Beasley and Leadership

[Pessimistic]

I would like the Beasley detractors to give evidence of Beaslys 'shortcomings' which arent somehow derived from the liberal campaign against him. Until he is PM you can't say that (unless you come up with some evidence).

Before Howard got in nobody gave him anything at all, he was just 'better than downer'. Even the lib's hero, Jeff Kennet, was rated zero before he got in.

As evidence for him look at when Beasley was still supporting Hawke in the leadership challenge in 1991. All the other labor peple had deserted and his stance was being detrimental to his political career. Look at all the political dealing with Howard before he became PM. Beasley is probably one of the most consciensous and 'strong' politicians there has been for a long time. Sadly for us it now looks like we will never get him as PM. If he were a political animal like Howard and he lost this election, he would stay on, destabilise his party for a decade or so until he gets the job by default.

 

[Pessimistic]

No takers ? Can I assume there is no evidence then ?

 

[BUBBALOUIS]

Pess i think youll find the critics of Beazley just parrot the coalition party line, hence the so called 'waffling' by Beazley. ..... of course we saw first hand the nonsense of this attack on him when he took on and tore apart Howard in the Debate ......

Beazley is compassionate, conservatives call this weak! lol

 

[Pessimistic]

My criticism is Beasley should be more like Howard and reserve judgement on issues until he has checked the latest opinion polls.

 

[Shinboners]

Well, if Howard checked the opinion polls before making any decisions, then we'd be a Republic and currently signing a document of reconciliation with the Aborigines.

Onto Kim Beazley. A fair enough point that you can't judge Beazley as Prime Minister until he actually gets the job. So, why is it that someone like me who is itching to punish the Liberals by voting them out of office is hesitating over whether to put the #1 next to the ALP candidate? From what I read in the media, Beazley is a nice guy with strong morals and a fierce intellect (he was a Rhode's scholar) who has a genuine belief that he can turn Australia into an economic and intellectual powerhouse. But the recent events with the refugees has put doubt into my mind whether Beazley does have (as Howard put it), the ticker to do the job. On the one hand, he spoke out against the Howard policy, on the other, he let the Howard legislation pass through the Senate, albeit with some amendments. Like Howard, he read the polls. If Beazley stood up and spoke of his convictions and argued for what he felt was right AND backed it up by blocking the legislation in the Senate, then I would have voted ALP for the first time in my life.

It's not Beazley's fault though. He's a politican for our times - minimise the chance of error, policy by sound bites, always be indignant about anything your opponents do. The Liberals are the same. Does anyone really think that things will be different if it's Kim in the Lodge next week instead of John?

 

[Pessimistic]

Actually I do think he will be different. But no australian PM would upset the US when they call for help, and labour has run tight immigration policy too so I doubt there would be much difference on thoise two scores. Howard has very cleverly manipulated the two issues (too clever by half for me) to get back from a position where he WOULD have been punished in the polls, even though the economy is ticking over nicely.

Incidentally I am not prepared to rate the libs as good or bad economically, as they haven't done bad, but haven't really been tested. But the substance ot the economy and criticism of beasley seems unfair in my view.

 

[Shinboners]

Speaking of US relations and manipulations, the US will be going into the next round of trade talks with a position of increasing subsidies for their farmers. If the US gets its way, Australia's farmers will be screwed as their US competitors, backed by US government subsidies, will be able to compete harder against Australia in our export markets.

So much for thanks from our ally.....hey Jod23?

 

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by Shinboners
Well, if Howard checked the opinion polls before making any decisions, then we'd be a Republic and currently signing a document of reconciliation with the Aborigines.

Onto Kim Beazley. A fair enough point that you can't judge Beazley as Prime Minister until he actually gets the job. So, why is it that someone like me who is itching to punish the Liberals by voting them out of office is hesitating over whether to put the #1 next to the ALP candidate? From what I read in the media, Beazley is a nice guy with strong morals and a fierce intellect (he was a Rhode's scholar) who has a genuine belief that he can turn Australia into an economic and intellectual powerhouse. But the recent events with the refugees has put doubt into my mind whether Beazley does have (as Howard put it), the ticker to do the job. On the one hand, he spoke out against the Howard policy, on the other, he let the Howard legislation pass through the Senate, albeit with some amendments. Like Howard, he read the polls. If Beazley stood up and spoke of his convictions and argued for what he felt was right AND backed it up by blocking the legislation in the Senate, then I would have voted ALP for the first time in my life.

It's not Beazley's fault though. He's a politican for our times - minimise the chance of error, policy by sound bites, always be indignant about anything your opponents do. The Liberals are the same. Does anyone really think that things will be different if it's Kim in the Lodge next week instead of John?

Just had to have one more shot. The wording of the question for the republic referendum was tested out on opinion polls. The wording of the poll was designed to fail. Hardly what the founding fathers meant when they put referendums in the constitution. Another sneaky trick by howard that I had forgotten until you raised the issue.

If he had conviction he would have just flatly refused to entertain a republic and say 'vote labour if you want a referendum' Instead wasted millions of dollars on a convention and poll where no-one wins. Even the queen looks stupid because it was hardly a vote for her, or she would have presided over the sydney olympics.

 

[Shinboners]

Of course, if Howard did what you suggest, that is, "Vote Labor if you want a referendum", I'm sure it would become another stick with which to beat him with.

Sure, it was a nice political set up by Howard, but the Republicans should take some of the blame with the way they promoted themselves (Malcolm Turnbull - Man of the people!) and the split within their own movement (Phil Cleary - sometimes I wonder if he suffers from relevancy deficiency syndrome).

But Howard isn't the first politician to use sneaky tricks and he won't be the last.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Shinboners
Well, if Howard checked the opinion polls before making any decisions, then we'd be a Republic and currently signing a document of reconciliation with the Aborigines.

Wrong - Howard did check the opinion polls before setting forth with his negativity. Polls showed that whilst the majority favored a republic and reconciliation these were "soft" issues in the electorates mind, ie important but not important enough for people to change their voting intention over.

Safe in this knowledge, Howard could wail away to his heart's content against the republicans and reconciliationists.

 

[Chilli Afterglow]

Originally posted by Pessimistic

<snip>
The wording of the question for the republic referendum was tested out on opinion polls. The wording of the poll was designed to fail.

<snip>

I disagree!

It is my belief that the referendum failed, not because of some sneaky wording in the question, but because the who process was engineered with a bias to the monarchists (ie Howard).

To put it simply, Howard divided and conquered!

By having the convention where all our best and brightest went to Canberra to thrash out the best possible model for the new Republic, it was bound to come down to 2 sides - the direct election of a head of state versus one elected through parliament.

I bet a goose's fart against a clap of thunder that Howard knew this in advance (by reading the opinion polls!).

Once this process was in place - coupled with a little ingenious misinformation saying that a second referendum may be held - the republican push was bound to fail.

Instead of the voting going 60% for a republic, 40% for Queenie it was split more along the lines of 30/30/40.

To generalise, those that were pro-republic and pro direct election actually voted against the republic and for the Monarchy.

I don't think the good folk of Australia have really worked out that they were dudded in a really clever and deceiptful way by our canny Prime Minister.

And what the hell was Beasley doing through all this? He should have been a wake up to the flawed process and should have been singing it from wherever he could. Sadly, I don't recall a peep out of him.

 

[Yassar Arafat]

Beazley has a wad of fat where his ticker should be.

Roll back of the GST by keping 97.5 % of it? very courageous. And the electricty chrges etc roll back wont happen until just b4 the next election? Is that a Clayton's policy or what?

Surely this thread is a joke and it is a rhetorical qn that is posed!

 

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
Beazley has a wad of fat where his ticker should be.

Roll back of the GST by keping 97.5 % of it? very courageous. And the electricty chrges etc roll back wont happen until just b4 the next election? Is that a Clayton's policy or what?

Surely this thread is a joke and it is a rhetorical qn that is posed!

Try to provide some genuine evidence of your 'lack of ticker' Do we see howard getting rid of mediare or compulsary super. They're in his policy platform yet he fought against them. The truth is its very hard to remove huge changes altogether.

Do you believe in higher taxes for luxuries and lesser taxes on essentials ? That is the labor way and generally accepted. The core of the GST is an idealogical flat tax on everything just to make it easier for bean counters but harder for the rest of us.

And remember the flak jacket episode ? Thats an example of Howards ticker.

Keating called Howard 'weak and sneaky' I might as well assert that as being true (although it gets truer every day)

 

[Yassar Arafat]

The flak jacket???!!!! **** are you grasping at straws!!!

The GST is fair b/c the wealthy pay more of it than the poor b/c they spend more and by higher priced items...a difficult concept for laborites I know as they usually dont finish High School but I am sure you can grasp that at least.

COUPLED with removal of the idiotic sales tax and other associated indirect taxes which the Labor cnuts never mention. Labor used these taxes to increase the tax burden SNEAKILY on Aussies b/c it was a hidden tax. With GST you know what you get and what goes in tax.

The net effect on the lower economic classes is NIL ZERO . The GST brings the tax out in the open. I suppose it is too honest a concept for a party with an extreme left, left, centre left, non-aligned, right (and every other combinaiton of names )factions to take on board.

 

[Pessimistic]

Still no real evidence Mr er... arafat. But I see your bias dwarfs mine. And you can swear too. I would imagine if standard of education were the decider I would be a liberal and you would be labour.

On the flak jacket I was just illustrating that anyone can run on something and somehow it becomes 'true'. Note how Beasley does not sink into the gutter to drag up these things, perhaps because he wants to focus on the issues.


Now if you can't provide evidence of Beasley's lack of 'ticker' , which is what the thread is asking for, then you have no credibility - goodbye.

 

[Yassar Arafat]

Well smartarse, I have a Bachelor of Science (honours) amd Bachelor of Laws.....what do you have?

 

[Pessimistic]

Ok so I vote green now.

Can I have some evidence please ?

 

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by Shinboners
Of course, if Howard did what you suggest, that is, "Vote Labor if you want a referendum", I'm sure it would become another stick with which to beat him with.

Sure, it was a nice political set up by Howard, but the Republicans should take some of the blame with the way they promoted themselves (Malcolm Turnbull - Man of the people!) and the split within their own movement (Phil Cleary - sometimes I wonder if he suffers from relevancy deficiency syndrome).

But Howard isn't the first politician to use sneaky tricks and he won't be the last.

So it's Ok is it ? The country was a laughing stock over in england when all this was happening. Better it had not happened.

 

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
What evidence do you want?

B Sc was at Monash Uni 1981. I worked under Prfessor David Lowther in the connective tissue group and my honours thesis was on rheumatiod arthiritis and chondrocyte degradation in bovine articular cartilage.

Between 1983 and 1986 I did my law degree at Melbourne University.

Did my aritcles in 1987.

Have run my own law practice for 6 years.

What proof do you want?

Evidence of Beasley's so-called 'lack of ticker' actually (remember the thread)

Other than propaganda originated in the liberal party, that is.

 

[Yassar Arafat]

His refugee policy for starters.

He is supporting a policy he doesnt believe in b/c he lacks the ticker to tell the public his views are contrary to his position. No guts. NO TICKER.

And I have vote Labor in my time as well in 75, 80, 83, and 87 but at the moment cannot see it happening again.

 

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
His refugee policy for starters.

He is supporting a policy he doesnt believe in b/c he lacks the ticker to tell the public his views are contrary to his position. No guts. NO TICKER.

And I have vote Labor in my time as well in 75, 80, 83, and 87 but at the moment cannot see it happening again.

Historically you will find that immigration policy is policed just as toughly under labour.

Beasley is staying away from the boat people debate because.

1. It will cost votes, especially when the papers get stuck into it.

2. It is demeaning. Only Howard benefits from the low class politics he is using at the moment. It is alow poit in australian History.

I doubt you would see him twisting the truth as howard is because at this point he is not so desperate.

It looks like Beasley will win after all, so he will have a good opportunity to display his leadership, fixing up the foreign relations mess that howard is creating at the moment.

And by the way, I voted Thatcher in 1979, which is about ten times as bad as all the times you voted labour put together.

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Pessimistic


So it's Ok is it ? The country was a laughing stock over in england when all this was happening. Better it had not happened.

Who cares if we're a laughing stock in England or not? When we make decisions, are we required to take into consideration what the English will think?

 

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by Shinboners


Who cares if we're a laughing stock in England or not? When we make decisions, are we required to take into consideration what the English will think?

Why not ? It happens all the time