The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Is Rudd a dud? > Comments

Is Rudd a dud? : Comments

By Chris Lewis, published 16/9/2008

If Rudd is concerned with leaving a legacy to match his ego, he should shift the balance of assistance to those most in need.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Kevin Rudd is to the right of Malcolm Fraser. People who voted against John Howard probably wish that the Greens were a large enough party to take office.
Would a Malcolm Turnbull government be to the left of Rudd's Labor.
Posted by billie, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 8:41:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well measured and very good article, thank you.

I also believe Rudd governs with an eye to how history will see him, as did John Howard to an extant and certainly what Mal Fraser realised after the event. Poor Malcolm now spends his time trying to rewrite history, note to Mal, some of us will never forget you were Minister for Army (prior to Dept Defence existing) when Australians were conscripted to go to Vietnam, don't come the crying lefty to us. Hawke and Keating ruled on sheer strength of personality, and didn't care what people thought, as I saw it anyway.

In the end though, Rudds spinning on everything he does, and trying to do too much to please too many people of his personal choosing tends to seperate the community. Look at the media (likes Rudd) and the responses in the comments and blogs (hates Rudd), people are polarised about Rudd, and after only 9 months, they warmed to hating Howard over a much longer period.

It will be interesting to see if his game plan is to do a sharp turn soon, out to the United Nations or somesuch and abandon the country. it might be just too difficult to come down from the piller he has placed himself upon - realizing there is nowhere to go but down.

Mike Brierley, an ex-England cricket captain, led his team with a view to how history would be written, it guided his strategies and on field tactics - he was almost completely ineffective and eventually hated by his own.
Posted by rpg, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 9:12:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's trendy to be anti-Rudd, but this article is weak- full of contradictions and inconsistencies.

<<Rudd disappoints on the basis of displaying a level of intellectual dishonesty greater that any Labor or Coalition leader of recent years.>>

Chris Lewis then demonstrates the many ways Rudd is a vast improvement on Howard who surely will forever retain the title of the most intellectually dishonest leader of all time.

Lewis gives us a catalogue of Rudd's achievements to date. This includes:
* apologising to Australian Aborigines for past treatment by the Commonwealth;
* ratifying the Kyoto Treaty;
* withdrawing troops from Iraq;
* implementing a strategy towards an emissions trading scheme (ETS);
* reversing the Coalition’s bid to cut Australia’s migration zone by relaying [sic] almost exclusively on the so-called Pacific Solution; and
* increasing foreign aid levels to 0.35 per cent of GNP by 2009-10.

He could have added lots more, for example:

* a new policy on detention of asylum seekers;
* improved relationships with a number of Asia-Pacific nations including East Timor;
* additional funding for the arts;
* abolition of new Australian Workplace Agreements;
* new funds for computers in schools;
* $150 million provided to the States and Territories for a blitz on elective surgery waiting lists;
* doubling the number of undergraduate Commonwealth Learning Scholarship and 1,000 new Future Fellowships for mid-career researchers;

There are many other initiatives in train but yet to be finished (e.g. rolling out national broadband network, the new workplace relations system to be in full operation from January 2010; a new dental health scheme)

And Lewis comments: "It remains to be seen just how generous Labor will be on many other issues."

Yet in the next breath, he has the gall to conclude that Rudd "...has brought Australian federal political leadership to a new low in terms of promising the world but delivering little."

The man's been in office for less than a year. Howard had nearly 12.
Posted by Spikey, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 10:55:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's good to see Quadrant broadening out to include articles like this from labourers in Vic.

Rudd as centre left? That might be where he sits in the Parliamentary prayer group but not in politics. Move right and stay there.

The writer did flag how effective Rudd, et al have been. Yes. He has been far from glowing. I don't know whether this is due to intranscience by the bureaucracy or whether the Caucus is cactus.

Rudd and Gillard know the first battle is getting the schools reform agenda through, and that means taking on the AEU. It's a battle they have to win. Lose that and the press gallery will be all over them.
Posted by Cheryl, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 11:02:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't see any real achievements other than window dressing.

1 year into his reign he has overseen a major economic slowdown. He is now past the point of being able to blame the previous gov and the next 2 years will determine whether he has any real substance, and can provide both growth and low inflation.

I hope the state labor governments are not a taste of what is to come federally.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 11:35:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spikey,
What he means is that Rudd isn't doing what HE wants. Craig is old school Union.

From where I sit Rudd seems to be doing what he Believes is appropriate. One could argue is that he is simply more pragmatic and less driven by someone else's ideology than Howard was.

Craig despite his education is still an old school ideologue with polish.
As I've said before Australia in the 21st century needs new ideas new ways of looking at things outside of the constrictions of the obsolete Left/Right prism.
In effect Craig is simply the mirror view to Jerry and the CIS.
And as such they are both are or rapidly becoming irrelevant as wig powder.
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 1:46:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator,

I don't understand what you mean by the left-right divide being obsolete. As long as there is inequality, injustice, differences in wealth and influence between nations, and environmental degradation, there will always be a general debate between the Left and right over the extent of intervention or approach to different policy issues.

I mean the third way was merely a cop out to reflect the greater difficulty of centre-left parties in terms of assisting battlers yet ensuring a nation's ongoing economic competitiveness as most Western govts have promoted freer trade.

This does not mean that recent trends will always prevail to the same extent, as ongoing debate between the left and right will hopefully ensure that Aust remains both competitive and compassionate. The disaster of the US financial crisis may even prove to be a definig point of history as certain trends are proving negative as a result of deregulation. If there is a move to greater regulaiton, then it will be the result of left-wing arguments which gnerally support greatewr govt intervention.

One can remain centre-left or centre-right, or even far left or far right, although their grasp of the issues should always be extensive and sophisticated.

I am of the centre-left, if I was to define myself, although I try hard to be balanced and sophisticated.

Spikey,

Point of article is to show why Rudd's rhetoric, as evident in the Monthly, was always rubbish. Though Rudd will move to the left of howard on many issues, he was never going to be dramatically different to howard who Rudd accused of being mean-spirited.

Of course, Rudd has made a difference, but nowhere near as much as he suggested with his 2006 and 2007 rhetoric. He is, at least in my opinion, the greatest con artist of all time in Aust politics (and I have always voted for Labor in the House of Reps thus far).
Posted by Chris Lewis, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 4:26:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who the hell wrote that headline? I like the way you've pre-emptively trashed anything intellectual and insightful the author might have come up with (not much).

Rudd, left? Hahaha. That's a good one. In the end, there's a lot of speculation here, but not much of a concrete nature...
Posted by Chade, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 4:54:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rudd's a mug.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 6:38:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For once I agree with Examinator: The traditional Left and Right notions don't apply anymore. There's no real leap in logic required there. However statements like this need addressing:

"As long as there is inequality, injustice, differences in wealth and influence between nations, and environmental degradation, there will always be a general debate between the Left and right over the extent of intervention or approach to different policy issues."

The inference here is that the Right is pro-inequality, pro-injustice, pro-differences in wealth etc, while the (halo wearing) Left aren't. That's the most ludicrous statement that's been uttered by the left, and there's been some pure lunacy written on OO by the Left. A-la:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7792

As I mentioned there, the hope of the Left seems to be hinged on notions like:

'... everyone is finally equal... The strong wear weights, the beautiful wear masks and the intelligent wear earpieces that fire off loud noises to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains.'

Lunacy.

While I am no fan of Rudd, at least he's distanced himself from 'the Left' (using that term as loosely as possible).
Posted by BN, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 7:35:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a lot of punkism; Verbal dribble at its best. Allow a little bit more water to flow before you come to conclusions. We have had 12 yrs of howards ideas, and where did that get us, You would be frustrated pollys; go on and on. It could all be said in 6 lines.
Good to see mr turnbull there [i believe he is a republican ]
Posted by jason60, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 8:07:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BN

What has being of the left and right got to do with voting liberal or labor.

You need to read much more.

There are plenty of people who vote Liberal that will express a so-called left-wing view in terms of race, asylum seekers and so on.

As far as left and right not beign relevant, just ask Turnbull what he is (centre-right).

It is debate over issues from a left and right-wing perspective that leads to a govt being formed by the party which is deemed most capable of representing the eclectic views of many.

You need to get over any suggestion by the left, including myself, that we are for everyone being equal. in fact, I am a die hard supporter of capitalism and democracy (the collective will of the people). Are you?

I also recognise the importance of both the centre-left and centre-right and do not live in a fantasy world looking for new ways of describing or analysing politics. I mean if Marx could not do it, I don't expect you or anyone else to come up with anything better than the concept of liberal democracy that legitimises a variety of views in order to find commonality from debate between the left and right (depending on the issue).

As far as making judgements about Rudd, it is nearly always in one's first term that the most important decisions are made. Read about Thatcher, Reagan, Howard and Hawke.

The article was about highlighting why Rudd's rhetoric has not been matched by policy. If you are happy waiting for a year and half to help pensioners (amongst Aust's most vulnerable citizens), well take note the Liberal Party is not, or maybe you don't read the news.

So bring it on Rudd if you are indeed interested in helping battlers in these tough times as you have stated previously. I, for one, am most interested in battlers rather than the rich, although we must always be careful to ensure that the Aust economy remains competitive.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 8:52:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who'll be wearing Rudd's Dudds when he forms these interminable committees that amount to nothing?Yes,one Julia Gillard.Julia may well be our first female PM when the Ruddster runs out of puff.A Ruddster is a car that expires,for fear of it's own impotence.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 8:57:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris,

I'll point out that I didn't associate either Labor or the Liberals with being either Left or Right. I simply said that the traditional roles that the Left and Right play don't exist in the Australian current political scene.

"by the left, including myself, that we are for everyone being equal"

I'll disagree with you on that. If you look at the article I linked to, and particularly the comments, you'll see advocates of both Pattern Bargaining and 'classless society'. While you may have moved away from those concepts, the 'Hard Left' certainly hasn't.

"in fact, I am a die hard supporter of capitalism and democracy (the collective will of the people). Are you?"

Indeed. If I had to put a label on myself, I'd almost (important word there) align myself with Objectivism. It, like most philosophies, has plenty of holes in it which is why I don't align myself with it entirely. However, it certainly places capitalism and democracy (and most importaly, property rights) as highest order ideas.

"The article was about highlighting why Rudd's rhetoric has not been matched by policy."

Here we agree. However, what is not mentioned is the volume of tokenism in many of the policies delivered. The First Home Savings Accounts are a massive failule, both in concept and implementation. And the Apology, while it has its heart in the right place, does nothing to fix any problems. It's all symbolic.

"I, for one, am most interested in battlers rather than the rich, although we must always be careful to ensure that the Aust economy remains competitive"

One hopes you're not targetting the 'rich' here. If we want this country to rank amongst the highest in a range of arenas, then we need to promote success, rather than our current tendency towards tall poppy syndrome.
Posted by BN, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 9:18:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheryl

The bureaucracy is a problem, particularly in education. The same crew that managed the Flagpoles for Funding scheme is still running the show. Witness the skewed funding under the initials roll outs of the Computers in Schools and Technical Skills Centres programs.
Adopting education policy from the USA is crazy when we finish well above the USA on most international education measures. It also ignores the tremendous capacity we have in this country. Still, it got Bolt, Albrechtson and Donnolly singing Rudd's praises. (Jesus wept!)
Caucus is cactus - they appear to be totally impotent and waiting for the next edition of the Australian for the next government announcement.
Trying to paint the AEU as the enemy is a bit sad. Teacher bashing is fastest growing blood sport in Australia. The AEU will stand up for teachers and try to get a bit of balance and fact into the debate
Posted by Santa, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 12:16:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris,
Or should I say Brover Chris (channelling Normie)?
If I had 1500 words and the inclination I could either pick your article to pieces or write a detailed argument as to why the “left/right” labels indeed the concepts are no longer applicable or relevant. They are in fact either intellectual laziness or more specifically political expedience on behalf of the protagonists.

A quick way to
• Quickly reach the less thoughtful
• Appeal to the WIIFM factor (What’s In It For Me) of the less thoughtful, less altruistic. The very selfishness could be argued as an indication of the irrelevancy of the class war mentality you offer and the cold war symbolism of the CIS.
• Brand recognition and political product differentiation expedience.

I could show
• how people’s understanding in the western world has moved on. As evidenced by falling union support. When I studies IR unionism was around 50% to day it’s 20%.
• That politics has moved (tragically) from issues to personality.
• That current Capitalism, Unionism or even Democracy (in or out of unionism) as honourable concepts have been so corrupted as to be mere hand maidens to the attainment and exercise of political POWER.
• That these corruptions now form the basis for biased one dimensional reasoning.
• That the want of more reasonable terms today “issues” are left/right et al. and that people are no longer exclusively divided on those lines.
• To do so would be to deal in fictional/notional caricatures and as such simply decrease the ‘confidence’ level of the proposal.
• The litmus of this is the deliberately hung Senates.
• People just want better government better ideas regardless of their origins.
• Et al

Both your and Jerry’s article and response contained or based litany of ‘absolutist’ (unprovable) assumptions. I don’t either of your Commitment or Enthusiasm but I do challenge your Objectivity and/or realism.

Rudd’s actions didn’t match his rhetoric and that he’s involved in political tokenism I would counter by saying that today this is a reality of both political sides and assorted pressure groups
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 8:35:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris Lewis

You claim that the point of your article “is to show why Rudd's rhetoric, as evident in the Monthly, was always rubbish.”

You then say: “…I try hard to be balanced and sophisticated.”

How can you possibly have amassed sufficient evidence since Rudd’s election in December less than a year ago to make the absolutist claims about Rudd:

1. “…a level of intellectual dishonesty greater that any Labor or Coalition leader of recent years.” And

2. “… the greatest con artist of all time in Aust politics…”

‘Balanced and sophisticated’? Your absolutism doesn’t sound like evidence-based argument to me. It’s more like a personal prejudice in search of cheap applause (not hard to win on OLO).

Your claim that Rudd "...has brought Australian federal political leadership to a new low in terms of promising the world but delivering little" is inane even on your own terms where you selectively list a number of Rudd’s significant achievements to date which Howard wouldn’t touch.

If you are going to mount a convincing demolition of Rudd (and you might give him at least one year to develop a record), you’ve got to be at least more consistent and intellectually rigorous.

Quote: “Though Rudd will move to the left of howard [sic] on many issues, he was never going to be dramatically different to howard [sic] who Rudd accused of being mean-spirited.” So he’s the greatest con ‘of all time’ but was ‘never going to be different to [H]oward’? The greatest con but no different to Howard?

Quote: “Of course, Rudd has made a difference, but nowhere near as much as he suggested with his 2006 and 2007 rhetoric.” Hello! Rudd was elected ALP leader in December 2006 and PM in December 2007. What do you think of Turnbull’s performance as Opposition Leader? He’s had a couple of days.

I wonder if a person claiming a Ph D in Politics is prostituting himself for more gigs with the right-wing "Quadrant"?
Posted by Spikey, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 9:56:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lewis like many commentators has ignored that the Rudd government like many previous Labor governments has a 'hostile' Senate for the first few months in office. Rudd is powerless despite all the best will in the world to implement many of the policies 'he' was elected into office on. He is no 'dud'just frustrated in his role by an an opposition doing its job. Howard had the same problem when first in office, perhaps we should revise the constitution and be like New Zealand and have no upper house.
Posted by Clewy, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 10:36:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Am an old retired wheat cockie who in his young days helped fight for the single desk way back in the early 1930s.

Thus us old cockies can still offer a smidgeon of thanks to for Labor because it was Labor PM Pollard who introduced agrarian socialism into our wheatbelt during the early 1930s. Hence knocking out big buyers like Bunge and Dreyfus.

As now a political scientist and historian, I wrote to Rudd before he was elected reminding him about us oldies still allowing certain tribute to Labor over the origin of single desk. And certainly I was surprised and pleased when he guaranteed to preserve the single-desk despite the more recent Iraqi sales schemozzle, etc.

But now we have Burke, virtually only a kid with apparently no knowledge of wheatbelt history - in charge.

So we have Barry Court boss of the Pastoralists and Graziers now smiling fit to kill - a crowd who like the old PPA, were tied in with the stock companies and big buyers, who even during the Great Depression were still imploring the cockies to grow more wheat, as signs said on the railway wagons.

Yep, Rudd in many ways, seems to the right of Malcolm Frazer, and so I finish from a lesson about economics learnt through a study of philosophical decisionmaking.

Certainly it is critical for our leaders to rememember, that while we may appear to have foresight to handle the future, it is logical that we must use historical insight to back it up.

Cheers, BB, Buntine, WA.
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 11:19:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IF Rudd wasn't overseas at the moment I'd ask him why we are still paying $1.45 a litre and rising for petrol while the price of a barrel of oil has fallen 40% to US $91.00 a barrel and falling.

Considering his lies about petrol and inflation before the election and in light of the current gouging petrol pricing he's proving to be an ineffective small minded little twerp.

And why aren't the rest of you talking about this disgraceful oil and petrol pricing rort?
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 5:57:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator.

Show me why left and right is no longer relevant and I will respond. Have you an OLO article or any other from yourself to show me what you are on about. I look forward to reading your wisdom. I obviously have a lot to learn, as do the many leading journalists that use such terms (left and right) around the world.

Spikey
Fair call but put my words in context.

I said I try to be fair and balanced, so please excuse my apparent failure.

And you may have to forgive Monash University for awarding me a PhD. You will be pleased to know, I did not think much of my final product anyway.

But I will again uphold my right to express a personal opinion. Rudd is indeed a dud whose rhetoric in the Monthly (2006 if you read my article), has not been matched by his policies to help battlers, although he is aware of record home unaffordability and prices for food, petrol and and utilities. I mean why would one need a review with a $22 billion surplus. It is one of those easy opportunities to do something for battlers with bipartisan support from the Coalition.

And no I do not want another gig with Quadrant. I am quite happy writing for OLO (even for nothing) where they do publish many left and right wing views.

Sorry, here I go again with my class war mentality.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 6:12:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris Lewis

I'm not knocking your PH D. I'm sure that Brian Costar and Jim Walter would have seen to it that you were rigorous and relied on evidence to support the arguments in your thesis.

My point is to observe the remarkable slide from that level of scholarship to what is essentially an evidence-free absolutist over-the-top attack on a PM who hasn't yet finished one year in government.

Of course you have every right to to express a personal opinion on OLO. We all do that. But if you present a lead article you can't just say anything you like without producing either clear patterns of evidence or a reasoned argument - or both.

So phrases like “… the greatest con artist of all time in Aust politics…” and "a level of intellectual dishonesty greater that any Labor or Coalition leader of recent years” are OK in the local pub where no one lets the facts get in the way of a rough-and-tumble argument. But if you want to be taken seriously on a national forum you've got to respect your readers (who will return the honour).

I'd love to read an article from you on the non-government factors which influenced the coalition’s economic, social and environmental policy mix in the first term of the Howard Government. Sounds like you know something important about those years.
Posted by Spikey, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 6:54:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am getting really irritated by upstarts such as this writer who are obliterating reality with half-baked analysis of Kevin Rudd's first 9 months in power, after 12 long years of the Howard government, who, indeed, were truly the party of spin without substance, if sober analysis were to be employed.
I see no analysis of the policies and programmes initiated already by the Rudd government, such as the Low Cost Housing Tax Offset, which has been oversubscribed by the building industry and super funds, and will see thousands of new houses constructed for rent at 20% below market rates.
Not a mention of the Prime Minister's Bonhoeffer-esque initiative to help the homeless and find housing solutions for them.
Not a word of support from an ex-building site worker for the abolition of AWAs.
No support given for the PMs initiatives wrt binge drinking, even though the evidence already suggests that the price signal on RTDs is working magnificently, with 3 million less standard drinks now being consumed per week, since the change.
And to top it all off, the writer sensoriously decries the PM for not giving Single Aged Pensioners an immediate $30/week rise. This when it has been shown that this increase will not apply to the 2 million other pensioners, who are also doing it tough, but will apply to Single part-OAPs who have hundreds of thousands in assets and a fully-paid for home.
All I can say is that Monash University appears to be handing out Political Science PhDs like jelly beans.
Suffice to say that it's this writer that's the dudd, not the PM.
Posted by C@tmomma, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 7:02:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BN wrote: "While I am no fan of Rudd, at least he's distanced himself from 'the Left' (using that term as loosely as possible)."

Depends which Rudd you're talking about.

Pre-election Rudd promised to be Howard Lite. Post-election Rudd, on the other hand, has wasted no time in resurrecting the old "three R's" - reconciliation, refugees, and the republic.

Kevin 07 is beginning to look more and more like Keating 96.
Posted by Efranke, Thursday, 18 September 2008 12:24:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C@tmomma wrote: "I see no analysis of the policies and programmes initiated already by the Rudd government, such as the Low Cost Housing Tax Offset, which has been oversubscribed by the building industry and super funds, and will see thousands of new houses constructed for rent at 20% below market rates. Not a mention of the Prime Minister's Bonhoeffer-esque initiative to help the homeless and find housing solutions for them. Not a word of support from an ex-building site worker for the abolition of AWAs."

Let's talk about housing and wages for a minute.

Are you aware that the Rudd Government is running the biggest immigration program in Australia's history?

Do you understand that the immigration-fuelled population explosion of the past few years has been the prime cause of Australia's acute housing shortage?

Would you care to explain how increasing immigration to even higher levels will alleviate, rather than exercabate, Australia's housing shortage?

As for wages, the Rudd Government is simply using high immigration to achieve the same ends the Howard government was trying to achieve through Work Choices - lower wages.

If Rudd was really concerned about housing affordability and wages, he would be reducing immigration, not drastically increasing it.
Posted by Efranke, Thursday, 18 September 2008 12:50:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris,

I am alway disquieted by Articles that use absolutes and/or biased assumptions as the basis/proof of their argument thus limiting the possibilities.

I respect everyone’s right to their view. Therefore I was/am not interested in convincing anyone of my view. Nor do I claim any solutions only examination and observation.

Therefore comments are/were intended in that context.

You said >> “As long as there is inequality, injustice, differences in wealth and influence between nations, and environmental degradation, there will always be a general debate between the Left and right over the extent of intervention or approach to different policy issues.”<< I read this as bias and assumption.
To wit :-
• ‘Subliminal?’ Capitalization of L not R.
• R/L are cold war terms appropriated by modern politics. As a means of differentiation, polarizing perceptions for political moral supremacy.
• It implies that there are only two mutually exclusive views to the topic….logically untrue.
• Logically not all possible options/responses are exclusively the province of either label.
• The Article is based on the assumption that PEOPLE are L/R or can be neatly located on some LtoR linear continuum when in reality most people today are clearly a discontinuous mixture of both. People today are no longer on the old L/R divide hence as evidenced by a combination of factors union membership down et sec, average participation in capitalist markets and most telling the constantly hung Senate the public don’t trust, believe in either side. In truth they simply want better government, ideas.
• From this perspective parties divided on some ideological L/R divide are at best a compromise.
• This particularly true in the context of Democracy which is/was perverted by power bases be they L/R. This renders the compromises ‘bad’ as it essentially the decision making from the people. Communism, Capitalism have been likewise perverted serving the same ends (Power of a minority).
• Therefore >>”inequality, injustice, differences etc << aren’t exclusive to either side, thus reality renders the terms L/R and your passage flawed.
!500 words was metaphorical rather than definitive.
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 18 September 2008 8:08:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is great to get criticism that makes you think hard about one's commentary approach.

As for C@tmomma,

Some universities may as well give out jellybeans as PhD's because i get much more common sense about politics on building sites, and from individuals wihtout PhDs who I even have differences with (Kelly, Albrechtsen, Adams), than many of the academics I have had contact with.

But for examinator and BN, I enjoy their criticisms, especially there final thoughts after our sparring.

I too have problems with the left-right divide as all individuals have an eclectic range of views. For instance, I have always voted Labor in the house of Reps, a minor party in the upper senate, but have conservative views when it comes to culture, defence, and the importance of the West (liberalism).

My prime motivation for being a Labor voter, besides my upbringing and work as a labourer most of my life, is my support for universal health and education, and a decent IR system.

I would like to think that the Coalition will challenge Labor in these areas one day as a good idea is a good idea, although there will always be important differences between the centre-left and centre-right with both necessary for a vibrant democracy capable of being both competitive and compassionate in this competitive world.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Thursday, 18 September 2008 5:36:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris

Why do people express disappointment with Labor Governments? Their role is to manage capitalism, balancing between labour and capital but in the end on the side of capital.

There will be changes over time but the essentials appear the same. Vere Gordon Childe springs to mind.

The Wall St crisis will see a whole range of class arguments arise soon. The Financial Review had one heading "Will capitalism survive?"

In defence of Chris against those who say give Rudd time, many of Rudd's achievements are mere words - Kyoto, Sorry - or a continuation of the essence of Howard's polices - such as workchoices - while making some cosmetic changes. ETS is a bosses' solution.

Rudd is a continuation of Howard in his essentials, not his abnegation. This was predictable given the nature of Labor to run capitalism.

If for example the Wall St crisis spills over into the productive economy in the US and then onto the rest of the world, ( a real possibility in my view, and one I hope to have published in OLO soon), Rudd's politics will force him to attack wages, jobs and public services.

As to the decline of unions, that is in large part a consequence of the class collaborationist policies of the officials, exemplified by for example the Accord. Tom Bramble's new book on the way forward for the trade union movement (Trade Unionism in Australia: A History from flood to ebb tide (Cambridge University Press) argues essentially that a return to militancy is the answer. As job and wages cuts loom courtesy of Wall St, that is a lesson we could all learn, whether it is fighting Howard, or Rudd or the bosses.

Tom is doing an eastern states tour with Socialist Alternative.

Sydney: 7pm Tuesday 30 September, Newtown Neighbourhood Centre (opposite Newtown station, King St)

Canberra: 6pm Wednesday 1 October, Room G053, Hayden Allen Building, Australian National University

Melbourne: 6.30pm Thursday 2 October, Trades Hall, cnr Lygon and Victoria Sts, Carlton.

Brisbane: 6.30pm Thursday 9 October, Trades and Labor Council Building, 16 Peel St, South Brisbane.
Posted by Passy, Sunday, 21 September 2008 11:39:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I support Rudd, I reckon he is one of the best Prime Minister's we have EVER had. So I dont know what Chris Lewis is on about!?!?
Posted by Billya, Monday, 22 September 2008 11:10:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A lot of talk, a lot of rhetoric, coming from all angles. Can we boil it down to identify sources of disgruntlement. Here's a start :

A) A claimed budget surplus of $22 billion, and a heap of rhetoric about the need to keep it all locked up in Canberra to avoid inflation - resulting in a perceived failure to share good times with the people in general. This defect is more sharply in focus, given the extraordinarily unconvincing defense of with-holding some kind of catch-up for single aged pensioners, singularly excluded from inclusion in any kind of budget gain.

B) a lot of pre-election talk about the disastrous condition of teeth belonging to many Australians, most notably those in the older age bracket. I am mindful of my encounter with One Tooth Uncle in village India - his one front tooth grown to an extraordinary length because it lacked any tooth in the lower front jaw to bite against. I am expecting to see One Tooth Aunties and well as Uncles in rural and urban Australia before Rudd gets around to implementing his promised assistance in this area. Mind you, it would be salutary, perhaps, to offset any quick fix immediate help for folk losing their teeth with a longer term strategic market-based remedy that would result from opening up dental schools and breaking the medieval guild monopoly on pricing dental services created by an artificial shortage of dentists

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
Posted by veritas, Monday, 22 September 2008 2:07:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

C) the ongoing petrol price gouging identified by Keith, which has created an ongoing constriction on social life and minor pleasures in daily life - visiting, shared tea-drinking, etc. - now abandoned as unaffordable frivolities by the large number of people who can now no longer afford to drive, except for a pared down list of absolutely essential trips. I'm not against redesigning cities to minimise non-essential driving, I support every effort to find non-nuclear sources of replacement energy (solar, wind, thermal, whatever). But these are long term, and in the short term people's daily lives have been dramatically shorn of all purely pleasurable elements, reduced to work, eating and sleeping. BTW the fracas over reduced support for solar heating for those filthy rich middle class environmentally minded folk who were going to get a subsidy to offset their expenses in shifting to solar - that didn't go down all that well as a straw in the wind either.

D) Finally, a the ballyhoo around community consultation is disappointing also. I didn't even try to go to the 20:20 "summit", realising well ahead what a feel-good no-possible-results exercise it would be. They need a sociologist on the ALP advisory board! But disillusionment on this is intensified by a 3-4 month hiatus in dealing with correspondence. By the time you get an answer, you've forgotten the question! Not exactly a dialogue happening there either.
Posted by veritas, Monday, 22 September 2008 2:10:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy