-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
Indeed jb...as it is however, no Labor pollie can effectively argue the case on economics. Keating had his flaws, but at least he could get a message across to the electorate effectively.
His cameo on the 7:30 Report a few months back was the first time someone has fired an effective salvo at Howard at an economic level since he left...more's the pity.
His cameo on the 7:30 Report a few months back was the first time someone has fired an effective salvo at Howard at an economic level since he left...more's the pity.
For those who didn't think politicians are a race of their own, here's proof from little johnny howard.
Howard in reverse on MPs' superBy Samantha Maiden
September 08, 2006 12:00am
Article from: Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
ROOKIE MPs have won a boost to their taxpayer-funded superannuation under a bipartisan deal that loosens some of the clampdown on politicians' pensions that were inspired by Mark Latham in 2004.
And the changes will deliver dumped MPs a $30,000 redundancy payout if they lose their seat or preselection.
As Coalition MPs voted down a push by Opposition parties yesterday to limit a new $150,000-a-year printing allowance, both sides of politics embraced the backdoor pay rise for new MPs.
Warning that "mindless populism" should not be allowed to cut MPs' pay and reduce the available gene pool of political recruits, John Howard confirmed yesterday he would overturn the changes he introduced just two years ago.
Under pressure from Mr Latham, then Labor leader, in the lead-up to the 2004 election, the Prime Minister reduced retirement entitlements for new MPs.
But he established a two-tiered system, under which the existing politicians retained eligibility for the old scheme and its guaranteed pensions of 60 to 80 per cent of salaries.
The new changes bring politicians' superannuation into line with the deal offered to public servants, increasing the level of superannuation paid by the commonwealth from the 9 per cent compulsory limit paid by most employers to 15.4 per cent.
The changes will deliver new MPs an extra $7000 a year in superannuation on top of the recent 7 per cent salary boost for all MPs, which increased Mr Howard's salary from $288,990 to $309,270 a year.
"Unpopular though it may be with some, I do not believe members of parliament, particularly at a senior level, are overpaid," Mr Howard said.
"If we continue to engage in this mindless populism on the issue, we will end up further reducing the quality of the gene pool of candidates available for high office, particularly at a time when salaries and remuneration in booming sections of the economy are so attractive."
Opposition Leader Kim Beazley yesterday backed the changes, which will ensure backbenchers elected after 2004, who currently earn $118,950, will have their taxpayer-funded superannuation contribution lifted from $10,705 a year to $18,318.
The Australian revealed in June that rookie MPs had lodged secret submissions with the Remuneration Tribunal to increase their pay in a bipartisan push that the Prime Minister had agreed to consider.
New redundancy provisions, described as a "resettlement allowance", will reward MPs who were elected in 2004 but lose office at the next election. They will secure three months' pay - nearly $30,000.
Younger MPs elected in 2001, who are affected by the prohibition on accessing entitlements until age 55, may also benefit under the redundancy provisions.
West Australian Liberal MP Dennis Jensen, who is fighting moves to strip him of preselection, could be among the first to secure the redundancy bonus.
Independent MP Peter Andren, who has campaigned to reduce parliamentarians' entitlements, said the proposal to increase employer superannuation contributions for MPs elected after 2004 to 15 per cent should be applied to all workers. "Where are John Howard's battlers in all of this?" Mr Andren said.
The two quotes I particularly found amusing. "Mindless populism", obviously it was mindful populism when he introduced it to win an election wasn't it. :
The 'gene pool' quote was a cracker. Yes, proof they live in their own little world and they are better than us plebs.
And before anyone has a go at me for having a go at howard, there was a quote from kim beazley in the actual paper (not on the web forsome reason)
"kim beazley said the changes were within community standards"
For you to say that beazley, shows you are just as out of touch with the real world as howard and his libs. you deserve to stay in opposition, or at least step down as leader for someone with more 'ticker'
You both are disgraces.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20372634-662,00.html
Howard in reverse on MPs' superBy Samantha Maiden
September 08, 2006 12:00am
Article from: Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
ROOKIE MPs have won a boost to their taxpayer-funded superannuation under a bipartisan deal that loosens some of the clampdown on politicians' pensions that were inspired by Mark Latham in 2004.
And the changes will deliver dumped MPs a $30,000 redundancy payout if they lose their seat or preselection.
As Coalition MPs voted down a push by Opposition parties yesterday to limit a new $150,000-a-year printing allowance, both sides of politics embraced the backdoor pay rise for new MPs.
Warning that "mindless populism" should not be allowed to cut MPs' pay and reduce the available gene pool of political recruits, John Howard confirmed yesterday he would overturn the changes he introduced just two years ago.
Under pressure from Mr Latham, then Labor leader, in the lead-up to the 2004 election, the Prime Minister reduced retirement entitlements for new MPs.
But he established a two-tiered system, under which the existing politicians retained eligibility for the old scheme and its guaranteed pensions of 60 to 80 per cent of salaries.
The new changes bring politicians' superannuation into line with the deal offered to public servants, increasing the level of superannuation paid by the commonwealth from the 9 per cent compulsory limit paid by most employers to 15.4 per cent.
The changes will deliver new MPs an extra $7000 a year in superannuation on top of the recent 7 per cent salary boost for all MPs, which increased Mr Howard's salary from $288,990 to $309,270 a year.
"Unpopular though it may be with some, I do not believe members of parliament, particularly at a senior level, are overpaid," Mr Howard said.
"If we continue to engage in this mindless populism on the issue, we will end up further reducing the quality of the gene pool of candidates available for high office, particularly at a time when salaries and remuneration in booming sections of the economy are so attractive."
Opposition Leader Kim Beazley yesterday backed the changes, which will ensure backbenchers elected after 2004, who currently earn $118,950, will have their taxpayer-funded superannuation contribution lifted from $10,705 a year to $18,318.
The Australian revealed in June that rookie MPs had lodged secret submissions with the Remuneration Tribunal to increase their pay in a bipartisan push that the Prime Minister had agreed to consider.
New redundancy provisions, described as a "resettlement allowance", will reward MPs who were elected in 2004 but lose office at the next election. They will secure three months' pay - nearly $30,000.
Younger MPs elected in 2001, who are affected by the prohibition on accessing entitlements until age 55, may also benefit under the redundancy provisions.
West Australian Liberal MP Dennis Jensen, who is fighting moves to strip him of preselection, could be among the first to secure the redundancy bonus.
Independent MP Peter Andren, who has campaigned to reduce parliamentarians' entitlements, said the proposal to increase employer superannuation contributions for MPs elected after 2004 to 15 per cent should be applied to all workers. "Where are John Howard's battlers in all of this?" Mr Andren said.
The two quotes I particularly found amusing. "Mindless populism", obviously it was mindful populism when he introduced it to win an election wasn't it. :
The 'gene pool' quote was a cracker. Yes, proof they live in their own little world and they are better than us plebs.
And before anyone has a go at me for having a go at howard, there was a quote from kim beazley in the actual paper (not on the web forsome reason)
"kim beazley said the changes were within community standards"
For you to say that beazley, shows you are just as out of touch with the real world as howard and his libs. you deserve to stay in opposition, or at least step down as leader for someone with more 'ticker'
You both are disgraces.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20372634-662,00.html
I wouldn't mind paying Australian Politicians more if -
a) There were less of them - Australia truly does not need 3 tiers of Government for 20+ Million people
b) They were of a higher quality
c) They were not hamstrung by the "party machinery" - if they made decisions on what is best for the country or the electorate they represent rather than what is best for "the party".
To be honest when you compare the incomes of the heads of Corporations (which is usually a 7 figure sum - millions of dollars per annum - and they only have to look after the stakeholders of that company) to the Prime Minister ($300k per annum and he has to look after the whole country financially, defensively, immigration wise, diplomatically, etc.etc.etc.) I would prefer to be a CEO of Telstra or the Commonwealth Bank or National Bank etc. etc. etc. Plus the PM has the papparatzi on his tail 24 hours a day - he only has to hold his mouth the wrong way whilst he is breaking wind and its front page news!
There is a huge imbalance of income sharing in this country and from my experience there is little or no chance of change........
a) There were less of them - Australia truly does not need 3 tiers of Government for 20+ Million people
b) They were of a higher quality
c) They were not hamstrung by the "party machinery" - if they made decisions on what is best for the country or the electorate they represent rather than what is best for "the party".
To be honest when you compare the incomes of the heads of Corporations (which is usually a 7 figure sum - millions of dollars per annum - and they only have to look after the stakeholders of that company) to the Prime Minister ($300k per annum and he has to look after the whole country financially, defensively, immigration wise, diplomatically, etc.etc.etc.) I would prefer to be a CEO of Telstra or the Commonwealth Bank or National Bank etc. etc. etc. Plus the PM has the papparatzi on his tail 24 hours a day - he only has to hold his mouth the wrong way whilst he is breaking wind and its front page news!
There is a huge imbalance of income sharing in this country and from my experience there is little or no chance of change........
eight ace said:
.....and don't forget Kimmy is getting on board too....obviously realising what mainstream Australia and the majority of Australians want....something that Johnny has know for years:
http://www.skynews.com.au/story.asp?id=128144
Looking forward to what the Lib-bashers say about their beloved leader following suit.
I don't recall anyone saying they were a Bomber fan on this thread Liverpuddler. I do find it a bit sad though how successful Howard has been at dragging the whole agenda to the far right.
eight ace said:
No, because I don't think there is such a thing as "mindless populism".
Just because a majority of a population believe in the same values, doesn't mean they are mindless.
To me, terms such as "mindless populism" are thought up by the 'minority' out there, who are bitter that their views will count for nothing come election time.
John Howard (and now Kim Beazley is getting on the bandwagon) realise what the majority of Australians want, and only a very arrogant person would believe that the majority of Australians are mindless.
Curtis E Bear said:
Curtis,
You might still have a chance with Kimmy though.
With Johnny, he is a strong advocate on "Australian values" as such, however, while it sounds promising that Kimmy is following in Johnny's footsteps, much to the chagrin of ALP voters and Lib-bashers out there, I still doubt whether Kimmy really does believe in what he is trying to sell the Australian public.
Kimmy has realised that if an election was held now, he would be slaughtered....and he has learnt that "Australian values" and similar topics are a big difference in why the Australian population would vote for Johnny over Kimmy at an election, if held tomorrow.
The million-dollar question is though, will Kimmy stand by his "Australian value" policies and views if elected? and will he continue where Johnny left off? and is he only getting on the bandwagon to have a chance at the next election, and what we are hearing/seeing at the moment, is a charade to try and win over the voters?
Also....don't you think its also a bit arrogant to think that because someone leans to the right, they are "out of touch".
This is why the left, are the minority.
Liverpool said:
Get it into perspect 'pool. Our electoral system mean one side wins with %50.5 while the loser get %49.5. Essentially 50-50, always therabouts. Your mate Kim actually got more of the primary vote, by a reasonably clear margin, in 2001, but Howard successfully targetted the marginals and won more seats.
Liverpool,
A couple of facts that you are not aware of -
In most Federal elections in this country there has been a majority of left voters - if you take all the preferential votes from all the seats and total them you will find that the Labor Party would win - problem and rightly so is our geographical spread and demographices which creates anomolies in political seat boundaries.
So in truth the majority - ever so slight - 50.5% to 49.5% - is left - after preferences.
Australian Political History shows the party that controls the middle ground - bang on half way between the far left and the far right - wins government. Once won that government will stay in power until it becomes lazy arrogant or down right foolish - in other words government lose elections - oppositions do not win them.
Kimmy is trying to put a stake in the middle ground of politics and lay claim to it for Labor - this makes him look similar to Johnny.
Johnny now that he has the senate vote is showing his true right wing leaning and is ushering through acts of parliament that will sell off another large chunk of Telstra, enable his supporters in the media to gain a larger slice of their own market, endevoring to Federalise Education and Health (because in his opinion the Labor State Governments are not spending monies correctly in these areas), selling off Medicare Private (egg on his face there), privatising hospitals etc. etc.
Previously Johnny always tried to come across as the battlers friend - he knows that middle class Australians like to consider themsleves as battlers and he played to their feelings - housing interest rates - family health - education for their kids. However now he is getting a tad arrogant - he is making wise cracks and smart comments - something he would never previously do.
Reading between the lines I think he has lost the battle within the Liberal Party to keep the "Prime Ministership" in NSW Liberal Hands - he was grooming Mr. Tony Abbott - but lately Tony opens his mouth to change feet - hence Mr. Costello is really the only option as his successor - and he is Victorian which will take the power away from NSW.
Personally I believe Johnny has done more in this term of office so far than he has done in all his previous terms put together. However he is now appearing a tad flat - almost as if he has had enough.
Meanwhile Kimmy is trying to present a united Labor front - demanding loyalty - for which he himself was never renowned. He is like the sheppard herding cats - and it shows.
Lastly - current economic figures show that our economy is slowing - growth going from 3.3% to 3.1% - whilst the Asian economies are all growing - particularly the Japanesse. We are in for a rude shock in about 2008 IMO and this will sorely test the Capitalists and Multi-National Company leaders who will use the "new" IR legislation to their profitable advantage - middle Australia (Johnny's Battlers) will suffer most - but he will be long gone.
Johnny, Kimmy or Little Petey - great choice - but it could be worse - we could have Georgy Bush...............
A couple of facts that you are not aware of -
In most Federal elections in this country there has been a majority of left voters - if you take all the preferential votes from all the seats and total them you will find that the Labor Party would win - problem and rightly so is our geographical spread and demographices which creates anomolies in political seat boundaries.
So in truth the majority - ever so slight - 50.5% to 49.5% - is left - after preferences.
Australian Political History shows the party that controls the middle ground - bang on half way between the far left and the far right - wins government. Once won that government will stay in power until it becomes lazy arrogant or down right foolish - in other words government lose elections - oppositions do not win them.
Kimmy is trying to put a stake in the middle ground of politics and lay claim to it for Labor - this makes him look similar to Johnny.
Johnny now that he has the senate vote is showing his true right wing leaning and is ushering through acts of parliament that will sell off another large chunk of Telstra, enable his supporters in the media to gain a larger slice of their own market, endevoring to Federalise Education and Health (because in his opinion the Labor State Governments are not spending monies correctly in these areas), selling off Medicare Private (egg on his face there), privatising hospitals etc. etc.
Previously Johnny always tried to come across as the battlers friend - he knows that middle class Australians like to consider themsleves as battlers and he played to their feelings - housing interest rates - family health - education for their kids. However now he is getting a tad arrogant - he is making wise cracks and smart comments - something he would never previously do.
Reading between the lines I think he has lost the battle within the Liberal Party to keep the "Prime Ministership" in NSW Liberal Hands - he was grooming Mr. Tony Abbott - but lately Tony opens his mouth to change feet - hence Mr. Costello is really the only option as his successor - and he is Victorian which will take the power away from NSW.
Personally I believe Johnny has done more in this term of office so far than he has done in all his previous terms put together. However he is now appearing a tad flat - almost as if he has had enough.
Meanwhile Kimmy is trying to present a united Labor front - demanding loyalty - for which he himself was never renowned. He is like the sheppard herding cats - and it shows.
Lastly - current economic figures show that our economy is slowing - growth going from 3.3% to 3.1% - whilst the Asian economies are all growing - particularly the Japanesse. We are in for a rude shock in about 2008 IMO and this will sorely test the Capitalists and Multi-National Company leaders who will use the "new" IR legislation to their profitable advantage - middle Australia (Johnny's Battlers) will suffer most - but he will be long gone.
Johnny, Kimmy or Little Petey - great choice - but it could be worse - we could have Georgy Bush...............
eight ace said:
Sorry Eight Ace, just because one does not care for the arts or classical music, one must be a buffoon !!
The people that worry me are the far left and right. If they cared less about themselves and there own agendas, and joined the mindless majority, it would all be love and kisses.
We all need to get over ourselves and our superiority complexes.
dukeos said:
Speak for yourself! I am very happy knowing that I am inferior to all of ewes!.....
Liverpool said:
Don't recall equating being right-wing to being out of touch.
Curtis E Bear said:
And "the left are the minority" because they are arrogant or because or because they think right wing is out of touch, or what?Liverpool said:
Would you like to extend on the assertion that left wingers are the minority and your question regarding my statement being arrogant, or are you just gonna leave them the way they are - not making any sense?
tigersnake said:
I think it was the first time that happened, TS. I was devastated. Bitched about our flawed system all the way up to the next election. Is it really a democracy if you can only choose between two different parties? One party that caters for the selfish xenophobic militarists out there (which is sadly supported by the overwhelming majority), and the other party that appears to stand for nothing, while still managing to maintain a conservative agenda. Gotta vote for one of em.
Liverpool... I think it would be safe to say that the people you regard as left wingers on this forum aren't happy with the current leader. I'll have the communist party and the greens ahead of that goose at the next federal election. Unfortunately my vote eventually goes to fatty. Better it goes to him than the warmongering gimp i s'pose.
The old saying is true: "If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys"
Why would any successful person think about government, when the pay is *smile*, and combined with the political abuse makes it a job not worth the effort.
Here's the comparison:
Howard gets just over $300,000
In 2005 John Fletcher of Coles Myer got $4,500,000
Also in 2005 the CEO of the ASX got $2,000,000
Why would someone getting paid that much (and probably doing something he/she likes) bother with politics?
You can argue whether he would be appropiriate for public office, but I watched an interview of Bill Gates a little while ago. He's retired from his daily duties from Microsoft, to focus on his Charitable Foundation. He was asked in the interview, why wouldn't he consider politics now that he's effectively retired. In his reply he implied it's just not worth the effort. This from a retired 50 year old..
Why would any successful person think about government, when the pay is *smile*, and combined with the political abuse makes it a job not worth the effort.
Here's the comparison:
Howard gets just over $300,000
In 2005 John Fletcher of Coles Myer got $4,500,000
Also in 2005 the CEO of the ASX got $2,000,000
Why would someone getting paid that much (and probably doing something he/she likes) bother with politics?
You can argue whether he would be appropiriate for public office, but I watched an interview of Bill Gates a little while ago. He's retired from his daily duties from Microsoft, to focus on his Charitable Foundation. He was asked in the interview, why wouldn't he consider politics now that he's effectively retired. In his reply he implied it's just not worth the effort. This from a retired 50 year old..
