I'll fight Beazley for a fifth term: PM (1 Viewer)

[shady_03]

He is mister Middle of Australia. He doesnt stand for cultural aspiration. He stands for economic aspiration. He has bets both ways. He doesn't try to argue down racism like all the previous PM's. He believes in 'cultural supremacy' - the very term is misleading anyways. He invites very little passion from the average suburban person. He uses clever rhetoric.

He cares not for anyone who does not vote for him. He used boat people and racial hatred to win him elections. He lied about boat people. He talks about jumping the Queue when in fact there is no queue of refugees to come to Australia. His ministers talk about abortions being 100 000 a year...again a lie...He encourages no sympathy for the position of refugees or for those who are new to this country.

He said nothing of Pauline Hanson when she came out well knowing that she could be popular. He did not care that she was a racist. He adopted most of her policies and watered them down. He is a man that will do anything to win. He has very little principle and it is political expediency that rules John Howard.

As aformentioed he is extremely inoffensive. He is like a Toyota Camry. To the politicaly apathetic (the mums and dads out there aspiring to own a house that is much too big for them and own a 4WD to drop the kids off at school) and those who tend not to like anything that isnt god, queen, and country John Howard is their hero.

He has created a generation of those who are apathetic. Also a generation of kids who have not known any other government than the Howard government! I was only in year 6 when John Howard came to Power. We have a whole generation who does not remember anything but the Liberal party. As such the right wing agenda has gained acceptance. It is alarming that many of the supporters of the Liberal party and hence many Australians have no compassion for refugees, no awareness of the government plan to roll back government support abortions.. no awareness nor interest,just as long interest rates are low so they can maintain their half million dollar debt and 5000 dollar credit card...a government that aspires for nothing else in this nation but apathy from its citizens, economic reform and activly tries to stamp down on participatory democracy.

As of now the Australian government does not make policy for 'all' of Australia. It makes policy for the apathetic majority and the ranting redneck who hates wogs/gooks/slanty eyes and aboriginals (Hanson: Should go back to where they came from?)(who have it so good) and wishes kids would solute god queen and country. It does nothing to actively do anything for those that majority decision making and john Howard mantra of ultiltarianism leave behind.

This has little to do with the War in Iraq. I'm you will find that Australia would have gone regardless of political party (howeverI believe we would have been gung ho about it)...it has to do with this governments lack of recongition of many Australians are actually disadvantaged by this kind of government.

It is even more shocking that this government achieves much of its policy changes through parliamentary reshuffling over christmas that actively aims to make decision making exclusive rather than inclusive.

*Standing applause* GO SON!!!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Is he an ass-kisser or this outlandish control freak?
You're statements often lead to different conclusions Shady.

 

[transcendent]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...e-out-challenge/2005/05/01/1114886244756.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Howard-digs-in-Costello-blows-up/2005/05/01/1114635798074.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...e-scenes-Labour/2005/05/01/1114886244693.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...challenge-Smith/2005/05/01/1114886241391.html

For those too lazy to find today's articles on the Costello vs Howard challenge ideas.
I believe there is tension within the Liberal Party, BUT Costello seems to be really strategic about his maneuvres. Labor Party as usual has made some comment on the so-called challenge, but I doubt anything they say these days even raises an eyebrow.

 

[Sarah]

Whats the difference between family first and the liberal party? Hardly anything...except family first is backed by the assemblies of god.

Most people actually simply DONT KNOW the quiet reforms that the Howard government have implemented...little tiny ones...over christmas...over the holidays...'reajustments'...

Does anyone know what Family First's economic policies are? I'd be curious to see if they're similar to the liberal party.

Asqy, i'm interested in knowing what reforms were implemented over christmas?

 

[Slidey]

I was going to ask that myself. I keep hearing people refer to them, but that is all. Hot air.

 

[c_james]

most popular vote.

Afraid not: Hindenburg had the most popular vote with 53%. Hitler only ever gained the chancellorship; he combined the role of President and Chancellor when Hindenburg died. More often than not, democracy works.

 

[frog12986]

It mainly has to do with reshuffling things out of cabinet and the Howard government's propensity to not have press releases for anything that may be construed negatively.

For example renaming the womens department...moving it out of cabinet...and placing it within the the family services department. Done in the dead of night over the new year like no one would noticed.

Currently Ron Boswel in the Senate has requested the statistics in parliament for medicare number XXXXXX, whatever, which deals with the number of 'abortions' - however abortions and other operations for miscarriages, stillborns and every other post 'birth' operation are covered under this medicare number.

The government will probably change this and allocate a medicare number to each of these operations. Giving Abortion its own number. Tony Abbot has come out recently and said the easy to remember round figure of 100 000 (lie)...the actual stats say around 70 000 including the other operations. Also teenage birth rates are going down. Also in SA, the only state which keeps abortion by age, most women that have abortions are those who are in their 40s and 50s who mistakenly fall pregnant thinking that they were infertile. The whole emphasis on teenage pregnancies is purposly emotive.

Abortion is very rarely abused. The correct number of abortions each year is the number that women need. Not some abstract figure. Perhaps if the government decided to support mothers when it came to getting back their jobs after pregancies more women would have children and there would be less abortions.

By doing so it is easier for the government to withdraw funding for abortions alone....if it is given its own medicare number. Also it means they can quote emotive figures about human life being lost...people will get hysterical and abortion could go. The government would remove government funding for the abortion proceedure leaving poor people no choice but to have the child and well rich people with money to choose to control their fertility (which is central to everything in a womens life. If a women cannot control her fertily she has no control of her life - no I dont want any sexless idiots telling women to not have sex until they are married. It makes no difference. You cant afford it before or after anyways)

It should be noted that this is just a side issue. Tony Abbot and others do not want to be drawn on the issue. They dont want to debate it. They refuse to answer questions on it. They prefer agitating and winking to the hill district.

Your joking, they renamed and moved the womens department...that is absolutely disgraceful... and more accurate statistics... why on earth would we want such a thing....double dissolution immediately or the country will implode!!

 

[Slidey]

It mainly has to do with reshuffling things out of cabinet and the Howard government's propensity to not have press releases for anything that may be construed negatively.

For example renaming the womens department...moving it out of cabinet...and placing it within the the family services department. Done in the dead of night over the new year like no one would noticed.

Currently Ron Boswel in the Senate has requested the statistics in parliament for medicare number XXXXXX, whatever, which deals with the number of 'abortions' - however abortions and other operations for miscarriages, stillborns and every other post 'birth' operation are covered under this medicare number.

The government will probably change this and allocate a medicare number to each of these operations. Giving Abortion its own number. Tony Abbot has come out recently and said the easy to remember round figure of 100 000 (lie)...the actual stats say around 70 000 including the other operations. Also teenage birth rates are going down. Also in SA, the only state which keeps abortion by age, most women that have abortions are those who are in their 40s and 50s who mistakenly fall pregnant thinking that they were infertile. The whole emphasis on teenage pregnancies is purposly emotive.

Abortion is very rarely abused. The correct number of abortions each year is the number that women need. Not some abstract figure. Perhaps if the government decided to support mothers when it came to getting back their jobs after pregancies more women would have children and there would be less abortions.

By doing so it is easier for the government to withdraw funding for abortions alone....if it is given its own medicare number. Also it means they can quote emotive figures about human life being lost...people will get hysterical and abortion could go. The government would remove government funding for the abortion proceedure leaving poor people no choice but to have the child and well rich people with money to choose to control their fertility (which is central to everything in a womens life. If a women cannot control her fertily she has no control of her life - no I dont want any sexless idiots telling women to not have sex until they are married. It makes no difference. You cant afford it before or after anyways)

It should be noted that this is just a side issue. Tony Abbot and others do not want to be drawn on the issue. They dont want to debate it. They refuse to answer questions on it. They prefer agitating and winking to the hill district.

Does anyone know what Family First's economic policies are? I'd be curious to see if they're similar to the liberal party.

Asqy, i'm interested in knowing what reforms were implemented over christmas?

You evaded the questions by using abortion as a scapegoat. I feel cheated.

 

[withoutaface]

They also abolished the womens stats department from the ABS...

Are they still collecting the same statistics under a different dept? If so I hardly see how it matters.

 

[Rorix]

Hitler was elected by a popular vote.

So was Paul Keating OMG OMG

Popular majority support does not mean that that person is immune from criticism nor that they were the greatest leader ever.

If parliament never made mistakes and the voice of the people was always correct there would be no needs for any checks or review on government power. Perhaps we would not ever need a judiciary.

But the fact that a leader was elected for 4 terms certainly suggets that he is a good PM.

 

[withoutaface]

So was Paul Keating OMG OMG




But the fact that a leader was elected for 4 terms certainly suggets that he is a good PM.

Or that the alternative is shit.

 

[withoutaface]

You Mean like if the labor party was elected for 13 years that would mean it was a good government?

What about bob car? He has been elected quite a few times. Is he a good premier?

It would certainly mean they were doing something right, or that the Liberal opposition was weak, yes.

 

[Generator]

Or that the alternative is shit.

I'd say that it is more a case that it isn't what the country wants rather than it just being shit.

 

[withoutaface]

wow...so you mean like John Howard may not be a very good PM...maybe its because the opposition cant pull it together? Shock horror!

I don't think I've ever said that John Howard was a good PM (not that I remember anyway), I've just agreed with a few of his policies.

 

[Rorix]

You Mean like if the labor party was elected for 13 years that would mean it was a good government?

A Labor party being elected for 13 years certainly suggests that it was a good government, yes, since the converse is obviously false.

What about bob car? He has been elected quite a few times. Is he a good premier?

In my personal opinion, yes, I think he's pretty good. But I don't consider my personal opinion relevant - what is important is that the majority of the voters at each election thought he was a good Premier, which certainly suggests that he is more than he is not.

 

[leetom]

Afraid not: Hindenburg had the most popular vote with 53%. Hitler only ever gained the chancellorship; he combined the role of President and Chancellor when Hindenburg died. More often than not, democracy works.

That was the Presidential election, not the Reichstag eletion. Although becoming President would have made reforming Germany's political system much more easier, he couldn't beat old Hindy, so he had to do it the hard way and make the NSDAP the largest party in the Reichstag instead, allowing him to be Chancellor.

Asquithian was reffering to his crushing Reichstag victory, y'know, when he took 230 seats.

 

[walrusbear]

But the fact that a leader was elected for 4 terms certainly suggets that he is a good PM.

i wouldn't go conflating popularity with quality

 

[Not-That-Bright]

That's because you basically think the majority of people are wrong.

You could of at least said "the popularity is created through the view of howard presented in the media" or something like that, claiming that popularity /= quality is like claiming that some people's votes should be worth more than others. I fundamentally disagree with this, even idiots have the right to vote as from their limited idiot perspective they should be allowed to make a choice.

 

[Benny_]

My my, that is a lot of information to be induced from a comment like 'popularity != quality.

 

[Rorix]

bear, as outlined in like the ten posts before you posted, there is a positive relationship between popular and quality.