On 26/08/2014 at 06:15, nutbean said:

amongst other things....

don't be under 30 and unemployed.

But in my day you could leave school in year 10 and walk into a factory job and be running the place in 10 years!

Surely nothing has changed in the last 40 years and my personal experience with youth employment still reflects reality.

Any kid these days who doesn't have a job just isn't trying hard enough and deserve what he gets!

Harumph!

Sorry, the ghost of baby boomers past must have possessed me for a second there. Good thing they don't run the country or anything.

  On 26/08/2014 at 04:41, nutbean said:

You can also argue the merits of the average punter that cares little about anything else except their own hip pocket.

What makes you think that you're not an average punter? Somebody comprises that group, and if it's not you or me, or others on this board, then who?

And what are you doing that makes your behaviour so much more virtuous than somebody who votes according to their hip pocket?

The implication of your post is that you are acting in some sort of national / international interest while others cannot look beyond their own self interest.

  On 21/08/2014 at 06:09, nutbean said:

You think he would know that Triple J listeners are not his demographic so he would keep his cool to win people over - not act like a 2 year old.

He's Minister for Education - they are exactly his demographic.

  On 25/08/2014 at 15:02, ijbfossil said:

Got my notification today from my energy supplier that my electricity will cost approx 7.2% less with a refund dated back to 1/7/14. Thank you Tony and your Govt for repealing the unwarranted carbon price.

you should ask the electricity companies for a refund of their monies they charged us all for up-grading their power lines & high tension lines, whilst no doubt claiming it on they're tax accounts at our expense, & the extra they charged us all over the last 6 years at the same time,,, while your at it, ijbfossil. & they blamed it on the carbon pricing arrangements. utter garbage.

it has more to do with the litigation for the big bushfires started, by the poor maintenance of the country wire networks, since the electricity companies went private & they neglected the maintenance programs of maintainng wires & poles in a high quality condition.

Black Saturday comes to mind along with Class Actions.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-15/black-saturday-bushfire-survivors-secure-record-payout/5597062

  On 26/08/2014 at 07:54, Grapeviney said:

What makes you think that you're not an average punter? Somebody comprises that group, and if it's not you or me, or others on this board, then who?

And what are you doing that makes your behaviour so much more virtuous than somebody who votes according to their hip pocket?

The implication of your post is that you are acting in some sort of national / international interest while others cannot look beyond their own self interest.

He's Minister for Education - they are exactly his demographic.

I misspoke with "average punter" - let me be more specific - people who vote based on short term material gain without looking at national interest in the mid/longer term.

I don't care if you want to call it virtuous or not - I call it like I see it - it is not an implication that i look beyond self interest - it is a fact - but there you go. Whilst it may be little cliche - with my income , if I was interested in my hip pocket I would be spruiking the Libs from the highest mountain as I would be far better off financially.

My biggest hate is pork barreling before elections - again - all it is is a crass attempt to buy votes. Again - self interest be damned.

I presume you are not a triple J listener ? A rather disingenuous comment about it being his demographic - certainly his age demographic but voting wise I suspect that he would fairly friendless on that channel. To my point on Pyne. Maybe if he wasnt such a prat and realise that he was 1/ playing directly to his age demographic 2/ playing directly against his voting demographic - he may not have been such a prickly tool.

  On 26/08/2014 at 07:54, Grapeviney said:

The implication of your post is that you are acting in some sort of national / international interest while others cannot look beyond their own self interest.

Not implied - stated.

I vehemently disagreed with Ben Hur on this forum but he debated things like the carbon tax regarding its effectiveness both nationally and internationally - he would debate issues around the benefit for the country as a whole. I believe that Australia pricing carbon alone will have little to no material impact other than a gradual change in behaviors which is a good thing. It needs to be a world wide movement to reduce our carbon emissions and we are but a bit player.

Does it surprise you that some are willing to pay a price for certain things they believe in that they will not see a personal material benefit ?

  On 27/08/2014 at 01:35, nutbean said:

I misspoke with "average punter" - let me be more specific - people who vote based on short term material gain without looking at national interest in the mid/longer term.

I just dislike the implication - mainly from the left - that people who vote conservative are only interested in 'short term material gain'.

I don't deny it's a big factor when people go to the polls, on all sides of politics.

But look at asylum seekers and border protection; these were huge issues at the last election and they're virtually completely removed from 'hip pocket politics'.

Hawke, Keating and Howard all succeeded in introducing crucial economic reforms - deregulating the economy, floating the dollar, cutting tariffs, implementing GST - which involved a measure of short-term hip pocket pain in the interests of longer term national interest. The nation as a whole was prepared to accept this hardship because it was convinced of the case for change, something which Hockey and Abbott have so far failed to do with their own Budget.

  On 27/08/2014 at 01:35, nutbean said:

I presume you are not a triple J listener ? A rather disingenuous comment about it being his demographic - certainly his age demographic but voting wise I suspect that he would fairly friendless on that channel.

I'm not sure why you would think I was being disingenuous. You're the one who said those listeners are not his demographic, even though you now say they are.

  On 27/08/2014 at 01:50, nutbean said:

Does it surprise you that some are willing to pay a price for certain things they believe in that they will not see a personal material benefit ?

Nope.

Does it bother you that some people need to see more than 'good intentions' to be persuaded to pay for things which they believe in but don't benefit from materially?

By the by, for those interested in politics and power, get a copy of Paul Kelly's new book, Triumph and Demise: The Broken Promise of a Labor Generation.

Definitely the best account of the rapid rise and epic fall of the Rudd / Gaillard Governments.

  On 27/08/2014 at 02:49, Grapeviney said:

I just dislike the implication - mainly from the left - that people who vote conservative are only interested in 'short term material gain'.

I don't deny it's a big factor when people go to the polls, on all sides of politics.

But look at asylum seekers and border protection; these were huge issues at the last election and they're virtually completely removed from 'hip pocket politics'.

Hawke, Keating and Howard all succeeded in introducing crucial economic reforms - deregulating the economy, floating the dollar, cutting tariffs, implementing GST - which involved a measure of short-term hip pocket pain in the interests of longer term national interest. The nation as a whole was prepared to accept this hardship because it was convinced of the case for change, something which Hockey and Abbott have so far failed to do with their own Budget.

I'm not sure why you would think I was being disingenuous. You're the one who said those listeners are not his demographic, even though you now say they are.

Firstly - I didn't suggest for a moment that voting with your hip pocket was the exclusive domain of the left or right. I dislike it on all sides of politics and you seem to me to be in violent agreement when quoting Hawke, Howard and Keating.

I also dont like politics of fear and both sides can be equally guilty of this.

The triple J listeners aren't his demographic. He was talking to a hostile audience and a politicians true demographic is people who vote for them. And listen to the Hack on triple J enough and you figure out most listeners leanings in a hurry. He came on the program and was snarly and uppity and would have won zero people over. ( when facing your audience - how they vote is the only essential demographic)

  On 27/08/2014 at 03:07, Grapeviney said:

Nope.

Does it bother you that some people need to see more than 'good intentions' to be persuaded to pay for things which they believe in but don't benefit from materially?

Raising money by Governments is usually black and white - we have a fair amount of transparency and can ascertain whether we like ( approve ? concede ?) a tax or not - When it comes to Government spending - all of them doing it appallingly badly and we have little window into how they go about it doing it - until it is all too late.

As to good intentions - thats all it will ever be as all governments are wasteful

  On 27/08/2014 at 03:20, Grapeviney said:

By the by, for those interested in politics and power, get a copy of Paul Kelly's new book, Triumph and Demise: The Broken Promise of a Labor Generation.

Definitely the best account of the rapid rise and epic fall of the Rudd / Gaillard Governments.

if you want to read another interesting book - read Mark Lathams initial book when he "retired" from politics.

60 % genuinely good ideas - 40% vitriol and "mad as a cut snake"

  On 27/08/2014 at 05:41, nutbean said:

As to good intentions - thats all it will ever be as all governments are wasteful

maybe, but certainly not equally so

  On 27/08/2014 at 05:44, nutbean said:

if you want to read another interesting book - read Mark Lathams initial book when he "retired" from politics.

60 % genuinely good ideas - 40% vitriol and "mad as a cut snake"

having good ideas when one is not in politics is easy

having good ideas while in politics seems a bit hard for many (or not self serving enough?)

  On 27/08/2014 at 05:59, daisycutter said:

having good ideas when one is not in politics is easy

having good ideas while in politics seems a bit hard for many (or not self serving enough?)

Pretty much. Good government requires both good policy and good politics, and this is the combination that eludes most.

Latham had some good ideas but lacked the temperament to be a disciplined and stable leader. By his own admission, he wasn't mature enough when he got the job.

  On 27/08/2014 at 06:26, Grapeviney said:

Pretty much. Good government requires both good policy and good politics, and this is the combination that eludes most.

Latham had some good ideas but lacked the temperament to be a disciplined and stable leader. By his own admission, he wasn't mature enough when he got the job.

Not mature enough is understatement - the thing I did admire in his book is he could see his own failings.

  On 27/08/2014 at 06:47, nutbean said:

the thing I did admire in his book is he could see his own failings.

Which book are you talking about here? The Latham Diaries?

It's been 10 years or whatever since I read it but I recall it as a bitter and spiteful book which blamed everyone and everything else for his failure.

I haven't read any of his subsequent books, maybe that's what you're referring to? There's a new one out now I think.

  On 27/08/2014 at 07:01, Grapeviney said:

Which book are you talking about here? The Latham Diaries?

It's been 10 years or whatever since I read it but I recall it as a bitter and spiteful book which blamed everyone and everything else for his failure.

I haven't read any of his subsequent books, maybe that's what you're referring to? There's a new one out now I think.

It was the Latham Diaries - he did take giant potshots at all - but he took giant potshots at himself as well.

He really wasnt cut out for politics - at to his performances since - Im not sure what he is cut of for.

As an aside - love or hate Paul Keating - he is a seriously funny man. His latest stuff on Bob Hawke - had me laughing.

  On 27/08/2014 at 23:13, nutbean said:

As an aside - love or hate Paul Keating - he is a seriously funny man. His latest stuff on Bob Hawke - had me laughing.

The accompanying pics of Hawkey in his budgie smugglers were gold. Thirty years later and our PM is still in the same attire.

Keating can't really talk though - when he was PM he used to skip Parliament and stay home at the Lodge listening to classical music in his pyjamas.

  On 28/08/2014 at 12:56, Grapeviney said:

The accompanying pics of Hawkey in his budgie smugglers were gold. Thirty years later and our PM is still in the same attire.

Keating can't really talk though - when he was PM he used to skip Parliament and stay home at the Lodge listening to classical music in his pyjamas.

The one thing about politicians is they are quick to damn other politicians foibles but have little insight into their own.

  On 27/08/2014 at 02:49, Grapeviney said:

But look at asylum seekers and border protection; these were huge issues at the last election and they're virtually completely removed from 'hip pocket politics'.

You are correct. Considering the amount of money we pizz down the drain on keeping internationally negligible numbers of people seeking asylum our of Australia, people should be up in arms. However, the reason why it is such an issue for the electorate is for the same reason: self interest and protection of one's self. It's a fear that we are losing 'our' Australia and that people seeking asylum are somehow an other who are somehow deceiving us and relieving us of our hard earned money to have a better life. This is far from the truth.

  On 27/08/2014 at 07:01, Grapeviney said:

Which book are you talking about here? The Latham Diaries?

It's been 10 years or whatever since I read it but I recall it as a bitter and spiteful book which blamed everyone and everything else for his failure.

Yes and no. Some of the vitriol is insane. However, keep in mind that the diaries aren't some kind of retrospective dump on the party. If you read it you will find that a lot of the observations he makes about the hopeless structure of the ALP, it's inability to develop half decent policy and it's domination by union hacks (these being the reasons why I would never join that party) and the incestuous nature of the relationship between the media and politicians is pretty consistent throughout the book.

The complete disengagement of the Australian electorate from genuine politics and the 'aspirational class' inability to vote for anything that doesn't maintain middle class comfort does get a pretty decent run at the end of the book I must admit.

I do think he has a bit of a God complex during certain parts of the book. It seemed that he felt he and ONLY he was the person who could 'fix' the country.

That being said, I think he has become a pretty thoughtful commentator since his turn as 60 Minutes designated 'Tool in Chief' during the 2010 election.

  On 29/08/2014 at 01:01, nutbean said:

The one thing about politicians is they are quick to damn other politicians foibles but have little insight into are ignorant of their own.

Off we go back to Iraq hopefully to finally do some good. Operation "unscramble the egg?" can I suggest? In that what we did in 2004 is to unleash forces we can hardly now put back in their box. Sadam Hussein was no ones favourite uncle and basically a nasty piece of work but that was why he was there, to be a ruthless overlord over these differing ethnic and religious groupings.

I am expecting to see Tony front the cameras wearing a leather military jacket some time soon. It will suit him!

  On 01/09/2014 at 11:17, Earl Hood said:

Off we go back to Iraq hopefully to finally do some good. Operation "unscramble the egg?" can I suggest? In that what we did in 2004 is to unleash forces we can hardly now put back in their box. Sadam Hussein was no ones favourite uncle and basically a nasty piece of work but that was why he was there, to be a ruthless overlord over these differing ethnic and religious groupings.

I am expecting to see Tony front the cameras wearing a leather military jacket some time soon. It will suit him!

What has me face palming is "we have to help these poor unfortunates" as long as none of them try and get on a boat to come to his country.

  On 03/09/2014 at 01:32, nutbean said:

What has me face palming is "we have to help these poor unfortunates" as long as none of them try and get on a boat to come to his country.

actually the real poor unfortunates can't afford to get on a boat

  On 03/09/2014 at 01:32, nutbean said:

What has me face palming is "we have to help these poor unfortunates" as long as none of them try and get on a boat to come to his country.

Although not all boats are bad. The arrival of the first fleet was the "defining moment in our history". The aboriginal leaders were a big fan of that one. Someone needs to surgically remove the man's foot from his mouth. It's amazing he can talk at all.

Don't get me started on his "independent" review of the RET that he plans to scale back significantly or abolish altogether.

Can't wait to see the back of him, not just as PM but in politics generally. His toxic influence has certainly left its mark.