Ever wondered why Julia Gillard never gets it right? The answer is simple: she is a superficiologist. Someone with very little knowledge of the world they live in. Unfortunately she is not alone and this is a definition that seems to apply to the great majority of our politicians.

I no fan of Gillard, Must ask are you in to your teen age years yet.
And I recommend you consider this.
Only the letter T separates a Wit from a Twit.

Ouch......Rush me to the burns unit. Looks like it's just dawned on someone that he or she is a superficiologist.

"...Rush me to the burns unit..."

Never mind, Mr Opinion - I'm sure they're only superficial.

Mr O, if you want someone to lead the country who is definitely not a superficial thinker, has an excellent worldly knowledge and many years of political experience... and who will guide us in the right direction, then…..

Bob Carr’s your man!

Bob Carr of NSW fiasco?

SM

Yep, Bob Carr, who was re-elected a number of times and became the longest serving premier in NSW, and who decried the rate of population growth in Sydney for all of those years and who could not ultimately do great things for Sydney or NSW because he had no control over the very high rate of growth as imposed by the Federal Government.

It is this imposition of high population growth that is the great undoer of all our political leaders. It means that there is no chance of balancing the books. It means that a very large fraction of our wealth and of our taxpayer dollars has to be poured into building infrastructure and duplicating services for ever-more people rather than going into improving the lot for the existing population.

Gillard got it right in August 2010 when she first became PM, when she said:

“Australia should not hurtle down the track towards a big population"

“We need to stop, take a breath and develop policies for a sustainable Australia. I support a population that our environment, our water, our soil, our roads and freeways, our busses, our trains and our services can sustain."

But she has been unable to act this… at all!

Bob Carr holds just the same sentiments and would presumably have the ability to get the government to move in that direction, at least to some extent…. which is what we desperately need.

Gillard only made this comment against an increasing population because at the time she was stabbing Rudd in the back and wanted to be seen as the opposite of Rudd. Apart from knowing how to drum up rhetoric she has no knowledge base for acting successfully on her claims.

Bob Carr, who is an historian, is an example of a politician who does have a good knowledge of the world in which we live. He gained that knowledge through concentrated learning and research; Gillard appears to have got her knowledge from the back of a cereal box or from watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.

If ever there has been a PM that needed removing in mid-office, it was that great dud Rudd!

Gillard was his obvious replacement.

There was no back-stabbing from Gillard. There was only the most dismal level of mismanagement from Rudd, to the extent that the powerbrokers and just about everyone else in his party could see the need for drastic action.

I have no doubt that Gillard spoke sincerely with her above-quoted comments… which must have been very embarrassing for the manic pro-growthers and in-bed-with-their-big-business-buddies Laborites!

But what could they do? They could hardly roll the person they’d just chosen as the new PM!

So they just quietly made sure that she didn’t act on those sentiments, which they have achieved…. comprehensively.

Hey, it is policies that matter. The leaders are not so important, especially while the policy platform is so drastically wrong!

I am of the firmest possible belief that we should be geared towards the achievement of a sustainable society as the most fundamentally important political principle, and that it is as MAD as it can possibly be for us to be expanding everything at a very rapid rate, with no end in sight, in TOTAL opposition to a sustainable future!

The great advantage of a Carr Government would be a genuine all-out attempt to get Labor to shift away from record-high immigration and embrace the notion of a stabilised population…..

….. which is exactly why the all-powerful big-biz-buffoons and their all-too-willing political cronies will make sure he never gets the job!

Luddy will you never learn old mate?

If you still believe in that twit Carr, you can not have heard him buzzing like a two bob watch, after the UN "achievement". The fool not only thinks it was worth the waste of money, he was crowing like Keaton after his election win. His ego knows no bounds, which makes him a dangerous twit, not just a twit.

The man is a proven idiot, who did NSW great damage, from which they are still suffering.

Besides, you can never trust someone who does not have a drivers licence. In this day & age, that alone makes him a bit strange.

He's a good match for Gillard in incompetence, although probably not quite as dishonest.

Awww Haz, we’ve been over this ground about zillion times.

Of the current crop of pollies, Bob Carr looks like the best potential leader, apart from perhaps the relatively unknown but long-time Labor MP Kelvin Thomson.

It seems to me that you actively look for any criticism that you can possibly mount against someone and never even consider the possibility of maybe seeing some positive characteristics.

I mean, what’s not having a drivers licence got to do with anything? How have you managed to mount that as a criticism against poor old Bob?? If he gets by without driving, well good luck to ‘im!

Ludwig, like your self, based on only the post history, of you and others,I know the value of Bob Carr know too some know nothing about him,and are in no way balanced contributors.
History will to, his photo, me sitting with him, is along side me now.
He turned NSW around, and left only after failing to roll the influence peddlers who destroyed the party.
History will know of his GREAT NATIONAL PARKS more than any leader in our country,s past.
It will find no mud , some here throw it but it is habitual for them.
I value no opinion from unmovable cynics, the ability to see both sides impresses me.
Ludwig,our Bob, never farmed a faction, therefore and for that and his age only, he will not lead us.
I challenge your view of Rudd, given the chance he will win you over.
This thread must choke on Gillards ten point lead over Abbott, lovin it!
Yet it warns of CHANGE, Abbott is shaky, watch closely, Australia by its polling has left him.
Turnbull comes.
Rudd too looms, watch and see.

If someone does not have a driver's license that could mean that he is not autoerotic. If he is not autoerotic he could tend to the business at hand. If he tends to the business at hand he could be autoerotic.

Gees Luddy, now you can't even get my jokes, & you feel able to pick a leader.

Of course he could only get by with out a licence because he had us paying for a driver for him.

I would almost prefer Rudd. Everyone knows he's a twit, but only the folk of NSW realise how bad Carr, who can't drive a car, would be.

<< Gees Luddy, now you can't even get my jokes, & you feel able to pick a leader. >>

HAAAAAA Haa hahahahahaaaaaa. Now THAT is funny, Hazza!!

Like, I need to get your jokes to show that I’m mentally competent enough to make a valued judgement about who should be our leader, or sumpthin!

Trouble is, there is no difference between the way you write jokes and your real criticisms.

In fact, a lot of your presumably genuinely held criticisms are very funny indeed! I could say that everything you write is a joke, but I wouldn’t be that rude! ( :>)

.

Belly who knows if Rudd will reappear as our leader. And if he does, who knows if he’ll be any better.

My guess is that he’ll be back for another jab at the leadership, and may well win it. Afterall, he is certainly a manic pro-growther if ever there was one, so he’d be in good stead with those who REALLY control our government!

Malcolm will be on a high today, and Toni will be in damage control.
How long can he survive, Turnbull was only beaten by one vote. Abbott will resign from politics if he is beaten.

Bob Carr, Ludwig?

It is significant that the only positive statement that you can make about him is that he "decried the rate of population growth in Sydney for all of those years". For you, all that a politician needs is to chant along with Ludwig's population control mantra.

The man did absolutely nothing for NSW, despite being given every opportunity over many years. Unless you include being a preening, posturing popinjay, at which he was - and still is - a master.

Significant, too, that you actually recognized that he did nothing. Only you feel able to excuse his laziness, with this gem, "...[he] could not ultimately do great things for Sydney or NSW because he had no control over the very high rate of growth as imposed by the Federal Government."

Since when did a Federal Government "impose" growth on a State? How do they actually achieve this? People choose to live here - especially in Sydney - because it is such a great place. Why else would they put up with the high cost of living, the crowded roads and the pathetic excuse for a transport system? I don't see people being cattle-prodded across the border, weeping and wailing because the evil people in Canberra won't let them live where they want to.

There was not one single initiative of Carr's that was in any way hindered by Canberra's "population policies". I challenge you to name even one.

But just to cap it all, history shows quite categorically that NSW experienced net outward migration throughout his tenure. Everyone went to... Queensland, presumably to join the Public Service and laze around on the beach.

http://blog.id.com.au/2012/australian-demographic-trends/which-states-are-the-winners-in-the-migration-game/

A trifecta of rubbish, Ludwig. Well done.

Bob Carr did nothing for the State during his reign. He was elected on the basis that he appeared to be intelligent. What he patently did not do, was to turn that massive brain away from American History, and on to the problems of NSW. Instead, he chose to drift along until Macquarie offered him half a bar to "consult" for them.

A flake.

What happened to you on the ‘World food day’ thread Pericles? You know when you’ve been thoroughly trounced eh? http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14230&page=0

And this time you’ve totally shot yourself in the foot.... again!

You say:

<< … especially in Sydney - because it is such a great place >>

and

<< Bob Carr did nothing for the State during his reign… >>

So Sydney and the rest of NSW stayed a great place to live, despite enormous population pressure and a state government that did nothing! Hmmm.

I suppose you’d reckon anything good that happened in that time was due to the local councils and the federal government and happened totally in spite of the horrible and hopeless state government eh?

It doesn’t add up does it Pericles.

<< He was elected on the basis that he appeared to be intelligent >>

And why was he re-elected at least twice, despite your assertion that he was doing nothing for his constituents?

He didn’t become the longest serving NSW premier because he was a do-nothing drongo!

Again, it doesn’t add up does it.

<< Since when did a Federal Government "impose" growth on a State? >>

What a silly question! The Feds are in charge of the immigration rate. Immigrants largely go to Sydney and Melbourne. There are obvious problems with this sort of growth in those cities, and it is obviously imposed upon those places and upon the state and local governments who are then predominantly responsible for managing it.

So there you have it, a trifecta of twaddle.

But wait, there's more....

continued

<< …history shows quite categorically that NSW experienced net outward migration throughout his tenure… >>

What?? I don’t think so! Methinks you have misinterpreted the data that you provided the link for. Yes NSW has the biggest transmigration exodus, but it also has the biggest immigrant influx. So there is a pretty strong net gain overall, and Sydney’s and the whole state’s population continues to increase rapidly.

So, all considered, Carr didn’t do too badly in his tenure, when you compare it to all other state premiers across the country over the last, say, 30 years.

But all of this is really beside the point.

Bob Carr has the right political philosophy, which this country DESPERATELY needs to adopt, and which really is amazingly different to that currently being exercised by his party!

THIS is the all-important point. And it’s one that you can’t argue with, can you Pericles.

You're starting to sound desperate, Ludwig.

>>What happened to you on the ‘World food day’ thread Pericles? You know when you’ve been thoroughly trounced eh?<<

It's not a good look, you know. But if you are that clamorous for attention, I'll drop in a little later to calm you down.

Now, back to the matter in hand.

(Incidentally, don't think I hadn't noticed that you have hijacked yet another thread with your single-issue fanaticism. I think I'll start a thread on the history of decimal currency, or some such banality, and see how long it takes you to shift the discussion onto population control. My money would be on thirty seconds, tops)

<<Bob Carr did nothing for the State during his reign… >>

My assertion stands, given the complete absence of evidence to the contrary.

>>The Feds are in charge of the immigration rate. Immigrants largely go to Sydney and Melbourne. There are obvious problems with this sort of growth in those cities<<

Immigrants do not however go to Sydney and Melbourne because they are forced there by the government, which was the point I made. And the one you avoided. And the "problems" of this influx only exist in your mind.

As far as the statistics are concerned, you obviously knee-jerked rather than bothered to check the data.

>>Yes NSW has the biggest transmigration exodus, but it also has the biggest immigrant influx. So there is a pretty strong net gain overall<<

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/07C4285C66219C10CA257A5A00120A94?opendocument

In 2010-11, NSW had a net influx of 50,186 from overseas sources, while Queensland had a net influx of 31,226. That is, a 0.7% population increase due to immigration for NSW, and a - guess what? - a 0.7% increase for Queensland.

So, add those numbers into the interstate migration statistics, and you will find that Queensland has been growing twice as fast as NSW.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/3218.0~2011~Main+Features~Main+Features?OpenDocument#PARALINK0

Try doing some homework, Ludwig, before you get snarky. As I said, it's not a good look.

<< You're starting to sound desperate, Ludwig. >>

You wish Pericles!!

Now, WHO’S getting a tad “snarky”??

And who’s getting really quite loopy with his insistence that a mere pertinent mention of population on various threads amounts to hijacking those threads? For goodness sake, you need to give up that one. It really does sound a might daft!

And would you believe it, you have completely ignored the main point in my last post. I reiterate:

< Bob Carr has the right political philosophy, which this country DESPERATELY needs to adopt, and which really is amazingly different to that currently being exercised by his party!

THIS is the all-important point. And it’s one that you can’t argue with, can you Pericles. >

To which you responded:

<< ……………………………………………………………………………………. >>

Yes, that’s right. You said NOTHING….. thus proving my point that you can’t argue with it. Coz you woulda if you coulda!!

The rest of this discussion is really twice removed from the subject of this thread.

You are waffling off on side-issues which even after a cursory glance I can see that you have got fundamentally wrong. But that can wait. I’ll respond more fully later.

Hay Luddy, fair go mate.
"In fact, a lot of your presumably genuinely held criticisms are very funny indeed! I could say that everything you write is a joke, but I wouldn't be that rude! ( :>)"

Don't tell them old mate, do you want to spoil all my fun? & here I was thinking of you as a mate & one of the sharper knives in the draw.

As I said, It's not a good look.

>>And would you believe it, you have completely ignored the main point in my last post. I reiterate:

< Bob Carr has the right political philosophy, which this country DESPERATELY needs to adopt, and which really is amazingly different to that currently being exercised by his party!

THIS is the all-important point. And it’s one that you can’t argue with, can you Pericles. ><<

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, Ludwig. But please don't try to pretend that it is anything more than that.

You only believe that Bob Carr "has the right political philosophy" because he appears to share your views on population control. You insist that this is one that "this country DESPERATELY needs to adopt", which is another opinion that I have heard from you ad nauseam, but one that you have never actually put forward a convincing argument for. Except in your own eyes, of course.

Burbling on about how Sydney is more overcrowded than, say, Outer Woop Woop, QLD, is not in itself particularly persuasive. We're talking about the world's seventh most livable city, you know. (That's not my opinion, by the way. I put it three places higher. But I do agree with the Economist's survey in that it appears well ahead of anywhere in Queensland. Including Outer Woop Woop).

This, by the way, belongs in the playroom:

>>Yes, that’s right. You said NOTHING….. thus proving my point that you can’t argue with it. Coz you woulda if you coulda!!<<

Sad, really.

Incidentally, the topic here was "Julia Gillard: superficiologist".

>>...a mere pertinent mention of population on various threads amounts to hijacking those threads?<<

Your hijacking is neither mere, nor pertinent, Ludwig. Your thinking that it is, is known in the trade as self-delusional.

Now, off to the beach with you.

Thanks Pericles for reminding people that the topic is about whether or not Julia Gillard is a superficiologist.

I bet anything in the world that Plato would have agreed with me in that she is a superficiologist. Great minds think alike!

Pericles, no wonder we don't agree on much, if you can place Sydney 3 places higher than 7Th on that rather strange grading that gets it in the top couple of hundred.

As an old Sydneysider, I loved the place in the 60s, when it was still a reasonable size. I had the good sense to get out in the 70s but after my recent visit it can not even make the bottom of my list.

The ridiculous traffic, the jammed up houses, the awful six packs, & the large no go areas for a dim dim, [white man in Papuan], place it on my avoid at all cost list today.

I could not find a single redeeming feature, apart from the harbour. Yes the waterways are beautiful, but there are plenty of places with as good waterways, without the hassle of that poor bloated place.

Now where was I bfor the computer system decided to throw a wobbly!

Then of course I had to go down the beach for a while to de-stress, bcoz when that sort of stuff appens, it spins me right out! Aaaargh!.

Oh yeah, Pericles was hangin out for a fuller response.

Alright then, where DO I start?

Well I think only one point needs to be made: I note….again…the amazing duplicity involved.

Dear Pericles, your criticism about me introducing population into lots of threads and thus ‘hijacking’ them is not only completely loopy but extraordinarily compromised by the fact that you so readily aid and abet the ‘hijacking’!

You’re on about population, in quite some detail in your post of Tuesday, 23 October 2012 12:28:44 PM. If ever a population point of discussion is not really relevant to the thread, it is on this occasion.

May I remind you of the thread title: ‘Julia Gillard: superficiologist”.

My point is that Bob Carr is not a superficiologist like many would consider Gillard to be, and would make a damn good alternative leader. His views on population are very important. But your comparisons of pop growth in New South Wales and Queensland are just way off to the side of this discussion.

So please, once and for all, drop your silly rabble about me inappropriately mentioning population (is there ever a time that you would it not to be inappropriate?) and regain a modicum of common sense and an absence of abject duplicity here.

Yes Hasbeen, Sydney is a great place to live… if you only look at how the top 25% are living and don’t consider the no-go zones, deplorable traffic and various other negative factors.

A holistic view would surely put livability in Sydney a long way further down the list of cities on a global basis.

This is actually highly relevant to the thread subject inasmuch as Gillard said in 2010:

“We need to stop, take a breath and develop policies for a sustainable Australia. I support a population that our environment, our water, our soil, our roads and freeways, our busses, our trains and our services can sustain."

Our roads, freeways, busses, trains and services.

Gillard certainly did not show superficiality with this statement. She knows that Sydney, and the other capitals, are all feeling the strain of constant high population growth.

The superficiality comes from those who push for growth, as the answer to everything, who don’t separate the good and bad aspects of growth, who don’t even think of matching supply and demand, who don’t bear a thought for sustainability, who are perfectly happy to allow big business to give big donations and thus highly corrupt the political process and the principle of democracy, etc, etc.

So I’d say that Gillard is actually not superficial where it really counts, but that she has been dumbed down by the powers that be.

But having said that, Bob Carr is certainly a whole lot more worldly wise and would no doubt make a better leader.

Not really, Ludwig.

>>Oh yeah, Pericles was hangin out for a fuller response<<

I pretty well knew that it would be the same old stuff - a little denial here, a little adjustment of history there, and a complete resistance to acknowledging the facts behind anything that you disagree with.

And so it proved to be.

Denial: "...your criticism about me introducing population into lots of threads and thus ‘hijacking’ them is not only completely loopy"

Despite the fact that you do it all the time.

Adjustment of history: "A holistic view would surely put livability in Sydney a long way further down the list of cities on a global basis."

Sorry, but the results are in. Feel free to disagree with them, using the same parameters that the survey uses. But what informs your opinion that it is not "holistic"? Oh, right. It can't possibly be holistic, because you disagree with its findings.

So do tell, which city would be on your list? And why.

A complete resistance to acknowledging the facts: "your comparisons of pop growth in New South Wales and Queensland are just way off to the side of this discussion"

Hardly. Let me remind you of the context:

>>So Sydney and the rest of NSW stayed a great place to live, despite enormous population pressure and a state government that did nothing! Hmmm.<<

Oh look. You introduced the fiction of "enormous population pressure" as part of your paean of praise for the prancing panderer.

>>Methinks you have misinterpreted the data that you provided the link for. Yes NSW has the biggest transmigration exodus, but it also has the biggest immigrant influx. So there is a pretty strong net gain overall, and Sydney’s and the whole state’s population continues to increase rapidly.<<

You do recall saying that, don't you?

And this...

>>You are waffling off on side-issues which even after a cursory glance I can see that you have got fundamentally wrong<<

Oh dear.

Egg, meet face.

Hey Pericles, don’t look now but I just went and gone and done it again – I put up a population post on another thread!

Totally hijacked it!

Better get your tooche over there and straighten me out!

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14270#246237

Looks like you are not the only one having trouble getting in Ludwig.
I could not yesterday most of day.
And post history, time of last posts, points to it,mate did you, may be wrong, start a thread about staying on subject?