SA Footy

From The Australian - http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/ ... o_apology/

"IT’S nice to say sorry to home owners for interest rate rises but it’s probably best for John Howard not to insult voters by denying his words represented an apology.

The Prime Minister tripped in a test of his own political logic yesterday.

He was thinking more about the debate over whether he should “say sorry” for the stolen generation than interest rates when The Australian’s Dennis Shanahan snookered him with the question: “Mr Howard, if you’re not responsible for the interest rates rise, why did you apologise for it?”

The Prime Minister responded with an insight into Howardese: “Well, I said that I was sorry they’d occurred. I don’t think I actually used the word ‘apology’.

“I think there is a difference between the two things. I think we’ve been through that debate before, haven’t we, in the context of something?”

Perhaps realising the hole he had climbed into, Mr Howard rapidly recited the value of the Government’s tax cuts, suggesting they would more than cancel out the effect of the rate rise.

His “hands up, you got me” body language suggested all the contrition of Tony Abbott on day one of his “apology” to asbestos disease sufferer Bernie Banton. “Now, I am, you know, we’re to blame for the strong economy,” Mr Howard said, sarcastically. “We accept full responsibility for having a strong economy.”

The television images were terrible, giving a glimpse of just how tricky with words he can be. Much of the value of those front-page “sorry” newspaper stories and television news was wiped out.

By last night, the Prime Minister was accusing Labor of “playing silly word games”, of inventing the whole “sorry” business “to divert attention from the fact they don’t have an economic policy to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates”.

Apologies, home owners - saying sorry for interest rate hikes turned out to be non-core."

Said sorry but didn't actually apologise??Mmmm....sounds like they dug up Joh Bjeke Petersen's old speech writer.

John Howard is a genius. He gets elected last time on the basis of 'who do you trust' to keep interest rates down and then when he fails he can then successfully say 'well, you're better off than ever and under Labor interest rates would be even higher'. Pretty handy thing to be able to say when Labor hasn't been in office for eleven years.

So when interest rates are low it is due to Liberals 'sound economic management' and when they go up it is an economic factor that is outside of the government's control and they can point the finger on shit that happened 15 years ago to dupe the faithful.

The end is near. Vote one Costello? Pffft. He'd be lucky to be elected ahead of Keating.

regards,

REB

Rik E Boy wrote:John Howard is a genius. He gets elected last time on the basis of 'who do you trust' to keep interest rates down and then when he fails he can then successfully say 'well, you're better off than ever and under Labor interest rates would be even higher'. Pretty handy thing to be able to say when Labor hasn't been in office for eleven years.

So when interest rates are low it is due to Liberals 'sound economic management' and when they go up it is an economic factor that is outside of the government's control and they can point the finger on s***t that happened 15 years ago to dupe the faithful.

The end is near. Vote one Costello? Pffft. He'd be lucky to be elected ahead of Keating.

regards,

REB

I'd gladly vote for Costello, but Tim isn't running.

Rik E Boy wrote: Vote one Costello? Pffft. He'd be lucky to be elected ahead of Keating.

"I am sorry.." can simply mean "I regret this has happened.." It does not necessarily mean "Oops it is my/our fault and I apologise... ", which seems to be what some want to pretend.

The reluctance to say "sorry" about the handling of aboriginal children in the past was driven by the fact that the media and greedy lawyers would try to turn it into an admission of guilt as the are doing now with this case, and in that case the compo claims would have then poured in and been huge, with the lawyers whipping it up for their big cut.

Also, JH only promised to keep rates lower than they would be under "Labor" not as low as they already were, and there is no evidence that he has not done so. We'll find out if there is a change of Federal government as seems likely.

There is no inconsistency in his position on either matter. It is all propaganda and media beat up.

Psyber wrote:"I am sorry.." can simply mean "I regret this has happened.." It does not necessarily mean "Oops it is my/our fault and I apologise... ", which seems to be what some want to pretend.

The reluctance to say "sorry" about the handling of aboriginal children in the past was driven by the fact that the media and greedy lawyers would try to turn it into an admission of guilt as the are doing now with this case, and in that case the compo claims would have then poured in and been huge, with the lawyers whipping it up for their big cut.

Also, JH only promised to keep rates lower than they would be under "Labor" not as low as they already were, and there is no evidence that he has not done so. We'll find out if there is a change of Federal government as seems likely.

There is no inconsistency in his position on either matter. It is all propaganda and media beat up.

For once I agree with you Psyber!!

"Good economic management" to me is B.S. Interest rates should have risen around 2000-01, not now over the last 3-4 years.

Psyber wrote: The reluctance to say "sorry" about the handling of aboriginal children in the past was driven by the fact that the media and greedy lawyers would try to turn it into an admission of guilt as the are doing now with this case, and in that case the compo claims would have then poured in and been huge, with the lawyers whipping it up for their big cut.

Are they? Don't see anyone trying to sue 'cos their interest rates have gone back up....even though he's 'apologised'.

BTW - the interest rates are currently somewhere near they were when Howard came into power aren't they?

Mr Howard admitting to an error of judgement, admitting to a mistake, apologising for anything...... more chance of south adelaide going top in 2008....

Mr Howards government is just so completely out of touch,
i.e the large billboard on the corner of Port rd, adam st and park tce that boldly says
"..working families in Australia have never been better off.."
- most people I have spoken to are unsure whether it's an advertisement for Labor or Liberal.......?

Psyber, this is a perfect illustration of the way John Howard has (mis)used the language over the years. He's caught in a trap of his own making after all the core and non-core promises over the years and people aren'y listening to him anymore.

He promised to keep rates at 'record lows', but denies this in favour of an impossible to prove statement about always being lower than Labor.

No longer trusted.

Dogwatcher wrote:

Psyber wrote: The reluctance to say "sorry" about the handling of aboriginal children in the past was driven by the fact that the media and greedy lawyers would try to turn it into an admission of guilt as the are doing now with this case, and in that case the compo claims would have then poured in and been huge, with the lawyers whipping it up for their big cut.

Are they? Don't see anyone trying to sue 'cos their interest rates have gone back up....even though he's 'apologised'.

BTW - the interest rates are currently somewhere near they were when Howard came into power aren't they?

There is no legal mechanism to sue over interest rate rises, but if an apology over government departmental handling of aboriginal affairs in the past was miscontrued by the media and lawyers and then by a socialist leaning judge there would be a basis for compo - and as a barrister friend of mine pointed out magistrates and judges are by definition socialists or they would stay in private practice making "real money".

"BTW" - I don't remember precisely - but see my answer to R&B below. I do know housing rates topped 17% under two past federal "Labor" governments.

redandblack wrote:Psyber, this is a perfect illustration of the way John Howard has (mis)used the language over the years. He's caught in a trap of his own making after all the core and non-core promises over the years and people aren'y listening to him anymore.

He promised to keep rates at 'record lows', but denies this in favour of an impossible to prove statement about always being lower than Labor.

No longer trusted.

That sense of "Sorry" is not a misuse - it was the original meaning expressing regret that something has happened, and it has been turned into an apology and confession of guilt by modern misuse.

I listened carefully to John Howard's statements prior to the last election, because despite my being a member of the Liberal Party I was seriously considering voting "Labor" last time over issues like David Hicks and Iraq, until "Mad Mark" became leader. [ I had some confidence in Kim Beasley being basically honest like Jim Cairns.]

John Howard has never been one of my most liked politicians - he is too conservative and authoritarian for my preference - but he uses the language very correctly, precisely, and cleverly, and he carefully pointed out rates were then "at record lows" and then claimed only that rates would "remain lower than they would be under Labor" under his government. He was very careful not to promise they would stay at the "record lows".

Rates do concern me - I have a mortgage of over $300,000, and am one of those paying over 30% of my current taxable income on housing loans. [Capital rich - income relatively poor at present.]

Psyber wrote: a socialist leaning judge

Rather than an unbiased one????

Psyber wrote: "BTW" - I don't remember precisely - but see my answer to R&B below. I do know housing rates topped 17% under two past federal "Labor" governments.

That's a very John Howard type answer

Correct, DW.

Psyber, John Howard uses precise language so that he tells the truth, but not the whole truth.

People have now woken up to that after being bitten once too often.

Dogwatcher wrote:

Psyber wrote: a socialist leaning judge

Rather than an unbiased one????

CORRECT, socialist leaning is a bias. They are supposed to interpret the law without such leanings, but as my friend pointed out they do have them, and some let them influence their judgements. That comment arose in the context of helping me with a traffic offence - he was confident the magistrate would be biased against me for being able to be seen as "a rich bastard in a Porsche". He added, "..it could have been worse, it could have been a red one!" It actually did help that I had sold the car before it went to court, and the magistrate asked what I was driving now - I'd have been in deep sh1t had it been a Ferrari instead of a downgrade to an Alfa!

Dogwatcher wrote:

Psyber wrote: "BTW" - I don't remember precisely - but see my answer to R&B below. I do know housing rates topped 17% under two past federal "Labor" governments.

That's a very John Howard type answer

It is also the absolute truth! We remember the things that impact on us, not everything that happens. That's how the revisionists on both sides can get away with fiddling with history.

redandblack wrote:Correct, DW.
Psyber, John Howard uses precise language so that he tells the truth, but not the whole truth.
People have now woken up to that after being bitten once too often.

I have no argument with that - it is what all politicians do is it not?!
It is just that some people think only the ones on the other side do it.

Psyber wrote:I do know housing rates topped 17% under two past federal "Labor" governments.

They only didn't reach those numbers when Howard was treasurer as they were artificially capped, otherwise they would have topped the 20% mark.

Psyber wrote:He was very careful not to promise they would stay at the "record lows".

Not only did he personally say that, for the record in a radio interview, but he authorised Liberal Party advertising that promised to keep rates 'at record lows'.

PS No mention of what great mates you are with Downer? You do surprise me.

Its the fact that the Liberals were so quick to take the credit for low interest rates that makes their current 'it's not us' line when interest rates go up, that tests their credibility (as REB said).

Because truth be known, in the current local & global economic situations interest rates would have gone up under Labor as well.

That's why Labor aren't making any promises of their own - both parties know there are likely to be more rate rises in the next 2 years regardless of what they do.

topsywaldron wrote:

Psyber wrote:I do know housing rates topped 17% under two past federal "Labor" governments.

They only didn't reach those numbers when Howard was treasurer as they were artificially capped, otherwise they would have topped the 20% mark.

Were they and would they, or is that your own conjecture?? That was before I took an interest in politics triggered by my remorse at having voted for Gough Whitlam. Unbiased source please??

topsywaldron wrote:

Psyber wrote:He was very careful not to promise they would stay at the "record lows".

Not only did he personally say that, for the record in a radio interview, but he authorised Liberal Party advertising that promised to keep rates 'at record lows'.

I don't recall hearing that either, and I would have expected to remember if I had because it would have sounded silly to me - perhaps we listen to different radio stations - source please - I'll look it up if it is traceable.

topsywaldron wrote:PS No mention of what great mates you are with Downer? You do surprise me.

You are being a little on the unnecessarily catty side there my dear one, and a little inaccurate.

I have never referred to Alexander as a "great mate" or even a "mate" - I just said that I do know him personally when I defended him from a somewhat abusive slur, because it was relevant at the time to say so. My acquaintanceship with him is not relevant in this discussion - so I didn't mention it.

I have declared my hand as a member of the Liberal Party but stated it does not mean I agree with every policy. Alexander knows where I disagree with him.

I have also met James Merlino - Labor Victoria, Peter Duncan when he was a federal Labor MP from SA, John Bannon when he was SA Premier, and Terry Groom when he was a federal Labor MP from SA. I also knew John Coulter when he led the Democrats, and John Olson poured me the odd beer when he was SA premier, but I have never presumed to call any of them them "great mates" either - just acquaintances.

However, I did once a to get John Olson to intercede as Premier when WorkCover SA were treating a worker very unfairly over his claim and the union and their lawyers had left the worker hung out to dry. I mention this only because it may help you to see that this post is not about total class warfare, but about balanced debate and fair opinion. But I guess if you are determined go on being snide to you may decide to assume I just made it up on the grounds that no Liberal Premier would help out a worker!!

Psyber wrote:

topsywaldron wrote:

Psyber wrote:I do know housing rates topped 17% under two past federal "Labor" governments.

They only didn't reach those numbers when Howard was treasurer as they were artificially capped, otherwise they would have topped the 20% mark.

Were they and would they, or is that your own conjecture?? That was before I took an interest in politics triggered by my remorse at having voted for Gough Whitlam. Unbiased source please??

This was talked about on ABC radio the other day (774 here in Melbourne). The figure I recall hearing was 22%. Interest rates were artifcially capped and it was only after the Hawke government deregulated interest rates that it stopped.
FWIW I don't recall interest rates ever reaching 17% under a Keating government. I remember they did under Hawke for (what?) 3 months, but then again housing was more affordable then.

A quick google found this.......

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/conten ... 085320.htm

Psyber wrote:

topsywaldron wrote:

Psyber wrote:He was very careful not to promise they would stay at the "record lows".

Not only did he personally say that, for the record in a radio interview, but he authorised Liberal Party advertising that promised to keep rates 'at record lows'.

I don't recall hearing that either, and I would have expected to remember if I had because it would have sounded silly to me - perhaps we listen to different radio stations - source please - I'll look it up if it is traceable..

Once again they were talking about this the other day on 774. It was on Jon Faine's morning show, and the (TV) ad went to air for only three days during the last election. It was pulled off the air after this time by Howard himself. Presumably even he thought this was "gilding the lily".
Jon Faine can be a real pain at times, but the one thing he does do is his research, especially on political matters, and especially at election time. His lack of appearances on Media Watch are testimony to that.
It was actually on his show (not AM or the World Today), so there doesn't appear to be a transcript on the web.

Personally I can't believe there is still two weeks left of this carry on. I want Susie Creamcheese of The Happy Birthday Party to make a comeback. He/she would get my vote!
(There's one to test the memory of older posters. Think 1972 Federal election for the seat of Sturt!)

LL, I think it was more likely a State Election in Unley, from memory.

Psyber wrote: It is just that some people think only the ones on the other side do it.

Fair call.