Howard got done again, but this time it’s not cricket

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

08:20am | 01/07/10

A.F.B. :  Lets be clear on one point old mate , Howard’s reforms were clearly spelt out prior to elections.
The G.S.T. was the whole basis of the election prior to the implementation of G.S.T.
The ” Mugabe factor ” is certain to be the sticking point but the matter is not finished yet .
The ICC could well do with some reform , so who better for the job.  ?

Seano says:

08:20am | 01/07/10

I agree.

I think that years of wedge politics using race have come back to bite him in the arse. I’m not religious but I do kind of like the idea of Karma.

The Australian Fast Bowler says:

08:33am | 01/07/10

@Wayne Fehlhaber,

... well, they weren’t ‘clearly spelt out’, but your obviously comfortable in your little retro-bubble. BTW, I’m not your ‘mate’, Kamerade.

Froggy Thompson says:

08:36am | 01/07/10

Or perhaps it was because he’s not much loved by anyone? After all Wayne, he’s the only standing PM to lose his own seat ....also like the comment about his racism coming back to bite him on the a*se…

The Redman says:

08:41am | 01/07/10

That’s funny, Wayne. Really, really funny. Howard did go to the election with the GST. He lost the popular vote and was returned only via preferences, yet still claimed he had a mandate when clearly he didn’t. And I see you failed entirely to mention WorkChoices. Howard said nothing about this prior to the election, and only moved to implement it when it became clear that the Coalition held the Senate. I would venture to say that most cricket lovers considered Howard’s nomination as a sick joke.

Daryl says:

08:54am | 01/07/10

The Redman, sorry but the GST has been the biggest tax reform this country has seen since 1936. It has been extremely successful. You cannot avoid consumption like you can income tax. It needs to be increased, particularly with the older generation slowly leaving the workforce and the tax base deminishing. But only if true relief is given to the PAYG taxpayer as they recently did in NZ when they increased the GST there to 15%. It’s only because of the GST that the surplus was created by the Libs and it’s only because of the GST that Labor have had so much money to waste on schemes (school halls and insulation fiasco) and hot air (Grocery Choice, Fuel watch and the NBN). As for workchoices, Labor voters got sucked in big time by the Union movement who were protecting their own turf! The unemployment rate has actually increased since Labor has come to power! I’d prefer a job thanks!

Froggy Thompson says:

09:14am | 01/07/10

Daryl, you do what the Libs always manage to do, separate Trade Unions from their members…the members are a big part of the working Australians that all politicians court…that Trade unions would protect their members from that extremely flawed work choices policy shouldn’t surprise anyone…even the Libs distance themselves from the policy.
And Daryl, by the way, there was a GFC during the Labour govt. tenure..that Australian employment is as strong as it is, is tribute to their handling of that little problem

iansand says:

09:25am | 01/07/10

These loonies could reduce a discussion about the colour of the sky to a domestic political quewstion.

Daryl says:

09:30am | 01/07/10

Froggy, the workchoices campaign was about protecting union power not about protecting workers. And there was no recession in Australia because China and India our major trading partners were still growing. It had nothing to do with throwing $900 at certain sections of the community (including dead people and people overseas) so they could run out and buy plasmas and stimulate the Japanese economy. No matter what the government did, if China went into recession so would we. Trade union membership is 23% of the workforce. Democracy is for the majority by the majority and most people in work aren’t in a union.

Seano says:

09:35am | 01/07/10

Even after being turffed out because of work choices because so many workers where screwed over by work choices the conservatives are still pretending it was a big bad union scare campaign. No wonder Abbott as an architect of work choices is unelectable the conservatives stil haven’t learnt the lessons of the past.

Froggy Thompson says:

09:56am | 01/07/10

Dayrl, in any language 23% ( if that’s correct) is a fair chunk of workers, and let’s have a bet…that this alledged 23% would make make a large part of those most affected by the flawed work choices…
A lot of people…more the 23% booted the Libs out at the last election, it wasn’t about union power it was about a very poorly put together piece of legislation that, despite a huge taxpayer funded advertising budget, failed miserably

The Redman says:

10:10am | 01/07/10

Actually, Daryl, I was commenting on Wayne’s claim that Howard took his ‘reforms’ to the electorate, and by implication the electorate game him, Howard, a mandate. My point was that was clearly not the case, as history shows. I’ve no view on the GST per se. What is the point? It’s here. It stays. Also, the Howard Government’s campaign on the GST was deceiptful, as we have never seen the abolition of the range of taxes Howard claimed would result.

As has been shown by the GFC, the so-called surplus created by the Howard Government was nothing but a house of cards. The surplus was created at the expense of Government investment in public services of all types: education, health, infrastrucure for example. In any case, while the number $20b might sound big and lovely, when compared to a trillion dollar economy, it is nothing. The GFC proved that, given a crisis of the magnitude we have seen, we would have needed a surplus in the hundreds of billions at least which, I’m sure you will agree, would be absurd.

I see you have avoided Howard’s non-existant pre-election campaign on WorkChoices, which was Wayne’s claim in the first place.

Yes, unemployment has increased under Labor, due as we all know to the financial collapse. In Nov 2007, it was 4.5% (and increase, incidently, over the October figure,  and more than 02% more than August, 2007, so the unemployment rate was going up before Labor came to power). Unemployment currently stands at 5.2%.

Do you know what Spain’s unemployment rate topped out at? More than 20%. In the UK it is 8%, more than 2m people. In the US, more than 20m people are unemployed, 10% of the workforce. I agree that it is preferable to maintain employment, and that is exactly what the Labor Government has done.

Really, in this day and age of google search, you should know better than to bandy about claims which are so easily debunked.

As to the unions fooling the electorate, if only unionists voted against WorkChoices, how come more twice the number you claim are unionists voted against it? I suppose you think that several million voters are dupes of the union movement, even if they don’t belong to one. By the way, next time you take annual leave, work a 38 hour week, take sick leave, receive annual increases in your wage, get down on your knees and thank the generations of unionists who have worked to make your working conditions better, despite you clearly being an ingrate. Perhaps if we had a law that only union members can benefit from the work of unions with regard to their working conditions, you might find a significant increase in union membership.

As it stands, you and other can get on this blog and trash unions and unionists until your hands turn blue, but happily accept the benefits that those very unions have created for you. I’ll bet that you don’t knock back a pay increase because it was the unions that negotiated it.

Similarly, I’ll lay money that not a single Liberal voter who received the stimulus monies as part of Labor policy returned that money with a thanks but no thanks. You all sit there and except the money, and yet spend a great deal of time trashing the policy. Hypocrisy, thy name is the Liberal Party.

The Redman says:

10:34am | 01/07/10

Indeed, Froggy. The Australian workforce currently stands at just over 11m people. 23% of 11m is more than 2 500 000 people. According to Daryl, that’s is an insignificant number of persons with no right to have a say in the running of the country. I dare say that the number of members of unions far outweigh members of the Liberal Party.

Daryl says:

11:04am | 01/07/10

The Redman, you do make good points that sit well from your point of view I’m sure. But I have never recieved a single thing from a union, have never been a member of a union nor a political party and I never expect to need to be a member of a union in my lifetime. They have far too much power for an organisation not democratically elected to anything. All I have is due to hard work not because of some socialist system that creates me equal regardless of my intelligence or work ethic. I also did not recieve the $900 from the Labor party so I have nothing to send back. I do however pay much more than the average wage in tax each year and I declare it all and claim nil benefits for myself my dependant wife and three children. I no longer get the private health rebate nor tax incentives to save for my retirement. I am a significant net contributor to this society, I’m paying my own way now and will do in retirement. And I’m proud to do so. But I do object to my taxes being wasted on foolish government schemes that have come to nothing such as grocery choices, fuelwatch the insulation fiasco etc and to see my taxes rorted by labor backed builders with their noses in the school scheme trough. This government has failed us badly. Every thing that has gone wrong now seems to be exclusively Rudds fault or that of the GFC. Your welcome to your opinion on this but I personaly think that’s a crock of BS.

Daryl says:

11:19am | 01/07/10

OK Froggy point taken. Workchoices is dead so it’s a mute point now anyway. Good point about poorly put together policy though. Lets hope voters do the same over the super tax on profits, the insulation fiasco, the ETS backflip, the school scheme rorts, grocery choices not delivered, the 200+ child care facilities abandoned, the weakening of boarder protection, the burning of the surplus, the record foreign debt, the increasing interest rates (“more affordable housing” - yeah right), the lie about not touching the private health rebate, the laptops in schools not delivered and the removal of tax incentives for people to save for their retirement. All poor policy, all Rudd, Gillard and Swan’s work. I don’t think we can afford another term of this waste Froggy. If you’re point holds true, it’s hard to see anything but a landslide loss to Labor.

The Redman says:

11:23am | 01/07/10

But I have never recieved a single thing from a union, have never been a member of a union nor a political party and I never expect to need to be a member of a union in my lifetime. They have far too much power for an organisation not democratically elected to anything. All I have is due to hard work not because of some socialist system that creates me equal regardless of my intelligence or work ethic. I also did not recieve the $900 from the Labor party so I have nothing to send back. I do however pay much more than the average wage in tax each year and I declare it all and claim nil benefits for myself my dependant wife and three children. I no longer get the private health rebate nor tax incentives to save for my retirement. I am a significant net contributor to this society, I’m paying my own way now and will do in retirement. And I’m proud to do so. But I do object to my taxes being wasted on foolish government schemes that have come to nothing such as grocery choices, fuelwatch the insulation fiasco etc and to see my taxes rorted by labor backed builders with their noses in the school scheme trough. This government has failed us badly. Every thing that has gone wrong now seems to be exclusively Rudds fault or that of the GFC. Your welcome to your opinion on this but I personaly think that’s a crock of BS.

So, Daryl, you don’t have sick leave, annual leave, public holiday’s, set working hours? Weekends off? All of these are a result of union activities. My point is that you don’t need to be a member of a union to benefit from their successes. To claim you’ve received nothing from the union movement is to simply fly in the face of history. I’ve addressed the other issues in other forums, but clearly you are a signficant income earner and it appears to me that you’re more angry you didn’t qualify for the payments, rather than anything else.  Assuming from your post that you do indeed earn a high wage, you don’t need help from the Government. That’s why you loved Howard. Not only could you continue to receive your high wage, your children’s private education is subsidised. Your health insurance is subsidised. Millionaires got the baby bonus. The point is, if you did qualify for the payments, would you have accepted it or sent it back as a protest of ideology? I suggest you would have taken the money and run with it.

Union delegates, by the way, are democratically elected by the union membership, so that clear up that.

Thank you, oh thank you so much for allowing me my point of view. As if I need your position in the first place, of course. I suppose I should expect that from the born to rule brigade.

A Bob says:

12:33pm | 01/07/10

Anyone for cricket?

Daryl says:

12:45pm | 01/07/10

The Redman, look don’t put words in my mouth! I never said union members were irrelevant just that they were the minority. And I never said they had no right to a say. They have as much right as the 8.47m (your calculation) who are not union members. I also disagree that all pay rises and all work conditions are due to unions, that’s just deluded. We are not a communist country. I’m happy to pay for my private health care, to pay significant levels of tax and to contribute medicare to help others in need. But tell me, what would happen if no one did pay for private cover? What would happen if all the private school students left and tried to find a public school? It would be chaos and that’s why governments fund private schools and that’s also why people were given tax incentives to pay their own way for health care. And I subsidise you every time you use medicare mate despite you being an ingrate!  If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul! And I’m not a LIberal party member or a Howard lover, but yes I do despise the current government on the grounds of failed policy after failed policy, rorts and waste. And I find it hard to believe there are still people out there supporting this rubbish.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

12:47pm | 01/07/10

Redman :  you need a few lessons on the events following the implementation of G.S.T.  The states , at the time , all * Labor * , agreed with the G.S.T. sharing on the understanding that they were to cut various state taxes and charges .  Those are the range of taxes and charges you are referencing , but make no mistake , the state Labor governments reneged on the agreement , so i suggest you aim your blame where it belongs , squarely on Labor.
Another point i would like to make is that Labor have had plenty of opportunity to remove the G.S.T. but they won’t because they know it is a fair and equitable tax system . In fact , Keating /Hawke had the same idea with ther Option C taxation proposal but lacked the guts to implement the plan as policy.
Don’t bother trying to reshape history to suit your Labor dogma on the G.F.C. . Labor were handed a healthy budget surplus and a booming economy , Rudd plundered the coffers to buy popularity via $900 cheques to the living and the dead. The tragic insulation fiasco and the BER schools building rip-off took the nation to the cleaners as well.
You have a selective mind Redman , you have pushed aside the fact that the Australian electorate was about to remove Labor from office for their disastrous 2.5 years of mismanagement and disgraceful waste.

Brad Coward says:

01:10pm | 01/07/10

If only he had sent the Governor-General ahead of him to hand out money to worthy African nations !  I understand that another former PM did that hoping to win a few African votes to help satisfy his plans for the future.

Mr Howard, you lost out because you stood up to Robert Mugabe.  Thank you for doing so !

Greg says:

05:40pm | 01/07/10

So racism is OK as long as the victim is white?

Oh well, at least your honest with your opinions.

The Redman says:

08:44am | 01/07/10

While I agree that the ICC, along with perhaps FIFA, is among the worst governing bodies in sport, the fact remains that Howard has neither the cricketing pedigree nor the ability to create consensus for this job. His nomination was a farce. Here’s one out of the box. How about someone like Ritchie Benaud or Bob Simpson? Both of these men would have been a far better choice for nomination. Howard may have loved cricket, but he has had absolutely nothing to do with the game.

T.Chong says:

08:45am | 01/07/10

SuperD tell more about this “massive scandal” and how you know that Howards plan was going to defeat it. ?. Please.
If it has anything to do with corruption and bribes ( think AWB) , or telling porkies ( SIEV X, Children overboard etc), then Howard is obviosly the man for the job.
I agree. I’m as perplexed as you are about this.

MarK says:

03:22pm | 01/07/10

Chong get informed mate then offer an opinion.

If you do not know about the current trials and tribulations of international cricket especially in reagrds to Zimbabwe, the West Indies and India this really is not the place for you.

Tom says:

09:01pm | 01/07/10

Have a quick google of some of the candidates put forward by some of the sub - continental countries for ICC positions in the past. They were in no way qualified - even less so than Howard.

Regardless, your point is largely irrelevant. The process involved in selecting Howard was all above board. There is no valid reason under the ICC constitution for them to reject Howard. This is a purely political decision. The English, Australian, South African and NZ cricket boards have long tolerated the posturing of the sub - continental bloc. The time has come for them to stand up and end the joke that is the current organisational structure of the ICC.

gh says:

11:02pm | 03/07/10

OMG thanx! I didn’t know that.
What a conservative fool that honest john was? Bradman was a more than that.

emmgee says:

10:47am | 01/07/10

what about the IOC?

Dash says:

12:03pm | 01/07/10

But then again, the Rudd government actually named Sri Lankans and Afganistanis as not welcome in Australia! The Howard government didn’t single out races or nationalities. Isn’t the Labor policy by your definition much more racist?

Ben81 says:

02:51pm | 01/07/10

If you mean “us vs people smugglers” then you’re right, shabangabang.  We ended up with hundreds behind razor wire instead of the thousands we’ve got again now, while taking in just as many refugees responsibly.  Funny the double standards that come up when people are blinded by politics.

marley says:

03:43pm | 01/07/10

Well, I was under the impression that Howard opened the door wide to migration from Asia, including from both India and Pakistan.  Maybe some of the migrants who are here because of him could make it to the test side. God knows we need them.

Sally says:

09:55am | 01/07/10

@Nicole,
I believe it is the role of a sub-editor.  The sub-editor is possibly now a casual employee, given 12-15 hours a week, whilst forced to take shifts at Subway to cover their rent.

Rose says:

12:01pm | 01/07/10

There most definitely an argument that it wasn’t Howard’s skin colour that is the problem, it is Howard himself. He was an extremely racist and ignorant Prime Minister and was dealt with accordingly in the 2007 election. He left few, if any, positive legacies but did leave a nation that is more racist and less compassionate than the one he was first elected to govern. Anyone looking at his record as PM would rightly reject him as a leader of any world body. I think it was an embarrassment that he was ever nominated as our candidate. Besides all of that, the man couldn’t even get close to bowling a ball properly, some cricket lover he is supposed to be.

Ryan says:

12:13pm | 01/07/10

@Rose: care to point out where Howard discriminated against anyone due to the colour of their skin. I am interested also as to those policies that were specifically discriminatory.

so there says:

09:46pm | 01/07/10

@ ryan -
“care to point out where Howard discriminated against anyone due to the colour of their skin.”

intervention.  - 

“I am interested also as to those policies that were specifically discriminatory. “

applied only to BLACKS!  - youre welcome.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2669184.htm

Ryan says:

11:30am | 01/07/10

Yeah and look at the state we are in now.. maybe we should have listened to him. We never had it as good as we had it under Howard, now we have prices on EVERYTHING spiraling out of control, new taxes being introduced left right and center, a MASSIVE debt with nothing to show for it and a leader with communist links and very communist views.

The Redman says:

10:59am | 01/07/10

Not tolerate corruption? Are you kidding me? Ever heard of AWB? How about the Regional rorts programme? Please, spare me.

Ryan says:

12:59pm | 01/07/10

@Zaf : talking about the violence against Indian students in Australia, lets see, how many of these were proved to be perpetrated by Australians so far? Oh yes I remember now, most if not all of these have been perpetrated by their own on each other. Oh yes I don’t remember the Indian newspapers nor the government coming out and apologising for their outrageous, blatantly racist accusations that they made against the Australian people. I guess once we get some convictions in these cases we will get apologies from these filthy racists that accused us of racism.

TwistedEar says:

01:14pm | 01/07/10

Actually, that spate of ‘violence against Indian students’ (often done by Indians themselves) started under Rudd’s tenure as PM, not before then.

Ooops, guess you need a fact check before typing next time.

Frank Scicluna says:

12:51pm | 01/07/10

Anglophone AdamC? Do you mean Anglos? Do you mean Anglo Saxons? If you do, THAT is why Howard was rejected. We are seen as nothing more than white thrash who along with the US, UK, New Zealand and the former regime in South Africa consider ourselves superior to everyone else. Yes, I myself am one of that white thrash but hey, admit it, their perception is totally correct.

AdamC says:

01:30pm | 01/07/10

Yawn, Frank, you can have your self-hatred and inherited guilt complexes if you like, but it is always dangerous to project those onto everyone else. And there is a difference between overseas governments and other entities exploiting the feelings of ethnic inferiority of people like you and seeing them as anything other than outlandish and ridiculous.

Markus says:

01:50pm | 01/07/10

Frank you honestly think that people in 3rd world countries who are more racist, more ignorant and more bigoted against everything (other genders, classes, religions, sexualities) are right when they see all Westerners as white trash?
That is some serious self-hate you must be carrying there..

The Redman says:

11:25am | 01/07/10

In my view, one’s political position, and in Howard’s case I doubt it’s in the past, must be viewed in a position of this nature. My main objection is the man has had nothing at all to do with cricket except to go to the odd Test match. He is not qualified, notwithstanding past or future people who have held the position. The ICC is a useless organisation precisely because so few former First Class and International cricketers are on the Board.

Rose says:

12:07pm | 01/07/10

The only way to judge whether or not someone is fit to hold a certain position is on their past positions. Howard proved himself to be small-minded, ignorant and racist. Why would they not reject him?

Ben81 says:

03:05pm | 01/07/10

Rose, hmm, how about the simple facts that Howard was clearly not small minded, ignorant or racist?  I can understand you forming that view though, because certain small minded and ignorant people cry “RAAACIST” when anyone dares to even mention immigration .

The Redman says:

03:01pm | 01/07/10

Crap. What the ICC needs to do is to put someone in the position who has played international cricket and is not a bloody politican. I would have reacted the same if they’d nominated Hawke, although at least he has some form of respect. There are way too many non-cricketers running the game. That is the problem

Randal says:

03:48pm | 01/07/10

Redman you are just another hater from the left attempting to use this issue as a way of venting against Howard, really makes you pathetic in a way that I almost feel sorry for you.

Ah well at least you have Julia, well until the faceless factions decide to ‘bone’ her as well.

Now off you go you pathetic little creature, there plenty more hating to do.

Muttley says:

01:15pm | 05/07/10

Garbage Redman. Just because you can cook a pie doesnt mean you can run a cake factory. Personally i dont like Howard, but the game needs an administrator. Not another bloody ex player who wouldnt have clue how to run a multimillion dollar company.

Randal says:

03:52pm | 01/07/10

@So there says, I really hope Abbott gets in at the election as we are going to need every cent of that 1.5 billion of that mental health budget to help people like yourself who are clearly suffering from some kind of mental defect.

so there says:

09:39pm | 01/07/10

@ randall,

well, if you can show me where im wrong, instead of just making ad hominem attacks, ill book myself into the nuthouse,

facts are, the wars were/are illegal, and we are there based on john howards lies. If you cant see that, no amount of therapy will ever help you.

Muttley says:

01:17pm | 05/07/10

not unlike the vitriol being thrown at Labour by the right wing peons? Ahh but that is different isnt it?

chuckles says:

10:26pm | 01/07/10

the funny thing is when people stick magnets on their fridges thinking that will stop terrorists stealing their freedoms.

lol says:

11:05pm | 03/07/10

“I believe Sir John Anderson was a better candidate. ” I concur.

Now ask why he wasn’t? Howards’ corruptive influence…