Friday, January 14, 2005

Poor Mark. Leadership demands human if not superhuman effort.

I have no loyalty to Mark Latham and it seems I'm not alone.
I'm not even that enamoured of the Labor party since Paul Keating went off to do other things.

I am however, committed to the end of the HoWARd, Downer, Ruddock, Vanstone, Anderson et al regime.

So, Federal Labor, get some style advice for Kevin Rudd and put him up as leader.

John HoWARd needed new glasses, bright ties and a brow wax before he became acceptable.

I'd like to see a woman in the job. I'd like to see more women in charge!
We're certainly capable of being superhuman.

The US leads in the area of women in powerful positions. The US may be ready for a Hilary-shaped President in 2008.
With the way that Australia slavishly follows the US; we could have a Julia-shaped leader of the opposition by 2013.

Please just make the decision and get on with being in opposition with a LEADER!


Blogger TimT said...

What are your thoughts on Maggie Thatcher? Personally, I reckon she ROCKS...!

6:49 pm  
Blogger suki said...

Is your point that Margaret Hilda Thatcher is a woman?

My point is that under HoWARd we have not stayed progressive. We are not only not moving forward we are regressing. The Abortion on demand debate again.
The morning after pill debate again.
Women's basic human rights threatened again.
Carer's of children not being able to access affordable, good-quality childcare again.

A woman in charge of the opposition?
A woman couldn't even get speaker of the house in HoWARd's Australia.

7:38 pm  
Blogger TimT said...

Well, I guess I'm fascinated by Maggie Thatcher because she was a woman with immense authority in a profession that had traditionally been dominated by men. I think she rocks because she helped to pull Britain out of a long recession, and helped to end the Cold War. I'm also interested in the fact that she was a Tory, not a Labourite, which seems to indicate that although the Left are the ones commonly associated with women's rights, in the end it may have be the Right which has been able to achieve more, practically speaking, for women. I'm not really drawing any firm conclusions there about left-wing/right-wing, just making an observation about 20th century history and what it might mean.

Re the Howard government, and the 'regressive' policies, I agree that some parts of the Government are distressingly conservative - Tony Abbott comes to mind - but it would be wrong to call the entire coalition regressive because of this. Abbott is allowed to express his own opinion on abortion; Howard has said that the debate on that matter is closed.

I'd be interested to see Gills as leader of the Labor party. I surprised myself during the election by voting for Labor, so I want to see the party have strong leadership and be an effective alternative government, too. Give her a go. She can't do any worse than Latho has done in the past month.

8:48 pm  
Blogger TimT said...


8:50 pm  
Blogger weezil said...

Margaret Thatcher? Isn't she some English gal?

Clueless what English people have to do with this, but okay...

Tim, you seem like you're trying to sell us on the idea that a booming economy is good for women's rights. How the rich getting richer gives women more rights isn't quite clear to me.

11:35 pm  
Blogger TimT said...

Firstly, I didn't draw a connection between economy and women's rights/human rights - just made an observation about the people who have held positions of power in British politics and the possible conclusions we could draw regarding this. It all began with an offhand comment I made which I'm happy to admit had very little to do with Suki's post.

Gosh, I know you were a journalist and all, but do you have to be so sloppy with the cliches? I mean, 'Booming economy=Rich getting richer?' How about this on for size - a booming economy can also mean the poor getting richer and the middle-classes getting richer?

Sure, there's no direct link between economy and human rights, but a good economy is a very important factor in meeting those human rights.

11:34 am  
Blogger mark bahnisch said...

Suki, I've linked to you in a post about all this, but trackback hasn't worked with your site.

It's here at Troppo if you or your readers would like to take a look:

3:15 pm  
Blogger Nic White said...

I have nothing but contempt for Thatcher. Amoung the many things she screwed up is the English cricket team's ability to be compeditive, the effects of which are still being felt today.

5:01 pm  
Blogger TimT said...

SEXIST!!! ;-)

5:23 pm  
Blogger suki said...

Thanks for the link Mark.

7:55 pm  
Blogger mark bahnisch said...

Pleasure, Suki!

3:46 pm  
Blogger weezil said...

Gosh, I know you were a journalist and all, but do you have to be so sloppy with the cliches?

I mean, 'Booming economy=Rich getting richer?' How about this on for size - a booming economy can also mean the poor getting richer and the middle-classes getting richer?
Tim, I used a splatter of clich├ęs to address the ancient, hackneyed, completely ridiculous and oft harped upon notion of 'trickle down economics a.k.a. 'Reaganomics.' The idea that 'all ships rise' when business is allowed to run amok lassez faire omits the human greed quotient from the equation. Thatcher and Reagan simply allowed wealth to be further concentrated in the hands of the elite few. Sweetheart tax deals and privatisation made certain that only the 'rich got richer' instead of any of the largesse from sucessful business ever increasing the average standard of living.

If you believe that Reagan & Thatcher were terribly good for the US & UK, you must be reading a different version of history than that I lived through. Miranda Devine is guilty of this sin of historical revision. "Youthquake," she said...

Sure, there's no direct link between economy and human rights, but a good economy is a very important factor in meeting those human rights.
Crap, Tim. There need be no economic forces at all for human rights to be repected. Two naked guys marooned on a desert island can respect or abuse each others' rights as human beings in the way that they treat one another.


4:25 pm  
Blogger TimT said...

Your desert island argument is pathetic. The fact is, without a strong economy, a country wouldn't be able to fund medicine, health, education, welfare, or any of the other important services, either via public or private means.

As for the other argument - 'I lived through the Reagan/Thatcher years!' - well, I don't know what that's supposed to prove. I grew up during the Hawke and Keating years, where the Labor party instituted many of the same changes to the national economy as happened in America and England. And sure, in an economy with a large number of private institutions, there may be some problem with monopolies, concentration of wealth. But what's the alternative? A society where bloated public services are funded by exorbitant taxation rates, which punish the upwardly mobile lower and middle-classes?
I'm sticking with the society we have - small government, and a growing private sector which is kept accountable by regulation, not with the alternative (large government, unregulated public sector, galloping inflation...)

9:38 pm  
Blogger weezil said...

Tim, my argument is not pathetic, but it is right. Read it again. I can't possibly make it any simpler.

Might I suggest that if you'll type for food (presuming there's any cogency in that tapping), you better have a slow metabolism.


11:26 pm  
Blogger TimT said...

First it looked like you had an argument.

Then it turned out you simply wanted to fling a couple of insults around, and you started looking pathetic.

Now all you can do is squeal like a little child, 'I'm right, I'm right, I'm right!', and it's gone beyond pathetic.

Drink a warm glass of milk and go to bed, Weezer. Didn't your mummy tell you that the internet warps your mind?

12:05 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home