A question for Tim56 and other Howard Lovers.

[Bombers 2003]

When is this "Government for all Australians" going to show Moral Leadership?.I mean it avoids issues like Ministerial Responsibility,Compassion toward Refugees,A decent reform program[i mean institional reform not administrative "reform"] and decent,human[+humane]social Legislation.Well u JWH lovers how about some answers?.

 

[bunsen burner]

Disclaimer: I'm not a Howard lover. Some of his policies I like, some I really dislike. But the fact is that he has provided a good economic climate during his stay in office. Furthermore, IMO he's a better alternative than Beazley or Crean.

Originally posted by Bombers 2003
When is this "Government for all Australians"

He's the person everyone voted in 3 times. He's obviously doing what a lot of people want.

Moral Leadership?

What morals? Your morals? What makes you think that your morals are the correct ones?

Originally posted by Bombers 2003
avoids issues like Ministerial Responsibility

Can you be more specific?

Originally posted by Bombers 2003
Compassion toward Refugees

The Govt shows compassion by agreeing to let them take asylum here. Obviously, it's not to compassion to the extent you would like, but as I said, who said you were voice on what is enough compassion and what isn't? The people have voted, and it ain't you.

Originally posted by Bombers 2003
A decent reform program[i mean institional reform not administrative "reform"]

What is institutional reform? Can you be more specific?

Originally posted by Bombers 2003
decent human[+humane]social Legislation.

Once again, can you be more specific.


Please provide examples of the current Govt policies and what you think the policies should be.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Bombers 2003
When is this "Government for all Australians" going to show Moral Leadership?

The Govt isn't there to be moral. People have different sets of morals, so who is to say what the correct balance of morals are? The Govt is there to provide education, medical services, and law and order for every Australian. Apart from that, rather than basing a govt on morals, the govt is best providing a sound economic environment. That means reasonably low inflation rates and unemployment rates, growth, and a good standard of living. A good economic climate is the key to providing social benefits and opportunities.

Morals are opinion based, vary widely, and are hard to measure. Economic performance is much more apparent and easy to measure.

Go join a church if you want morals.

 

[The invisible mullet]

"He's the person everyone voted in 3 times. He's obviously doing what a lot of people want."

Well that is shyte. Apart from the use of the silly "everyone" his government did not get a majority of the vote in 99 and its not as if he had over 55% of the vote last time.

"avoids issues like Ministerial Responsibility"

Howard made a great show of bringing in a ministerial code of conduct but after losing 7 ministers to it in his first time has disregarded it. simpler still he stands by ministers who do not tell the truth until forced to do so by the media. There are enough examples of this behaviour before the last election and during this term. There is certainly a stench about this government which has contributed to the low opinion people have of politicians.

 

[The invisible mullet]

"Compassion toward Refugees

The Govt shows compassion by agreeing to let them take asylum here. Obviously, it's not to compassion to the extent you would like, but as I said, who said you were voice on what is enough compassion and what isn't? The people have voted, and it ain't you."

And what planet were on when the Murray Islands were excised and before that when the Pacific Solution was formulated?

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by The invisible mullet

Well that is shyte. Apart from the use of the silly "everyone" his government did not get a majority of the vote in 99 and its not as if he had over 55% of the vote last time.

Stop being stupid. The point was that he got the most votes. We live in a democracy and that's who the public voted in.

Seems like a clear cut case of sour grapes.

"avoids issues like Ministerial Responsibility"

Howard made a great show of bringing in a ministerial code of conduct but after losing 7 ministers to it in his first time has disregarded it. simpler still he stands by ministers who do not tell the truth until forced to do so by the media. There are enough examples of this behaviour before the last election and during this term.

All governments do this

There is certainly a stench about this government which has contributed to the low opinion people have of politicians.

People have always had a low opinions of politicians, and this govt's pollies are no worse. Seems like you were born yesterday.

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Stop being stupid. The point was that he got the most votes. We live in a democracy and that's who the public voted in.

Seems like a clear cut case of sour grapes.

All governments do this


People have always had a low opinions of politicians, and this govt's pollies are no worse. Seems like you were born yesterday.

Enjoying your insult fettish again Bunsen. Any chance of you posting without being personal and abusive?

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by The invisible mullet
And what planet were on when the Murray Islands were excised and before that when the Pacific Solution was formulated?

This is your idea of immoral. Other think differently. What makes you think that you must be correct?

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Frodo
Enjoying your insult fettish again Bunsen. Any chance of you posting without being personal and abusive?

I missed something. What was insulting about that? Shouldn't you be at church or something?

 

[The invisible mullet]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
This is your idea of immoral. Other think differently. What makes you think that you must be correct?

I didn't say that this was immoral although a good case can be made that the process by which this decision was made was immoral.

You suggested that Australia was compassionate because it looked after asylum seekers detention centre or not and I was giving you a couple of clear examples where they had turned asylum seekers away from our shores.

Wouldn't hurt to read a little more.

 

[The invisible mullet]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
I missed something. What was insulting about that? Shouldn't you be at church or something?

You seem to have missed a number of things and seem to take exception when your poorly worded arguments come back to haunt you.

You made the extraordinary claim that everybody voted for the current government and I had to point out how ridiculous you were being in making that claim.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by The invisible mullet
You seem to have missed a number of things and seem to take exception when your poorly worded arguments come back to haunt you.

You made the extraordinary claim that everybody voted for the current government and I had to point out how ridiculous you were being in making that claim.

Is that the best you can do? Pick me up on a technicality? I think it was pretty clear what I was implying.

 

[otaku]

Originally posted by The invisible mullet
"He's the person everyone voted in 3 times. He's obviously doing what a lot of people want."

Well that is shyte. Apart from the use of the silly "everyone" his government did not get a majority of the vote in 99 and its not as if he had over 55% of the vote last time.

This is the government that has been voted in for the last three terms. It is clear that is what was meant. Not every body voted for it, true. But the government was elected based on our system ofvote distribution. You cant argue with that.

Only two other people have won more term in office than our little johnny "weasal" howard. They were:

Bob Hawke and Menzies.

The point being raised by bunsen is a valid point.

 

[otaku]

Originally posted by Frodo
Enjoying your insult fettish again Bunsen. Any chance of you posting without being personal and abusive?

Still on this gripe eh Frodo?


man, you really are a knob-jockey.

 

[The invisible mullet]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Is that the best you can do? Pick me up on a technicality? I think it was pretty clear what I was implying.

Its more than a technicality - it goes to the heart of the point you're making. You made a simple, explicit statement that overstated your position by a few country miles. There is a substantial gap between "everyone" and less than 52% of the population and only one of the elected houses of parliament.

If you meant to imply that the Government had been re-elected with a minor swing - albeit by receiving just over 51% of the 2 party preferred vote (and less of the primary vote of the 2 major parties) and only controlling one of the houses of parliament then you wouldn't have suggested "everyone" voted for them. The election before had the Federal Government with less than 50%of the 2 party-preferred.

I'm not arguing with the system of determining government that we have, I'm just saying that is much more than a stretch to suggest that everyone voted for them when statistics show that its not a sustainable argument.

As for doing what people want. It was only after the election that people realised that the Government had misled them in relation to the Tampa, one of the grubbiest episodes in australian political history perhaps eclipsing the Petrov affair. Whether it would have changed votes is speculation (on both sides of the fence).

 

[bunsen burner]

I couldn't be bothered reading tour crap. This is a democracy, and the people vote for who they want. The candidate with the most votes wins and his/her Govt. makes the policies. The people who voted for someone else have to accept this. Onviously you can't.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by The invisible mullet
As for doing what people want. It was only after the election that people realised that the Government had misled them in relation to the Tampa, one of the grubbiest episodes in australian political history perhaps eclipsing the Petrov affair. Whether it would have changed votes is speculation (on both sides of the fence).

Do you really think people will be voting Labour next election? And when I say people, I don't mean everyone. I mean who do you think will win.

If Labour had someone decent, people would get sick of Howard sooner than they already are. It just shows that people don't make their decisions on border control policy alone. I too think Howard has been sneaky for excluding those islands. But it just isn't that important to me. There's more important issues at hand.

If you really want someone full of morals, you're probably looking at the Greens or some other minor party. These parties have their place, but they can't run a country. They would just f*ck it up. They service their purpose of keeping the big boys honest. This is their place.

Parties who are able to run governments put economic policy first i.e. The Labor Party and The Liberal Party.

 

[Rodion]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
I couldn't be bothered reading your crap.

This is Bunsenspeak for "I read your post, and can't find an argument against it, so I'll just try to dismiss it offhand"

 

[Rodion]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
They service their purpose of keeping the big boys honest.

And a damn sh|te job they've done of it then.

 

[moistie]

Re: Re: A question for Tim56 and other Howard Lovers.

Originally posted by bunsen burner
What morals? Your morals? What makes you think that your morals are the correct ones?

Interesting point here, bunsen burner. Just say to yourself, how would I feel if I'd just come to Australia from a warzone without any papers? For me morals are treating others how I would like to be treated myself if I was in their situation.

Originally posted by Bombers 2003

avoids issues like Ministerial Responsibility

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Can you be more specific?

This is an extract taken from John Howards own ministerial code of conduct set up in 1996. the rest is here http://www.australianpolitics.com/executive/howard/pre-2002/codeofconduct.shtml

It is vital that ministers and parliamentary secretaries do not by their conduct undermine public confidence in them or the government.

Ministers must be honest in their public dealings and should not intentionally mislead the Parliament or the public. Any misconception caused inadvertently should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

Ministers should ensure that their conduct is defensible, and should consult the Prime Minister when in doubt about the propriety of any course of action.

Ministers should perform their public duties uninfluenced by fear or favour - that is, by any expectation that they will benefit or suffer as a consequence... Ministers should not exercise the influence obtained from their public office, or use official information, to obtain any improper benefit for themselves or another.

The nature of their duties is such that they may need to have regard to the interests of members of their immediate families (to the extent that ministers know their interests) as well as their own when ensuring that no conflict or apparent conflict between interests and duties arises.

This is a definition of what Ministerial responsibility is about.
"The democratic doctrine of Ministerial responsibility is a doctrine that demands that a Minister accept full administrative responsibility - including moral responsibility - for the administration of his/her department. A Minister's resignation is the only publicly acceptable course of action if grievous errors of judgment, significant mistakes, or miscarriages of justice occur because departmental officers provide incompetent advice. "

According to this policy John Howard and Philip Ruddock would have resigned the day the Prime Minister tabled the departmental report showing the reports about the asylum seekers were palpably false.

Other cases: Senator Amanda Vandstone and the court case regarding the Melville Island Refugees where a Northern Territory Court was told they did "not claim asylum". Apart from perjury, I'd call that a miscarriage of justice.

John Howard, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and Defence Minister Robert Hill all mislead parliament over Iraqi links with Al Qaeda and WMD's. Howard is responsible for the actions of the ONA, Hill is responsible for the actions of the DIO, and Downer is responsible for the actions of DFAT. All three of these departments were in possession of information that was important to an accurate assesment of the true position in Iraq and all three are ultimately responsible for miscarriages of justice that occured because departmental officers (supposedly) provided incompetent advice

Wilson Tuckey writing a letter to the South Australian department of transport on Ministerial letterhead in an attempt to get his son off a speeding fine. "ensuring that no conflict or apparent conflict between interests (between family) and duties arises"

Peter Reith, then the Minister for Workplace Relations, was embroiled in a controversy in 2000 over the use of a parliamentary Telecard by his son and family friends. "ensuring that no conflict or apparent conflict between interests (between family) and duties arises"

Phillip Ruddock, as his last act as Immigration Minister, granted two hundred visas to associates of a businessman who happens to be a substantial financial supporter of the Liberal Party. "ministers should not exercise the influence obtained from their public office, to obtain any improper benefit for themselves or another"

Former Minister for Defence, Peter Reith, who retired from politics at the last election, has taken a position as a paid consultant on "government relations" with The Tenix Group. Reith reportedly signed on with Tenix the day after ceasing to be a minister in November 2001. "Ministers should not exercise the influence obtained from their public office, or use official information, to obtain any improper benefit for themselves or another."

I cannot remember the name of the Liberal Senator who made the extraordinary claim under parliamentary privilige (so he couldn't be taken to court for defamation) that a homosexual High Court judge had been picking up underage 'rent-boys' in a government vehicle. "ministers should ensure that their conduct is defensible"

Howard made the claim that his government was going to be above reproach when he came to power, but he has done nothing to enforce his Ministerial Code of Conduct.

Originally posted by bunsen burner
The Govt shows compassion by agreeing to let them take asylum here. Obviously, it's not to compassion to the extent you would like, but as I said, who said you were voice on what is enough compassion and what isn't? The people have voted, and it ain't you.

Compassion? Won't even bother with this.

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Please provide examples of the current Govt policies and what you think the policies should be.

I think you're well aware of my views here, bunsen burner.

 

[Bombers 2003]

Re: Re: A question for Tim56 and other Howard Lovers.

Originally posted by bunsen burner
The Govt isn't there to be moral. People have different sets of morals, so who is to say what the correct balance of morals are? The Govt is there to provide education, medical services, and law and order for every Australian. Apart from that, rather than basing a govt on morals, the govt is best providing a sound economic environment. That means reasonably low inflation rates and unemployment rates, growth, and a good standard of living. A good economic climate is the key to providing social benefits and opportunities.

Morals are opinion based, vary widely, and are hard to measure. Economic performance is much more apparent and easy to measure.

Go join a church if you want morals.

Morals are standards of Conduct based on well estabalished principles,eg "Demacracy"[mis-spelling deliberate].And this "government"has never accepted the need for Ministerial Codes of Practise,because they control the misconduct of a number of Ministers,eg C.Wilson Toolwit.
WTF,Do u REALLY consider what we have at the moment "a good economic climate".Where the Hell is Social Justice in this "good Economic Climate"?.
U are a halfwit if u think[?] Morality is hard to judge as it's based on "opinion".

 

[Bombers 2003]

Re: Re: A question for Tim56 and other Howard Lovers.

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Disclaimer: I'm not a Howard lover. Some of his policies I like, some I really dislike. But the fact is that he has provided a good economic climate during his stay in office. Furthermore, IMO he's a better alternative than Beazley or Crean.
You damn well sound like a Howard lover.What "policies"do u like +what do u dislike?. evidence/.


He's the person everyone voted in 3 times. He's obviously doing what a lot of people want.
Not EVERY ONE voted this government in.


What morals? Your morals? What makes you think that your morals are the correct ones?

No, the morals common to everyone else.Even GWB believes in Morality.
Can you be more specific?

The Govt shows compassion by agreeing to let them take asylum here. Obviously, it's not to compassion to the extent you would like, but as I said, who said you were voice on what is enough compassion and what isn't? The people have voted, and it ain't you.
Et tu.

What is institutional reform? Can you be more specific?
Institutional reform is changing the style and form of state bodies[or private bodies].A basic principle in administrative law,anyone who has studied Legal studies would know what institiutional reform is.Eg making Medicare more responsive to need,instead of throwing money to "solve"the problem.

 

[otaku]

Re: Re: Re: A question for Tim56 and other Howard Lovers.

Originally posted by Bombers 2003
Morals are standards of Conduct based on well estabalished principles,eg "Demacracy"[mis-spelling deliberate].And this "government"has never accepted the need for Ministerial Codes of Practise,because they control the misconduct of a number of Ministers,eg C.Wilson Toolwit.
WTF,Do u REALLY consider what we have at the moment "a good economic climate".Where the Hell is Social Justice in this "good Economic Climate"?.
U are a halfwit if u think[?] Morality is hard to judge as it's based on "opinion".

what you may consider to be "morally right" other may consider to be "morally wrong"

Therefore, you have a difference of opinion.

U are the halfwit if you think tat morals arn't based on opinions.

Now, tell which is correct. Your opinion, or their opinion? and show me your judging criteria.

 

[carlyp]

Howard might not be perfect but he is alot better alternative than anything else we have these days in Australian politics. In general Howard has done a good job of fixing the economy. The last time I checked, interest rates were low, unemployment rates were down and economic growth was rising. IMO this kind of environment provides Australians with the opportunity to do something with their lives.
Howard has his faults, thats for sure but would you rather Crean or Beazley as PM at the moment? I should think not. In my opinion we'd just go back to the bad old days of the late 80s in Australia, when foreign debt was choking us and the ALP had no choice but to raise taxes and so forth. Interest rates were high (granted the govt at the time couldnt do alot about that) but the ALP didnt do sweet fa about it. Once youve paid interest rates of 20-25% you'll never want to pay it again!
So you see, Howard might not be brilliant but he does the job for Australia and imo he does it reasonably well!

 

[pazza]

The ONLY thing that is saving Howard right now is the economy. Analysis of the other policies the Howard Government collectively (from industrial relations, to health, to higher education to highlight 3 key areas) tips the balance the other way.

Industrial Relations:

Well, we've all seen how since 1996, the rights of workers and those who represent them, the Australian Trade Union Movement, to engage in democracy to get better outcomes (not just wages by the way, which I acknowledge have improved) for the workers of Australia. What is the point of that?

Health:

30% Private Health Insurance rebate and MedicarePlus? Oh please. There clearly needs more to be done here (maybe if the Federal Government would agree with what the states are saying in this regard, Health would improve).

Higher Education:

The Government is quite happy to listen to the $300000 salaried Vice-Chancellors, but, are also quite happy not to hear the feelings of students on the direction of Higher Education.

This Government is not open and truly accountable to all Australians. It never has been. It may have been voted in, across more seats 3 times, however, that figure is skewed when more than 51% of the electorate voted for Labor on a 2-party preferred basis.

On Ministerial Responsibility, which I believe to be not only being seen to be behaving in a manner that befits the office a person holds, but, actually behaving in that manner, there is a litany of failures.

The time will come when things are going to change and that Labor, as it did in 1982-83, would control each government in the country.