Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Then again, it has been interesting spending sixteen days in Australia - where the politicians are at least trying (with very mixed results, admittedly) to have a semi-rational debate on shit that actually matters. Like making sure children (and everyone else) will continue to have access to a water supply fir for human consumption.
I don't disagree but "trying" is about right... it's only been since they taught geology and conservation to my parents in '50s that there's been a problem with the Murray/Darling...
Howard's doing a variation on the Rove tactics described above by claiming concern about salination and drought simultaneously with advocating carbon sequestration etc... his promotion of Turnbull is astute however because Turnbull's both good and informed and also because Garrett's got fantastic bona fides.
I'd not look to Australia for meaningful politics, it's just as theatrical and vapid as anywhere else.
-
The age old dispute is which is the better city, Sydney or Melbourne. We live in Sydney mainly because we have family there, but on balance, probably prefer Melbourne. For sport it is a better city hands-down although having spent a week there during the last Rugby World Cup, I was frustrated by the lack of interest in rugby.
Food is a tough comparison - I think Lygon St's a pain in the arse and prefer Sydney's Leichhardt and Norton St.
My favourite place in Melbourne is called Babka - on Brunswick St in Fitroy; authentic goulash with beautiful eastern European breads. The fact that it was 40 degrees outside still didn't dissuade me from visiting twice on my last visit.
-
the main difference between here and oz seems to be that they've actively backed away from public policy that minimises or seeks to undermine racism, and we *tend* not to elect leaders who do so. and that backing away in australia is what (IMHO) is leaving plenty of space for nutters and boofheads to express themselves.
.
Precisely and it's a calculated and deliberate approach. It galls me that at the very point in time that Howard talks tough on immigration, we're setting up the fibro's every other place to sell Australia to skilled migrants. I have no beef with increased migration, almost all research suggests that it's a net benefit, what frankly shits me (adopting the venacular) is the unbelievable hypocracy (oh and the stupidity of those that fall for it).
A story that's getting lots of airplay here is the initial refusal of the Tamworth local pollies to accept a small group of Sudanese refugees into the local community. They initially said that they didn't have the infrastructure - this from a town that every year opens its arms to damn-near 100,000 banjo-playing country folk - so what, they don't have not toilets for non-fiddlers?
-
I don't believe Australians are on average any more racist than NZers or anyone else
I generally agree with this statement, however I do think that Australian racists are much bolder in their views and I think this is, in part, related to the crap policies Australia's pursued under Howard.
Like it or not, intended or otherwise, Howard's actions and statements on Tampa, on Conelia Rau, the establishment of off-shore assessment for refugees on Tokelau, and the appalling situation of many detainees are understood by some to legitimise their otherwise offensive statements. He is a master of dog whistle politics.
It's no accident that Howard's gone through yet another Minister of Immigration, Vanstone, in only a couple of years.
-
I'm not advocating absolute candor, I'm not so naive as to think the electorate could tolerate it after nigh on twenty years of skim milk-fed, lite, low-cal, water-filtered spin - we've all become content intolerant... and fair enough to note that Key will be wary of the fate that befell Brash... but, issues like the Springbok tour are real litmus test issues (off the top of my head I can think of only a handful) where he has to have a clear view even if it is expressed in moderate terms.
-
Craig, I think the point that rogerd and others have made on this is that Key's being evasive on an issue that many, not all, consider important. Your comments read as if you think he can only lose in such a situation, presumably because he might alienate someone; frankly tough. It is not longer credible for him to only speak on the issues that he might be most comfortable with.
Challenging issues is what leaders have to deal with. By all means, he should state his position cautiously however I think most electors accept that they'll not agree hundred percent with everthing a leader says. If he can't state a position on the Springbok tour without being able to also deal with a critical reaction from some, he's got bugger all chance of ever being a decent leader.
-
Step away from the strawman, Craig. It'll give you hayfever.
Nicely put.
-
For God's sake - no kidding it's a sensible strategy for Key to not disclose bugger-all about himself in order to vote maximize and minimize potential supporter alienation.
I don't agree with you on this Peasant - I think we agree on other matters however.
I think leaders must state their views on certain issues and this is one of them - he must be able to state his views on critical issues in such a way so that those who don't share his perspective don't feel turned off him. There will always be things about a leader and a party that its supporters don't agree with - its a balance thing - but saying nothing or trying to be all things to all people is no longer an issue when you're vying for PM.
-
I'm disappointed by Key's tactics on this issue. He ought to be playing the generation game and talking up his appeal to a younger electorate; if his was a tactical rather than principled equivocation/position, he picked the wrong side. He needn't try and out-liberal Labour, but get in the game for crissakes.
Any leader of any party that wants my vote needs to have a consistent and predictable view on such litmus issues - it needn't be mine, but it must be clear and consistent. English shares little in common with me, but I completely respect his moral integrity.
-
But hasn't Key made his money through share trading? In which case, apart from his own dealing business, has not managed a business with the usual production/profit margins/debtors/creditors etc.
I think that's a little unfair. Successful trading requires an in-depth understanding of all of these factors and more besides. He might not have been directly accountable for any one balance sheet, but he would have been across a broad range of business indicators.
I think discounting a class of professions and experience is foolish as Andre says - there's more than enough idiots around to fill spots in any industry/occupation. The point though should be to have a parliament that is broadly representative, not of the idiots although I do miss Ian Revell...