One of these is the PM
Polls aren’t good for Kevin Rudd but many are quick to point out that the percentage point loss to Kevin hasn’t gone to the Libs. Fair enough but Abbot hasn’t had a chance to get a word in edge ways nor does he need to as Rudd bounces from bad press to bad news at a such a fast pace that you can almost hear the ALP Caucus muttering mutiny.
If I was a stuck-on ALP supporter I wouldn’t take much comfort from the fact that all of the poll swing hasn’t gone to Abbott – he is simply keeping his powder dry for the real election campaign. I read somewhere this morning that some Libs are planning to hand out cut-up pink bats at the election booths with a suitable reminder of the ALP’s incompetence – good idea!
With the ETS backdown now sitting in the Lib ‘get elected bin of facts’, already overflowing with Rudd’s broken promises, the Henry Review has taken the limelight. Adopting only a few of the 100 odd recommendations indicates to me that it more about being re elected and less about a revolution with a bit of politics of envy thrown in for good measure.
Reading the press over the last couple of days you could be forgiven for thinking that the new tax on mining is intended to pay for the rise in superannuation but it isn’t. The increase in superannuation is to be borne by small business. Small business traditionally passes on these costs, as they should, so either we pay more for the goods they produce or the business pays their workers less or, pays less workers.
I don’t think anyone could mount a good solid case for miners not to be taxed but 40%? So, if they do well they pay a huge tax but if the development fails, or commodity prices plummet then what do the government say then – “
Piss of – we only want you when you are making billions so you can give almost half of it to us”. Seems to run contrary to exploration and the gamble that mining sometimes is.
And we can make the first debit entry on Rudd’s scheme – already he owes the economy $9 billion.
AT least $9 billion was wiped off the sharemarket value of the nation’s resources companies yesterday amid investor fears of a severe downturn in earnings sparked by Kevin Rudd’s planned 40 per cent super tax on profits.
And check out this “
he said – she said” routine.
Mr Rudd said BHP Billiton was 40 per cent foreign owned and Rio Tinto more than 70 per cent, which meant ”these massively increased profits … built on Australian resources are mostly in fact going overseas”
A spokeswoman for BHP hit back at Mr Rudd, pointing out the company was listed on both the Australian and London stock exchanges, had its headquarters in Melbourne, and was one of the country’s largest employers.
”We have 16,000 Australian employees and 24,500 Australian contractors working for us,” the spokeswoman said. The largest single proportion of the company’s shares was held in Australia. ”We’ve been in this country since the 1880s – we’re not exactly newcomers,” she said.
I wonder what happens to the size of that workforce when the company has to pay another large tax. Will there still be 16,000 workers and 25,000 contractors?
Don’t think so.
It’s no good saying that the mining companies will fight against it. Of course they will, but they will also cut costs to try and minimize their bottom line plummeting.
Oh, as an aside, I did notice one of the Henry Tax Review recommendations was to lower the remuneration to the military. I can’t find any reference to it now but it was online over the weekend. It didn’t eventuate but is still on the books and backs up my claim that ALP types simply don’t like us.
If any reader has the link please point me to it. Our current serving men and women need to know what Henry had in mind.
UPDATE: Reader bh has provided the link to the
final report for those interested. I can find little reference to the ADF other than this recommendation:
Defence and disciplined forces payments should be taxable and direct remuneration increased for affected personnel.
Thus my aside above seems to have been sourced on some reporter’s interpretation and could therefore be null and void.
UPDATE2: Miners dump another $7 bn. Total now $16 bn lost from the mining sector subsequent to Rudd’s announcement.
One of these is the PM
Polls aren’t good for Kevin Rudd but many are quick to point out that the percentage point loss to Kevin hasn’t gone to the Libs. Fair enough but Abbot hasn’t had a chance to get a word in edge ways nor does he need to as Rudd bounces from bad press to bad news at a such a fast pace that you can almost hear the ALP Caucus muttering mutiny.
If I was a stuck-on ALP supporter I wouldn’t take much comfort from the fact that all of the poll swing hasn’t gone to Abbott – he is simply keeping his powder dry for the real election campaign. I read somewhere this morning that some Libs are planning to hand out cut-up pink bats at the election booths with a suitable reminder of the ALP’s incompetence – good idea!
With the ETS backdown now sitting in the Lib ‘get elected bin of facts’, already overflowing with Rudd’s broken promises, the Henry Review has taken the limelight. Adopting only a few of the 100 odd recommendations indicates to me that it more about being re elected and less about a revolution with a bit of politics of envy thrown in for good measure.
Reading the press over the last couple of days you could be forgiven for thinking that the new tax on mining is intended to pay for the rise in superannuation but it isn’t. The increase in superannuation is to be borne by small business. Small business traditionally passes on these costs, as they should, so either we pay more for the goods they produce or the business pays their workers less or, pays less workers.
I don’t think anyone could mount a good solid case for miners not to be taxed but 40%? So, if they do well they pay a huge tax but if the development fails, or commodity prices plummet then what do the government say then – “Piss of – we only want you when you are making billions so you can give almost half of it to us”. Seems to run contrary to exploration and the gamble that mining sometimes is.
And we can make the first debit entry on Rudd’s scheme – already he owes the economy $9 billion.
Facebook
Twitter
G’day Kev, here’s the link to the final report summary –
http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/downloads/final_report_part_1/00_AFTS_final_report_consolidated.pdf
Thanks bh
Recommendation 8
Defence and disciplined forces payments should be taxable and direct remuneration increased for affected personnel.
Does this mean that the Reserve should pay tax and that the salary and allowances paid to soldiers in a war zone should also be taxed?
As it wasn’t implemented by Rudd it is most probably a mute point but whenever the ALP mention the words Defence personnel I reach for my Luger, to paraphrase some Nazi chap. I don’t, of course, actually have a Luger…I sold it years ago.
2 points, both related to superannuation.
Firstly, the extra 3% super will just come out of future pay rises, so you’ll get with one hand and lose with the other, and
Secondly, the 8 billion knocked off of the value of mining companies in Aust will impact heavily on Superannuation for most people, as solid performers like mining have long been a big part of any sane investment portfolio.
Not everybody agrees with this interpretation – http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/07/2893468.htm?section=justin
“The threats to withdraw investment, to withdraw jobs, to withdraw exploration, quite frankly, these threats were never true and they are not true now.”
Of course the problem with that argument is that in the real world it is happening now.
Reality trumps rhetoric.
Simple question, Canada taxes mining at 25% we are going for 40% -where would you invest your money?
I see your point, every one has an opinion and they don’t all agree…..just like the Global Warming fiasco, but Peter Costello the last Federal Treasurer to have the Australian economy in the black seems to agree with Harry.
Maybe not everybody agrees with this interpretation, but Rio Tinto do and clearly Canada is planning on playing it for every buck they can get –
Fresh from raising concerns about the status of $US10 billion ($11 billion) in Pilbara iron ore expansions because of the tax, the Anglo-Australian miner will pump $US401 million into a Canadian iron project, citing the ”attractiveness of investing” there.
Canada is a major competitor with Australia for investment dollars, and after the resources rent tax was announced last Sunday, Canada’s Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, said the proposed tax looked to be a ”significant tax increase”.
”That’s another competitive advantage for Canada. We’re reducing our corporate taxes,” Mr Flaherty said.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/rio-project-in-canada-ups-ante-on-super-tax-20100507-ujkp.html
Another day another company bails –
SWISS mining giant Xstrata says it has suspended a $30 million copper exploration in central Queensland due to the impact of Australia’s proposed resources super profits tax.
Xstrata chief executive Mick Davis has previously warned the resources super profits tax was disappointing and would see Australia levying the highest taxes on its minerals sector of any country in the world.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/xstrata-halts-copper-exploration-project-over-proposed-superprofits-mining-tax/story-e6frf7ko-1225864532340
From – http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/10/2895312.htm?section=justin
“Mr Brogden says the Federal Government’s proposal to increase tax on mining profits will not result in lower returns for investment super funds”
Now who’s spinning?
Hmmm, we have a guy who is going to get billions of extra employers dollars fed through his industry over the next few years supporting the Govts position on knifing an industry that he is not responsible for. some might argue that he has sound financial reasons to support the Govt, ie a guaranteed income stream for the members of his association.
Still, I note you havent made any reply to the previously noted billions of dollars worth of curtailed mining investment or the already noted effect on mining shares.
From the story you quote –
“The superannuation industry is calling on the Federal Opposition to support the proposed increase to compulsory contributions.
The Government wants to lift employer super contributions from 9 per cent to 12 per cent by 2019.
And it wants mining companies to pay 40 per cent tax on their above-normal profits to help fund the changes.”
Which also tells us just how clueless the quoted person is. that 40 per cent extra tax (with company tax bringing the effective rate on mining up to 57%) will go to the Govt, the extra 3% employer super contributions will come from the employer ie in lieu of future pay increases.
Keep flailing about, KRudd has stepped in it yet again, expect a backflip on this fiasco too.
“Now who’s spinning?”
You are ‘bobby red herring’, you and your Labor mates at the ABC.
All spinning like tops trying to cover the Ruddster’s white dimpled little arse.
Rudd’s “gorn” – he’s backed off so many “moral issues of our time” the only thing he’s got left to undo is to give a ‘not sorry’ speech when parliament sits next.
Both News and Fairfax polls have Rudd rated as a bad mouth taste in the morning – the voters are looking for a mouth freshener, especially those true believers who dutifully wore their Kevin07 ‘T shirts’ with their eyes glowing with Kev love.
They are desperately disappointed with your mate Kev – they BELIEVED in ‘change’ and all they got was stuff up after stuff up with billions of OUR dollars wasted on electrified ceilings, over priced school halls, a grand punt on fibre to the home that has failed to attract a single investor, grocery watch, fuel watch, school watch, a failed border protection policy, a ridiculous unworkable ‘hospital’ policy bullied through the premiers and massive new taxes etc.
Rudd is now widely recognised as a PM who consistently over-promises and under-delivers, voters are beginning to doubt anything he says or promises.
As one former Labor staffer said this week: “They thought he was John Howard light. Now they realise he is just John Howard little.”
PeterW
I simply post examples of a different point of view. Blogs where everyone is in agreement are dead boring. You are the only person on this blog who resorts to name calling and personal abuse in response. It seems you are still stewing about Labor gaining power through the ballot box in 2007. It happens – it’s called democracy.
For what it’s worth, I vote Green or Independent, not Labor. I learnt forty years ago that supporting a party that uses fear rather than hope to gain power is a recipe for disaster. Both Labor and the Coalition do that.
Harry Buttle
Like many others of my age, I live off my investments earned through 40 years of hard yakka. I’m still working because I enjoy it, not because I have to. Sure, I got burned in the GFC, but not as badly as some, as my portfolio is invested ethically. I get a lower, but more reliable return. I wouldn’t touch mining companies with a barge pole, and when I look at what they’re doing to the country around Felton (for example) my decision is reinforced.
They’re driven by an exploitive “get rich quick” mentality, which in the (very) long run is bad, not good for the country. You may be content to live in a quarry – I’d rather not.
Ah the ‘ethical investor’, one who lives in a society built by what they see as unethical practices, yet continues to reap the benefits.
Those unethical business practices provide the materials that built your house, and the materials and funding that built your local school, hospital, roads, car, etc etc – so remind yourself of what a hypocrite you are every time you log on the net as the raw materials for your computer, most of the wiring and switching gear all had to be mined cheaply or it could not have been done.
BTW, as I noted above, Rudd is already lining up to backflip on the mining tax,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/labor-states-back-miners-on-rent-tax/story-e6frg6n6-1225864761723
He’ll try to spin it as something other than a backflip, but even the rusted on Labor goons can see through him now.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/party-warns-pm-no-more-u-turns/story-e6frgczf-1225864764169
Your response is simply a rationale for past unethical practices. I live in the present and plan for the future.
“Life is available only in the present moment and it is possible to live happily in the here and now”. (Thich Nhat Hanh)
“all had to be mined cheaply or it could not have been done”
Not so – if you had written “all had to be mined to extract the maximum profit for the least outlay” you’d have been closer to the money.
However, if I chose to dwell on the past, I could remind you that Coalition supporters wrote the book on hyprocisy. They voted to send conscripts to Vietnam and then abused them upon return.
This is/was hyprocisy writ large, and those involved don’t enjoy being reminded. Sorry bout that….
“They voted to send conscripts to Vietnam…” Ha ha ha, you couldn’t resist the old ‘Vietnam’ red-herring could you bobby red-herring.
So Mr ethical, living as you do in the present whilst planning for the future (pompous arse), please let us know by smoke signal when you’ve recycled your computer filled as it is with gold, rutile strip mined from 3rd world beaches, steel, aluminium, nickel and sundry other mined products.
You might as well recycle your phone, mobile or otherwise too with your car, bicycle, home and furniture (probably built using unsustainably harvested timber products), any prosthesis you have including prescription lenses and tooth fillings, medications (manufactured by unethical money grubbing big pharma), , petroleum products such as kitchen cabinet finishes and artificial fibres torn from Mother Gaia by unethical profiteering exploiters of the planet like BP.
Chuck away your books made as they are from chlorine bleached pulp ripped out of the heart of old growth forests, stop wearing denim and other fabrics manufactured from pesticide soaked water wasting cotton plants and I hope you’re not wearing leather shoes or belts crafted from the blood soaked hides of cruelly killed animals.
“It seems you are still stewing about Labor gaining power through the ballot box in 2007.” No, I’m laughing at the waves of disappointment emanating from those dim and delusional enough to believe the cunning, amoral, and opportunist lies Rudd uttered during the 2007 election.
“Rudd will be different, we want change” they cried and how disappointed they are now. Nothing has changed except for the worse.
Oh, and you admit casting your vote for the Malthusian Greens – how sadly predictable.
“Nothing has changed except for the worse”
I’ve noticed a few changes. Most of the outback schools I work in have new buildings that they wouldn’t have had a hope in hades of getting under the old dispensation. Unemployment in this country is not the disaster scenario it is in most other developed countries. Parents can view online the standardised test results from schools across the country. Older kids in the schools I visit – whether they’re wealthy or not – have laptops and know how to use them. Daily living for young children with Autism and their carers has improved out of sight. Workchoices is gone.
But then these are things that improve quality of life for ordinary people so they probably don’t count. Implicit in your rant about Labor winning in 2007 is the notion that ordinary people don’t know what’s good for them.
There’s a word for that, but I won’t resort to name-calling.
By the way, I have no idea what you mean by “Mother Gaia”. Sounds a bit delusional. You’ve obviously been reading some loopy right wing blogs.
Workchoices is gone.
You say that like it’s a good thing.
As usual bobby red herring you know little of what you speak.
You claim to vote Greens and don’t know what the term Mother Gaia refers to, how comical.
“Most of the outback schools I work in have new buildings that they wouldn’t have had a hope in Hades of getting under the old dispensation.” Perhaps some of the schools are happy with the result, but even the government’s own report reveals that only 40% of principals thought they had received value for money – in other words a few classrooms and school halls erected at around three times the price they are worth as result of massive rip offs and bungling by Gillard makes you happy – well that’s being a green through and through.
“Unemployment in this country is not the disaster scenario it is in most other developed countries.” True, thanks to Howard and Costello’s foresight and skill and the continuing growth of China – again Rudd’s own auditor’s report revealed very little of his massive borrowings has been spent appropriately, if at all – most of his massive new debt has been wasted. The interest on Rudd’s billions of borrowed money increased by more than $5 billion this year – that’s five teaching hospitals or tens of brand new schools build from the ground up, rather than cobbled together add-ons to the scruffy weatherboard schools in regional Queensland of which you are so proud.
“Parents can view online the standardised test results from schools across the country.” I’ve been able to view results of state wide numeracy and literacy testing of my children for years – if it wasn’t for the obstructionist loafers in the teacher’s union, of which you are probably a member, national results would have been available years ago.
“Older kids in the schools I visit – whether they’re wealthy or not – have laptops and know how to use them.” Bullshit, you’re ‘gilding the lily’ with that one bobby red herring.
The Australian reported last week that; ‘Across Australia, private and public high schools have installed fewer than 20 per cent of the million computers needed to fulfil the Rudd government’s $2 billion promise of a computer for every student in Years 9 to 12 by the end of next year. NSW is the only state or territory to equip all Year 9 students with laptops — which Mr Rudd considers the 21st-century toolbox — while the others opt for desktops instead.
But even NSW is having to spend $280 million to provide wireless networking and high-speed broadband to all its schools over the next four years. Queensland is dragging the chain, with its Education Department still carrying out audits of schools to work out which ones require electrical and internet upgrades. The department’s chief information officer, David O’Hagan, said all Queensland state schools would require “some additional infrastructure”.’
“Daily living for young children with Autism and their carers has improved out of sight.” As the Age reported in 2007, Rudd’s autism policy was forced on him as a response to Howard’s previously announced plan, however, once elected Rudd watered down his promise as usual and restricted the funding for those over six. It was only reassessed after Shorten was embarrassed almost daily by those demanding better care as promised. As for “improved out of sight” that’s called hyperbole.
“Workchoices is gone.” And replaced with three hour minimum casual work regulations which have resulted in the end of after school work for many students – gee that went well. Rudd’s labour laws stand as a great example of how incompetent Rudd et al really are. Pop out a policy announcement a day with no thought on the ramifications of the proposed schemes. The list is endless from grocery watch to taxing the golden goose. Labor has failed the ordinary people for whom you shed your faux tears.
“Implicit in your rant about Labor winning in 2007 is the notion that ordinary people don’t know what’s good for them.” As usual your comprehension skills are just not up to the task – Rudd’s ordinary people, the ‘working families’ he mentions with every breath did know what was good for them, the problem is Rudd has failed to deliver any of the so called reforms he promised. Instead he’s racked up a massive debt, killed four people in electrified and overheated roofs, burnt down dozens of houses and now ditched his ‘great moral issue of his time’ in order to scrape together a few dollars so he and Wayne can spin tonight’s budget.
What a fraud Rudd turned out to be, even a wild eye, hand crusher like Mark Latham would have made a better fist of the last three years.
But your right things have changed, Tin Tin is on the nose and likely to be censored out of parliament and back to his multi-million dollar beach house at the next election and Abbott may just pull off the impossible and win the unwinnable election courtesy of Western Australian and Queensland voters who know they’ve been ‘dudded’ by Rudd.
They voted to send conscripts to Vietnam and then abused them upon return.
17etc, we were abused by the Left under the auspices of Jim Cairns. The Libs may not have done what you would want but they didn’t spit on us or call us baby killers and it was the left that phoned the parents of one of our soldiers and told them he deserved to die.
The interesting thing about this issue, Kev, is that I was called baby killer to my face (in a classroom full of kids with disabilities) by a young woman who was a volunteer for a Coalition candidate in a Federal election. Strange but true. None of what you write about was OK but it wasn’t confined to the Left.
There was a crossfire – from both Right and Left.
“Your response is simply a rationale for past unethical practices. ”
No, my post is a rundown of your hypocritical ‘ethical investor’ stance. without the rest of society doing the dirty work you couldn’t keep your hands clean. if you can’t admit that then there is no hope for you to ever be honest even with yourself.
And oh sweet jumping jesus on a unicycle do we ALWAYS have to return to you whining about being conscripted? I don’t care. I support conscription. if you didn’t want to go you could have had the courage of your convictions and refused.
Honestly, when you lose a button off your shirt do you blame being conscripted for it?
BTW, everything I’ve seen on the subject suggests that the vastly overwhelming majority of the abuse dealt to Vietnam Vets came from the left, but then honesty and accuracy have never been your strong points.
“without the rest of society doing the dirty work”
I’m naive enough to believe that the dirty work isn’t necessary. You underestimate humanity’s resourcefulness if you believe that we can’t live with a lighter footprint. I guess it’s part of the Conservative condition – The tendency to follow that part of the Creed that says “it was, is, and always will be…”
We’d be still living in the stone age if our ancestors had pursued that dogma.
As for Vietnam – I was indeed a hypocrite to serve unwillingly, but at the time I didn’t fully understand what I was getting into. It didn’t take me long to discover that the exercise was misguided to say the least. This doesn’t devalue the sacrifice of those involved.
Hindsight’s a wonderful thing. I don’t blame “being conscripted” for anything, but I did learn from the experience. I’ll be damned if I ‘ll ignore the useful lessons – one of which was that politicians from across the spectrum regard soldiers as political capital to be bought and sold at will.
The word you are looking for isn’t ‘naive’, it’s ‘stupid’ as, without the ability to extract raw materials cheaply everything would still be being done on an individual artisan scale. Only the very wealthy could afford what would pass for ‘hi-tech’ in such a circumstance (ungeared bicycles I expect) and a great many people who live quite comfortably now would live in desperate poverty. How ethical of you.
If it didn’t take you long to ‘discover that the exercise was misguided’ why did you not refuse to fight then? surely that is hypocritical in itself to continue to serve when you know it to be misguided.
Re the bit about politicians as I recall we went down this path before and it turned out that, to support your contention, you were inventing your own terminology and applying it retrospectively to boot if my memory serves correctly.
Re your earlier quote about some conservative staffer calling you a baby killer, frankly, you have a track record of being economical with the truth to support what passes for your arguments and this just smells a bit too convenient to me. but feel free to name her (and who she staffed for) and the classroom it happened in and I’ll try and chase her up and confirm it.
You do blame being conscripted for everything, you bring it up at every opportunity. I’d advise you to seek help.
“The word you are looking for isn’t ‘naive’….”
You either don’t understand or are deliberately obfuscating. Supporting the more efficient extraction of minerals, and rejecting total exploitation of renewable resources is a long way from everything being done “on an individual artisan scale”, and well you know it. You’ve obviously been taking lessons from polemicists like Bolt who resort to the chestnut that conservationists should pedal or paddle everywhere. It’s interesting that when a technological solution is found that actually works (hybrid powered vehicles for example) the only criticism left to the troglodytes on the right is that their drivers are posers. Strange indeed.
“If it didn’t take you long….”
Your suggestion that I should have refused to fight provides a very clear example of your tenuous grip on both history and reality. We had trained hard and long and to a very high standard. Refusing to fight would have betrayed our unit’s solidarity. As far as I was concerned we were fighting for each other, rather than for or against an ideology. Once in country, we really had no choice. I’ve heard stories about conscripts being offered an “out” prior to embarkation. I have no recollection of this, nor can I find any official document recording such a parade. I’d gladly look at the record if you can produce it.
“Re the bit about politicians…”
Again, you’re the master of invention. The “terminology” I used wasn’t invented – just unfamiliar. You should get out more.
“Re your earlier quote about some conservative staffer…”
There were two separate incidents. I simply don’t remember the name of the sweet young thing who abused me at the State School for Spastic Children, New Farm in 1971. She was a visitor to the school and my classroom. The second incident occurred at a polling booth near my address in Newmarket on December 13, 1975. If you want, you could talk to Peter Johnson, the Liberal candidate who won the seat from Manfred Cross at that election. He’s still around. But I’d suggest, that if you so keen to prove me a liar, you’re the one with the obsession.
“you have a track record of being economical with the truth”
Really? If you’re prepared to call me a liar, you’d better come up with the evidence.
“You do blame being conscripted for everything…..”
Show me where I’ve done this. I bring the issue up in the context of history because it very neatly exposes Conservative values which have changed little in 40 years. The dog-whistle of the threat of Communism was used to frighten the community, and when that didn’t work, conscription was the solution. What irks you, I’d suggest, is that I don’t fit the stereotype that all ex-soldiers occupy the dexter end of the political spectrum. Unless I’m mistaken, there’s at least one occupying a federal seat for Labor, and then of course, there was Graham Edwards. You might be surprised to know that John Howard, a pollie not given to apologies, actually made one to Vietnam Veterans on Thursday, 17 August, 2006 in Federal Parliament. Funny old world, isn’t it?
“I’d advise you to seek help….”
This from an individual who rants about returning to the Stone Age, point blank accuses someone who disagrees with him of lying, and can’t tell the difference between a strategy to make the most of the earth’s resources and a political ideology. I know who has the problem. Now if you really want to indulge in some on-line amateur psychiatry, check out PeterW. Rich pickings there…
“I simply don’t remember the name of the sweet young thing who abused me at the State School for Spastic Children, New Farm in 1971…” Ha ha ha… Wipes tears of derisive laughter from eyes.
“…when a technological solution is found that actually works (hybrid powered vehicles for example) the only criticism left to the troglodytes on the right is that their drivers are posers.” They don’t work as advertised and are just another red herring. Their drivers are either poseurs with more money than sense or government employees.
The basic Camry hybrid costs $36,990 plus on road. There are many, even more fuel efficient vehicles, available at half the cost. Vehicles which don’t contain $8,000 or more worth of nickel-metal hydride batteries which need replacing every few years.
Just the energy and materials used in the battery manufacture and recycling makes them a poor alternative to modern fuel efficient cars, let alone the cynical shifting of evil yabby boiling, coral bleaching emissions from petrol to coal fired electrical generation which should horrify a self confessed Malthusian Green like yourself. As must the appalling pollution in China where the batteries are manufactured with little regard for the health of either the workers or their environment.
So yeah, hybrid drivers are on the whole poseurs driving their incredibly wasteful vehicles either in ignorance of their true impact on Gaia or despite their knowledge or just Greens for which there can be no redemption.
I’ll butt in here
The dog-whistle of the threat of Communism was used to frighten the community, and when that didn’t work, conscription was the solution
Conscription was initiated to counter the threat of Bung ‘Karno(Indonesia) which never eventuated and the expression “The dog-whistle of the threat of Communism” ignores a lot of history.
Kev
“The dog-whistle of the threat of Communism” ignores a lot of history.”
Doesn’t ignore it – tries to sum it up. Paul Ham’s account gives what is probably the most well-researched account of the rationale behind the Australian involvement and conscription.
To quote Bob Menzies (29th April 1965) – Chapter 11 p118
“The takeover of South Vietnam would be a direct military threat to Australia and all the countries of South-East Asia. It must be seen as part of a thrust by Communist China between the Indian and Pacific Oceans”.
Also see Chapter 4 – “The Red Menace” pp44 – 49
Re the ‘more efficient exraction’ rubbish, without economies of scale price goes up dramatically. basic economics. all your waffle won’t change it, boutique scale mining would be a disaster.
Re your red herring about hybrids – hybrid powered vehicles are a PR stunt, the real cost of them, ie the ‘cradle to grave cost’ is higher than that of a Hummer.
Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total
combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel,
transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other
factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an
average of $3.25US per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles –
the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
The Hummer, on the other hand, costs $1.95US per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles.
Not neccessarily posers, just stupid.
re your conscription, once in country you had every choice, simply refuse to take up arms. if you wouldn’t do it then shut up about it now. it is too late to try to play the morally superior card, you missed your chance – you’ve said you quickly realised it was misguided, yet you continued to participate which makes you a hypocrite.
re your terminology, as I recall you redefined the term ‘cannon fodder’, feel free to look it up, I remember providing you with two seperate quotes from different dictionaries that showed you to be inventing your terminology. so yes, I was unfamiliar with your terminology. I speak and read english, you just make it up.
Re your economy with the truth, there is plenty of evidence to support that, go back through the various posts you’ve made in the past and the amount of times people here (myself included) have proved you to be making stuff up.
Re your constant whining about being conscripted, look at ANY of your posts EVERYTHING comes back to it, I doubt you could post a letter without whining about conscription.
Re your political stance, I don’t care if you are left or right, I just would prefer that you were accurate on occaision.
” I simply don’t remember the name of the sweet young thing who abused me at the State School for Spastic Children, New Farm in 1971. She was a visitor to the school and my classroom.”
Oh I see, 39 years later, you remember who she worked for, that she was a volunteer, which party she volunteered for, where it happened and that she was a visitor with laser like accuracy. but you don’t remember her name. I call bullshit.
and now we have a second convienient incident. in a polling booth. where it is illegal to display any political advertising or identification on your clothes. yet you knew this person to be a conservative. again. I call bullshit.
However, being the fun guy that I am, I’ll grant you both of them with no questions asked.
One point though. in 40 or so years you seem to have been insulted by a total of 2 x conservatives re serving in Vietnam and you have the thin skinned audacity to blame conservatism for it? what a whiney little princess you are – the guys I know who went over got way worse than that from the left and you think that being called names twice in 40 years = a ‘crossfire’.
Words fail me.
In reference to your comment about hybrids, perhaps you need to check your sources a little more diligently. The publication to which you refer was thoroughly discredited as long ago as May 2007 –
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf
An extract –
“CNW has provided no such proof. The little supporting evidence that it has released suggests that the contentions in the report are, at best, unproven, and are likely wrong: the result of faulty analysis, untenable assumptions, manipulation and misuse of facts and data, numerical mischaracterization, and inadequate review. Analysing the limited portions of the report and data that have been released reveals several major flaws and the violation of several fundamental tenets of good science. We present this analysis below. When these flaws are corrected, the conclusions change radically.”
It was a confected study which came to an erroneous conclusion and then manipulated the data (very amateurishly) to prove it. It’s another example of The Great Lie, and it was promoted by right wing trash blogs in much the same way as the leaked email scam about AGW. It simply doesn’t wash. In any case, any criticism of efficient motor vehicles (whether they be small diesels or hybrids) is simply a manifestation of the American industry’s reluctance to understand and manage market trends.
CNW is an organisation that provides marketing advice to the US Auto industry. This “study” was a desperate marketing ploy to try to reverse the prevailing sales trend at the time in the US which was leaving large inefficient SUVs (e.g. the Hummer) in warehouses across the USA.
You seem to have a problem with my use of the term “cannon-fodder”. I took your advice and looked it up on –
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cannon+fodder
The term is defined thus – “noun – soldiers, esp. infantrymen, who run the greatest risk of being wounded or killed in warfare”.
Given that I was an Infantryman, I’d suggest that my use of the term was accurate. Perhaps you’d like to take time out and write a “conservatively correct” dictionary.
“where it is illegal to display any political advertising or identification on your clothes. yet you knew this person to be a conservative.”
The fact that he was wearing a T-shirt with the Coalition candidate’s name emblazoned, and that he was handing out Liberal how-to-vote cards led me to strongly suspect he was a Coalition staffer. Of course, there’s always the possibility he was a Leftie in disguise – they’re devious, these left-wingers. Incidentally, the incident took place on the footpath in front of the school where the polling booth was located, and where it is legal to display and hand out election material.
In relation to name-calling – I’ll use a friendly fire metaphor.
It matters not where friendly fire comes from – its results can be devastating. I was personally involved in such a situation when a digger in my section was wounded. It makes you very angry, and brings into sharp focus aspects of futility in conflict. The name calling of soldiers on RTA resembled friendly fire. A minority was involved, but it wasn’t confined to what you call the Left. Soldiers targeted were in a state of simmering anger. Most didn’t “whine” as you put it. Instead they drank to excess, abused their partners, and terrified their kids. For a short time in the eighties, because I have a counselling qualification, I did some volunteer work for VVA. The depth of distress felt by many of these men was treated with disregard by the Coalition government at the time, and Labor, when they came to power, were no better.
It would have been better for their mental health if more “whining” had occurred. Your characterisation of their anger as “whining” is a very fine example of the attitude of many Australians, from both the Right and Left. You’d really prefer it if we simply disappeared.
Disappear?….not this little black duck…
By the way – perhaps you should check your spelling.
“efficient exraction’ rubbish” It’s “extraction”.
“Not neccessarily posers”. Try “necessarily”.
“two seperate quotes”. This is straight out of the Year Three spelling demons list. It’s “separate”.
“I speak and read english,” – Well…something approaching English. In this context upper case is the go.
“I just would prefer that you were accurate on occaision”. Accurate? – At least I can spell “occasion”.
“second convienient incident” An inconvenient spelling incident? It’s “convenient”.
There are seven errors. You get 13/20. It’s all part of the free ex-teacher’s tutorial service.
“Words fail me” – the only part of your post that approaches accuracy…
“The Pacific Institute works to create a healthier planet and sustainable communities. We conduct interdisciplinary research and partner with stakeholders to produce solutions that advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity—in California, nationally, and internationally.”
ie they push the enviro barrow, not a very credible source to cite. try again.
re AGW, give it up, that religion is dead, the ’email leak’ was hundreds of mb of data, including commented code proving that they faked the data. keep praying, maybe you’ll get an apocalypse.
1735099 said in December 28th, 2009 at 5:33 pm –
Quote.
“Again, you don’t like “cannon-fodder”. I call what I saw (and what I was part of). Any use of conscripted troops to fight for a cause not supported by the electorate is precisely that.”
end quote.
As noted in a number of dictionaries (including the one you just quoted), you are wrong and now you still want to lie about it.
Do I have to KEEP proving you to be a liar?
“The fact that he was wearing a T-shirt with the Coalition candidate’s name emblazoned, and that he was handing out Liberal how-to-vote cards led me to strongly suspect he was a Coalition staffer. Of course, there’s always the possibility he was a Leftie in disguise – they’re devious, these left-wingers. Incidentally, the incident took place on the footpath in front of the school where the polling booth was located, and where it is legal to display and hand out election material.”
Oh, I see, so now having been caught out making it up, they were NOT at the polling booth, they were outside. give it up. BTW how exactly did this mythical person know you were a Vietnam vet to insult you?
“Your characterisation of their anger as “whining” is a very fine example of the attitude of many Australians, from both the Right and Left. You’d really prefer it if we simply disappeared.”
Oh well played, a great strawman argument, portraying me as being against Vietnam vets. you are a hypocritical whining little princess, you know it. we all know it, for gods sake pretending that conservatives are evil because you claim that two amazingly dubious instances where they were mean to you happened over 40 years!
Comparing being called names to friendly fire? Grow up. you raise conscription constantly yet didn’t have the courage of your convictions to refuse to go. so stop bitching.
and then you move on to the final admission of defeat, correcting spelling in a blog comment, as they say when you can’t refute the points raised, correct the spelling.
Harry Buttle
You’ve attempted to discredit the fully referenced study I provided by referring to its origin. I note you’ve made no criticism of its methodology or findings. Thank you.
“re AGW, give it up”
This email scam has been refuted so comprehensively that your reference to it is an illustration of how thoroughly you’ve been hoodwinked by the trash blogs. The issue has been comprehensively investigated by an independent panel (Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia in consultation with the Royal Society to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit) and found to be a beat-up.
Press report – http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/oxburgh
And if you’re prepared to read the whole report, rather than relying on the nonsense spouted by churnalists trying to lift their profiles, go here –
http://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/reportofthescienceassessmentpanel.pdf
Some extracts –
“We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.”
“After reading publications and interviewing the senior staff of CRU in depth, we are satisfied that the CRU tree-ring work has been carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified selection of data are not valid.”
The panel consisted of –
Chair: Prof Ron Oxburgh FRS (Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool)
Prof Huw Davies, ETH Zürich
Prof Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Prof Lisa Graumlich, University of Arizona.
Prof David Hand FBA, Imperial College, London.
Prof Herbert Huppert FRS, University of Cambridge
Prof Michael Kelly FRS, University of Cambridge
Take a look individually at the CVs of these eminent scientists, their appointment histories, and their list of publications, and tell me whether they’re collectively more credible than the likes of (for example) Bolt and Monkton.
“Do I have to KEEP proving you to be a liar?”
Shouting and name-calling is a poor excuse for an argument.
“pretending that conservatives are evil”
There’s a strange, black and white, almost autistic quality to your thought processes. I would be never be so biblical as to use the term “evil”. Some Conservatives are misguided, some haven’t lived long enough or well enough to know better, and some are simply thick. You choose.
“as they say when you can’t refute the points raised, correct the spelling”
Who are “they” and which points haven’t I refuted? The spelling mark was just a bit of fun.
Bobby red herring your definition of cannon fodder is disingenuous at best. A more accurate and fuller definition is ‘soldiers’ considered to be expendable by their commanders, who with no regard for their lives, hurl them at impenetrable defences. This was not the case in Vietnam.
As you continue to refer to you self as ‘cannon fodder’ we must believe that those with authority over you in Vietnam, from your section commander, platoon sergeant and platoon commander all the way up to the task force commander ordered you and your comrades to repeatedly assault heavily defended positions against overwhelming odds.
Perhaps you’d like to name those who issued such orders and on which operations the ‘cannon fodder’ incidents took place.
See:
“Cannon fodder is an informal term for military personnel who are regarded or treated as expendable in the face of enemy fire. The term is generally used in situations where soldiers are forced to deliberately fight against hopeless odds (with the foreknowledge that they will suffer extremely high casualties) in an effort to achieve a strategic goal.
An example is the trench warfare in World War I. The term may also be used (somewhat pejoratively) to differentiate infantry from other forces (such as artillery, air force or the navy), or to distinguish expendable low-grade or inexperienced soldiers from supposedly more valuable veterans.
The term derives from fodder, food for livestock. Soldiers are the metaphorical food for enemy cannon.
Origins of the term
The concept of regarding soldiers as nothing more than “food” to be consumed by battle was known at least as far back as the sixteenth century. For example, in William Shakespeare’s play “Henry IV, Part 1” there is a scene where Prince Henry ridicules John Falstaff’s pitiful group of soldiers. Falstaff replies to Prince Henry with cynical references to gunpowder and tossing bodies into mass grave pits, saying that his men are “good enough to toss; food for powder, food for powder; they’ll fill a pit as well as better [men]…”
The supposedly first attested use of the expression “cannon fodder” belongs to a French writer, François-René de Chateaubriand. In his anti-Napoleonic pamphlet “De Buonaparte et des Bourbons”, published in 1814, he criticized the cynical attitude towards recruits, that prevailed in the end of Napoleon’s reign: “On en était venu à ce point de mépris pour la vie des hommes et pour la France, d’appeler les conscrits la matière première et la chair à canon” — “the contempt for the lives of men and for France herself has come to the point of calling the conscripts ‘the raw material’ and ‘the cannon fodder’.”
Human wave attacks
Cannon fodder infantry are the core participants in human wave attacks, where massive waves of poorly armed, poorly trained, and ill-equipped soldiers are sent in a charging attack designed to overwhelm defenders with numbers rather than superior strategy, movement, or technology.
These attacks are popular among militaries which possess very large numbers of conscript soldiers, but lack the means or funding to train or arm them to the same standard as their enemy. Russia was accused of this in the 1939 conflict with Japan.
See also
• Forlorn hope, the initial wave of troops attacking a fortress or other strongpoint, who usually took terrible casualties.
• Sacrificial lamb, a metaphorical reference for a person who has little if any chance of surviving an upcoming challenge, but seeks to sacrifice him or herself for the common good.
• Meat shield, informal and often derogatory expression for someone put forth to absorb an attack or shelter another, such as a hostage held to block bullets.”
Despite claiming you wouldn’t “touch mining companies with a barge pole”, and presumably their evil planet raping products, I see you’re still using your mineral filled computer instead of locally and ethically sourced ochre and charcoal to daub your tortuous ramblings onto Kev’s wall.
The word hypocrite springs to mind. It’s certainly a more accurate description of the Garden City’s favourite Malthusian Green conscript than ‘cannon fodder’.
PeterW –
You’ve provided a series of definitions of the term “cannon-fodder” in an attempt to relate a history of usage the term, none of which has any relevance to how I’ve used it.
My words – “Any use of conscripted troops to fight for a cause not supported by the electorate is precisely that.”
My use of words describes two conditions – one, that the soldiers are conscripts, and the second that the cause is not supported by the electorate. The first condition – that I was a conscript – is irrefutable. By the time I served in 1970, public opinion was against the war.
“In August [1969] an opinion poll found, for the first time, that a majority of Australians favoured a withdrawal from Vietnam.”*
* http://vietnam-war.commemoration.gov.au/public-opinion/
The two conditions are met.
Now whether you chose to have a different understanding of the term is for you to decide, but to call me a liar because I place a meaning on the term that offends you has no basis in logic. Try something – interrogate the definitions you provided with my two conditions and see what you get. Placed in historical context, it fits pretty well.
“I see you’re still using your mineral filled computer instead of locally and ethically sourced ochre and charcoal”
This construct about returning to the Stone Age is meaningless. It is rational to advocate for better and more efficient use of the earth’s resources without abandoning the use of resources extracted inefficiently in the past. We start somewhere. To assume that no progress is possible on this issue is simply extremism. In short, it’s the Luddite’s position.
The rest of your post is name-calling – best ignored.
“This construct…” Ha ha ha – what a pretentious prat.
“…none of which has any relevance to how I’ve used it.” Well pilgrim, that’s because your use of the term ‘cannon fodder’ is so far removed its true meaning that it has no relevance to your service at all.
But that’s ok bobby red-herring, you just keep deluding yourself that your contemptible, self-serving, dishonest meaning of ‘cannon fodder’ is valid. Like Rudd, you obviously will say and do anything to cover up your self-aggrandising exaggerations and lies.
“Any use of conscripted troops to fight for a cause not supported by the electorate is precisely that.” What a load of crap, you poor little conscript, why didn’t you just run away from the draft and eat mung beans in Goa?
You would have evaded the despicable CONSERVATIVE staffer, whose name cannot be spoken, and we would not have to put up with Kev’s wall being manured with your shameful “I was a conscript and hence cannon fodder” drivel.
By the way, I’m a member of the electorate and I supported Australia’s involvement in Vietnam, as I did its involvement in Cyprus, the Arab Israeli ceasefire, Rhodesia, Gulf War 1 & 2, Somalia, Rwanda, Bougainville, East Timor, the Solomon Islands, current ops in Iraq, Timor-Leste and Afghanistan and sundry other disaster relief operations from Papua New Guinea to Aceh.
I’d rather see our people doing the job in the professional manner for which they are justly renowned than some ill-disciplined, poorly trained, armed and led bunch of rapist goat-loving UN ‘mercenaries’ offered up as peacekeepers in exchange for a sly handful of corrupt cash.
Now they could be considered cannon fodder.
The rest of your post is spinning so fast it’ll be a while until it slows down enough to be legible.
“what a pretentious prat”
Gratuitous abuse.
“is so far removed its true meaning”
Opinion.
“bobby red-herring
Name calling.
“What a load of crap, you poor little conscript, why didn’t you just run away from the draft and eat mung beans in Goa?”
More name-calling.
“Kev’s wall being manured”
Kev’s big enough and ugly enough to speak for himself – but to extend the metaphor, it’s creating healthy growth.
“By the way…I supported Australia’s involvement in Vietnam,”
Bully for you – volunteered did you?
“professional manner for which they are justly renowned”
Absolutely – best soldiers in the world.
“some ill-disciplined, poorly trained, armed and led bunch of rapist goat-loving UN ‘mercenaries’ offered up as peacekeepers in exchange for a sly handful of corrupt cash”
As I recall, Australian soldiers have been deployed on UN operations. I’m sure you’d make an exception to your abuse of the UN in their case.
“The rest of your post is spinning so fast it’ll be a while until it slows down enough to be legible”
Translation – I ‘ve run out of ideas.
:-)
“… volunteered did you?” Yes.
“As I recall, Australian soldiers have been deployed on UN operations. I’m sure you’d make an exception to your abuse of the UN in their case.”
I’m not surprised you are either ignorant or deliberately blind to the disgraceful performance of the UN and its inept ‘peace keeping’ attempts in the Congo, Ivory Coast, Sudan, Liberia and Haiti to name but a few of the recipients of the ‘care’ provided by the dysfunctional UN.
The activities of the Jordanians in Timor Leste are typical, with numerous reports of Jordanian so-called soldiers assaulting local women and young boys. The rape and assaults continued until the complaints became so numerous even the UN lickspittles in Dili couldn’t cover in up any longer.
But of course I’m just abusing the UN… Obviously the children of the poor benighted countries listed above aren’t ‘special’ enough for you bobby red-herring.
17etc, to quote two people in the party you don’t vote for but, for all intents and purposes, give full credence to in everything it says and stands for, “opinion polls come and opinion polls go”.
It would appear that Krudd and his replacement during his many absences do not attach much importance to opinion polls, and yet you base your opinion on such a flawed method of obtaining information.
From your own link it would appear that even with hindsight a similar opinion poll could only get 55% of the participants to agree with you, ie that we should not have committed troops to the conflict in which you did not choose to avoid.
I find it amazing that with 20 years of post conflict knowledge that the disapproval rate was only 55%.
Q. Isn’t national service (conscription) merely a means to an end, you know, creating numbers for the services? I would think that once enlisted to serve the training is the same, the employment prospects the same, the pay and entitlements, and the commitment the same. I would think then that if you were in the army and there were troops serving overseas you could expect to be deployed.
You were one of the highly trained Pig Battalion and therefore cannot consider yourself or your mates “cannon fodder”. You were trained and deployed in a manner designed to keep casualties to a minimum. According to the 7 RAR site 253 casualties from 2,400 personnel that passed throught the Battalion.
Perhaps you should have sought an audience with Mr. Grey before your Christmas Leave in 1969 requesting a transfer because you really should have been a conscientious objector. I am sure he would have replied with “Where do I sign?”
You do servicemen and women a disservice by your continued put down of the system in which you served.
“I note you’ve made no criticism of its methodology or findings. Thank you.”
You are right, we’ve been down this path before. facts mean nothing to you. You are the classic labor party parrot.
Last time we played this game I wasted a considerable amount of time and effort not just educating you but suppying you with full references. and you ignored them and ran with labor party dogma.
I’m not silly enough to waste my time on you again. we’ve all seen you lie and squirm, use strawmen arguments, red herrings and move the goal posts repeatedly in an attempt to justify the ridiculous positions you take.
The only person you are kidding here is yourself and deep down you know that you aren’t even kidding that fool.
You simply are not worth the time.
That’s called a tactical withdrawal. BTW, as a rule, I don’t vote Labor:-)
No Harry, it’s not Labor, Curtin’s lamp went out so he votes ‘green’.
Quite surprising really given the abuse he claims he claims was directed at him when he wore the colour. He was conscripted you know. In 1970. And forced to serve as a ‘cannon fodder’ because the polls were bad.
Every army needs at least one and bobby red-herring was Australia’s. But don’t ask him about it, he shows all the usual ‘veteran’s reserve’ and likes to keep it quiet.
At a guess I’d say you’ve been on his site as well as here. If you have a touch of the arty in you, can you guess what colour you get when you combine red and green?