Mirabella and the hypocrisy of the shoutier-than-thou

Economist says:

08:08am | 12/10/11

Not true. She’s got 24 hours to waste Kipling. 24 hours that your paying for. Plenty of time to read the article, but I’d doubt she’d reflect on any legitimate criticism.

Rocksteady says:

09:29am | 12/10/11

The hypocrisy of Mirabella was astounding. She’s calling a hypothetical group of people who haven’t even gathered yet on Saturday “unemployed losers”.
While the carbon tax rally (on a Tuesday) had people who supposedly travelled 1000’s of km’s to vent their anger. To her these people are just exercising their democratic right.
All politicians should be called out when spouting obvious hypocrisy, stop treating the public like idiots.

Adam Diver says:

09:53am | 12/10/11

@ Kipling, that is fairly standard of any punch piece. I won’t be surprised if the author doesn’t respond in this thread. I assume you will have a go at him for that at some point in the future?

@ Stephen - Whilst I tend to agree that it smacked of hypocrisy, acting as Sophies defence was this quote that we will presume you missed

“Protest against a policy, protest against a corrupt Government if you want – but protesting against democracy and capitalism just seems so… well… laughable, pointless and politically adolescent.”

So if you were being as fair, as you are asking Sophie to be, you should of addressed her criteria of a worthy protest movement.

VVS says:

09:54am | 12/10/11

Maybe you can show her your “piece” instead…?

Or will that cause too much laughing…?

neo says:

10:16am | 12/10/11

Peaceful protesters? You must be kidding, I saw the videos on YouTube, and there were people throwing things and hitting policemen etc. Thankfully, they were quickly subdued.

The peaceful ones were left to freely stand around, no “police brutality” against those who obeyed the law.

My compliments to the police officers who had to be subjected to all the insults and assaults from a bunch of trust fund babies who are out to cause trouble.

James says:

10:59am | 12/10/11

“More softly spoken”?

Are you high?

The anti-Carbon tax rallies have been a sea of little old ladies muttering about ‘That terrible lying Julia lady” to each other over the tea and scones and pictures of said Julia as a witch.

The protester in Wall street are calling for the end of the current economic system, are planning blockading the heart of the financial district for weeks and are carrying signs such as “Eat the rich”. Plus they have been attacking police and one took a public no.2 on the hood of a police car.

RESEARCH Stephen, since you get to write on this platform you should probably try not to humiliate yourself.

iMitchy says:

11:17am | 12/10/11

@Adam Diver,
I was beginning to think it was only me who understood the point of Sophie Mirabella’s article.
I don’t agree with the assumption that they are unemployed, smelly, losers and leeches but I can see the difference between a one day rally and an occupation protest which goes on and on as if these people have no other place to be.

What I took away from Mirabella’s piece was the fact that The Occupy Wall Street movement is non-specific in it’s goals. It is just lots of people standing around saying “You are making lots of money and I’m not and I don’t like it so you should stop. I guess I could make an effort to be as successful as you but that would mean work - so why don’t you just stop making so much money or give it all away”.
You might think that they are protesting against the means and morality of the way in which the money is made - but hey, if these businesses were conducting business in the same way but only making a fraction of the money there would be no protest.

If these people want tougher restrictions placed on big business and in particular the financial sector, then they should be protesting to law-makers, not the bussinesses themselves. But at this point all they have put forward is an idea, they still lack a plan.

The ‘Anti Carbon Tax Rally’ Mr Harrington, whilst appearing like a bowl of Froot Loops, had a clear-cut goal - it is all right there - in the title of the protest. Not to mention it was held in appropriate surroundings.
What do you get from ‘Occupy Wall Street’?
“Duh, I’m gonna stay here…. on Wall St…...and, um… I don’t know…”.

persephone says:

11:43am | 12/10/11

iMitchy

but the truckies protest wasn’t meant to be a one day wonder.

It was meant to be a long term occupation of Canberra, only breaking up when they got what they wanted - the collapse of the Labor government.

That it ended up being a one day wonder simply shows how over hyped the whole thing was.

iMitchy says:

12:24pm | 12/10/11

@persephone

I guess they had to get back to work….

the ghost of christmas past says:

12:55pm | 12/10/11

it was probably a good illustration of a “caring sharing ” “we are for the Australian battlers” possible Abbott led government of the future. never stand between a right winger and their profit margin

Kipling says:

01:15pm | 12/10/11

@ Economist, LOL too true.

@ Adam Diver your assumption is very typical of what happens when one ASS U ME s…

@iMitchy, the Convoy of No Competence wanted a double dissolution election to be held. Given that in our political system the criteria for this were not met or even near met, they were entirely incompetent in their stated objective….This is somehow different to not having a clearly defined objective, how exactly?
Put it this way, a clearly defined objective based in ignorance of the system is about as effective as having no clear objective.
The bottom line here should be about people’s right to protest that which they do not agree with, regardless of their tactical capacity or their ignorance. At least it seems that way.
I have no hesitation in naming the convoy as incompetent, however, please do not mistake that as trying to stop them protesting, if anything, I would encourage them to seek a more realistically achievable objective and then go again. As to the Wall Street mob, well, somewhere in that mob there may well be people who can articulate clearly defined objectives, or, there may not. It should not diminish their right to protest. Of course, one person crapping on a police car should also not be held as an example of “typical” of this protest, but I have no doubt it will be.
One would reasonable expect Ms Mirabella to be well aware of how the political system in the country works (note I use the word “works” in its absolute broadest sense in this context), yet she had no problem offering support to the convoy that was doomed to fail from the first mention of its stated objective. That is worse than hypocrisy and the worse form of political opportunism, regardless of which party she badly represents.

persephone says:

01:29pm | 12/10/11

No, Mitchy, most of them were grey nomads.

A special campsite was set up so they could park their Winnebagos.

That was the whole point of Sophie’s article - that HER protestors were people who had paid their dues.

iMitchy says:

02:38pm | 12/10/11

Aww persephone, I was just taking the piss.

@Kipling, I completely agree with all of that and I too defend the right of the people to protest. But I’m not sure if a bunch of people getting together to say that “we don’t like it” really constitutes a “protest”.
I think that as a movement, they would have much more success by setting more defined objectives and collaborating their efforts to work towards achieving those objectives via more appropriate means.
They may be getting a lot of media attention, but making noise in the street does not affect the demand / supply curve which these businesses profit from, neither does it affect they way in which they carry out their business as it is all within the law.

Working in the oil and gas industry I have had to walk through protests to get into the building in which I worked. The message is completely ignored. The hypocritical hippies protesting against the use of fossil fuels arrived on buses, trains and in cars. This is much like the Wall St protesters using the McDonalds toilets.
This will all blow over and be forgotten and nothing will have changed because of their clumsy effort at coordinating an effective assault against the issue.

Adam Diver says:

04:04pm | 12/10/11

@ Kipling, so you are happy to comment on an article about hypocrisy, attack the individual in question, and then be a complete hypocrite yourself. Very nice.

John Daiken says:

05:40pm | 12/10/11

We should be so lucky as Sophie and acquire a sugar daddy rather than protest about the inequitable pay structures that bank executives grant themselves. Moreover, we can only be socialistic if a GFC occurs and the banks need taxpayer bailouts. Get real Sophie

Fiona says:

07:36pm | 12/10/11

IMitchy, NYC does not have public toilets. People use places like mcdonalds or Starbucks for their toilets. I’m sure it suits these places as a number of people probably go on to purchase from them, but not everyone does. We didn’t.

acotrel says:

08:23pm | 12/10/11

@economist
’ She’s got 24 hours to waste Kipling. 24 hours that your paying for. ‘

What’s new, she’s a waste of space anyway !

Kipling says:

03:19am | 13/10/11

@iMitchy, yes protests tend to disappear from our memory very quickly. It could almost be said that they are all hardly worth the effort, yet people persist. Surely some protests must have made a difference at times. Obviously when the message is powerful enough and the goal is not only well articulated but achievable.

@Adam Diver, YOU clearly articulated an assumption about what I would “no doubt” do at some point in the future. Not only did you make the assumption you did so with absolutey no evidence at all. I pointed this out to you, somewhat bluntly I admit, but that is all I did.
You then follow up with the outrageous claim that this somehow makes me a hypocrit…..
Either make a point that you can back up and demonstrate or make a space for others. Don’t make ludicrous asertions based on fairly dust and then whinge hypocrit when the stupidity of your assumption is ponted out to you, please…

chungo mung says:

10:32am | 12/10/11

You are right, unchecked capitalism will surge through the greatest barriers and its ruthless nature can help the long game. But maintaining society calls for checks that can consider the presence of the community that has come to be.

There is not a system on the planet (natural not) that left unchecked by other forces - exists in harmony and balance. The natural forces of the will and desires of the people is a natural check on the system of capitalism. Avoid consideration of such natural checks and the build up of imbalance only leads to disaster.

It is your mention of responsibility, Mahhrat, that goes to the truth of it. But once we mention responsibility it so easily becomes a socialist fear thing. A ‘bit of change’ is all that is wanted and needed - not the end of the world. Mad revolution and growing anger of the masses is the most important thing to avoid, but the wealthy part of our world - that requires the not wealthy part of the world for it to even exist - needs to be willing to take responsibility and be balanced in its approach.

Matt F says:

08:25am | 12/10/11

Well it’s being voted on today and won’t actually come in until July next year so maybe a ban up until June 30 2012? It’s not as if the last 50 articles have contained any new information so I doubt that we’ll miss much

acotrel says:

08:43am | 12/10/11

@Damian
‘maybe another ban on topics that mention the carbon tax might be on order?’

but..but.. what about freedom of speech?

Bless you Sophie, for you have sinned ! !

Nathan says:

06:45am | 12/10/11

Democracy provides the means to occupy a public space not bankers or wall street they DO NOT provide the means

I think they do have a strong message that people are hearing there are lawyers, doctors retired people attending. Problem is that the media is choosing who they interview. 70% of the developed world media leans to the right so of course they will report it that way.

Its all Bill Clinton’s fault? The Glass Steagall act is only one component, greedy bankers taking advantage is a bigger one. Sovereign debt is the major global issue at the moment and a President who dramatically reduced government debt is to blame for it? Come on now Super D

Mattb says:

07:03am | 12/10/11

@superd

“I didn’t read anything denying these people the right to have their say, only some rightful disdain that these people have the means to occupy public spaces for extended periods yet are rallying against the system that provides those means.”

Superd, I’m failing to see the logic in this argument, are protests not allowed to be held in ‘public places’?. If not, where do you think protesting should be held?.

‘The system that provides those means’ in regard to ‘public spaces’. What system are you talking about here super?, the protesters are rallying against capitalism, amoungst other things. Are you suggesting that capitalism provides these public spaces?.

I would’ve thought it was government, local and federal, and communities that provide and maintain ‘public space’.

If this is the angle your pushing within your argument, and yes, I may be reading you wrong, then please explain to me who provides and maintains ‘public space’ in communist countries?

Tubesteak says:

07:38am | 12/10/11

I agree with Super D (except for the Glass-Steagall bit. Dubya has a lot to answer for in this mess, too).

Sophie didn’t say that protests shouldn’t occur. Only this pack of halfwits are a pack of halfwits with no grasp of the issues or capitalism or the nature of their very own economy and the mess the government has made over decades of intervention at their very own behest.

Stephen summed them up perfectly with the statement that they are “nothing more than a bunch of angry, anti-capitalist losers, looking to place the cost of their own failings into the hands of others”.

The problem with democracy is that it gives everyone a voice. Even the ignorant, myopic and deluded.

SimonFromLakemba says:

08:13am | 12/10/11

haha Bill Clintons fault? yes his administration repealed it, but it started in the late 70s and collapsed under Dubyas watch!

acotrel says:

08:16am | 12/10/11

@Tubesteak
‘Sophie didn’t say that protests shouldn’t occur. Only this pack of halfwits are a pack of halfwits with no grasp of the issues or capitalism or the nature of their very own economy and the mess the government has made over decades of intervention at their very own behest.’

They are ‘halfwits’ because they don’t understand the conservatives’ agenda?  I thought that was the intention of all the spin ?
Perhaps they now understand the TRUTH - they’ve been cheated ?

andye says:

08:21am | 12/10/11

@Tubesteak - Sadly, you cant seem to see beyond your own perspective.

“this pack of halfwits are a pack of halfwits with no grasp of the issues or capitalism or the nature of their very own economy and the mess the government has made over decades of intervention at their very own behest.”

So what exactly is that intervention? How is this the fault of the protesters? Or is this a generic “everything bad is the fault of the left” argument, requiring no proof? Do you have some amazing grasp of capitalism etc that underlines your views?

“The problem with democracy is that it gives everyone a voice. Even the ignorant, myopic and deluded.”

Oh dear. Democracy should be a battleground for ideas. You are another person making it a war between groups of people. Just like in Sophie’s article, the easiest thing to do is to paint the protesters with stereotypes and dismiss their ability to comprehend what is going on.

This is pure arrogance.

AdamC says:

08:30am | 12/10/11

Super D, I agree (except about the Glass Steagal issue). I don’t think anyone is saying these ‘occupiers’ don’t have a right to protest. Mant of us, however, can’t help but note the toxic cocktail of self-righteousness, entitlement and ignorance that is driving this ‘movement’.

Shane From Melbourne says:

08:49am | 12/10/11

@Super D. Incorrect about the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. As a matter of record: “The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was brought up in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate”

SimonFromLakemba says:

09:05am | 12/10/11

@ShanefromMelbourne

Correct it was called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Bill, but it was under the Clinton Administration, but from memory it was a Republican controlled house at the time.

James1 says:

09:50am | 12/10/11

Maybe Super blames Clinton for not vetoing the Republican-sponsored Bill.  If so, one wonders about his views on Mr Bush jnr.

Tubesteak says:

09:54am | 12/10/11

Acotrel
They are halfwits because they don’t even understand the nature of the thing(s) they are protesting.
Have a look at the website associated with it. As I said yesterday it’s the usual “I have a Bachero fArts from third rate uni so I deserve a job” or “I have no skills or qualifications and want to work in a manufacturing sector in an industry that can source cheaper labour in another country but I demand that I be given a job”. That’s not how the world works. Protesting against Wall Street is pathetic. Wall Street is not the problem. The problem is people wanting the world to work in a way that only suits their lazy half-assed agenda because they want a free ride. Which was the root cause of the GFC in the first place.

Andye
The intervention is the government intervention over decades in the market place that caused the GFC. Intervention that was meant to benefit the poor but only caused a property bubble.
The protesters were voters during that entire period. Ultimately, governemnt failure is people failure because the people failed to hold the government to account because their ignorance at the polls reflected the quality of candidates and the outcomes. People who loved the free money up until the party stopped. It’s like a drunk who blames the alcohol for their hangover.
I have a pretty decent grasp of capitalism having undergrad and post-grad qualifications in economics.
Democracy should only be a battleground for the informed. Not ill-informed statements that I outlined above in my response to acotrel.

Rocksteady says:

10:03am | 12/10/11

“Only this pack of halfwits are a pack of halfwits with no grasp of the issues or capitalism”

I would pay to see an IQ test comparison between this Saturday’s protest and the carbon tax rally.
I truly doubt intellectual debate is high on the coalition’s agenda considering the way they treat Australia’s most senior experts in economics and science.

andye says:

10:13am | 12/10/11

@Tubesteak - Do you really think the GFC was about loans to poor people? I have seen this argument before. Clinton forced the banks to give out loans. Never mind that the vast majority of the loans weren’t actually under the scheme that is often blamed. The banks were rolling in the cash for a while, nobody had to force them. In fact, at the end of this rush of loans the rules that are often blamed were holding some back. The unregulated ones were worse than the regulated ones.

Poor people didnt cause the GFC. Rampant speculation on poorly categorised investment instruments caused the GFC. Credit Default Swaps and so on. The problem wasnt that these loans existed. The problem was that they were bundled up with better loans and sold in a market when they were incorrectly rated. The problem was a bubble.

Tubesteak says:

12:08pm | 12/10/11

Andye
You argued against yourself and failed. It wasn’t just the loans to poor people but the entire encouragement of the bubble at the hands of the US government with little to no regulation. Banks behaved precisely as you would expect them to (securitisation etc). It’s up to the government to regulate moral hazard when they create it’s existence by their own policy. It’s not just the narrow scheme that is to blame but everything riding off that scheme. The scheme caused inflationary pressures on prices, which flowed throughout the rest of the market. The government never acted to correct this. Then they thoroughly deregulated the financial system and never provided regulation on the structuring of securitisation instruments on the “bad loans” (not that they were ever bad because the government had said they would guarantee them so from the bank’s POV they couldn’t lose = no moral hazard, no worries. For them).

The GFC was caused by the government trying to buy votes from people and not regulating the resulting activities. Speculation is a normal part of market behaviour and not the culprit. Nor are the ratings agencies to blame because they were always AAA rated debt because ultimately, someone was going to pay. It never matters where you get the money from, just as long as you do.

And we haven’t even gotten into the other inflationary pressures put on the market since the tech wreck and 9/11 all because the government didn’t want the economy to sour and lose votes.

Fiona says:

07:55pm | 12/10/11

Tubesteak, I’m not even going to pretend to be a financial wizard, I’m not and have only a basic grasp of the very complex mechanisms behind the GFC, but your attitudes to those who aren’t university graduates in law/business/economics is very unpleasant and arrogant. That’s all.

acotrel says:

08:39pm | 12/10/11

@Tubesteak
‘They are halfwits because they don’t even understand the nature of the thing(s) they are protesting.’

They’d know if they were going hungry ?  They’d understand THAT !

acotrel says:

09:00am | 12/10/11

@Steve
I live in her constituency !

LC says:

12:03pm | 12/10/11

The carbon legislation would be passed regardless, as for it to not be passed, it would require the independents to cross the floor. They didn’t, so her not being there makes little difference.

Mahhrat says:

07:08am | 12/10/11

That is some of the funniest shit I’ve ever seen.  I don’t care who you are, if you can’t act professionally on the money you’re on, you should be dismissed.

Pete from Sydney says:

07:15am | 12/10/11

I can’t help but wonder about this…no intent in the whole ‘suspension’ thing? Then 13 colleagues fail to vote?

Call me a conspiracy theorist but it seems a little too convenient to me…

Correct says:

07:19am | 12/10/11

Rarely do I agree with persephone… but those two statements are simple facts.

She’s soooooo determined to keep the government under the microscope that she went and abused the depuity speaker - a Liberal! - and got herself ejected from the house the day before the carbon vote, thus guaranteeing it will pass the house… and even knowing this, knowing that if she got ejected the opposition plan would fail… 13 of her own colleagues would rather guarantee their party lose the biggest house vote of the year than come and help her.

Says more than any comment on any website. 13 people who have a vested interest in defending her, chose not to. Maybe the liberals aren’t all scum licking, venom spitting, inbred pointless filth after all… just the ones they parade for the news.

Anna C says:

08:11am | 12/10/11

When I heard about it this morning I could have throttled Sophie Mirabella for her sheer stupidity.  I’ve never liked her and can’t believe the complete lack of judgement she displayed yesterday in parliament. Thanks a friggin’ lot Mirabella.

I hope Tony Abbott is ripping her a new one as we speak.

SimonFromLakemba says:

08:15am | 12/10/11

Shes a nut, not other way to describe her, this just goes to prove it

Peter says:

08:34am | 12/10/11

She’s probably under a lot of stress due to the court business and is starting to lose the plot as a result.  Not that I’m defending her.  She is, like most right-wing politicians these days, a complete and utter hypocrite (as this article neatly points out).

acotrel says:

08:36am | 12/10/11

@AnnaC
‘When I heard about it this morning I could have throttled Sophie Mirabella for her sheer stupidity.  I’ve never liked her and can’t believe the complete lack of judgement she displayed yesterday in parliament. Thanks a friggin’ lot Mirabella.’

A worthy replacement for Tony Abbott as leader ?
I have to laugh, it was only a matter of time !

MadKat of Melbourne says:

09:51am | 12/10/11

The Liberals are obviously playing tactics -

PeterA says:

01:57pm | 12/10/11

Mirabella was trying to get a petition on the table but the ALP Minister rejected it.  Read p.125 of yesterday’s Hansard. http://www.aph.gov.au -> Hansard.
Typical of this debate the government turns its silver-spooned nose up at the opinion of 80% of Australian people.

persephone says:

07:39pm | 12/10/11

PeterA

typical of the Opposition that they can’t follow a few simple rules about when and where petitions can be tabled.

They were in government for a few years, you’d think they’d have worked it out.

Petitions are tabled in the House on Monday. They have been tabled in the House on Monday for a very very long time.

Either Sophie didn’t know the rules, despite nearly ten years in the House, or she didn’t think they should apply to her.

Or she didn’t want her petition to be tabled, because there aren’t as many signatures on it as she says there is, and she didn’t want to be found out.

PeterA says:

10:33pm | 13/10/11

Persephone, that joke about petitions only on Monday was funny.

PeterA says:

10:50pm | 13/10/11

Mondays Wednesdays & Thursdays. Look at SOs 34, 207.

persephone says:

09:47am | 14/10/11

Peter

joke’s on you, sweetie.

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/infosheets/is11.pdf

Petitions are presented by the Chair of the Petitions Committee on Monday morning.

Individual MPs may present petitions only if the Petitions Committee has given their approval for this.

Fran Smith says:

07:17am | 12/10/11

You know when someone has lost the argument - they resort to personal abuse.

I assume you’re perfect in every way, Anna, and that there is nothing you’d change about your body.

Nathan says:

07:31am | 12/10/11

Fran Smith

Look around she has not lost the argument one little bit. They are right she is wrong. Plenty about Sophie not being a particually honest person some may even say home wrecker. Sophie makes me look perfect

Fran Smith says:

07:50am | 12/10/11

Wrong Nathan - Sophie is right and the usual unwashed, cowardly, professional protesters are wrong.

Let’s get ready for the typical violence and vandalism we expect whenever left wingers get together. Let’s get ready for them to hide their identity with masks and hoodies to make it difficult to identify them when they commit their crimes. Let’s get ready for our Police to be used as punching bags and targets of mindless violence. Let’s get ready for the taxpayer to pay for all the damage these morons are about to cause.

Nathan says:

08:19am | 12/10/11

Fran Smith this why you are so very very wrong

The only violence that has occured has been commited against the prostesters. You can’t label a group by what you think they will do.
The police have been very heavy handed this has been documented just not reported.

This bit is my fav lets get ready for the tax payers to pay for the damage they are about to cause. Again they haven’t done anything. The reason i love it is because they are protesting against the damage these banks caused that the tax payer had to pick up the bill for much more than a few arests.

Anna C says:

08:23am | 12/10/11

Stop posting comments under my name Fake Anna C.  While I agree with your sentiments on this occasion,  I think you are being pathetic. Why don’t you post your comments under your own name? Do I really threaten you that much that you have to resort to this type of subterfuge?

I suppose I should be flattered because you know what they say about imitation being the sincerest form of flattery. But nevertheless piss off evil doppelganger.

andye says:

08:27am | 12/10/11

@Fran Smith - Well done. Stereotypes then unfounded speculation about some bad things that those dirty hippies are bound to do.

Amusingly, I got an invitation to a local version from a guy I know. You would be amazed to know he is a smart educated guy with a technical job. A job that I assume he is taking leave from to protest in support of what he believes.  I’m not going to do so, but I respect what he is doing.

Also, I think you are talking about the quite violent anti-globalisation protesters. If you are allowed to conflate those with the entire left I should be allowed to paint you with the actions of that conservative guy that killed all the lefty kids in Norway, right? Conservatives are all the same, right?

Matt F says:

08:29am | 12/10/11

Fran - In your first post you say that anyone who resorts to personal abuse has lost the argument but in your second post you call the protesters unwashed and cowardly. By your own logic haven’t you just lost the argument?

acotrel says:

08:47am | 12/10/11

@AnnaC
‘things Sophie Mirabella would not recognise if they bit her in her over sized bum. ‘

What a nasty comment ?

  Are you her protege ?

Fran Smith says:

09:00am | 12/10/11

Nathan - your ignorance is astounding and embarrassing.

2000 - The World Economic Forum is held in Melbourne. Thousands of leftists caused mayhem and violence all over the city. Citizens were prevented from entering their workplace. Cars were vandalised. Police were violently assaulted.

2003 - So called anti-war protesters took to the streets in Melbourne, damaging property, assaulting police (while wearing full body suits to hide their identity) and causing massive disruption to those of us who have jobs.

And every other protest involving left wing organisations who don’t respect the rule of law and enjoy violence and destruction. Whenever Conservatives protest,  they’re lucky to make the late news. Whenever leftists protest, people go to hospital.

Rocksteady says:

10:12am | 12/10/11

Fran - In case you didn’t see the conservative protests, the average age was 60. The only thing they could possibly break is a hip

James1 says:

11:25am | 12/10/11

Apologies for the language mods, but when I attended the Carbon Tax rally at Parliament House, a lovely little old lady called me a “****ing government stooge”, and asked several fellows nearby to have me removed by force.  They didn’t though, pointing out that I was just there to protest with the rest of them.  But I forgive her - I was wearing a suit at the time, and she looked like the type that assumes everyone in a suit works for ASIO.

Also, having attended university from an undergraduate degree to a PhD, I have seen many, many protests by lefties.  None turned violent, or involved any violence at all.  As such, your hyperbole is unhelpful, Fran.

Nathan says:

04:13am | 13/10/11

Fran Smith
a couple of problems with your statement firstly none of these things have happened. The police brutality has been far worse what do you think should be said about them?
Secondarily i think you have no idea who is actually occupying wall st. Dr’s Lawyers retirees. Pull your head and read and this will be easily discovered you ignorance is scary as you are bagging these people without knowing anything about them

Beck of Kenso says:

08:05am | 12/10/11

Actually, capitalism is all about making the biggest profit, so you end up with a cycle where:
1. companies utilise the lowest-paid work force to create their products
2. that work force is told that by coming to work for these companies they will eventually improve their circumstances
3. said work force improves their skill level and knowledge to a degree where they can make enough money to actually improve their circumstances
4. company then moves their base of operations to somewhere else where the workers will accept a lower rate of pay, thus starting the cycle all over again.

This is why we’re seeing that a lot of the stuff that used to be made in China, is now being made in India. The Chinese are now asking for higher pay, so manufacturing moves to India, because it’s cheaper.

I don’t think this is a system that we should be applauding. I recognise that currently there isn’t a better system, but I do think we should be looking for a different system - one that doesn’t include exploiting workers, and where companies are happy with reasonable profits, instead of always expecting super profits. And that comment is not aimed at mining companies, it’s aimed at all stock-exchange listed companies. Most companies try to increase their profit by 10-15% each year, which is just unreasonable.

Oh, and not everybody is in control of their own circumstances, and not everybody can make their way from poverty to comfort. Even in Australia, despite the fact that we have access to free primary and secondary education, it can be extremely difficult to remove yourself from the cycle of poverty when all of your role models are making the wrong choices and not providing a good example. Most people don’t have any idea of how to become successful unless they’re given help, so saying that “nobody forces you to remain in poverty” is a fairly ignorant remark.

Shane From Melbourne says:

09:06am | 12/10/11

@Jason- This would be true if government and business were two separate entities. However the influence of money upon political activity means that in places like the United States, business effectively runs the US government. Rules to govern derivatives? Kill it. Glass-Steagall Act separating investment banking from commercial banking? Kill It. The very people in charge of the 2008 GFC bailout were former Goldman Sachs executives

MadKat of Melbourne says:

09:34am | 12/10/11

Jason - you think - go and read some economic books buddy - pure markets don’t work and no economist thinks so. All economists accept a certain amount of government intervention in the markets - its the degree they vary on. Pure markets are a theoretical concept and don’t work in the real world. If you can list the 8 assumptions of a perfect market model then you can see why good government intervention (because they can cause market failure as well) in the marketplace brings about equality that pure capitalism cannot.

“A true free market would be substantially more difficult to exploit because it is the bureaucracy that allows for corruption” - wrong - market power, incomplete information and uncertainty, and asymmetric information all allow for exploitation in a pure market system.

Dodge says:

10:41am | 12/10/11

“A governments role is to provide direction for the nation and its people, not to try to control its people into behaving a certain way through taxation and policy. The government needs to look at direction rather than control, or we may as well be a communist state”

Yet again, anything outside the neo-conservative definition of Capitalism is instantly labelled socialism, or as you’ve gone the whole hog this time - Communism even! There are VERY FEW real communist countries now. And America with their bank bailouts is surely a red flag to non capitalistic ideals? America has just a bastardized version of capitalism as is seen across Europe.

The Government needs to guide society, very true. Part of that guidance is pushing equality as the consequence of not having it is the myriad of social problems that affects the US today… And may escalate further to full blown revolution. There’s still A LOT Of rich people in the countries labelled quasi socialist (like Scandanavian nations), the whole concept of completely repressing the want for people to become better, to grow incomes and expand their assets is just a nonsense. Surely the failed experiments of Communism has shown you can never truly remove that want from Humans.

Jason says:

05:15pm | 12/10/11

@Beck Capitalism is based around a making profit yes, but nothing forces a company to make the biggest profit at the expense of its workers. I for one know that as a business owner I do not exploit my employees at all, in fact mine are some of the highest paid in the industry. So to say that all business is purely for profit at the expense of workers is simply untrue.

Publicly listed companies do tend to place shareholders first at the expense of employees, under a capitalism you have the choice to take your skills to an employer who offer’s you the best deal. In a true free market as an employee you would have more ability to negotiate your salary based on experience and ability, as not all workers are equal. But no most employees would prefer to bargain as a group where the lazy and incompetent can leach off of the more productive.

You also fail to look at the other side of the story, if it was not for lower cost based manufacturing, where would the millions of people in China and India be at the moment? There would still be 10’s of millions of people in poverty because no jobs in those countries would exist. This cycle is progressive and allows us to focus our resources and labour on modern technologies and innovation. Which in turn replaces those low skilled manufacturing jobs with high skilled tech based jobs.

The next cycle is the private space race, and much like aviation in the 50’s and 60’s we can expect vast technological improvements from it. Should we be worried about the production of cars, and other items which we can buy cheaper elsewhere or should we be focusing on developing the manufacture of state of the art technologies?

Also moving out of the cylce is not supposed to be easy, but for those who do the benefits are plenty. Everybody in this country get a minimal level of education which is sufficient for them to learn how to break the cylce without help. This is an attitude which Australians are to fond of, the “I want to do better, but cannot be bothered its easier to just take the money off someone else”.

Jason says:

05:52pm | 12/10/11

@ Shane, I agree completely, so why are they not two very separate entities? If the government had no influence from business then we would see a lot less corruption and the best decisions being made.

@MadKat, I dont need to read a book on economics, and I really could not care less what economist think. Economists are at best theorists and have 0 practical experience running business and the day to day realities of such. Off the top of my head there are 14 economic restrictions placed on the business which I conduct by different government departments who should have nothing to do with the economics of my business. Without those restrictions my operations would be safer, more efficient and more significantly more productive. I am not saying there should be an absolute free market, but as it stands the market is far from free.

Economists live in the world of speculation and derivatives, they have no idea what happens within the business, they only see the financials around it.

@Dodge, we all want to live in a free society? I personally do not like the idea of being told what I can do and when I can do it. Socialism and any government policy that is substantially left leaning has always got a degree control associated about it.

You agree that people will never give up the desire to build assets or create wealth, so let the people create assets and wealth.

Social problems are a societal issue, not a capitalist issue. Lets look at middle class welfare, it is creating a generation of handout dependant individuals which once in the welfare cycle find it near on impossible to leave the cycle (control attempt by the governments anyone?). The only part of this problem that comes from capitalism is the money which is taxed by the government. If we look deeply into most social problems it becomes apparent that most of them are caused by the government not capitalism itself.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

08:36am | 13/10/11

Jason - you have no idea what you are talking about -

“Economists live in the world of speculation and derivatives” - that would be the job of financial analysts Jason (by far the majority of economists work outside of the financial markets).

“They have no idea what happens within the business, they only see the financials around it” - that would be the job of management consultants Jason. Economists don’t look at the financials of individual businesses at all, they look at industries as a whole.

“Economists are at best theorists and have 0 practical experience running business and the day to day realities of such” - economist’s aren’t responsible for the day-to-day running of individual businesses, that’s not their field of expertise. They look at how best to run an economy.

Yes Jason I am an economist. You obviously have no idea about what an economist does. Really go and read a good textbook, then maybe you will understand what you are talking about.

Your talking about free market capitalism - that’s the economists domain. The model you have out forward is purely theoretical and doesn’t work in the real world.

“If we look deeply into most social problems it becomes apparent that most of them are caused by the government not capitalism itself” - take the US as a case - lack of access to education and expensive health services and all based on the capitalist model of pay-for-yourself. How is this only a societal problem when it is caused by pure capitalist ideology.

AdamC says:

10:04am | 12/10/11

Is there some reason why my reply to this wasn’t published? Well, on the off-chance this one makes it through, Onlooker, your assessment of Mirabella seems to hang off a tacky, seemingly baseless article that got a run in the Fairfax rags. On reading the thing, I couldn’t even tell what Mirabella had done that was supposedly improper. (Unless ‘living in sin’ with an older boyfriend is some kind of hanging offence.)

Blind Freddy says:

11:55am | 12/10/11

No carbon tax! No carbon tax! No carbon tax! Ditch the witch! Ditch the witch! Ditch the witch! Pffft . . .

Yeah, I agree too.

acotrel says:

07:46am | 12/10/11

Perhaps Sophie is going to make a bid for the leadership of the LNP ?
They are currently doing worse !

nihonin says:

07:57am | 12/10/11

acotrel ‘Perhaps Sophie is going to make a bid for the leadership of the LNP ?
They are currently doing worse”!

Labor———————————————————->  Julia Gillard

Gman says:

08:18am | 12/10/11

That first paragraph is a long bow Robert!
You,Cotrel Chongy and the other labor bludgers can crawl back into the hole you all came from.

Anne71 says:

08:27am | 12/10/11

Gman - “You,Cotrel Chongy and the other labor bludgers can crawl back into the hole you all came from” - LOL, yep, and there you have it, people. The LNP Fangirl’s notion of free speech - only those people who agree with them are allowed to have it.
Gman, you probably think irony is a vitamin supplement, don’t you?

Peter says:

10:15am | 12/10/11

Sophie Mirabella, worst Shadow minister since federation.

acotrel says:

08:35pm | 12/10/11

@Paeter
Manufacturing industry is stuffed in Australia, and depending on Sophie to drag it out of the hole !  How would you ra te our chances when the resources boom ends ?

PTom says:

09:39am | 12/10/11

No Mirabella is the hypocritic she defends one group as be saying they are being mistreated by the press, then slanders another group by be littling them.

First said.
“This week the right to peaceful public assembly got a bit of a battering”
and
“Nor is a public rally a gentile debating society or a reasoned policy forum. It’s a loud, somewhat organic and therefore unpredictable, means of expressing protest.”

Then said
“The truth is this organic protest movement seems to be a magnet for every disaffected, anti-capitalist, left-wing professional protestor on the planet.  And - ironically, given its origins - a whole lot of anti-American sentiment too.”

No she does say she wants it banned but that does not stop her from being called hypocritic.

TChong says:

08:01am | 12/10/11

an “anti everthing “protest.
Sounds just like the tin foil hat wearing, anti UN, anti this , anti that , pro mining, anti mining, Alan Jones led Truckers Protest ( fail)  and Anti Carbon Tax mob.
Sophie and pals thought they were champs.
Whats the difference.?

SimonFromLakemba says:

08:19am | 12/10/11

lol anti-everything protest? oh the irony..

PTom says:

09:55am | 12/10/11

Yet the Liberals in NSW,VIC and WA want to put the GST on a Tax on Nothing.

Chris L says:

12:13pm | 12/10/11

“At least be consistant clowns” - I think that was the message from this article to the conservatives.

Both sides want to see fault in the other but refuse to see those same faults in themselves. So it goes on….

adam says:

08:26am | 12/10/11

it appears there has been an imposter on some of the threads Max

acotrel says:

09:08am | 12/10/11

AnnaC must be an imposter ?  Who’d admit that Sophie MIrabella is a dill if they were a supporter of the LNP ?

Sophie Mirabella fur Fuhrer !
Sieg Heil ! !

Max Redlands says:

09:36am | 12/10/11

@adam - thanks - yes I have noticed the faux Erick posts. They are fairly easy to spot.

The one that was deleted, however, did seem to me to be genuine.

@ acotrel - wake and bake??

Anna C says:

09:39am | 12/10/11

acotrel, for the record I do think Sophie Mirabella is a dill and I only support the LNP on some of their policies because the ALP/Greens coalition have shown themselves to be the most incompetent government of all time and there isn’t much of an alternative.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

09:47am | 12/10/11

acrotrel - the AnnaC poster was an imposter - you are a dill, don’t you read the posts you reply to -

The Badger says:

10:23am | 12/10/11

Why don’t we blame it on The Badger?

Peter says:

10:25am | 12/10/11

@ Anna C
ALP/Greens coalition have shown themselves to be the most incompetent government of all time and there isn’t much of an alternative.

Good point as we have not had a recession like the rest of the developed world.

Anna C says:

11:48am | 12/10/11

Peter, if this government is doing so well then why is it on the nose with so many people? Everyone I speak to wants to see the back of this government and can’t wait until the next election. Have you looked at any of the polls or do you live in a bubble?

Peter says:

01:52pm | 12/10/11

Anna C, its on the nose because it is implementing unpopular reforms, Howard also went through unpopular periods for similar reasons.

We should all sit down and realize that not going into a recession was a good thing, and give the current government some credit for it.

PTom says:

09:52am | 12/10/11

“If our media gave all protesters a fair voice instead of painting the side they don’t agree with as a bunch of geriatric far right loonies we might stop and hear what they have to say especially when the anti-carbon rally protesters are the majority of all Australians.”

Yes lets hold the media to account how is it that more people attend Action on climate Change rallies and got less coverage.  That right because the media only wants to report stories against the government.

Just like it the coverage the give the Anti-Wall Street rallies.

LC says:

08:46am | 12/10/11

So are you going to make an intelligent arguement, are you going to admit you have no intelligent arguments to make, or are you going to continue resorting to personal attacks?

Watcher says:

10:00am | 12/10/11

I laughed when I read this cranky, but to be honest she a very nasty woman and one I would not want in my home. Her venom is sure to offend us for a long time to come unfortunately. Her electorate must cringe.

Chris L says:

12:23pm | 12/10/11

Kind of like how nobody wrote an article saying the anti-carbon protestors didn’t have such a right. Yet out came to accusations of censorship and impinging their freedom of speech from many Punchers and, indeed, from Sophie (which I believe is what the article is talking about).

jf says:

04:13pm | 12/10/11

Chris L says:01:23pm | 12/10/11

Far be it for me to be a grammatical pedant but I don’t even know what that says.

Chris L says:

09:36am | 13/10/11

How about if I said “Out came THE accusations” rather than “to accusations”?

My point being that those writing about the carbon protestors were not saying they should be censored or otherwise inhibited, yet in rode many on The Punch including Sophie to decry this perceived censorship and stand up for freedom of speech against such tyranny. Then, a few days later, she writes about a protest she doesn’t agree with using the same tone, the same approach, as that which she had earlier decried.

This article is not making claims of censorship, simply pointing out that bold faced hypocrisy coming Sophie and her cheersquad.

How’s my grammar?

jf says:

12:10pm | 13/10/11

Chris L says:10:36am | 13/10/11

Your grammar is a bit better. I can at least understand what you are trying to say this time.

I still don’t see that there was any hypocrisy. She supported the truckers position. She criticised the Wall St protester’s position. I didn’t see anything in her articles where she suggested that the truckers had any more of a right to be heard than the Wall St. protesters.

I get your point, however the same argument could be made about those supporting the Wall St protester’s right to be heard and who failed to defent the truckies right to protest: including this author.

Chris L says:

06:14pm | 13/10/11

Thanks JF. I’ve had another word mixup in another article, I hope no-one noticed. To be fair I didn’t think anyone reads the comments section.

Steve Putnam says:

05:38pm | 12/10/11

Sophie, by sacrificing herself like that, was selflessly ensuring the passage of the carbon legislation.

jf says:

09:24am | 12/10/11

Equal more often than not means not fair.

PTom says:

10:10am | 12/10/11

As along as you promise to do new espoides of Matlock.

PeterA says:

10:00am | 12/10/11

Refusal to grant the tabling of a petition equalsl refusal to admit formal public opinion into the House. It reflects the whole debate - GR-ALP decided that was what they’d do and then pig-headedly ignored every alternative or opposing opinion. Ms Mirabella had every right to protest as she was within time, and public opinion matters.  Forget the legislation, this problem of ignoring public opinion goes far deeper, and mightn’t be solved by an election.

James1 says:

10:35am | 12/10/11

The Deputy Speaker did no such thing, though Peter.  Ms Mirabella ran out of time for her talk, and when she requested leave to continue so as to table the petition, leave was not granted.  She had a few different procedural methods of tabling the papers at another point, but instead chose to interject and try to shout the deputy speaker down.  She was warned, decided to interject again, leaving the deputy speaker no option but to name her, in turn opening up an opportunity for her to be expelled from the chamber.  That has nothing to do with the national debate about the carbon tax, and everything to do with seeming to have contempt for the procedures of our Parliament.  While she may have had a valid point to make, she is still bound by House of Reps procedure and practice.

PeterA says:

01:50pm | 12/10/11

James1, I reading yesterday’s Hansard, p.125.  The request to table the petitions was made before the Speaker called ‘time’.  The Speaker said he gave her the ‘benefit of the doubt’ re time expiry, and requested the grant for her, but then that the Minister (ALP) refused to grant leave. The Minister ducked it, probably because he had a closed mind as soon as he saw tax dollar signs at the beginning of the debate.

James1 says:

02:39pm | 12/10/11

That could be his reason, Peter, but the fact of the matter is it is standard practice to not grant leave to continue once an MP’s time is up.  Anything you or I say about Mr Combet’s motives are pure speculation though, and he was in no way bound to grant leave for Ms Mirabella to continue.  Like I said, she had several procedural avenues for getting the petition tabled at a later time, which she decided not to use, instead deciding to show contempt for the position of the Speaker and the practice of the House of Reps.

PeterA says:

10:31pm | 13/10/11

Of course procedure is most important, but obviously there was some overlap, so quite fairly and rightly it was let through.  (Jenkins would have looked at the ceiling and pretended he’d spoken first.)  Why else would the Minister flatly reject it if not to turn his nose up at Mirabella’s electorate in the glare of debate? I stand by my assessment that they’ve had hearing problems all debate, because the pseudo-greenie dream to create for themselves a cushy bureaucracy was worked out long ago with smokey schoolyard science around campfires, not in public forums.

Dodge says:

10:21am | 12/10/11

“We have countries that have attempted to make things “fair”. Quite a few. It generally results in mass graves, mass human suffering and economic collapse because the heavy handed approach required to make things even come close to “fair” is not economically sustainable.”

Wow, that was a fair heaping of emotion!

You might want to look at the correlation between the countries rating highest on QOL indexes and match them to economic performance (hint: It bodes badly for your point).

There’s a worse consequence to not taking care of the lower classes and less fortunate, it’s call poverty, crime and the BIG R - revolution. You could emulate the 40k gun deaths per year in America if you want, but most of the Western World have rejected that take on civilization (and Americans too are now waking up after a long slumber of denial).

Did you look upon the people of Egypt protesting with the same disdain? Were they just rabble that should have sat silently while being stomped on by Government?

And you cons are STILL whining about kids choosing career paths that lead to little fruit… Can you just stop being dumb? Those kids shouldn’t have to have soothsaying skills on changes in industry. Numptees.

LC says:

11:45am | 12/10/11

I looked at a 2008 QoL index. It didn’t bode well for your point. France tops the list, the US comes third, Australia is 6th, Canada and Japan are 16th and 17th respectively, and the UK come in at 37, which makes them worse than Mexico, 35. The first “fair” country like I had descirbed (that I know of) on the list is Venuzuela, coming in at…number 82, followed by Cuba, 88. China is apparently worse, at 90, but as they allowed the proliferation of coroporations on their home turf, I’m not sure they qualify as a “fair” country anymore. At the very bottom of the list is Iraq. Source: http://www.il-ireland.com/il/qofl2008/

The people in Egypt have a reason to revolt. So did the people of Libya. So does anyone living in a dictatorship or a “fair” country.
Thanks for chucking that strawman in though. Never have I said these people have no right to protest, all I sad was A. Based on thier list of demands, they will be protesting for a long long time and B. Quite a few of the poor people there are because of poor/risky choices rather than circumstance.

And again, these kids are free to make such choices, and as a libertarian I support that wholeheartedly. All I ask is that they accept that thes issues exist, and where possible, minimize them. I heard of film students who become accountants while working on films on the side, in order to gain reliable employment, just for one example.

Got anything else to contribute?

AdamC says:

01:04pm | 12/10/11

These attempts to quanitify and measure ‘quality of life’ should be viewed with some suspicion. However, the OECD effort: (http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111) looks like one of the better ones. Unfortunately, it only covers the OECD.

Having said that, the Anglophone counries (USA, NZ, Canada and Australia) seem to do best of all. The ‘mixed economies’ of Scandinavia also rate well, to be fair.

LC says:

03:46pm | 12/10/11

Fair enough AdamC, but the issue with that one is that socialist/communist (ie: “fair”) countries to compare standards of living to. So I couldn’t make my point with it.

stockinbingal roo says:

10:30am | 12/10/11

Careful David, you know that the contributors to the punch do not like coffee drinkers, (latte sippers etc etc) because they are all commos.

RyaN says:

10:29am | 12/10/11

Do you really think what she did wasn’t planned?

James1 says:

10:55am | 12/10/11

Of course it wasn’t planned RyaN.  Don’t think for a moment that, with numbers in the chamber as tight as they are, the Coalition whip would allow, let alone plan for, any Opposition MP to take actions which result in their being expelled.  And if it was planned, that is actually far worse and speaks of a lack if discipline within the Party at the moment.

RyaN says:

11:28am | 12/10/11

@James1: They didn’t have the numbers, everyone knew this fraud being passed through parliament was going to happen against the wishes of more than 80% of the population.
If they thought they stood a chance and this wasn’t planned, they would just have paired her with Thompson.

Dodge says:

11:51am | 12/10/11

The only thing she succeeded in is making herself the laughing stock of Australian politics.

Keep on spinning you fail shill ryan.

James1 says:

12:04pm | 12/10/11

I was referring to the changes to the Migration Act RyaN.  One MP can make the difference one way or the other with that legislation.  Fortunately, the Government has decided not to raise it until tomorrow in any case.  Also, Thompson has been paired already (have a look at the results of the division in last night’s Hansard), and even if he wasn’t there is no obligation (implied or otherwise) in House of Reps practice to pair expelled MPs, so any pairing there is irrelevant.

RyaN says:

02:31pm | 12/10/11

@James1: Yes I heard about the changes to the migration act that they wanted to bring forward in order to take advantage of this situation, this low act I am sure would negate any agreement on pairing with Thompson.

Steve Putnam says:

06:35pm | 12/10/11

@RyaN So you think defying her own compatriot in the speakers chair was some sort of clever tactical ploy to play down the fact that they were going to loose the vote anyway? Her petulance has won the conservatives no admirers except among incurably quixotic nut jobs. What colour is the sky in your world RyaN and how many moons does it have?

Bill says:

12:48pm | 12/10/11

Yeah and the GOP candidates for next year are all for tax the poor ,because if we tax the rich they won’t create jobs, ban abortion, no to gay marriage, find ways of denying certain groups from voting because these groups would probably vote Democrat,  nothing about how to fix the economy..

Dodge says:

01:47pm | 12/10/11

Wow Richard (perhaps its not the same Richard), you’re right.

I just don’t want to see Australia emulate the USA. And sadly, unknowingly in a lot of cases, a lot of Australians are treading that path.

The Walton (Walmart owners) family alone are worth the same as the bottom 90 million Americans.