in other threads (and they are right) that the ALP have the odds stacked against them with a biased and hostile media and mining interests with deep pockets and master spinners. (Indeed who can fail to note how the mining companies and the opposition have successfully changed the glossary of the debate so that instead of taxes on mining companies we talk about taxes on ‘miners’.)
The issue is the idealistic and naive (like myself) somehow expect the ALP to prevail against this without becoming what they hate.
I can see the points of some of the others who have opposed my views in other threads but…I think this is going to result in a kicking for Rudd. Unlike Howard he has more to live up to.
This sounds like pure speculation to me, Kim, If you could substantiate the claim that the superannuation industry is ready and willing to pony up the cash to counter the mining industry campaign, you might have an argument. But where’s the evidence that industry is willing to lob $50 million or more at the ALP? That sounds pretty implausible to me.
Nope, hypocritical it may be, but the ALP has no option but to use its escape clause on this issue.
To me, promising to cut government advertising is one of those dumb promises that oppositions always make (another one is the promise to ‘cut public sector waste’) which they then realise are totally impractical once they get into office, so they end up having to drop the promise and look like total hypocrites. You’d think they’d learn, but they don’t. I note that the mad monk has made both promises recently.
This sounds like pure speculation to me, Kim, If you could substantiate the claim that the superannuation industry is ready and willing to pony up the cash to counter the mining industry campaign, you might have an argument. But where’s the evidence that industry is willing to lob $50 million or more at the ALP? That sounds pretty implausible to me.
Nope, hypocritical it may be, but the ALP has no option but to use its escape clause on this issue.
To me, promising to cut government advertising is one of those dumb promises that oppositions always make (another one is the promise to ‘cut public sector waste’) which they then realise are totally impractical once they get into office, so they end up having to drop the promise and look like total hypocrites. You’d think they’d learn, but they don’t. I note that the mad monk has made both promises recently.
They benefit? How?
They benefit? How?
This is worse than a crime – its an error. Like Howard’s Workchoice ads, Rudd is very likely to have a net LOSS of votes from this.
When Rudd was elected I hoped for better but deep in my heart expected Rudd to be a reincarnation of John Howard. But unlike Howard he’s not even a competent Machiavellian.
This is worse than a crime – its an error. Like Howard’s Workchoice ads, Rudd is very likely to have a net LOSS of votes from this.
When Rudd was elected I hoped for better but deep in my heart expected Rudd to be a reincarnation of John Howard. But unlike Howard he’s not even a competent Machiavellian.
The opposition is controlling the moral high ground with their jibes about another broken election promise.
Honestly KRudd can’t take a trick, the Coalition controls the Senate – hence no ETS, will the opposition block the legislation to implement the RSPT tax? The media are hostile, Howard’s stacking the ABC Board has finally paid off as editorial policy veers to the Right.
KRudd’s failure to fire all top public servants upon assuming office has seen the continuation of evil, iniquitous policies that contributed to Howard’s electoral losses.
The opposition is controlling the moral high ground with their jibes about another broken election promise.
Honestly KRudd can’t take a trick, the Coalition controls the Senate – hence no ETS, will the opposition block the legislation to implement the RSPT tax? The media are hostile, Howard’s stacking the ABC Board has finally paid off as editorial policy veers to the Right.
KRudd’s failure to fire all top public servants upon assuming office has seen the continuation of evil, iniquitous policies that contributed to Howard’s electoral losses.
Frankly, I haven’t noticed that the government has been winning the political battle on the RSPT and with the mining companies spending hundreds of millions of dollars disseminating Abbott’s and their lies and obfuscations with the active participation of the media and the opposition, I think it’s pretty naive to say that the government shouldn’t do anything to get its point across.
And as others have pointed out, the mining companies will no doubt be claiming a big fat tax deduction for their ad campaign against the RSPT, which means that the taxpayers are subsidising their campaign, very likely for a much greater sum than the government’s ads.
I take it that you are more than happy to subsidise mining companies, Spana? No abuse of taxpayers money, treating the public like fools or hypocrisy there, apparently.
I do think the government’s ads should also make people aware of how much better off they will be under the government’s proposed tax regime and how much out of pocket they’ll be with the Smuggles Solution. A spot of SerfChoices should make up part of their campaign.
Frankly, I haven’t noticed that the government has been winning the political battle on the RSPT and with the mining companies spending hundreds of millions of dollars disseminating Abbott’s and their lies and obfuscations with the active participation of the media and the opposition, I think it’s pretty naive to say that the government shouldn’t do anything to get its point across.
And as others have pointed out, the mining companies will no doubt be claiming a big fat tax deduction for their ad campaign against the RSPT, which means that the taxpayers are subsidising their campaign, very likely for a much greater sum than the government’s ads.
I take it that you are more than happy to subsidise mining companies, Spana? No abuse of taxpayers money, treating the public like fools or hypocrisy there, apparently.
I do think the government’s ads should also make people aware of how much better off they will be under the government’s proposed tax regime and how much out of pocket they’ll be with the Smuggles Solution. A spot of SerfChoices should make up part of their campaign.
DD, the voters hated the Workchoices policy, not the ads.
DD, the voters hated the Workchoices policy, not the ads.
“This is worse than a crime – its an error.”
Nicely put.
“This is worse than a crime – its an error.”
Nicely put.
If only more governments had been more willing to counter the kinds of lies and spin that Big Mining and Big Tobacco have been casting about on a variety of issues over the last 10 or 20 years, the world would be a better (and possibly a cooler) place. Whether you agree with the RSPT, it’s for the good of the Australian polity that the corporations receive a head-kicking over this, and if the media are going to suck up their lies then who else is going to step forward and deliver that kicking?
Also the rhetoric comparing the mining companies to the unions, and the RSPT to workchoices, is a bit superficial. The unions were representing working people, whether members of a union (and thus paying dues) or not, and the political affiliation of the unions to the opposition of the day was well understood. The mining companies represent themselves and their own interests, and their political affiliation is ostensibly neutral. They essentially represent a private, rather than a community, agent pouring money that no community agent has into a debate that they have no selfless motive for being involved in.
I agree it could be bad politics for Rudd, but those bastards deserve a good kicking and I hope they get it.
If only more governments had been more willing to counter the kinds of lies and spin that Big Mining and Big Tobacco have been casting about on a variety of issues over the last 10 or 20 years, the world would be a better (and possibly a cooler) place. Whether you agree with the RSPT, it’s for the good of the Australian polity that the corporations receive a head-kicking over this, and if the media are going to suck up their lies then who else is going to step forward and deliver that kicking?
Also the rhetoric comparing the mining companies to the unions, and the RSPT to workchoices, is a bit superficial. The unions were representing working people, whether members of a union (and thus paying dues) or not, and the political affiliation of the unions to the opposition of the day was well understood. The mining companies represent themselves and their own interests, and their political affiliation is ostensibly neutral. They essentially represent a private, rather than a community, agent pouring money that no community agent has into a debate that they have no selfless motive for being involved in.
I agree it could be bad politics for Rudd, but those bastards deserve a good kicking and I hope they get it.
Steve,
The super industry is supposed to benefit from the higher contributions that will be phased in over the next few years. I am not sure how the RSPT is meant to do this, as the link is nebulous at best. Supposedly it is through higher RSPT -> lower corporate taxes, which is then meant to counter some of the effects of the higher super.
The simple fact that the higher taxes on the area that has contributed a lot to the growth in our super may well serve to counteract the effects of this is evidently neither here nor there.
The super industry may be helped (by the larger pool of funds) but it is doubtful that the returns to those additional funds (i.e. the increase in our super) will be helped.
Kim is right, though – this is political hypocrisy of a tall order, particularly given all the nonsense Rudd spouted before the election about ending this stuff by legislation. Just chalk it up to yet another instance of him failing any sort of challenge.
What’s the betting his next tactic in this battle to win the argument will be to reverse course and claim a victory?
Steve,
The super industry is supposed to benefit from the higher contributions that will be phased in over the next few years. I am not sure how the RSPT is meant to do this, as the link is nebulous at best. Supposedly it is through higher RSPT -> lower corporate taxes, which is then meant to counter some of the effects of the higher super.
The simple fact that the higher taxes on the area that has contributed a lot to the growth in our super may well serve to counteract the effects of this is evidently neither here nor there.
The super industry may be helped (by the larger pool of funds) but it is doubtful that the returns to those additional funds (i.e. the increase in our super) will be helped.
Kim is right, though – this is political hypocrisy of a tall order, particularly given all the nonsense Rudd spouted before the election about ending this stuff by legislation. Just chalk it up to yet another instance of him failing any sort of challenge.
What’s the betting his next tactic in this battle to win the argument will be to reverse course and claim a victory?
In the thread on spin below I have cited the exact words Rudd spoke that are curently being taken out of context by the media and commentators.
Here is the link:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2054855.htm
You check the original transcript rather than trust soundbites and paraphrases.
Note that the promise by Rudd to have some semblace of accountability and a buffer [albeit imperfect perhaps] group between govt.propaganda and public interest has been adhered to and set up,as promised, for the first time.
For the first time.
Note also that the current govt’s spending on advertising has been far far less than that of the COALition.
To accuse the current govt. of hypocrisy is to ignore these 2 significant facts.
No promise has been broken.
In the thread on spin below I have cited the exact words Rudd spoke that are curently being taken out of context by the media and commentators.
Here is the link:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2054855.htm
You check the original transcript rather than trust soundbites and paraphrases.
Note that the promise by Rudd to have some semblace of accountability and a buffer [albeit imperfect perhaps] group between govt.propaganda and public interest has been adhered to and set up,as promised, for the first time.
For the first time.
Note also that the current govt’s spending on advertising has been far far less than that of the COALition.
To accuse the current govt. of hypocrisy is to ignore these 2 significant facts.
No promise has been broken.
I’m not sure that I like this rhetorical trick where Rudd confronts a reasonably unexpected challenge and then is accused of a backflip or cowardice when he doesn’t confront it in a head on and politically reckless way; but then when he does, subsequently, do just that, he’s a hypocrite and a cheating bastard. Man can’t win.
Am I supposed to seriously believe that if he just gave up on the RSPT without a fight, the various people adhering to this silly line would somehow not accuse him of being weak, standing for nothing etc.?
And does anyone have any better ideas about how to stick it to these arseholes?
I’m not sure that I like this rhetorical trick where Rudd confronts a reasonably unexpected challenge and then is accused of a backflip or cowardice when he doesn’t confront it in a head on and politically reckless way; but then when he does, subsequently, do just that, he’s a hypocrite and a cheating bastard. Man can’t win.
Am I supposed to seriously believe that if he just gave up on the RSPT without a fight, the various people adhering to this silly line would somehow not accuse him of being weak, standing for nothing etc.?
And does anyone have any better ideas about how to stick it to these arseholes?
Personally SG … as I’ve said above, I rather doubt that in practice the kind of ad campaign they are going to run will make much difference. Peiople will largely decide this on the basis of their broader values. If they are left-of-centre, they will believe extractive industry should pay more, and if they are right of centre, they won’t.
Nor IMO is it likely that whatever one makes of this, that significant numbers living in marginal seats will vote against the ALP significantly on this basis.The old standards — the economy/handling of the GFC, jobs, IR, maybe health and so forth will determine the vast majority of the uncommitteds.
Of course this is supposed to be “public information” and on that basis, it is justifiable. Allowing extractive industry to lie unchallenged in public when the media is on their side isn’t a good look.
Then again, a YouTube-based campaign by the ALP, some psoteers and rallies … that sort of thing … is at least as likely to shape the issues in terms the government would be comfortable with and would cost a fraction to run.
Personally SG … as I’ve said above, I rather doubt that in practice the kind of ad campaign they are going to run will make much difference. Peiople will largely decide this on the basis of their broader values. If they are left-of-centre, they will believe extractive industry should pay more, and if they are right of centre, they won’t.
Nor IMO is it likely that whatever one makes of this, that significant numbers living in marginal seats will vote against the ALP significantly on this basis.The old standards — the economy/handling of the GFC, jobs, IR, maybe health and so forth will determine the vast majority of the uncommitteds.
Of course this is supposed to be “public information” and on that basis, it is justifiable. Allowing extractive industry to lie unchallenged in public when the media is on their side isn’t a good look.
Then again, a YouTube-based campaign by the ALP, some psoteers and rallies … that sort of thing … is at least as likely to shape the issues in terms the government would be comfortable with and would cost a fraction to run.
Disagree Kim. Abbott and his rotten ilk/paymasters in the mining industry do not play by the Marquess of Queensbury rules. We might well hold our noses at the hypocrisy of policy espoused by Rudd at the last election campaign on political advertising, but when it comes to the LNP lies, hypocrisy and cant (requiring a frontal lobotomy to cope with the stench of that) Rudd’s backsliding should be put into the perspective of deciding who the hell runs this country, the duly elected government or the fatcats in the mining industries?
If I was Swan, I’d be passing an unofficial message, “now for that attack you fecking shits are gonna pay another 2% AND we’ll be passing a bill to make your advertising against us non deductable.”
When one is dealing with guttersnipes, one sometimes has to get down in the gutter to deal with them.
I hope that the Rudd government kicks (metaphorically speaking) the living shit out of them!
All’s fair in love and war, right?
Disagree Kim. Abbott and his rotten ilk/paymasters in the mining industry do not play by the Marquess of Queensbury rules. We might well hold our noses at the hypocrisy of policy espoused by Rudd at the last election campaign on political advertising, but when it comes to the LNP lies, hypocrisy and cant (requiring a frontal lobotomy to cope with the stench of that) Rudd’s backsliding should be put into the perspective of deciding who the hell runs this country, the duly elected government or the fatcats in the mining industries?
If I was Swan, I’d be passing an unofficial message, “now for that attack you fecking shits are gonna pay another 2% AND we’ll be passing a bill to make your advertising against us non deductable.”
When one is dealing with guttersnipes, one sometimes has to get down in the gutter to deal with them.
I hope that the Rudd government kicks (metaphorically speaking) the living shit out of them!
All’s fair in love and war, right?
I would love to see the advertising declared non tax-deductible. Hahaha. I suppose though, since they only pay 13% tax the government will only be funding, what, 26 million of it…
I would love to see the advertising declared non tax-deductible. Hahaha. I suppose though, since they only pay 13% tax the government will only be funding, what, 26 million of it…
I agree … let it be the case that unless the advertsising passes muster as
a) not likely to mislead — and recent cases on telstra advertising set a precedent here
AND
b) is connected with securing more custom/better custom
the advertising is not a deductible expense. I’d also make donations in cash or kind to industry bodies or non-registered charities non-deductible.
I agree … let it be the case that unless the advertsising passes muster as
a) not likely to mislead — and recent cases on telstra advertising set a precedent here
AND
b) is connected with securing more custom/better custom
the advertising is not a deductible expense. I’d also make donations in cash or kind to industry bodies or non-registered charities non-deductible.
I suspect the government is prepared to cop a bit of flak over the RSPT advertising campaign if it means keeping the mining tax issue at the forefront of the debate.
I reckon the government is on a winner here. They can appeal to popular sentiment by claiming that the mining industry ‘owe us’ and paint the opposition as being beholden to the likes of Clive Palmer and his mates in the mining industry.
I suspect the government is prepared to cop a bit of flak over the RSPT advertising campaign if it means keeping the mining tax issue at the forefront of the debate.
I reckon the government is on a winner here. They can appeal to popular sentiment by claiming that the mining industry ‘owe us’ and paint the opposition as being beholden to the likes of Clive Palmer and his mates in the mining industry.
hannah’s dad,
Sheer, unadulterated, bollocks. Rudd promised (also in the one you linked to) that the auditor general (not anyone other than the auditor general) would have the final say on advertising.
From your link
From elsewhere
If the auditor general has not signed off on this then a promise has been broken. My advice would be that if you want to maintain credibility you will not go down that path again.
hannah’s dad,
Sheer, unadulterated, bollocks. Rudd promised (also in the one you linked to) that the auditor general (not anyone other than the auditor general) would have the final say on advertising.
From your link
From elsewhere
If the auditor general has not signed off on this then a promise has been broken. My advice would be that if you want to maintain credibility you will not go down that path again.
“I rather doubt that in practice the kind of ad campaign they are going to run will make much difference. People will largely decide this on the basis of their broader values.”
Similarly Fran, a mining state like W.A. will always be easier for the mining companies to scare – still, doesn’t help ALP marginals in W.A.
“I rather doubt that in practice the kind of ad campaign they are going to run will make much difference. People will largely decide this on the basis of their broader values.”
Similarly Fran, a mining state like W.A. will always be easier for the mining companies to scare – still, doesn’t help ALP marginals in W.A.
‘Attaboy PK get down and dirty. I was going to use a sporting analogy…bring out the mongrel in you KRudd which if he was a NS Welshman would be appropriate in view of them losing the first State of Origin. Just not desparate enough which is a fair description of just how important the RSPT is to this government.
It’s also a fair question to ask Abbott that if Labor were to succeed with an RSPT would a future Coalition government repeal it? Absolutely not.
But the assumption in all this is that an RSPT would not get through the Senate. So Rudd/Swann must up the ante and get some suitable agreement with the mining industry asap and if bleeding them, threatening them (diesel rebate, tax deductibility of advertising, company tax etc) is necessary then do it. Kev could be Rex Connor reincarnated, but at least he hasn’t hidden his dealings to date, as unfortunate as they are to us purists.
‘Attaboy PK get down and dirty. I was going to use a sporting analogy…bring out the mongrel in you KRudd which if he was a NS Welshman would be appropriate in view of them losing the first State of Origin. Just not desparate enough which is a fair description of just how important the RSPT is to this government.
It’s also a fair question to ask Abbott that if Labor were to succeed with an RSPT would a future Coalition government repeal it? Absolutely not.
But the assumption in all this is that an RSPT would not get through the Senate. So Rudd/Swann must up the ante and get some suitable agreement with the mining industry asap and if bleeding them, threatening them (diesel rebate, tax deductibility of advertising, company tax etc) is necessary then do it. Kev could be Rex Connor reincarnated, but at least he hasn’t hidden his dealings to date, as unfortunate as they are to us purists.
Andrew Reynolds at 19:: My understanding is that the change from the Auditor-General to an indpendent committee was made because of some perceived problems about the Auditor-General doing it. My understanding also is that the Coalition Senators voted for the change. If this is so, then I think you would be well advised to stop nitpicking because the Parliament has changed the situation since Rudd gave that interview.
Andrew Reynolds at 19:: My understanding is that the change from the Auditor-General to an indpendent committee was made because of some perceived problems about the Auditor-General doing it. My understanding also is that the Coalition Senators voted for the change. If this is so, then I think you would be well advised to stop nitpicking because the Parliament has changed the situation since Rudd gave that interview.
John 22 is right about the change in vetting arrangements. Of course that the independent committee not the Auditor General has been by-passed doesn’t alter anything of substance.
But this issue really is one for political junkies. It’s already gone from the tabloid media. The big issue is the tax itself.
John 22 is right about the change in vetting arrangements. Of course that the independent committee not the Auditor General has been by-passed doesn’t alter anything of substance.
But this issue really is one for political junkies. It’s already gone from the tabloid media. The big issue is the tax itself.
I agree 100%.
I agree 100%.
Yes, well I disagree 100%. If you or anyone else is prepared to pay for your principles on such a matter with the election of an Abbott government, then good on you. I hope it makes you feel better.
Yes, well I disagree 100%. If you or anyone else is prepared to pay for your principles on such a matter with the election of an Abbott government, then good on you. I hope it makes you feel better.
JohnL,
So… because the Coalition agreed to it then it is OK, is it?
JohnL,
So… because the Coalition agreed to it then it is OK, is it?
The principles are pretty second-order too. Govt advertising is not exactly the moral challenge of our era.
The principles are pretty second-order too. Govt advertising is not exactly the moral challenge of our era.
Hannah’s Dad @ 12
I am obliged to you for the link.
To me the whole concept that a government cannot advertise its policies is bizarre.
In representative government if we don’t like the policy and we don’t accept the advertising, the government can be tipped out at the next election.
We are entitled to the information, and entitled to punish a government if we think it is misinformation.
However, in order to make that judgement, we need to hear all sides of the argument.
For a government of any colour to withhold information so as not to spend money on advertising is just plain wrong.
So, let’s hear the government pov. If we agree with it, then we vote them back (Remembering that T Abbott said this was the issue at the next election), if we don’t we vote them out.
How simple is that?
(And I am relieved, thanks to Hannah’s Dad’s link, that the ALP were not so soft in the head as to actually promise not to so advertise).
Hannah’s Dad @ 12
I am obliged to you for the link.
To me the whole concept that a government cannot advertise its policies is bizarre.
In representative government if we don’t like the policy and we don’t accept the advertising, the government can be tipped out at the next election.
We are entitled to the information, and entitled to punish a government if we think it is misinformation.
However, in order to make that judgement, we need to hear all sides of the argument.
For a government of any colour to withhold information so as not to spend money on advertising is just plain wrong.
So, let’s hear the government pov. If we agree with it, then we vote them back (Remembering that T Abbott said this was the issue at the next election), if we don’t we vote them out.
How simple is that?
(And I am relieved, thanks to Hannah’s Dad’s link, that the ALP were not so soft in the head as to actually promise not to so advertise).
No, sg, it’s not. But then, Rudd squibbed on that, too.
I should add to my previous comment above – Sam is right. Whoever was bypassed is not exactly the point. This one did not even go through whatever panel the two major parties agreed to have it go through. It is hardly a promise that has been kept.
No, sg, it’s not. But then, Rudd squibbed on that, too.
I should add to my previous comment above – Sam is right. Whoever was bypassed is not exactly the point. This one did not even go through whatever panel the two major parties agreed to have it go through. It is hardly a promise that has been kept.
Vote for Abbott then. I’m sure you will end up with a much more princilede government.
Kevin Andrews anyone?
Vote for Abbott then. I’m sure you will end up with a much more princilede government.
Kevin Andrews anyone?
I couldn’t agree less with you Kim. This attempt to redistribute the profits made from mining our resources is the first sign of a social democrat policy from this government. I’ll back them on this regardless. In fact, on the basis of this policy and this advertising campaign alone, I’ll vote ALP 1 in the lower and upper house come the election. Expecting the ALP to fund the advertising is asking the unions to pay for it and after the sort of middle class welfare that characterised Howard’s years (not even mentioning the massive handout to his brother) then I don’t give a stuff that the public purse is being used to actually counter capital’s economic authority.
I couldn’t agree less with you Kim. This attempt to redistribute the profits made from mining our resources is the first sign of a social democrat policy from this government. I’ll back them on this regardless. In fact, on the basis of this policy and this advertising campaign alone, I’ll vote ALP 1 in the lower and upper house come the election. Expecting the ALP to fund the advertising is asking the unions to pay for it and after the sort of middle class welfare that characterised Howard’s years (not even mentioning the massive handout to his brother) then I don’t give a stuff that the public purse is being used to actually counter capital’s economic authority.
It’s nice to occupy the high moral ground for a while, but I kind of like getting down and dirty. It’s arguably more satisfying and certainly more fun.
Stuff it. I’m with the Prime Minister on this.
It’s nice to occupy the high moral ground for a while, but I kind of like getting down and dirty. It’s arguably more satisfying and certainly more fun.
Stuff it. I’m with the Prime Minister on this.
The next election presents an interesting choice: do we want to re-elect Howard-lite or take a chance on Santamaria-lite?
The next election presents an interesting choice: do we want to re-elect Howard-lite or take a chance on Santamaria-lite?
Insofar as this thread is indicative, Rudd has managed the wedge his own base.
Insofar as this thread is indicative, Rudd has managed the wedge his own base.
The real problem, in all this money wasted by the various sides in these continuing advertising wars, is that it becomes a direct grant for pernicious commercial media interests.
They feed by goading, stirring and inventing. The forth estate has ceased to be peoples guardian and become one of it’s chief spongers.
The real problem, in all this money wasted by the various sides in these continuing advertising wars, is that it becomes a direct grant for pernicious commercial media interests.
They feed by goading, stirring and inventing. The forth estate has ceased to be peoples guardian and become one of it’s chief spongers.
“So… because the Coalition agreed to it then it is OK, is it?”
Yep, pretty much, Andrew, looking at the comments. The issue appears to centre on the fact that the ALP is doing it in this instance – ergo, it’s entirely justified for Rudd to break the promise he made earlier about not doing it. And thank god for the blogocracy for bringing it to us! You wouldn’t get that sort of refreshing balance in the jaded, partisan perspectives of Old Media…….
“So… because the Coalition agreed to it then it is OK, is it?”
Yep, pretty much, Andrew, looking at the comments. The issue appears to centre on the fact that the ALP is doing it in this instance – ergo, it’s entirely justified for Rudd to break the promise he made earlier about not doing it. And thank god for the blogocracy for bringing it to us! You wouldn’t get that sort of refreshing balance in the jaded, partisan perspectives of Old Media…….
The “Health Policy” ad I saw last night was unmitigated, content-free waffle, with a fake “diagram” seemingly inserted to lend credibility.
The “Health Policy” ad I saw last night was unmitigated, content-free waffle, with a fake “diagram” seemingly inserted to lend credibility.
I’d be interested, just from a historical perspective, to see which side of politics introduced the workchoices adverts first. I seem to recall it was the unions, but I think by then there was a general narrative that Howard was saturating the airwaves with party political broadcasting masquerading as “information,” and the unions were late to join in a general politicisation of the airwaves.
I also assume that the content-free waffle Ambigulous saw was approved by the special Advertising Starr Panel? In which case, Rudd is clearly already an improvement on the Howard era.
I’d be interested, just from a historical perspective, to see which side of politics introduced the workchoices adverts first. I seem to recall it was the unions, but I think by then there was a general narrative that Howard was saturating the airwaves with party political broadcasting masquerading as “information,” and the unions were late to join in a general politicisation of the airwaves.
I also assume that the content-free waffle Ambigulous saw was approved by the special Advertising Starr Panel? In which case, Rudd is clearly already an improvement on the Howard era.
Et tu, LP?
Poor Kevin Rudd
They’re out for his blood.
Whatever he does
There’s always a buzz
To find the right spin
His plans to unpin.
If he changes tack
They’re soon on his back.
Turn the other cheek?
That makes him look weak!
He’s coming on strong?
They’ll find something wrong.
You’re Right? so the Left
Are guilty of theft.
That’s par for the course
For Labor’s workhorse.
And usually friends
For that make amends.
But that’s true no more.
Seems everyone’s sore.
Look at the Greens
All crying ‘Unclean!’
In every fight
They side with the right.
Even here at LP
So many will see
Whatever is wrong
And join the singsong
Of plaint and surmise.
You love to chastise!
Yes, that’s how it looks.
But check betting books.
Let’s all stop the sweat.
Rudd”s still a good bet.
Two to one he’ll win.
He’ll still romp it in!
Won’t he?
Et tu, LP?
Poor Kevin Rudd
They’re out for his blood.
Whatever he does
There’s always a buzz
To find the right spin
His plans to unpin.
If he changes tack
They’re soon on his back.
Turn the other cheek?
That makes him look weak!
He’s coming on strong?
They’ll find something wrong.
You’re Right? so the Left
Are guilty of theft.
That’s par for the course
For Labor’s workhorse.
And usually friends
For that make amends.
But that’s true no more.
Seems everyone’s sore.
Look at the Greens
All crying ‘Unclean!’
In every fight
They side with the right.
Even here at LP
So many will see
Whatever is wrong
And join the singsong
Of plaint and surmise.
You love to chastise!
Yes, that’s how it looks.
But check betting books.
Let’s all stop the sweat.
Rudd”s still a good bet.
Two to one he’ll win.
He’ll still romp it in!
Won’t he?
Andrew Reynolds at 26: Well, there is a thing called democracy. When the two major parties vote for a change that affects a promise made (i.e. the Auditor-General no longer responsible for overseeing Government advertising), that means an overwhelming majority of the Parliament has agreed. Democracy allows Parliament to change existing laws. Those changes, I suggest have more force, if there is an overwhelming majority in both Houses who support them. If an Opposition disagreed, then maybe you may have had a point because it meant one party was using raw numbers. But I suggest it’s hard for you to justify a claim that Rudd promised in 2007 that the Auditor-General would have the final say on advertising and Parliament changed this in 2010, means that Rudd has broken a promise. It was a promise that was no longer capable of being implemented lawfully. And, yes, it becomes OK because the Coalition agreement means an overwhelming majority of the elected members of both Houses agreed to the change. Perhaps you think the Greens, Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding should have some veto right against the Labor and Coalition Senators.
Andrew Reynolds at 26: Well, there is a thing called democracy. When the two major parties vote for a change that affects a promise made (i.e. the Auditor-General no longer responsible for overseeing Government advertising), that means an overwhelming majority of the Parliament has agreed. Democracy allows Parliament to change existing laws. Those changes, I suggest have more force, if there is an overwhelming majority in both Houses who support them. If an Opposition disagreed, then maybe you may have had a point because it meant one party was using raw numbers. But I suggest it’s hard for you to justify a claim that Rudd promised in 2007 that the Auditor-General would have the final say on advertising and Parliament changed this in 2010, means that Rudd has broken a promise. It was a promise that was no longer capable of being implemented lawfully. And, yes, it becomes OK because the Coalition agreement means an overwhelming majority of the elected members of both Houses agreed to the change. Perhaps you think the Greens, Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding should have some veto right against the Labor and Coalition Senators.
Dealing the Auditor General out of the approval process was a perfectly good idea because if he’d been left as the approver he might then have ended up auditing something he had approved, which would have placed him in an untenable position.
This potential conflict was recognised by both sides, hence the committee of former senior public servants to do the approving.
Dealing the Auditor General out of the approval process was a perfectly good idea because if he’d been left as the approver he might then have ended up auditing something he had approved, which would have placed him in an untenable position.
This potential conflict was recognised by both sides, hence the committee of former senior public servants to do the approving.
Just heard on the latest News Headlines on Channel 7 that ‘Kevin Rudd knew the new mining tax would hurt the economy’ but kept the documents hidden!
Wow.
Checked out Channel 7′s online news site….nothing here.
Checked everywhere else for these mysterious documents….perhaps I should ring Channel 7 and ask.
Just heard on the latest News Headlines on Channel 7 that ‘Kevin Rudd knew the new mining tax would hurt the economy’ but kept the documents hidden!
Wow.
Checked out Channel 7′s online news site….nothing here.
Checked everywhere else for these mysterious documents….perhaps I should ring Channel 7 and ask.
“There is only one way to assess this – it’s brazen political hypocrisy. Rudd’s defenders may (rightly, in my view) argue that the misinformation and lies of the mining industry need countering. But the way to do that is by winning the political argument, and if an advertising campaign is necessary, it should be the ALP who is paying for it”
This board appears stacked with starry-eyed idealists. Perhaps the terms “latte sipper” or “chardonnay socialist” would be appropriate.
What is so hard for otherwise intelligent individuals to understand that you can’t win the political argument if no-one gets to hear your argument.
The assertion that any public information campaign should be paid for by the ALP is really only supportable on the premise that Rudd made a promise – one which has come back to bite him. This is not an ALP matter – it is a GOVERNMENT matter and part of their mandate should be to keep the public informed as to the facts about major policy decisions. That this basic responsability is impossible to fulfill when their ability to communicate to the public has been severed – their full and proper message has been more or less blackbanned by an intensly hostile media – this simple fact seems to escape some people.
“There is only one way to assess this – it’s brazen political hypocrisy. Rudd’s defenders may (rightly, in my view) argue that the misinformation and lies of the mining industry need countering. But the way to do that is by winning the political argument, and if an advertising campaign is necessary, it should be the ALP who is paying for it”
This board appears stacked with starry-eyed idealists. Perhaps the terms “latte sipper” or “chardonnay socialist” would be appropriate.
What is so hard for otherwise intelligent individuals to understand that you can’t win the political argument if no-one gets to hear your argument.
The assertion that any public information campaign should be paid for by the ALP is really only supportable on the premise that Rudd made a promise – one which has come back to bite him. This is not an ALP matter – it is a GOVERNMENT matter and part of their mandate should be to keep the public informed as to the facts about major policy decisions. That this basic responsability is impossible to fulfill when their ability to communicate to the public has been severed – their full and proper message has been more or less blackbanned by an intensly hostile media – this simple fact seems to escape some people.
Sam,
As you indicated earlier, though (or so I thought, I could have read it wrong) the point is not that the auditor general is not doing the approving, the point is that it was not done at all.
Rudd simply declared a national emergency and by-passed his own law, despite his oft-repeated “100% guarantee”. The fact it also came out on a Friday afternoon, directly after the relevant Senate oversight committee had just met is, evidently, neither here nor there.
Perhaps Rudd regards a failure to get his message across as a national emergency, and one that absolutely requires the most cynical possible method of coping with it.
LOL.
Sam,
As you indicated earlier, though (or so I thought, I could have read it wrong) the point is not that the auditor general is not doing the approving, the point is that it was not done at all.
Rudd simply declared a national emergency and by-passed his own law, despite his oft-repeated “100% guarantee”. The fact it also came out on a Friday afternoon, directly after the relevant Senate oversight committee had just met is, evidently, neither here nor there.
Perhaps Rudd regards a failure to get his message across as a national emergency, and one that absolutely requires the most cynical possible method of coping with it.
LOL.
Andrew, I made several points.
1. If you are going to tut tut about what Rudd did, the point is indeed that he did it without relevant approval.
2. Myself, I’m not going to tut tut, for I am not a starry-eyed idealist. This is a dirty fight. There’s no point in either side playing by the Marquess of Queensbury rules if the other side is going to kick them in the nuts (note I am being very even handed here).
It was you (@26) who made a big deal out of the parliament changing the approval process. I merely pointed out that
3. There were good reasons to do just that.
The whole episode so far has been shambolic, with each side briefing up its useful idiot friends in the media who can be relied upon to parrot what they’ve just been told. The ads are a sideshow.
Andrew, I made several points.
1. If you are going to tut tut about what Rudd did, the point is indeed that he did it without relevant approval.
2. Myself, I’m not going to tut tut, for I am not a starry-eyed idealist. This is a dirty fight. There’s no point in either side playing by the Marquess of Queensbury rules if the other side is going to kick them in the nuts (note I am being very even handed here).
It was you (@26) who made a big deal out of the parliament changing the approval process. I merely pointed out that
3. There were good reasons to do just that.
The whole episode so far has been shambolic, with each side briefing up its useful idiot friends in the media who can be relied upon to parrot what they’ve just been told. The ads are a sideshow.
How hypocritical of the one act phoney to be attacking Rudd on the one hand,but refusing every journos request to state his position on Govt. advertising should he be elected.Given that the mob he belongs to spent billions on propaganda campaigns no bloody wonder he is silent on this. If we all want a Govt. that is beholden to the multi-national miners,who now think that they have the right to change the elected Government of this country to protect the massive profits they gouge from the land,then a vote for the liebrals will ensure that the miners have a big say on policy,be it taxes , workers rights or global warming.
I hope that somewhere there is a whistle-blower who will finally reveal the utter contempt that mining companies have for the environment as they fill dis-used pits with the rubbish that is created on site and destroy the artefacts and sacred sites of indigenous Australians whilst at the same time they thumb their nose at the very Govt. departments that give lip service to monitoring compliance.
Rudd had no choice but to point out the fear campaign for what it is.
How hypocritical of the one act phoney to be attacking Rudd on the one hand,but refusing every journos request to state his position on Govt. advertising should he be elected.Given that the mob he belongs to spent billions on propaganda campaigns no bloody wonder he is silent on this. If we all want a Govt. that is beholden to the multi-national miners,who now think that they have the right to change the elected Government of this country to protect the massive profits they gouge from the land,then a vote for the liebrals will ensure that the miners have a big say on policy,be it taxes , workers rights or global warming.
I hope that somewhere there is a whistle-blower who will finally reveal the utter contempt that mining companies have for the environment as they fill dis-used pits with the rubbish that is created on site and destroy the artefacts and sacred sites of indigenous Australians whilst at the same time they thumb their nose at the very Govt. departments that give lip service to monitoring compliance.
Rudd had no choice but to point out the fear campaign for what it is.
I have never seen a media corps so intent on misrepresenting the government, so it comes as no surprise to me that Rudd would decide the only way to get the government its message out is to mount a taxpayer-funded advertising campaign.
Ultimately, this is about protecting the tax base amid the biggest resource boom this country has seen since the 1890s, so there clearly is an argument for having the taxpayer fund what ultimately is an investment in the fiscal future.
In beat-up mode as ever, the media wants this story to run because they think it feeds in nicely into their narrative about Rudd’s mask falling off. So of course everything the government does is interpreted in this framework.
But it won’t decide the election. The shine may have come off Rudd, but the polls show people are extremely wary of Abbott and won’t be able to bring themselves to vote for a party that sides with billionaire miners.
I have never seen a media corps so intent on misrepresenting the government, so it comes as no surprise to me that Rudd would decide the only way to get the government its message out is to mount a taxpayer-funded advertising campaign.
Ultimately, this is about protecting the tax base amid the biggest resource boom this country has seen since the 1890s, so there clearly is an argument for having the taxpayer fund what ultimately is an investment in the fiscal future.
In beat-up mode as ever, the media wants this story to run because they think it feeds in nicely into their narrative about Rudd’s mask falling off. So of course everything the government does is interpreted in this framework.
But it won’t decide the election. The shine may have come off Rudd, but the polls show people are extremely wary of Abbott and won’t be able to bring themselves to vote for a party that sides with billionaire miners.
I would have thought a fully orchestrated taxpayer funded(via tax deduction) misinformation campaign by the mining industry and a compliant media against an elected governments policy choice was in fact a national emergency but I am not sure that is a claim Rudd has made. He should though.
I would have thought a fully orchestrated taxpayer funded(via tax deduction) misinformation campaign by the mining industry and a compliant media against an elected governments policy choice was in fact a national emergency but I am not sure that is a claim Rudd has made. He should though.
As opposed to the principled method employed by the mining companies and their political stooges the Libtards, Andrew Reynolds. Desperate circumstances require desperate measures and the sooner they get the truth of the matter into the public domain the better!
As opposed to the principled method employed by the mining companies and their political stooges the Libtards, Andrew Reynolds. Desperate circumstances require desperate measures and the sooner they get the truth of the matter into the public domain the better!
Hear hear Mr Denmore.
And given the amount of lucre pocketed by the resource majors, I should think that the governments information campaign could easily be paid off on the first day the tax come sinto effect.
Hear hear Mr Denmore.
And given the amount of lucre pocketed by the resource majors, I should think that the governments information campaign could easily be paid off on the first day the tax come sinto effect.
Not correct, Mr Denmore at 47. This is actually about a not yet legislated proposal to extend the tax base.
There is therefore no argument for having the taxpayer fund it.
There is, however, a strong argument for having the Government put the RSPT to the Parliament to see whether it can be passed in order to become part of the tax base.
Not correct, Mr Denmore at 47. This is actually about a not yet legislated proposal to extend the tax base.
There is therefore no argument for having the taxpayer fund it.
There is, however, a strong argument for having the Government put the RSPT to the Parliament to see whether it can be passed in order to become part of the tax base.
I just made an argument William.
I just made an argument William.
Flynnboy at 52
You did?
Flynnboy at 52
You did?
@43 William.
@43 William.
Nope. No argument there Flynnboy.
Nope. No argument there Flynnboy.
dd@5, I disagree.
Firstly, Howard’s WorkChoices ads were aimed at the undecideds and swinging voters – the very people most vociferous about public spending on partisan content. These ads perform the same function as Rudd’s Monthly articles in ’06: they’ll rally the Labor base, they’ll piss off the Liberals, and any question about the proprieties of public expenditure will get lost in the political mire.
It isn’t the middle ground that’s complaining, it’s the Liberals. The different is crucial. Rudd is the incumbent now, all he has to do is muddy the waters and he gets the benefit of the doubt.
Second, in 2007 Howard had an Opposition Leader who was credible when he said that he’d never do it. There’s no point whingeing about an action of government if you’d do the same yourself. People might agree with Abbott, but nobody would or could claim that the Liberals would never do anything like that if they were in government. The more righteous Abbott gets, the more he trashes his credibility. This had better be a 24-hour shitstorm because if Abbott is still going on about those ads in a week, it will start to rebound on him.
Rudd will win the election but he’ll find himself in the same position that Hawke was in after about 1989: muddling along and no longer capable of hitting the high notes. I’ve always thought that if Australia gets the UN gig in 2013-14, he has to be the Ambassador. He won’t stick around like Hawke did and wait to get his head kicked in, and the ALP want government too much to go down wringing their hands like the Libs did in ’07.
dd@5, I disagree.
Firstly, Howard’s WorkChoices ads were aimed at the undecideds and swinging voters – the very people most vociferous about public spending on partisan content. These ads perform the same function as Rudd’s Monthly articles in ’06: they’ll rally the Labor base, they’ll piss off the Liberals, and any question about the proprieties of public expenditure will get lost in the political mire.
It isn’t the middle ground that’s complaining, it’s the Liberals. The different is crucial. Rudd is the incumbent now, all he has to do is muddy the waters and he gets the benefit of the doubt.
Second, in 2007 Howard had an Opposition Leader who was credible when he said that he’d never do it. There’s no point whingeing about an action of government if you’d do the same yourself. People might agree with Abbott, but nobody would or could claim that the Liberals would never do anything like that if they were in government. The more righteous Abbott gets, the more he trashes his credibility. This had better be a 24-hour shitstorm because if Abbott is still going on about those ads in a week, it will start to rebound on him.
Rudd will win the election but he’ll find himself in the same position that Hawke was in after about 1989: muddling along and no longer capable of hitting the high notes. I’ve always thought that if Australia gets the UN gig in 2013-14, he has to be the Ambassador. He won’t stick around like Hawke did and wait to get his head kicked in, and the ALP want government too much to go down wringing their hands like the Libs did in ’07.
Flynnboy @43:
“This is not an ALP matter – it is a GOVERNMENT matter and part of their mandate should be to keep the public informed as to the facts about major policy decisions.”
Exactly.
Flynnboy @43:
“This is not an ALP matter – it is a GOVERNMENT matter and part of their mandate should be to keep the public informed as to the facts about major policy decisions.”
Exactly.
Andrew Reynolds @44:
That’s inaccurate, Andrew. What Rudd did was rely on the ‘get-out’ clause in his own law to justify the non committee-approved ad spend. Call him a hypocrite if you like, but he didn’t “declare a national emergency” or “by-pass his own law”. He used a convenient loophole in the law to by-pass the committee approval requirement.
Andrew Reynolds @44:
That’s inaccurate, Andrew. What Rudd did was rely on the ‘get-out’ clause in his own law to justify the non committee-approved ad spend. Call him a hypocrite if you like, but he didn’t “declare a national emergency” or “by-pass his own law”. He used a convenient loophole in the law to by-pass the committee approval requirement.
At 19 Andrew Reynolds said in response to Hannah’s Dad: “If the auditor general has not signed off on this then a promise has been broken. My advice would be that if you want to maintain credibility you will not go down that path again.”
At 44 Andrew Reynolds said: “Sam, As you indicated earlier, though (or so I thought, I could have read it wrong) the point is not that the auditor general is not doing the approving, the point is that it was not done at all.
“Rudd simply declared a national emergency and by-passed his own law, despite his oft-repeated “100% guarantee”. The fact it also came out on a Friday afternoon, directly after the relevant Senate oversight committee had just met is, evidently, neither here nor there.
“Perhaps Rudd regards a failure to get his message across as a national emergency, and one that absolutely requires the most cynical possible method of coping with it.”
Having not realised that the auditor-general was no longer in charge of signing off on this because of a change in procedures, Andrew Reynolds at 19 advises Hannah’s Dad that “a promise has been broken.”
I suggest that to argue a promise has been broken when the promise is not capable of being kept legally damages the credibility of the person making that statement (and it was not Hannah’s Dad).
At 44, Andrew Reynolds is again undermining his own credibility. First, he says Rudd simply declared a national energency. Rudd did no such thing. The Ministerial responsibility for that was the Special Minister of State, Senator Joe Ludwig, who said he was acting on the advice of the Treasurer.
Second Andrew Reynolds asserts that “Rudd by-passed his own law”. Again, not true.
As I heard it explained the new law setting up the independent committee allows for exemptions to be approved by the Special Minister of State. (See Media Release dated 28 May 2010 “Approval of exemption: Guidelines on Information and Advertising campaigns by Australian Gopvernment Departments and Agenciis at http://www.smos.gov.au//media/2010/mr_292010.html)
At 19 Andrew Reynolds said in response to Hannah’s Dad: “If the auditor general has not signed off on this then a promise has been broken. My advice would be that if you want to maintain credibility you will not go down that path again.”
At 44 Andrew Reynolds said: “Sam, As you indicated earlier, though (or so I thought, I could have read it wrong) the point is not that the auditor general is not doing the approving, the point is that it was not done at all.
“Rudd simply declared a national emergency and by-passed his own law, despite his oft-repeated “100% guarantee”. The fact it also came out on a Friday afternoon, directly after the relevant Senate oversight committee had just met is, evidently, neither here nor there.
“Perhaps Rudd regards a failure to get his message across as a national emergency, and one that absolutely requires the most cynical possible method of coping with it.”
Having not realised that the auditor-general was no longer in charge of signing off on this because of a change in procedures, Andrew Reynolds at 19 advises Hannah’s Dad that “a promise has been broken.”
I suggest that to argue a promise has been broken when the promise is not capable of being kept legally damages the credibility of the person making that statement (and it was not Hannah’s Dad).
At 44, Andrew Reynolds is again undermining his own credibility. First, he says Rudd simply declared a national energency. Rudd did no such thing. The Ministerial responsibility for that was the Special Minister of State, Senator Joe Ludwig, who said he was acting on the advice of the Treasurer.
Second Andrew Reynolds asserts that “Rudd by-passed his own law”. Again, not true.
As I heard it explained the new law setting up the independent committee allows for exemptions to be approved by the Special Minister of State. (See Media Release dated 28 May 2010 “Approval of exemption: Guidelines on Information and Advertising campaigns by Australian Gopvernment Departments and Agenciis at http://www.smos.gov.au//media/2010/mr_292010.html)
Joe2 has it in one. Watching TV tonight it was wall to wall ads by the miners and the Government.
Is the media biased against Rudd?
I’m not so sure. I think it might be that they have what they want. Both sides screaming at each other through megaphones rented from the media.
And the media wins.
For now. And they wonder why the kids are retreating into the internet and video games. It’s about the only escape left in the media.
Joe2 has it in one. Watching TV tonight it was wall to wall ads by the miners and the Government.
Is the media biased against Rudd?
I’m not so sure. I think it might be that they have what they want. Both sides screaming at each other through megaphones rented from the media.
And the media wins.
For now. And they wonder why the kids are retreating into the internet and video games. It’s about the only escape left in the media.
The position of the media in this can be likened to that of lawyers in litigation. Lucky media!
Rudd & co can advertise all they wish, but if they are advertising a proposed ALP policy, then the ALP can pay for it.
Voters disagreeing with Rudd is NOT a National Emergency, or anything like it.
The position of the media in this can be likened to that of lawyers in litigation. Lucky media!
Rudd & co can advertise all they wish, but if they are advertising a proposed ALP policy, then the ALP can pay for it.
Voters disagreeing with Rudd is NOT a National Emergency, or anything like it.
Anthony Nolan at 57. That’s not an argument either.
The Government is not “protecting the tax base” as posited by Mr Denmore. It is proposing to extend the tax base by introducing a new tax, the RSPT, as part of its budget. It should bring on the budget debate and argue for its proposal in the Parliament. If the RSPT is not passed by the Parliament, the Government should have the courage of its convictions and take it to the people as part of its election campaign.
Anthony Nolan at 57. That’s not an argument either.
The Government is not “protecting the tax base” as posited by Mr Denmore. It is proposing to extend the tax base by introducing a new tax, the RSPT, as part of its budget. It should bring on the budget debate and argue for its proposal in the Parliament. If the RSPT is not passed by the Parliament, the Government should have the courage of its convictions and take it to the people as part of its election campaign.
A national emergency would be a straightforward reporting of what might be happening behind the scenes.
If the mining companies want to play hardball they can easily do an end run around democracy quite easily.
Just run a short ad like this.
“Australian mining companies have saved the Australian financial system from collapse. We are the sole reason why Australia currently has a financial and economic system that is the envy of the world.
But Rudd has decided to tax us. And retrospectivly.
So screw it. We’re packing up. We’re off. Good luck. All of our employees can take this ad as two weeks notice.
Here’s the phone number of the Governer General. Ring her up. Ask for Rudd to be dismissed.
We might work with the Liberals if they change things back to the way they were and offer us concessions.
But Australia is a democracy. The choice of course is yours.
Thanks for your time.”
A national emergency would be a straightforward reporting of what might be happening behind the scenes.
If the mining companies want to play hardball they can easily do an end run around democracy quite easily.
Just run a short ad like this.
“Australian mining companies have saved the Australian financial system from collapse. We are the sole reason why Australia currently has a financial and economic system that is the envy of the world.
But Rudd has decided to tax us. And retrospectivly.
So screw it. We’re packing up. We’re off. Good luck. All of our employees can take this ad as two weeks notice.
Here’s the phone number of the Governer General. Ring her up. Ask for Rudd to be dismissed.
We might work with the Liberals if they change things back to the way they were and offer us concessions.
But Australia is a democracy. The choice of course is yours.
Thanks for your time.”
“Nope. No argument there Flynnboy.”
I think I’ll interpret that as you not arguing against my argument because you don’t have one.
If you don’t think that legitimately elected government has both a right and a responsability to ensure that the electorate is properly informed as to the nature of it’s position and major policy initiatives – and that this may necessitate public spending to make it possible – then say why.
To insist that under such circumstances – a media quite clearly committed to defaming the government through distorting their message and lying by omission – that making certain that their message reaches the ears of the public free of gross distortions should be funded only by ALP funds ignores the fact that they are the legitimately elected government.
I say that in doing what is necessary for the electorate to actually hear what their elected leaders are trying to communicate to them through a firewall of insidious anti-government propaganda and selective reporting………they are doing nothing more than acting in their capacity as the government.
“Nope. No argument there Flynnboy.”
I think I’ll interpret that as you not arguing against my argument because you don’t have one.
If you don’t think that legitimately elected government has both a right and a responsability to ensure that the electorate is properly informed as to the nature of it’s position and major policy initiatives – and that this may necessitate public spending to make it possible – then say why.
To insist that under such circumstances – a media quite clearly committed to defaming the government through distorting their message and lying by omission – that making certain that their message reaches the ears of the public free of gross distortions should be funded only by ALP funds ignores the fact that they are the legitimately elected government.
I say that in doing what is necessary for the electorate to actually hear what their elected leaders are trying to communicate to them through a firewall of insidious anti-government propaganda and selective reporting………they are doing nothing more than acting in their capacity as the government.
To which, Tssk, we ought to say …
Let us take care of the 1.6% you employ … don’t let the door hit you on your fat behinds on the way out …
To which, Tssk, we ought to say …
Let us take care of the 1.6% you employ … don’t let the door hit you on your fat behinds on the way out …
Hello again Flynnboy.
What I think is what I said at 51 and 62.
Hello again Flynnboy.
What I think is what I said at 51 and 62.
Andrew E: Rudd will win the election but he’ll find himself in the same position that Hawke was in after about 1989: muddling along and no longer capable of hitting the high notes.
High notes? I can see how you might apply that metaphor to Hawke – but not to Rudd. Rudd set the bar low with the 2020 summit, and hasn’t ever reached that height again. I think it was a great shame that Howard didn’t “abdicate” to Costello, but even so, you lot need to acknowledge that Howard was a better and more principled leader, and that we have collectively made a huge mistake in electing Rudd.
Andrew E: Rudd will win the election but he’ll find himself in the same position that Hawke was in after about 1989: muddling along and no longer capable of hitting the high notes.
High notes? I can see how you might apply that metaphor to Hawke – but not to Rudd. Rudd set the bar low with the 2020 summit, and hasn’t ever reached that height again. I think it was a great shame that Howard didn’t “abdicate” to Costello, but even so, you lot need to acknowledge that Howard was a better and more principled leader, and that we have collectively made a huge mistake in electing Rudd.
Newspoll
28-30 May
ALP 35 [down 8 from '07 electon]
COALition 42 [near enough to no change from '07]
Greens 16 [up 8 from '07 election]
Others 7 [near enough to no change from '07]
Superficially it would appear that the extra 8% the Greens have acquired since the election have pretty well moved ALP to Greens with very few passing ‘Go’.
As such Newspoll distributing preferences according to the last election,when Greens preferences went about 70-80% to the ALP I think, may underestimate the two party preferred numbers on this poll.
Which are:
ALP 51 COALition 49.
[And maybe could be higher for the ALP,say 52:48?]
Now I can’t see the Greens getting 16% at the next election [I can hope but not expect] so this Newspoll must be good news for the government and even though Rudd’s approval rating went down Abbott’s went down even further and Rudd still has a commanding lead on preferred PM.
Puts an interesting context to this thread does’t it?
Newspoll
28-30 May
ALP 35 [down 8 from '07 electon]
COALition 42 [near enough to no change from '07]
Greens 16 [up 8 from '07 election]
Others 7 [near enough to no change from '07]
Superficially it would appear that the extra 8% the Greens have acquired since the election have pretty well moved ALP to Greens with very few passing ‘Go’.
As such Newspoll distributing preferences according to the last election,when Greens preferences went about 70-80% to the ALP I think, may underestimate the two party preferred numbers on this poll.
Which are:
ALP 51 COALition 49.
[And maybe could be higher for the ALP,say 52:48?]
Now I can’t see the Greens getting 16% at the next election [I can hope but not expect] so this Newspoll must be good news for the government and even though Rudd’s approval rating went down Abbott’s went down even further and Rudd still has a commanding lead on preferred PM.
Puts an interesting context to this thread does’t it?
“…….you lot need to acknowledge that Howard was a better and more principled leader……”
Oh purlese, PeterTB, do not try that one on. We still can remember everything. The man was and is a dirtbag.
“…….you lot need to acknowledge that Howard was a better and more principled leader……”
Oh purlese, PeterTB, do not try that one on. We still can remember everything. The man was and is a dirtbag.
PeterTB…Howard a more principled leader…oh no….as unhappy as I am if I had a time machine to go back and change my vote….I would still vote Rudd.
Workchoices would have made slaves of us and that’s only the beginning of my issues with Howard.
PeterTB…Howard a more principled leader…oh no….as unhappy as I am if I had a time machine to go back and change my vote….I would still vote Rudd.
Workchoices would have made slaves of us and that’s only the beginning of my issues with Howard.
It isn’t good news for either of the majors HD. It signals a broad loss of confidence in both (both Rudd and Abbott now have large net dissatisfaction ratings). While it is of course better for the ALP that their loss in primary is at the moment going to a party from which most votes will come back as second preferences, the heirarchy won’t exactly be excited at the prospect of a large block of Greens in the Senate to have to negotiate policy with during the next parliament, nor the fact that such a small proportion of the electorate has confidence in a leader that just 12 months ago was extremely popular. On the coalition side, it is simply more evidence that they have a leader that the majority of the electorate don’t see as a good alternative PM, even if he makes conservatives feel better about themselves.
It isn’t good news for either of the majors HD. It signals a broad loss of confidence in both (both Rudd and Abbott now have large net dissatisfaction ratings). While it is of course better for the ALP that their loss in primary is at the moment going to a party from which most votes will come back as second preferences, the heirarchy won’t exactly be excited at the prospect of a large block of Greens in the Senate to have to negotiate policy with during the next parliament, nor the fact that such a small proportion of the electorate has confidence in a leader that just 12 months ago was extremely popular. On the coalition side, it is simply more evidence that they have a leader that the majority of the electorate don’t see as a good alternative PM, even if he makes conservatives feel better about themselves.
And needless to add Joe2, such principles as that shambling and malevolent mediocrity did have weren’t those which any honest person would want on his or her CV …
And needless to add Joe2, such principles as that shambling and malevolent mediocrity did have weren’t those which any honest person would want on his or her CV …
LO
Yep, I would basically agree with that but I note that:
1. 52:48 [if you are willng to buy that suggestion]is a lot better for the ALP than the 50:50 of a fortnight ago
2.the move against Rudd is less than the increasing rejection of Abbott
3 so I’d rather be the ALP than the COALition when looking at this newspol…and..
4.I’m happy to see the Greens double their support since the election [even if I'm doubtfulabout this particular 16% number being sustained].
LO
Yep, I would basically agree with that but I note that:
1. 52:48 [if you are willng to buy that suggestion]is a lot better for the ALP than the 50:50 of a fortnight ago
2.the move against Rudd is less than the increasing rejection of Abbott
3 so I’d rather be the ALP than the COALition when looking at this newspol…and..
4.I’m happy to see the Greens double their support since the election [even if I'm doubtfulabout this particular 16% number being sustained].
Indeed, Fran.
The details in his CV should have been used as evidence against him at A War Crimes Commission if there was any justice in the world.
Indeed, Fran.
The details in his CV should have been used as evidence against him at A War Crimes Commission if there was any justice in the world.
The movement in the 2pp is within the margin of error HD, so I wouldn’t overinterpret it.
The movement in the 2pp is within the margin of error HD, so I wouldn’t overinterpret it.
Kim ‘now the focus is back on its own tactics.’ But Kim it’s always has been about the dudd’s tactics, just takes time to translate and some oppo dildo to deliver…it’s always been about the ‘blonde rodent’ and still is.
Jules during the week kept the mantra up: ‘Look over there…2015…2020 etc; please Kev don’t *uck me & mine…Penny’s Air Kevin Sanga Syndrome there…
And didn’t she show it during QT?
& tonite Mad Max on Q&A: The ‘swine flew’ pigs fly defence of blonde rodent Wayne duck & Joe hoodwink with a bonus 9.95 plus hairy nosed henry pike.
Interesting times. Tap tap.
PS Mark’s vote him out “after” ‘we’ vote him back in has just the faintest stench of hubris, but maybe I’m olfactory sensitive here.
Kim ‘now the focus is back on its own tactics.’ But Kim it’s always has been about the dudd’s tactics, just takes time to translate and some oppo dildo to deliver…it’s always been about the ‘blonde rodent’ and still is.
Jules during the week kept the mantra up: ‘Look over there…2015…2020 etc; please Kev don’t *uck me & mine…Penny’s Air Kevin Sanga Syndrome there…
And didn’t she show it during QT?
& tonite Mad Max on Q&A: The ‘swine flew’ pigs fly defence of blonde rodent Wayne duck & Joe hoodwink with a bonus 9.95 plus hairy nosed henry pike.
Interesting times. Tap tap.
PS Mark’s vote him out “after” ‘we’ vote him back in has just the faintest stench of hubris, but maybe I’m olfactory sensitive here.
William,
refer back to 64, you appear to have missed it since you still haven’t commented on the proposition that the elected representitive of the people is obliged to communicate with them.
“Rudd & co can advertise all they wish, but if they are advertising a proposed ALP policy, then the ALP can pay for it.
Voters disagreeing with Rudd is NOT a National Emergency, or anything like it.”
You too Steve. You are failing to distinguish between the political party called the ALP and the same people in their capacity as the elected government. You may find it gratifying that the government has been unable to inform the electorate as to what it is actually doing as opposed to what it is allegedly doing because those who tell the narrative to the public have decided to destroy the governments credibility by only showing the public grossly distorted and overwhelmingly negative images but that doesn’t mean the government has no right or obligation to inform the citizenry for the whole period they are in government, not merely during an election campaign.
How can voters know whether they agree or disagree with Rudd if they have heard only a twisted and incomplete version of what he is proposing?
William,
refer back to 64, you appear to have missed it since you still haven’t commented on the proposition that the elected representitive of the people is obliged to communicate with them.
“Rudd & co can advertise all they wish, but if they are advertising a proposed ALP policy, then the ALP can pay for it.
Voters disagreeing with Rudd is NOT a National Emergency, or anything like it.”
You too Steve. You are failing to distinguish between the political party called the ALP and the same people in their capacity as the elected government. You may find it gratifying that the government has been unable to inform the electorate as to what it is actually doing as opposed to what it is allegedly doing because those who tell the narrative to the public have decided to destroy the governments credibility by only showing the public grossly distorted and overwhelmingly negative images but that doesn’t mean the government has no right or obligation to inform the citizenry for the whole period they are in government, not merely during an election campaign.
How can voters know whether they agree or disagree with Rudd if they have heard only a twisted and incomplete version of what he is proposing?
The Libs and their voters are illustrating the usual born to rule consciousness in failing to distinguish between party policy and government policy. They keep arguing that the RSPT is ALP policy. No its not. Its government policy. The real issue here is that big capital and its boot lickers in the Liberal Party just cannot, cannotbelieve that they don’t own the government. That’s why they can’t accept that advertising government policy is reasonable in the face of an industry determined to keep on leeching wealth out of Australia without paying their share back to the citizens. Phuck ‘em. Rudd’s got my total support on this.
The Libs and their voters are illustrating the usual born to rule consciousness in failing to distinguish between party policy and government policy. They keep arguing that the RSPT is ALP policy. No its not. Its government policy. The real issue here is that big capital and its boot lickers in the Liberal Party just cannot, cannotbelieve that they don’t own the government. That’s why they can’t accept that advertising government policy is reasonable in the face of an industry determined to keep on leeching wealth out of Australia without paying their share back to the citizens. Phuck ‘em. Rudd’s got my total support on this.
If I were a big miner looking at those Newspoll results, I would sh*t myself.
A Re-elected ALP and a big Greens number in the Senate means an ETS deal can be struck with almost NO concessions to the miners as per the previous one.
And with the miners having sided with the coalition, there would be absolutely no sympathy within Government or desire to give them such concessions.
A returned Rudd Government which had to negotiate with a large bloc of Greens in the Senate – good news on the carbon reduction front.
However, not my idea of fun were I Marius Kloppers.
If I were a big miner looking at those Newspoll results, I would sh*t myself.
A Re-elected ALP and a big Greens number in the Senate means an ETS deal can be struck with almost NO concessions to the miners as per the previous one.
And with the miners having sided with the coalition, there would be absolutely no sympathy within Government or desire to give them such concessions.
A returned Rudd Government which had to negotiate with a large bloc of Greens in the Senate – good news on the carbon reduction front.
However, not my idea of fun were I Marius Kloppers.
Oh no, Flynnboy #77. It ain’t a government matter until it has been passed by parliament. T
Until then it is merely an ALP wish, & campaigning for it can be paid for by the ALP.
Oh no, Flynnboy #77. It ain’t a government matter until it has been passed by parliament. T
Until then it is merely an ALP wish, & campaigning for it can be paid for by the ALP.
Shorter SATP @80:
All those civil servants researching, documenting and preparing legislation work for the ALP party machine (and should be paid out of party funds!)
OTOH Godwin Greche: now he was working for the LNP party machine but paid for by the ALP government, damn confusing for the ignorati isn’t it SATP?
Shorter SATP @80:
All those civil servants researching, documenting and preparing legislation work for the ALP party machine (and should be paid out of party funds!)
OTOH Godwin Greche: now he was working for the LNP party machine but paid for by the ALP government, damn confusing for the ignorati isn’t it SATP?
I’ll defer to you on the mental processes of the ignorati Peter Kemp.
However your suggestion to reduce the size of the public service is a great idea, come to think of it.
I’ll defer to you on the mental processes of the ignorati Peter Kemp.
However your suggestion to reduce the size of the public service is a great idea, come to think of it.
The LP crowd have spoken. It’s okay to lie and deceive so long as it is done for your prefered ideological end point. It’s probably okay to shoot a few vocal opponents but luckily we are not at the point where the LP crowd have to defend that. Still some of them look content to take a ride down the slippery slope.
The LP crowd have spoken. It’s okay to lie and deceive so long as it is done for your prefered ideological end point. It’s probably okay to shoot a few vocal opponents but luckily we are not at the point where the LP crowd have to defend that. Still some of them look content to take a ride down the slippery slope.
Anthony – If and when the RSPT passes both houses and becomes law it will be government policy. Until the. It is merely ALP policy. You’re the one displaying arrogance in suggesting that the office of PM confers some special right to assume the laws he wants are the laws he must govern according to. The PM heads the executive wing not the legislative wing and the former is subordinate to the later. Or ought to be unless we merely live under an elected dictatorship.
Anthony – If and when the RSPT passes both houses and becomes law it will be government policy. Until the. It is merely ALP policy. You’re the one displaying arrogance in suggesting that the office of PM confers some special right to assume the laws he wants are the laws he must govern according to. The PM heads the executive wing not the legislative wing and the former is subordinate to the later. Or ought to be unless we merely live under an elected dictatorship.
“The LP crowd have (sic) spoken”
Not into nuance are you TerjeP, or indeed reading the posts that you so tediously and predictably comment upon.
What we see here is quite a vigorous discussion, with some valid points on both sides. But it’s hardly suprising that you fail to recognise this.
I happen to agree with one side in the discussion, but I can see that many of the opposing views are honestly held, and worth considering. I don’t include the normal reflex Labor bashing from the usual suspects in that assessment.
“The LP crowd have (sic) spoken”
Not into nuance are you TerjeP, or indeed reading the posts that you so tediously and predictably comment upon.
What we see here is quite a vigorous discussion, with some valid points on both sides. But it’s hardly suprising that you fail to recognise this.
I happen to agree with one side in the discussion, but I can see that many of the opposing views are honestly held, and worth considering. I don’t include the normal reflex Labor bashing from the usual suspects in that assessment.
well Terjep, you’d know more about lying and deceiving for your own ideological viewpoint.
I wonder how far I’d have to dig to find you supporting astroturfing and claiming that public commentators don’t have to reveal their income sources…? I’m sure as a libertarian you favour exactly the kind of environment that allows the mining companies to buy newspaper opinion writers and never reveal the fact, but would complain when a govt takes on their lies.
well Terjep, you’d know more about lying and deceiving for your own ideological viewpoint.
I wonder how far I’d have to dig to find you supporting astroturfing and claiming that public commentators don’t have to reveal their income sources…? I’m sure as a libertarian you favour exactly the kind of environment that allows the mining companies to buy newspaper opinion writers and never reveal the fact, but would complain when a govt takes on their lies.
This is a spurious distinction between Party and Government policy. Clearly the Government can and does make policy executively without resort to legislation; it’s the whole point of having an executive. COAG negotiations would be even more perverse than they already are if all of it had to pass every Parliament involved. Just as clearly not all ALP Policy is Government policy, otherwise we’d be democratically socialising all industry, production, distribution and exchange (to the extent necessary etcetera).
The problem isn’t that the Government is advertising unlegislated policy, it’s that they’re doing it in a way Kevin Rudd specifically said he wouldn’t. You can’t get around that.
This is a spurious distinction between Party and Government policy. Clearly the Government can and does make policy executively without resort to legislation; it’s the whole point of having an executive. COAG negotiations would be even more perverse than they already are if all of it had to pass every Parliament involved. Just as clearly not all ALP Policy is Government policy, otherwise we’d be democratically socialising all industry, production, distribution and exchange (to the extent necessary etcetera).
The problem isn’t that the Government is advertising unlegislated policy, it’s that they’re doing it in a way Kevin Rudd specifically said he wouldn’t. You can’t get around that.
Grammar point Adrian.
While I share your preference for treating corporate entities as singular (here: the LP crowd) it’s quite common and acceptable usage to treat corporate entities with strong implied plurality as plurals (cf: the people have spoken), so Terje isn’t clearly wrong on this point.
His invocation of the slippery slope to violent repression is, as usual however, absurd and his implication othat there is uniformity at LP on this matter, either disingenuous or indolent.
Grammar point Adrian.
While I share your preference for treating corporate entities as singular (here: the LP crowd) it’s quite common and acceptable usage to treat corporate entities with strong implied plurality as plurals (cf: the people have spoken), so Terje isn’t clearly wrong on this point.
His invocation of the slippery slope to violent repression is, as usual however, absurd and his implication othat there is uniformity at LP on this matter, either disingenuous or indolent.
I’d largely agree Liam, although if Rudd wanted to play ducks and drakes he could bring in his 3 months before the election loophole. Of course if he holds the election less than 3 months after the campaign finishes he can say “well, I hadn’t made up my mind then”.
I’d largely agree Liam, although if Rudd wanted to play ducks and drakes he could bring in his 3 months before the election loophole. Of course if he holds the election less than 3 months after the campaign finishes he can say “well, I hadn’t made up my mind then”.
Fran Barlow wrote:
Not absurd. Flat out offensive. It is as good an insight as any into the mind of the libertarian though – darkly muttering of Stalin and Pol Pot and Mao at the slightest suggestion of left leaning opinion. Thanks for letting us know just how crazy you are Terjep.
Fran Barlow wrote:
Not absurd. Flat out offensive. It is as good an insight as any into the mind of the libertarian though – darkly muttering of Stalin and Pol Pot and Mao at the slightest suggestion of left leaning opinion. Thanks for letting us know just how crazy you are Terjep.
TerjeP: it is the convention that the party with a lower house majority forms “government”. When you talk of government as including both house then rally you ought to be using the term “parliament”. Ruud, as Labor has experienced before, is stuck with a hostile senate that will not acknoweldge the legitimacy of the lower house government. They oppose legislation instead of acting as a house of review to amend legislation.
Besides, the Libs tore up the rule book in ’75 so I am totally partisan in support of Labor on this policy; I don’t support Labor when they leave open the door for critique (as they do) with poor policy, no policy, corporate capture or outright corruption.
TerjeP: it is the convention that the party with a lower house majority forms “government”. When you talk of government as including both house then rally you ought to be using the term “parliament”. Ruud, as Labor has experienced before, is stuck with a hostile senate that will not acknoweldge the legitimacy of the lower house government. They oppose legislation instead of acting as a house of review to amend legislation.
Besides, the Libs tore up the rule book in ’75 so I am totally partisan in support of Labor on this policy; I don’t support Labor when they leave open the door for critique (as they do) with poor policy, no policy, corporate capture or outright corruption.
Fran @ 88. I know the argument, but I don’t happen to agree with it.
Fran @ 88. I know the argument, but I don’t happen to agree with it.
We must abandon the idea that corporations can reform themselves. To ask corporate executives to behave in a morally defensible manner is absurd. Corporations, and the people within them, are following a system of logic that leads inexorably toward dominant behaviours. To ask corporations to behave otherwise is like asking an army to adopt pacifism.
Corporation: n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
—Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914.
Form Is Content Corporations are inherently bold, aggressive and competitive. Though they exist in a society that claims to operate by moral principles, they are structurally amoral. It is inevitable that they will dehumanize people who work for them and the overall society as well. They are disloyal to workers, including their own managers. Corporations can be disloyal to the communities they have been part of for many years. Corporations do not care about nations; they live beyond boundaries. They are intrinsically committed to destroying nature. And they have an inexorable, unabated, voracious need to grow and to expand. In dominating other cultures, in digging up the earth, corporations blindly follow the codes that have been built into them as if they were genes.
We must abandon the idea that corporations can reform themselves. To ask corporate executives to behave in a morally defensible manner is absurd. Corporations, and the people within them, are following a system of logic that leads inexorably toward dominant behaviours. To ask corporations to behave otherwise is like asking an army to adopt pacifism.
Corporation: n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
—Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914.
Form Is Content Corporations are inherently bold, aggressive and competitive. Though they exist in a society that claims to operate by moral principles, they are structurally amoral. It is inevitable that they will dehumanize people who work for them and the overall society as well. They are disloyal to workers, including their own managers. Corporations can be disloyal to the communities they have been part of for many years. Corporations do not care about nations; they live beyond boundaries. They are intrinsically committed to destroying nature. And they have an inexorable, unabated, voracious need to grow and to expand. In dominating other cultures, in digging up the earth, corporations blindly follow the codes that have been built into them as if they were genes.
John Ward
Yes.
John Ward
Yes.
Flynnboy,
Did you use the same argument in support of the WorkChoices ads under Howard or did you nuance it a little more? In that case it was not only the policy of the government, but the law of the land as it had passed through Parliament. Perhaps you can get a better picture if we just change two nouns:
Works really nicely like that, doesn’t it?
Flynnboy,
Did you use the same argument in support of the WorkChoices ads under Howard or did you nuance it a little more? In that case it was not only the policy of the government, but the law of the land as it had passed through Parliament. Perhaps you can get a better picture if we just change two nouns:
Works really nicely like that, doesn’t it?
Peter TB, perhaps you could provide even one example of Howard’s principles. Being a lying toerag doesn’t count.
Peter TB, perhaps you could provide even one example of Howard’s principles. Being a lying toerag doesn’t count.
Anthony – exactly.
Steve, TerjeP, Andrew Reynolds – I am saying that elected government has the right and obligation to do what is necessary to ensure that the electorate actually gets to hear it, which until now they have not. That they did not do this while a hostile and partisan media corps smashed their credibility over the insulation programme and then over the BER by completely saturating the papers and airwaves with a very deliberate campaign of hysteria, lies by omission and gross distortion – as far as I’m concerned this makes any claim that Rudd always intended to do this (something which is unprovable anyway) seem pretty bloody unlikely at best. I would have been tempted to act much sooner than now.
There is no legal issue here, clearly what they are doing is legit in that respect. Rather, it is about a moral issue. Rudd made a promise – somewhat foolishly – but the massive defamation campaign against them has forced him to reconsider and backtrack. After their credibility was dishonestly destroyed over the insulation programme and the BER and the same was occurring with the RSPT, I think they finally decided that enough was enough.
I think Anthony tells it like it is – there are some people who just can’t come to terms with the fact that in 07, the coalition LOST and Labor won the right to govern this country.
Get over it.
Anthony – exactly.
Steve, TerjeP, Andrew Reynolds – I am saying that elected government has the right and obligation to do what is necessary to ensure that the electorate actually gets to hear it, which until now they have not. That they did not do this while a hostile and partisan media corps smashed their credibility over the insulation programme and then over the BER by completely saturating the papers and airwaves with a very deliberate campaign of hysteria, lies by omission and gross distortion – as far as I’m concerned this makes any claim that Rudd always intended to do this (something which is unprovable anyway) seem pretty bloody unlikely at best. I would have been tempted to act much sooner than now.
There is no legal issue here, clearly what they are doing is legit in that respect. Rather, it is about a moral issue. Rudd made a promise – somewhat foolishly – but the massive defamation campaign against them has forced him to reconsider and backtrack. After their credibility was dishonestly destroyed over the insulation programme and the BER and the same was occurring with the RSPT, I think they finally decided that enough was enough.
I think Anthony tells it like it is – there are some people who just can’t come to terms with the fact that in 07, the coalition LOST and Labor won the right to govern this country.
Get over it.
“Full steam ahead in the Pilbara – despite tax clash May 31, 2010
The big miners may be raging against the proposed resources tax, but it’s still business as usual in the booming Pilbara where the plans aren’t expected to result in significant losses of future production.
Since May 2, when the federal government announced plans for what it labels a 40 per cent super profits mining tax, Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, Fortescue and others have made no changes to development schedules that collectively will add 200 million tonnes more for export by the middle of the decade.”
“A second nearby port at Dampier, with capacity of 140 million tonnes, is being expanded by a further 60 million tonnes, including the development of new mines and railroads.
Chief executive Tom Albanese has stressed that “no decision has been made to shelve any projects in Australia.”
http://www.theage.com.au/business/full-steam-ahead-in-the-pilbara–despite-tax-clash-20100531-wqeb.html
Wouldn’t it be annoying if it turns out that the mining companies have been selling us hundreds of millions of dollars worth of porky pies all along with they intention of destroying their credibility to the extent that they need only wait another few months to install the policy vaccume in lycra?
“Full steam ahead in the Pilbara – despite tax clash May 31, 2010
The big miners may be raging against the proposed resources tax, but it’s still business as usual in the booming Pilbara where the plans aren’t expected to result in significant losses of future production.
Since May 2, when the federal government announced plans for what it labels a 40 per cent super profits mining tax, Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, Fortescue and others have made no changes to development schedules that collectively will add 200 million tonnes more for export by the middle of the decade.”
“A second nearby port at Dampier, with capacity of 140 million tonnes, is being expanded by a further 60 million tonnes, including the development of new mines and railroads.
Chief executive Tom Albanese has stressed that “no decision has been made to shelve any projects in Australia.”
http://www.theage.com.au/business/full-steam-ahead-in-the-pilbara–despite-tax-clash-20100531-wqeb.html
Wouldn’t it be annoying if it turns out that the mining companies have been selling us hundreds of millions of dollars worth of porky pies all along with they intention of destroying their credibility to the extent that they need only wait another few months to install the policy vaccume in lycra?
Jane @96. Howard reforming the gun laws (at great personal risk to himself.) If nothing else (and I can’t think of anything else) he deserves respect for that.
I can see Terje’s point…if this is deemed acceptable then we are at the start of a slope that leads towards back to back propaganda (taking us through Howard land long before we reach Stalinville.)
However…on the other side we’re seeing private companies trying to do an end run around democracy. “They’re trying to make us pay for minerals so be good and change government little plebs.”
Either way it was good to see Red Kerry get stuck into Wayne Swan last night.
Jane @96. Howard reforming the gun laws (at great personal risk to himself.) If nothing else (and I can’t think of anything else) he deserves respect for that.
I can see Terje’s point…if this is deemed acceptable then we are at the start of a slope that leads towards back to back propaganda (taking us through Howard land long before we reach Stalinville.)
However…on the other side we’re seeing private companies trying to do an end run around democracy. “They’re trying to make us pay for minerals so be good and change government little plebs.”
Either way it was good to see Red Kerry get stuck into Wayne Swan last night.
tssk,
can you recall the Howard government ever facing a media so intent on preventing it from putting it’s message out and instead replacing it with it’s own warped version?
As I’ve said before – you can’t win the political argument if no one actually gets to hear your side of the argument.
tssk,
can you recall the Howard government ever facing a media so intent on preventing it from putting it’s message out and instead replacing it with it’s own warped version?
As I’ve said before – you can’t win the political argument if no one actually gets to hear your side of the argument.
A case in point was ABC radio news this morning with unrelenting anti-government propaganda from the mining industry, the opposition and anybody else they could find. The only Labor voice was a snippet from Wayne Swan sounding harassed. It may have been from the 7.30 Report, but we weren’t told.
Would those people complaining that Labor aren’t getting their message across enlighten us regarding just how this is possible in the current media climate.
A case in point was ABC radio news this morning with unrelenting anti-government propaganda from the mining industry, the opposition and anybody else they could find. The only Labor voice was a snippet from Wayne Swan sounding harassed. It may have been from the 7.30 Report, but we weren’t told.
Would those people complaining that Labor aren’t getting their message across enlighten us regarding just how this is possible in the current media climate.
Yep Flynnboy. The Whitlam years.
Still doesn’t matter. Even if the principle dooms him I will always respect Kevin Rudd for keeping the ABC board as he found it. Anything else would have been him politicising the board.
Yep Flynnboy. The Whitlam years.
Still doesn’t matter. Even if the principle dooms him I will always respect Kevin Rudd for keeping the ABC board as he found it. Anything else would have been him politicising the board.
“Yep Flynnboy. The Whitlam years.”
I think I could probably rest my case there.
Anyway, you’re obviously an honourable person tssk and I respect that. My outlook though is that when all else is clearly failing you may need to fight fire with fire or else risk being destroyed and go back to a decade in the wilderness while Tone has his way with the country.
adrian @ 101, yep and the hypocricy is stark. In addition to the link @98, a coal consortium has approached Bligh about purchasing the QLD rail network for approx $5 billion. While I am personally NOT in favour of the sale of state-owned assets, that is beside the point here – the point is that they have done this in full knowledge of the strong likelyhood of some measure of RSPT being implemented and they are still preparing to invest a huge sum of money in a gigantic piece of fixed infrastructure that can never be packed up and taken away. All the while, investment in mining is supposed to be about to wither on the vine.
The resource majors wouldn’t lie straight in bed.
“Yep Flynnboy. The Whitlam years.”
I think I could probably rest my case there.
Anyway, you’re obviously an honourable person tssk and I respect that. My outlook though is that when all else is clearly failing you may need to fight fire with fire or else risk being destroyed and go back to a decade in the wilderness while Tone has his way with the country.
adrian @ 101, yep and the hypocricy is stark. In addition to the link @98, a coal consortium has approached Bligh about purchasing the QLD rail network for approx $5 billion. While I am personally NOT in favour of the sale of state-owned assets, that is beside the point here – the point is that they have done this in full knowledge of the strong likelyhood of some measure of RSPT being implemented and they are still preparing to invest a huge sum of money in a gigantic piece of fixed infrastructure that can never be packed up and taken away. All the while, investment in mining is supposed to be about to wither on the vine.
The resource majors wouldn’t lie straight in bed.
Flynnboy,
So – from the above you must have supported the WorkChoices ads, then. An odd position for someone with views like some of those expressed above, but at least it is consistent.
What limits do you propose on government advertising? None, perhaps? Anything discussed by cabinet, before it is even put into the form of a white paper, much less a draft law, can be the subject of a massive taxpayer funded, but largely substanceless advertising campaign (as in this case)? Or are there some limits you would propose?
Flynnboy,
So – from the above you must have supported the WorkChoices ads, then. An odd position for someone with views like some of those expressed above, but at least it is consistent.
What limits do you propose on government advertising? None, perhaps? Anything discussed by cabinet, before it is even put into the form of a white paper, much less a draft law, can be the subject of a massive taxpayer funded, but largely substanceless advertising campaign (as in this case)? Or are there some limits you would propose?
Andrew Reynolds said:
I’ll stand corrected but I doubt he would have supported the Workchoices ads. Contrary to what you suggest though, that’s not necessarily inconsistent. It’s possible to be a consistent supporter of the government advertising initiatives that you approve of and a consistent opponent of those you oppose. The government iws, after all, at least in theory, an expression of the will of each person, aggregated. If the state acts as I would have them act, then it is legitimate but not otherwise. Very consistent — just not the kind you are implying.
Of course, it is in practice far better for states to have a non-arbitrary policy on these matters, otherwise every policy act is reducible to its ends and process goes out the window. Yet is that likely? Probably not. The matters are highly subjective and deciding what is legitimate will be difficult.
The broader problem with your comparison though is that Workchoices was that it:
a) running during the official election campaign
b) was not challenging a self-interested campaign by the wealthiest people in the country seeking to protect their wealth, who can afford the campaign in part precisely because they aren’t paying enough tax
When comparing and contrasting to examine a principle, one should try to compare like with like. Millions of below average waged Australians are not close to being in the same position in relation to policy formation as a dozen or two mining executives.
Andrew Reynolds said:
I’ll stand corrected but I doubt he would have supported the Workchoices ads. Contrary to what you suggest though, that’s not necessarily inconsistent. It’s possible to be a consistent supporter of the government advertising initiatives that you approve of and a consistent opponent of those you oppose. The government iws, after all, at least in theory, an expression of the will of each person, aggregated. If the state acts as I would have them act, then it is legitimate but not otherwise. Very consistent — just not the kind you are implying.
Of course, it is in practice far better for states to have a non-arbitrary policy on these matters, otherwise every policy act is reducible to its ends and process goes out the window. Yet is that likely? Probably not. The matters are highly subjective and deciding what is legitimate will be difficult.
The broader problem with your comparison though is that Workchoices was that it:
a) running during the official election campaign
b) was not challenging a self-interested campaign by the wealthiest people in the country seeking to protect their wealth, who can afford the campaign in part precisely because they aren’t paying enough tax
When comparing and contrasting to examine a principle, one should try to compare like with like. Millions of below average waged Australians are not close to being in the same position in relation to policy formation as a dozen or two mining executives.
Fran,
I was just reading through his arguments and, in particular, the ones he made after I pointed out that the arguments he was making could equally well (in fact, given the WorkChoices policy had actually become law through the democratic processes, better than equally well) have applied to that other controversial campaign.
He has not made the argument anywhere (AFAICS) that the decision should be based on what he agrees with or disagrees with. He has simply argued that it should be based on allowing the government to use tax revenue to advertise their policies.
I would therefore argue that the only consistent position he could adopt would be that he also supports the WorkChoices ads. I was simply trusting that he would not be hypocritical on this issue.
Fran,
I was just reading through his arguments and, in particular, the ones he made after I pointed out that the arguments he was making could equally well (in fact, given the WorkChoices policy had actually become law through the democratic processes, better than equally well) have applied to that other controversial campaign.
He has not made the argument anywhere (AFAICS) that the decision should be based on what he agrees with or disagrees with. He has simply argued that it should be based on allowing the government to use tax revenue to advertise their policies.
I would therefore argue that the only consistent position he could adopt would be that he also supports the WorkChoices ads. I was simply trusting that he would not be hypocritical on this issue.
Andrew, the question you pose @ 104 is not relevant here because it is presented without acknowledging the situation that is occurring at present and which has been building for some time. You’re trying to re-frame the debate so as to exclude the crucial question of why something might be occurring. This might make it easy to attack the governments position but it is hardly an honest appraisal of the overall situation.
It is starkly obvious that this government faces an intensely hostile media, determined to misrepresent it at every step. It has thus far been achieving this with quite devastating effect – unsurprisingly since they control most of the channels of information that link the government to the broader electorate. If that weren’t enough, a conglomerate of some of the wealthiest individuals in the country have mounted their own lavishly funded campaign, designed to convince the public that the redistribution of some more of their enormous lucre – gained by digging up and shipping out our finite mineral wealth – back toward the public purpose will “kill the golden goose” and that investment in Australian resources will now simply wither away on the vine.
Which really translates as: “we just want to keep stuffing our pockets with truckloads of cash and we don’t intend to share it with anyone. The election is only a few months away – if we can portray the government as economic wreckers they will back off or be thrown out of office by a public whose eyes we have pulled the wool over.”
While I’m sure you would love to watch the government just lean back against the ropes and allow itself to be endlessly pummelled by what amounts to a giant, multi-faceted smear campaing designed to destroy it, the argument that they should do nothing at all to reply is simply not credible.
Which leads back to this circular argument that the ALP should fund what merely amounts to the only real option left for elected government to actually be heard by the electorate under such circumstances. Which translates as: “we don’t want to recognise the legitimacy of the Labor party as the elected government”.
Fran @ 106 – yep, fully agree there.
Andrew, the question you pose @ 104 is not relevant here because it is presented without acknowledging the situation that is occurring at present and which has been building for some time. You’re trying to re-frame the debate so as to exclude the crucial question of why something might be occurring. This might make it easy to attack the governments position but it is hardly an honest appraisal of the overall situation.
It is starkly obvious that this government faces an intensely hostile media, determined to misrepresent it at every step. It has thus far been achieving this with quite devastating effect – unsurprisingly since they control most of the channels of information that link the government to the broader electorate. If that weren’t enough, a conglomerate of some of the wealthiest individuals in the country have mounted their own lavishly funded campaign, designed to convince the public that the redistribution of some more of their enormous lucre – gained by digging up and shipping out our finite mineral wealth – back toward the public purpose will “kill the golden goose” and that investment in Australian resources will now simply wither away on the vine.
Which really translates as: “we just want to keep stuffing our pockets with truckloads of cash and we don’t intend to share it with anyone. The election is only a few months away – if we can portray the government as economic wreckers they will back off or be thrown out of office by a public whose eyes we have pulled the wool over.”
While I’m sure you would love to watch the government just lean back against the ropes and allow itself to be endlessly pummelled by what amounts to a giant, multi-faceted smear campaing designed to destroy it, the argument that they should do nothing at all to reply is simply not credible.
Which leads back to this circular argument that the ALP should fund what merely amounts to the only real option left for elected government to actually be heard by the electorate under such circumstances. Which translates as: “we don’t want to recognise the legitimacy of the Labor party as the elected government”.
Fran @ 106 – yep, fully agree there.
Reading through your arguments above, though, you did not limit, in any way, your seeming belief that the governing party is able to raid tax revenue to promote its policies.
You are now trying to say that they should only be doing it if they are being “…endlessly pummelled by what amounts to a giant, multi-faceted smear campaing [sic] designed to destroy it…”. This is a change, but in the case of “WorkChoices” I do not think it is a significant one. I well remember the giant, multi-faceted “Your Rights at Work” campaign that I would think the then government would have argued was a “smear campaign designed to destroy it”. While it was not launched by “wealthy individuals” it was launched by wealthy organisations – the union movement.
Sorry, but no dice. You are giving a very good impression of being hypocritical if you opposed the then government’s WorkChoices campaign.
To Rudd is being hypocritical in doing this, and he has definitely broken his “100% guarantee” on this.
Reading through your arguments above, though, you did not limit, in any way, your seeming belief that the governing party is able to raid tax revenue to promote its policies.
You are now trying to say that they should only be doing it if they are being “…endlessly pummelled by what amounts to a giant, multi-faceted smear campaing [sic] designed to destroy it…”. This is a change, but in the case of “WorkChoices” I do not think it is a significant one. I well remember the giant, multi-faceted “Your Rights at Work” campaign that I would think the then government would have argued was a “smear campaign designed to destroy it”. While it was not launched by “wealthy individuals” it was launched by wealthy organisations – the union movement.
Sorry, but no dice. You are giving a very good impression of being hypocritical if you opposed the then government’s WorkChoices campaign.
To Rudd is being hypocritical in doing this, and he has definitely broken his “100% guarantee” on this.
That is a worrying mentality. Legitamacy ought not be based on whim. The whole point of the rule of law is to get away from the rule of whim.
Flynnboy – I do not at all accept your point about media hostility. The media was hostile to Howard. The only significant difference is the reality of how Rudd governs not the hostility of the media. The media treated him like a saint through 2007 and 2008. To suggest that the government is justified in taking “necessary measures” to get a leg up in debate is on a slipper slope. The government gets plenty of opportunity to put it’s case. In so far as it is struggling it is due to poor argument rather than a lack of taxpayer funded air time. If people have switched off to Rudd it is because he lies and betrays not because the media is hostile.
That is a worrying mentality. Legitamacy ought not be based on whim. The whole point of the rule of law is to get away from the rule of whim.
Flynnboy – I do not at all accept your point about media hostility. The media was hostile to Howard. The only significant difference is the reality of how Rudd governs not the hostility of the media. The media treated him like a saint through 2007 and 2008. To suggest that the government is justified in taking “necessary measures” to get a leg up in debate is on a slipper slope. The government gets plenty of opportunity to put it’s case. In so far as it is struggling it is due to poor argument rather than a lack of taxpayer funded air time. If people have switched off to Rudd it is because he lies and betrays not because the media is hostile.
Well yes, but of course, the idea of representative democracy is to have an actor prosecute your personal interest. In practice, it’s implicit that someone negotiates on your behalf, much as you would if you were there in person.
Years of convention mean that people accept that government is an approximation of their interests since not all people have identical interests. That leads us by stages to the view that accountable government is about establishing objective rules that bind and empower everyone in just, predictable and non-arbitrary ways.
Well yes, but of course, the idea of representative democracy is to have an actor prosecute your personal interest. In practice, it’s implicit that someone negotiates on your behalf, much as you would if you were there in person.
Years of convention mean that people accept that government is an approximation of their interests since not all people have identical interests. That leads us by stages to the view that accountable government is about establishing objective rules that bind and empower everyone in just, predictable and non-arbitrary ways.
Fran,
The idea of representative democracy is not to have someone prosecute your individual or sectoral interests, but to have our representatives prosecute the general interest.
The idea, surely, is that not everyone in a country can be across all issues all the time. We therefore elect people we trust, based on their prior record and commitments, to make certain decisions (those they are allowed to make subject to the Constitution, our laws and such) for us.
To me, Rudd was elected based on several promises and also because the Australian electorate trusted him more than they trusted any of the alternatives (not just Howard, but the Greens and any others).
He has, IMHO, repeatedly violated that trust – including, in this instance, going back on his clearly expressed commitments.
The Japanese PM just resigned for failing to achieve what he promised to do – and that was not even “the greatest moral challenge of our time”. I find it a pity that our PM does not have the courage to follow his example.
Fran,
The idea of representative democracy is not to have someone prosecute your individual or sectoral interests, but to have our representatives prosecute the general interest.
The idea, surely, is that not everyone in a country can be across all issues all the time. We therefore elect people we trust, based on their prior record and commitments, to make certain decisions (those they are allowed to make subject to the Constitution, our laws and such) for us.
To me, Rudd was elected based on several promises and also because the Australian electorate trusted him more than they trusted any of the alternatives (not just Howard, but the Greens and any others).
He has, IMHO, repeatedly violated that trust – including, in this instance, going back on his clearly expressed commitments.
The Japanese PM just resigned for failing to achieve what he promised to do – and that was not even “the greatest moral challenge of our time”. I find it a pity that our PM does not have the courage to follow his example.
Andrew said:
If that were so we’d not have a system based on electorates or states as electoral divisions. Nobody would write to members of parliament asking them to act on their behalf. We would not have polls to tell us what people thought about individual issues.
I accept that the view of governance you put is commonly expressed — typically under the rubric of “leadership” — a euphemism for abrogating responsibility to the electroate and taking “unpopular decisions in the national interest”. On this view, the elite knows best what the national interest is and imposes it, allowing a plebiscite to take place after the results are in and the damage/benefit is clear.
It sits rather uneasily with the view of governments acting on the basis of a mandate from the community and individual members being servants of their constituents.
The problem is that the systems that have arisen did so on the basis of reconciling the protection of the interests of the privilged classes with more popular notions of of government as expression of the popular will, a collection of individual sovereigns if you will, and the co-extensive enlargement of the number of such sovereigns — including women, younger people, people not distinguished by having land or property etc.
J S Mill was actually quite bothered by the idea of democracy — since he saw it as threatening to allow hoi polloi to rule over those of intellectual accomplishment and possessed of an interest in protection of the property system as a whole.
Andrew said:
If that were so we’d not have a system based on electorates or states as electoral divisions. Nobody would write to members of parliament asking them to act on their behalf. We would not have polls to tell us what people thought about individual issues.
I accept that the view of governance you put is commonly expressed — typically under the rubric of “leadership” — a euphemism for abrogating responsibility to the electroate and taking “unpopular decisions in the national interest”. On this view, the elite knows best what the national interest is and imposes it, allowing a plebiscite to take place after the results are in and the damage/benefit is clear.
It sits rather uneasily with the view of governments acting on the basis of a mandate from the community and individual members being servants of their constituents.
The problem is that the systems that have arisen did so on the basis of reconciling the protection of the interests of the privilged classes with more popular notions of of government as expression of the popular will, a collection of individual sovereigns if you will, and the co-extensive enlargement of the number of such sovereigns — including women, younger people, people not distinguished by having land or property etc.
J S Mill was actually quite bothered by the idea of democracy — since he saw it as threatening to allow hoi polloi to rule over those of intellectual accomplishment and possessed of an interest in protection of the property system as a whole.
Fran,
That’s not correct. We vote on the basis of electorates not so that the members can serve our narrow, electorate based desires (if so, there would be a Parliament full of independents rather than members of any parties) but to try to ensure that every area of the country is represented in the decision making process.
It has the additional benefit of making individual members directly responsible to someone, something that is easy to avoid on a list system.
The logic then follows (IMHO) that the members are not there as “servants” of their constituents, but to ensure that their constituents’ views are represented in the decision making process. Where there is a conflict it is then for the representative to decide whether to vote in what he or she perceives to be the national interest or in what he or she perceives to be the local interest.
It is fairly plain that, for most members, the voting will be along Party lines – and hopefully this represents the national interest. This may, however, be in the Party interest – but that is what regular elections are for, in serving as a check on that.
With this concept it is still useful to contact your MP on many issues, and indeed this is what often happens.
To an extent Mill was right to be concerned. The (to use your term) “hoi polloi” have been voting themselves (or ourselves) larger and larger amounts from the common weal. Fortunately, his worst fears on this have not been realised and the “hoi polloi” have realised that voting for those who promise huge taxation and redistribution just hurts everyone – themselves included.
I, personally, believe this process has gone too far and I am confident that, over time, that view will prevail and the “hoi polloi” will vote for lower taxation.
Until then, I am content to keep making the argument and discussing my views with my representatives in the various parliaments and voting for those who, at least nominally, support that position.
Fran,
That’s not correct. We vote on the basis of electorates not so that the members can serve our narrow, electorate based desires (if so, there would be a Parliament full of independents rather than members of any parties) but to try to ensure that every area of the country is represented in the decision making process.
It has the additional benefit of making individual members directly responsible to someone, something that is easy to avoid on a list system.
The logic then follows (IMHO) that the members are not there as “servants” of their constituents, but to ensure that their constituents’ views are represented in the decision making process. Where there is a conflict it is then for the representative to decide whether to vote in what he or she perceives to be the national interest or in what he or she perceives to be the local interest.
It is fairly plain that, for most members, the voting will be along Party lines – and hopefully this represents the national interest. This may, however, be in the Party interest – but that is what regular elections are for, in serving as a check on that.
With this concept it is still useful to contact your MP on many issues, and indeed this is what often happens.
To an extent Mill was right to be concerned. The (to use your term) “hoi polloi” have been voting themselves (or ourselves) larger and larger amounts from the common weal. Fortunately, his worst fears on this have not been realised and the “hoi polloi” have realised that voting for those who promise huge taxation and redistribution just hurts everyone – themselves included.
I, personally, believe this process has gone too far and I am confident that, over time, that view will prevail and the “hoi polloi” will vote for lower taxation.
Until then, I am content to keep making the argument and discussing my views with my representatives in the various parliaments and voting for those who, at least nominally, support that position.
Andrew Said:
You obviously don’t spend a lot of time listenting to parliament and committees then on NewsRadio. It’s all about what they have done for their local area.
Much of it is masquerade of course because they represent the major parties rather than local interests, but that’s just the point. Masquerade tells you what people think should happen.
I take it as self-evident that there can be no such thing as the national interest, at least not in societies where substantial social inequality exists. At most there can be a kind of reconciliation in which existing usages enable a slightly more generous and sustainable distribution of tangible and intangible benefits, subject of course to the same kinds of inequalities as existed before.
Having a national interest implies a condition in which everyone stands to rise and fall together with nearly equal effect. That applies nowehere I’ve ever heard of. As things stand in Australia, the things consensually thought to be “in the national interest” are almost always in the sectional interest of privileged elites — hence the current debate over RSPT.
[Syntax note: FTR ... hoi in hoi polloi is "the" so one of your articles is redundant.]
Andrew Said:
You obviously don’t spend a lot of time listenting to parliament and committees then on NewsRadio. It’s all about what they have done for their local area.
Much of it is masquerade of course because they represent the major parties rather than local interests, but that’s just the point. Masquerade tells you what people think should happen.
I take it as self-evident that there can be no such thing as the national interest, at least not in societies where substantial social inequality exists. At most there can be a kind of reconciliation in which existing usages enable a slightly more generous and sustainable distribution of tangible and intangible benefits, subject of course to the same kinds of inequalities as existed before.
Having a national interest implies a condition in which everyone stands to rise and fall together with nearly equal effect. That applies nowehere I’ve ever heard of. As things stand in Australia, the things consensually thought to be “in the national interest” are almost always in the sectional interest of privileged elites — hence the current debate over RSPT.
[Syntax note: FTR ... hoi in hoi polloi is "the" so one of your articles is redundant.]
Redpresentatives are not delegates but I must admit that I agree with Fran to an extent. Our system of electorates is notionally about ensuring diversity in representation but in practice they do act a lot like delegates. They don’t think for themselves independent of what their voters think.
Personally I think we should go with the flow and rename the lower house the house of delegates. The upper house should be filled using sortition which really would be a pure representative system.
Redpresentatives are not delegates but I must admit that I agree with Fran to an extent. Our system of electorates is notionally about ensuring diversity in representation but in practice they do act a lot like delegates. They don’t think for themselves independent of what their voters think.
Personally I think we should go with the flow and rename the lower house the house of delegates. The upper house should be filled using sortition which really would be a pure representative system.
Fran,
Just FYI – my car radio is normally tuned to 585 in Perth, so I do listen, but only when driving and I don’t do that a lot.
I would disagree on the national interest question. It does not presume that we all rise and fall with nearly equal effect – I would agree that is impossible – but some things are clearly only of narrow sectional benefit and not of the interest of the nation as a whole. IMHO tariffs fall into this category. To me, the process of tariff reduction over the last few decades is the triumph of a clearly defined national interest over that of the small, but vocal, sections that benefited from them.
I would agree on the masquerade, though. It is – but in any masquerade what matters is what is happening behind the masks. They will talk about the interests of their constituents at length, and then vote (in most cases) as the party room decides. I see this not so much as failing to represent their constituents, but evidence for the sort of process I spoke about above.
It would make the individual representatives sometimes feel like hypocrites (and for good reason) until they learn to live with the cognitive dissonance, but ultimately it gets the job done.
My wish is not that representatives were more likely to stand up for their constituencies, but more that they were able to vote their consciences in what they perceived to be the national interest.
I try to not have a (what I see as) narrow, class based view of the world. The more the government is able to allow us to break free of our origins, provided that is what we want to do, then I see that as a positive role for government.
Fran,
Just FYI – my car radio is normally tuned to 585 in Perth, so I do listen, but only when driving and I don’t do that a lot.
I would disagree on the national interest question. It does not presume that we all rise and fall with nearly equal effect – I would agree that is impossible – but some things are clearly only of narrow sectional benefit and not of the interest of the nation as a whole. IMHO tariffs fall into this category. To me, the process of tariff reduction over the last few decades is the triumph of a clearly defined national interest over that of the small, but vocal, sections that benefited from them.
I would agree on the masquerade, though. It is – but in any masquerade what matters is what is happening behind the masks. They will talk about the interests of their constituents at length, and then vote (in most cases) as the party room decides. I see this not so much as failing to represent their constituents, but evidence for the sort of process I spoke about above.
It would make the individual representatives sometimes feel like hypocrites (and for good reason) until they learn to live with the cognitive dissonance, but ultimately it gets the job done.
My wish is not that representatives were more likely to stand up for their constituencies, but more that they were able to vote their consciences in what they perceived to be the national interest.
I try to not have a (what I see as) narrow, class based view of the world. The more the government is able to allow us to break free of our origins, provided that is what we want to do, then I see that as a positive role for government.
Fran,
I should add that, in English at least, the noun has come to be (perhaps by abuse and only IMHO) “hoi polloi”, with the article being subsumed.
Fran,
I should add that, in English at least, the noun has come to be (perhaps by abuse and only IMHO) “hoi polloi”, with the article being subsumed.
Andrew said:
compare: PIN number, ATM machine
Vernacular and accepted in common usage, but inappropriate to formal register. This place is informal, so it was not so much a criticism as a usage note. One never stops being a teacher, once one starts.
On the substantive point …
I am, as people will know, a supporter of a hybrid form of governance embodying sortition and deliberative voting for delegates plus direct democracy for macro policy direction and guidance on seriously divisive issues. This seems to me in the current circumstances to best strike the balance between individual and collective interests. Such a system I’ve dubbed inclusive governance.
Andrew said:
compare: PIN number, ATM machine
Vernacular and accepted in common usage, but inappropriate to formal register. This place is informal, so it was not so much a criticism as a usage note. One never stops being a teacher, once one starts.
On the substantive point …
I am, as people will know, a supporter of a hybrid form of governance embodying sortition and deliberative voting for delegates plus direct democracy for macro policy direction and guidance on seriously divisive issues. This seems to me in the current circumstances to best strike the balance between individual and collective interests. Such a system I’ve dubbed inclusive governance.
What is deliberative voting?
What is deliberative voting?
It’s a system in which one could rate each of a set of policies (say 10) on a scale from 1-10 (with 1 being “strongly oppose” and 10 being “strongly support”) and also rate them in terms of their significance in your vote. So for example, if one strongly supported a policy of keeping out “them furriners” but ranked this only 10% significant in determining their vote, they’d have a remaining 90% to allocate amongst the remaining options.
Candidates would get a rating based on the extent to which they got support for their policies, but they would also get feedback on what people approved and disapproved of. A candidate who got a 100% rating would get more chances in the final sortition draw than one rated only 70% or 50% supportable.
It’s a system in which one could rate each of a set of policies (say 10) on a scale from 1-10 (with 1 being “strongly oppose” and 10 being “strongly support”) and also rate them in terms of their significance in your vote. So for example, if one strongly supported a policy of keeping out “them furriners” but ranked this only 10% significant in determining their vote, they’d have a remaining 90% to allocate amongst the remaining options.
Candidates would get a rating based on the extent to which they got support for their policies, but they would also get feedback on what people approved and disapproved of. A candidate who got a 100% rating would get more chances in the final sortition draw than one rated only 70% or 50% supportable.
Fran,
Good luck explaining that method to
thehoi polloi. I suspect that the bulk of us are reasonably comfortable with a system where we only have to vote around once a year and that those we have effectively hired to do the job for us do so while we get on with our lives. Provided the voting was voluntary, I would think it would only be a minority that actually voted, thus delegitimatising the whole process.Incidentally, I did note the possibility that “hoi polloi” had been transformed by abuse. Nevertheless, I would argue that it has been so changed.
Fran,
Good luck explaining that method to
thehoi polloi. I suspect that the bulk of us are reasonably comfortable with a system where we only have to vote around once a year and that those we have effectively hired to do the job for us do so while we get on with our lives. Provided the voting was voluntary, I would think it would only be a minority that actually voted, thus delegitimatising the whole process.Incidentally, I did note the possibility that “hoi polloi” had been transformed by abuse. Nevertheless, I would argue that it has been so changed.
Fran – conceptually that approach might make some sense, especially given an oversized government with a clear inability to prioritise and limit it’s initiatives, however in practice I’m not so sure. I agree with Andrew, most people don’t want to be bothered with all this stuff. You he and I are interested but most people have other hobbies and want to be left alone.
Fran – conceptually that approach might make some sense, especially given an oversized government with a clear inability to prioritise and limit it’s initiatives, however in practice I’m not so sure. I agree with Andrew, most people don’t want to be bothered with all this stuff. You he and I are interested but most people have other hobbies and want to be left alone.
Terje said:
That is probably true right now. At no point in human history has the active engagement of the populace at national level ever been sought by any government — quite the reverse. It is little wonder that active interest in these matters is confined to what you call hobbyists.
That said, it’s my view that one can only complain about being marginalised from public policy formation or the quality of our governance if one is keen to front up and commit to being part of authoring some new framework for policy. If one regards citizenship and community as conferring benefits, one must feel obliged to respond with quid pro quo. It’s a duty. And as a set of practices, it will surely be educational. It could become the next big thing.
If some people opt out despite the fact that the structural and social obstacles have been removed, then IMO, let them be marginalised. They don’t count and if this results in a poorer correspondence between their needs and the actions of the government they have no business complaining.
Terje said:
That is probably true right now. At no point in human history has the active engagement of the populace at national level ever been sought by any government — quite the reverse. It is little wonder that active interest in these matters is confined to what you call hobbyists.
That said, it’s my view that one can only complain about being marginalised from public policy formation or the quality of our governance if one is keen to front up and commit to being part of authoring some new framework for policy. If one regards citizenship and community as conferring benefits, one must feel obliged to respond with quid pro quo. It’s a duty. And as a set of practices, it will surely be educational. It could become the next big thing.
If some people opt out despite the fact that the structural and social obstacles have been removed, then IMO, let them be marginalised. They don’t count and if this results in a poorer correspondence between their needs and the actions of the government they have no business complaining.
Why am I being BLACKMAILED by international conglomerates???
If I vote for Kevin Rudd and his RSPT my Grandmother and brother and all my friends are going to suffer yet they already suffered during the ‘sonic’ boom???
Why am I being BLACKMAILED by international conglomerates???
If I vote for Kevin Rudd and his RSPT my Grandmother and brother and all my friends are going to suffer yet they already suffered during the ‘sonic’ boom???
Hey, who has kids that suffered during the ‘sonic’ boom????
Hey, who has kids that suffered during the ‘sonic’ boom????
Fran,
It is possible for people to choose right now to be involved – it is called joining a political party.
I hink you know the popularity of that option at the moment.
Fran,
It is possible for people to choose right now to be involved – it is called joining a political party.
I hink you know the popularity of that option at the moment.
Sorry Andrew, but that doesn’t wash.
As you know, there really are only two parties with a prospect of leading a government. To enter one of these you must accept their framework for policy or at best accept irrelevance.
Forming a new party outside of the old ones would take decades of work and most of us would never see a single serious policy aim discussed in parliament, let alone acted on. One might as well tell someone to dig his way out of maximum security with a spoon. Notionally possible, given time but not schedule feasible. No wonder hardly anyone is interested. It’s just not a good use of your time. And of course once you conclude that, what possible point is there in paying attention to poliocy, since. self-evidently, nobody with the power to act is going tio even discuss it, much less act.
We don’t need new parties and new people in which to invest our hopes and dreams and on which to unload our disappointments at their human frailty. We need a new structure so as to author new policies and we need them as soon as possible, regardless of what parties and talking heads think of them.
Sorry Andrew, but that doesn’t wash.
As you know, there really are only two parties with a prospect of leading a government. To enter one of these you must accept their framework for policy or at best accept irrelevance.
Forming a new party outside of the old ones would take decades of work and most of us would never see a single serious policy aim discussed in parliament, let alone acted on. One might as well tell someone to dig his way out of maximum security with a spoon. Notionally possible, given time but not schedule feasible. No wonder hardly anyone is interested. It’s just not a good use of your time. And of course once you conclude that, what possible point is there in paying attention to poliocy, since. self-evidently, nobody with the power to act is going tio even discuss it, much less act.
We don’t need new parties and new people in which to invest our hopes and dreams and on which to unload our disappointments at their human frailty. We need a new structure so as to author new policies and we need them as soon as possible, regardless of what parties and talking heads think of them.
If anyone is actually still interested in examining the Government’s alleged rationale for breaking a cast iron commitment on advertising – to wit, the enormity of the lies being put about the media/the miners/sundry other evil capitalists/insert as many other betes noir du jour as we can think of, and the public’s thirst for the truth which only a noble and totally objective Government can provide – perhaps one of the true believers could venture an explanation as to why the Government rejected yesterday through bully boy tactics a chance to ventilate its truth for free?
Surely their arguments for the tax are not so feeble that they are afraid they would lose to even Bob Katter in an argument about it?
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/emergency_powers/
A special prize for the first answer saying that it’s a link to Tim Blair so we can just dismiss it as a non-question.
If anyone is actually still interested in examining the Government’s alleged rationale for breaking a cast iron commitment on advertising – to wit, the enormity of the lies being put about the media/the miners/sundry other evil capitalists/insert as many other betes noir du jour as we can think of, and the public’s thirst for the truth which only a noble and totally objective Government can provide – perhaps one of the true believers could venture an explanation as to why the Government rejected yesterday through bully boy tactics a chance to ventilate its truth for free?
Surely their arguments for the tax are not so feeble that they are afraid they would lose to even Bob Katter in an argument about it?
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/emergency_powers/
A special prize for the first answer saying that it’s a link to Tim Blair so we can just dismiss it as a non-question.
Wozza offered a special prize for the first answer saying that it’s a link to Tim Blair so we can just dismiss it as a non-question.
He’s right. The day Tim Blair sheds light on an issue rather that buries the issue in industry dissembling, is the day we will know that socialism is incipient.
Seriously Wozza … why link to a mouth for hire?
What prize do I get?
Wozza offered a special prize for the first answer saying that it’s a link to Tim Blair so we can just dismiss it as a non-question.
He’s right. The day Tim Blair sheds light on an issue rather that buries the issue in industry dissembling, is the day we will know that socialism is incipient.
Seriously Wozza … why link to a mouth for hire?
What prize do I get?
Er, actually Fran have to confess I didn’t think anyone would have the nerve actually to try that on, seeing as how at least in this instance Timmy was almost entirely quoting from others – I assume that if you believe he is “dissembling”, you must also believe that Ms Gillard was dissembling in the quote in question? – so I haven’t got anything nicely wrapped up and ready.
How about I just promise not engage in futile arguments with you for, say, a week, nor even reveal my view as to why arguments with you are almost always futile from the outset?
Er, actually Fran have to confess I didn’t think anyone would have the nerve actually to try that on, seeing as how at least in this instance Timmy was almost entirely quoting from others – I assume that if you believe he is “dissembling”, you must also believe that Ms Gillard was dissembling in the quote in question? – so I haven’t got anything nicely wrapped up and ready.
How about I just promise not engage in futile arguments with you for, say, a week, nor even reveal my view as to why arguments with you are almost always futile from the outset?
Wozza said:
Quite possibly — she certainly dissembled quite a bit over MySchool — though as I’ve not seen Tim Bliar’s remarks I can’t say.
The reason arguments with me are futile for you to begin is because in my experience your opinions are merely cut and paste rightwing popular wisdom rather than a coherent reckoning of the issues. You start off half-baked and progressively find that out until the only response that works for you is “what’s the point?”
So no, you have nothing you need to reveal to me.
Wozza said:
Quite possibly — she certainly dissembled quite a bit over MySchool — though as I’ve not seen Tim Bliar’s remarks I can’t say.
The reason arguments with me are futile for you to begin is because in my experience your opinions are merely cut and paste rightwing popular wisdom rather than a coherent reckoning of the issues. You start off half-baked and progressively find that out until the only response that works for you is “what’s the point?”
So no, you have nothing you need to reveal to me.
OK, Fran, so you haven’t bothered to look at a link but you are prepared to dismiss it offhand.
This – your conviction that you know it all already and don’t need even to consider anything new – is certainly one of the reasons that arguing with you is futile, though probably not among the top three.
Anyway, I must keep my promise, so this is not an argument.
OK, Fran, so you haven’t bothered to look at a link but you are prepared to dismiss it offhand.
This – your conviction that you know it all already and don’t need even to consider anything new – is certainly one of the reasons that arguing with you is futile, though probably not among the top three.
Anyway, I must keep my promise, so this is not an argument.
Wozza said:
In Mr Bliar’s case, like Blot’s case, yes. This character has repeatedly affirmed that he has zero intellectual acumen or integrity. One need not probe further.
I’ve already explained the position on the advertising campaign above. If you wish to dispute that, it’s up to you. Maundering from some rightwing halfwit at The Tele pitching at those he thinks even more moronic than he is simply doesn’t warrant a response.
Wozza said:
In Mr Bliar’s case, like Blot’s case, yes. This character has repeatedly affirmed that he has zero intellectual acumen or integrity. One need not probe further.
I’ve already explained the position on the advertising campaign above. If you wish to dispute that, it’s up to you. Maundering from some rightwing halfwit at The Tele pitching at those he thinks even more moronic than he is simply doesn’t warrant a response.