Red tape?????????????

What is this government really about, when they talk about red tape? Is not revision of legislation a part of good governance of all governments?

We have those in the financial  and charity sectors pleading that Labor’s reforms remain in place; that is the Charities Commission, and new laws involving financial advisers. Most seem to be saying these are good legislation and necessary.

This government says they have to go, as it involves red tape.

We have seen all advisory bodies, and the processes to collect information go. Yes, things such as asking industry to inform the government of how they employ women.

They say that they have nine thousand pieces of red tape ready to repeal. How does one assess how much is really necessary regulations, to ensure that people and small business are protected?

Does one get the feeling that this government believes that businesses, especially big business should have no restraints by government on them at all?  That they should have complete freedom to do what they like?

Red tape rarely equals regulations. All or most are brought in to meet a need in society.

Yes, over time, all should be reviewed, as times change. Getting rid of all of it, is another thing.

Federal Attorney-General George Brandis wants to champion a ‘classical liberal’ approach to human rights, but what does this actually mean?

Tim Wilson, Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner, has announced that he will take a “classical liberal” approach to human rights. There is a fair degree of confusion about what this means.

Classical liberalism is not a coherent body of political philosophy. However, in relation to human rights, there are three key ideas that most classical liberals subscribe to.

The first is the idea that all people are born with rights, which they hold simply because they are human. This is the idea that underpins Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Not everyone shares this belief. Many people believe that rights are simply entitlements granted by the state and held only by citizens. But for classical liberals, rights are much more than this. They are universal (held by everyone) and inalienable (they continue to exist regardless of whether or not governments recognise this. Read more here.

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism. Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, including ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, the contradictory theories of natural law and utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.

In the early 20th century, liberals split on several issue, and particularly in America a distinction grew up between classical liberals and social liberals. Classical liberals supported the rights of captains of industry, who they saw as the natural leaders of society and the wellsprings of progress, while social liberals supported the rights of labor to organize into unions, and also supported the rights of women and minorities. Classical liberals favored small government which allowed businessmen the freedom to pursue profit without government interference. Social liberals favored big government to support the rights of the poor and disenfranchised.

In the mid-20th century, the classical liberals often formed an alliance with social conservatives; in the United States, they did this under the banner of the Republican Party. In Europe, the same two sides formed but with different labels: what are called social liberals in America are called simply socialists in Europe, and their party is usually called the Labour Party [sic]. Neither liberals nor conservatives adopted the ideology of pure Classical Liberalism, the belief that government exists to protect both social and economic civil liberty.

Are the people stirring?

Does one get the feeling, there is something very unusual arising in the community? It is not anger or rage. Much deeper than that. It is not about politics or parties.

It is as if a body of people is standing up, and quietly saying “enough is enough”.

It is being driven by no one.

I think that asylum seeker having his throat slit might be the final straw.

I have joined up with the Getup group in my area. Yes, many people willing to take a stand. Very few have any interest in connection with any party. They all appear sincere about bringing about a change,

Most are not young.

If I am correct, Labor will have to be very careful how they manage things. I suspect these people are not interested in politics, in fact, many are saying a pox on all houses.

One is picking the same sentiment up on social media and blogs. Even comments on MSM sites.

We have the G20 Treasurers and bankers in Sydney. This under normal times would be a big event. The MSM seems to be ignoring it. It makes one cringe the little we see of Hockey.

The only reason I can see to it being ignored, is that the MSM does not want to highlight the fact that Hockey is making a fool of himself.

Maybe I am wrong, and it is wishful thinking on my part.


What is amazing, it is not rage, hate or anger. It comes across to me, as being steely resignation. Yes, a feeling that many believe they have no choice but stand up and be counted.

It is more like the public has lost all respect and belief in this government.


Mr. Abbott says he is going to be methodical, steadfast, careful mature adult and all the similar words one can think of.

Maybe one could say that is admirable.  Why an adult, that is taking on the role of PM keeps telling us he is going to be adult and mature puzzles me. One would think that would be taken as a given. Has he been acting in an immature manner up to now?

Now, Mr. Abbott, what is more important, that one carries out each talk in the correct order? I feel, from what you have told us, you intend to put the cart before the horse.

Yes, doing things arsehole about.  Yes, doing things back the front.

You seem to have lost the way, in your haste, in demolition of all that your arch enemy Julia Gillard built.

Has it entered your head, or of those about you, that’s for you to put your proposals in place?  Yes, you do not have to demolish the house, in most cases; the renovation could get you what you want.

Mr. Abbott, you say you want to save the taxpayer money, yet you are setting out on a path that will create waste and cost us more. Yes, not save as you say you desire.

You say your first action is to cut the carbon tax. Not sure what you mean, but what do you mean?  You are aware that there is a suite of CEF legalization that goes to reducing carbon emissions.? It is all of these measures you are removing, along with the price on carbon emissions. Mr. Abbott, you are out removing a tax. A Carbon tax does not exist.

I suggest that instead of wholesale demolition that you reconsider your actions, by introducing your Direct Action legalization, with the aim of it making the present legislation redundant.  At the same time, there are many similar schemes within the CEF legalization that could be changed to fit in with DA. This would lead to less disruption to staff and those already receiving assistance. The main difference in the two schemes apart from planting millions of trees is the way you are funding the operation.

The present scheme is funded with a fixed price being put on carbon emissions, moving to a market based price. The funds for Direct Action, I believe, will be provided out of general revenues. Mr. Abbott, it will still come from taxes paid by the taxpayer.  What we need to know, what are you going to cut to find the money? What is wrong with the polluter pay?  This is the case now. Is not there penalties hidden away in your scheme which business will have to pay?

I believe you need to have Direct Action before the parliament, before you rescind the CEF legislation, so, we the public know what it is about. This would make it more seamless to move between the two schemes.

Mr. Abbott, I say this, as I do not trust you. I feel that many in your government do not want any action taken at all and Direct Action will be abandoned.  This would help you to keep your promise to be open and transparent.

There is nowhere that I have seen that there is still a majority who believe that carbon emission harm the atmosphere and needs to be addressed.  Why are you insisting on rescinding agencies that assist in assessing carbon emissions?  Why are you turning your back on the science?

One could say the same about your grandiose PPL scheme which many consider too expensive, and unnecessary. Why not just rejig the Labor scheme? Why does the whole package have to be sent to the trash bin? This costs money.  Just change the benefit and eligibility to be paid.  Why do you have to restart from the beginning again?

As for the NBNCo, I suggest before wasting money sacking everyone, that you get Mr. Turnbull to find out how much copper wire will need to be brought up to standard and how much it will cost.  You did intend, down the track, to move to fibre to the home.

What will become of the technology you will have to use with copper to the node, plus the cost of the nodes?  I believe this will have no further use. I for one do not want to see Telstra bought back into the picture. I believe they should join the same level playing field as all other ISPs.  If necessary, I suspect you could quickly find any waste within the system.  Yes, once again, renovation is the name of the game. There is no need to pull all down.  Take into account what the long-range cost will be.  Yes, you need to compare what the cost of taking it to the premises, of yours and Labor’s scheme.  We like to see this when comparing.

Fibre to the home is the superior technology.  It will be needed in the long term.

Mr. Abbott, all I ask is that you reconsider your plans for demolition and consider renovation where necessary. This will lead to less waste.

We have Operation Sovereign Borders, which many fail to understand what you are about, Mr. Abbott. Please explain how replacing the present practice of only allowing bridging visa as is inferior to the TPV you are restoring. It might have missed your notice, but bridging visas have fewer rights, than TPVs. Yes, they are stricter, and scare the boat people more.

Mr. Abbott, what happens to those who marry here, or have the children? How long do you expect people to remain on your TPV? From what you have written, it will be forever. Mr. Abbott, are you dismantling the “NO ADVANTAGE” test.

Mr. Abbott, maybe it would have been more prudent to talk to Indonesia and others in the region before rushing off to promote an army man. Maybe there are other more humane options. Maybe, a trip to PNG, to give that country’s scheme a chance to work.

Mr. Abbott, the biggest question I ask, is why most of your election campaign, was identical to the one you used in 2010? Yes, the same, with no more detail, I am afraid. You do not wonder that maybe things have changed since then, and maybe new policies were needed.

Mr. Abbott, why is your new front bench made up of yesterday’s men. Men from Mr. Howard’s failed government that was thrown out in 2007.

Does Yesterday’s Man, And His Team, Have Answers For Tomorrow’s Problems?

Yes, one will think they are having feelings of deja vu, if this nation is unlucky enough to experience an L-NP government. Proudly sitting on that front bench, will be 16 MPs from the Howard government.

One could say, it will be a rebirth of the Howard government, six years after it was turfed out of power.

When Hockey and Abbott, along with Morrison say, we did it then, we will do it again, they mean, we will also be doing it with the same people.

Now some might find this comforting, Abbott apparently sees it as a sign of stability.

Even the election campaign of Abbott’s has just been picked up and dusted off from his 2010 effort. Nothing new in view.

Since the Howard days, nothing has been the same. We have experienced a major GFC; which much of the world has not yet recovered. We have seen a massive change in the world order, leading to the emergence of the Asian century. The economy has become global, as never before. We have seen the rising of the new technical and digital age.

Yes, we now have global trade and exchange of business, in a world where boundaries no longer count. Workers now move around the globe seeking work. It is becoming near to impossible to make big, and even some small industry pay taxes.

Yes, we are now in a world where tax revenues are decreasing each day.

Last night, we saw the two candidates that wish to be treasurer for the next three years.

Did we hear anything of the falling tax revenues?  Did we hear anything of the structural imbalance within the budget? Did we hear of any plans on how to deal with the big problems, this and many other countries are facing, many that will need global answers.

All we heard from Hockey was lying, about debt, and manipulating and refusing to put his costings up front.

From Bowen, I would have liked to hear some answers to problems that are in the present, and the near future. I would have loved to hear some talk of taxation reform that might have prepared us for the future.

Yes, things like Better Schools, training opportunities to grow workers’ skills. Mr. Abbott, your dream of Independent public schools will not deliver. There is no evidence or data available, that says they will.

Same goes for the dismantling of the public hospital system, reverting back to being one of local community boards. That was discarded early last century, when hospitals moved from being Cottage Hospitals to the massive network of high technology hospitals we have today. Once again, yesterday’s solutions, for the problems of today, and tomorrow.

Then there is the dismantling of Medicare Locals, which many communities are already getting benefits. No thought taken, of deliberately wasting the money that has already been spent on them. In NSW and Queensland, we see their governments closing down community medical centres that have existed for decades. Clinics that deal with women’s issues. That deal with sexual disease and much more. One example, is the Liverpool Women’s Medical Centre. Clinics that cater mostly for the poor, and at risk in our society.

Yes, then there is the great infrastructure the new highways of this time, the NBNCo.

We have the NDIS, that brings the disabled into this age, and enables them to be a part of the economy, not only a drag on it.

Yes, Mr. Abbott, we know that grandiose roads tickle your fancy, but what about public transport, rail and even at the airport in Sydney. Yes, all essential infrastructure for the future.

Yes, there is much money, already available to train our young indigenous youth.

Yes, Mr. Abbott, I know you did promise to give money for this, but before you go ahead, it might be clever to have a look at what is already available. In fact might be helpful for you, and cheaper for us if you actually took time out to see what the Labor government has achieved in the last six years. Your answer seems to be, demolish, and replace it with your own schemes.

Mr. Abbott, many of your grandiose schemes could work within what is already established. Two for starters are Labor’s PPL and believe it or not, the CEFC.

Mr. Abbott, there seems to be only one reason to dismantle the NBNCo. at this stage. That is your ideology, and hatred of anything Gillard. All evidence indicates that NBNCo. in the long run will deliver the best available, at the cheapest cost. Yes, sometimes it is prudent to take the long time view.

Sorry, I do not want yesterday’s men in charge. I say men, as fewer women seem to be there as decoration, and to serve their masters. Women who found being told they are sexy as a compliment worry me.

I do not believe that the answers that work in the past, will work today. The world we live in today has entirely different problems, therefore requires different solutions.

Mr. Shorten, is now talking PNPC, asking what a good society is. Yes, I agree with him, it is one where women and men see the same. One that caters to all.

A good society should empower all. Yes, I want a good society, do you?

Mr. Abbott last night, said that . . .

Mr. Abbott has told us with great pride, that he wants to be known at the infrastructure PM.

Mr. Abbott says that he has announced upgrades to what seem to be all our major highways. Of course he has let us know, that bridges need trains are not included. For some reason, he believes that the Feds have nothing to do with trains or rails. What was that infrastructure THAT Mr. Howard had built from Alice Springs to Darwin. Silly me, thought it was a railway line.

By the way, how successful was that endeavor? I seem to remember Howard also selling some off. Maybe that’s what Abbott means, OK to sell off, but not to build.

Now is upgrading roads all that infrastructure is about. Is building roads the most important and urgent problem facing this nature.

My gut tells me no, on both propositions. I believe that infrastructure might be about much more. If so, Mr. Abbott will have to do much, to earn that title.

The main contender in my eyes, is the record of the previous PM.

PM Gillard while in office, did indeed put much infrastructure in place. Abbott will have to work hard, to beat her record.

Infrastructure: The basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g., buildings, roads, and power supplies).

Noun 1. the basic, underlying framework or features of a system of organization. 2. the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation and communication systems, power plants, and schools. 3. the military installations of a country.

Examples: The basic physical systems of a country’s or community’s population, including roads, utilities, water, sewage, etc. These systems are considered essential for enabling productivity in the economy. Developing infrastructure often requires large initial investment, but the economies of scale tend to be significant.

Definition: Internal facilities of a country that make business activity possible, such as communication, transportation, and distribution networks, financial institutions and markets, and energy supply systems. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

So it appears I could be correct. Infrastructure is much more that upgrading roads. One could say that much of what Abbott intends to claw back from the Gillard years, is the demolition of infrastructure.

I fear if Abbott keeps his promises, he will be demolishing infrastructure already in place or in the pipeline, not building it. Mr. Abbott last night said that one had to deal with the transport and roads, before even thinking of building a new airport. No, Mr. Abbott, one has to decide to build it, and choose the site. The infrastructure to service the airport can be built at the same time.

I suspect that airports are also off Mr. Abbott’ s list. Mr. Abbott did not end there. He went on to say the most important thing is to upgrade the roads that are cluttered around the existing airport.

No, Mr. Abbott, that will not fix the problem. You can speed the traffic up, but what does one do with the car. At once one gets to the airport. I suspect the answers in upgrading the public transport to the area. In reality, that means trains and light rail. Not more roads, to encourage more cars to come.

Yes, providing modern and up to date public transport would indeed be building infrastructure. Now back to those highways. Maybe it is time to give serious consideration to high speed rail. Yes, Mr., Abbott, that is also infrastructure, and could be more productive and efficient than more highways.

If not the high speed rail, why not put the rail infrastructure in place to get those trucks off the highways .Maybe if this was done, the present highways would be safer and able to cope with their present state. Just an idea, Abbott.

Yes, rail is a superior method of moving goods, between states and large cities. Trouble is, Mr. Abbott, you do not believe the Feds have any responsibility for trains.

Now what was also mentioned last night, that we need to have better services for the aged. Yes, Mr. Abbott, that pesky NBNCO, that you say we do not need supplies many solutions in that regard. Mr, Abbott, the NBNCO, that you want o claw back, and replace with inferior, crapped out copper,is essential infrastructure, this nation needs now and into the future.

It will enhance many other spheres of out community.From education, the health,to business.It will bring allow our country cousins to share any of the delight,us city folk takes or granted. It is the highways of this century. Second best will prove a waste of money.

Yes, putting fibre to the home is infrastructure. The same as the highways you want to upgrade. At this stage, more important.

Now let’s look at the Better Schools Scheme. Yes, this is also the infrastructure, to enable us to have a highly educated and skilled workforce, that we need to take our place in the Asian century. Another one that you want to claw back, saying the present system is not broken. Sadly Mr. Abbott, you and Mr. Pyne are the only ones that believes that.

Now I come to that so called carbon tax, you are going to abolish. Why abolish something that is working, and us financing the infrastructure business needs to grow in the future.

The CEFC is assisting many firms that are high users of electricity, produced by fossil fuels, to lower their power bills, now and into the future. This infrastructure that is occurring, in not only lowering carbon emissions, but greatly decreasing their power bills, some to a negligible amount. Mr. Abbott how do you justify not allowing such efficient and economical infrastructure to continue.

Mr. Abbott, why do you want to dismantle this infrastructure, to replace it with your Direct Action, that is expensive, inefficient and based on unproven technology? Mr. Abbott, no one believes it will work. NO one.

Then there is the MRRT. Yes, has not returned a much as expected, mainly because the mining magnates manage to delay it, until time, the super profits disappeared. Yes, Mr. Abbott, it is a tax that only brings returns of their a super profits. Still, it does bring in a little, that I used to give assistance mostly to business. Yes, Mr. Abbott, even that one helps build infrastructure.

Mr. Abbott, I have only touched on some of the infrastructure put in place by the previous PM. Why, if you want to be seen as the infrastructure PM, are you intent on pulling down much that is already in place?

Mr. Abbott, roads are not on top of the list. There are many more important structures that need to be put in place.

A good place for you to start, is to leave what is in place and already working. Demolition can be expensive, very expensive, and in this case, unnecessary.

Royal Commission into sexual abuse of children

I think it might be time to take a pause and look at the announcement that the PM made yesterday.

The PM has acknowledged that it is not about the Catholic Church but about the abuse of children.

It is about sexual, physical and psychological abuse of children. This abuse has occurred over many decades, even a century or more.

The PM was very careful in her announcement that much consolation must occur before the terms of reference are agreed on. We should all heed the PM’s cautious words when making the announcement. It is not time to crucify the Catholic Church or any other for that matter.

It is about men, and some women, whose evil sexual practices places children at risk. It is about these evil people who prey on innocent and vulnerable children. It is about paedophiles.

We are now, as we should be, focussing on the sexual abuse. It is not carried out by churches or any other institutions where children can be found.

Neither the Catholic Church nor any other is responsible for those who abuse children. These evil people seek out children, in all similar institutions where they have easy and safe access to them.

They are clever at ingratiating themselves within organizations, institutions and families. They are the uncle one relies on, the man that is always taking the boys on outings, the priest that leads the choir. The list is endless. No group that involves children are safe from these animals. Not even the lonely and struggling single mum. They are found everywhere.

They have flourished because society had, like ostriches, hid their heads in the sand denying what the children have been telling them. It flourishes because good people divert their eyes.

While one believes social ills should be kept secret, never mentioned in civil society, paedophilia, sexual abuse, misogyny or domestic violence will thrive.

The Church is not to blame for paedophilia, but it is to blame for not dealing with the offenders, putting the victims aside. Cardinal Pell is now on ABC 24. In my opinion, even today, is not taking responsibility for what has occurred under his watch. In fact he is a disgrace to the church.

His views on sexual abuse of children are about on the same level of his views on man made climate change. Both wrong.

Can he say why no priest or any other church employee has not been reported to the police under his watch?

I went to my newsagent in the local shopping centre. It was amazing seeing the headlines on the papers giving credit to the PM’s action. Spoke to two women at the bus stop, both of who said something has to be done. Comments from not a young woman, “Something has to be done. My nephew might still be alive. He hung himself a few months ago”. These comments from strangers.

It is like a floodgate has been open.

It is a shame that both Pell and O’Farrell had to be dragged screaming to do the right thing.

Would love to have access to that phone call between the PM and Pell yesterday.

This is a matter above politics and I would warn the Opposition leader to be careful with what he has to say.

We must stay focused on the abuse, not the institution.

Yes, the power of the church needs to be broken. After this, the powers of separation between church and state must be observed.

Church and State
What is the difference between the Church and the State? Why can’t we combine the two, or eliminate the one of the other? Recall the statement of our Lord when the Pharisees asked him if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not. He replied: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mt 22:17). Clearly there is a difference between Caesar’s state and God’s Church. Who gets what? What is the role of the Church and the role of the State in any society? If a healthy society requires a vibrant Church and an energetic State, what services do these two provide? What are their distinct functions?

Here is a simple way to explain the different roles of the Church and State in society. The Church deals with the eternal order, our eternal salvation, which is to be found ultimately in the Kingdom of God. The State deals with the temporal order, which is concerned with the here and now, the material well-being of citizens. God made us material bodies and immortal spirits. We are incarnate spirits, and spirit-filled bodies. Both dimensions of our being must be attented to. The spiritual well-being is by far the more important, but we cannot neglect the material needs of our bodied existence.

During the night, listening to the radio, some claims that Mr Whitlam is to blame for bringing in no fault divorce. Other beliefs if priests were allowed to marry would divert the problem.

Sorry, no, it will not. These evil people will marry to access to children. Many do marry; have their own children, whom they go on to abuse.

Please do not take the abuse of these children as an excuse to attack the churches, they are two different problems.

It is sickening listening to Pell attacking the media, claiming there are no problems or that if so, they have been dealt with. Like his mate, he could not get away from the interview quick enough.

To any that have suffered, or your families, I give my condolences. It must be a hard day for you today.

It will probably be one of the most important Royal Commission that we have had in this country.

It will pull together the many other investigations we have had previously into one umbrella. There have been many. This time it is an overview of all abuse.

Let’s hope we get results.

CU you remain terminally delusional.”

“Catching up

MAY 23, 2012 @ 4:51 PM

CU you remain terminally delusional.”

Tweed and your entire alias.

Tweed I have given great thought to your comment.  It is not the first time that you have alleged this bit after much thought, I am afraid I have to disagree with you.

I am well aware of how the world and politics works in this country.

I have been on this earth for seventy years.  I have enjoyed life at its best and I am sad to say, at its worse.

I began privilege, but life choices and uncontrollable reverses have made it an extremely rocky road.

I have learnt that we do not always have control over our life.

That is a proposition, that I amuser you will not agree with.  You are still under the illusion that you are in full control of your life, your future, and your finances.  I sincerely hope that you never learn that you are incorrect.

Tweed, we all need to respect the views and aspirations of others.

There are not right or wrong, when it comes to how we live our lives, or how we want the country to run.

The same applies to politics.

It is about our personal values, beliefs, aspirations, and priories.

I do not want to make value judgments, but I get the impression that you see the role of government is to be as small as possible.  You see it as being every man for them.  If they do not make it, so be it, as it is their fault.  You do not believe you are responsible for others.

I respect your right to have these views.  That being the case, your priories are much different to mine.  Your aspirations seem to be a society, where it is dog eat dog, for the country scare the daylights out of me.

Our government is working as the Founding fathers envisaged.

We have a minority government made up of representatives, that 58% of the voted for.

This is a duly elected legitimate government, according to the Constitution.

This government still holds the confidence of the house.

Since day one, Mr, Abbott has refused to recognise the legitimacy of the government has used intimidation and bullying tactics to bring it down.

If one believes this is acceptable, then I have to be in disagreement.

It surprises me that this government is working so well.  Yes, it appears to be hated, if one follows the polls.  That is not a reason for a new election.  All governments go through periods where they are not popular.  If people are still unhappy at the next schedule election, they will make their wishes known.

There is no need for Thomson to be hounded and bullies as he has been.  That should not be the Australian way.  We have a system of justice that will deal with the man it he is guilty.  Many investigations in this land take years, especially in the commercial world.

It is very dangerous to allow trial by media and kangaroo courts to become the order of the day.  They have a history of getting it wrong, and are cruel to the people accused.

I want to see oppositions that spend their time scrutinising all that the government does.  I want to see them put up strong opposition to what they believe to be wrong.  I want to see them try to get support of others to get their point across.  I want to see then proposed alternative, and convince us they have the better answer.

What I do not want to seem is an opposition that believes it should be in power.  I do not want an opposition that does not accept the voice of the people.  An opposition that believe the people got it wrong.

What do I see as the role of good governance?  That easy, one governs for the good of all.

I see the role of government to support those who cannot look after themselves.  I want the government that gives the weak and vulnerable the means to lift them up the ladder.

Government should take responsibility for proving the basic needs of a society.  It should ensure access to health, education and the judiciary systems.

Good governance provides the infrastructure that allows industry to thrive.

In this age, we expect our roads and transport to be adequate and safe.

We expect that defence forces are adequate to keep the country safe.

The economic system is not handed down by some god.  It is structures that are create by man, and should serve man.  Man should not serve the system.

It is the role of the government to ensure a strong economy, with work and opportunities for all.  There should be support for industry.

The taxation system should be fair.  It should not rely on regressive taxes.

I believe it is the voter wishes that count.  I believe that no party has the right to rule.  I believe that no government should rule forever.  Change is good.

I do not believe that a party should be able to gain power by bullying and intimidation.  It is a hollow victory if one has to destroy your opponent to win.

I believe that a party should be able to win by showing us; they have the better credentials to win.  Victory should come from being better.  Having better promises and dreams for the future.

This government meets my priorities.  It has provided a strong economy.  It is respected on the world stage.  It is putting in place the infrastructures, which ensure a strong future.

It is not perfect.  Nothing in this world is.  It cannot please all.  That is why we have regular elections.

What I do not want is the hatred and division that exists in our society.

What I realise is that the country and vision I want will never come to fruition.  That would be delusional.

It is not delusional or unreasonable to aim for a better society.

Winning might be important for some.  In fact winning is what life is about.

What is more important, is how one wins.  Winning at all cost, is not acceptable.  If one has to destroy all in their path to win, they do not have much to offer.

What is going on in politics, especially from the Mr. Abbott is wrong and dangerous.

We do not have the right to abuse others, because they do not agree or hold our views or because they have different priorities and values.  That is not acceptable and reflects badly on those who behave in this manner.

I acknowledge that others do not share my dreams.  That is OK and I respect the views they hold.

We all have the right to our own beliefs and aspirations.  None should are better than others.  They are just different.

I say let the best team win.

Tweed and those who come here to abuse.  What pleasure do you get out of it?

What type of society do you want to see.  I notice that you  spend much time telling us where we are wrong.  We hear little of your ideas and priorities.

John Howard and Family Values

John Howard and Family Values is a probing article to be found over at Ærchies Archive.  I’m sure Ærchie won’t mind if I quote some of his fine work:

Much has been made of the fact that our current Leader of the Opposition has John Winston Howard, lately Prime Minister of this Parish, as his hero, mentor and inspiration.

We all know John Howard. Little bloke with glasses who wore a daggy track suit at every opportunity.  Spoke a lot about family values and yet seemed unaware that the policies his Government implemented forced fathers to spend more time at work and less time with their families.  Appeared to want a return to the White Australia Policy with his extreme actions against “Boat People”.  Demanded but failed to get adherence to a Ministerial Code of Conduct so he had to drop some 7 ministers from his Front Bench.  Before the end of his second term as PM! The attrition rate was so high he had to drop the Code of Conduct! Supported Patrick’s on the waterfront to destroy the Unions. Appointed a founder of the HR Nicholl’s Society to be Treasurer of Australia. Took Australia into an illegal war.

Yeah. That guy.

To read the rest of the article click on the link above.  It’s recommended reading and I’d implore you all to visit the site.  Well done, Ærchie.

In the meantime, why not make this an open thread on John Howard?  Let’s face it, we just love to talk about the guy. :mrgreen:

For all you fans out there here’s a photo of Howard demonstrating to Putin how cricket umpires signal 4 runs.

SYDNEY. With Australian Prime Minister John Ho...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)


We hear so much about productivity, mainly from the bosses.

We hear about how we need to raise our productivity for the future wellbeing of the Nation from our PM.

One wonders if they are talking about the same thing.

I suspect not.

With the bosses, the answer is simple, the worker just has to do as ordered and work harder.

For the country to reach the productivity needed to make bosses wealthier, the boss has to have full control.  The right to treat workers as they do all their other inputs to the company is the first requirement.

The right to hire and fire, at will is the first on the list.  Without this, they say, they will go offshore and we will all be sorry.

One wonders who is correct.  I will push for the PM and the union movement.

Our greatest increases occurred during the Hawke/Keating years.  What stood out was the cooperation between government and the union movement.  This along with opening up the economy to completion was very productive.

The unions acting with the Rudd government also played a part in getting the Nation through the GFC relatively unscathed.

In my opinion, the workers are just not there to serve industry.  They are a vital clog in the wheel that ensures industry survives.  Workers are just not another tool in industry and can be disposed of at the will of the employer.  They are an important cog in the wheel of industry.

Education is the key, but not education for education sake.  It has to meet the needs of our future economy.  I also believe it has to be lifelong endeavour.

Gone are the days that one leaves school at fifteen or eighteen years, completing the education they leave for life.  It does not even end at the completion of a degree or apprenticeship.  That is only the beginning.

School and later university is not where we learn the skills for industry.  School is   where we obtain the skills to be able to learn.  We will be gaining new skills throughout our working life.

Education means a better life for our children.  Is that all productivity is about.  I suspect not.  I think the industry needs the skills to rake advantage of an educated workforce, they have to learn to treat the workers as humans and in the scheme of things, equals.  Is that a step too far?

Continue reading

Do you know who our PM is?

I believe most do not.

Many do not know her, but they all know she is bad, sly and a liar.

If that is not enough, she is a bitch and cares for none.

She also rigid and unfeeling.

I forgot to add, treacherous.

To add insult to injury, she does not know how to dress or talk.

No one wants her.

The hate seems stronger among the young and Labor voters.

The hate from the young amuses me, as when you see her around young people, the PM appears to interact well.

Prime Minister, Interrupted: Why One Year After the Election Voters Still Don’t Know Who Gillard
The mud maps of our most recent prime ministers might go as follows: John Howard – solid, middle-class type. Bit awkward. Social conservative, sticks to his guns. Strong. Kevin Rudd – hardworking. A bit nerdy. Modern family. Knows about foreign stuff. Labor, but not much into unions. Keen to do something about climate change.

But what does Julia Gillard’s story tell us? It’s an interrupted affair, and this is at the heart of her continued struggles as prime minister. Her life story, as it appears broadly to voters, looks a bit like this: Redhead. Political lifer. Pretty feisty. Likes football. Seems a capable deputy. Whoops! Is suddenly the prime minister.

And the period encapsulated by the “Whoops!” element of the above synopsis is precisely the period about which the prime minister can give us no further information. In June last year, the deputy prime minister became the prime minister, for reasons that were not immediately clear to most outside the Canberra area. Stories are important in politics. And the gap in this story is grievous.
It’s nearly a year since Julia Gillard decided that a good government had lost its way, and issued the request for Australia to “move forward”.

But not everyone is moving forward.

“I don’t trust her, after what she did to Rudd.”

“She’s a puppet.”

“Shafting Rudd the way she did was appalling.”

“There is no direction”.

“She lied to us on the carbon tax.”

“People have to a large extent tuned out to Gillard, and they find her to a certain extent embarrassing,” is Scales’s assessment of the public mood. “There’s not much in the way of positives about her at all.”

One of the exercises Scales does with these groups is to ask them to divide a sheet of paper into two columns, and list down the left side all the things the government has done well. On the right side, they list the not-so-good things. “For some people, the left-hand column is just a blank,” Scales says. “Or, you find they’re reaching back to Rudd government stuff – the cash handouts or the pension increase. This is one of her major problems: People can’t find anything to argue for her. There’s not much people can point to that they [the government] have actually done.”


“The only people I see who have any idea who Gillard is are people in the western suburbs of Melbourne,” says Scales. “But no one else can ever give me a description of what they think about Julia Gillard as a person. And that applies as much in the other suburban areas of Melbourne as it does in Perth, or anywhere else.”


Prime ministers never like being asked about why they’re having trouble getting through to people but Gillard isn’t especially prickly on the topic, fortunately. “I think that that’s true,” she responds, equably, to my ventured suggestion that her silence on the manner of her assumption of the prime ministership is hampering her ability to communicate. “And I’m conscious of that. But it’s hard to explain all of that without being … you know … without being disrespectful to the efforts of the former government, which did achieve, even with all these fetters and constraints, did achieve all these remarkable things. And, more particularly, the efforts of the former prime minister. And even though it leaves a gap, I think it’s the better and more respectful course to create that gap than to do the alternative.”

What we do know: Those who know her personally and are close, have nothing but praise for her guts, ability and loyalty.