The Forum > General Discussion > What next for Peter Costello?
What next for Peter Costello?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 9
- 10
- 11
-
- All
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 15 June 2009 6:56:04 PM
| |
I suspect that Peter Costello won't be remembered much at all given that he's had so much attention whilst he's been in Government. He'll probably fade away like his book sales unless he joins the after-dinner speaking circuit or does the odd political interview etc.
How should he be remembered? As being a strong treasurer, good speaker and capitaliser but overwhelmingly a non-reformer. Will the price of his book go up? Probably not. Posted by RobP, Monday, 15 June 2009 8:49:50 PM
| |
He’ll be remembered as John Howards Court Eunuch,… cagey, clever, but lacking the vitals to rule.
Posted by Maximillion, Monday, 15 June 2009 9:04:43 PM
| |
I've got to admit that I didn't really know
all that much about the man's background until I started this thread and began doing a bit of research on him. He's actually got quite an impressive CV. His portfolio with The Treasury tells us that: "Peter Costello has brought down eleven consecutive Federal Budgets, including nine surpluses..." that he "completely eliminated Commonwealth net debt which stood at $96 billion in 1996..." which means "saving the Government $8 billion a year in interest payments." But there's more - "Peter holds degrees from Monash University where he was, for a time, a part-time teacher in law and economics/politics, as well as a member of the University Council. Prior to entering Parliament, he was a barrister. He was counsel in some of Australia's best-known industrial disputes and was a regular advocate in National Wage cases." "He has been a member of the IMF Executive, a Governor of the World Bank and Chairman of the Council of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)..." and the list goes on. I didn't vote for him or his Party, and I never really liked the man - but I have to admit that - just perhaps - he may have been a better alternative to what's currently available in the shape of Malcolm Turnbull and Co., for the Libs. I guess now we'll never know. Posted by Foxy, Monday, 15 June 2009 9:56:08 PM
| |
Peter will only be remembered because of the incompetent Government we now have. He actually looks very clever compared with our incumbent Government. Hopefully Tony Abbot will now make a run for the leadership.
Posted by runner, Monday, 15 June 2009 9:57:56 PM
| |
Foxy, smart men are sniffing the wind
and preparing the House of Representatives for the men's legislature of the Republic of Australia. Posted by whistler, Monday, 15 June 2009 11:05:46 PM
| |
Maybe Abbott could retire too, and he and Costello could form a comedy duo, touring the RSL and bowling club circuit.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 15 June 2009 11:12:01 PM
| |
You're too charitable, CJ. RSL veterans wouldn't tolerate the Smirk for a second, and Abbott only because he's tangentially connected to the Vatican.
What next for Costello? A few years of petty sniping at Labor from the sidelines, then a column in The Australian, where the staff will bow thrice unto him each morning and tell him how great it would have been if he'd been elected. In short, a career of mutual masturbation with the remnants of Australia's neo-con Right. Have fun, Pete! Posted by Sancho, Monday, 15 June 2009 11:21:14 PM
| |
"What next for Peter Costello?"
Haha, who cares?. Posted by StG, Tuesday, 16 June 2009 9:22:08 AM
| |
He'll certainly have no financial worries, for his parliamentary
pension, given that he was treasurer for so long, will be higher then his present backbencher salary. Next he'll be offered a seat on various company boards around Australia, so life will really be a breeze for Pete. Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 16 June 2009 9:25:49 AM
| |
I wasn't suggesting they'd be successful, Sancho.
In fact, I think the Smirk would be as successful as a comedian as he was as PM-in-waiting. Maybe there's room for him on 'The Chaser' team, given that they seem to have abandoned comedy. Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 16 June 2009 9:26:48 AM
| |
Who cares! The sooner Abbott goes as well the better off we will all be. Best be forgotten.
Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 16 June 2009 10:06:20 AM
| |
Costello is a politician; soon, he will be an ex-politician. All politicians are on the nose, and it's strange how ordinary Australians, whom politicians don't really care about, give a stuff about what happens to them.
Posted by Leigh, Tuesday, 16 June 2009 12:31:05 PM
| |
I don't know how many Australians would care
about what happens to a politician. I suppose it depends on the politician. I know many people cared deeply about - the 'dismissal,' of the Whitlam Government. I know also that many were happy to see John Howard go. Menzies, was very popular - according to history books. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief when Jeff Kennett was ousted out in Victoria - and so it goes... As I said previously, I was never a Costello admirer. However, I intend to go back to my local post office and invest that $5.00 and buy Costello's book. I want to satisfy myself about the man - and read what he has to say about his term in office with John Howard. We don't always get the full story from what's presented in the media - or the public persona we see. I'd like to find out a bit more about the man whose imagine to date has not been a very flattering one - Thanks to his "boss," John Howard and the Liberal Party that he's so faithfully served all these years in Government. Is it possible that he's been given an unfair hand to play - and he had no choice but to go along with it? Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 16 June 2009 3:25:00 PM
| |
I just can not take runner on face value, is it humor? Abbot?
He would not win a raffle if he bought every ticket. His vote within his party would be far less than ten. Costello, well I said he would go, never lead his party in thread Costello vs another dud ex Liberal leader. He however will not starve, he will do ok in whatever he does, may even learn to smile. Unlikely but could. His brothers CV is a far better one in my view, good thread Foxy Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 16 June 2009 4:51:12 PM
| |
Foxy
Unfortunately,I knew him vaguely when he just obnoxious prior to his growing into a smirk. I tend to agree with what some of his colleges have said that he was as good a treasurer as the times and his department could make him. Any have reasoned treasurer could have achieved what he did given the financial environment then (ie it was a boom) I wonder if he would shine now. Philosophically he cares very little for the unimportant people. I wonder how long he would have survived if he wasn't in a blue ribbon seat? I also wonder how he would have been in today's climate. I tend to remember him as was described in comparison to his brother. " Tim got all the good bits and Peter got what was left". He was part of the forgettable Howard years. St G and Sancho have it about right (excluding the unnecessarily rude bit). Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 16 June 2009 5:55:12 PM
| |
I've just learned something that I am
finding a bit surreal, but exciting. According to a few news sources online, and the evening news tonight - it seems that our PM wanted to see Peter Costello, soon after he made his statement in Parliament yesterday. They met in the PM's office and it appears that our PM may offer Peter Costello a Government position. The PM has stated that "talent should be above politics..." and that "Australia needed to properly harness its talent." The PM said, "We actually need to change our political culture a bit so that good people, intelligent people who have extensive national and international experience can be properly deployed." Peter Costello has indicated he is prepared to consider a job that assists the National Interest. That is something that John Howard would not have been able to do - (rise above politics). I find it very, very, very, very, heartwarming that our PM can! Bravo! Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 16 June 2009 6:51:38 PM
| |
excellent Foxy, go the men's business!
Posted by whistler, Tuesday, 16 June 2009 10:39:35 PM
| |
I find it rather amusing, that some people dislike Costello because
of his smirk. Hey, like Keating, Costello did not lack self confidence and both were great debaters in parliament, running rings around the rest for most of the time. Both also have a great sense of humour, but of course that kind of self assuredness does not go down well with some of the public, who seemingly prefer crawlers as politicians. Fact is that both men understood economics and both men played an important role to take Australia forward, from the backward economy that we used to have, to join the real world. Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 9:22:14 AM
| |
I’ve got to admit, Costello’s planned political exit was amusing. That’s one less highly influential old-school-rampant-maximised-growth-at-all-costs-with-no-end-ever type of politician.
And a good thing that is! So now it appears as though he might go and work for Rudd, who is just another old-school-rampant-maximised-growth-at-all-costs-with-no-end-ever type of politician. Hwaaaw! Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 9:42:08 AM
| |
Sad but true Ludwig.
For so long we have had the dragon by the tail and are too afraid to let go. We need more courageous politicians, who break the mold of the Costellos, Abbots and Minchins. Who would move away from the growth at all costs approaches of the past. Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 10:20:45 AM
| |
To achieve that, you'd need politicians without an ego, rather an oxymoron really. As long as there's a chance of getting their name on a shiny brass plate, or in the record books, we're stuck with the "Big Business" model of Gov'.
Posted by Maximillion, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 10:25:26 AM
| |
Wouldn't it be great to have non-partisan politics.
The people elect their representatives for the House of Reps. and the Senate - who then select and vote on the best Leader for the country (the PM), he selects the best and the brightest for his Cabinet. Legislation is voted on a conscience basis in the House and then approved on a conscience basis in the Senate. There will be no "grand standing," on Party basis. There will be no allegiance to any one group. Every elected Representative will owe allegiance to his constituency and his own conscience. If it wasn't for "Party Lines," many of the proposed Legislations would have been supported by some Opposition backbenchers - who are currently restrained by Party Leadership. Of course this could only work if the country was a Republic and the Constitution was revised. This would benefit the Nation and not Party politics. Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 11:09:56 AM
| |
You lot seem to forget that its people who are driving the more
growth economy. Politicians simply reflect that. Pelican wants more money for pensioners, Ludwig wants more money for his department, etc. That the issue, people want more, for themselves, for their causes, for whatever. Now the first argument is that the pie is cut up wrong, but that will always go on, as each pushes their particular barrow for their particular reasons. So politicians aim for a bigger pie, it means more votes at the next elections, because it keeps more of you happy. So you are all to blame for the more growth economy. Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 12:30:08 PM
| |
Yabs, politicians don’t just reflect what the people want. Far from it. This is certainly true with the growth economy that is based on continuous rapid population growth.
The community wouldn’t have protested if Costello had knocked Keating’s baby bonus on the head instead of promoting and increasing it. They wouldn’t protest now if it was abolished. Neither would there be significant protest if immigration was wound right back. And with the right sort of promotion (which basically just means getting out there and telling the community the truth about the absurdity of continuous expansionism), the community wouldn’t object to the stabilisation of our population, with economic growth being driven by technological innovation and improved resource-use efficiencies and not at all by population growth…which would translate into real average per-capita gains instead of struggling to maintain the same per-capita income and quality of life for ever-more people. But of course this really basic philosophy has always been completely outside of the mindset of Costello….. and gravely also of Rudd. The people ARE to blame for the growth economy. But not because they strongly support it. Because they are mostly apathetic and don’t protest about it and just leave it up to our mongrel politicians. Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 1:44:38 PM
| |
No wonder people are apathetic.
They are disgusted with the current form of Government. No matter what good people, with good intentions will want to do - in the interest and benefit of the country - there will always be groups of politicians who will attempt to de-rail it. It's unfortunate that under our current system - Party loyalty - holds politicians to ransom. Things need to change. The only way is to have a system where good people of good conscience have an independent right to seek benefits in the interest of all the people, and the entire nation, and not the interests of the few. "Ask not what the country can do for you But what you can do for the country..." (JF Kennedy - words to that effect). Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 6:12:50 PM
| |
*The community wouldn’t have protested if Costello had knocked Keating’s baby bonus on the head*
Ah Ludwig, but there were loud screams that the birthrate was too low, that Australia was doomed, or would become a Muslim country, with more muslim migrants and less Australian babies. Those unmarried moms pushing prams down our main street all seem pretty happy, but I think that the baby bonus will eventually be converted into paid maternal leave, which the women's movement is pushing for. *Neither would there be significant protest if immigration was wound right back.* Except for asylum seekers, you've seen the comments on OLO, they want more. Except for family reunion, as migrants lobby to bring in their families. Except for specialised skills. We need doctors in country WA, locals don't want the job, as their wives don't want to move, where there is not an abundance of shopping etc. Then our ecomonic salvation, 200 billion $ worth of investment in gas etc in the NW. Those skilled workers don't seem to exist in outer Sydney or Melbourne. *The people ARE to blame for the growth economy. But not because they strongly support it.* The people want ever higher paying jobs and ever more money in their pockets. That is the reality I am afraid. You'd be amazed, at how much political parties spend to find out what the bulk of the public really thinks. Not me, not you, but the majority and what will buy their votes. That is what politics today is all about and its how politicians win elections. Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 6:52:47 PM
| |
“…but there were loud screams that the birthrate was too low, that Australia was doomed, or would become a Muslim country, with more muslim migrants and less Australian babies.”
Loud screams from who Yabby? Not from the apathetic general public. A lot of noise from the vested-interest big business sector, yes. Any thinking person would have advocated a much lower immigration rate, or at least a much lower Muslim component, if they were worried about that sort of thing, rather than pushing for a higher birthrate to try and balance it out a bit.....twenty years down the track when those babies become productive members of society! “Except for asylum seekers, you've seen the comments on OLO, they want more.” Some people want more. Most don’t. At any rate, I’ve always advocated a doubling of our refugee intake, within a net zero immigration program, within which we could also have an essential skills component and some family reunion. No I don’t think that there would be too much of an outcry from the general public if immigration was progressively wound down over the next few years, especially with the very strong perception that immigrants take established residents’ jobs. continued Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 8:09:57 PM
| |
“The people want ever higher paying jobs and ever more money in their pockets.”
Of course! So they want genuine per-capita economic growth, not growth that is overwhelmingly based on population growth and which just goes towards providing the same level of sustenance for the new residents that are creating the increased turnover! You know how hopeless this population growth – economic growth spiral is Yabby. And so does anyone who stops and thinks about it for five seconds! Costello knows about this stuff. But there was no way that he would ever have acted on it by way of making some sort of attempt to mitigate the magnitude of this continuous expansionist nightmare. Neither has he been neutral. He has promoted this absurdity more than most. He had to go and make the baby bonus his baby, and tell us to have one for Mum, one for Dad and one for the country! This wasn’t within his role as treasurer. As far as I’m concerned, all manic growth spiralists need to be condemned, and Costello more than just about any other. He and Rudd would work well together…. for the destruction of Australian society. Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 8:11:57 PM
| |
* A lot of noise from the vested-interest big business sector, yes.*
Oh no, its far more then that. Demographers, econimists etc, tell us that we will be a nation of retired old farts, with no young taxpayers, when the baby boomers retire. So its about ratios of working taxpayers/oldies on a pension. Then you have plenty of lobby groups like mil-observer and his LaRouche cult and others. Not everyone thinks like you and me, Ludwig. Don't forget, there are a whole bunch of people who work in the building industry, who need new houses to build, to have a job. Australia is not much good at making things and competing globally, but building houses is not something you can do in China, so its an important industry and all the people who work in it, want jobs. Politicians know that. *No I don’t think that there would be too much of an outcry from the general public if immigration was progressively wound down over the next few years* There are no votes in it Ludwig and until there are, politicians won't think that way. They would rather give building industry workers a job and gain their vote that way. Apart from some property developers etc, big business today thinks globally, so if a business plan works in Australia, it can be implemented in other countries. They don't need more Australians to grow their businesses. CSL, BHP, Computershare, News Corp, Westfield, Brambles, Leighton, and a host of others, all have global models and don't wait for populations to grow, to increase their businesses, so the Australian population is not really an issue for them Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 8:50:01 PM
| |
Belly
'I just can not take runner on face value, is it humor? Abbot? He would not win a raffle if he bought every ticket. His vote within his party would be far less than ten.' Unfortunately I think you are right. Turnbull and many of his men have little moral conviction like most of the Greens and Labour party. Abbot thankfully is an exception to the disgust of the immoral left media machine (ABC and ABS) included. Posted by runner, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 11:41:17 PM
| |
There's a very interesting article on
newmatilda.com - written by Ben Eltham, 17 June 2009. You can read it at: http://newmatilda.com/2009/06/17/so-long-farewell-auf-wiedersehen-goodbyeee It provides a good take on Peter Costello. Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 18 June 2009 11:34:44 AM
| |
*It provides a good take on Peter Costello.*
Actually Foxy, no it does not. Its just a young journo, who has to write something, to fill his page for the day and earn his crust. As Alan Kohler notes in today's Business Spectator, one of the reasons why we largely avoided a banking crash as in Europe or the US, is much better banking regulation. Kohler reckons that the Americans could learn something from us on that score. Guess who introduced that? Costello did. You need to think through the ramifications of that, to realise the implications. Who stopped Woodside being taken over by Shell? Costello did. Once again, incredibly important to the nation. Why did Costello introduce the 50% capital gain figure? For good reasons, as previously capital gains were indexed for inflation as they should be, anything else is Govt robbery. The only problem is that for practical purposes, the calculations can be complex, so to simplify the tax system, Costello changed it to 50%. Smartarses will always be smartarses, but at the end of the day, it cannot be denied that he was a good treasurer for many years, internationally recognised as that and thus his appointment as part time advisor to the World Bank. Give people credit where it is due I say. Smartarse knockers are a dime a dozen, but people with good judgement are rare. Your journo is just another smartarse knocker it seems. Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 18 June 2009 12:36:44 PM
| |
Righto Yabby,
Now let's look at what PC didn't do. He didn't take the political heat on one solitary domestic political issue I can remember. Whilst Howard was fielding the curly questions on the GST, for example, Pete was alliterating over Kim Beazley's rollback of the GST and his rolled gold promise etc, ad infinitum. Then there was the constant refrain about the GST replacing the wholesale sales tax. For what he achieved during this time, he may as well have stood on the sidelines and juggled fruit. There were also reports that the LP was busy hiding Costello from the voters during election campaigns. How often do you remember him being prominent in them? More examples: Costello said he wanted to to the bridge walk for reconciliation, but pulled out after Cabinet pressure. He did nothing to alleviate the GST paperwork burden on small businesses by simplifying the Business Activity Statement despite making some grand statements about tax simplification. Also, not much, if anything, came out of Dick Warburton's Tax Value Method proposal which was intended to be a more holistic treatment of taxation. So whatever PC did was behind the scenes, very general or at a lofty or international level and we, the ordinary public, are supposed to believe he was good because you say so? I believe he did keep the economy on an even keel (and Keating said as much of Costello) but to be a good Treasurer, he needed to extend his reforms through to the domestic economy as well. That never happened. Posted by RobP, Thursday, 18 June 2009 1:53:22 PM
| |
Dear Yabby,
Keep your shirt on - all I'm trying to do is to have a discussion here that presents both sides of the coin - so to speak, so that we can get a better picture of the man known as Peter Costello. The new matilda article that I referred to earlier, I came across this morning, and it was only meant of show another side of the coin. Young journo or not (I don't know the reporter), but it's an opinion - which presents a point of view, whether you agree with it or not. It's validity depends on your political persuasion. One thing that most financial experts do agree on is - Peter Costello was Treasurer during a "boom" period in Australia. How well he would do during the current difficult financial times - we'll never know. Also, John Howard controlled the reigns at the time, and gave instructions which had to be followed. Costello's true capabilities were never given a chance to be seen. Dear RobP, Thank you for giving us a further insight into Peter Costello. I'm hoping that the man will write another book, perhaps we'll get yet another glimpse of who this man actually is - and what he really thinks (if that's possible - from a public figure). Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 18 June 2009 3:46:07 PM
| |
Foxy,
Like I said I had contact with him and his underlying character while he was at uni. I found him to be a self possessed individual with all the earmarks of being the same as a politician. I have not read or heard anything to change my opinion since then. However I am open to being surprised as always. I do however note that he lacked what ever it was to be better than he appeared. Then again, tilting at windmills/causes is my specialty and I must remember not every one holds my views of 'why not?'(thanks bob). (fortunately? hmmmm) :-) Posted by examinator, Thursday, 18 June 2009 6:41:26 PM
| |
RobP, what Costello thought or was doing, was regularly reported
in the financial pages by the financial press, but few punters out there are interested in finance, preferring the sports or other pages. Lets face it, a large part of the community are pretty well financially illiterate and as long as they have money in their pockets, a bit more then before, they are happy. I remind you that Howard was driving the bus, it was up to Howard to do most of the marketing and promoting. Costello played a huge role in parliamentary debates, if you ever bothered to watch and he did extremely well in those. In fact once Keating left, he was the star performer for years. I gather that behind the scenes, he was arguing with Howard a lot, who wanted to spend more, whilst Costello wanted to spend less, then either pass it back to taxpayers or pay off Govt debt. It sounds to me that you are looking for a circus performer to amuse you, rather then somebody who shows sound judgement. Sometimes its even positive, if things are ticking over smoothly, for a treasurer to do nothing, rather then constantly fiddle with the system. The present BAS is pretty simple. Those who can't do it, should maybe not be in business. Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 18 June 2009 7:55:14 PM
| |
“Oh no, its far more then that. Demographers, econimists etc, tell us that we will be a nation of retired old farts, with no young taxpayers, when the baby boomers retire.”
Yabby, the message being put out there regarding the purported benefits of high population growth is grossly one-sided, and it is very largely coming from vested interests, or from governments as a result of the enormously powerful big business vested-interest lobby. It certainly doesn’t have the overwhelming backing of the general community. Sure, some support it, but many don’t…and most don’t give a hoot If a balanced message was put out there, expressing all the advantages and disadvantages of continuing with a system that is based on the rapid population growth – economic growth spiral, with the only possible conclusion being a redirection of policy away from this endless expansionism, then I reckon the community would predominantly support it…or at the very least, not go against it to any significant extent. Politicians COULD get elected with that sort of genuine sustainability platform. The writing was on the wall for this growthist philosophy years ago. The Howard government should have started to steer us off of the growth spiral. They could have done that, slowly and carefully, without too much fuss. I consider it highly dishonest for Howard, and Costello and the rest of that government…and the opposition… to have just continued with the same old expansionist mantra. And I consider Costello’s promotion of it, which was well and truly outside of his role, to be disgusting. Within his outrageous promotion of a higher birthrate, he repeatedly told the Australian community a gross untruth - that births weren’t keeping up with deaths. This was at a time when the birthrate was far higher than the deathrate. Mark O’Connor, author of ‘Overloading Australia’, had some interesting comments regarding this on Life Matters on Radio National yesterday: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lifematters/stories/2009/2600274.htm Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 18 June 2009 8:37:30 PM
| |
examinator,
Or should I call you 'Don Quixote?' Tilting at windmills... is that with or without a donkey and a suit of armour? Seriously though, I guess we can only take people as we find them - and obviously Peter Costello did not impress you in a favourable way. (Jeff Kennett made the same negative impression on me). Dear Ludwig, I fully understand your concerns about sustainability, and the continued rise in our population stats. However I do believe that the Minister for Immigration has cut the quota by approximately 14%. This figure of course does not affect humanitarian assistance that we are legally obliged (having signed treaties) to keep. Dear Yabby, Talking about clowns, and entertainers, and so on - I saw two cartoons recently about Peter Costello. One showed Malcolm Turnbull behind a desk asking Peter Costello, "Allright, do you want to be the Shadow Treasurer?" To which Costello replies with a smile, "No. I'm enjoying being the Shadow!" The other cartoon was of "Little Peter," being taken to the doctor by his mum. The doctor says, "Mrs Costello, your child has Attention Deficit Disorder." "What's that?" asks Mrs Costello. "Well, if he doesn't get attention, he creates disorder!" Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 18 June 2009 10:11:59 PM
| |
Ho ho ho Ludwig, methinks that you really are kidding yourself,
about how politics really works. Fact is its ruthlessly pragmatic, ie win the next election or you are out on your ear, soon forgotten. Do you really think that most politicians imagine that our ETS will make a scrap of difference in the real world? Of course not, but they need to be seen to be doing something, for the press has stirred it up as a subject and some voters will vote on it, so they have no choice. Do you really think that the liberals now believe that work choices was a bad idea? Of course not, they are fully aware, that for a globally competitive and flexible economy, it was the way to go, but it was politically unsalable, as everyone clings to their cushy benefits, which simply don't exist in other part of the world. Fact is that the press and how the public responds, drive these debates. Politicians put out their feelers and if an idea can win them the next election, they will back it. If you want to win this one, you need to convince enough journalists to create an issue over it, so that worried voters ring their MP and it will become an issue. Forget everything else. That is how politics works these days. Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 18 June 2009 11:12:43 PM
| |
"Costello played a huge role in parliamentary debates, if you ever bothered to watch and he did extremely well in those."
Oh, I did watch sunshine. Which is exactly my point and the one you are missing. While he was doing his grandstanding and putting the rapier through the Opposition at the time, he was only doing what was EASY FOR HIM. What hard stuff did he do that made a difference for the ordinary Joe living in suburbia? In the long run, that's what he'll really be judged on, not on how well he was viewed in the hallowed halls of the IMF or World Bank. Now as a so-called farmer, I'd have thought you'd be right onto that idea. Obviously not. "It sounds to me that you are looking for a circus performer to amuse you, rather then somebody who shows sound judgement." Wrong. You are either being dishonest or you think I am saying something that I am not. It was interesting to hear a short time ago a report coming out of Canberra saying Treasury thought the current Treasurer is showing much more interest in sounding out their ideas and opinions than Costello ever did. Sounds like Costello was rather remote and never got his hands dirty negotiating with others. As a farmer, if you did that, how far would your business get? And if you did, would you expect to be called a good farmer? Posted by RobP, Friday, 19 June 2009 9:39:22 AM
| |
“Ho ho ho Ludwig, methinks that you really are kidding yourself, about how politics really works. Fact is its ruthlessly pragmatic, ie win the next election or you are out on your ear, soon forgotten.”
Ho ho, ho ho, a squabbling on OLO we will go…!! Yabby, a sensible careful winding back of the future-destroying continuous growth philosophy is NOT at odds with ruthless pragmatism! As I keep saying, the general community WOULD allow it to happen. All pollies want to be remembered favourably. Well, none of the motley crew in the current or previous governments are going to be remembered at all favourably, once the sustainability ethic becomes entrenched and the general public fully realises just how utterly irresponsible those who promoted rapid continuous expansionism were. Of course pollies think in the short term, as far as appealing to voters and winning the next election goes. But again, this certainly doesn’t have to be at odds with the realignment of political philosophy. They, and the general public, also think to some extent in the longer term. And when the longer term is looking very bleak, it becomes much more important. It is then that longer term issues become vitally important to the short-term goal of re-election. I hate the way our political system seems to be steering us towards the proverbial cliff. But I’m apparently not as pessimistic as you about our ability to escape this road to ruin. I think that the change will happen, and when it does, our system will work well to promote and enforce it. As Paul Gilding, ex head of Greenpeace says here; http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2009/2592909.htm, we can do amazing things if we all have the same mindset, as per the war footing that this country went onto during the threat of invasion in WWII. Now, Costello told us a gross untruth (see my last post). And he repeated it many times. He should have been sacked for this. It is this, his promotion of the baby bonus and his utter lack of nous regarding sustainability, that he will ultimately be remembered, and condemned, for. Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 19 June 2009 10:42:11 AM
| |
Dear RobP,
As a poster stated on the 'new matilda,' website that I cited earlier: "...Costellos'debt truck in 1996 was about foreign debt which stood at $192 billion, it became $650 billion in the next few years..." "Debt to disposable income in 1996 was 69% of GDP, it was 160% by the time the Liberals left and has only fallen slightly to 155% since. We are and have been swimming in debt for a decade and Costello didn't even notice..." Ben Eltham confirms in his 'new matilda,' article, "Costello's business and income tax reforms also left an inequitable legacy. Under his watch, capital was taxed far more lightly than labour, and the rich gained disproportionate benefits in comparison to the poor. To take just one example, his decision to give a 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax of investments is an illuminating contrast to the punitive marginal tax rates faced by low-income earners trying to combine government benefits with part-time jobs..." As Peter van Onselen pointed out, for the Liberals, it's now, "Turnbull or bust!" Posted by Foxy, Friday, 19 June 2009 11:10:36 AM
| |
*What hard stuff did he do that made a difference for the ordinary Joe living in suburbia?*
RobP, economies don't just happen, what treasurers do matters to all of us. Small business thrived during his innings. Govt paid no interest on debt, everyone benefitted. All Govt has to do is enable people to help themselves. They are not your nanny. Fact is that Australians did better then ever before. Wether it was hard for him or easy, simply does not matter. What was easy for Costello, might be extremely difficult for Swan, for they are not in the same league. Sure Swan is listening, he needs all the advice that he can get lol. Now if Costello has been as dumb as Bush, when it comes to regulation of banks, you might appreciate how valuable it was to have a good treasurer, for our banks would be a disaster like theirs. As it happens, our banks have sailed through all this, you just take that for granted. Ludwig, if you worked in the building industry, you would want a job. You would vote for whoever created the economic conditions to give you that job, as a brickie, carpenter, you name it. Votes count on election day. Enough people work in the building industry, to swing the elections. That is the bottom line that you are dealing with and yes, its all short term. Foxy, you still don't get it. Increased Australian debt was not Govt debt, but people spending more then they earn. Costello warned the public about that, but of course Govts are not nannies, people have to learn the hard way. If Govt overspends, then I am forced through taxation to pay interest and pay off that debt, as we will now have to do, after those cash splashes. If you max out on your credit card, that is your choice. Don't blame Govt for your own foolishness. Posted by Yabby, Friday, 19 June 2009 11:37:23 AM
| |
Yabby,
"Wether it was hard for him or easy, simply does not matter." It does matter if your aim is to help the ordinary person in society. At the end of the day, it is only when they are enabled that things will improve. As a libertarian or whatever you are, you probably don't believe this. This is where we fundamentally differ: I believe governments are best when they are helping those that can't compete in an open economy, while you think all that government should do is get out of the way of those that can compete. All I can say to that is there are always two halves to any debate. "As it happens, our banks have sailed through all this, you just take that for granted." There you go again. I am aware that Costello was smart and I've never said otherwise. But does he really deserve the credit, or our country collectively for the good governance of banks here. I suspect the latter outweighs the former. Posted by RobP, Friday, 19 June 2009 12:11:49 PM
| |
So RobP, it seems that you want a nanny in your life. In that case
you should maybe have married Foxy :) I remind you of the saying " give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and he will spend his days in his boat, drinking beer with his mates" Fact is RobP, the best person to help people is themselves, if you give them the opportunity. Education, a healthy economy, credit to start businesses, less Govt red tape, etc. The Govt does not need to hold your hand, it needs to create the environment for you to help yourself. The nanny state hasn't worked anywhere, unless you think that public servants know better then you do, what you need in life. But clearly what you seek in a politician is a good actor. One who pretends that he cares about you, holds your hand, makes you feel better. A crawler who pretends to empathise. Seemingly you enjoy being a sucker. Nobody can help you, as you can help yourself RobP. If you have yet not learnt that at your age, its never too late. *But does he really deserve the credit, or our country collectively for the good governance of banks here. * Well if you check out what the informed business commenators like Alan Kohler and Robert Gottliebson have to say, yup, they give him the credit for it Posted by Yabby, Friday, 19 June 2009 1:29:47 PM
| |
Yabby,
There you go verballing me again. Nothing exceeds like your excess. I never said anything about getting the Government to do everything for people. I used the word, "help" as in they should help out. That means doing things like coming up with reforms that take the unnecessary bumps out of doing things for ordinary people that flatten the playing a field a bit so they have a chance to partake in the economy without getting smashed by it. But you wouldn't understand that would you? Piss off you patronising tosser! Posted by RobP, Friday, 19 June 2009 2:08:48 PM
| |
A very American outlook you have there Yabby, and like them, you ignore one basic fact. Not everyone is born equal, in intellect, or wealth, or opportunity.
Costello and his banker mates forcing people to work for minimal wages, and penalise them if they earn extra, hit them with fees and charges at every turn, makes it extremely difficult for the majority to achieve anything, even if they mange to get a decent education, which Howard and co’ made more difficult also. To use your fishing analogy, they didn’t give him a fish, they sold him it’s innards, and then sold him a net, at an incredibly inflated price, then charged him for the use of it, and took the best third of his catch, and denied him the right to a boat, unless he bought it on the same terms as the net, from them, get the picture? Mates? Beer? Not on his watch! It’s not wanting a nanny to expect the elected government to do the right thing by ALL the citizens, not just the wealthy few. “User pays” is just another way of saying..”if you have money, you can have anything, if you don’t, you can kiss my ..are you listening, serf?” Posted by Maximillion, Friday, 19 June 2009 2:44:02 PM
| |
“Ludwig, if you worked in the building industry, you would want a job.”
Yes Yabby, so you might advocate the continuation of high population growth. But if you didn’t work in the building industry (or even if you did) and you had a family and were worried about your kids or your grandkids’ future, and/or you had some feeling for environmental health and/or some notion of the craziness of continuously increasing the demand on our finite and potentially renewable resource base, blah, blah, then you’d probably be strongly against the continuous growth spiral. Harking back to a comment of yours from an earlier post; “Apart from some property developers etc, big business today thinks globally, so if a business plan works in Australia, it can be implemented in other countries. They don't need more Australians to grow their businesses. CSL, BHP, Computershare, News Corp, Westfield, Brambles, Leighton, and a host of others, all have global models and don't wait for populations to grow, to increase their businesses, so the Australian population is not really an issue for them.” They don’t wait for populations to grow, but they do plan on the basis that populations will grow and they do strongly promote that growth accordingly. Your point seems to run against the grain of your general trend here Yabby. If big companies didn’t desire high pop growth or weren’t too fussed about it, then it should be very easy indeed for politicians to jump off the runaway train of constant growth and onto the sustainability bandwagon! But you’re saying that it isn’t gunna happen. Well, even if a lot of big businesses did come onside with an end to expansionism, you’d be right if we continue to have pollies like Costello in powerful decision-making positions! Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 19 June 2009 7:28:47 PM
| |
Ludwig, I'm trying to explain to you what drives this whole thing,
for I think that you are barking up the wrong tree, blaming it all on big business. I read a great deal of financial stuff and population is just hardly mentioned, unless its a real estate developer. Next point is big business has hardly any votes, the mass public do, so that is what politicians focus on. Just read this very thread and see what people want from a treasurer. They want life on a plate and they want more for themselves. Human self interest is the driver of growth, that is my point. You blame big business, I am telling you its nearly everybody in the community. Not too many think like you think or I think. Until that changes, politicians won't try to sell it to the public, for there are no votes in it, certainly not enough to swing an election. Now if the media made it a big issue, like they have with climate change, then politicians would jump on the bandwagon. Politics today is ruthlessly pragmatic, if they are not they lose. Just look what happened when Latham stood against Howard and he tried to be visionary and protect forests in Tasmania. Howard saw his chance, jumped into bed with the timber workers who would lose their jobs, they voted liberal and that helped him win the elections. So I'm telling you that nothing will change, unless the voting public are behind it and will change their vote for it. To do that, you have to show that it is in their self interest, for humans act out of self interest by nature. Thats the reality of it Posted by Yabby, Friday, 19 June 2009 8:24:29 PM
| |
A poster summed up Peter Costello quite well
on the 'newmatilda.com,' website: "I am so sick of people heaping praise on Costello as the world's greatest treasurer because he ran budget surpluses. The truth is he overtaxed us! And what he took from us wage-earners he gave to the rich and called it a tax concession." And from the same website: "Ultimately, it is difficult to separate Costello's legacy from that of John Howard. Costello shared his leader's hard-line pursuit of industrial relations deregulation, the ultimate result of which was Workchoices and the electoral defeat for his party in 2007. The conservative side of politics would do well to remember this particular aspect of the Howard-Costello legacy when eulogising his contribution...But it is unlikely they will." Posted by Foxy, Friday, 19 June 2009 8:56:12 PM
| |
“…I think that you are barking up the wrong tree, blaming it all on big business.”
No no, I’m certainly not blaming it all on big business. The blame needs to be shared around between the big vested interest corporations or industries, the apathetic or narrowly focussed general populace and the politicians that not only run with what the vested interest lobby wants, but go out of their way to push that horribly biased message on the general public… a la Costello. The third group is the worst. And Costello was one of the worst amongst them…although Rudd is even worserer! “…big business has hardly any votes…” Yes but they have enormous favour-buying power from politicians and vote-buying power by way of getting their message out to the community to a vastly greater extent than any opposing message. “Human self interest is the driver of growth…” Yes, to a fair extent. But if the community received a balanced message on good and bad aspects of continuous growth, as well as a clear differentiation between the bad expansionist type of growth and the good technological advance / improved efficiency / alternative energy sources type of growth, then they’d be supporting the first type of growth to a far lesser extent…for SURE! Worrying about your kids or grandkids or your own future is a large part of many peoples’ self-interest. Voting against continuous expansionism and in favour of real innovative per-capita-increasing growth would also be totally in line with peoples’ self-interest, if there was such a party for which they could vote! So self-interest doesn’t have to be a driver of expansionist growth. “…nothing will change, unless the voting public are behind it and will change their vote for it.” Agreed! But I keep saying that the public WOULD jump behind it if there was a concerted effort to present the right message and a political party with that philosophy for which they could vote! “…you have to show that it is in their self interest…” Yes. And I don’t think that would be too hard to achieve. Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 19 June 2009 9:42:19 PM
| |
Yabby
Sorry for the delayed response. I agree partly with what you say - many hands wanting a piece of the pie. However our pensioners were looked after much better in the past when we were not quite so obsessed with growth economics. It really is about prioritising how the pie is divided. I am always amazed how our more conservative governments including Labor, continue to fund business in the form of corporate welfare - whether it be car dealers, car manufacturers or logging companies - and then grandstand on principles of 'free-market' economies. The Coalition was worse. The public aren't stupid. Most people acknowledge our most vulnerable get a raw deal in the modern world - carers, disabled and the elderly whether it be in due to poor pensions or understaffed nursing homes. To use your reasoning Yabby, I would bet attention to this sector is a vote winner not a loser particularly with an ageing population. Posted by pelican, Saturday, 20 June 2009 9:04:41 AM
| |
Dear Pelly,
Spot on! I visit my mum regularly - in an "assisted -living," facility - and often listen to the conversations of people there and the issues that concern them. Politicians had better pay attention to these voters. Their votes do count. Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 20 June 2009 10:35:40 AM
| |
None of you seem to be aware of the huge demographic problem that
we are heading towards. Yes yes, all our pensioners should live in splendor, but when will any of you get real about the situation. This week's Economist crunches some figures on it. By 2050, a third of the rich world's population will be over 60. The demographic bill is likely to be 10 times bigger then the fiscal cost of the financial crisis. People are living longer, they need pensions, they need healthcare and somebody has to pay! The money is simply not there. Australia is at least addressing the problem, through super payments, through Costello putting money away in the future fund, but we still have so many pensioners of various kinds, sucking on the Govt teat, that virtually every $ paid in personal income tax, just goes for welfare payments! We have as many people receiving welfare, as we have taxpayers. As the population ages, things will get worse, not better. Martin Ferguson has been over in the West, threatening oil companies that if they don't commercialise their finds, their leases will be removed. He knows full well that the Govt could earn 10 billion in royalties a year from those investments. Fact is, the money has to come from somewhere children, your bit of tax is not going to do it for all those pensioners. That is the reality. Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 20 June 2009 3:26:51 PM
| |
Dear Yabby,
History has proven that the natural process of disease, catastrope, and war, controls the population and ultimately boosts the economy. Today, with climate change, and make note that the Conservatives are in denial of climate change - because they want the natural process to control the population. And, ultimately, give them financial gain. So, get rid of the environmentalists/humanitarians - and we will definitely have a catastrope - which will solve our welfare problems. Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 20 June 2009 6:11:03 PM
| |
Yabby I don't remember anyone saying pensioners should live in splendor - comfortably above the poverty line is certainly not an unrealistic expectation.
There is always enough money. Huge amounts of money is wasted by governments on projects that really do nothing to improve situations, only give the appearance that something is being done. You only have to look at the money thrown at Indigenous projects that have done little over the past 40 years to change the health and living outcomes for many Indigenous communities. The money spent on corporate welfare. The money wasted on propping up big money sporting events and clubs that could easily be funded through corporate sponsorship. The money wasted on the senior public service salaries which over the years has increased markedly while 'real' services in the public service has declined. It is really as simple as prioritising what we deem most important, fair, equitable in a humane and caring society. Posted by pelican, Saturday, 20 June 2009 6:49:51 PM
| |
Foxy, sometimes you write some interesting posts, but that last
one was plain ridiculous. You are confusing the emotionally overwhelmed with the rationally aware. Reality does not got away, when you close your eyes and wish it would. Pelican, thats the point, there is not always enough money. Because of the many millions of people on welfare, to give each of them more, takes such huge sums, growing as their numbers grow, that even if you wiped out many things that you claim, it would still not add up to enough. Paying everyone just 10% more, would swallow another 12 billion $. Money given to the MV industry is not corporate welfare, but a reason for them to stay here and provide jobs, which is what voters want. Industry is pretty rational. If it doesn't pay, we shut it down and do it elsewhere, where it does pay. Many large companies don't even own the buildings which they use, its all long term leases from REITs. So see it as bribes from Govts, to keep their doors open and employ locals. Consumers don't care either, most seemingly prefer imported vehicles. Govts will calculate how many seats they would lose, if GM, Ford and Toyota, plus their suppliers and their suppliers, all shut up tomorrow. So they basically bribe em. But even that amount, I gather around 600 million a year, would not even make a dent in your fund to increase pensions by 30% or whatever. Never forget the law of unintended consequences. Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 20 June 2009 7:14:10 PM
| |
Dear Yabby,
I do the best I can with what I've got... as you so succinctly often put it to me - 'female logic.' Or - 'Nanny wit?' :) Anyway you may be interested in the TV program that's coming up this Monday evening (22/06/09), on Channel 9, at 6pm, called - "Prime Minister's Costs." I'd say - Worth a look. I agree with Pelly's take on Government prioritising where money is spent. Government Departments would be a good place to start in downsizing over-paid executive positions - especially ones that are unnecessary. Just as one example - There was a case where the position of Chief Librarian in charge of a large Regional Public Library Service wasn't enough for the Government - they appointed a CEO (jobs for the boys?) from another Council, over the Chief Librarian. The CEO was getting a huge pay packet, he knew nothing about libraries, and yet his was the signature that had to be on everything before it could be done. The Chief Librarian continued to run the Library Service - under the jurisdiction of the CEO. Two huge salaries - instead of one. What a waste! And the book budget and staff were slashed that year! This is only one small example. Government Departments are full of these examples. Frontline staff - necessary staff - are the ones that are cutback - be it in libraries, hospitals, Child Protection Services - or other crucial industries. CEOs and their huge paypackets - are simply moved around to other departments. In difficult financial times - this can't go on. And that's something that you should be able to see. Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 21 June 2009 3:21:01 PM
| |
*In difficult financial times - this can't go on.
And that's something that you should be able to see.* Oh I see it very well Foxy, its one of the reasons why Costello was a good treasurer! Fact is, it does not matter how much money that the Feds throw at health and education, it won't be enough and they will want more. Thats why you need a treasurer who puts the break on the public service, who make these decisions, so that they have a look how they could spend what they get with less waste and more wisdom. Thats why private enterprise can usually do things more efficiently. When its our own money being wasted, we take notice, but the public service has little respect for the poor old taxpayer. My point to Pelican is however this: The projected expenditure for welfare this year, is around 120$ billion, or the entire income from personal income taxes. That is huge money. So to pay everyone say 30% more, you would need 36 billion extra $. Remember that much of the waste that you talk about is State Govt waste, not Fed Govt. So you tell me where you are going to find that kind of money within the Federal Budget. Next point, due to demographics, ie the baby boomers retiring, each year more and more, our ratio of you to old is changing and there will be more and more pensioners, wanting pensions, but also health care. That means new hips, open heart surgery for 80year olds, expensive subsidised drugs etc. Its huge money. Now I know that you disliked Kennet, but I remind you that Kirner had nearly bankropted the State of Victoria and it needed a Kennet to come in and shake up the public service, for few politicians every achieve it. Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 21 June 2009 5:43:34 PM
| |
Dear Yabby,
I can see that it's no use discussing this with you any further. We totally see things differently. I don't want you to agree with me - and I don't agree with you. And that's what forms politics - and parties. Yours is the concept of money and power- which Peter Costello and his Party promoted. It's the ideology of greed, which leaves no room for social equity, compassion or the idea of an egalitarian society. Peter Costello believed (like you) that people either sink or swim, and if they sink, well that's too bad. Because as you tried to point out in your previous post welfare is not good for business. You quoted Jeff Kennett - he totally destroyed the hospital system, sold schools to developers for profit, destroyed the country railway links (it's costing millions for the current Government to replace the more important links), changed planning laws to irrational development, destroyed the green-belt system, introduced the "Grand Prix,' that to this day is an ever increasing drain on the State finances, sold off State run Services - resulting in an increase cost to property owners, and was a general disaster for the State of Victoria. And, recently tried to screw-up the Hawthorn football Club. Thanks for you contribution to this thread - see you on the next one. PS: If we stopped giving our politicians such huge payouts on their retirement from Parliament - and let them live on more equitable pensions like the rest of society - then perhaps that may solve the problem of equity. Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 21 June 2009 7:37:20 PM
| |
*It's the ideology of greed, which leaves
no room for social equity, compassion or the idea of an egalitarian society.* Rubbish. Social equity is about equality of opportunity. Some grab that opportunity, some don't. We are responsible for our actions. Anyone in Australia can choose to educate themselves. People are provided health care, nobody starves, anyone can borrow money, start a business and follow their dreams. But not everyone has the same goals in life. Foxy wanted to be a mother and a wife. Steve Jobs, who founded Apple, was in fact an orphan, adopted by working class parents. He nearly landed up in jail! He fiddled with electronic gear in his bedroom and built his first computer. Apple was born. Next came the Mac, then the Ipod, then the Iphone. Steve Jobs was paid 1$ a year by Apple. Do you really think he did it for greed or passion? The list goes on. An equitable and egalitarian society is a fair society, not one which all are rewarded the same, no matter the difference in effort. For that is certainly not equitable. I am for an equitable society, where people are responsible for their actions and choices. Greed has nothing to do with it. Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 21 June 2009 11:11:57 PM
| |
Dear Yabby,
What is being suggested is that a humane society takes care of the ones who are unable to take care of themselves. Not one that only allows benefits for the rich. We don't all have the same opportunities - it isn't a level playing field out there - as you well know - because I think that you're an intelligent man - and what you're doing now - is simply stirring. I know that you fully understand the points that I'm trying to make - so I'm not going to bother producing any further explanations. For me this thread has run its course. But before I leave - your reference to Foxy as a wife and mother - is somewhat narrow. Foxy also has a profession that she absolutely loves, and in which she has worked full time - for most of her adult life. She's managed (as have many women) to combine a full time career with a marriage and family. Again, Thanks for your contributions to this thread - But I'm - "Off like a Flash! (as the nightlight said to the nightdress)." Posted by Foxy, Monday, 22 June 2009 3:59:46 PM
| |
*and
what you're doing now - is simply stirring. I know that you fully understand the points that I'm trying to make* I certainly do know and I think that your ideology is flawed, that is all. Firstly I don't suffer from envy. If others are richer then I am, so what? I don't need huge wealth to be happy and content in life. Some measure their success by it, that is their thing, not my thing. Secondly, you are not going to enrichen the poor, by dragging down the rich. For a start, look at the statistics. There are in fact very few seriously rich people in Australia. They already pay huge amounts of tax, employ heaps of people. Try to screw them too much, they will simply leave, or rearange their tax affairs. We need them more then they need us. Do not kid yourself. The rich have a sense of justice too. Try and screw them and they have other options. It has never worked anywhere and never will. In Australia today, young people have far more opportunities then ever before. Far more then we ever had at that age. Their biggest disadvantage is their parents, many of whom brought them up to expect life on a plate. The best person to provide for oneself is oneself. If you really want to help the poor, so shut down the pokies. For it is the poor who can't help themselves and throw billions of $ down those machines, then complain when they have no money. Steve Jobs had less opportunities then you did in life. He didn't even have parents. The man has all sorts of character problems, yet he made the best of what he did have. You could learn something from that and so could others, who expect life on a plate. It was really rough adversity in my life which taught me so much, not easy times. But I survived, learnt how to cope with these things, learnt from those experiences and moved on to fullfill my dreams. Its character building. Posted by Yabby, Monday, 22 June 2009 9:50:08 PM
| |
Dear Yabby,
Thank You for sharing so much with me. I didn't have life on a plate either. I worked for everything I have - and life has also thrown me some pretty tough curve balls at times. But I coped. And, as you point out - it's character building ( you sound like my mum here). At least that's what they keep telling me. Although at times - I wouldn't have minded having a bit less 'character.' Yabster, you've always been more than fair in your dealings with me - and if I haven't said it earlier - I'll say it now - Thank You. Take care. Posted by Foxy, Monday, 22 June 2009 10:05:43 PM
|
To-day, June 15th 2009 he announced his
retirement from Politics much to the obvious
joy of both his Party Leader and the PM.
He confirmed this in Parliament, when he said:
"It is just possible both sides of the
dispatch box are happy with the announcement
I've made."
He's a young man, so what does he plan to do next?
And -
How will he be remembered - politically?
His book is on sale at our local post office
for $5.00. Perhaps now, the price will go up.
Your thoughts please...