Home > Current Affairs, Politics - Domestic, Politics - International, The EYE-BALL MediaZone, The EYE-BALL Opinion > EYE-BALL Opinion on – Gillard her own worst enemy …

EYE-BALL Opinion on – Gillard her own worst enemy …

– Gillard her own worst enemy –
20th June 2012.
Several fires are now burning on the Gillard Prime Ministership, both domestic and International.

My news feeds listing reads like everybody in the world is after her or causing more damage to a fragile Government.

ABC news linked stories reporting on some of these fires are linked below.

Gillard brushes off Barroso comments

|  June 19, 2012 19:23:41 | Link to ABC On-line story. |

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has dismissed reports that she was criticised by the head of the European Commission for her comments at the G20 summit in Mexico.

Ms Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan wrote to world leaders ahead of this week’s summit, urging them to take lessons from Australia on how to manage an economy.

Earlier today, Jose Manuel Barroso said he was tired of being lectured by G20 leaders and urged the international community to be patient as the region tackles its debt crisis.

“We are not coming here to receive lessons in terms of democracy or in terms of how to handle the economy,” he told reporters.

“By the way, this crisis was not originated in Europe.

“This crisis originated in North America and much of our financial sector was contaminated by, how can I put it, unorthodox practices, from some sectors of the financial market.”
Audio: Listen to Jane Cowan’s report from Mexico (PM)

Ms Gillard says irritation expressed by Mr Barroso has nothing to do with her…. story continues here


PM Gillard stoked a hornet’s nest when she arrived for the G20 summit.  Whoever were her advisors on this massive political gamble to try and tell the world that Australia has the answer to all their economic problems needs to he ‘hung, drawn and quartered,’ as they did back in the day when Court advisors got it wrong.

As for Gillard taking the advice – her stupidity has caused this G-20 summit great division.  Just who she thinks she is – and for Swan to have had his hand equally embedded in the shame this monster of an error has caused – must finally demonstrate to the ALP back benches that they need to move and move quickly.

The Independents will again have to dig deep to find the moral strength and integrity to continue to support the Government.   This PM is an embarrassment to all Australians and she has no right to parade her ‘novice’ credentials anywhere near diplomatic conferences.


Europe fires back over G20 criticism

| Updated June 19, 2012 14:37:59| Link to ABC On-line story. |

European leaders have fired back at criticism from G20 countries about their handling of the economic crisis, amid concerns about the credibility of recovery plans.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan wrote to world leaders ahead of this week’s G20 summit in Mexico, urging them to adopt policies designed to stimulate the economy while also implementing austerity measures.

The US and Canada are also pressuring Europe to act, with Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper calling on eurozone leaders to make structural changes to solve the debt crisis.

But European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso has hit back at those critical of Europe’s approach, telling reporters: “We are not coming here to receive lessons in terms of democracy or in terms of how to handle the economy”.

“By the way, this crisis was not originated in Europe,” he said.

“This crisis originated in North America and much of our financial sector was contaminated by, how can I put it, unorthodox practices, from some sectors of the financial market.”
Audio: Jane Cowan reports from the G20 summit (AM)

Mr Barroso said he expected G20 leaders to “speak very clearly in favour of the approach the EU is following.” … story continues here


The Europeans had responded in kind – and rightfully so.  How Gillard backs away and trys to recover from this will only put her neck further into the noose she has made for herself.  The talk of her knitting skills and night-work with the needles – and for a scarf of all things – perhaps she knows the end is near and her scarf is the noose she plans to use on herself.


Conroy warns Rinehart not to trash Fairfax brand

| June 19, 2012 14:30:13 | Link to ABC On-line story. |

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has warned Gina Rinehart not to compromise Fairfax’s editorial independence if she wins a seat or seats on the troubled media company’s board.

News that Fairfax was slashing nearly 2,000 jobs and downsizing its metropolitan broadsheets yesterday was accompanied by Ms Rinehart’s confirmation that she now holds nearly 19 per cent of the company’s shares.

Look back on how media figures and politicians reacted to the major restructure at Fairfax and rumours of a shake-up at News Limited this week.

Ms Rinehart has reportedly asked for three Fairfax board seats and the right to hire and fire editors and have her say on general editorial matters.

The Australian Financial Review reports that Fairfax chairman Roger Corbett will only offer two seats, on the condition she did not interfere with editorial matters.
Audio: Peter Ryan (The World Today)

Senator Conroy said that while Ms Rinehart’s shareholdings entitled her to a place on the board, she needs to honour Fairfax’s charter of editorial independence.

“She’s entitled to representation, but what she’s not entitled to do is trash the brand for all the other shareholders,” Senator Conroy told Radio National Breakfast this morning.

“She should be aware that that charter is something that the readership of the Age, the Sydney Morning Herald, believe in, and have supported over many, many years,”

“And if she was to directly interfere and breach that charter it would actually lead to a crisis of confidence among the readership, and if the readership deserted, then the share price for every shareholder would decline.

“That’s not in the interests of all of the other shareholders, and so the board, which has been standing up to Ms Rinehart, has been saying, ‘Sign up to the charter of editorial independence’.
Audio: John Singleton speaks to AM (AM)

“And Ms Rinehart can put all of this to bed by saying she would agree to that. … story continues here … includes John Singleton audio interview and Conroy Video.


Tacky Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is out there staking his claim for the PM job.  Really – denigrating Rinehart over her purchase of Fairfax shares and a potential media front that will turn on this Government – it is hypocrisy at its most exposed.

To counter – The PM quashed a story some two tears ago over her involvement in a 90’s AWU fraud when she was a lawyer with Slater and Gorton that involved her then live-in lover to which it is alleged that she received proceeds from the $1 million fraud – and this Government wants to scream about media manipulation.   The end is near …


Rinehart’s move a threat to democracy: Swan

| June 19, 2012 19:48:27 | Link to ABC On-line story. |

Acting Prime Minister Wayne Swan says there are implications for democracy as mining magnate Gina Rinehart takes a near-19 per cent stake in Fairfax Media.

Mr Swan has also used a boisterous Question Time to call on the world’s richest woman to clarify her intentions with the troubled media company’s board.

Ms Rinehart is pushing for three seats on the Fairfax board and reportedly does not intend to agree to a charter of editorial independence.

Look back on how media figures and politicians reacted to the major restructure at Fairfax and rumours of a shake-up at News Limited this week.

Earlier this year, Mr Swan wrote an essay about what he believed was the growing, and disproportionate influence of a few wealthy Australians on public policy, and he says Ms Rinehart’s increased ownership of Fairfax could be an example of it.

Mr Swan says he will be very concerned if Mrs Rinehart’s purpose is to buy influence.
Audio: Swan asks Rinehart to declare her intentions over Fairfax (PM)

“I certainly call on Ms Rinehart very quickly to explain to the Australian people what her intentions are and whether she will or won’t support a charter of editorial independence,” he said in Question Time today.

“Junking the charter of independence, that’s what I’m very concerned about. … story continues here


The acting PM Wayne Swan did not want to be left out of the party in terms of his own PM stake hood.   Why would he even go there … he wears his ‘dunce-hat’ to press conferences these days and is so insecure that he strikes his viper tounge at every pitch.  He would do better by just not having any media conferences.


Burke cancels UN trip after being denied pair

| June 18, 2012 10:37:53 | Link to ABC On-line story. |

Environment Minister Tony Burke has cancelled a trip to Brazil for a “once in a decade” meeting on sustainable development, amid a political stand-off with the Coalition over parliamentary tactics.

The Coalition has refused to grant Mr Burke leave from Parliament until after Question Time on Tuesday, demanding instead that he remain in Australia to explain his plan for a massive expansion of marine parks around the country.

But Mr Burke says leaving on Tuesday would make him too late for many of the bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, where he planned to lobby other countries to follow Australia’s lead on the issue of marine park protections.

“[My] presence there simply would have been an opportunity to maximise that – completely in the national interest – and an argument I’ve never heard anyone come against,” Mr Burke has told ABC Radio.

“I don’t think it’s smart for Australia to miss the opportunity that they’ve (the Opposition) decided we’re going to miss.”

He has accused the Coalition of putting the national interest at stake by denying him the opportunity to attend the forum.

“These meetings only happen once a decade,” he said.

“It is important that I front the Parliament … but there’s just no other way of putting it – Australia misses an opportunity that we should have been able to take.”

But the Opposition is refusing to back down, declaring Mr Burke should fly to Queensland and explain his marine park plan, instead of flying to Rio.

“What Mr Burke wants to do is create absolute pandemonium on sections of the coast, go into people’s lives and make them poorer, and then fly off to Rio and brag about it,” Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce said.
Mapped: Australia’s marine reserve plans

See detailed maps of the Federal Government’s plan to create the world’s largest network of marine parks.

“Unfortunately for Mr Burke, he’s going to have to stay in Australia and explain it.

“It’s absurd to think that this mad idea that we’re going to somehow lead the world in national parks is anything but a mechanism to try and attract votes in the inner suburbs.”

The Government says it applied for a ‘pair’ from the Opposition six weeks ago so Mr Burke could attend the UN meeting, but did not receive a response until Friday last week.

A ‘pair’ would have allowed Mr Burke to be away from the Parliament, without it affecting the outcome of any major votes.

Greens leader Christine Milne has slammed the Opposition’s tactics, saying they are further proof the Coalition does not prioritise the environment.

“It’s absolutely disgraceful that the Coalition is not granting a pair to Tony Burke to be able to go to Rio,” she said.

“This is a once in a decade meeting – 20 years on from the original Earth Summit in Rio. This is where the world recognises the problems we have with the global environment.

“It was Australia’s opportunity to go there, learn what’s happening around the world, and indeed take the leadership in terms of campaigning for the protection of oceans and the sustainability of fisheries.”

Labor Senator Doug Cameron says it is “pretty crazy politics” from the Coalition.

“I think it’s important that the initiatives that Australia is putting in place with marine parks is replicated across the world,” he said.

“We’re taking a lead on these issues and again it seems to me that it’s petty brawling that means that the Minister can’t go there and represent Australia’s position.”


Just to prove that we have dunces on the other side of the House as well – why the Opposition would not grant a ‘pair’ to allow Minister Bourke to go to the UN summit to pitch his case for his marine park concept on a global scale proves once and for all that the Coalition have no environmental plan or foresight.

Just where voters go in the upcoming election is as frustrating as having mainstream media in this Nation that has no teeth or will to take on real investigative stories.   Events over the last few days explains a lot as to why that has happened – and why the Government can pretty much  do as it wants, and not have to face an angry or determined press gallery.

This Nation is in trouble – we have Leadership so convinced they know what their doing – yet nobody can believe them – it’s a collision course with destiny and it can’t come soon enough.


Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.

Link to Previous EYE-BALL Posts.


The EYE-BALL Opinion …

  1. Alan Austin
    June 22, 2012 at 12:49 am

    Just a few questions for clarification:

    “PM Gillard stoked a hornet’s nest”

    Where? Apart from the obvious falsehoods in Australia’s notorious news media, who has said anything anywhere to suggest a hornet’s nest?

    “tell the world that Australia has the answer to all their economic problems”

    Where did the PM do this? What were the actual words?

    “this monster of an error”

    What error?

    Did you read the text of the letters from any other national leaders?

    Did you read the text of the IMF letter, “Europe Needs Comprehensive Action to Revive Growth” published after Gillard’s letter. Did you note the almost identical content?

    “The Europeans had responded in kind – and rightfully so.”

    What response are you referring to here?

    “Stephen Conroy … denigrating Rinehart over her purchase of Fairfax shares … is hypocrisy at its most exposed.”

    Why is this hypocrisy?

    “The PM quashed a story some two tears ago over her involvement in a 90′s AWU fraud …”

    The editor of The Australian Chris Mitchell wrote that this story was completely false. Was he lying again?

    If you do not believe everything you read in the Australian media, how do you decide what is true and what is false?

  2. June 22, 2012 at 7:28 am

    Agenda’s aside Alan – you provide a conundrum … does one take you seriously with the naivity of your ‘tongue in cheek’ questions – or are you playing the ‘dumbass’ innocent wanting explained answers for a reason only you could answer …

    As you have said – you don’t live here – you don’t vote here – then how could you know what the Australian media have to say on a daily and continuing basis – the slant from all of your comments is not of an enquiring mind wanting to expand on knowledge – but of a rogue squirrel wanting to play with others chestnuts to suit an agenda not yet exposed.

    Am happy to debate all the above on a level playing field – if you have read more than the post you have commented on – and the posts I had tried to direct you to answer some of the questions you have asked – you would know more than you did a week or so ago about what is happening in this Nation …

    Yet like a balloon tied to a fixture – you keep bouncing back as if you have not learned anything …

    Me thinks your agenda is sinister in origin … and I have the feeling that something is happening that I am completely in the dark about … so over to you Alan – what is the mailto:alanaustin.media@yahoo.fr e-mail address all about? Some attempt at a French deception – some Prime Ministers outsourced protection unit – let’s not go there all the way just yet …

    Instead – your comment response to The Parable went on about the CSRIO report into the home insulation project – have you even spoken to anybody at the CSRIO? I did about a year ago when I did research on the Climate Change report put out by Garnaut – I spoke to a scientist on what I though were important sceptic counter arguments. The scientist was radical in his dismissiveness – something that I was surprised about – perhaps he thought he was talking to a layman – the upshot was he sent me a whole lot of data telling me that the ‘proof’ was in the data and that I should stop listening to left-wing activists – the point being – that whenever anyone questions the science on climate change – from either side – the debate gets muddied by personalities and a data overload that each side feels passionate about …

    The facts are – carbon is an essential live cycle source – the parts per million being spoken about as a rise over the last century are so minute in isolation to the whole atmosphere that I went from being a supporter of Climate change to a sceptic within days of reading the alternative research.

    That does not make me wishy-washy or a flip-flopper – it just gives me some idea that the Government has an agenda and paid for a Climate Change report to suit that agenda. The world is waking up – the zombie population is no more and more and more people are getting angrier at the contempt Government’s treat them with.

    So Alan – from whatever far off land you pretend you operate from – if you would not mind answering a few questions – what is your agenda – what are your politics – and who signs your pay check?

  3. June 22, 2012 at 8:54 am

    Hi again Alan – Is this your web site – http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=5840

    I did some of my own research into some of the articles written under this banner name – The article written by Nicholas Gruen titled “The RBA a fine institution but could do better” was a very lame and tame expose on the RBA – there was no teeth in the story – and as a viewpoint most financial journalist’s don’t get financial markets – nor what they represent. They write about them and the Central Banks every day and they just don’t get it – they write around them and on the press releases they give – they don’t investigate the RBA’s synchronology and its relationship with the markets.

    They present factual stories and write about Jamie Dimond (JP Morgan) and the like because it sounds and reads like a good story – as for the context of the story linked above on the Reserve Bank of Australia … it’s straight down the middle – never venturing into real mandate policy and the mistakes made along the way – why?

    Simply because the journalist does not get it … it’s a mouthpiece of opinion based on the outside view of the RBA’s operations – the article briefly touches on the recent cut in RBA rates a day before the ABS released higher than expected GDP numbers that made the RBA decision look a little incompetent. Rather than the story be about the GDP numbers and what caused the bump in growth – the author of the story wrote a piece that threw water bombs at the RBA and went on to say –

    The Board meets to set policy on the same day each month, come rain, shine, snow or sleet. Well except in January, which everyone knows is the silly season.

    Now I don’t begrudge them a holiday, but sometimes the silly season gets serious. As it did in the summer of 2008-9 when the world wondered if that duct tape would hold as one financial market after another seized up. Some UK banks came within hours of closing down ATMs. What would have happened then? But this wasn’t enough to shake the RBA’s clockwork schedule.

    Rather, they explained, this gave them more confidence in cutting rates by as much as one per cent in December, since they’d be on hols till February. They didn’t explain why they didn’t cut more, or why they couldn’t hold a January meeting or depute a sub-committee to make appropriate decisions if necessary. Seriously – would we tolerate this kind of thing from firemen or ambos, or even on the wharves?

    Last week the Bank cut rates citing “modest domestic growth”. On the succeeding two days the Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released the national accounts and employment data respectively. Both suggested that domestic growth was anything but modest.

    This commentary points to someone who writes about financial matters but does not really understand what it is that he is really writing about.

    For example – the gap between our official interest rates and our trading partners is there because the RBA does not believe inflation is under control – yet every other Nation has deflationary numbers – this is the story – not the fact the GDP blew the RBA’s decision out of the water – the GDP numbers will be revised – see – http://markthegraph.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/gdp-what-mixed-story.html … now this is complex financial data and for most journalists – this is a ‘bridge too far’ in their ability to understand financial markets and what hard date represents … they don’t understand it so they don’t write about it – just around it – besides who among their readers would understand it anyway …

    These types of financial stories hardly rate a mention or a second glance – and as a general policy I don’t read them unless the story is recommended. Mainstream journalism is becoming a bit like living in a leprosy colony – isolation and withdrawn … a condemned species … and everybody is beginning to say ‘yuck’ when they see a journalist on the street or in a gaggle with other journalists awaiting a press conference. The politicians are using them and they’re quite happy to get fuc_ed in the process – just as long as they get something to write about.

    Come on Alan – is this the type of story you want to promote on your blog-site?

    I respect your credentials as they appear on your site – i.e.

    Alan Austin is an Australian freelance journalist currently based in Nîmes in the South of France. His special interests are overseas development, Indigenous affairs and the interface between the religious communities and secular government. As a freelance writer, Alan has worked for many media outlets over the years and been published in most Australian newspapers. He worked for eight years with ABC Radio and Television’s religious broadcasts unit and seven years with World Vision. His most recent part-time appointment was with the Uniting Church magazine Crosslight.

    What I don’t get is the reasons why you are pushing what seems like a barrow full of Gillard support … perhaps you would like to expand … I’d be happy to read anything you have to offer on why Gillard should remain the PM.

  4. Alan Austin
    June 22, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    Good morning,

    No, onlineopinion is not mine. Just contribute occasionally.

    Yes, live in France now and work as a freelance journo. Get paid for some articles, like recent reports on the French elections for Crikey. But not enough to live on, so also teach English.

    How to know what the Australian media say? Most print is on line and radio is streamed.

    I don’t vote in Australia any more or in France yet. So not engaged with any political party.

    A concern as a journo and citizen is that there are forces at work across the English-speaking world wanting people to believe things that are not true, and then have them pass those false beliefs along to others.

    I was impressed that you published the entirety of the Gillard/Swan letter to the G20. I spent hours, with others, searching for it before finding it here.

    Then was a bit surprised at some of your assertions.

    So, when you get a moment:

    1. Where apart from in Australia’s news media was there “a hornet’s nest”?
    2. Where did the PM “tell the world that Australia has the answer to all their economic problems”?
    3. What is “this monster of an error” to which you refer?
    4. Did you read the text of the letters from any other national leaders?
    5. Did you read the text of the IMF letter, “Europe Needs Comprehensive Action to Revive Growth” published after Gillard’s letter? Did you note the almost identical content?
    6. “The Europeans had responded in kind – and rightfully so.” What response was that?
    7. Why is Stephen Conroy denigrating Rinehart over buying Fairfax shares hypocrisy?
    8. Was the editor of The Australian Chris Mitchell right or wrong in writing that the story about Gillard’s involvement in the AWU fraud was false?
    9. How do you decide what is true and false in the Australian media?

    Thanks. Cheers, AA

  5. June 22, 2012 at 3:51 pm

    Hello again Alan …

    I did spend some time reading and perusing the web site and have a better understanding of your connection.

    A response to all of the questions you have asked would take a week to fully do justice – but in a nutshell let me give you a brief update –

    Gillard AWU Fraud:

    Gillard left our shores the most despised PM in living memory … her performance in the House over the Craig Thompson affair and the Peter Slipper fiasco has been dismissive and has the population by and large angry. The AWU story is there – if your clicked all the links in the Kangaroo Court of Australia piece – you will see the Victorian Hansard records of it being raised in parliament – I don’t know Chris Mitchell – but you mention him being an editor at the Australian – the original aticle that I picked up the story from mentioned Gillard faced down the media and had them all pull their stories – Milne decided to print his and he was sacked. Does not the Murdoch experience in the UK not give you pause to think that Mitchell may have been ‘got-at’ and wrote his piece with an agenda …

    Anyway the story is gaining traction in Australia and as with the Craig Thompson story – the truth will find its way to the surface. As with any subject material and its context – a certain amount of reading between the lines is necessary when forming and writing an opinion piece.

    Hornets’s Nest:

    How can a PM on a Nation like Australia think that they have the experience or history to tell other Nations to fix their problems – Gillard and Swan are out of their depth on so many levels – they are not that intelligent – Gillard stumbles from bad choices to more bad choices – Swan’s rant against Kevin Rudd before the last Leadership showdown proved his undoing – both these Leaders pushed Rudd to overturn his ‘moral challenge of the 21st century climate change’ policy and then used it against him to topple him from the PM job. She does not understand the Climate Change debate – she flipped on a pre-election promise on a ‘Carbon Tax’ – and her Front Bench are all people who might have some political savvy – but as a collective group they could not fill a ‘think-tank’ between them.

    So when Julia thinks she has the right to tell others how to run their country – and as a woman taking at World Leaders, of course they’re going to be offended. This woman who is not a woman by any real measure – i.e. does not believe in motherhood, marriage, religion – how can she represent Australians … her action in delivering that open letter signed by Wayne Swan was like throwing a live grenade into the G-20 meeting before it began.

    I never read the other Member letters or heard their addresses – my focus was on Gillard and the embarrassment her letter and speech caused to all Australians.

    Monster of an error:

    The Letter was the political error referred to – whoever her advisors were – they erred and Gillard erred in delivering the speech. The Europeans came out and told others that their advice is not wanted – surely you read the part story produced in the post above – linked again here

    Minister Conroy?

    Rinehart’s increase in Fairfax shareholding has spooked the Gillard Government because they fear a media backlash and of losing control of their message … Given what is happening in the media ownership in recent days – i.e. Murdoch’s planned acquisition of the Packer Consolidated Media holdings – there has not been a single story in mainstream Australia about Murdoch media ownership given what is happening in the UK and the tarnished reputation of Murdoch controlled media interests … do you think that Murdoch increasing his media ownerships in Australia would rate a similar response from Conroy to what he put out on Rinehart’s increased shareholding in Fairfax from 13% to almost 19%.

    Trust this satisfies your interest …

  6. Alan Austin
    June 22, 2012 at 6:33 pm

    Hello again.

    No, you haven’t answered these:

    1. Where apart from in Australia’s news media was there “a hornet’s nest”?

    From all information available from a wide range of sources, there was no reaction whatsoever in Mexico to Gillard’s letter or her speeches. Not even the flutter of a butterfly’s wing.

    2. Where did the PM “tell the world that Australia has the answer to all their economic problems”?

    She simply didn’t.

    3. What is “this monster of an error” to which you refer?

    You have not shown any error at all, let alone a monster. There is nothing in the ABC piece suggesting any error was made by any Australian.

    “The Europeans came out and told others that their advice is not wanted – surely you read the part story produced in the post above.”

    Yes, I read the piece. And heard the broadcast. It was another false report from Simon Cullen. He quoted one European – Jose Manuel Barroso – and only one. But he neglected to say that Barroso was responding specifically to criticisms from Canada and the US.

    You would have known this was the ABC newsroom making shit up again if you had read any of the hundreds of reports from Mexico, such as this:


    4. Did you read the text of the letters from any other national leaders?

    If you had, you would have seen the Gillard/Swan letter was in step with the mainstream, but more collegiate and more constructive.

    5. Did you read the text of the IMF letter, “Europe Needs Comprehensive Action to Revive Growth” published after Gillard’s letter? Did you note the almost identical content?


    6. “The Europeans had responded in kind – and rightfully so.” What response was that?

    There was no negative response from anyone anywhere in Europe to anything Gillard or Swan had written or said.

    7. Why is Stephen Conroy denigrating Rinehart over buying Fairfax shares hypocrisy?

    You have not shown any support for the assertion of hypocrisy. Conroy has not criticised Ms Rinehart’s shareholding. Nor her place on the board. He has merely said she should honour Fairfax’s charter of editorial independence.


    For anyone to take any notice of anything you say you really have to ensure you are speaking truth, not just repeating what you read or hear from Australian newsrooms. They are not sources of information, wisdom or integrity.

  7. June 22, 2012 at 7:45 pm

    Sorry ALan – you are a hard nut to please – let me just say I’ve played your game thus far … tried to appease you – but this site is an opinion site and the expression hear is of free will – you have my respect and I accept you might not agree with what is written – feel free to express your opinions where ever and whenever you want – I will even publish them here if you wish … either as comments or as feature pieces …

    I do use the ABC as a reference source – as I do for several others both domestic and off shore – I have opinions and they are shaped by my experience as a financial market professional who understands Government policy on budgets and markets – this overflows into the political arena and I hold my opinions well – I listen and I learn – and if I am on a subject, any subject, I can be swayed by superior argument and facts that back up that debate …

    As said previously – this has been engaging and I do appreciate your comments …

    cya … Eye-Ball Opinion.

  8. the parable
    June 22, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    No one is trying to question the economic stimulus concept employed by our Federal Labor Government during the American sub prime crisis which was in turn was renamed the GFC.

    Any commentator from afar would tick the stimulus package from the macro point of view. The school’s building programme and the pensioner cash splash, and the home insulation programme, and the low income earners tax splash amongst others were all the methods employed to directly inject cash into Australia’s economy. The detail is not the point.

    We who vote in Australia, were born in Australia, and watched this unfold, feel there was absolutely no efficient economic allocation of resources whatsoever (micro economic logic), and we will determine the next Australian Government.

    I could quote many examples. But that will continue to diffuse the point.

    Julia Gillard’s ALP government has low opinion polls because?
    a Australia’s electorate who offer opinion poll views see a two speed economy, one for the mining belt and a few other priviledged groups that include the others who are not struggling, the other for the marginalised in NSW, Vic, SA or Tas. (the masses)
    b Australia’s electorate who offer opinion poll views have no faith in the clear and obvious corruption and self interest evidenced through Craig Thompson and Peter Slipper, and enough said,
    c Julia Gillard has a personal string of broken election promises, and continues to cut deals with contrary interests to achieve ……
    d A manifestation of all of the above, that sees her government constantly in crisis…..
    e Whatever any other media, want to claim
    f Some of the above not d
    g All of the above except for f maybe not e

    In economics, and I believe Alan Austin calls himself an economist (Maybe part time these days), we create a theory and back test that theory from available data, and attempt to fortell the future. We don’t allow political leaning to bias our back testing.

    Far too often most economists are wrong! That too is an unsupported observation that has been back tested and according to observation is easily dismissed as politics. A perfect conundrum.

    This brings me to CSIRO. They remain funded by the Australian Government. Who believes that they are not political?

    This debate is as silly as the Australian political scene?

    We could question why Tony Abbott is nearly as disliked as Julia Gillard’s Federal government?

    We could question why Canberra is an absolute joke?

    We could question why the Auistralian electorate don’t want to participate any longer?

    We could question why a NSW State Liberal government who was given a massive majority 15 months ago are now unable to find a friend?

    Stay with economics, for all of it’s failings, it is far less divisive and personal.

    This page warns below “Have your say … please be frank and respectful … witty comments welcome … coarse language will be filtered … ” sad part is offensive rhetoric is not clearly defined.

    What is the question?

  9. Gerry Hatrick
    June 22, 2012 at 8:10 pm

    Hey Parable,
    in your multi choice question you forgot;

    those who are on skid row took offence at Gillard telling G20 follow Australia’s policies.

    I am sure there are other readers who could offer their gripe!

  10. gmt replica rolex
    June 28, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    Magnificent goods from you, man. I have understand your stuff previous to and you’re just too wonderful. I actually like what you have acquired here, certainly like what you’re saying and the way in which you say it. You make it enjoyable and you still care for to keep it wise. I cant wait to read far more from you. This is actually a great site.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: