September 15, 2004
PASTA WERRIWA
Mark Latham -- enemy of the weak!
Opposition Leader Mark Latham today conceded a mother of three who embarrassed a Labor MP on talkback radio would be worse off under the ALP's family and tax package.
Mr Latham said the woman, who phoned a Perth radio station complaining about Labor's policies, would be $461 a year worse off under the ALP.
That talkback caller turned out to be a Liberal Party member, as it happens. At least Latham is honest; but one thing Latham isn’t is articulate. He often sounds like a catch-phrase generator jammed on repeat. And those phrases sometimes make no sense at all. Consider, for example, Latham’s ongoing obsession with spaghetti bowls:
• "It's like a spaghetti bowl of complexity and debt."
• "It's a confusing spaghetti bowl."
• "If the world's economies go down the Howard Government's preferred path of bilateralism, it will produce a spaghetti bowl of confusing and often conflicting trade agreements."
• "Well, you have got to look at them on their merits one by one. You do run the risk if you have 1,000 of them, it ends up like a spaghetti bowl of different and conflicting arrangements around the world."
• "What [Howard] needs to do is acknowledge that he had it wrong in the Budget, he had it wrong in terms of his spaghetti bowl system of family payments that he's developed and there's a better way forward."
• Mr Latham said Labor's package would "straighten out the spaghetti bowl" of the complex Howard Government's three family assistance measure.
The Coalition used the spaghetti line during the last election, referring to Barry Jones’ Knowledge Nation sketch, but that made sense because Barry’s idiot plan actually looked like spaghetti. There’s nothing complicated about a spaghetti bowl, however; it’s just a bowl with pasta in it. Most Australians can figure out a spaghetti bowl without resorting to a set-square or a team of Italian accountants.
(Incidentally, just like Latham’s other phrase-obsession -- "ease the squeeze", which he’s lifted from Joe Lieberman -- "spaghetti bowl" is borrowed, in this case from Jagdish Bhagwati, who was using the term in reference to international trade agreements at least eight years ago.)
UPDATE. Currency Lad has more on Latham's catch-phrase kleptomania, and Robert Corr continues tracking disputes between the minor parties (ie, the ALP and Greens).
UPDATE II. Media Watch accuses John Anderson of stealing his "greens are like watermelons" line from John Laws:
Lawsie's been pushing that line and playing his ditty for over a year, so it would be nice of John Anderson to give him some credit.
Does David Marr think the watermelon gag is only one year old? Man ... I think I first heard it at least a decade ago. And it was old then.
UPDATE III. Former Liberal minister Michael Wooldridge accuses Labor of having its own spaghettified policy:
Posted by Tim Blair at September 15, 2004 03:55 AMA complex policy that leaves 30 per cent of people worse off reminded me of 1991 and Fightback! When the Government is finished with Labor's policy, half the population will be convinced they are among the 30 per cent who will lose. No self-respecting political consultant would have ever allowed such a policy.
What an anazing story for the Australian to pick up! What a scoop! Of course, NO member of the ALP has EVER called up a politician on talk-back radio!
Posted by: Sue at September 15, 2004 at 04:58 AMthe spaghetti bowl itself is very simple - its the spagetti inside that's complex.
And once you open the can of worms it becomes like a bowl of spagetti.
You can the spagetti out of the bowl of spagetti, but you cant take the bowl out of the bowl of spagetti.
And you cant make a bowl of spagetti without breaking a can.
Posted by: Giles at September 15, 2004 at 05:54 AMIs there cheese on top?
Is it healthy sauce or meat?
Posted by: Sandy P at September 15, 2004 at 07:41 AMHow amazing that both my country and yours could have such utterly incompetent fools from the left-wing party seeking to lead the country.
Posted by: Big Dog at September 15, 2004 at 09:34 AMTalking about plants.I got a bit suspicious when a lady who put 7 children through Kings school thought it horrendous that the Libs supported Kings with funding to the detriment of poor state schools.Mmmmmmmmmmmm
Posted by: gubbaboy at September 15, 2004 at 09:50 AMSo if you're a member of the Liberal party it's of no consequence if you find a yawning gap in Labor's tax policy.
Why does Latham need advertising money for his campaign when all the media are promoting him for free?
Posted by: scott at September 15, 2004 at 09:57 AMYou can see what Homer Latham's really got on his mind - lunch!
Posted by: mr magoo at September 15, 2004 at 10:02 AMI'd love to be able to correlate letters to the SMH and The Australian with party members. Methinks that the Liberal Party wouldn't be at the sharp end of the spike.
Posted by: murph at September 15, 2004 at 10:58 AMIt is probably a good thing that Latham's weak tax policy is just left to die in the arse. It hasn't got him any bounce at all so far. So we don't need the media tio tell us how awful it is.
In the current climate most of us disbelieve the mainstream media anyway. So if they pick on Ltham he may get sympathy. We RWDbs should just take the media's bias as evidence that our boy, J-Ho is winning.
Although it is off-topic I would like to use the popularity of this site to make a comment regarding the new schools policy of Mark Latham's Labor Party. I did not go to an elite private school, the school I went to a long time ago was solid working class with few if any advantages. I do however aspire to send my kids to the best school possible.
More importantly, over the last few years I have seen the "brain drain" from Australia first hand. It was theoretical to me up until then but now I have several really good friends who for the good of their families are living and working overseas. They cannot achieve their aspirations with a 50% tax rate and a culture that takes the view that if you earn over $100,000 a year you are a sitting duck to be pillaged.
This reduction of money to elite private schools is based on the socialist principle of "each according to his need". It sounds great and no one wants to be the one to stand up and mock it but in reality very few people pay for all the "needs" and now these people, while agreeing with the principle in public, just move away.
It won't lead to the destruction of Australia overnight but it continues us down the wrong path and is a very public signal that if Labor wins, stay away!
Posted by: Allan at September 15, 2004 at 12:39 PMMaybe he meant to say "Spaghetti-like cluster fuck".
I only recently figured out how to do bold
Posted by: Amos at September 15, 2004 at 01:15 PMFor a man who made his name bad mouthing US political figures, Latham sure is happy to pinch their slogans. First it was Ronnie's "ladder of opportunity", now it is Lieberman's "ease the squeeze". Latham could me made to look like the goose he is if a tape was spliced up showing the original usage followed by Latham's copy. Media Watch was happy to show where John Anderson supposedly got his "watermelon" idea from, so no doubt next Monday they will run this story.
Posted by: doolo at September 15, 2004 at 02:31 PMso lemme get this straight. you guys and timbo are attacking Latham because he is offering better tax cuts than the Coalition and because he is partly funding these tax-cuts by abolishing the ridiculous Baby Bonus so poor teenage single moms can't keep on endlessly being subsidised to have children (boo hoo) and you call yourself right-wing?
Posted by: Jason Soon at September 15, 2004 at 02:43 PMRichard Nixon used that watermelon line 30 years ago and it was ancient even then.
Of course, David Marr is still a bit wet behind the ears when it comes to political history.
Posted by: mr magoo at September 15, 2004 at 03:02 PMNo Jason, we are attacking Latham because he sounds more like Ned "Diddly ding dong ease the squeeze dang doodley ladder of opportunity" Flanders every day.
Jason Soon:
Yes, it's terrible. I mean, places like Sydney Grammar School with its record of academic excellence should be for the children of the Rich only. No point in making it affordable to any old Tom, Dick or Harry, as it was when both Malcolm Turnbull and I went there.
Meanwhile Latham has gotten at least one foreign leader endorsing him. Abu Bakar Bashir. I'm fairly sure Latham's not exactly thrilled by this, and am equally sure that he'd rather Howard been endorsed instead.
Interestingly, the loathsome ABB first mistook Latham's photo for Kerry's...
Posted by: Alan E Brain at September 15, 2004 at 03:11 PMI am intensely angered at Lathams very devisive school 'funding'
My husband and I were on a very average income in the early 1980s, in fact I ran a small business for which I took no salary but worked four full evening shifts nursing per week in all I was literally working 7am to 11.30 pm 7 days a week to give our children what we hoped was a better start, as at that time we felt that they were not gaining the assistance they required at their State school. We did not send them to develop elevated ideas of their own worth but to develop into good citizens which they did.
I would never be able, under a Latham regime to have had this option even though EVERY cent that is EVERY cent I earned went into the school fees, my husband became Mum, we had no holidays apart from a couple of camping trips-NEVER not ever went out to dinner. We worked so hard for 25 years and now are'self funded 'retirees' and still get no benfits from the goverment.
We sold our home in Melbourne and moved to a cheaper one in the country to fund our retirement.
We have no complaints and would do the same again- We both came from the battling 'working class' and believe very much in people being encouraged to be self reliant. We have private health cover- we pay our Dr the full fee and get our rebate from medicare and think ourselves very fortunate.
However we have very wealthy aquaintances who sent their children to state schools, boast about not having private health care and enjoy a more lavish and self indulgent lifestyle because they spent nothing on their childrens education. Children at the 'Elite' State schools benefit and the aspirational 'battlers' who wish for a choice,the backbone of this counrty are to be 'screwd by this left wing spite monger bully and his petty motly crew.
Another thing many kids from rural Australia are boarders who have to attend such schools move to rural towns and live alone to get further education.
Rosemary
I am intensely angered at Lathams very devisive school 'funding'
My husband and I were on a very average income in the early 1980s, in fact I ran a small business for which I took no salary but worked four full evening shifts nursing per week in all I was literally working 7am to 11.30 pm 7 days a week to give our children what we hoped was a better start, as at that time we felt that they were not gaining the assistance they required at their State school. We did not send them to develop elevated ias of their own worth but to develop into good citizens which they did.
I would never be able, under a Latham regime to have had this option even though EVERY cent that is EVERY cent I earned went into the school fees, my husband became Mum, we had no holidays apart from a couple of camping trips-NEVER not ever went out to dinner. We worked so hard for 25 years and now are'self funded 'retirees' and still get no benfits from the goverment.
We sold our home in Melbourne and moved to a cheaper one in the country to fund our retirement.
We have no complaints and would do the same again- We both came from the battling 'working class' and believe very much in people being encouraged to be self reliant. We have private health cover- we pay our Dr the full fee and get our rebate from medicare and think ourselves very fortunate.
However we have very wealthy aquaintances who sent their children to state schools, boast about not having private health care and enjoy a more lavish and self indulgent lifestyle because they spent nothing on their childrens education. Children at the 'Elite' State schools benefit and the aspirational 'battlers' who wish for a choice,the backbone of this counrty are to be 'screwd by this left wing spite monger bully and his petty motly crew.
Another thing many kids from rural Australia are boarders who have to attend such schools move to rural towns and live alone to get further education.
"so lemme get this straight. you guys and timbo are attacking Latham because he is offering better tax cuts than the Coalition". What planet are you from?
Latham's $3.50 tax reduction will be eaten up immediately by his reintroduction of compulsory union fees. No union membership means no OK card. No OK card means no job. I remember them days under Keating only too well.
Latham's tax policy is a fraud and was exposed only too well on talk back radio where even Latham had to admit he was screwing the battlers.
Posted by: scott at September 15, 2004 at 03:59 PMAs for Labor's version of the baby bonus, they are abolishing Invest Australia which has brought in $93 billion worth of foreign investment since its inception 3.5 years ago just to fund their policy.
Another glowing endorsement of how labor will spend without saving. Latham trully is dickless.
Posted by: scott at September 15, 2004 at 04:02 PMI sent a copy of my letter to the labour Party
reply below.
We however had the misfortune both to commence business, buy a home and sell under labor goverments-Whitlam--Keating-buying at 14% and trying to sel when interest rate were at 18% our business should have been worth 500,000 but we could only sell at house and land value $280.000
which has impacted on our 'dreams in retirement"
I have never in my adult years ever seen anyone come out better under a labor government.
They are run by the Unions who when you need them don't give a toss except taking your fees.
I am not a paid up Liberal supporter but the socialists do not care about the working class other than dolts to be manipulated into voting for them by demeaning all of us who worked damned hard to get we are,and not dependent on douts and welfare.
When I grew up my parents went through terrible times-England in War- time - not that I realised then- we were clean and fed as well as possible it is only in maturity I could compare my life then and now.
However to quote the 'Worlds greatest Treasurer' it's all 'smoke and mirrors' and we will see our savings finish where they were headed when the last Labor Regime was ousted
-----------------
Thanks for your email - I've passed on your comments to Mark's policy team.
I have also attached some info about schools funding fyi
We are increasing funding for 2499 out of 2677 private (non government schools)
Since 2001, the Howard Government has been giving the biggest funding increases to the highest fee schools in the country. Schools like The
King's School in Sydney simply does not need a massive 215 per cent
increase when so many Catholic and needy non-government schools don't
even have decent computers.
Under Labor, schools like The King's School will lose some of their
recent funding increase and return to around the same level of funding
prior to 2001.
Every non-government dollar re-distributed will go to a needy
non-government school and every child in every Australian school will
continue to get government support.
Labor is committed to helping all schools reach the 21st Century resource standard by 2012.
Regards
Melanie
ALP Campaign Information Unit
for more policies visit www.alp.org.au
Is it just me, or is there a whiff of sectarianism about Labour's education policy? I don't see too many Catholic schools losing their grants, and apparently they are going to be benficaries o the redistribution of funds. Sectarian as well as class divisive? Isn't this the politics of envy and spite?
Posted by: Don at September 15, 2004 at 06:01 PMLawsie's been pushing that line and playing his ditty for over a year, so it would be nice of John Anderson to give him some credit.
Laws pinched it. This is over a decade old. An edition of The Spectator in about 1990 had a front cover with a sliced watermelon and a banner-sized caption GREEN IS RED. It probably originated with Auberon Waugh.
Posted by: Walter Plinge at September 15, 2004 at 06:41 PMThe Greens- watermelons- Try Bananas- green when young -yellow and bent as they ripen -whatever they choose to call themselves they are 'fellow travellers' all, and seem not to have absorbed the truth -there has not been any successful socialist state this century always hardship -poverty and millions dead in their failed social engineering schemes.
Mt Howard may not have the 'Charisma"!!! of old silver tail( a matter of opinion) but I prefer to have someone a little more practical in charge of my money and the security of the country- visions of the future and high ideals are best left to poets and philosophers or arts law grads with time to waste because whilst they dream the rest of us have to get on with the real world and produce what they so easily take for granted.