Re: Howard's End

by Guest Wed 20 Feb 2008, 00:38

Well, we're 4 pages into it, so it must be good.

by Mick Sawyer Wed 20 Feb 2008, 00:47

Demelza wrote:Do we ever get to see a photo of Howard's end?

Expect your own media coverage of his arse pointing in the air as he scrapes his nose on Betty Windsor's shadow in coming months.

by JGK Wed 20 Feb 2008, 03:02

Fred Nerk wrote:JGK, who (or indeed what) is 'the revolting Connie Hyphen'?

This revolting piece of crap:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concetta_Fierravanti-Wells

by Zat Wed 20 Feb 2008, 03:12

JGK wrote:
Fred Nerk wrote:JGK, who (or indeed what) is 'the revolting Connie Hyphen'?

This revolting piece of crap:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concetta_Fierravanti-Wells

It's somewhat reassuring for the balance of the karmic forces that hold the universe together that when Wilson Ironbar FTuck~~head~~ey leaves parliament, there's a readymade source of vitriol, bile, and utter gobshite standing by.

That woman is worse than Doggeroo.

by Fred Nerk Wed 20 Feb 2008, 06:52

JGK wrote:
Fred Nerk wrote:JGK, who (or indeed what) is 'the revolting Connie Hyphen'?

This revolting piece of crap:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concetta_Fierravanti-Wells

So she's sort of like the Sidneyland answer to Vic's Sophie Papadopolos-Mirrorball or whatever the hell her name is - yet another dial-a-quote look-at-me-I'm-so-hardline-and-outrageous show-pony (that enough hyphens?)?

by Mick Sawyer Wed 20 Feb 2008, 07:20

yet another dial-a-quote look-at-me-I'm-so-hardline-and-outrageous show-pony

Let's hope they end up like the monstrosity Bronny - RD makes stick books out of her old campaign posters & skully buys them when RD's done.

by Leo Wed 20 Feb 2008, 08:53

Hockey's comments make sense to me. Being a cabinet minister doesn't mean you have sufficient intelligence to understand the bargaining position (or lack thereof) of unskilled workers.

Half of the Labor cabinet probably doesn't understand the impact on employment from higher labour costs either.

Enjoyed the show. Was well done. Looking forwards to the Cossie Diaries.

by Fred Nerk Wed 20 Feb 2008, 12:43

"Let's hope they end up like the monstrosity Bronny...."

TF late. Sophie the Soapbox already sounds just like her.

by Hass Wed 20 Feb 2008, 13:03

I'll stick up for Costello.

Keating was prepared to risk destroying his own party in order to become Prime Minister. He more or less held the ALP caucus to ransom by threatening to keep challenging until he was given the top job.

Keating was able to get away with these tactics because Hawke's star was clearly waning. He only just squeaked through in the 1990 election and was dipping in the polls throughout his fourth term. When John Hewson released Fightback it blew Hawke away. He wasn't able to counter it. Keating was Prime Minister within a month.

John Howard didn't start to let off the 'smell of death' until the early part of 2007. Had he started stinking in mid-2006 I'm sure that Costello would have challenged. But Costello wasn't arrogant enough to put his own interests ahead of the party's whatever the cost.

Why should a politician have to do "whatever it takes" to become PM? That isn't a sign of guts or ticker, but of lust for power.

I'd have taken the 'gutless' Beazley and the 'spineless' Costello over Keating and Howard any day of the week.

Cheers.

by Mick Sawyer Wed 20 Feb 2008, 22:50

'gutless' Beazley

pun intended?

by Fred Nerk Wed 20 Feb 2008, 23:11

When the 5-minute wonder cropped up about Kimbies being the new GG. Rudd's comment was that he'd be looking for a candidate that 'represented the broader Australian population'.

Which didn't really bury the question....

by G.Wood Wed 20 Feb 2008, 23:20

Mick Sawyer wrote:
yet another dial-a-quote look-at-me-I'm-so-hardline-and-outrageous show-pony

Let's hope they end up like the monstrosity Bronny.

goose

by Mick Sawyer Wed 20 Feb 2008, 23:31

'represented the broader Australian population'

Kevin Bloody Wilson?
affraid

by Mick Sawyer Wed 20 Feb 2008, 23:32

G.Wood wrote:
Mick Sawyer wrote:
yet another dial-a-quote look-at-me-I'm-so-hardline-and-outrageous show-pony

Let's hope they end up like the monstrosity Bronny.

~~goose~~ sage visionary

by G.Wood Wed 20 Feb 2008, 23:33

Mick Sawyer wrote:
'represented the broader Australian population'

Kevin Bloody Wilson?

We're not all VoR and horace/nerk

by bodyline Wed 20 Feb 2008, 23:34

Mick Sawyer wrote:
'represented the broader Australian population'

Kevin Bloody Wilson?

Greg Wiggle - he's looking for a new job.

by Mick Sawyer Thu 21 Feb 2008, 00:23

G.Wood wrote:
Mick Sawyer wrote:
'represented the broader Australian population'

Kevin Bloody Wilson?

We're not all VoR and horace/nerk

No, but they do represent the broader population - you got to cross the Spit bridge more frequently.

by Mick Sawyer Thu 21 Feb 2008, 00:23

bodyline wrote:
Mick Sawyer wrote:
'represented the broader Australian population'

Kevin Bloody Wilson?

Greg Wiggle - he's looking for a new job.

snigger

by G.Wood Thu 21 Feb 2008, 00:25

Mick Sawyer wrote:
G.Wood wrote:
Mick Sawyer wrote:
'represented the broader Australian population'

Kevin Bloody Wilson?

We're not all VoR and horace/nerk

No, but they do represent the broader population - you got to cross the Spit bridge more frequently.

It is not an accident that I don't

by Mick Sawyer Thu 21 Feb 2008, 00:26

Leo wrote:Hockey's comments make sense to me. Being a cabinet minister doesn't mean you have sufficient intelligence to understand the bargaining position (or lack thereof) of unskilled workers.

Half of the Labor cabinet probably doesn't understand the impact on employment from higher labour costs either.

Enjoyed the show. Was well done. Looking forwards to the Cossie Diaries.

Leo - the big reaction was to his statement that some portion of the cabinet didn't understand a fundamental aspect of Work Choices.

by Mick Sawyer Thu 21 Feb 2008, 00:28

G.Wood wrote:
Mick Sawyer wrote:
G.Wood wrote:
Mick Sawyer wrote:
'represented the broader Australian population'

Kevin Bloody Wilson?

We're not all VoR and horace/nerk

No, but they do represent the broader population - you got to cross the Spit bridge more frequently.

It is not an accident that I don't

Everywhere south & west of Mosman = Kingston?

by G.Wood Thu 21 Feb 2008, 00:32

Mick Sawyer wrote:
G.Wood wrote:
Mick Sawyer wrote:
G.Wood wrote:
Mick Sawyer wrote:
'represented the broader Australian population'

Kevin Bloody Wilson?

We're not all VoR and horace/nerk

No, but they do represent the broader population - you got to cross the Spit bridge more frequently.

It is not an accident that I don't

Everywhere south & west of Mosman = Kingston?

and that gives me a sizeable buffer as well - I don't go past Dee Why if I can help it

by Mick Sawyer Thu 21 Feb 2008, 01:02

Hass:

I'll stick up for Costello.

I'll stick up for Keating & kick Costello

Keating was prepared to risk destroying his own party in order to become Prime Minister. He more or less held the ALP caucus to ransom by threatening to keep challenging until he was given the top job.

Keating was ruthless and single minded but to suggest that he risked "destroying" the Party is melodramatic. Keating had been wronged by Hawke in terms of a handover arrangement. The low key, gentlemenly route led nowhere. The caucus validated the wrong by not insisting that Hawke clear the way. Keating knew that the Hawke star was flickering and fading and he chose to act in the only manner that he could see was left open. His action resulted in the Party holding on to power for longer than could have been achieved under Hawke, the Hewson fumbles included.

John Howard didn't start to let off the 'smell of death' until the early part of 2007. Had he started stinking in mid-2006 I'm sure that Costello would have challenged. But Costello wasn't arrogant enough to put his own interests ahead of the party's whatever the cost.

Arrogant - that word - the most frequently misused in Australian political discussion. I do think he was perceived by both the punters and the party as out of touch and smug, but that's another matter.

If Costello truly put the interests of the Party at the forefront of his considerations why did he give the nod to McLaughlin to make public his little memo of the Howard/Costello leadership arrangement? If he believed that the Party would prosper for longer under Howard why did he consistently sook to journalists through cosy fireside chats? His naked objective was to assume power against a foe that outnumbered him. He he didn't have the courage to take a risk and find another way

Why should a politician have to do "whatever it takes" to become PM? That isn't a sign of guts or ticker, but of lust for power.

Keating didn't assassinate Hawke. He did nothing sinister. He took steps that were within acceptable guidelines for those that play the game they were in. You recall the circumstances of Hawke coming to the leadership?

I'd have taken the 'gutless' Beazley and the 'spineless' Costello over Keating and Howard any day of the week.

I'm with you on 50% of that.

Edit: Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr - Beazley is incorrect.

by JGK Thu 21 Feb 2008, 04:11

G.Wood wrote:
Mick Sawyer wrote:
G.Wood wrote:
Mick Sawyer wrote:
'represented the broader Australian population'

Kevin Bloody Wilson?

We're not all VoR and horace/nerk

No, but they do represent the broader population - you got to cross the Spit bridge more frequently.

It is not an accident that I don't

As if we'd have you anyway.

by Paul Keating Thu 21 Feb 2008, 04:14

Keating's path to the top job was held back for longer than it should have been really took its toll personally on PJK. He was exhausted mentally by the time he gained the top job.

I blame Hawke.

by Sponsored content