Sinclair very kindly left this in the comments, and it’s so timely I thought it deserved a post of its own. I’m watching this process from Blairland utterly aghast, even though a week after Rudd was elected I could ‘detect the Blair’ and was warning accordingly. Blair’s nanny-statism is slowly collapsing in on him, but Pommygranate is right - he never lost an election, just left the mess to Gordon Brown. The latter lacks Blair’s verbal facility and is paying for it in spades. This is quite apart from the fact that David Cameron is a master of spin - and very bright to go with it. Another bloody Tony Blair.
Here’s Sinclair’s piece:
It has quickly become apparent that the new Australian government, elected last November, has no serious policy agenda. Kevin Rudd had campaigned on a ticket that emphasised an arrogant, out-of-touch government. He promised new fresh ideas that would take Australia forward. Less than six months into his tenure as prime minister, Mr Rudd appears to be out of ideas. He is long on symbolism and short on substance. He has ratified Kyoto, and apologised to the so-called stolen generation of indigenous Australians but seemed stumped on what to do next.
While bereft of ‘big ideas’ his government has quietly been dismantling some important economic reforms. The Rudd government is the first is a generation that is non-reformist. The Howard government’s WorkChoices legislation has been scrapped. While unions do not have as much power as they would have liked, it is clear they will have greater industrial influence than their declining membership warrants. A large number of enquiries were promised at the election, and on this front Mr Rudd has delivered. An interesting development has been the sidelining of the government’s own in-house economic think-tank the Productivity Commission. Rather the various inquiries have been stacked with party hacks and vested interests. In a retrograde step petrol prices are to be highly regulated, in effect fixed for 24-hour periods, in the interests of promoting consumer benefit.
The Rudd government inherited very good economic conditions; the budget is in surplus, there is no net commonwealth debt, unemployment is at historic lows and, despite two rate rises since coming to office, the cash rate is still lower than when the Labor Party were last in office. Any deterioration in these economic indicators could be slated home to an economically interventionalist, yet inexperienced, government. Consequently Treasurer Wayne Swan set out to rubbish the Howard government’s legacy of good economic management. Mr Swan seemed quite determined to talk the Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens out of a job. Mr Swan told everyone who would listen that the inflation genie was ‘out of the bottle’ and inflation had been building for some time. He also claimed that the Reserve Bank had been warning the previous government of an underinvestment in infrastructure that was driving higher levels of inflation.
Unfortunately for Mr Swan he was contradicted by both his own Finance Minister and the Reserve Bank governor. The government’s economic narrative is in shreds. It is not going to be easy to discredit the Howard government’s economic record. Mr Swan’s performance in the parliament has been poor and he is clearly out of his depth. But the Australian media have yet to make anything of this failure in economic narrative. The Rudd government delivers its first budget in May and with a poor opposition leader should be able to pass it off as a success.
Mr Rudd has proven himself to be a canny politician. This past weekend he summoned 1,000 people to Canberra to fashion a vision for Australia in 2020. While there was a 50:50 gender split, few of the participants could be described as being conservative or pro-free market. Many big-picture ideas have been suggested; although none are original, nor worthy of a weekend in Canberra. All 1,000 were meant to have their own idea, yet media reports have emphasised a few well-known chestnuts; an Australian Republic, a treaty with indigenous Australians, a bill of rights, abolition of the Australian states, more funding for the arts, a ban on smoking for everyone born after 2009, compulsory fitness tests, and tax reform leading to more progressive taxation. The legalisation of all drugs to relieve pressures on prisons and the criminal justice system seems to be exactly wrong.
In short lots of social engineering, but nothing to improve business conditions or to grow the economy. Conservative bloggers have been unmerciful in their contempt for the whole process and the outcome. Mr Rudd, however, understands the importance of bread and circuses and also understands the progressive mind. Reopening the Republic debate alone should consume the chattering classes for years. Mr Rudd has the political elite on side. Yet there are some warning signs on the horizon. The stock market has performed poorly and four brokerage firms have collapsed. A mild US recession is unlikely to have an impact on Australia, whereas a deep recession may well undermine the prosperity Australians have come to expect as their birthright. So far Mr Rudd has managed to distract attention from his meagre performance with big picture symbolic gestures. The question remains, how long he can keep it up? Of course, if he is able to avoid major policy errors and the economy continues to grow, he will get away with being the first anti-reformist prime minister in 25 years.
73 Comments
Since we are copying comments, here’s my original response:
Well, we had the Howard Haters, now we have Sinclair leading the charge for the new group - the Krudd Krucifiers.
Rudd Rubishers? Kevin Kritics?
Got anything of substance to say, FF? Even you must be able to see that the stuff coming out of 20/20 is beyond Blairism - it’s frankly totalitarian. Compulsory fitness tests? Banning smoking but legalizing other drugs? ATSIC reborn? This is the worst of the Keating luvvies (and I never thought I’d catch myself using that particular JGism) back from the dead. Even ‘hug a hoodie’ David Cameron couldn’t be this bad…
In the background of this orgy of intellectual masturbation there was in big letters: BIG THINKING.
Oh please, big thinking is easy because the devil is in the details. It is easy to generate ideas it is something else again to make them happen.
Good article Sinclair, thanks.
Its going to be hard to get any serious criticism of Rudd going in the press, most of them were at the Summit and are now honorary Summiteers.
Even Nelson was at the Summit.
“Compulsory fitness tests? Banning smoking but legalizing other drugs?”
Some of these proposals are just rehashed Nazi-era policies.
V nice post Sinclair. Skepticlawyer—appreciate rescue from comments.
Substance, hey? No problemo.
Skeptic, I think the 2020 Dummit (yes, that’s deliberate) is a gigantic waste of time and money, produced mostly bad ideas that likely will lead to bad policy, and is a terrible way to bring up issues of concern to the community.
But Sinclair didn’t limit himself to the Dummit. In fact it’s not mentioned until 467 words in, and merits only one paragraph. As it happens, it’s the best paragraph, but that’s not saying much.
This new Kevin Krucifying mindset seems to borrow from the previous Howard Haters quite a bit - lines like “an arrogant, out-of-touch government” and “a canny politician”, and explanations like “poor opposition leader”. I also remember people saying Howard, in the second half of his last term, seemed to have “no serious policy agenda” and was “out of ideas”. The similarity (and unoriginality) is quite uncanny.
Then there are the debatable factual points. Just back from a major foreign policy elucidation and expressing his wish to make large-scale changes in domestic policy (part of which is the ill-conceived ‘consultation’ process that is the Dummit), Rudd is hardly “stumped on what to do next”. That’s pure Krucifying.
Take “inherited very good economic conditions”. Some conditions are great, but others are not. The credit crisis, the state of the US economy, inflation here and abroad, the price of oil and food all spring to mind. “no net commonwealth debt” is a smokescreen, given our prodigious private debt. “the cash rate is still lower than when the Labor Party were last in office” is a not-so-sly attempted dig at Labor in general, and is another smokescreen, because eg the mortgage interest rates apply to much greater debts and thus while nominally lower actually make for greater financial stress.
I’ve read plenty of Sinclair’s work, and this disappointing example of poorly thought-out Krudd Kicking does not belong with his better (and thankfully more representative) stuff.
Not sure these have been linked to yet, but I thought they may be appropriate (in order):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DepK3evOfNU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PChAkerBLJ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etMDSWZ5PgA
Unfortunately it would seem so. I think the last politician to put together a policy agenda worthy of the name was John Hewson. John Howard ran with most of Hewsons agenda and then ran out of meaningful ideas himself (or else ran out of motivation).
Rudd may yet redeem himself but so far he is looking pretty dire in my book. Although I’m probably not part of the target audience.
Shorter FF: Behead those who insult The Kevin.
Funnily enough, CL, there were moments when I felt like I was channeling you in your tirades against BDS. Of course, the similarity is only superficial, as I actually have valid points.
In reply to FF, I think every criticism that he advanced against Sinc is misplaced.
As for Swan’s performance in the House, one of the senior ALP supporters in the press, Laurie Oakes wrote at least one column in praise Swan, in blatant contrdiction to the clear evidence of theTV coverage in Parliament.
Lack of novelty is not a criticism in itself, there are plenty of good and unoriginal ideas that are worthy of support. Of course the matter of unoriginality is brought up in regard to the summit because of the absurd bread and circuses attempt to get people excited about possible changes that are not good or desirable - that is just about all of the ones that got the loudest applause from the assembled sycophants (excluding our friends who attended for fun and a free lunch).
As for kicking Rudd, if the criticisms are valid then there is no need to suggest that there is anyting disreputable about them. Valid criticisms are a world apart from the persistent hate-speech that John Howard evoked from his enemies. He did not deserve that, however critical one may be of his mixed (social democrat) record. Rudd has exposed himself to a large number of serious criticisms and none of them have got anything to do with personal hatred or partisan support for the Coalition.
Ignore fatfingers, Rafe. He basically has totalitarian instincts in that Rudd is above criticism.
I like the “Kevin Fraser” tag. I remember getting chased around by a ninth grade bully called “Fraser” when I was in first year high school. It’s a good name for an underachieving, dullwitted thug.
I was going to say that FF has a record of taking on board arguments which I for one appreciate. He also tends to reply to abuse in kind. So he may have some of the wrong instincts but I don’t get the impression that it is a waste of time to debate with him, unlike many of the larvae.
To be fair to the Larvae, Mark B has made the point on several occasions that Swan is out of his depth, and I think I first read about the Reserve Bank fooferaw over at LP.
FF, I think you’re being disengenuous. As CL knows, I was opposed to the Iraq war from the get go, but found much of the BDS irritating because it was criticism without substance (Bush’s big ears, Bush’s poor expression etc). I even wrote a couple of posts about it at the time - before the great Catallaxy server crash ™.
WordChoices was plainly shite (I know, I had to file all 1000 pages of the bastard in chambers), but it was clearly better than Rudd’s blatant reregulation of the labor market. Sinkers makes all those points above, and they’re legitimate and fair.
FWIW, I think Aussies are in for at least a term of very bad, nanny-statist government and policy on the run.
“In reply to FF, I think every criticism that he advanced against Sinc is misplaced.”
To paraphrase Skeptic, do you have anything of substance, Rafe?
“if the criticisms are valid then there is no need to suggest that there is anyting disreputable about them. ”
Absolutely. And I would never suggest Rudd has nothing to be criticised for, or that Sinclair doesn’t have some valid criticisms. But I stand by my implication that Sinclair’s rightly-rejected piece suffers from a lack of objectivity and a surfeit of anti-Rudd vitriol. I also stand by my assertion that, as such, it represents one of the first salvos by those who shall eventually be known by some simplistic alliterative nickname.
Get your copy of the summary report on the Comedy Festival here
http://www.australia2020.gov.au/docs/2020_Summit_initial_report.doc
Skeptic, I didn’t mention criticisms I agreed with as I thought it would distract from my points (see #17). As it happens, I agree with his statements about the PC and the Dummit and Swan and social engineering (though I have a instinctive distrust of those who use the phrase, as even doing nothing can be construed as ’social engineering’).
“policy on the run.”
This is a real risk, and one I am worried about. There is far too much “yeah, that sounds good, let’s do it right away” going on. Weirdly, this tendency contradicts the liking for umpteen committees and inquiries.
#17 Nothing of substance is required to respond to criticisms that lack substance.
Rafe, I thought the same thing (#1), but when asked for it (#2), I gave it (#7 & #17). Why can’t you?
He did Fats. You weren’t focusing again. He gave it in #38 , #47 #75 and #121.
I think there’s some confusion here because we’ve now got three 20/20 threads on the go, and they’re all getting rapidly longer. Tim Blair just kept to one really long one - the damage is localised, so to speak.
Correction, Skeptic - this isn’t a 2020 thread, it’s about Sinclair’s Kevin Kicking, with 2020 peripheral to his Krucifying.
Thanks for that SL. Thanks all for the comments.
Tax reform;
“..reintroduce death duties and abolish capital gains tax, superannuation concession and negative gearing
…The high-powered delegates to the economy session included Lachlan Murdoch, former New South Wales premier Bob Carr, former Westpac chief executive officer David Morgan, and former Fairfax chief executive officer Fred Hilmer…”
SL
and I never thought I’d catch myself using that particular JGism.
Trust me kiddo, over the next three years I will be lauded as a sage.
SL
If we are going to be REALLY fair, you will notixe that Luvvie MB has turned his views on Swan and Krudd Labor more times than a cheap tart turns tricks. He has argued every feasible position on them. He is incoherent, self-contradictory, and clueless. He is consistently inconsistent.
What a pile of rabid nonsense . I was going to do a comment by found this on road to surfdom which sums it up perfectly.
he spectre at the summit
While I don’t normally see any point in criticising other blog posts, this effort by Sinclair Davidson is so absurd it can’t be allowed to pass without some comment. If people want to pass as public intellectuals - and get paid by the taxpayer - they should surely comply with the basic standards of critical evaluation that are required of undergraduate assignments. Or at least that’s what we require in business schools; maybe economists only require mindless evidence-free rhetoric.
Davidson begins with the sweeping conclusion that ‘Mr Rudd appears to be out of ideas.’ Parroting a line that Lazarus-with a-dose-of-formaldehyde Howard is using in his efforts to return to the spotlight, Davidson claims that ‘The Rudd government is the first is a generation that is non-reformist.’ Wow, such an insight after the government has been in power for all of five months.
According to Davidson, ‘While bereft of ‘big ideas’ his government has quietly been dismantling some important economic reforms.’ What are they? Well may you ask. ‘The Howard government’s WorkChoices legislation has been scrapped.’ This was done quietly? What bullshit. Julia Gillard has talked about little else for months. And what other ‘important economic reforms’ does Davidson list that the government has ‘quietly dismantled’? Well, ummm, none actually.
I can’t be bothered deconstructing every line in this appalling piece of pap but here’s another sample, discussing the 2020 summit:
Many big-picture ideas have been suggested; although none are original, nor worthy of a weekend in Canberra.
What a remarkable feat, to have evaluated all the ideas suggested by 1,000 people over a weekend by 8 pm Sunday night and come to the conclusion that none of them was ‘worthy of a weekend in Canberra’, whatever that is supposed to mean. Sinclair’s acumen is exceeded only by his work-rate.
Apparetly he is in good company: ‘Conservative bloggers have been unmerciful in their contempt for the whole process and the outcome.’ Gosh, the caterers are still packing up the orange juice bottles and conservative bloggers have already made up their minds about the outcome. No suggestion of closed minds there then. And then there are incomprehensible lines such as this:
The legalisation of all drugs to relieve pressures on prisons and the criminal justice system seems to be exactly wrong.
Well possibly, but why? Or is a professor of institutional economics now also to be taken as an authority on criminology? The confusion is compounded with the next sentence: ‘In short lots of social engineering …’ Maybe I’m thick, but I can’t for the life of me understand how legalising something constitutes ’social engineering’.
Mixed in with all this intemperate ranting is a goodly dose of hackneyed conservative contempt for ‘the progressive mind’. ‘Reopening the Republic debate alone should consume the chattering classes for years.’ Honestly, Sinclair, even Gerard Henderson has stopped using that tired old expression so beloved by the late Paddy McGuinness. Hmmm, he was an economist too.
Throughout the piece we find errors like these: ‘The Rudd government is the first is a generation that is non-reformist’; ‘the governments own in-house economic think-tank’; ‘interventionalist’; ‘the governments’ economic narrative’; ‘the Howard governments’ economic record’ (for god’s sake Sinclair, is it really so hard to learn how to use apostrophes?); and ‘none are original’. Davidson comments (sourly?) that ‘This piece just got knocked back from the international MSM’; jeez I wonder why.
Sinclair Davidson is a full professor at a public university. It goes without saying that he has every right to hold strong opinions and express them forcefully, but the professoriate deserves better than a piece like this that lacks any semblance of reasoned argument or even of common sense.
Share This
So you’re not applying for a Professorship anytime soon Alan?
Alan:
You read Road to Insanity and find criticisms with the Davidson piece?
Next we’re going hear you tell us KenL is a genius?
So, Alan, you’re not cross are you?
Alan writes:
“What a pile of rabid nonsense . I was going to do a comment by found this on road to surfdom which sums it up perfectly.”
How lazy, but then you do say you couldn’t do any better than repeat someone’s “intemperate ranting”. How very indicative of “the progressive mind.”
I’ve also annoyed soon-to-be-former senator Bartlett, “right-wing attack caricatures” indeed.
You’ve annoyed a few people, Sinkers, although I suspect Andrew Norton’s quip about intellectuals being in love with power will annoy more.
cool, that means the criticisms are biting.
Sinclair #34 Meow!
Friends, ‘Strayans and that, lend me a couple a bucks wouldja? It’s for a
bottla Thunderbird winefeed.So the Jabberfest of the Chosen Kilo ended up being a Luvvie-in. I’m shocked. I’m appalled. Nay. I’ve lost all the faith I had in the political process.
And I’m exactly 0.00018% of a gram lighter as a result.
I kinda feel sorry for Kevvie. I feel sorry for the ALP. They always seem to get elected just at the point when the economy’s about to go south and they get blamed for it. It’s not fair, especially considering that they’re not bad economic ‘managers’ if one overlooks the occasional tendency to borrow large sums from despots and the like.
And also if one pretends that governments ‘manage’ market economies. Note to Kevvie: Here’s a suggest for a national curriculum item - Grade One: Governments Don’t Run The Economy!
Poor old Kevvie. He’s done Paul Keating’s last six months for him and now what’s he gonna do? Well he’ll do something. He’s not Beazley. He won’t wait on opinion polls for six weeks in order to tell us what he thinks. He’ll tell us today. Right this minute. He’s got much better spin doctors.
The Jabberfest of the Chosen Kilo had nothing to do with producing good ideas. I can’t remember who it was but one of those people who gets paid to contribute their 2 cents hit it square saying that it was about welcoming those whom Howard called ‘the Elites’ back in from the cold of 11 years. The express purpose was to have all the Bigwigs, Pointy Heads and all round Great ‘Strayans express their wholehearted support for the usual stuff. Surprise fucking surprise.
And also to revive the Great ‘Strayan Tradition of creativity via committee with results of the usual calibre.
How do spell that noise we make called the rasberry?
Also I have to add that Kevvie was obliged to scrap WorkChoices. The Australian people hated its guts. Just sayin’. Of course the fact that it brings the Unions back in from the Cold has nothing to do with it.
Alan #29
Would you care to suggest one idea from the Jabberfest of the Chosen Kilo that is
a. New, or
b. Good?
Cheers
Alan
The “progressive mind” is not intellectual; it is theological.
My comment from LP I thought worth repeating:
The Jabberfest has been and gone.
And all across the land a hush
These mighty minds a heavy labour done
And behold: A shinin’ pestle o’ mush!
Flushed with pride am I. In ‘Stray-ons
And so squeeze my fellow citizens tight
At this Acropolis writ in crayons
Spells out again the same old shite.
Would you care to suggest one idea from the Jabberfest of the Chosen Kilo that is
a. New, or
b. Good?
One that I thoght was good ( talked about here when Mark Hill raised it ) was doing away with the current state structure and having 40 smaller states.
I thought that was an excellent idea. However it’s not new as we have already discussed it here.
The arts section was a disgrace. It’s a money grab by artistic thieves loooking to steal tax money.
JC -
I think the 38 page report was a good idea, much better than 380 pages of the crap!
SL
I am going to support Andrew Norton’s point, except with a marxian analysis.
Make no mistake. Luvvies are involved in class warfare just as much as the CFMEU.
The Luvvies are the result of a schism within the bourgeoise circa 1970. While one section remained committed to creating wealth through industry, the other part splintered off to make money by siphoning off tax dollars as salaries, grants, etc. in the public sphere - whether parliament, GayBC, bureacracy, HREOC, university Cultural Studies departments, Wymyn’s groups, Film Finance Corporation, implementing legislation framed by fellow Luvvies in multiculti and all its class-warfare offshoots, and so on and so forth..
If the mercantile bourgeoise acts to extract more and more from the proletariat via increasing surplus value, the Luvvies screw the proletariat at the other end through taxation, legalised derision, and brainwashing in the schools, universities, and HR departments..
and HR departments..?
Dude?
Have you ever read all the rules and regulations concerning “appropriate behaviour” in major corporations? Read all the garbage that is tacked on to a standard university course outline nowadays. “Appropriate this, racist that, sexist that, blah, blah, luvvie blah.”
HR is is protecting a firm for potential lawsuits. Don’t blame them, blame the law.
In most cases they’re telling people to behave appropriately. Sticking a hand under a woman’s dress as i saw years ago is inapprpriate behaviour. So is propositioning a fellow worker.
Once a Marxist always a Marxist.
JG how many ‘proletariat’ are left in Australia?
Your definition of luvvy is so broad as to cover essentially everyone.
Anyone still stupid enough to be left behind deserves to be ’screwed’.
JC
“Dude” I covered that.
implementing legislation framed by fellow Luvvies in multiculti and all its class-warfare offshoots.
Jason
You really are a very difficult chap to understand. Often times you reveal a rapier wit and great ear for irony, other times you are so literal as to be completely two dimensional.
First of all my definition of “Luvvie” most certainly is NOT too broad. And for the record I absolutely do not count YOU as a Luvvie!
JC
2 of my best female friends have Harvard MBAs. Both tell me that “sexual harrassment” only ever takes place if the bloke is ugly and/or extremely rich!
2 of my best female friends have Harvard MBAs.
That explains it becasue as I’ve always said a Harvard MBA dumbs very smart people down.
JC
I don’t know about that, but one thing I can tell you is that of my female friends who have MBAs from top schools, they are the one’s most keen to live a relatively traditional lifestyle being stay at home (at least part-time) mums and married.
so it they’re stay at home mums, what would they know about HR depts, JG.
As I said HR departments are trying to keep the firm out of trouble and address appropriate behaviour at a work place. Nothing really wrong with that.
You’re arguing in circles now. ‘All they are trying to do is keep out of trouble.’ Trouble threatened by legislation drawn up by…???
JC
You know the world is full of people who have worked in corporations for some time and not in other times.
and sexual harrassment at the workplace is alright?
Look dude, tough luck if your mythical ‘proles’ get fired because they can’t match up to proper bourgeois behaviour. That’s the market and natural selection at work.
Viva Darwin, Spencer and Nietzsche!
JG
I’m not arguing in circles. I am simply explaining to you that your accusation that HR depts are suddenly luvvie central as you refer to them is unfounded.
They are doing good things in lots of ways, like protecting women from inappropriate behaviour. And even if these laws were removed tomorrow, nearly all internal regulations would probably remian the same at big firms.
Oh gawd. If you really think Nietzsche was one of you, you are in trouble!
I’ll see your Herbert Spencer and raise you an Edmund Spenser.
I’m aware that Nietzsche isn’t completely with me but he would find your re-sentiment driven mythologising faux-egalitarianism in support of some mythical oppressed nauseating.
You twit. Where have I ever shown any sympathy for egalitarianism of ANY sort? The very thought makes me want to hurl my cookies.
To flick the states and have super councils is a great concept but in reality wont get off the ground, it would take a complete re write of the Constitution.
it was nice engaging in that little JG baiting.
You come on everywhere and dispense tired little strawmen about luvvies, Just thought it was time to turn the tables and do the same to your ‘non luvvies’ whoeever the fuck they are (Mar’n Ferguson? Doug Cameron?)
Jason
If you are going to bait and switch with strawmen at least do so in English!
JC, the US has 50 states and 303M, thats ~6M per state.
With 6 states and 2 territories for 20.4M Australia is way under par, any more states and we would be even more over governed.
A point re luvvies.
I’m really busy at the minute so I didn’t have time to check the papers ’til this PM. It seems pretty clear, especially considering Andrew’s experience, that the Jabberfest was essentially designed as an ‘elite’ endorsement of Keating’s cultural agenda.
Kevvie hasn’t learned either from Keating’s mistakes nor his accomplishments.
He shouldn’t be doing this now. He should wait. People in this country have been undergoing reform for 2 and 1/2 decades now and they’re tired of it. He should just consolidate, work on the health system and live up to his promise re fiscal conservatism.
However he hasn’t done this. He’s essentially simply re-reared the ‘luvvie’ vision of Oz especially the republic. As much as I find David Flint to be an SS officer in a pale blue silk suit he had a point viz the lack of monarchist representation. I’m a republican but the monarchists have a point - we have a de facto republic, the monarchy functions as a legal convenience that safeguards us against Fubaria, a shift would pretty much be symbolic and 55% of people voted against it less than ten years back. It ain’t the time.
But even if it was the monarchists deserve to be represented surely. Kevvie just doing what Howard did - marginalizing those he differs with.
As for all the palava re traffic lights on fatty foods and (yet another) increase on tax for alcohol and cigarrettes fucking forget it. I wonder where the toted notion of a voucher system re health went. If people fuck up their health on purpose let ‘em pay more. Skeptic’s right it’s nanny statism.
Thing is Kevvie should go back to ‘96 and ask himself: why did Keating get the boot? Hint: it wasn’t because of his ‘hard’ policies.
And also would someone tell him what the word ‘treaty’ actually means. FFS!
Much as I think JG flings ‘luvvie’ around like certain varieties of ape have been known to fling their own poo about, I do think this is exactly the ‘luvviedom’ that got Keating the boot (and which encouraged swinging voters, like me, to vote for Howard in 1996). To that extent, I agree with Adrien. I think it’s safe to say that both Adrien and I have had a fair bit of experience in various ‘cultural industries’, and it was pretty rank.
As Andrew Norton pointed out, these people love power, and are utterly convinced they (a) know the answer and (b) should be able to impose it on other people. This is nanny statism writ large, and reeks of Blairism.
However, contra Adrien, I’m hoping that Rudd’s decision to do the Chosen Kilo stunt now is appropriately Machiavellian, in that he’s fed the luvvie ‘chooks’ and - having got them on side - can now safely ignore them for the rest of his term. Rudd used to be my local MP, and I saw him/chatted to him enough to know that he is a very smart man in the best Labor Right tradition.
Rudd used to be my local MP, and I saw him/chatted to him enough to know that he is a very smart man in the best Labor Right tradition.
Hope you’re right, SL. I would be surprised if he did a back flip and went with these idiots.. He doesn’t strike me as a guy that would take silly risks.
I found the thing quite offensive to be honest.
Think about this. There was a person who suggested the idea that we should all apply for our citizenship felt safe enough in that crowd to say such a thing. Now If I was in such a group and someone said that (yes I know it would be wrong) I would probably have lost my temper and done something I would have regretted.
There was no one there who walked out as a result of such a comment, which is itself pretty instructive in terms of who we’re broadly dealing with.
So even if Rudd is a good guy, he really has a mountain of idiots to climb and I fear one day he just gives in.
I know rog, but it would rid us of one layer of government and would offer more geographic focus.
SL
NO! You do not “agree with Adrien” you agree with ME! Come on, just come out of the closet, you will feel so liberated!
Seriously though, I have always maintained that Rudd himself is in no way a Luvvie. In fact, he cannot stand them. I suspect your inkling about his Machiavellianism may indeed turn out to be a pas de deux with Mao. 
I mean FFS. Check out this racist Luvvie filth!
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/04/19/spare-a-thought-for-jackie-huggins/#comment-459009
SL, the problem with ‘feeding the chooks’ or anything else for that matter is that you have to keep on feeding it or it will begin to get nasty again. And it will.
JG, I don’t know why you bother with LP. Don’t you get enough of that from the ABC?
dover
I don’t know why either. Perhaps I have a mental illness?
Absoutely priceless. I have just been deleted by Lovvie Supremo JQ for using the word “Luvvie.”
John Greenfield Says:
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:24 am
John, I’m deleting this and anything further from you that contains references to “Luvvies”. If you can’t make your point without this tiresome stuff, please comment elsewhere - JQ
Though go through and check out how riddled with NON-tiresome stuff JQ’s world is.
John Greenfield Says:
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:24 am
John, I’m deleting this and anything further from you that contains references to “Luvvies”. If you can’t make your point without this tiresome stuff, please comment elsewhere - JQ
As I said to him Fair enough JQ. But I think you have thus made my point far more effectively than even I could.
Rudd’s decision to do the Chosen Kilo stunt now is appropriately Machiavellian, in that he’s fed the luvvie ‘chooks’ and - having got them on side - can now safely ignore them for the rest of his term.
Yep good point Skeptic.I guess we’ll see about that.
Rudd used to be my local MP, and I saw him/chatted to him enough to know that he is a very smart man in the best Labor Right tradition.
A little shaky on the ethics as a AWU colleague of mine used to say, and happily, about the ALP Right.