Wal,

A number of points in response:

1) It is a fact that the welfare state expanded dramatically under the Howard government, so your concerns about a welfare safety net being eroded under the previous government are misplaced.

2) Work for the dole is a unique opportunity for the long-term unemployed, who struggle to find work to get the skills and experience necessary to make it easier for them to find real work.

3) Noone from the major parties has ever suggested Medicare should be privatised.

4) Ergas has produced a cost-benefit analysis of the pink batts programme. That's how economists evaluate things. He therefore has not "gone overboard to find flimsy reasons to discredit the program".

5) ocm seems to be saying that nothing Abbott says is genuinely spontaneous or genuine. I disagree with him. Consider Abbott's recent remarks on homosexuality which have drawn controversy, or his remarks at the last federal election concerning Bernie Banton. I don't see how anyone can believe these remarks have been planned and calculated in advance.

6) Finally, I cannot understand why you seem to believe that one or two instances of hyperbole by Tony Abbott have been more detrimental to this nation than the pink batts scheme. That appears to be your attitude given that you emphasise the former and downplay the latter.

AJFA

The cost benefit analysis relies on an assumption that use of energy will decrease in the shorter term and that as people get used to the ambient temperature, their use will go up again. That certainly is to do with the behaviour of people, not a shortcoming of the program.

It would be good to see an analysis of fires, accidents and deaths per job done, for the same work prior to the program's commencing. My expectation is that the rates would be comparable - that is, the program was not at fault.

There is an interesting discussion on insulation in the discussion forum here - perhaps you know where to look. It indicates that the ordinary man in the street is seeing through what has gone down in the media about the insulation program. Many would have known people involved or had the insulation done, given the scale. I feel that how it has been portrayed was a complete disgrace and Abbott was into it right up to his big floppies.

Yes, there might have been ways to spend the money better, such as installing it in public housing properties via registered contractors, as suggested there. Given the scale of the program though, it's not surprising there were problems just as there are in all aspects of the building trade.

Another great joke on Abbott today here, Malice in Blunderland. :-)

Wal,

In a world where human nature is not perfect, government policy has to take human actions into account.

A lot of people say communism failed because human nature is imperfect. Are you suggesting that it should be introduced regardless? Or perhaps we ought to abolish the criminal law, since it's only because of bad human behaviour that it is breached.

These are logical extensions of your proposition that its OK for human behaviour not to be taken into account.

"It would be good to see an analysis of fires, accidents and deaths per job done, for the same work prior to the program's commencing. My expectation is that the rates would be comparable - that is, the program was not at fault."

You have no evidence to support this assertion. Furthermore, it is contradicted by the Prime Minister, who admits the scheme was a disaster. Again, 4 deaths and nearly 90 housefires is unacceptable. It disturbs me that you seem to always try and dismiss the deaths and housefires as no big deal.

AJFA

I'm happy to discuss these issues, however above you have erroneously reinterpreted and extrapolated from what I have said, completely changing the meaning. While your arguments appear superficially plausible and logical they are irrelevant to the discussion.

I take as a given that the deaths were tragic and preferably avoided and I had moved on from that.

The point I was making is that there was nothing peculiar to the insulation program that contributed to these deaths although the program has been widely held responsible, in the media, and many gullible and unthinking people have believed this.

Needless deaths that are no less tragic have occurred and will continue to occur in the future in similar areas of work however the media debate about the insulation program was played out as if the four deaths were peculiar to that program; as if that kind of death never happens when of course it does, it just doesn't attract the same media attention.

Appropriate guidelines and safeguards were provided to installers under the insulation program, that if followed ensured safe working conditions. I am aware of one such reputable business that was left up in the air when the program was suddenly chopped without notice, all to no good end compared to the good the program had been doing for people who had been having difficulty finding work. To me the only thing achieved by the media spectacle and the subsequent chopping this program was calculated and political, on both sides of government.

You have positioned yourself and Abbott on the moral high ground while what I see is the immorality of politicians using these tragic deaths and the pain of grieving relatives for political point scoring in the media.

For this and other reasons, as outlined by Jennifer Wilson here, I am unable to take Tony Abbott seriously, nor do I see any hope for his redemption.

Wal

Going by Tony Epis piece in the SMH today - The adventures of Tony the unbelievable - Jennifer Wilson, me and some others here are not the only ones around who regard Tony Abbott's performance to date as farcical.

Wal,

There was in fact something peculiar to the insulation programme. As you yourself say, such a huge expansion of the industry was bound the generate problems. With new players emerging to swallow government cash and existing firms recruiting young, inexperienced and barely trained workers in order to keep up with demand, what occurred was foreseeable.

Hence why Garrett was warned, and did nothing. You seem to imply the government is blameless, in spite of all the facts which point to the opposite conclusion.

Hence why I disagree with your statement that "My expectation is that the rates would be comparable - that is, the program was not at fault.".

Jan,

I wasn't able to locate the article you referred to. But for me, taking Rudd seriously is harder, for the reasons I have already cited here.