Where’s Nanny? Tory leader tries a little tough love

Jack says:

10:12am | 15/04/10

DWest Abbott doesn’t support the government censorship plan and I really hope he continues to oppose it.

Henry T says:

11:13am | 15/04/10

Abbott needs to stop and think good and hard and so do The Liberal Party, Catholics all over the world are leaving the church. The shame from all this pedophile abuse is long reaching. Every week these people sit in church and pray then donate money into the collection plate , that goes to supporting these pedophile priests lifestyle. Tony Abbott was a trainee priest, he must have been aware what was going on and yet he stayed supportive to that church. These offenses have gone on for many many years, in many many different countries and I for one will never support anyone who condones and aides and abets this. Control of anything only works if people are compliant, inevitably people will make their own life choices.

Jones says:

12:50pm | 15/04/10

Henry, did that little rant have anything at all to do with the Nanny State or abolition thereof?

Formersnag & swinging voter. says:

09:06am | 15/04/10

@ acker, agreed mate, But i had another thought bubble recently. The problem has been not duplication but even triplication of services. All three levels of government have a Health department. Some times doing different, sometimes doing the same things, like immunization.

So abolishing totally 1 level, or amalgamating 2 levels together ASAP, is absolutely imperative.

Then it occurred to me, the real issue is now, always has been, whenever something goes wrong for us, in our electorate/area/suburb/town there is not, one bum in front of us, to kick but 3 local members, or more, (up to a dozen or so) if you try going to the mayor/premier/prime minister, or the relevant departmental minister, another 3 more, then there is the upper house twice more. All of them, with the ability to duck shove, between grey areas of responsibility, in our constitution, which has no recognition of local government at all.

So why not have 3 levels of government, with only 1 local member being responsible for the administration of everything, going on in his/her local electorate? What we now regard as “local government” would be, all registered voters being invited to attend a meeting in the local electorate, “town hall” & being the, “councillors” and voting their approval of the local members administration, development proposals, reports on state/national affairs, etc, & getting a tax cut to “encourage” their involvement.

What we now regard as state government would involve those same local members, within that state/regional area, meeting at parliament house for planning/admin. Again, with the existing, state boundaries gone & the new ones being, “real geography” like the entire Murray/Darling river system as one local/state/regional government area.

What we now regard as Federal/National government would be all, of those same local MHRs meeting in Canberra as they do now.

And as we have discussed before, lets also, reduce the congestion in our bloated capital cities by shifting bureaucracy into rural/regional Australia, with new state/regional capitals, growth areas/towns.

acker says:

10:59am | 15/04/10

@formersnag….totally agree all bueracracy with exeption to those where it strategicaly significient they are in capital cities (eg ...treasury, trade and tourism) ..the rest should demolish their ivory office blocks and distribute themselves across rural communities.

Cripes with modern day communication being so good the days of every one needing to be in a nearby office is gone, if it is an issue to people they should get a webcam.

I personally think 100% of Health should be federal and if I was going to involve another level of government it would be local not state.

John Brumby is making a lot of noise now but he should remember vividly from when he was an advisor to John Cain that things can go to hell in a handbag in Victoria very quickly.

And if anyone anywhere in Australia wants an historic example of how a state can squander the profits of a mining boom that at the time in the late 1800’s in terms of scale of economy was possibly as big or bigger as todays mining boom. The Victorian John Cain government (with John Brumby as his advisor) is a classic case study that could be used.

One day someone in NSW like Jeff Kennett will take control tell the unions to naff off sell the power stations before all the copper gets stollen and environmental emmision targets decrease their worth; and amalgamate the ridiculous amount of local councils we have in this state (NSW) , decrease Sydney’s urban sprawl rather than increase it, build the Badgery’s Creek airport, fix the Pacific Goat Track, and revitalise Far West NSW possibly by building some solar power stations and relocating public services out here.

Perhaps 50% payroll tax reduction for companies that operate west of a line between Dubbo & Wagga increasing to a total 100% exemption west of Bourke & Hay

And reduce the number of NSW politicians by 25%

Thats my manifesto, now I might go and shed a few tears like David Cameron did to make myself more electable

Shifter says:

01:56pm | 15/04/10

Formersnag - heaven forbid we have a local ‘mayor’, a state ‘governor’, perhaps a representative to ‘congress’ with other representatives reporting to a smaller ‘senate’ commitee that is presided over by… well… A ‘president?’

One could only ‘hope’ and wish upon some Stars for the government to ‘change’ their Stripes in such a way.

S.L says:

05:26pm | 15/04/10

FS&SV; and acker you two probably know more about politics than I ever will and your dream acker of reducing poli numbers has merit but from personal experience I can tell you inefficiency is where both sides of the political fence get an A+.
My father was a Labor party branch member in a blue ribbon Liberal seat and an employee of mine was a Liberal member in a blue ribbon Labor!
The later ran for a federal seat a couple of elections ago and got a good swing but not enough unfortunately for him. I asked him when he was campaigning what would he do if he got in (besides telling me where I could shove my job!) and all he could talk about was the lerks and perks!
About the only poli I think was fair dinkum was Ted Mack from North Sydney….... A guy who pulled then pin a day before he got a big fat super payout!

acker says:

05:59pm | 15/04/10

@S.L ..I suppose even in the romantic days of a century ago they stuffed thing up pretty bad with different railway guages. But at least they had a red blooded go at trying to improve infrastructure. How many new hospitals have been buit in Australia since 1964 (the year of my birth) ? ..I doubt very many…I sometimes drive past the Western General in Footscray (where I hit the planet) and it looks like one of the more modern ones….that it is a big concern.

S.L says:

07:08pm | 15/04/10

Oh acker, acker, acker! I feel your pain I “hit the planet” at Bankstown Hospital in the middle of Paul Keating territory! I agree infrastructure is NOT on any agenda on either side of the fence.
Look at the GST…. that was supposed to provide this mythical contribution to society. Cost me more in tax and I can’t see any benefit 10 years later…...........Besides it was supposed to eliminate dirty money. EEEERRR I’ve never seen soooooo much dirty money since it was railroaded onto us. Thanks Pete!
But try to get conservative talkback radio hosts to say anything derogitory about it is like pushing jelly up Mt Everest with a knitting needle!
Up here in Sydney the unofficial Federal and State election campaigns were started when our local shock jocks got back from their chrisy breaks. So Labor is on the nose. You can barely get a word in because every conservative MP with a voice is screaming from the rooftops kissing every backside they can find in the madia and they are lapping it up! You may have seen the traffic jam on the F3 north of Sydney on your news. They are really getting mileage out of that…....

John A Neve says:

08:12am | 15/04/10

Persephone,

While it might sound silly, I both agree and disagree with you.
I am of the opinon that the more you do for people, the less thay will do for themselves. We are becoming a Nanny state, we are told what to eat, drink, say or not say and it’s getting worse.

More importantly, governments are spread too thin, the more thay do the more we criticise. A glaring examples is the insulation fiasco, government was never about being hands on.

To suggest people “don’t have time” is a cop out, isn’t government people?

If the country is to improve governments should back off, set the ground rules and parameters, but leave the work to the people.

Tim says:

08:41am | 15/04/10

Persephone,
if you think smoking, drink driving laws and speed limits are the best examples of “nanny” laws, then you need to get out a bit more.

Its your kind of attitude that lets the government get away with far too much control.

persephone says:

09:30am | 15/04/10

Tim

Were you around when they were introduced? All were seen as examples of the nanny state, of government intrusion into people’s lives, of taking away people’s individual rights.

All or some of those examples still have not been adopted in some states in America, for example, with those exact arguments being used as reasons not to.

But give me your examples, rather than just bagging mine.

acker says:

01:30pm | 15/04/10

How ironical !

Steve says:

10:29am | 15/04/10

Persephone -

criticising your argument methodology is perfectly legitimate.  and your second paragraph is simply juvenile.

Steve_of_Cornubia says:

01:28pm | 15/04/10

Persephone, the simple fact is, the UK has had successive Labour govts since 1997 and they have undone most of the good that John Major did, increased nanny-style government and driven the UK into massive debt.

persephone says:

02:52pm | 15/04/10

So, Steve, still no answer to my arguments?

John A Neve says:

10:47am | 15/04/10

Willy K,

Surely you contradict yourself?  You say “3 successive generations all to have only known welfare”.  So what government has been in power for most of that period?

persephone says:

10:36am | 15/04/10

Willy K

So this has all just happened over the last two years? Why didn’t the Liberals do anything about these problems?

As for the idea that somehow the Labor party has managed to bring this all to pass in the last two years or so…gee, to think people say the government hasn’t done anything! It seems, on the contrary, that they’ve been very busy.

Henry says:

11:15am | 15/04/10

All govts have been in power during this time.  The Coalition have tried to peel back the welfare somewhat but the howls of the welfare addicts on the handout syringe and the lobby of screeching do-gooders has often drowned them out.  It will be very very hard to pare back welfare now that entire suburbs have been built on it.  They are cunning and know that the ALP goons they vote for only want power and therefore will give them their welfare hit in exchange for votes .... no matter how bad the ALP govt has been. See the SA and Tas elections as recent examples.

It is utterly sick and we are in for a tsunami of social issues and gang crime in the very near future.  Well done Whitlam, well done ALP.

persephone says:

11:25am | 15/04/10

Henry

‘The Coalition tried to peel back welfare’ - so hard that welfare increased dramatically under Howard - including increasingly to the middle class.

Another great receiver of welfare is farmers. Of course, it would be very hard for a Coalition government to wind that back too - entire communities are dependent on it and the do gooders in the Liberal ranks would scream blue murder.

I’ve said it before: I once heard a NY policeman interviewed during a visit to Australia. He said when he looked at our welfare system, he couldn’t understand it. Then he looked at our crime figures, and it made sense.

If you’d rather the single mothers were selling themselves into prostitution, the disabled were out begging, and the long term unemployed resorted to theft or drug peddling o sustain themselves, you have to be prepared to look at the consequences of that for the rest of us.

John A Neve says:

11:40am | 15/04/10

Henry,

Nice try, but not good enough, I repeat who has been in power the longest over the last “3 generations”?

Henry says:

12:01pm | 15/04/10

Johnny Naive and persimon (you are probably the same ALP staffer).

1.  Libs have been in power longer but the Labs set up the welfare state and as I said once people are addicted to free money and have built their lives on it is is next to impossible to wean them off it.  Especially when they are the ones keeping the ALP in power.  That is fact.  Thus the ALP have no desire to lose their base even though the honest ones must know it is destroying the nation.

2. So you assume that when people have to get off welfare they automatically prostitute themselves, sell drugs or steal?  You must mix in the best circles!  I would hope to think that most of these people would see the light and try to get a low paying job and work their way up in the world.  If they are truly crims - then they should be jailed.  No excuse.

Your insane logic just feeds itself and has created the welfare madness and aggressive chip on the shoulder attitudes that defy belief in this wealthy, largely white and very educated nation.  Welcome to Bludgistan.

John A Neve says:

12:30pm | 15/04/10

Henry,

Your last post is at best irrational, why do you assume I am a Labor supporter?  Oh, I know, because I don’t agree with your illogical views.

You then go on to tell me what I think!!!! Follow this up by suggesting I have ” insane logic”, come on Henry, get a grip old son, take your medi and have a lie down. You’ll feel better in the morning.

persephone says:

12:36pm | 15/04/10

Heinrich (since you seem to think spoofing people’s monikers makes some kind of deep statement)—-

1. How confused are you?  Your ‘argument’ can be summarised as: The ALP set up the welfare state to keep them in power, but they haven’t been in power, and Howard was too wimpy to do anything about it.

2. No, they take up a life of crime and prostitution voluntarily, because it offers them such great career prospects.

Seriously, desperate people do desperate things. The US has far more people in jail than we do, not because Americans are inherently more criminal than we are, or that we have wimpier laws, but because they have more people who are driven to crime to support their families.

If you were unemployed (we’ll assume through no fault of your own), had been for several months (because there isn’t any work), had sold everything you had and still couldn’t feed your family, are you saying you’d let them all starve rather than steal?

There’s a reason why poor countries produce more prostitutes and grow more opium than rich countries, and it’s not because their populations are inherently more corrupt.

Get real.

Willy K says:

12:52pm | 15/04/10

Henry… don’t try and debate them. They are rolled-gold nut jobs.  You know the old argument about arguing with a fool!

They are either:  able bodied and can work, not able bodied and receive welfare.  If they cannot genuinely get a gig then their family or charities can help them.  If they turn to crime then they are crims and should be locked up or hanged.  Welfare should only be there to help the disabled or to help in an extreme bind.  To be able to rear a family on it and run a house is obscene and is the reason ferals rule our outer burbs and the ALP won the SA election.

John A Neve says:

01:02pm | 15/04/10

Willy K,

Based on your last post, you are even more irrational than Henry. You know what the call people who run don’t you?
No you possibly don’t, you have ben running all your life, you know what the say “when the going get tough, the tough get going”. Come on give it your best shot.  Oops, sorry, you have already done that haven’t you.

persephone says:

03:00pm | 15/04/10

Willy K

then by your logic, what Howard did - paying baby bonuses to people who could well afford to look after their babies themselves, subsidising people who chose to take out private health, topping up people’s superannuation payments, paying for them to convert their cars to LPG, giving Family Payments on an un means tested basis, etc - was unforgiveable.

And how do you defend what Abbott is doing now? - refusing to cut the private health subsidy, offering to pay women not to work for six months - both irresponsible actions, according your own criteria.

Given that the ALP has tried to wind back some of this middle class welfare, and the the Libs seem hell bent on not only maintaining what’s there but extending it, I take it you are voting Labor next election.

A Bob says:

04:03pm | 15/04/10

Henry, the welfare state was a creation of capitalism during the Victorian era. It started first in England and Germany, the two capitalist economic powerhouses of the times.

John A Neve says:

12:25pm | 15/04/10

Zeta,
How well do you know Boris?

persephone says:

05:40pm | 15/04/10

Gee, Saskia, and all in two years.

Not bad for a ‘do nothing’ PM.

I think you’ll find that bogans - or their equivalents - have been a part of society, gee, just about forever.

I am intrigued, though, at the constant hatred shown by the right on this site towards so many Australians.

Actually, no, I do them a disservice - they hate people from overseas, too.

acker says:

07:13pm | 15/04/10

@ Saskia ..I’m proud to be an aspirational right wing leaning bogan, but rather than eyeballing Rudd for doing nothing, I’m more concerned about the Albanese/Tebutt husband & wife all talk and no action husband & wife team in New South Wales.

Anti Liberal/National Man. says:

07:07am | 16/04/10

@ persephone, i have been blogging for over a year now on this & other sites, it is always the red/green/labour coalition with the hate speech first, especially whenever anybody, not screaming, loony, left is having a reasonable discussion of good ideas.

Have you forgotten about Belinda Neal suggesting that Sophie Mirrabella’s baby was the next antichrist?

A bunch of deaf, mute, blind, lobotomised, hog tied, orangutans could not possibly do a worse job of governing NSW or QLD than your lot. That said, the conservative coalition are not much better, but they are, a little better & will be getting my preference vote, after i have ticked, a “real minor party” (a vote for the red/greens is a vote for labour).

PS, i hear the AFP, DLP are getting a significant number of very disgruntled red/green/labour voters & will be preferencing the conservatives also.

Regards the formersnag.

Barry says:

12:35pm | 16/04/10

Saskia, if you look up what ‘nanny state’ means you will find that police and the law are actually part of the problem.  They are the ones imposing all of ‘nanny’s rules’

Henry says:

01:11pm | 16/04/10

Cheers Peter.  Thanks for your robust debates and logical arguments!