ANZG: The Trans-Tasman Thread

[Forsher]

It appears you don't have to be particularly well qualified to become a politician in the first place.

All you need is a party and a fat guy to give you some money.

[New Chalcedon]

You're only worth something if Daddy can get you into Harvard.

Not only rich people go to Harvard, Bob Hawke went as a Rhodes Scholar, I know Beazly did as well.

Indeed. Notably, Keating never went to university. In fact, Paul Keating my well be the last Australian PM - ever - who didn't complete Year 12.

And yet his time in office demonstrated that he was very, very up-to-speed in the facts and the policies. Like him or loathe him, not even John Howard claimed that he was stupid.

Trivia: Gough Whitlam was the last Australian PM to date to have served in the military on active duty.

[Forster Keys]

You're only worth something if Daddy can get you into Harvard.

Not only rich people go to Harvard, Bob Hawke went as a Rhodes Scholar, I know Beazly did as well.

Pfft. I can't even make classist stereotypes anymore.

[Emile Zola]

It appears you don't have to be particularly well qualified to become a politician in the first place.

Why should you be? You are representing your electorate not applying for a job. Excepting for ministers the job of a parliamentarian is to vote on legislation. A blue collar worker should have as much right to stand for election and represent their electorate as a Rhodes scholar.

[Blouman Empire]

I go to school in one of the most heavily Asian suburbs of Melbourne, so over half of the students are either ABCs or overseas students. It was a change from my 90% white primary school, definitely.

I had the opposite experience. 80% Lebanese to around 95% Anglo.

What was the difference?

[Forsher]

It appears you don't have to be particularly well qualified to become a politician in the first place.

Why should you be? You are representing your electorate not applying for a job. Excepting for ministers the job of a parliamentarian is to vote on legislation. A blue collar worker should have as much right to stand for election and represent their electorate as a Rhodes scholar.

In theory, and this is increasingly less the case, they should be more qualified to represent the populace. John Key compromises, miserable background but fabulously wealthy.

[Forster Keys]

I had the opposite experience. 80% Lebanese to around 95% Anglo.

What was the difference?

Nothing much really. No more Arabic being spoken around. Non-Halal canteen. Less politically aware I think. Different handball rules.

[Emile Zola]

Not only rich people go to Harvard, Bob Hawke went as a Rhodes Scholar, I know Beazly did as well.

Pfft. I can't even make classist stereotypes anymore.

Just to clarify. A Rhodes scholar is a scholarship for Oxford not Harvard. They come from a variety of backgrounds and political persuasions. Bill Clinton, Bob Hawke, Tony Abbot, Malcolm Turnbull, Rachel Maddow, Geoff Gallop...

[Forster Keys]

Pfft. I can't even make classist stereotypes anymore.

Just to clarify. A Rhodes scholar is a scholarship for Oxford not Harvard. They come from a variety of backgrounds and political persuasions. Bill Clinton, Bob Hawke, Tony Abbot, Malcolm Turnbull, Rachel Maddow, Geoff Gallop...

Nice. I'll have to get myself one.

[Blouman Empire]

(4) I would prefer to judge someone by their actions (where relevant and accessible) than their paper qualifications. And on that ground, the Gillard Government - having made some blunders, but at the same time steering Australia through the Global Financial Crisis largely intact - has done OK by me. Or would you rather a conservative government akin to David Cameron's, under which Britain is entering a double-dip recession?

1) It was the Krudd government not the Gillard government who did that and yes I am aware that Gillard was apart of that government.
2) Australia was well buffered from the GFC, not only did we have China but we also had strong prudential regulations in place that meant we didn't experience the same effects as other nations. Swan trying to take all the credit is dishonest and wrong.

What's more, Tony Abbott has been disgraceful enough, and free enough with the truth, that even the (ordinarily very pro-Coalition) commercial TV stations are starting to call him on his constant bullshit (1:50 onwards). I'm no great fan of the Australian Labor Party, but Tony Abbott - based on his actions in the Howard Government, and in Opposition - is unfit to be dog-catcher, much less the Prime Minister. Tony Abbott is a thug and a bully and a congenital liar, and an Abbot Prime Ministership would be disastrous for Australia.

A thug? What was the outcome of that?
A bully? Something that not only happened 30 years ago but appears this is the first time it is being reported, and it appears the smear campagin has worked in the short term. And the 'witness" who didn't actually witness the incident but is adamant because she was told about it. Sometimes the clearest memories are the ones that never happened.
A liar? Fuck a politican lying? I am gobsmacked, I would never think they could be capable of such things.

Every member of both the Cabinet and the Shadow Cabinet has at least a Bachelor's Degree that I could find.

Every member is still a number, I was also never against them if they hadn't nor do I think not going to university means you won't be a good MP.

What's more, I - as someone with a degree in Economics - challenge you to quote Wayne Swan's words (with source, please) that "any first year student" can tell to be wrong. As opposed to, y'know, belonging to a different school of eocnomic thought (consider the freshwater/saltwater economics divide in the USA - anything an economist says from one will be decried as false by undergrad students at the other).

I -as someone with a degree in Economics with 2nd grade honours- have noticed a couple of times, I will have to go looking for them as they were a number of years ago. I also suspect that you have already dismissed it as just a different school of economic thought.

Although I will ask you this, do you think we need to bring about a surplus over the next couple of years? I think that it is not needed, the economy is growing but to cut spending is not a necessity not all areas are growing, and at least at 18 months ago even your state of WA was below the 10 year trend. This is nothing more then politics and why I sometimes agree with Neu Leonstien when he says fiscal policy should be taken away from politicians

EDITED FOR CLARITY AND BECAUSE I LEFT A THOUGHT HALF DONE

[Blouman Empire]

Just to clarify. A Rhodes scholar is a scholarship for Oxford not Harvard. They come from a variety of backgrounds and political persuasions. Bill Clinton, Bob Hawke, Tony Abbot, Malcolm Turnbull, Rachel Maddow, Geoff Gallop...

Nice. I'll have to get myself one.

You should look into it, IIRC 8 are sent from Australia every year, one for each state and then another 2. I was looking at going into it when I was at uni but decided that it would be better and easier just to move into industry.

And I knew it was Oxford, or I should say I knew it was one of the top two British universities. I don't know why I was thinking Harvard was one of the two, brain snap.

[Blouman Empire]

What was the difference?

Nothing much really. No more Arabic being spoken around. Non-Halal canteen. Less politically aware I think. Different handball rules.

Maybe less poltically aware, because it was in Tuncurry.

[Forsher]

What was the difference?

Nothing much really. No more Arabic being spoken around. Non-Halal canteen. Less politically aware I think. Different handball rules.

Turns out my favoured beef bar is halal, I'd have never guessed. Presumably some other stuff I like is too, I wouldn't know.

My secondary school is a five minute drive from my house (it's mostly a 70km zone, if I wanted the motorway is but a minor detour on both ends) whereas my primary school was across the road, between the two there was a subtle change in rules and terminology.

[Forster Keys]

Nice. I'll have to get myself one.

You should look into it, IIRC 8 are sent from Australia every year, one for each state and then another 2. I was looking at going into it when I was at uni but decided that it would be better and easier just to move into industry.

And I knew it was Oxford, or I should say I knew it was one of the top two British universities. I don't know why I was thinking Harvard was one of the two, brain snap.

I don't think I have the work ethic. As much as study in Blighty is appealing.

[Forsher]

Nice. I'll have to get myself one.

You should look into it, IIRC 8 are sent from Australia every year, one for each state and then another 2. I was looking at going into it when I was at uni but decided that it would be better and easier just to move into industry.

And I knew it was Oxford, or I should say I knew it was one of the top two British universities. I don't know why I was thinking Harvard was one of the two, brain snap.

It's Hull. Doesn't quite work, but still...

[Forster Keys]

Nothing much really. No more Arabic being spoken around. Non-Halal canteen. Less politically aware I think. Different handball rules.

Maybe less poltically aware, because it was in Tuncurry.

Not exactly Tunners, but point taken.

[Forster Keys]

Nothing much really. No more Arabic being spoken around. Non-Halal canteen. Less politically aware I think. Different handball rules.

Turns out my favoured beef bar is halal, I'd have never guessed. Presumably some other stuff I like is too, I wouldn't know.

My secondary school is a five minute drive from my house (it's mostly a 70km zone, if I wanted the motorway is but a minor detour on both ends) whereas my primary school was across the road, between the two there was a subtle change in rules and terminology.

Yeah, halal meat's usually very fresh in my experience.

[Emile Zola]

Why should you be? You are representing your electorate not applying for a job. Excepting for ministers the job of a parliamentarian is to vote on legislation. A blue collar worker should have as much right to stand for election and represent their electorate as a Rhodes scholar.

In theory, and this is increasingly less the case, they should be more qualified to represent the populace. John Key compromises, miserable background but fabulously wealthy.

I understand your point but I don't agree. The only qualification I look for in a candidate when I vote is, do they represent my views? It is too narrow a definition to say intelligence/wisdom is guaranteed by a diploma or that wealth is the only measure of success.

[Forster Keys]

Hey guys, what should I do for my muck up day?

[Ardchoille]

Not get arrested, she said parentally.

EDIT: Oh, damn, forgot This Is Not a Chat Thread. Bad Ard. Quick, for desperate wrench back on topic: do NZ schools have muck-up days, or do you stick to formal goodbye ceremonies?

[New Chalcedon]

(4) I would prefer to judge someone by their actions (where relevant and accessible) than their paper qualifications. And on that ground, the Gillard Government - having made some blunders, but at the same time steering Australia through the Global Financial Crisis largely intact - has done OK by me. Or would you rather a conservative government akin to David Cameron's, under which Britain is entering a double-dip recession?

1) It was the Krudd government not the Gillard government who did that and yes I am aware that Gillard was apart of that government.
2) Australia was well buffered from the GFC, not only did we have China but we also had strong prudential regulations in place that meant we didn't experience the same effects as other nations. Swan trying to take all the credit is dishonest and wrong.

Fine, the ALP steered Australia through the GFC. And I would like to note that Wayne Swan was the Treasurer throughout. Granted, the fact that the Howard Government - unlike conservatives worldwide - didn't dismantle our prudential regulations in the leadup and didn't run up huge debts during the good times helped a lot, and I give Howard and Costello grudging credit for that part of it. However, the stimulus - Labor's work - was both timely and about the right size, no matter how much individual blunders (i.e., pink batts) are trumpted in the media, and their subsequent fiscal policy has been - as you note later - a touch on the conservative side of what's best.

What's more, Tony Abbott has been disgraceful enough, and free enough with the truth, that even the (ordinarily very pro-Coalition) commercial TV stations are starting to call him on his constant bullshit (1:50 onwards). I'm no great fan of the Australian Labor Party, but Tony Abbott - based on his actions in the Howard Government, and in Opposition - is unfit to be dog-catcher, much less the Prime Minister. Tony Abbott is a thug and a bully and a congenital liar, and an Abbot Prime Ministership would be disastrous for Australia.

A thug? What was the outcome of that?
A bully? Something that not only happened 30 years ago but appears this is the first time it is being reported, and it appears the smear campagin has worked in the short term. And the 'witness" who didn't actually witness the incident but is adamant because she was told about it. Sometimes the clearest memories are the ones that never happened.
A liar? Fuck a politican lying? I am gobsmacked, I would never think they could be capable of such things.

(A) As to his thuggishness, I seem to recall that the outcome was false imprisonment of a political opponent. In a democratic system, that shouldn't happen - especially now when the governing party is funding a legal challenge to the very existance of a new rival. One Nation was barmy as fuck, but Pauline Hanson should have gone down in flames at the polls, not in the Dock. Sure, she was released just under a year later, but that's no thanks to that thug Abbott - rather, it's an indication that we have a useful and reasonably independent judiciary.
(B) Did you even read the article?
(C) The issue is not that he's lying - as you infer, all politicans do - it's that he's lying enough to cause even the right-leaning commercial media (i.e., his natural backers) to sit up & pay attention. Things like blatantly contradicting his own statements mere hours after he gives them, attacking the Government on the basis of documents he later admits to not reading, etc. etc.

We need an effective Opposition for good governance, and we need an ethical Opposition to draw attention to corruption in the Government. Tony Abbot is neither effective nor honest nor ethical (even to the relatively low standards to which we hold most politicians), but it appears he'll become the PM in due course anyway, largely because the media are still mostly boosting him and people are sick of Labor.

What's more, I - as someone with a degree in Economics - challenge you to quote Wayne Swan's words (with source, please) that "any first year student" can tell to be wrong. As opposed to, y'know, belonging to a different school of eocnomic thought (consider the freshwater/saltwater economics divide in the USA - anything an economist says from one will be decried as false by undergrad students at the other).

I -as someone with a degree in Economics with 2nd grade honours- have noticed a couple of times, I will have to go looking for them as they were a number of years ago. I also suspect that you have already dismissed it as just a different school of economic thought.

So you know he said something blatantly contradicted by basic economic theory, but cannot point to any specific examples. That's......um, not terribly helpful.

Although I will ask you this, do you think we need to bring about a surplus over the next couple of years? I think that it is not needed, the economy is growing but to cut spending is not a necessity not all areas are growing, and at least at 18 months ago even your state of WA was below the 10 year trend.

OFC the budget doesn't need to be brought into balance just yet - I'd say the right time on current patterns is in about 5 years, when the private sector has fully picked up the slack it let go in 2007/08 (thus, the lowering of Governmental demand for goods and services won't create a recession). But remind me, who's pushing the whole "DEFICITS R BAD!!!" line?

The Coalition. The Coalition has spend two full decades - since the start of the Keating Government - instilling into the public consciousness the idea that deficits are always bad, that deficits are always a sign of fiscal mismanagement, that Government should run its budgets like an ordinary suburban family, etc. etc.

They have done this relentlessly, they have bashed Labor at every opportunity for the debt run up during the Keating years (nvm that it was necessary on account of worldwide recession), and they have succeeded in implanting the narrative: if you ask 100 Australians on the street whether they think that deficits are always bad under any circumstances, at least 70 of them will reply "yes".

You can blame Gillard & Swan for being bullied into going along with the narrative if you want, but I at least remember who created the narrative in the first place and pushed it at every opportunity (including after losing Government in 2007). And it wasn't Labor.

This is nothing more then politics and why I sometimes agree with Neu Leonstien when he says fiscal policy should be taken away from politicians

Right.......so, remind me: when the power to determine spending levels is taken away from Parliament, what exactly is left in practical terms? We are seeing at the State level what happens when control over finances is outsourced - Parliament becomes a vaudeville show, with more pomp and bombast than power or responsibility. Also, who does control the Budget if not Parliament? And who could be in control of it that wouldn't think of the economy as just a set of numbers (and the Budget as a corporate bottom line) even more than today's "decision-makers"? I would much rather that whoever determines the Budget is, by virtue of their position, viscerally aware that the economy is the people, not numbers on a spreadsheet.

No thanks. Political control over the budgets is far from perfect, but I don't want the budget controlled by a bunch of appointed, unaccountable technocrats either.

[Forster Keys]

Not get arrested, she said parentally.

EDIT: Oh, damn, forgot This Is Not a Chat Thread. Bad Ard. Quick, for desperate wrench back on topic: do NZ schools have muck-up days, or do you stick to formal goodbye ceremonies?

It's the discussion of an important part of Australian educational culture and its immediate application. Hardly chatty.

But advice taken. A couple of years ago Year 12 spraypainted a sheep.

[Meowfoundland]

Not get arrested, she said parentally.

EDIT: Oh, damn, forgot This Is Not a Chat Thread. Bad Ard. Quick, for desperate wrench back on topic: do NZ schools have muck-up days, or do you stick to formal goodbye ceremonies?

It's the discussion of an important part of Australian educational culture and its immediate application. Hardly chatty.

But advice taken. A couple of years ago Year 12 spraypainted a sheep.

I seem to remember a teacher telling us about how she planted pumpkin seeds on the school oval. There was a bit of a nasty surprise for the school a few months later.

[Forster Keys]

It's the discussion of an important part of Australian educational culture and its immediate application. Hardly chatty.

But advice taken. A couple of years ago Year 12 spraypainted a sheep.

I seem to remember a teacher telling us about how she planted pumpkin seeds on the school oval. There was a bit of a nasty surprise for the school a few months later.

Bahahaha. There's an idea.

[Forsher]

Not get arrested, she said parentally.

EDIT: Oh, damn, forgot This Is Not a Chat Thread. Bad Ard. Quick, for desperate wrench back on topic: do NZ schools have muck-up days, or do you stick to formal goodbye ceremonies?

Not that I've noticed. However, I believe it is traditional to do something along the lines of gladwrapping a car.