Thats all right Chops. Thanks for the clarification. I still think though that government should continue to look after the disadvantaged within our community. It could well do more in this regard. I suppose its all about finding the right balance. All levels of government need to be more pro-active in this regard.Sorry to hear that. I was speaking metaphorically, obviously. But my point was demonstrated by the Yarragadee protests. And my gripe is with the rural vote in WA which have excessive legislative control.
I'm wondering if we do actually look after those going through rough times anymore though. The last ten years has seen an absolute raping of mental health services, as well as a crackdown on those people with disability pensions.
I do believe it's time for quote; perhaps from one of my favourite sources, Catch-22:
Ding a ling a ling.
Which bring us to another point. Why should farmers be given federal assistance for a failing business venture? As a small business owner, I don't have a right to ask for a handout from the government if it turns sour - even if it is through no fault of my own. What is the difference in this instance?
And it's fairly rich then, to sit at a trade table and ask Europe to stop building cheese mountains and wine lakes, or to ask the US to stop paying farmers for doing nothing, when we ourselves are subsidising farmers. Let alone expect third world countries not to have government interference in the rural sector.
It is good to see Howard looking to target young voters though:
The former chief justice of the Australian High Court, Sir Gerard Brennan, has criticised both major parties for their policies on the death penalty.
.
.
.
"Perhaps they might reflect on Pastor Niemoller's lament in Hitler's Germany," he said.
"'They came first for the communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a communist.
"'Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew.
"'Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
"'Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
"'Then they came for me, and by that time, no-one was left to speak up.'"
Sir Gerard concluded by saying issues of injustice against people like David Hicks and Dr Haneef were glaringly absent from the current election campaign.
"It is, I suppose, inevitable that an election campaign should be pitched at the majority and that the protection of the few against injustices would not be an election issue," he said.
"Ultimately, political rhetoric about the rule of law may be exposed to be as genuine as the electoral kissing of babies.
Completely agree, Greggy. It's just so easy for those of us who are doing pretty well - and politicians touting the successful economy, low unemployment rate etc - to just "not notice" the many people who are really struggling.I still think though that government should continue to look after the disadvantaged within our community. It could well do more in this regard. I suppose its all about finding the right balance. All levels of government need to be more pro-active in this regard.
Hi Whiskers,
I absolutely accept your point. I was under the impression that the payments made to farmers were grants, not loans. I have no problem with any such payments/loans being made where the farms are (under no drought circumstances) viable businesses, but if conditions are simply no longer viable because of climate change or anything else, I just don't see much point in sustaining people's existence where nothing is going to change.
Also don't think we have any business growing crops like rice and cotton in Australia.
In another thread, I mentioned that I'd bought on the same day two bunches of asparagus at the same price - one was grown in Australia and the other was grown in Peru.
I just don't see much point in sustaining people's existence where nothing is going to change.
Also don't think we have any business growing crops like rice and cotton in Australia.
In another thread, I mentioned that I'd bought on the same day two bunches of asparagus at the same price - one was grown in Australia and the other was grown in Peru.
Yeah, this one is not what is seems all the time also, because the big supermarkets have resorted to all sorts of tricks to drive down prices for Australan growers. Out of season importing is generally accepted to be benificial. The biggest problem that we see is that with some imported commodities the chemical residues are higher than allowable for Australian grown produce. While Australian produce is regularly and randomly checked, imported commodoties are often let through quarantine on the strength of supposodly QA assurances from the supplier. Asian prawns with unacceptably high antibiotic levels are a recent example.
The only genuine resistance I have heard on a scientific basis relates to the fireblight disease in apples which Australia says could be brought into Australia if we imported Kiwi apples. NZ, on the other hand, says this is not a risk and the reluctance of Oz is a convenient excuse for not furthering this trade. If you have ever eaten New Zealand apples, you'd realise that should they ever be imported into Australia in any decently consumable quantity, then that would be the end of the apple industry in Australia. Why? Because NZ apples are just so much better!!!Actually, some of our 'best' produce trade arguements has been with your old country, NZ about price and pests and diseases.:
I'm sure you're not seriously suggesting that all Australian produce is free of chemicals when it arrives in our supermarkets?
Re the prawns and other imported seafood, judging by volume of sales, I suspect most consumers buy on taste and cost and frankly don't give any thought to antibiotic levels and suchlike.
The only genuine resistance I have heard on a scientific basis relates to the fireblight disease in apples which Australia says could be brought into Australia if we imported Kiwi apples. NZ, on the other hand, says this is not a risk and the reluctance of Oz is a convenient excuse for not furthering this trade.
If you have ever eaten New Zealand apples, you'd realise that should they ever be imported into Australia in any decently consumable quantity, then that would be the end of the apple industry in Australia. Why? Because NZ apples are just so much better!!!
New Zealand is an exceptionally clean, green country with produce the envy of much of the rest of the world.
Apart from the tropical fruit, I've yet to eat any fresh produce here that matches what is produced in NZ.
Yes, thats about how it works. But there have been others over the years. Australian growers wanted to export tomatoes to NZ to compete with the more expensive NZ hothouse produced tomatoes. Zucchini is another one that I am familiar with that NZ banned occassionally.
It's probably enough to say that in NZ I ate heaps of apples - some varieties we just never see here - but now I just never buy them they are so awful.I can't say that I have eaten NZ apples, so you've got me there.
I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, Whiskers. In saying that NZ is a clean, green country I was really just stating a fact. Do you mean do all sides of politics promote it as such? If so, then yes, without doubt.No dispute there. Just as a matter of interest, is that a result of labor party policy or a common philosiphy of all NZ politicians?
Hope you enjoyed it. Mangoes could almost make me believe there is a fruit God, especially the R2E2 variety.Gotta go and tuck unto a nice mango I got from IGA yesterday for $2.95. The oroma of four sitting on the table is getting to me. By the way, I looked a some in woolworths for nearly $5. I might have paid it if they were good enough, but because I regularly find better deals at IGA I passed it up.
Ninemsn's Passion Pulse, the largest election poll of the 2007 campaign, forecasts an electoral bloodbath for the Coalition, including a loss in Wentworth, the seat held by Malcolm Turnbull.
After surveying more than 50,000 voters, ninemsn can reveal that as many as 20 seats will swing to the Opposition, leaving the ALP with at least 81 seats in the Lower House.
Among those is Bennelong ”” the seat Mr Howard has held since 1974 ”” set to fall to Labor's star recruit Maxine McKew in a 6.9 percent swing.
That surprises me because when I was living in NZ I was always able to buy Australian tomatoes when the local ones were out of season.
given that both parties have very similar policies, it probably won't make much difference...mishu said:I expect Labor to win. I don't think the party in power will make a significant difference to share market trading.
'We'll just change it all'
Opposition frontbencher Peter Garrett has been accused of saying that Labor will change its policies if it wins government at this month's election.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22691972-12377,00.htmlOPPOSITION frontbencher Peter Garrett has fended off claims he told a journalist that Labor would change its policies if elected by saying the conversation was "short and jocular."
Sydney radio personality Steve Price told his audience today he had a conversation with Labor's federal environment spokesman at Melbourne Airport this morning.
Price said Mr Garrett told him that accusations against Labor that it had copied Coalition policies would not matter because, if Labor won the election, he said "we'll just change it all''.
After coming under fire in the media, Mr Garrett called a press conference in Melbourne this afternoon at which he continually repeated his stance that he had a casual conversation with Price.
When asked whether his second mistake in a week was distracting the opposition's campaign, he replied: "On the basis of a short jocular conversation in the airport with Steve Price, I'm very happy to say there will be changes.''
When asked whether Price had misunderstood the conversation, Mr Garrett replied: "This was a very short and casual conversation and what is clear is that things would be a lot better under a Labor government.''
He said changes would undoubtedly occur if Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd was elected.
"If Labor is elected to govern there will be big changes - in Work Choices, industrial relation legislation in climate change, immediate ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, in education, installing an education revolution.''
Mr Garrett was asked if he had chosen the right profession after a stellar rock music career.
"I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the path we are on is a positive and necessary one, and that includes being a member of parliament and and that includes talking to politicians that count for the people of Australia,'' he said.
"A short conversation at an airport lounge with a radio announcer which identifies quite positive changes for the people of Australia if a Rudd Labor government is elected doesn't strike me as being a gaffe.''
Hi Rafa,Oh dear... Garetts opened is big mouth...
hey Julia, do you prefer Garrett now...
here's garetts response to what trinity posted above... wonder if rudd steps in to sort it out... i guess its always a danger having someone with genuine passion in politics
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22691972-12377,00.html
Yes, I'd agree with that too , Rafa.the only tweak i would consider to the super rules is a cap on taking out the lump sum tax free... i think this is a recipe for blowing it all up and falling back on the pension!
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2079655.htm"Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares."
"Political debate is often reduced to competing claims about what to fear," says Furedi. I urge you to think about the power of that statement.
This campaign strives to nurture a menagerie of animal panics. Be afraid of Trade Unions. Be afraid of Global Warming. Interest Rates. Inexperience. Experience.
We have nothing to fear. But the intensification of fear itself.
Joe Hockey might not be the best calibrated weapon in the coalition arsenal. He does tend, however, to be the sort of bloke that journalists adore.
He's quite adept at reckless talk. And, as you know, news outlets love nothing so much as a colossal gaffe.
Joe delivers.
Of course, the Minister hardly merits the cabinet prize for indiscretion this week. This honour, needless to impart, goes direct to Mr Abbott. Can we begin to even count Tony's peccadilloes? If giving Shadow Health Minister Roxon a free kick in the late debate did not amply soil his repute, he brought it on home with a dig at a dying man and a Mersey dash.
Oh. And then there was the hissed vulgarity.
Nice work, Tony. You'll be difficult to beat.
It is Hockey's unchecked silliness that still resounds in my ears, however. Late last week, the guy held forth with a statement that will be tricky to top in the "things we shouldn't say on the Hustings" awards.
Addressing a raft of reporters Hockey said from within his North Sydney electorate, "Our fear campaign is based on fact."
We can safely imagine reporters as benumbed by the cut-and-paste tedium of life on the campaign trail. In fact, a mate of mine, subject to editorial decree, is on the circuit this minute. "Please, somebody kill me, please" he implored by text just this morning.
So, in a wasteland of empty language and non-core conditional promises, you can imagine how juicy something like this would seem. Almost as good as a senior Minister uttering, "Bulls—t".
As much giddy fun as it is to watch Abbott swear, rather than spend, like a drunken sailor, Hockey's statement emerges as the more intriguing blunder. I guess it didn't form part of a hat-trick of chaotic abuse. It may not haunt him for the rest of his career. (Tony can almost certainly look forward to a lifetime of "You're late, Mr Bulls—t!") It's fascinating, nonetheless.
In an unwary moment, Joe Hockey actually admitted what many of us had suspected for years. Viz. that politicians are in the habit of trading in fear rather than promises.
In fact, there's a provocative documentary that addresses the mechanism of this new dread head-on. You might have seen the BBC series The Power of Nightmares. Film-maker Adam Curtis's oft quoted aphorism begins the series, "Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares."
There are those, like Curtis, who believe fear is painstakingly constructed by politicians. Carmen Lawrence writes along similar lines in her work Fear and Politics. Therein she offers, we are living, not for the first time, in an era of heightened collective fear, a fear which is being exploited and encouraged by our governments through the media".
I guess she'd know. Being, for the next five minutes, a politician.
A great many scholarly tomes have been devoted to this topic. A few years ago, I discovered the work of Frank Furedi. His work, The Politics of Fear, is an instructive rant against our cowardice. As an unwilling constituent in the coalition of the nervous, I found this book to be helpful. At the very least, I stopped having ludicrous, low-probability day-mares about being killed by a Muslim on a train.
"Political debate is often reduced to competing claims about what to fear," says Furedi. I urge you to think about the power of that statement.
The consequences for meaning and optimism in the public sphere are not looking good. From all sides of politics, reasons to fear the competition resound.
Many of us take it as routine these days: policy makers embroider and mask truth to bolster fear. We accept that meaning has become secondary to the efficient political gain leaders buy with the tender of fear.
This campaign strives to nurture a menagerie of animal panics. Be afraid of Trade Unions. Be afraid of Global Warming. Interest Rates. Inexperience. Experience.
Whatever you do, be afraid. And vote for the candidate you fear the least. What sort of pledge is this?
Hockey makes it plain. Fear, the thing that drains meaning from true debate, is now a legitimate tactic. We have nothing to fear. But the intensification of fear itself .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?