Latham worse than Keating: Costello

[Ripper]

Originally posted by 1jasonoz
The government has just announce a $1.5 billion extension of the rebate for various groups actually. It was announced as part of their recent energy policy.

And fair enough. Australia has the most effient heavy transport in the world ATM except in Victoria where only "B" doubles are allowed.

 

[1jasonoz]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46
And fair enough. Australia has the most effient heavy transport in the world ATM except in Victoria where only "B" doubles are allowed.

So if it is the most efficent, why does it need a diesel subsidy?

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by 1jasonoz
So if it is the most efficent, why does it need a diesel subsidy?

Because the price of transport flows thrugh to everything causing inflation particularly in the bush where most of the wealth is created and transported from.

 

[1jasonoz]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46
Because the price of transport flows thrugh to everything causing inflation particularly in the bush where most of the wealth is created and transported from.

Well my point is it can't be the most efficent in the world, if it needs a rebate/subsidy to do so. You can't claim to be the most efficent, but then say 'oh we need more/want to keep the assistance from the governmeent'.

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by 1jasonoz
Well my point is it can't be the most efficent in the world, if it needs a rebate/subsidy to do so. You can't claim to be the most efficent, but then say 'oh we need more/want to keep the assistance from the governmeent'.

I can see where you are coming from but we have to compete with exports with Countries like the US where there is virtually no excise. Same with the primary producers.

It is a rebate on a tax (and an excessive one at that) not a subsidy of the cost of the product.

Might have some benifits though. If the rebate on Aircraft fuel was abolished it might eliminate fly in fly out.

 

[billy big ears]

Might be a good election to lose if the S**t hits the fan as Access suggests .
Howard can ****off in disgrace and the unwanted Costello will then ensure the Labor party a long run after the next election .

 

[kirky]

Originally posted by Frodo
That is so biased it's not worth reading.

As a line from a movie says - "you can't handle the truth".
Howard and Costello are like two gamblers at the roulette wheel. They have put all their chips on a couple of numbers and hope it comes off - if it doesn't we are all in deep sh*it. And thats the truth!!!!

 

[Ray Nolan]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46
My good wife who is a mother of 4 and like all mothers always knows the truth reckons that Mr Latham probably started all the dirt to get it in the open so he could do a "Bob Hawke" and shed a tear or two to attract the sympathy vote.

The fact that such a tough dude was shedding tears on TV is a dead giveaway in her opinion.

Wouldn't bet against it, the guy would sell his own Grandmother to win a vote.

I'm not fooled by his crocodile tears, Latham dishes it out but he obviously can't take it. Over the years he more than anyone else in Parliament has been the king of muckracking, namecalling, rumour spreading, etc and now that he's getting some of his own medicine he's putting on the tears for a bit of sympathy. It's pathetic and hypocrisy of the highest order.

Most of the Canberra press corps have said that no-one from the Govt has been offering around dirt on Latham (this "Dirt Unit" is another figment of the ALP imagination, an imagination that should turn itself to its non-existant tax & economic policies) and that half of the things he's claiming journalists have asked him simply haven't been asked according to the journos.

Instead of playing the victim and putting forward basic propositions everyone agrees with (e.g. read to your children) it's about time we saw some detailed policies and some idea of what the ALP want to do for Australia other than give more power to the Unions and cut & run when faced by Terrorists. Latham said he wanted to concentrate on the issues, instead of that he's now sooking in the hope of garnering a sympathy vote as the Coalition close in the pools. His honeymoon is now over - let's see some serious policy Latham and preferably some time before the election ...

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Ray Nolan
this "Dirt Unit" is another figment of the ALP imagination

If that's the case, let's see if Howard can properly answer Alan Ramsey's questions.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/06/1089000156096.html

 

[billy big ears]

Alan Ramsay is one of the few journos in Canberra to have the balls to stand up to " nobody tells me anything" Howard .

He's been around for a long time and Howard has never been able to con him like some of the other media tarts/suckholes that now spew their crap from the National capital.

 

[RogerC]

Originally posted by Wicked Lester
Let's get back to the issue.

Latham in his various guises over the years has dished it out big time - and he's been proud of it. In fact he's encouraged others to do the same. Some of its been retaliatory, some of its been proactive - but he's been well known as a muck raker for his entire parliamentary life, a man more than willing to hide behind parliamentary privalege to dish out personal accusations and attacks on his enemies.

And once you practise that sort of thing, you can't simply elect to turn it on or off as it suits you. By his own admission he laid into his former council colleaugues when he defeated them, hence their attempts at payback now.

Other muck rakers like Abbott can expect the same thing should he ever ascend to the top position.

What's happening at the moment is simply what many senior ALP figures feared may eventually happen - that his past may start to catch up with him. How much traction this generates remains to be seen, but if you dish it out, you have to expect some in return.

Lester, this thread ought to give you an accurate idea of how much traction the issue has. After a post quoting a Costello diatribe smearing Latham's personality, the issue very quickly turned to economic performance. In a parliament as abusive, personal and petty as ours is, accusations against one man's behaviour would have to be spectacular to stick.

On economic performance, btw, it ought to be remembered that Costello was largely untried in that area when he became treasurer. You really can't judge these things until they happen. The mere fact that the Liberals are willing to throw anything and everything at Latham - mostly speculation - demonstrates how scared they are of him.

None of the accusers on this thread seem very keen to follow up the smears on Latham's personality, so I think we ought to just drop the issue.

 

[Wicked Lester]

Originally posted by RogerC
Lester, this thread ought to give you an accurate idea of how much traction the issue has. After a post quoting a Costello diatribe smearing Latham's personality, the issue very quickly turned to economic performance. In a parliament as abusive, personal and petty as ours is, accusations against one man's behaviour would have to be spectacular to stick.

On economic performance, btw, it ought to be remembered that Costello was largely untried in that area when he became treasurer. You really can't judge these things until they happen. The mere fact that the Liberals are willing to throw anything and everything at Latham - mostly speculation - demonstrates how scared they are of him.

None of the accusers on this thread seem very keen to follow up the smears on Latham's personality, so I think we ought to just drop the issue.

I doubt that posts on Big Footy provide any indication at all as to how much traction an issue will gain in marginal seat territory.

Undecided voters, who are nearly always disengaged from the political process, don't read the politics and society section of Big Footy.

While Big Footy hardheads probably don't care one way or the other about Lathams past, it's the mums out there in nappy land that senior figures in the ALP will be worried sick about at the moment. If they begin to turn off Latham on account of perceived flaws in his personality Latham is in big trouble.

Did Costello smear Latham's personality - too damn right he did. And Latham better get used to it. As I said he's dished it out in large quantities in the past, he was always going to get some back.

I sought to make no comment on the economic capabilities of the incumbent government or the opposition. IMO with the exception of the final two years of the Keating Prime Ministership, when the budgetary position began to spiral out of control, this nation has had successive governments who've been competent economic managers.

How would Latham manage the budgetary position? Who knows. Latham is an economic rationlist at heart. It will really just depend on how much influence the left of the party are able to exercise. A moderate level of deficit is ok by me provided it funds infrastructure. The problem for governments (of both colours) in the past has been that deficits have funded recurrent expenditure.

 

[1jasonoz]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46
I can see where you are coming from but we have to compete with exports with Countries like the US where there is virtually no excise. Same with the primary producers.

It is a rebate on a tax (and an excessive one at that) not a subsidy of the cost of the product.

Might have some benifits though. If the rebate on Aircraft fuel was abolished it might eliminate fly in fly out.

Just a couple of points;

-Australia even with the fuel tax already has some of the cheapest fuel in the western world.

-I understand it is a rebate on a tax, but what it doe's is allows organistions to produce at a price/level of output that is actually inefficent, and un sustainable.

e.g: aa organistion, to produce say 1 unit of produce(whatever that unit is), it costs him 2 units of effort to produce that unit, because he doesn't produce the units in the most efficent method, and why doesn't he? He doesn't use the most efficent method due to the fact that he knows he will get a rebate from the government, which will cut the cost of producing the product, say from 2 units down to .99 of a unit. This means that the organistion has no incentive to find the most effiecent production methods, as they know that they will receive money back from the government which will allow them to produce at the MR=MC level.

- Just on the fly in fly out fuel reabte, there is no such thing, Airlines aren't given a reabte on their aviation fuel at all, see the ATO site ive linked to for the elligablity for the rebate;

http://www.ato.gov.au/businesses/co...003/044/001/002&mnu=3637&mfp=001/003&st=&cy=1

- Just want to mention about the rebate and its application. You and 99.9% of posters on here wouldn't know, but the government actually gives the Australian fuel rebate to foreign companies. Here's how;

-The governmetnt actually allows foreign shipping companies to operate in Australia under what is called a Continues Voyage Permit(CVP). By being given one of these permits, this allows a foreign shipping companie to operate locally. As part of this CVP, the ships crew are automatically issued with what are called Special Purpose Visa's. These Visa's are automaticaly issued without any immigration or Customs checks of the crew(effectively we actually have no idea who/what number of foreign seafarers are actually working on the vessels). Alos what these Visa's do, is allow them to work here for upto 12 months, paid their rates of pay, and also EXEMPTS these forign seafarers from paying any tax whilst they are here in Australia.

The shipping company that they work for, is also exempt from paying any tax whilst in Australia aswell. The peak employer group for the Martime Industry, the Australian Shipowners Association, actually put a submission into the government back in 1999, showing them the 10 differant taxes they had to pay, yet the government exempted foriegners from. The Minister John Anderson, stated it was correct, and 'not without merit", but that he wouln't be changing the laws to close this loophole.

Then to really annoy the industry, not only does the government exempt these foriegners from over 10 differant taxe's, they also allow them access to the diesel fuel rebate that is only meant to be accessed by local transport companies. So on the one hand they say they don't have to pay the tax's locals have to, but then say 'oh they work in our domestic tranport chain, so they get the diesel fuel rebate'. Thats why im annoyed at the way the diesel fuel rebate is being used.

 

[Ripper]

The reason there is no rebate on Aviation fuel is that the Excise $0.03 per litre as against $0.38- $0.40 on petrol and $0.38 on diesel

http://www.ato.gov.au/businesses/content.asp?doc=/content/4085.htm&mnu=9916&mfp=001/003

Easier to up the excise on Aviation fuel to encourage efficiency.

There would be more of a case for that as light Aircraft engine's are 40 year old technology.

The point I was making that under Labor the first thing to be taxed would be fuel under the guise of "Encouraging efficiency" or "Encouraging use of Rail"

The latter is a good idea but the unfortunate thing is that in a country the size of ours there is little rail in place and even where it is you still nedd to cart freight to and from the rail head.

 

[RogerC]

Originally posted by Wicked Lester
I doubt that posts on Big Footy provide any indication at all as to how much traction an issue will gain in marginal seat territory.

Undecided voters, who are nearly always disengaged from the political process, don't read the politics and society section of Big Footy.

While Big Footy hardheads probably don't care one way or the other about Lathams past, it's the mums out there in nappy land that senior figures in the ALP will be worried sick about at the moment. If they begin to turn off Latham on account of perceived flaws in his personality Latham is in big trouble.

See your point there. But I think the direction the topic took in this thread is pertinent. There's not a lot to say once the mud has been thrown, and that has been illustrated quite nicely here. Everyone goes bwahahahaha and boo to you too, and then we all move on to something relevant, like economics.

Already in the media the debate has moved from the allegations themselves to Latham's reaction to the rumours, to the relevance of rumours in the media. All Latham has to do is keep his mouth shut on the topic for a few days and it'll all blow over.

Allegations about Latham's past are a sideshow, and everyone knows it. If it's still making headlines a couple of weeks from now, then we may have an issue.

 

[MightyFighting]

Originally posted by Wicked Lester
While Big Footy hardheads probably don't care one way or the other about Lathams past, it's the mums out there in nappy land that senior figures in the ALP will be worried sick about at the moment. If they begin to turn off Latham on account of perceived flaws in his personality Latham is in big trouble.

Do said people watch the Sunday Program, though?

 

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by MightyFighting
Yes, More than Johnny. The one thing that's assured, if Howard wins again, is more election bribes in 2½ years time.

And increased taxes and centrelink hounding in the meantime.

If you vote howard in don't complain if nothing happens for 2 1/2 years

 

[Pessimistic]

Actually I do wonder who is responsible for the smear campaign.

Libs would have run it just prior to election to have maximum impact.

Perhaps someione in ALP did run it to take the sting out of it. Its a weapon now not availble to howard, or with much reduced impact.

I do remember something similar being run on good old Dr Hewson - how his ex-wife didn't like him (der?) etc.

In fact latham reminds me of hewson a lot. Not sure I like him but before you all get excited I hate howard much more

 

[Pessimistic]

Oh and Costello now admires Keating ? Give me a break. Why doesn't he suggest they bring him back ?

 

[demon_dave]

Re: Re: Re: Latham worse than Keating: Costello

Originally posted by bozza
You Labor groupies really are clutching at straws now.

Your pathetic policies are now being combined with pathetic accusations. Reminds me of my Grade 6 days.

could't be hard remembering, it was only last year

 

[desie]

Originally posted by MightyFighting
Do said people watch the Sunday Program, though?

No they don't, but they do watch the 6pm news and their tiny attention spans would have picked up that Mark Latham's character was being questioned again and that would have been about it.

I'd suggest that Labor would have been better off if these people had watched Sunday as they would have seen that it was all a bit of a beat up that dealt with little more than local ALP politics.

 

[bozza]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Latham worse than Keating: Costello

Originally posted by demon_dave
could't be hard remembering, it was only last year

Judging by your spelling and grammar, it appears it is you who was in Grade 6 last year.

 

[afc9798]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Please show where I have used an Access Economics article to back up my views?


Now, please give any supporting evidence that would make any reasonable person think Latham could handle the economy better than Costello.

ps Not saying it's impossible, just saying from the evidence so far that it would be a rank long shot.

When the article was posted you asked for an unbiased ie: Non pro Labor. I was pointing out that Access Economics could hardly be called biased as they perform work for both major parties. For an economic advisory service to provide false or misleading information would sound the deathknell to their credibility.

Also the jury is still out on the Liverpool council issues and it's not like any Govt. doesn't have the use of the best advisers and staff to present the facts before decisions are made. I think Latham is far more conservative in economic terms than people give him credit for. If people are worried about him splashing money around, they need only look at the behaviour of the current Govt. who is spending in the lead up to the next election as if they know they won't be there to worry about what they've done. These great economic managers have done nothing with these giveaways, except created greater wealth for the poker machine barons and Coles Myer.

 

[billy big ears]

Try this for size all the Howard apologists and its from a former Liberal staffer.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/08/1089000288509.html
Change details Inside the 'politics of character'
July 9, 2004

This Government smears the credibility of those it doesn't like, writes former adviser Greg Barns.

Has there been a time in Australian politics less edifying than the past week? As the media and politicians gorge themselves on the details of Opposition Leader Mark Latham's colourful life, surely it is time to draw breath and ask this fundamental question: how is Australia's common good served by our political community focusing obsessively on questions of character?

Before answering that question, it is important to note that the tawdry spectacle of the past week is not an isolated incident. Rather, it represents an unfortunate zenith of a practice born 20 years ago this year.

Ever since former Liberal opposition leader Andrew Peacock called then prime minister Bob Hawke a "little crook" during an angry exchange in Parliament on September 13, 1984, it has become acceptable in Australia to launch highly personal attacks on politicians.

When John Hewson led the Liberals from 1990-94, the circumstances surrounding the break-up of his first marriage were laid out for the public to make a judgement upon. The media had a field day trawling through the sadness of the marriage breakdown - and the ALP was content to let Hewson squirm for a few weeks.

Advertisement
Advertisement
But while the ALP has been happy to condone personal attacks on its opponents when it has suited it over the past 20 years - and Latham's attack on Health Minister Tony Abbott's youthful indiscretion that produced a child falls into this category - it is true to say that the Howard Government has taken to a new level what some now call "the politics of character".

As a senior adviser to John Howard's Government from 1996-99, I was personally aware of two occasions in which government advisers spent time, energy and resources seeking to undermine the credibility of individuals it did not like.

The first was in relation to the former chairman of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sir Ronald Wilson, and his 1997 report on the "stolen generations". A small meeting of government advisers, which I attended, worked on strategies to debunk the commission's findings. Undermining Sir Ronald was part of that strategy. It was decided to emphasise his previous involvement in a church home for Aboriginal children.

The more infamous example of the Howard Government's preparedness to devote time and resources to dishing out dirt on its enemies relates to former prime minister Paul Keating. His involvement in a failed piggery investment occupied the time of a number of ministers and their staff during 1998 and 1999, as the Howard Government sought a way to land the former Labor prime minister in legal trouble.

Of course, the politics of character haven't ended since I left the Howard Government five years ago. Liberal senator Bill Heffernan's extraordinarily vicious attack on High Court judge Michael Kirby in early 2002, and the preparedness of Howard and former immigration minister Philip Ruddock to demonise asylum seekers by twisting evidence from the armed forces in the "children overboard" affair during the 2001 election are two of the more prominent examples of this Government's preparedness to blacken reputations for political purposes.

The seemingly relentless inquisition into Mark Latham's past by the Government and sections of the media is dangerous for our democracy, not only because we ought to be focusing on policy and not personalities, but because in the past week the line between legitimate questions about a political leader's previous public life and illegitimate questions about his personal relations has been rubbed out.

If Labor is elected to office later this year, one can expect it will exact revenge on the Liberal Party for this horrible week, despite Latham's claims that he would close down any "dirt units". Labor will fight fire with fire if only because, unfortunately, that primal human tendency to get even is too tempting to resist for most people who work in the inherently adversarial, clinical and emotionally distorting atmosphere of Canberra's Parliament House.

Sadly, it appears that constant Government and media preparedness to legitimise the tactic of marshalling of evidence and scuttlebutt to enable direct attacks on the personal integrity of individuals - be they party leaders or nameless asylum seekers - is now part of the Australian political landscape.

This returns us to that question about our society's common good, and what ends are served by focusing on "character" issues.

The concept of the "common good" has not changed since Aristotle introduced it more than 2000 years ago. It is the idea that our democracy's primary purpose is to determine how we best live together as a community today and into the future. In this context, vigorous political debate about issues of policy is essential. And it is legitimate to hold politicians accountable for their past - in so far as it relates to the conduct and skills that are important in constructing and implementing policies on behalf of the community.

But drawing attention to the peccadilloes and behavioural lapses (unless they involve proven criminal conduct) of politicians and individuals involved in public discourse simply confirms the immutable fact that humankind is flawed. The attempt to suggest that such lapses and flaws should disqualify an individual from contributing through political life to advancing Australia's common good is abhorrent.

We cannot pretend that our democracy will ever be free of muck-raking and mud-slinging. But perhaps we can minimise its impact if we reflect on the fact that the Latham character assassination of the past week has done nothing to further our common good.

Former Howard Government adviser Greg Barns, now a member of the Australian Democrats, is the author of What's Wrong with the Liberal Party? (2003).

 

[Wicked Lester]

And your point is?

Andrew Bolt was once an ALP staffer. I suppose that now gives him credibility?