Talking Politics

[Rosy]

Heaven's Choices


While on his morning walk, Prime Minister John Howard falls over, has a heart attack and dies because the accident and emergency ward at his nearest
hospital is too understaffed to treat him in time. So his soul arrives in Heaven and he is met by St Peter at the Pearly Gates.

"Welcome to Heaven," says St Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there
is a problem. We seldom see a Liberal around these parts, so we're not
sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in; I'm a good Christian; I'm a believer," says the PM.

"I'd like to just let you in, but I have orders from God Himself, who says that since the implementation of His new HEAVEN CHOICES policy,
you have to spend one day in Hell and one day in Heaven. Then you must choose where you'll live for all eternity."

"But I've already made up my mind. I want to be in Heaven," simpers Howard.

"I'm sorry but we have our rules," Peter says firmly. And with that he escorts Howard to an elevator, which goes down, down, down ... all
the way to Hell.

When the doors open Johnny finds himself in the middle of a lush golf course. The sun is shining in a cloudless sky. The temperature is a
perfect 24 degrees. In the distance is a beautiful clubhouse, and standing in front of it is Bob Menzies and other Liberal Party luminaries who have
helped him out over the years - Harold Holt, John Gorton, Billy McMahon;they' re all there, and everyone is laughing, happy, and casually but expensively
dressed.

They run to greet him, hug him and start to reminisce about the good times they had getting rich at the expense of 'suckers and peasants.' They
play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster and caviar.

The Devil himself comes up to Howard with a frosty drink, "Have a tequila and relax, John!"

"Uh, I can't drink any more, I took a pledge," says Howard, dejectedly.

"Hell, son, this is Hell! You can drink and eat all you want without a worry, and it just gets better from there!"

Howard takes the drink and finds himself liking the Devil, who he thinks is a really very friendly bloke who tells funny jokes like himself
and pulls hilarious nasty pranks, kind of like the ones the Liberals pulled with the GST and the Free Trade Agreement promises.

They are having such a great time that, before he realises it it's time to go. Everyone gives him a big hug and waves as he steps on the elevator and heads
upward. When the elevator door reopens he is in Heaven again and St Peter is waiting for him. "Now it's time to visit Heaven," the old man says,
opening the gate.

So for 24 hours Howard is made to hang out with a bunch of honest, good-natured people who enjoy each other's company, talk about things
other than money and treat each other decently. Not a nasty prank or short-arse joke among them. No fancy country clubs here and, while the food tastes great, it's not caviar or lobster - and these people are all poor Johnny doesn't see anybody he knows and he isn't even treated like someone special.

"Whoa," he thinks to himself. "Bob Menzies never prepared me for this!"

The day done, St Peter returns. "Well, you've spent a day in Hell and a day in Heaven. Now choose where you want to live for eternity."

With the 'Deal or No Deal' theme playing softly in the background, Howard reflects for a minute ... then answers: "Well, I would never have
thought I'd say this - I mean, Heaven has been delightful and all, but I really think I belong in Hell with my friends." So St Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down, all the way to Hell. When the elevator doors open he is in the middle of a barren, scorched earth covered with garbage and toxic industrial waste. He is horrified to see his friends dressed in rags and chained together, picking up rubbish and putting it into black plastic bags. They groan and moan in pain, their faces and hands black with grime.

The Devil comes over to Howard and puts an arm around his shoulder."Welcome, John!"

"I don't understand," stammers a shocked Howard. "Yesterday there was a golf course and a club-house, and we ate lobster and caviar, and drank
tequila; we lazed around and had a great time and now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and everybody looks miserable!"

The Devil looks at him, smiles slyly and purrs, "Yesterday we were campaigning; today you voted for us!"

 

[Curtiger]

:cutelaugh Very good, rosy.

 

[Liverpool]

More from Kevin "The Echo" Rudd:

Rudd's Iraq backflip
Updated: 04:46, Sunday August 12, 2007
A letter written by Kevin Rudd to John Howard, giving support for Australia's involvement in Iraq, has been leaked.
The letter was written in November 2003 and is in stark contrast to the Opposition Leader's current position on the conflict.
In the communication, Mr Rudd tells the Prime Minister how to win the war.
The letter reads: Now that regime change has occurred in Baghdad, it is the Opposition's view that it is now the responsibility of all people of goodwill, both in this country and beyond, to put their shoulder to the wheel in an effort to build a new Iraq.
Mr Rudd now condemns our involvement in the conflict, describing it as a disaster.
At the time the letter was written, Mr Rudd was the Labor spokesman on foreign affairs, and he recommended several new policies to the government, all of which were taken up by Mr Howard.
The letter makes no mention of a troop withdrawal, even though three months later Mark Latham announced he would bring troops home by the end of 2004.

http://www2.skynews.com.au/news/article.aspx?id=183897

Now while this seems a dig at Rudd, and accuses him of a backflip....all it is doing is helping Rudd in the polls.
To me, this is another example of Rudd agreeing with the PM on an issue, and if you are agreeing with someone consistently, who is one of our longest serving PMs, then you're going to get taken along on the crest of the popularity wave as well.
Apart from 'change'...what has Rudd brought forward that will improve thsi country, when all he is doing is agreeing and copying what the Government is doing now anyways?

It is also interesting that Rudd has distanced himself more from Latham's (and to a lesser degree, Kim Beazley) style of leadership where they were against everything the Libs put forward.

At least Rudd is clever enough (or should that be 'cunning enough'?) to realise that if you can't beat them, join them....and hopefully by just offering a "change", but more or less agreeing with the Libs policies, that he'll get elected....and this might just work.

The question people need to ask themselves is:
* Will he stick to the more "liberal orientated" ideas once he is elected?
* And more importantly, if he is just copying what Howard and his Government are brining to the table, then why change for change sake, when you can stay with the Government that is actually coming up with the original policies?
Better the devil you know maybe?

 

[Rosy]

Better the devil you know maybe?

Not a hope in hell of getting my vote this time. If I start to waver I'll just get the BAS out to jolt me back to reality. The workplace laws are another abomination I'm not happy about.

Not sure why you need to classify things as orientated towards any party. I hate the style of leadership of any party that just rubbishes everything the opposition does for the sake of it. If they agree they should have the guts to say so and if they don't they should put forward alternatives instead of just criticising others.

 

[Liverpool]

Not sure why you need to classify things as orientated towards any party. I hate the style of leadership of any party that just rubbishes everything the opposition does for the sake of it. If they agree they should have the guts to say so and if they don't they should put forward alternatives instead of just criticising others.

I agree...if Rudd thinks some of Howard's policies are good for the country and he supports them...that is fine.
Like I stated, at least Rudd is agreeing, instead of that ridiculous Latham fella, who went against everything for the sake of it, and did it in such a crude manner as well.

I also agree that if the Opposition don't agree with Government ideas and polices, or want to ridicule a Government idea or policy, then they should come up with a viable alternative and let the voting public decide.

However, from what I have seen and heard over the last few months, Rudd is agreeing with so much of what the Government have introduced or will introduce if they retain power, that we've gotten to a stage now that we have Howard running the Coalition, and Rudd running the ALP (which stands for Another Liberal Party).

Which beckons my question....why change?

 

[Tiger74]

Not sure why you need to classify things as orientated towards any party. I hate the style of leadership of any party that just rubbishes everything the opposition does for the sake of it. If they agree they should have the guts to say so and if they don't they should put forward alternatives instead of just criticising others.

I agree...if Rudd thinks some of Howard's policies are good for the country and he supports them...that is fine.
Like I stated, at least Rudd is agreeing, instead of that ridiculous Latham fella, who went against everything for the sake of it, and did it in such a crude manner as well.

I also agree that if the Opposition don't agree with Government ideas and polices, or want to ridicule a Government idea or policy, then they should come up with a viable alternative and let the voting public decide.

However, from what I have seen and heard over the last few months, Rudd is agreeing with so much of what the Government have introduced or will introduce if they retain power, that we've gotten to a stage now that we have Howard running the Coalition, and Rudd running the ALP (which stands for Another Liberal Party).

Which beckons my question....why change?

Because there are differences as YOU have been pointing out for weeks on things like IR and the environment.

Unlike you, not all of us want to strip mine the Kakadu and have 12 year olds doing piece work in sweat shops (only joshing on the extremism Liv - the cold & flu meds are kicking in so Im in a ha ha mood :cutelaugh)

 

[an_oxford_man]

However, from what I have seen and heard over the last few months, Rudd is agreeing with so much of what the Government have introduced or will introduce if they retain power, that we've gotten to a stage now that we have Howard running the Coalition, and Rudd running the ALP (which stands for Another Liberal Party).

The ALP has been another liberal party since the day Keating retired (with the exception of Latham's reign of terror, as he actually had the balls to introduce some traditional Labor policy in the form of the "education on a needs basis")

I could easily see blokes like Kevin Rudd on the other side of the chamber. The ALP merely looks like the lesser of two evils... Unfortunately, Australians don't really have a choice in this two party system. You've got the fascist liberals, who have compromised people's rights with the introduction of workchoices and the sedition laws... or you have Liberal Light, which is comprised of a bunch of middle aged, out of touch bunglers... who have forgotten the party's roots and manage to campaign on nostalgia alone.

 

[RemoteTiger]

Liverpool your lack of knowledge of how John Howard has won elections in the past is obvious.

Ever hear of the term wedge politics?

Howard is a master at it. He got Beasley by constantly putting a wedge in the major issues and making Beasley look foolish in front the voters - he baited Latham - Latham bit and Howard then drove a wedge into the issue Latham bit on and made the voter choose between Howard or Latham - in the end a no-brainer.

Rudd and his advisors on the other hand are refusing to play Howards game of Wedge politics - Rudd politely and astutely side-steps any attempts Howard has at inserting a wedge into a major issue - this then stops Howard going on the attack and forcing the voters to choose between him (Howard) who always takes the high ground in his wedging political way and a diminished Rudd who would (if he played Howard's game) have the low ground. Simply put Rudd's cautious statements of "We would like to see all the facts before making our decision and until then we will agree with the government" stops Howards wedge politics.

The issues where Rudd is willing to take Howard on - Iraq and Workplace Relations - Howard knows the majority of voters' feelings on these issues and is betting a loser if he (Howard) makes these issues the main issue of the election.

So Howard looking for a Wedge Issue to inflame the voters and win back appeal is charging headlong into the state governments - Murray Darling, Aboriginal Communities, State Hospital in Tasmania, and he is not getting the volitile argument he wants for front page vote grabbing headlines.

But wait - Queensland may provide the issue where Howard can win and maintain lower house seats - the Local Council boundaries issues - Premier Beatie is nibbling at Howard's instructions to the Federal Electoral Commission to have local referenda on the issue. A wedge may finally be planted.

Lastly Howard and Costello are losing credibility over economic management - they are trying to lay the blame on State Governments for the interest rate rise and the Reserve Bank has refuted this.

I still feel John Howard will win the election - if he is still leading the Liberal Party by then - because no government has been ousted during times of economic prosperity. And the media keeps telling us we are indeed in prosperous times.

The problem is that the current prosperity is at the macro-economic level and the boys at the big end of town are prospering (due to the Minerals Boom and the Bank Boom) however the micro-economic level shows the families in the mortgage belts of the big cities are hurting and are stuggling to make ends-meet. What this is due to is unknown according to the media (because they do not want to print the real story). The real story lays somewhere between the mining booms of WA and Qld and the stuggle for survival in the underachieving industies in the big cities of Sydney Melbourne Adelaide where the mining boom does not reach. Why are these industries underachieving because those industries are being suffocated by bottlenecks in infrastucture. This is due to a lack of investment in infrastructure such as communications, transport and the like - traditional areas in Australia where Federal Governments invested - the current government has not invested in those areas since it took office 11 years ago and the state governments have been left to pick up that investment - and they have taken the easy way out by getting private investment to own the transport and communications infrastructure - which costs industry each time they use it - which slows down industry growth.

If we could take the wealth of the mining boom and channel it into infrastructure other Australian Manufacturing Industries could grow far quickly than what they are now.

Lastly Howard's concept of buying votes (pork barrelling) has been successful - it will be again this year - but there are a growing number of sceptics who realise that this spending adds fuel to interest rate rises and the money should be going into Australian infrastructure to ensure industry growth in the future - because industry growth equals jobs - jobs for their kids too.

Election history and macro economics suggests Howard will win - the underlying micro-economics says he might not - this could be a watershed election in the history of Australian politics.

 

[Tiger74]

On a side issue, am I the only one not loving seeing Rudd and Howard kissing major butt at the Hillsong Church?

I have major concerns about churches (of any faith) trying to use their captured voter base to pressure poli's to follow their dogma. I know it can be argued that this is just another lobby group, but if you say no to the confectionary lobby they cannot damn you to Hell.

Governments are supposed to govern for all, but if laws start needing to following church requirements, this will disenfranchise many who do not follow that faith.

The concern is we will get to a situation like in the States, where the Religious Right has power over legislature above and beyond their population %age deserves.

Anyway just a question

 

[Liverpool]

Because there are differences as YOU have been pointing out for weeks on things like IR and the environment.
Unlike you, not all of us want to strip mine the Kakadu and have 12 year olds doing piece work in sweat shops (only joshing on the extremism Liv - the cold & flu meds are kicking in so Im in a ha ha mood :cutelaugh)

Not convinced about the IR and the environment either Tiger74....didn't The Echo support Howard on the Murray River water plan, for example?

Liverpool your lack of knowledge of how John Howard has won elections in the past is obvious.
Ever hear of the term wedge politics?
Howard is a master at it. He got Beasley by constantly putting a wedge in the major issues and making Beasley look foolish in front the voters - he baited Latham - Latham bit and Howard then drove a wedge into the issue Latham bit on and made the voter choose between Howard or Latham - in the end a no-brainer.
Rudd and his advisors on the other hand are refusing to play Howards game of Wedge politics - Rudd politely and astutely side-steps any attempts Howard has at inserting a wedge into a major issue - this then stops Howard going on the attack and forcing the voters to choose between him (Howard) who always takes the high ground in his wedging political way and a diminished Rudd who would (if he played Howard's game) have the low ground. Simply put Rudd's cautious statements of "We would like to see all the facts before making our decision and until then we will agree with the government" stops Howards wedge politics.

Remote,
You underestimate me and the voting public.
Howard didn't make Beasley foolish in front of voters....he was quite competent at doing that himself.
As for Latham....well, anyone who goes around breaking the arm of a taxi drivers or chiming in with his "arse licker" quotes, shows that Howard didn't have to do much "baiting" to be honest...the man was a crude and rude pig, simple as that.

As for your 'wedge theory'.....you may be right, as Beazley/Latham were so hell-bent on going against everything Howard and the Government brought to the table, that it turned the voting public against them. They put their own egos ahead of the bigger picture, and paid the penalty for it come election time.

Kevin "The Echo" Rudd is more clever.
He realises that Howard has been in power this long because he has ideas and policies that the majority of Australians agree with, especially on the issues like immigration, Aboriginal affairs, and war on terror/David Hicks.
So The Echo knows, that going against Howard on such issues will distance himself and his party from mainstream Australia.....so he has the old "if you can't beat them, join them" philosophy....hence we have seen The Echo agree with Howard on a range of important issues and policies.

Come election time, you have a choice....vote for Howard and his policies, or vote for The Echo and Howard's policies....the main difference is that The Echo is 'new', and people by human nature want change after a while, no matter how good the original recipe is.

You sound confident that Howard wil win the election, but I disagree....even though I'l happily admit I'll be voting for Howard and the Libs next election, I certainly won't be surprised if The Echo gets in.

 

[Tiger74]

Because there are differences as YOU have been pointing out for weeks on things like IR and the environment.
Unlike you, not all of us want to strip mine the Kakadu and have 12 year olds doing piece work in sweat shops (only joshing on the extremism Liv - the cold & flu meds are kicking in so Im in a ha ha mood :cutelaugh)

Not convinced about the IR and the environment either Tiger74....didn't The Echo support Howard on the Murray River water plan, for example?

you are laughable some times mate Rudd agreed to Federal control of the Murray because he wants to control it just the same as Howard. I doubt however he wants to follow the same privatization plan that Turnbull has been quietly advocating in NSW though.

Rudd and Howard are centralists and social conservatives. Rudd however doesnt want Australia to compete with China on wages for the poor, or eventually for Australia to become a nuke waste repository. Rudd also didn't lie about drowning refugees for electoral gain, but other than that, yeah they have a lot in common.

I honestly believe Howard does what he does because he thinks its right. I just think somewhere along the line he decided the end justifies the means though, and thats when he lost the confidence of most people.

The "never never never" GST
Core and non-core promises
Children overboard
The Tampa
The intel on Iraq
Interest rates (I agree this one was spin, but people stupidly bought it)

People are tired of his manipulations, and thats why he is in trouble.

Look at the recent interest rate debate. When asked about his promise to keep interest rates low, he said he never said that, and it was just Liberal election advertising. When asked if we should then not trust Liberal advertising, he was not so happy.

 

[RemoteTiger]

You sound confident that Howard wil win the election, but I disagree....even though I'l happily admit I'll be voting for Howard and the Libs next election, I certainly won't be surprised if The Echo gets in.

Should Mr Rudd win the election it will be a first in Australian Political History - because normally oppositions do not win elections - governments usually lose them. And governments usually lose them because of economic reasons or incompetancy reasons. While it could be argued about the Howard Government's record in both those areas - they have hardly been that poor to warrant a change of government.

Maybe the micro economics of the mortgage belt - the worst conditions in 3 decades for 1st home buyers might swing against the government - Work(non)Choices IR law may count against the government - who knows?

But one thing for sure is - the Iraq war, the lies Howard has been telling over the past decade (even his wife admits it), our poor record on Foreign Affairs and the "joined at the hip with George Bush jnr" politics will not count against the Government - all media hype.

Australians, at large, are only concerned with what happens to their hip-pocket nerve.........and vote accordingly......

 

[Tiger74]

normally oppositions do not win elections - governments usually lose them. And governments usually lose them because of economic reasons or incompetancy reasons.

This is actually a very good point. As much as the media has made a fuss over the interest rate change, its not a seismic shift by any means. Unemployment is still low, wages strong, and tax cuts have been granted.

People often vote on economic assumptions, and those assumptions still appear good at the moment. As such I expect the election to be a lot tighter than it is right now.


Only my comment "those assumptions still appear good at the moment", that is global economic more than political. I think we may be underestimating just how much Chinese production is dependant upon US consumer demand, and if the sub-prime situation worsens, it may effect China which will absolutely effect us. As such not a Howard/Liberal slight.

 

[Rosy]

Which beckons my question....why change?

3 main things for me although I'm sure I could think of more.

1-IR laws
2-GST
3-Bonsai

 

[Liverpool]

Which beckons my question....why change?

3 main things for me although I'm sure I could think of more.

1-IR laws
2-GST
3-Bonsai

And is Rudd going to get rid of all the new IR laws Howard has in place?
Is Rudd going to get rid of the GST?

If the answers are "no"....then my question remains.

 

[jb03]

New IR Laws are great. My only beef is that Johnny boy keeps softening them.

Agree with Livers too, GST is hardly an election issue - the parties are identical on the GST.

 

[Rosy]

New IR Laws are great. ...

Would you mind posting what's great about them please jb. I've got to admit ignorance other than the experience discussed on the What's Your Verdict thread.

Agree with Livers .........

Peas in a pod really. ;D

....GST is hardly an election issue - the parties are identical on the GST.

May not be an election issue for you and Livers but it is for some people. The parties might well be identical on the GST, I don't know what Labor would do now it's in, but one lied about it then brought it in. I know a lot of primary producers who, like me, hate it with a passion.

 

[Liverpool]

....GST is hardly an election issue - the parties are identical on the GST.

May not be an election issue for you and Livers but it is for some people. The parties might well be identical on the GST, I don't know what Labor would do now it's in, but one lied about it then brought it in. I know a lot of primary producers who, like me, hate it with a passion.

Rosy,
I never said it wasn't an election issue.
And if you want to vote ALP, Independents, or whoever.....that is your democratic choice....and good on you.

But please don't use the GST as some 'justification' to vote against Howard, when the ALP will not get rid of it themselves.

Rudd in 1999:
When the GST came up for a vote back in 1999, Rudd rose to tell us: “When the history of this parliament, this nation and this century is written, June 30, 1999, will be recorded as a day of fundamental injustice ... the day when the social compact that has governed this nation for the last 100 years was torn up.” The only GST injustice we hear about these days is when states wail about not getting enough of the pie.

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/pms_success_has_paved_the_way_for_kevin_rudd/

Yet, is Rudd rectifying this great injustice by announcing that he will rid this country of the GST once he is elected?
No...of course not....now he is saying this:

The federal Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd, has comprehensively ruled out any increase to the GST under a Labor government.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/03/30/1885574.htm

Oh....so now he is downplaying his initial outcry over the GST. :

Also, while contemplating your vote about the issue of the GST, remember this:

Tax reform, especially the introduction of a goods and services tax, is the issue currently straining the credibility of our political leaders.
Both sides of politics have been in favour of it. At least substantial sections of it. Keating was in favour of it for a long time. Kim Beazley was once in favour of it. I think it's hard to know who is genuine in their beliefs now. I think John Howard is genuine in his belief that it is a good thing.
John Howard was first to moot a GST while treasurer in the Fraser Government, but it was Labor that placed it firmly on the national agenda. At the tax summit in 1985 the then treasurer, Paul Keating, supported by Kim Beazley and Gareth Evans, ran hard on a consumption tax.
But Bob Hawke scuttled the idea and it remained on a shelf until opposition leader John Hewson led the coalition into the 1993 election campaign.
Surprisingly, Paul Keating, once the champion of the GST, now decried it.
But then Howard won the ‘96 election. Rather than "never ever" being part of a coalition platform, the GST is now its central plank. And its greatest advocates from the ‘80s still predict it will be a disaster. Who to believe? And is there some way we can stop the lies?

http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/transcript_259.asp


Rosy,
Whether Howard gets back in, or Rudd wins the election is inconsequential regarding the GST, as it is here to stay, and there is no way the ALP are going to get rid of one of the great cash cows the government have.
I think you better vote "informal"...

 

[poppa x]

Rosy, I think you need to understand the alternative to GST which was the much hated sales tax. I know farmers are doing it tough with GST, but manufacturers were at their wits end over sales tax. I'll give you one tiny example.

My business used to make/sell office chairs. The sales tax rate on a basic chair was different to one with an armrest, which was different to one with castors, which was different to one with castors and an armrest, which was different to one that reclined. And so it goes on. Could we get advice from the ATO about the correct rate to apply? No. But when they audited us oh boy did they hit us hard!

And don't get me started on payroll tax. I have in writing from the Victorian Government confirmation that I must pay Payroll Tax on Christmas booze for the staff party, Aspirins in the first aid kit, tampons in the loos, staff xmas presents, and the list goes on and on.

So I'm in favour of increasing the GST and abolishing Payroll Tax, Stamp Duty and all the other blood sucking State Taxes that we are hit with. Make the system simpler, and wipe out the bureacrats.

 

[RemoteTiger]

Rosy, I think you need to understand the alternative to GST which was the much hated sales tax. I know farmers are doing it tough with GST, but manufacturers were at their wits end over sales tax. I'll give you one tiny example.

My business used to make/sell office chairs. The sales tax rate on a basic chair was different to one with an armrest, which was different to one with castors, which was different to one with castors and an armrest, which was different to one that reclined. And so it goes on. Could we get advice from the ATO about the correct rate to apply? No. But when they audited us oh boy did they hit us hard!

And don't get me started on payroll tax. I have in writing from the Victorian Government confirmation that I must pay Payroll Tax on Christmas booze for the staff party, Aspirins in the first aid kit, tampons in the loos, staff xmas presents, and the list goes on and on.

So I'm in favour of increasing the GST and abolishing Payroll Tax, Stamp Duty and all the other blood sucking State Taxes that we are hit with. Make the system simpler, and wipe out the bureacrats.

Poppa - for the manufacturer Sales Tax was a mine field - no argument from me. But for the primary producer Sales Tax was not payable - the farmer was exempt from Sales Tax.

Under the GST everybody pays - which has put the farmer at a disadvantage when compared to the old Sales Tax system.

Easy solution - exempt primary producers from GST

But then the charities and the religions and the schools would scream we were exempt from Sales Tax too so why can't we be exempt from GST like the farmers.

There is no simple solution - no golden key - just avenues available for those who can limit their tax burden and the rest can go jump.....