Roxon rocks on and gives Health a genuine feel
|
According to Peter Dutton and Tony Abbott, the Government’s hospitals reform plan is a political stunt. They’re entirely correct, of course — witness the Prime Minister’s Budget-like media blitz in the past 24 hours, featuring appearances on evening news bulletins, Today and radio. But like the best stunts, it also has some serious policy behind it, which is why Dutton and Abbott are keeping a low profile until they figure out a line. Several commentators have concentrated this morning on the number of impediments in the way of implementation. The states won’t like it. Most referenda fail. Legislation will have to pass state parliaments. The Opposition will oppose it. Screaming Steve Fielding will be brought into play in the Senate. All of those are opportunities as much as potential stumbling blocks, particularly in NSW. Don’t lose sight of the fact that NSW is where the policy imperative of better hospital management coincides with the political imperative of dissociating federal Labor from state Labor and bolstering federal Labor’s flagging vote. No government ever likes to back a loser in a referendum, but what better way than to concentrate voters’ minds on health, the core of NSW Labor’s image problems, than a referendum with Kevin Rudd on one side and whoever is acting NSW Premier on the other? Rudd’s only challenge there will be to ensure voters think he gave the famous sauce bottle a fair shake with the states before rushing off to a referendum. Tony Abbott has been left in the tricky but not impossible position of opposing two ideas he has broadly supported in the past — national funding, and local management, of hospitals, and of handing the Government the means to paint him as an obstacle to better health services, building on the Government’s Big Lie-style incessant repetition of the spurious claim that Abbott ripped a billion dollars out of health funding when Minister. Abbott’s reflexive opposition to everything the Government proposes is starting to creep into political coverage. It’s also not clear that Peter Dutton has the policy goods in him to craft a nuanced response — remember, the Coalition in Opposition has been bad at health policy for a long time, going right back to Peter Shack’s disastrous failure to have a policy ready for the 1990 election. In contrast, I’m forced to reluctantly admit, Nicola Roxon has emerged as a solid communicator. I had her pegged as a Labor hack, and an economically illiterate one as well, but whether she’s that or not, she is across her brief and, unlike very many of her colleagues, has mastered the art of answering interview questions and sticking to her talking points in a way that sounds a lot more genuine that her boss’ habit of sticking to the script regardless of questions. The contrast with Dutton, who appears permanently enraged about everything, is occasionally painful. As for the Senate, well, I haven’t seen any evidence that voters reward obstructionism on issues where they want to see action. Then again, this is the Government that found a way to turn a bipartisan policy on an ETS into a political debacle, although there’s a decidedly simpler message to sell here: “funded nationally, run locally”. That will be repeated ad nauseum between now and the election, with or without a referendum. |
|
|
|
73 Comments
Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I’m not sure though why it is an issue. Sure, ‘Health’ is always a voter concern, like ‘Environment’ and ‘Jobs’, but what specific problem is this looking to solve?
As you say, the problem might be the tarnished reputation of NSW Labor.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a detailed response from the Opposition Finance Spokesperson..;)
The Famous Barnaby Song
(Apologies to Clarke Van Ness)
‘Twas an evening with red Kerry, I’ll confess I wasn’t ready,
I was emphasising a debt with manly pride,
When my tongue began to stutter and I fell into the gutter,
And Joe came up and lay down by my side.
Then I lay there in the gutter and my heart was all a-flutter,
Till a lady, passing by, did chance to say:
“You can tell a man that bam boozes by the company he chooses,”
Then Joe got up and slowly walked away.
Walked away, walked away,
He was really too particular to stay.
“You can tell a man that bam boozes by the company he chooses,”
Then Joe got up and slowly walked away.
Here’s a prediction. At some stage Steve Feilding will confuse Rudd’s health reforms with Obama’s. I luv it when you say ‘referenda’ Bernard
Im surprised at your comment BK, that you considered Minister Roxen a hack. She had proved more than a match for Abbott when she was the Labor Opposition Health shadow and since being Minister has been a forceful contributor in the House and is indeed on top of her game. Her use of the golf balls directed at Dutton was brilliant.
Im pleased you mentioned the attitude of Peter Dutton. I would hope for those near and dear to him, he has a completely different personality when not doing political bizzo. If ever there was a sad, down in the mouth, miserable sad sack he wins first prize. Of course not knowing if the good folk of his electorate intend giving him the boot, which he richly deserves, isn’t helping his humour. His present attitude of oppose oppose with no humour, no light in the dark tunnel, is hardly assisting the Monks cause. The Opposition has reached an interesting stage, and as yet no heavy fire from the Govt.Should be interesting when it starts, as it surely will.
As to be expected Abbott has started the negative comments rubbishing the health plan. Interesting coming from someone with probably one of the worst records as a health Minister (nearly typed monster )ever. Given there is no sign of an Opposition health plan, its typical they are already talking the Senate will block it. Eventually this blocking game will run out of steam and will start back firing on them.
I don’t doubt there is an element of political manouvering involved in this package. When is there ever not some alterior motive at play? There always was when the coalition was in office. Surely we all recognise the need to address the rising cost of health care, and this seems a not unreasonable way to start the process. I know I’m biased but I abhored the previous government and have yet to hear a single constructive word come from them in opposition. I’d be surprised if the public didn’t get the shits with them as they did with Beasley, but then Abbot has Murdoch in his corner.
I must’ve missed Nicola Roxon standing staunchly alongside her boss at his National Press Club address announcing his new Health Reform policy.
BUt fiscally adept La Roxon when asked to speak outside her script about whether tax increases were inevitable under the HospitalWatch plan said
“It certainly means that there may be.”
F.A.I.L
“… it also has some serious policy behind it…”
Where is it, Bernard?
All I’ve seen is the PM announce how the shift in funding mechanism will work…same money, different mattress.
No ‘policy’ has been announced.
No new beds, more doctors & nurses, more facilities.
Zip.
Useful contribution as always MPM
Ms Roxon sat in the crowds with the rest of the audience to the PM’s political theatre and nodded her head enthusiastically everytime someone pointed a camera in her direction.
David 2:19
“Her use of the golf balls directed at Dutton was brilliant.”
No it was just tacky.
Australian Health care isnt in crisis - we have world class rates of mortality and morbidity and we spend in the middle as a %of GDP but there is scope for improvement. Rudd was elected on “ending the blame game” and you would have thought clarifying the accountabilities of the two tiers of government would go some way to that end. Under the proposed model the states still fund 40% of the cost so there will still be scope for plenty of blame game. If costs are set to rise by 10% per annum and in the absence of tax rises (something Roxon is open to) we need to find some efficiencies. The plan does seek to raise standards so there is potential there but it will take 5 years plus to achieve that. The private system deals with 40-45% of elective surgery and does it pretty well but the plan is silent on this sector for now at least.
Politically the plan gives Rudd something to campaign on and defers actually achieving something in this field until after the election. Rudd reminds me of Groucho Marx “these are my principles and if you dont like them…I have others”. This is his plan for now and when the states and a failed referendum render the plan worthless - he will promote another plan.
Oh dear Poseidon Burke, another Liberal sad sack, miserable, humourless, we’re all doomed, Dutton clone. Appears you need a swift knee in yours to wake you up, if you have any of course. Obviously you are another Abbott adoree catholic, are you all so down in the mouth?
Only One word to characterize such a great post “WOW” that was a very interesting read
such a wonderful information for me..i am really impress it.
weider x factor
Don’t press it too hard, it’ll fall off.
I reckon everyone who’s encountered the public health system in an emergency - and seen how seriously shithouse it is, will treat opposition to ANY kind of health reform with extreme prejudice at the next opportunity.
If we give Health to the Feds - who, let’s face it have zero experience in implementing much of anything, how much worse a job than the states can they do ?
That way we can feel less concern about giving Labor the arse in NSW next year. Not that they don’t richly deserve it - just that the NSW Coalition are so unutteraby bad too.
The real risk is that the Feds will employ the same Health Bureaucrats that stuffed up the states.
There’s got to be comedy around the corner when RU486 aka Tony Abbott, the former minister for health-together with his totally shonky, hard right-wing Catholicism which prevented women from accessing a birth control pill. Abbott had an atrocious health track record, yet will he lie, spin, and appear yet again in the printed media-presumably in a jock-strap and wearing a surf lifesaver’s beret-gets up on his back legs to criticise, surprise, surprise, Kevin Rudd’s latest health announcement.
Regrettably the comedy will be black, and it will be all a specious scenario, because Kevin Rudd hasn’t yet announced any details, merely the outline. Which instantly was enough to get Victoria’s very own Premier, John Brumby to sail onto the attack. If Brumby hates it there has got to be something going for it.
I’ve been pleasantly surprised with Nicola Roxon and I will look forward to hearing more from her.
@ David “its typical they are already talking the Senate will block it. Eventually this blocking game will run out of steam and will start back firing on them”.
I think it has already begun. Even the MSM have started dubbing the opposition for opposition’s sake party. The electorate will hear that loud and clear before too long.
David
Actually Im an atheist libertine who cant stand god botherers admired Paul Keating and Jeff Kennett for having the cajones and vision and think Rudd is a bland bore. Maybe its Nicola who is channelling her inner page boy with that but ugly hair cut of hers.
Well who would have guessed Poseidon? I’m a Catholic who has learnt to see through the fairy tales and make believe and live by my conscience, not the rantings of Geo Pell and his hypocritical politician brethren. On Nicola we will have to differ. Your reasoned reply is appreciated.
I also think that Nicola Roxon is performing well. She has been growing in her job which what we would expect of Ministers but don’t often get. You just haven’t been noticing Bernard.
@ MPM
“BUt fiscally adept La Roxon when asked to speak outside her script about whether tax increases were inevitable under the HospitalWatch plan said
“It certainly means that there may be.””
A. She was asked about the long-term future, over which nobody has any control at this point.
B. No politician of any persuasion worth their salt is going to rule in or out any future tax changes. Afterall — no matter what the argument, we, the taxpayer actually pay for it, just as we consume it.
“… it also has some serious policy behind it… Where is it, Bernard?”
Just a few I gleaned from the speech, though by all means not all.
A. Placing the decision-making process in smaller units, closer to the ground where need can be judged against supply and cross-sourced where necessary.
B. No one size fits all anymore — parts of Australia with different needs will be serviced with appropriate staff/supplies/infrastructure and training.
C. Paying for actual services rather than a block amount of money prevents rorting because every service supplied will be covered. This means, for example, places that do 200 hip replacements will be paid for 200, not the 75 deemed appropriate to all hospitals. Neither will the hospital that does none, get paid for 75 either. This is where the system falls down, esp. in NSW where a district gets funding for the whole and divvies it up willy nilly. Hospitals will no longer have to fight against each other to gain adequate funding.
D. Useless bureaucrats will be removed and only those that are actually needed will be kept in the system. Perhaps they can retrain as drs or nurses .
“All I’ve seen is the PM announce how the shift in funding mechanism will work…same money, different mattress. No new beds, more doctors & nurses, more facilities.”
The above examples will remove a lot of wastage in the system. The funds that are currently wasted will be fed back into the system. Doctor and nurse places have already been increased by the government, unfortunately, like most such endeavours, that will take time to flow through. Afterall, the previous govt. neglected this area as well.
And perhaps, when the system starts ro work better, more staff will be retained or attracted back into the system.
I’m with you jenauthor and mahaut, though I question the value of providing details to MPM. None so blind as he who will not listen.
That should be see shouldn’t it?
DavidK the only reason is for other people who might be mislead by her extraordinary nonsense.
Thank you Venise for reminding me what I really hate about Abbott, this new catholic but caring Tony is bollocks
I reckon Roxon is a honey!
Comparing Tony Abbot’s performance as health minister verses Nicola there’s just no comparison. Tony was so disinterested it wasn’t funny - him turning up late to the debate with Nicola was completely comsistent with his attitude. Politics for Tony is all about the ego trip he has no interest in contributing something.
I agree with all of you who give abbott a pasting and think Nicola is doing a good job - as good a job a conservative govt can do. There’s information on Rudd’s site, where you can download. I hope they get it right and it works. We’re told that the costs of health care are going to escallate quite markedly in the near future, and the States won’t have the money to cope. So, it’s time to do something about it. A few people with more knowledge than I believe that this action should’ve been done 10 yrs ago.
It may take a higher tax to fit the bill, and before the Howard/Costello lovers start to shriek, there’s an article in the SMH prior to the ‘98 election I think, where Costello was forced to answer a question in Parlt (took him over 12 months as I recall) and admit to the raising of about 20 (could be more) different taxes and charges. You won’t hear Hockey, Abbott or idiot Barnaby admit to othat!
This is an interesting policy and could improve healthcare delivery.
However, we need more information.
We need to know how the Federal government will manage the new system - this is vital.
And I hope we will hear announcements in relation to GP and rural/regional healthcare workforce.
I don’t like the ALP but I must admit, I have never found Roxon to be illiterate.
I actually think she is a clear and concise communicator and a pretty good politician.
@ jenauthor
Way too many if’s there jen. Way. Too. Many.
Where are all these extra doctors and nurses coming from?
Does this switcheroo in fiscal responsibility add one more bed or take one person off a waiting list.
Oh wait, Rudd’s latest - and hilarious - thought bubble is to put public patients into near-full private hospitals AND get Joe Taxpayer to cover the difference.
That’ll fix it…and those who are currently privately insured? What should they do? Me, I’d quit and become a bigger burden on the already stretched public system. Kev’s promised I’ll be alright.
I am not surprised at your rusted-on “I’m Kevin, you can trust me” orthodoxy, but even you have to concede this is a populist and uncosted joke that does nothing to address the real problems in Australia’s woeful health care system.
It will achieve one thing though…it will become the world largest employer behind the British NHS and the Chinese Red Army.
NBN, ETS, FuelWatch, GroceryWatch, the Education “Revolution”, xeroxing Julia Gillard Memorial Hall in schools across the country regardless of need and now the centralisation of health care from a government that can’t even manage a simple home insulation system.
The roadkill on Kevin’s highway to heaven just keeps on piling up. He’s almost out-Whitlamed Gough.
And what areas will be underfunded when all that ‘spare’ GST loot is diverted into the health system?
Is taxing “the rich” the only solution you have?
I welcome your thoughts?
@davidk
I can’t seem to do anything about that annoying little echo that keep following me. Any ideas?
MPM, I’m not going to bother trying to answer all your one-liners plucked straight from the MSM. You obviously don’t ever look below the headline to investigate the actual policy or the state of affairs that prompt it.
Go read the policy. Listen to the statements re: various elements of the stimulus package. But do both with both your eyes open … the rationale and the logic to each of these things is so clear blind freddy would understand it.
“Funded nationally, run locally” still leaves Roxon with the monumental task of convincing Australians centralised accounting will change the way health is delivered in the outposts. It’s difficult to imagine either party reversing basket case ratings in NSW and Qld unless of course we actually do have health, education and IR revolutions to remove political parties from policy making. In 2010 governments are apologising for delivering crises as opposed to services. Up north where mass patient deaths, emergency ward closures, cabs and shuttle-buses work alongside ambulances and hundreds of dental patients are screened and counselled after bungled sterilisation procedures populations are so traumatised they travel to Brisbane or interstate to try their luck. It’s not only Roxon, Rudd or Abbott with a health crisis – it’s a nation sickened by political parties with more spin than substance.
SBH; ‘The new catholic but caring Tony is bollocks”.
Exactly! Also he knows how vapid his party’s stance is on anything. He lives a lie in order to lead a party who forgot where they buried the truth. Why else would he find it necessary to take off his clothes? The greater the lie, the more clothing he takes off.
There is something deliciously Freudian about this.
Well well MAMA is back - We were led to believe that Mad Monk swallowed it in the desert!
The level of personal venom directed towards a person who happens to espose an opposing political viewpoint, such a Vernise’s towards Tony Abbot, seems to displace the capability for rational thought processes or a well reasoned argument.
Disagree with a person’s politics certainly, but keep the personalities out of it, otherwise it undermine’s the vale of your contributions, you look less like a commentator and more like a troll.
I look forward to being proved wrong, however I fear I will be disappointed.
Venise I think you have struck a nerve with Michael James, he may have to practise a dose of self flegellation, a pre requisite to be an Abbott Adoree and to cleanse the body of all things appalling to Pell, chief adviser to Liberal Catholic pollies
MICHAEL JAMES: You posts are utterly predictable; the closer to the truth about the Liberals and their lack of any policy-unless opposing everything on sight is their new policy (?) a comment comes to being accurate, the more you hyperventilate.
You know my reasons for being opposed to Tony Abbott, and all his catholic out-riders. You know very well that I believe Catholics-especially the fundamentalist ones-have no place in politics, as their whole raison d’étre is to turn this country into a theocracy. Look up your history Michael and you will see the odium into which the Catholics have-in the past-drawn Australia.
Instead of attacking me; why don’t you do something intelligent, and meaningful. Write out your hypothesis in favour of the enlightened society that Australia will become under the Jesuit trained-potential nudist who is trying to deceive the voters into believing the guff he spreads around.
Isn’t it odd how easy it is to spot a catholic. Yes James?
DAVID: So true.
@Michael James
“…The level of personal venom directed towards a person who happens to espose an opposing political viewpoint…”
Sadly, you are right.
What this juvenile level of discourse and engagement betrays is little more than a sheltered workshop for rusted-on true-believers and boring, barely-literate and intolerant haters.
Witness the stupid, childish garbage that gets thrown at me daily.
Hilariously, they all think I give a toss.
Michael James @ 1252,
I concur.
I am not an ALP fan, but credit where credit is due.
At the moment, this looks promising, but there are issues like workforce numbers that concern me.
It really is unhelpful when Venise, David, LIZ45, JENAUTHOR et al. just hurl personal abuse at political figures of alternative persuasion.
And, no, I’m not Catholic or anything else.
But Earnest I am a Catholic and I see what Abbott is and where he comes from and so can anyone who thinks with an unbiased head. Not all Catholics are worshipping at the feet of the Refugee from the Seminary, but those who are and believe there is advantage in supporting Abbott along with your usual Liberal hacks are in boots and all. As I have said before, the media is chock full of them. As are the benches of the Liberal/Coalition Opposition. He is the puppet, the strings are many.
@ MPM All questions and no answers just like the knuckledragers you support. re echo, try a wasp in your ear as a distraction. Earnest, I’m glad you’re willing to look at the proposal with an open mind. It’s refreshing.
Roxon has emerged as a solid communicator? Is that some form of satire you are now unleashing on us Bernard?
Here’s Roxon’s attempts to explain the package yesterday…
Mitchell: There’ll be new maximum waiting times for surgery … what will they be?
Roxon: We made clear that we’ve got more announcements to come. And the Prime Minister has flagged that having national access times will be part of that.
Mitchell: He won’t say what they are.
Roxon: Not today, no.
Mitchell: When will he say?
Roxon: Well, soon.
Mitchell: We’re playing politics with it, minister, aren’t we? We’ve got people sitting out there waiting to get into hospital and you won’t tell them because of some political game plan.
Roxon: This isn’t a political game plan.
Mitchell: So why not tell us now?
Roxon: That’s not something that I am publicly announcing today.
Mitchell: Do you know what the targets will be?
Roxon: We’ve done a lot of work internally about this …
Mitchell: But this is cruel. You know what the new maximum waiting
times will be but you won’t tell us because you want to put it out on the drip feed.
Roxon: No …
Mitchell: Do you know what they are?
Roxon: I know a lot of things about the health system …
Mitchell: Oh minister, minister, minister! This is cruel to people!
@JBG So based on your logic, Howard, and every PM that has gone before him that ever did an interview and every Minister and every front bencher were not solid communicators. All politicians are guilty of evasive answers in all manner of topics. So lets not start the finger pointing at Ms Roxon. Were she the first to use a perfectly legit tactic as have hundreds before her, maybe then, but to use that i/v conducted by Mitchell, a well known shock jock who is trying to extract every drop of blood to make himself look good to his audience, and his ratings. Its all a game JBG a bloody great game.
@David, No I certainly wouldn’t point the finger solely at Roxon - but I wouldn’t also go and write a piece of fan mail like this claiming she has “mastered the art of answering interview questions”. Her inability to get across her bried is excruciating, to put it mildly.
Wh’d be a minister? You’d have to be a masochist.
ERNEST SCRIBBLER: But I’m not hurling abuse at a political figure.
I believe with every fibre of my being that Tony Abbott, Barnaby Joyce, Kevin Andrews and every other fundamentalist catholic would be the death of Oz. I don’t include other cults and sects in my so called discrimination, because, thus far, they don’t attempt to wield political power.
If you think I’m indulging in idle histrionics you are completely off the planet. My fear and loathing is as tangible as your next bite of food.
@ JBG You mistake Roxon choosing not to say with not knowing her job. She appears to be across her brief very well.
One of the key elements of the policy was that prices (and I daresay times) would be decided by an independent body. As far as anyone knows, that body hasn’t even been formed yet!
Thus, Roxon cannot preempt that body by deciding, or broadcasting the timeframes to be set.
@Ernest Scribbler … if you think I am having a go at MPM a lot, please see it in context. When someone continually repeats ‘one-liners’ extracted from the opposition or the press, without using any considered argument or evidence to back up those one-liners, that person literally asks for mud to be thrown at them. If they actually argue their stand with logic and or evidence, I am quite happy to listen with an open mind.
David,
I know many Catholics, including my three young sons.
Venise,
What is a fundamentalist Catholic? How do you know all three are fundamentalist? That’s pretty strong language. It was the Protestants who oppressed the Irish Catholics that lead to much trouble. Just being Catholic means nothing, surely?
JENAUTHOR,
I understand the MPM thing, but it’s best not to feed ‘trolls’. Trust me (where’s LIZ45?).
@ Earnest ‘Just being Catholic means nothing, surely?’
Just being catholic — probably not a lot. But he is proven by his statements that he isn’t ‘just a catholic’. My big issue is not so much that he is a Catholic, is that his religious beliefs factor into his decision making. I know that he thinks he is morally correct in his views, but that bias disallows the free will of others if his decisions come from his personal moral standpoint. cf the RU486 (or whatever the number was) or abortion, or views on virginity.
In my uni days I majored in history, and belief systems were a very big part of my specialty. The problem with religion is that it ALWAYS colours a person’s judgment because they think their religion is ‘right’.
This ‘righteousness’ is responsible for the most appalling actions of leaders, clergies and armies since the dawn of time. Pogroms/Inquisitions/Jihads etc. etc. etc.
When George Pell became GG I was appalled because a Catholic Cardinal is NOT representative of the country. We probably have one of the biggest mixes of religions of any country in the world (not withstanding the really ‘out there’ cults in the US) and a leader from one religion cannot possibly speak on behalf of the others without bias.
While having a religious foundation is virtually inescapable for our country’s leaders, someone who wears their religion like a beacon, and make statements and decisions based on those belief, will always lead to turmoil and inequity, even in an open democracy such as ours.
ERNEST SCRIBBLER: You say your three young sons are Catholics. I hope this was a decision taken by them, not some mindless brain-washing of young minds. People like you wonder why hatreds are perpetuated long after the original ‘crime’ has been forgotten. One of the prime causes of this festering hatred is to fill children up with their parents ignorant beliefs.
There’s a football club here in Melbourne-I can’t think of the name-its foundation was by a group of people from Croatia. Every year the riot police are called out to control the hate-filled crowds from Bosnia- I think- and cart away the walking wounded from the viewing stands. The same thing happens at the tennis.
The people braying for blood-on either side-are young and have no memories of this ancient European feud. Why then do these kids feel such rancour? Precisely, because they’ve had these hatreds passed onto them by their parents. This is why I am against forcing religion down the throats of young people. Do you really think the hatred between Israel, the Jews, and the Palestinians hasn’t been largely thrust onto the grandchildren of these people, by ancient shibboleths? And a good religious education.
If you don’t know what a fundamentalist anything is, then I would be wasting my time explaining it to you.
‘Just being Catholic means nothing, surely?’ Well that’s a disingenuous query. If you have read anything I’ve written you would know I have nothing against individual Catholics who have no desire to ruin Australia’s political system. Have I ever criticised Brendan Nelson or Malcolm Turnbull about their Catholicism? Not to my knowledge. Reason? I didn’t see they would, if in power, reduce Oz to being a play toy of the Vatican.
With Barnaby Joyce and his Catholicism, whereby he has launched a vendetta against abortion. Kevin Andrews, and his personal vendetta against euthanasia, and all the other dutiful Catholics which infest the Coalition-coming so close to being in power. I see it as my civic duty to warn people not to even think of allowing the Catholic brotherhood to get a greater stranglehold on political parties than they already have.
The Labor party has plenty of Catholics, but they appear to be less malignant than the ones in the Coalition.
Not long ago the Victoria Parliament allowed the issue of a woman who wanted an abortion to be thrown over to a conscious vote. The yes vote narrowly won the bill. You would find it most instructive to look at the Victorian parliamentarians, and their federal cohorts, list as to who voted for and against. Peter Ryan a vocal member of the National Party, was totally opposed to the bill. Guess what? Yep, he is a Catholic.
If Catholics are unable to think beyond their own parochial beliefs, and think of the greater good of the nation, they have absolutely no business in being in parliament in the first place.
Whilst you’re about it, look up the history of the DLP.
VENISE at 717pm said
“ERNEST SCRIBBLER: You say your three young sons are Catholics. I hope this was a decision taken by them, not some mindless brain-washing of young minds. People like you wonder why hatreds are perpetuated long after the original ‘crime’ has been forgotten. One of the prime causes of this festering hatred is to fill children up with their parents ignorant beliefs”
Venise,
So, my children have been brain-washed and the boys’ mother and I are ignorant parents! Wow - you and LIZ45 are a real tag-team extravaganza!
I think you give the game away when you say “The Labor party has plenty of Catholics, but they appear to be less malignant than the ones in the Coalition”.
JENAUTHOR,
I agree, people like Pell are dangerous. One thing is for sure; I can’t stand Rudd being interviewed in front of church - arrrgh!
As you say, we can’t really escape some sort of religious foundation. It is interesting, though, that we don’t seem to hear about all the nasty protestants, methodists, anglicans or what-have-you. I can’t explain that. May be you have some thoughts on this?
@JENAUTHOR “When George Pell became GG” If by this statement you mean Govenor General I think you are sorely mistaken. I believe the clergyman you are thinking of is the Right Rev. Dr Peter Hollingworth, AC, OBE, former Anglican archbishop of Sydney who was forced to retire after a sex scandal involving a priest from a diocess he was previously responsible for.
I am no fan of religon and polotics mixing either but as a puported historian having inacurracies with your facts undermines your arguments.
doh politics, and I should learn to spell
and while we stay with the pedentry it is Govenors General
ERNEST SCRIBBLER: Clearly you skim over the surface of other peoples’ comments in order to rush in with your witticisms. But they’re not, are they?
‘So the boy’s mother and I are ignorant parents’. Yes. If you allowed your children to be brought up in the Catholic school system-where children are taught to ignore their rights as Australians-under the Australian constitution. Where you allowed them to accept, without question, the male dominated Catholic church and its refusal to encourage its adherents to live in the twenty-first century. Where for years priests sodomised little boys and have escaped without trial. If you saw to it their friends were of the same religion-without a chance to make their own decisions about religion and life. Then you, and your wife, stand condemned as being ignorant.
WTF does Liz45 have to do with this thread? I haven’t noticed her commenting.
When I said “The Labor party has plenty of Catholics, but they appear to be less malignant than the ones in the Coalition”. I was trying to bring into the thread the inglorious activities of Bob Santamaria’s Democratic Labor Party. As demonstrated by my final line.
As you should know, the DLP was started by the really malignant Catholic politicians who broke away from the Labor Party in the 1950s and 1960s. They began an infamous pincer movement to deny the Labor Party being in power. Not only did they give their preferences away from the Labor Party, they waged a continual war, over a period of time, to maintain rigid censorship throughout the printed word, movies, and anything else which THEY ruled to be un-Australian. (un Catholic).
The DLP exercised power the way a trollop exercises her power. All of the power and none of the responsibility. It was thanks to the DLP that Australians were ten years behind the rest of the world in thought, behaviour, and knowledge of the arts, social mores and ignorance of the outside world.
The tragedy of the DLPs manipulation of the electorate was exemplified by, of all things, an English model coming to the Melbourne Cup. Her loose hair and short skirt were what the rest of the world was wearing. Melbourne ladies in their corsets, tut tutting snickers and constipated mentalities were outraged to be shown up as the hicks they were. Ah yes, Catholic politicians managed to stifle a generation. And now people like you rush to defend an alien religion which has no place in a civilisation like ours.
I have explained until my lungs are bursting that ‘nasty protestants, methodists, anglicans, whatever’ generally don’t act-in concert- to interfere with, least of all to dictate, to the community their moral directions.
‘We can’t really escape some sort of religious foundation’. You may believe in such garbage, but I do not. Some moral education, yes. But religion based on ignorance, arrogance, and a supreme lack of belief in reason should not be tolerated.
You wish to have the Catholic church imposing on its believers the peasant beliefs of uneducated shepherds which emerged, in book form, over five thousand years ago. I’m sorry but to me this is nothing short of evil. On this count you further condemn yourself as being ignorant.
William — you are indeed correct — that is how much I wanted to put it out of my mind. I’m afraid I feel the same about ANY religious figure in power.
Earnest — I lump all religions (of whatever persuasion) in my objections and I know full well the damage caused by other ‘christian based’ religions, as well as many others.
I am not an atheist, but I do not believe in organised religion. Outwardly, all religion starts out as a protector of occult or sacred knowledge (which is kept by an elite) and as it develops it becomes a method of social control. And to date I am yet to meet someone who truly lives by what their religion espouses.
William Schild - Peter Hollingworth was Archbishop of Brisbane not Sydney.
Fair call. Right religion wrong city. Thanks for that as I will use it in my next trivia quiz. I gues the mistake was mad because John Howard was so Sydney centric that I couldn’t believe that he would appoint someone outside of the Sydney precinct.
Cheers
Vernise said
“‘So the boy’s mother and I are ignorant parents’. Yes. If you allowed your children to be brought up in the Catholic school system-where children are taught to ignore their rights as Australians-under the Australian constitution. “
Vernise, How about if one child is attending a catholic school where children are taught to respect theirs and others rights as Australians (and not just catholics), and if two children are attending a state school, as did the older child now at a catholic school? And, what if the parents discuss any religious clap-trap taught at school with their kids and put them on the straight and narrow?
What if I believe religion is essentially a load of toxic cobblers and our children are taught to question everything and take nothing for granted?
Oh, I know, I admitted that someone in my family attends a catholic school. Shame on you, Earnest!
Vernise also said:
“WTF does Liz45 have to do with this thread? I haven’t noticed her commenting.”
LIZ45 and yourself hurl personal abuse with no true knowledge of who you are hurling the abuse at. Simple.
Vernise also also said:
“‘We can’t really escape some sort of religious foundation’. You may believe in such garbage, but I do not. Some moral education, yes. But religion based on ignorance, arrogance, and a supreme lack of belief in reason should not be tolerated.”
JENAUTHOR’s words, not mine. But I agree with JENAUTHOR and, you may be surprised, you!
Vernise also also also said:
“When I said “The Labor party has plenty of Catholics, but they appear to be less malignant than the ones in the Coalition”. I was trying to bring into the thread the inglorious activities of Bob Santamaria’s Democratic Labor Party. As demonstrated by my final line.”
Well, you discuss it in a later post - the connection in the post before was distant.
JENAUTHOR,
I concur with your post 1123pm 05032010.
Hopefully Vernise will now realise that she is preaching to the ‘converted’.
ERNEST SCRIBBLER: Oddly enough I suspected this was the case when you said your children were catholic. It sort of left the door open for me to wonder what if?
Then I went back through the posts and read where you said you weren’t a Catholic.
Since I am not a liar by nature, I tend to believe what other people tell me. So it was, by this stage, a case of hypothesising and free fall polemics.
Had you really been talking about your family or not, anyone who had suggested that religious teaching was a good idea, I would have given the same answer as I gave you.
You will notice I am not apologising for calling you ignorant, because it was a set-up job in the first place. When I look again at my posts I cannot find that I abused you personally, yet you had no compunction about abusing me. Or did you just feel like having a stoush and I was the nearest available victim? If so, then shame!
BTW: I’m much nicer when people spell my name correctly.
ERNEST SCRIBBLER: Now I discover you’ve criticised my syntax as in “the connection in the post was distant.” I can only plead guilty to an error of assumption. I was assuming that most people reading these posts are aware of the infamous DLP and didn’t need to re-read this era in Oz history all over again. This is why I only used the one line to mention it.
Venise,
It’s no set-up job.
Many people call themselves catholic when they aren’t ‘really’ catholic, or the sort of catholic you describe. I’m Anglican, but I’m not. I think people will say ‘catholic’ or whatever when they really mean ‘christian’ which really refers to a set of moral beliefs and not necessarily a belief in a god, Christ or whatever.
Free-fall polemics - no problem. Pavlovian responses to words and phrases is a bit silly though, especially when spiced-up with a good shot of personal abuse.
And sorry for misspelling your name.
Venise said “You will notice I am not apologising for calling you ignorant, because it was a set-up job in the first place. “
Well, Venise, it takes a little courage and decency to apologise, say ‘sorry’ or show some humility. Something our children understand.
So Earnest you are an Anglican? Why pray tell then, does this Catholic takeover of the Lib/Nat Coalition not have you asking WTF? Can you not possibly see the consequences for this countries political system, for women, for workers, for education, for the economy etc etc if Abbott somehow gets over the line and then becomes the puppet PM . This man is the front for a Catholic right hierachy, that has made its intentions well known through Abbott, Pyne, Joyce, Andrews and the rest of Pells devotees who are lined up on the front benches of the House and the Senate. Unless you have been totally unaware of what has been implied or just not said by way of policy, by the Coalition since December, you should be very afraid for this country and its families.
David,
I’m not Anglican. Can’t you read? Geeeez!
“But Earnest I am a Catholic and I see what Abbott is and where he comes from and so can anyone who thinks with an unbiased head.”
Not your unbiased head, obviously.
ERNEST SCRIBBLER: I don’t mind apologising, not at all.
But first I’d like to see where my crimes are. I’ll be back later.
Venise,
I don’t expect an apology. I was drawing attention to your reason for not apologising for calling my family ignorant - that this was a ‘set up’.
It was not in any way a set up. If you are prone to bitter polemics and falling into self-made traps - tough!
Anyway, aren’t we supposed to be talking about health? Oh, hang on. There’s no point in discussing anything because Tony Abbott is catholic. Silly me!
ERNEST SCRIBBLER: I’ve gone back over the posts, please find set out below.
I entered the lists on Thurs 4 Mar @4.49pm. I had a blast at Tony Abbott.
Fri 5 Mar @8.03am You mentioned the new health scheme. At 12.52pm, Michael James-well known Catholic bore. He hates me because I called last years World Youth Day (Catholic, of course) a gymkhana, weighed in on my anti Tony Abbott stance.
@1.27 I returned it with interest, and asked him to write a short essay on the multiple benefits Oz will see under a Catholic hegemony. He declined.
@4.43 you reappeared (you had commented earlier on the proposed new health scheme) to accuse me of hurling abuse at people. @5.37 Fri 5 Mar I said it wasn’t an insult. It was a fundamental belief I had, that the admission into parliament of fundamentalist right-wing Catholic politicians, who worked together in harness-***I’m talking about John Howard wanting the Telstra deal to be pushed through an unwilling parliament, where Brian Harradine, Jesuit trained Catholic agreed to give John Howard his vote. On condition that Tony Abbott-Jesuit trained Catholic-be shifted to the health portfolio. This being but one example of Catholic parliamentarians working together to screw our country. That such people were not to be trusted. *** I’ve just added the bits between the three stars.
By 6.31 you appear to have decided that I will be your ‘today’s victim’. You introduce the fact that you have three sons who are Catholic then you say something about Protestants. Which I imagine was approps the great potato famine, or the wars of the roses?
By this stage I am giving you lengthy explanations as to why I feel heated about the subject of crooked Catholic politicians. Whilst you are merely tossing back some of my own writing. And you are being extraordinarily coy about yourself-not having brought up the fact that you are not a Catholic in the first place. A point I had sussed out for myself.
@6.50 JENAUTHOUR enters the fray by a) Calling Cardinal Pell the GG of Oz. At which point I had a seizure. Clearly this was a point I had failed to pick up on. I let it lie for a while. Also she made the point that some form of religion was inevitable. (Something I disagree with.)
@7.17pm I noted you had three sons at a Catholic school-BTW, is it still mandatory when a Catholic, (I’m assuming your wife is a Catholic here), marries a non Catholic that the kids have to be brought up in the faith??? I then said parents who sent their kids to Catholic schools seldom bothered to work out the hazards attached to this sort of mindless brain-washing. Which made them ignorant.
And I imagine this is the part you wish me to apologise for. WHY? I didn’t call you ignorant until that post of yours @10.51am Sat 6 Mar wherein you came clean and admitted you were not religious in any way. As I had specifically said it was CATHOLIC parents who filled up their progeny up with all the gumph which they had been brought up on who were ignorant, it deleted you from the comment. Was that enough? No, you’ve guessed it. You were still at it. “BUT I AGREE WITH JENAUTHOR, and YOU, YOU, may be surprised. YOU!”
Had, perhaps your wife come into the room? I imagine she may be a Catholic, in the light of having three sons at a catholic school and you being a lapsed Anglican, or a person of no religion, and you felt obliged to stick up for the home side? No?
I can’t be bothered going on. Well hang on, your final sentence was a piece of calculated shit. Whereby you brought up your kids again.
“”It takes courage and decency to apologise, say ‘sorry’ or show humility. Something our children understand”’ *** One of the nastier and most po-faced attacks I’ve come across.
Dear Ernest Scribbler: I’m sure you will understand that it takes an even greater form of courage for me to with hold my apology.
You’ve walked into my house, (metaphorically) you’ve bludgeoned me a few times, corrected my grammar, thrown my own points back at me while not having had the courtesy to give me any of your beliefs. Indeed whilst hiding your beliefs. And as a fond farewell you have brought your children into the event to witness that horrible woman saying sorry. This is on a par with the man who said he read some of my comments on ‘Home-birthing’ to his children so they could all have a good laugh at me.
I may be many things Ernest Scribbler; courageous is one of them, but stupidity isn’t.
ERNEST SCRIBBLER: I went to all that trouble to cut through the crap and to find out where I had offended you. Only to be met by another silly little blast of your stupidity.
I did not call your family ignorant. I don’t know your family. I had, at one stage postulated that parents who sent their kids to religious schools were possibly ignorant.
Then you say there’s no point in discussing the new health measures because Tony Abbott is a Catholic. Ernest, it was about just after your initial comment about the topic that you shot off course and started to hone in on me. Also it was Kevin Rudd who brought up the new health bill, not Tony Abbott.
Guys, this discussion has gotten a long way off point and degenerated badly.
A person’s religious convictions are a personal thing — and Venise, whether you agree or disagree, and rightly or wrongly, many Catholics fear for the souls of their children if they do not give them the education deemed as best by the church. Other parent (and I know many of these) send their children to religion based schools to help give them a moral grounding they believe will be beneficial.
My in-las, who are catholic are still, after 26 years, hoping my hubby and I will marry again, in the church, so our kids can become baptised and escape hell when they die. Do I believe that, not at all, but they do and they are fearful. Thus they make the request out of love for their grandkids.
The whole point of my earlier argument was that we have a multi-religion society, and everyone has the right to choose what to believe — that is self-determination . A democracy respects that. But I also said that overt religious belief that affects a politicians decisionsis wrong in a country like ours because it interferes with the self-determination of others.
JENAUTHOR: Do you think I don’t know these things?
What I find so difficult to believe is the ease with which “Hand over your heart” religions who reap the benefits of other people’s fears. Man/woman is always being hectored along religious paths. Why? What gives Tony Abbott the right to turn his arcane religious beliefs into a spectral banner, to be on constant display to the masses? He believes he can do it, because he can. Of all the religions in Oz it is the catholic church which seeks to dominate our politics.
Don’t you think it odd that in the 21st century there are people who are so badly educated that they think there’s a hell?
Nor do I understand why being a good grandparent should involve them prying into one’s soul. IMHO if they really meant well they would leave one alone.
Yes, the whole discussion has gone on for far too long. It’s a pity that I have to continually re-write my comments all the time; people don’t read them properly in the first place.
BTW: Your comment about George Pell being the GG of Oz nearly terminated my life. I thought I had missed something vital.
You tell your friend the scribbler he should read at length, before sailing in to condemn someone else.
Sincerely
Venise
@ Venise
“BTW: Your comment about George Pell being the GG of Oz nearly terminated my life. I thought I had missed something vital.”
I am chuckling, only because it was a mere slip of the keys … given half an hour I would have corrected myself — however I think someone called me on it soon enough.
I can see you have strong feelings on religion — most people do — perhaps that is why someone like Abbott polarises the public so much.
As to my in-laws, their faith gives them an underlying strength and hope, and it isn’t my business beyond that. That they feel it so strongly that they fear for the souls of their grandkids — well — whether I agree with the premise or not, I appreciate their viewpoint even if I don’t share it.
The problem with the written word is that it has no attending facial expression or gestures to clarify meaning give its true nuance. Thus we all misinterpret each other at times — it just unfortunate that it can be taken so personally.
Earnest yes I can bloody read and I read the burbling that you presented as dialogue as in…”Many people call themselves catholic when they aren’t ‘really’ catholic, or the sort of catholic you describe. I’m Anglican, but I’m not. I think people will say ‘catholic’ or whatever when they really mean ‘christian’ which really refers to a set of moral beliefs and not necessarily a belief in a god, Christ or whatever”……what a load of gobbly gook so you are an Anglican but you are not. I think I know what you are, a moron. Go and join a kids Bebo chat, you will be more at home bloody hell, what bullshit you spout.
Incidently JENAUTHOR how can any talk of Catholics and Abbott be off the point. the two are joined as mother and child. The reason the topic of Catholic has invaded blogs is because of the hypocrite Abbott, who is a devout RC when it suits him and is a liar and arse ole when it suits him and whatever fertiliser he is talking.
@ David
“Incidently JENAUTHOR how can any talk of Catholics and Abbott be off the point.”
I agree wholeheartedly that Abbott is a hypocrite and as unchristian as you get (no need for facial expression or gestures there!)
What I meant by off point was the thread being about Roxon and her explanation of the health policy, not philosophical arguments about th merits of catholicism or any other religion..