- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,275
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Joh in Qld
Another bloody Kiwi.
Joan Kirner: Great Premier or Greatest Premier?
- Thread starter Ice-Wolf
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Another bloody Kiwi.
- Banned
- #27
Social justice, Kirner style
But she used feminism to put a few female cronies in parliament so she's a left hero
Very important point.
It is Kirner's fault for bringing that putrid campaigner Gillard into politics. Feminist anal campaigner Kirner caused Gillard's ascendancy.
Tokenism at it's worst.
I was 10 years old in 92 so don't have a grasp of the finer detail but afaik Kennett is the only premier of the two that has ever shown remorse for introducing the pokies.
Happy to be sorted out with a quote from kirner though
Lowest taxes, best infrastructure. Hardly laughable. Qld was run far better in his day than NSW and Victoria. He also helped get rid of Gough, something all Australians should be eternally grateful of.
As for corruption - why do so many conveniently gloss over CFMEU ownership of decision making in Victoria? Desal plant will cost taxpayers how many billions? Sure Joh /his govt was corrupt but lets be honest about corruption elsewhere as well.
You are mistaken. Not that it means much anyway, you can't unring a bell.
Premiers admit they were wrong about pokies
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/11/1094789740184.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/11/1094789740184.html
This.
Joh was an utterly corrupt campaigner on many levels. I still remember when he had legal abortion clinics raided.
You love deflection. When your arguments are piss weak I guess it's your only option.
You are clueless. Queensland was better run on a whole host of indicators under Jo compared to Kirner. People were migrating from Vic to Qld in large numbers at that time. SBV, Pyramid etc it was an absolute debacle.
That isn't deflection. That is reality.
Take your union corruption apologism and fanboi tosh elsewhere.
Interesting point that. Did she make it worse or just got left a huge s**t sandwich?
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,399
- 19,531
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
What is the problem with terrorising murderers?
Had abysmally low taxes which hampered the economy and then sold the state off to Japan!
She was unremarkable. The damage was done or the process of doing the damage was already in train and essentially nothing was done to prevent it.
However, it was not filled with missed opportunities like the Premierships of her successor in Williamstown or the other country boy who had to come to working class Melbourne to get a safe seat.
However, it was not filled with missed opportunities like the Premierships of her successor in Williamstown or the other country boy who had to come to working class Melbourne to get a safe seat.
which indicators?
As an aside, Pyramid was well after Joh had gone. Were Vics heading up north due to Wayne Goss?
employment, taxes, debt, construction etc. Vics were heading north because Cain/Kirner were such a trainwreck. Goss inherited a great budgetary situation from Joh. Kennett on the other hand inherited a s**t sandwich.
http://sgsep.com.au/assets/Melbournes-Transformation-Rust-Belt-to-Renaissance.pdf
In the global recession of the early 1990s the Melbourne economy was battered more extensively than the rest of the Australia. The industrial heartland of the city contracted sharply which had a range of flow on economic effects. There was heavy migration out of the so-called rust-belt of Melbourne.
- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,746
- 14,953
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
In all your posts about CFMEU and the Desal plant, I've never seen you bring up the JOH corruption...
But no, please continue to chastise others for their bias...
Interesting paper. Mostly about transforming Melbourne from manufacturing to a knowledge economy. Not really something that QLD did or that happened under Joh, although I guess that's not your point.
But it is difficult to see exactly what your point about Joh is. You say it was far better run ... but 'better run' in what sense?
You seem to be saying we should overlook his corruption because of his economic policies without explaining what they were, other than to say they were better than those of later govts in Vic and NSW, or why any success that occurred in QLD was as a consequence of the policies, not some other reason.
Is it possible to isolate the economic policies from the general corruption, the bribery, cronyism, Special Branch activities and systemic issues like the gerrymandering? If so, is it reasonable to claim that it's ok to overlook the latter because of the success of the former?
Have explained this. Not hard to comprehend. Basic stuff
No, never said that at all. Just pointing out usual hypocrisy of the usual fanbois on here re corruption in Victoria.
Or is the CFMEU controlling pre selection not corruption? Is that your argument? Or does the CFMEU get a free pass?
Who was worse, Russ Hinze or CFMEU? Did Russ fleece taxpayers for $20bn odd?
Why do so many of your posts follow this pattern? Make a sweeping assertion and when asked to explain or elaborate, claim that you have done so and it's very simple.
I'm asking you to explain whether your assertion that Qld was better run - and it seems that in your view this equates to low taxes, better infrastructure (not clear what you were getting at here - a few dams maybe?) lower unemployment, "etc" - as a consequence of Joh's premiership, rather than despite it.
Also it's not clear what you are comparing - Joh's Qld and Kirner's Vic did not temporally overlap. But the paper you linked to talks about Melbourne from 1990 on. Well past Joh's time. And, as I said, Joh didn't do anything like the stuff lauded in that paper. It may be basic stuff to you but it's confusing when you don't join the dots between your statements.
Anyway, you made the statement, I'm just asking what you mean.
So it's not kosher to point out that Joh's regime was corrupt without also acknowledging and condemning unrelated corruption in a different state?
I don't know. Does it control preselection?
what have I written that might lead you to that absurd conclusion?
See above response.
I don't know. What are you asserting has happened? What am I supposed to be comparing?
I don't know. But I'm not the one making the assertions.
- Banned
- #46
Kirner wasn't elected premier. It took the job because labor was in power and Cain was removed by labor.
Then there was an election and Kirner was violently rejected by the majority in favour of the conservatives. It was never elected and then it was booted out.
Socialist, feminist, unwanted and now dead.
Not great at all, you fat campaigner.
Then there was an election and Kirner was violently rejected by the majority in favour of the conservatives. It was never elected and then it was booted out.
Socialist, feminist, unwanted and now dead.
Not great at all, you fat campaigner.
- Sep 19, 2007
- 19,078
- 17,644
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Anaheim Ducks, PSV Eindhoven
- Thread starter
- #47
Come on tell us how you really feel.
Call me pedantic but a sentence with a question mark at the end is not generally considered an assertion.
Queensland under Joh was well run on a number of measures which I have stated. That is hardly contentious.
The issue is whether better roads, schools, hospitals, employment, lower taxes etc offset endemic corruption.
Most rational people would take Joh over Kirner in a heartbeat.
The preliminary question is whether Qld indeed had better roads, schools and hospitals, lower taxes and better employment AND as I've stated several times, whether this is a consequence of any of Joh's policies.
As for taking Joh over Kirner, it's a stupid hypothetical - the two did not overlap temporally. You might as well say people would take the 80s over the 90s.
I admire your efforts to draw moo moo out in a debate when you know (as you have already pointed out) he will curl up inside his assertions and claim they are already established, such is his grasp of subject matter.
As to whether there could be any comparison between Joh and Joan because they did not overlap temporarily I am against you. I cannot see how anyone can sensibly suggest Joan, who was an ineffective numpty of a Premier of a bedraggled government that had run out of any useful ideas, was not incomparably better than Joh, who was overtly corrupt (think paper bags, bitumen roads to his peanut farm, Terry Lewis, Russ Heinze etc) undemocratic (think continuation of the gerrymander, Albert Fields, anti-freedom of assembly laws), racist (Koowartha v B-P (HC)), homophobic, and a corrupt developer's dream with no concern for environment and planning laws.
