Tomatoes have already been planted at Clarke Mansions and the pre-pubescent budding outlines of rich red squeezable tomatoes create a strange stirring sensation in my loins as I gaze off into the summer sunset and think of Nabakov. Shuffling items between garden beds and pots took a few hours longer than expected and, as I type this, I am relaxing sore muscles with a dirt cheap, though excellent, Froggie red wine sold in Australia under the label Arrogant Frog – a great drop for under $10.
This morning I took son to violin lesson on other side of Melbourne, wacked 100 golf balls at a practise range at Kingston Links in Rowville then ate the usual Saturday lunch of duck and rice.
I also thought about the prospects of political catastrophe in Australia.
Garrett now says it was all a mistake, humour a stuff-up. Whatever it was Kevin ‘wax-muncher’ Rudd has forgiven Peter Garrett for saying that Labor’s ‘me-tooism’ is a lie and that once Labor gets into power it will change its policies to ones that are different from the Coalition. Me-tooism doesn’t matter because we will change all that when we get into power. Mr Rudd has affirmed affirmatively that he means what he says – ‘it’s our covenant with the Australian people’ . And Peter admits he is a dummy – yep.
I always detested the music of Garrett’s inept rock group Midnight Oil. The lyrics of Garrett’s songs remind me of the sad facts of early leftwing mental retardation. Of course he has grown up quite a bit since those days and adolescence looms.
Earlier in the week Peter Garrett had confirmed the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the Labor Party by conforming (the day after stating the contrary) that Labor would only sign an international agreement on climate change if developing countries did too. Of course this is exactly the reason – much criticised by Labor – the Coalition used for not ratifying the Kyoto protocol.
It is interesting that Labor implicitly accepts the me-tooism. Rudd has essentially said that me-tooism is not a deceitful tactic – they will honour me-tooism.
There are only two minor differences between the Coalition and Labor:
- Labor opposes WorkChoices though current AWAs will be honoured for a period of 5 years – until after the next election. Not a big difference and a lot can happen in 5 years particularly if an inexperienced Labor Government drives Australia into recession.
- Labor will withdraw troops from Iraq. This is a total con since regardless of who wins the election the same number of troops will be doing the same jobs by the middle of next year.
Posts
13 comments:
Shouldn't that be a prostrate banksia, Harry?
Thanks Rog, corrected.
If one were to rely solely on media coverage and analysis of the current election campaign and the state of play between the two parties one could take solace in the conclusion that there are only a couple of minor differences between a future Howard government and a Rudd government.
Leaving aside seemingly minor policy differentiation on climate change, IR, health, education and infrastructure, I would argue that the voters are well aware of the differences the two teams represent - differences that are largely unspoken of in the MSM.
Howard offers more of the same, with the addition of a nuclear industry, Work Choices III (to be called No Choices), more foolish US adventurism and destructive unilateral free-trade agreements and chronic neglect of national and public infrastructure, and a general all-round mean and tricky ungenerous demeanour.
Rudd is seen as a positive, forward looking leader - minus a nuclear industry and far less mean-hearted bastardry towards the lower economic class in Australian society. Voters are tired of Howard and his unspoken, dog-whistled values. This was apparent in Latham's time. Howard's abuse and trammeling of parliament process, especially with respect to the 'change-everything-later' unmandated Work Choices has sealed his own fate.
Garrett's Gaffe will do little if anything at all to shift the current sentiment. Indeed, it may actually work in Rudd's favour for those disappointed in the negative aspects of wedge politics and me-toosim. The majority of people apparently want a change - not just a wishy-washy Howard-Lite.
There is no need to spoil your gardening time with negative thoughts of impending doom and gloom. I'm sure a Rudd government will be nowhere near as dire as you are dreading. Indeed, a new government unburdened by so much ideological baggage and history of the last decade may actually be beneficial for the future prosperity and well-being of the nation. After all, we really are talking tweedledum and tweedledee here, not Stalin vs Genghis Khan.
Shut up slim. Your cliches are comincal.
If one were to rely solely on media coverage and analysis of the current election campaign and the state of play between the two parties one could take solace in the conclusion that there are only a couple of minor differences between a future Howard government and a Rudd government.
You dishonest idiot , Slim. If there were only minor differences you wouldn’t be so partisan.
-----------------------------
Leaving aside seemingly minor policy differentiation on climate change, IR, health, education and infrastructure, I would argue that the voters are well aware of the differences the two teams represent - differences that are largely unspoken of in the MSM.
Except that one senior Labor trog fessed up that they’re lying.
----------------------------------------------
Howard offers more of the same, with the addition of a nuclear industry, Work Choices III (to be called No Choices), more foolish US adventurism and destructive unilateral free-trade agreements and chronic neglect of national and public infrastructure, and a general all-round mean and tricky ungenerous demeanour.
Howard has put up Nuke as a way of producing clean power, you moron. There aren’t too many choices unless anti-matter reactors have been developed.
Rudd is seen as a positive, forward looking leader - minus a nuclear industry and far less mean-hearted bastardry towards the lower economic class in Australian society.
Speak for yourself, Slim, you dishonest dope. Some of us see him him as a dishonest ear picker who eats ear wax.
----------------------------------
Voters are tired of Howard and his unspoken, dog-whistled values.
Cliché alert!
----------------------------------
This was apparent in Latham's time. Howard's abuse and trammeling of parliament process, especially with respect to the 'change-everything-later' unmandated Work Choices has sealed his own fate.
You total moron. He had a majority. Howard hasn’t done a thing to undermine the parliamentary process. It’s all in your squalid imagination.
-------------------------
Garrett's Gaffe will do little if anything at all to shift the current sentiment. Indeed, it may actually work in Rudd's favour for those disappointed in the negative aspects of wedge politics and me-toosim.
Shorter slim (no pun intended)
Lying is popular with the electorate.
----------------------------------------
The majority of people apparently want a change - not just a wishy-washy Howard-Lite.
No, you idiot. People want more of the same which is why Labor is adopting most of the coaltion’s policies.
--------------------------------
There is no need to spoil your gardening time with negative thoughts of impending doom and gloom. I'm sure a Rudd government will be nowhere near as dire as you are dreading.
You’re not cometent to judge, Slim. Your woeful commets prove this.
Indeed, a new government unburdened by so much ideological baggage and history of the last decade may actually be beneficial for the future prosperity and well-being of the nation.
Ok, so twll us why regaultion the labor market is a good thing in economics terms, you moron.
---------------------------
After all, we really are talking tweedledum and tweedledee here, not Stalin vs Genghis Khan.
Take a look at the trogs on that front bench of the ALP. Msot couldn’t get jobs is shetlered wrokshops for retards.
These attacks on the politely expressed viewpoints of Slim are unreasonable and unwarranted.
Tone down the remarks 'anonymous' or I'll delete your comments.
Cheers Harry!
Anonymous comments are a coward's way out. And sadly, in this case, added nothing to the debate by way of clarification or refutation.
I trust you got plenty of rain for the garden? We had around 55mm yesterday.
What attacks, harry. The guy is sliming you and you're defending him now?
Isn't this like the battered wives syndrome thing?
"Ok, so twll us why regaultion the labor market is a good thing in economics terms, you moron."
I don't see labour market regaultion in purely economic terms - indeed this is the heart of the matter. The cost of labour has always been a balance between the demands/needs of workers and the demands/needs of employers. Under Work Choices the balance has shifted in favour of the employer to the disadvantage of lower paid workers and their families, as the latest analyses are showing. Given sufficient time and economic circumstances this may well lead to the US phenomenon of the working poor. Just like we had in the 19th century, come to think of it.
Where employers are large and powerful, it seems reasonable for workers to negotiate wages and conditions as a union as a counter-balance. The Hawke/Keating enterprise agreement system was an effective and efficient balance and gave growth in workplace productivity that hasn't been seen in Howard's time - all economic evidence points to declining productivity under Work Choices. Productivity is more likely to be come from a genuinely cooperative relationship between labor and capital. The cheapest solution ain't always the most efficient or effective, or equitable.
Big businesses and corporations are enjoying double digit profits while the workers on whom they depend are expected to do with less than they had, with no account for CPI.
While it may be every non-wage earning conservative's dream, Work Choices will be deemed to have been Howard's undoing when the history books are written. It unravels the basic social contract between labour and capital that has underpinned a century of Australian fair go in the work place.
With Minchen and Costello on record as saying that Work Choices One didn't go far enough, IR is sufficient as a point of differentiation between Howard and Rudd.
BTW Anon, it is Harry who is arguing that there is only minor differences in policy as enunciated so far during the campaign. I am arguing that there are significant differences less spoken of by the media - and that is what is showing in the polls. And I'm not sliming Harry - I have no reason to assume he is anything but a decent bloke - otherwise I wouldn't bother reading what he has the guts to say in his own name.
Anon, He isn't 'sliming me' - we are having a discussion. Slim is saying that the differences between the parties are there but differences of emphasis and that the similarities should leave conservatives relaxed.
That's fair enough Anon.
I have never attacked Harry - I have had a number of discussions and never felt the need to resort to personal abuse. I have never found abuse and name-calling to be effective as a form of persuasive argument. It is often simply a substitute for lack of coherence and a way of venting one's anger, so if that works for you anon, good on you.
You seem intent on seeing things only in terms of 'economics', as though there is no other consideration to measuring success. Again, good luck to you. But there are many (around 58% 2PP at the last poll) who appreciate that there are other dimensions which make up a prosperous and civil society.
I indeed use a blogonym. But in my case it is not to hide my identity - it's not at all difficult to find out who I am. Perhaps people do it protect their personal identity from direct personal abuse?
Hmm... My 7.18pm comment was actually made at 8.20pm. after Anon 7.48pm
I don't see labour market regaultion in purely economic terms - indeed this is the heart of the matter.
Really? Perhaps you need to tell us under what terms you see it, Slim. That would have to be the dopiest comment you’ve made so far. So let’s hear it. Let’s hear under what terms you define it. Plumbing perhaps?
----------------------------
The cost of labour has always been a balance between the demands/needs of workers and the demands/needs of employers.
The cost of labour has always…. ALWAYS been about UTILITY. That is, it’s about he marginal utility of labor. If you have another definition please present it for peer review and you may end up with an academy award…. Er sorry a noble prize.
---------------------------
Under Work Choices the balance has shifted in favour of the employer to the disadvantage of lower paid workers and their families, as the latest analyses are showing.
Oh Really? Christ there is some dopey understanding about economics issues, isn’t there? If you want to talk economics I suggest you get yourself some training.
--------------------
Given sufficient time and economic circumstances this may well lead to the US phenomenon of the working poor. Just like we had in the 19th century, come to think of it.
You dope. It’s productivity that offers labor higher wages, not idiots or fools like the semi-criminal Joe MacDonald or Greg Combet. These thugs are parasites raising the wages of their members at the expense of the rest of us.
----------------------------
Where employers are large and powerful, it seems reasonable for workers to negotiate wages and conditions as a union as a counter-balance.
Really? Can you offer evidence that unions offer the best outcome or is that just some propaganda offered by the union slugs?
----------------
The Hawke/Keating enterprise agreement system was an effective and efficient balance and gave growth in workplace productivity that hasn't been seen in Howard's time - all economic evidence points to declining productivity under Work Choices.
The accord was an inflationary policy that ended with the toughest recession since the depression. Let’s have another, shall we?
--------------
Productivity is more likely to be come from a genuinely cooperative relationship between labor and capital. The cheapest solution ain't always the most efficient or effective, or equitable.
Really? That’s novel. Workers can work effectively only when they are able to negotiate en masse. Anything else will lead to sub optimal outcome. Look you stupid fool, the only way we get increased productivity is when there is an increasing capital to labor ratio. I’m sure that you would find many willing workers in Sub-Saharan Africa too. But they cannot expect to have the same level of productivity as a western worker without capital.
-------------------
Big businesses and corporations are enjoying double digit profits while the workers on whom they depend are expected to do with less than they had, with no account for CPI.
Income growth, is occurring in all sectors of the economy, you fool. We tried the CPI indexing in the 70’s and we ended up with 25% inflation rates. Yummy. Let’s do that again.
----------------
While it may be every non-wage earning conservative's dream, Work Choices will be deemed to have been Howard's undoing when the history books are written.
Maybe so, but it doesn’t mean it wasn’t optimal policy. It was. All that would mean is that unions lied well and got away with it.
-------------------
It unravels the basic social contract between labour and capital that has underpinned a century of Australian fair go in the work place.
You mean it has underpinned our move down through National GDP comparisons. That’s all it has done. Great achievement. Let’s have more of it.
--------------
With Minchen and Costello on record as saying that Work Choices One didn't go far enough, IR is sufficient as a point of differentiation between Howard and Rudd.
Workchoices does not go far enough. That’s correct. The reason is the Goberment should never be involved in labor market practices.
-------------
BTW Anon, it is Harry who is arguing that there is only minor differences in policy as enunciated so far during the campaign. I am arguing that there are significant differences less spoken of by the media - and that is what is showing in the polls. And I'm not sliming Harry - I have no reason to assume he is anything but a decent bloke - otherwise I wouldn't bother reading what he has the guts to say in his own name.
Oh yes. You attack him then tell him what a decent bloke he is.
-------
Anonymous comments are a coward's way out. And sadly, in this case, added nothing to the debate by way of clarification or refutation.
Really, slim. So your first, second and middle name is, Slim, you dishonest cretin. You are all monikered up but have a problem when other people do the same. Leftists! They are so stupid it’s oppressive
Post a Comment