The invisible mullet
Premium Gold
Yes he did.
Danna Vale had a run as a Democrat.
not that I'd want to compare any serious politician with Vale.
-
LIVE: Sydney v Brisbane Lions - 2:30PM AEST Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 61% chance -- What's your tip? -- Ticketing Buy, Sell -- Teams on Thurs »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Grand Final
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round PF Winner: Still Me
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
The ALP's Beds Are Burning
- Thread starter year of the roo
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Yes he did.
Danna Vale had a run as a Democrat.
not that I'd want to compare any serious politician with Vale.
I really don't understand why LAtham would embark on this. IMO the risks outweigh the benefits.
We've seen how difficult it is for a non-Labor person to enter the party - Kernot.
If Garrett is respected for anything by his followers its for his strict ideology and unwillingness to compromise on those issues he passiontely believes in.
Well guess what Peter? - the art of compromise is what will make or break you going foward. The image will be shattered within months of being in government.
Of course the other problem they face is finding him a ministry to either take or act as shadow in. You don't recruit high profile candidates to sit on the back benches. Environment is the obvious one - but Thompson will be ropable if he has to give way to Garrett. More interestingly however would be Garrett's relationship going foward with the manufacturing and minig unions.
Indigenous affairs? Maybe, but there's hard yards to put in in that protfolio.
Hawkes, first minister for the Environment Barry Cohen yesterday suggested that this has not been thought trhough very well at all.
Should prove most interesting. I'm sure one JW Howard can barely contain his delight.
We've seen how difficult it is for a non-Labor person to enter the party - Kernot.
If Garrett is respected for anything by his followers its for his strict ideology and unwillingness to compromise on those issues he passiontely believes in.
Well guess what Peter? - the art of compromise is what will make or break you going foward. The image will be shattered within months of being in government.
Of course the other problem they face is finding him a ministry to either take or act as shadow in. You don't recruit high profile candidates to sit on the back benches. Environment is the obvious one - but Thompson will be ropable if he has to give way to Garrett. More interestingly however would be Garrett's relationship going foward with the manufacturing and minig unions.
Indigenous affairs? Maybe, but there's hard yards to put in in that protfolio.
Hawkes, first minister for the Environment Barry Cohen yesterday suggested that this has not been thought trhough very well at all.
Should prove most interesting. I'm sure one JW Howard can barely contain his delight.
Portia
#DrewBlood
30k Posts
10k Posts
TheBrownDog
Port Adelaide - Jesse Palmer Player Sponsor 2017
Podcaster
Port Adelaide - Riley Bonner Player Sponsor 2016
Port Adelaide - Brendon AhChee Player Sponsor 2014
Port Adelaide - Jarrad Redden Player Sponsor 2014
Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013
Port Adelaide - Captains Club 2012 Sponsor
Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
- Oct 7, 2001
- 50,502
- 24,864
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Muckbuckle Dolmens
Pretty dumb move by Labor.
I reckon Latham thinks he's going to ride in on the coat-tails of the American election, but Howard is not Bush.
I reckon Latham thinks he's going to ride in on the coat-tails of the American election, but Howard is not Bush.
My problem with the Garrett stuff is that it seems unnecessary. It's not like we're going to lose Randwick. Preferences will flow from the Greens anyway. Recruiting Garrett is not going to convince hard-line greenies that we are better than Bob Brown.
If he was going into a marginal seat it might be different as I think that his profile might swing some votes.
That said, I have always been impressed by Garrett (although I have not always agreed with him). If he is given a bit of latitude to develop policy and argue from a prinicpled position (which is not guaranteed due to the Party's highly structured nature) he will be a good addition to the team. We need more 'thinkers' in the party.
If he was going into a marginal seat it might be different as I think that his profile might swing some votes.
That said, I have always been impressed by Garrett (although I have not always agreed with him). If he is given a bit of latitude to develop policy and argue from a prinicpled position (which is not guaranteed due to the Party's highly structured nature) he will be a good addition to the team. We need more 'thinkers' in the party.
There are a couple of big fears amongst the ALP number crunchers.
1. Inner-city marginals may be lost on preferences if there is a strong Green vote. With the Dems a joke, the Greens could well poll 10% and that could be enough for the Libs to hold or win them. Garrett will go along way to cutting the legs from under the Greens and keeping some of the 'green / anti-war' vote in the ALP. The line will be that Greens who want to get things done, vote ALP, Greens that want to make noise vote Green.
2. Youth. Same story really. Lots of evidence that the votes of the under-30s is weak. Also that a lot of ALP types don't belive that the party is an activist / idea organistation anymore. Garrett will shore of the 25-35 vote and get Latham's left wing back in the boat.
A lot of the election will be about the youth / charisma / energy of the ALP versus the old / tired / dull Libs (that will be the speil regardless of what people might think the truth is). Garrett will certainly pump-up the charisma points.
It also fits well with the 3rd-way strategy of Latham. Admit that economics and foreign policy are largely beyond Australia's control, and that thing like unemployment are largely unsolveable, and find a 'new' role for government. Social services, early education, familes, environment ... focus on areas that you can control and appeal to middle-Australian familes. Should be interesting to watch.
1. Inner-city marginals may be lost on preferences if there is a strong Green vote. With the Dems a joke, the Greens could well poll 10% and that could be enough for the Libs to hold or win them. Garrett will go along way to cutting the legs from under the Greens and keeping some of the 'green / anti-war' vote in the ALP. The line will be that Greens who want to get things done, vote ALP, Greens that want to make noise vote Green.
2. Youth. Same story really. Lots of evidence that the votes of the under-30s is weak. Also that a lot of ALP types don't belive that the party is an activist / idea organistation anymore. Garrett will shore of the 25-35 vote and get Latham's left wing back in the boat.
A lot of the election will be about the youth / charisma / energy of the ALP versus the old / tired / dull Libs (that will be the speil regardless of what people might think the truth is). Garrett will certainly pump-up the charisma points.
It also fits well with the 3rd-way strategy of Latham. Admit that economics and foreign policy are largely beyond Australia's control, and that thing like unemployment are largely unsolveable, and find a 'new' role for government. Social services, early education, familes, environment ... focus on areas that you can control and appeal to middle-Australian familes. Should be interesting to watch.
Change the sbject line to "Garrett Sells Out!"
Well the decision has been made and it almost looks certain, that should Labor come to power, Garrett will be a minister (probably for the Environment and/or the Arts).
Makes the Liberals pre-selecting Turnbull seem second-rate.
Makes the Liberals pre-selecting Turnbull seem second-rate.
Turnbull has achieved more in 5 minutes than Garrett has in his 51 years
A dud singer in a dud rock and roll band and failed law student compared to a businessman who has built companies from scratch and created employment for 1000's of people
A dud singer in a dud rock and roll band and failed law student compared to a businessman who has built companies from scratch and created employment for 1000's of people
Gee, would a Rhodes Scholar (amongst the many things he has accomplished in his life) or a singer make a better parliamentarian? You be the judge.
The amusing thing would be, if it were to actually happen, and there are many variables in the way, but if Garrett did become Environment and Arts minister, he would be replacing both David and Rod Kemp. Hopefully the Australian people have the common sense to see who are the better people for the job, and in this case it's pretty obvious. Who would make a better Enviro minister? The bloke with the doctorate from Yale (again, amongst many things), or the singer who is 'passionate' about the environment. Just because someone has a particular interest in the issue does not mean they are qualified to formulate policy in the area.
Nor do university awards.
Many intelligent people have made bad policy.
I would've thought that Garrett's position with the ACF might have inflated him past the position of a 'mere' singer. By this measure David Kemp is a mere academic and unqualifed to do anything else.
But then I forgot, you are but a mouthpiece for the incumbents.
- Apr 20, 2001
- 27,493
- 10,613
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Utd,Liverpool, WWT Eagles.
I actually agree but the Libs work in the same way.
Garrett will be a good candidat but you would think there is a huge risk of the Kernot Affair happening all over again.
Cough ** VOTE GRAB ** Cough
- Apr 20, 2001
- 27,493
- 10,613
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Utd,Liverpool, WWT Eagles.
This to me is just ignorant trash.
Ok, you are a liberal voter and that's fair enough.
but to just mindlessly insult Garrett is pointless and stupid.
He has been very sucessful in the music industry as an entertainer and a business man.
Your idelogoy is getting in the way of sense.
I don't know if anyone has posted this arleady, but Garett hasn't even been registered to vote for the past 10 years.
University qualifications demonstrate that a person has both intelligence and application. Leading a lobby group demonstrates neither.
It's funny how you consider those who support government mouthpieces, but by your standard you are just a mouthpiece for the left. You, and your colleagues, just use half baked insults as a cover for your lack of argument and intelligence.
Timmy, you're showing your ignorance again. A university degree is no guarantee of intelligence and gives you no guarantee of original thought either. Considering the basis for most studies comes simply from absorbing information that is already recorded, how does this mean you are more intelligent than someone who ignores the mainstream and actually focuses on finding new solutions? Your blueblooded ideals don't hold up to scrutiny. I would suggest that leading a lobby group takes far more application and intelligence than gaining a university degree, especially given that the criteria of your Govt. is that as long as you can pay, you can get a place at Uni.
**** Smith is a rich and successful man, John Singleton is a rich and successful man, Gerry Harvey is a rich and successful man. All three of these people never attended Uni., never inherited Daddy's money and started off by themselves. I don't believe that either Kerry Packer or Rupert Murdoch went to Uni, although they did get the great Liberal gift of Daddy's money. Warwick Fairfax went to Uni.didn't he (Harvard wasn't it), what a great example of intelligence and application, Jodde Rich and Brad Keeling round out a nice little trio for you.
Just out of interest, do you disagree with anything that the Coalition has ever done? If so Ican't recall it. By my reckoning this makes you a mouthpiece.
Peter Garrett may not be formally qualified in enviro. science, but I don't believe that career politicians like Howard and Costello are qualified to formulate policy for people who they do not understand and I don't believe either of them are economists. How are they then qualified to run the economy? By equating uni. degrees to intelligence and application, you have just insulted one of your best allies in the coming election-primary producers. So these guys are all dumb and lack application? Your generalisations are betraying you again.
Despite the decline in standards of universities, a degree still guarantees some knowledge in a particular field. A PhD most certainly requires research. To come up with good ideas, you generally need a foundation of knowledge to build on. Practical experience in the world is more important however. Leading a lobby group requires you to be able to get a soundbite, something that as a celebrity is easily achieved.
Certainly people do become successful without a university education. If the ALP were to put up Gerry Harvey or D.ck Smith that would be fine. The point is they are putting Peter Garrett not any of the people you listed. Do you think that people who do not go to university are less likely to be intelligent? And are you arguing that David Kemp and Malcolm Turnbull are unintelligent, and less qualified than Peter Garrett?
Howard was a solicitor before he became a politician, Costello was an outstanding barrister. I believe they do hold some economics qualification, but from their results, they know how to run an economy. You like to try and distort arguments, contending that I stated university qualifications were the only measure of intelligence and application. I said no such thing. The truth is, however you look at it, that Malcolm Turnbull and David Kemp are far better qualified than he is, and that is the case with the parties as a whole, as the ALP system generally puts up party hacks.
Yes, there are several things which I disagree with, specifically high taxing high spending. But more on that when I get back from dinner.
- Aug 31, 2003
- 732
- 4
Wishfull thinking Mate.Theres a good chance that Latham will be next PM and anyway who has the Libs got after Howard the unelectable Costello or Abbott - you have to be playing with yourself.
Actually I have a recurring Image of Garret 'negotiatiing' with someone like Dubya.
Suddenly Garret goes glassy eyed and sings in a groaning voice "Thar US FOR-ces ya ya ya......)
Seems like more of a risk to Latham to me - but he hs a bit of the midas touch.
Howard seems to be rattled - went on and on about the Garret not voting thing and used the 'credibility' word about 7 times - an the not voting thing is far from proven
Suddenly Garret goes glassy eyed and sings in a groaning voice "Thar US FOR-ces ya ya ya......)
Seems like more of a risk to Latham to me - but he hs a bit of the midas touch.
Howard seems to be rattled - went on and on about the Garret not voting thing and used the 'credibility' word about 7 times - an the not voting thing is far from proven
- Aug 2, 2001
- 8,656
- 3,189
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Swan Districts
I don't know why so many are comparing this to Kernot. Kernot joined the party mainly because she was having an affair with Evans. Secondly, she wept and moaned when she thought she was about to be tossed out because the ALP did not give her a safe seat. She won it anyway, but still moaned about it.
There are many differences between picking Kernot and picking Garrett. Garrett is not having an affair or dumping a party that supported him. Garrett has been asked to join the ALP as he has credentials to be an enviroment minister and MAY do a good job if elected. I understand some elements of the ALP are upset at the decision, but I always understood you chose the right man for the right job, (for enviro) not who was next in line.
It is interesting how this may turn out. I can see pros and cons, but there will be some bitter and twisted people over this decision and I see a lot more coming from this episode.
Just have to wait and see I think.
There are many differences between picking Kernot and picking Garrett. Garrett is not having an affair or dumping a party that supported him. Garrett has been asked to join the ALP as he has credentials to be an enviroment minister and MAY do a good job if elected. I understand some elements of the ALP are upset at the decision, but I always understood you chose the right man for the right job, (for enviro) not who was next in line.
It is interesting how this may turn out. I can see pros and cons, but there will be some bitter and twisted people over this decision and I see a lot more coming from this episode.
Just have to wait and see I think.
- Aug 1, 2002
- 22,826
- 10,716
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- NMFC
I can't believe he has joined Tweedledum - and he has already said that Pine Gap is "essential in this age of terrorism" _ as he has said before "US Forces Give the Nod" - the horror, the horror"
Now we will get a "Treaty , yeah " and the indiginous will be able to charge a "rent" alongside shire rates.
- Aug 1, 2002
- 22,826
- 10,716
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- NMFC
Ripper 76 it is pellucid to me that you have not read the Mabo decision and have no idea the form of property rights that are recognised by native title - in there nature they are not exclusive. The idea that succesful claimants can charge rents is utterly ridiculous and baseless in law. For God's sake read the primary text and not the drivel put about by the Liberal Party and shock jocks such as Howard Sattler
By they way the Treaty of Waitungi does not entitle Maoris to charge rent - so get for facts straight
