The common (mis)conception is that the Coallition are fantastic at running the economy. A myth Howard and Costello are more than happy to keep pushing
( Read more... )
But I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on the other spending you mentioned here. See, this is an irritation that I have had for a very long time, and so now you are getting all of it in one hit. Every time the government spends any money on apparently opulent state owned furniture the other side immediately start pointing and waving flags. When you hear something like this it's just an automatic reaction to hate him for having the nerve to spend all that money - our money - on something that each of us makes do with for a tiny portion. But this is the House of Representatives, the central hub of our government. Images of happenings in that room get broadcast all over the world, we would be a laughing stock if the MPs each got out their bag chairs at the start of the day. John Howard was probably advised that they needed new furniture in the first place, and sure he may have signed the bill, but that’s because he is the PM; who else should sign it? He only ever sits in one of those 150 plus seats, and he doesn't get to take it with him when he retires.
The "design team" would be well qualified to advice on the best options. You can't expect John Howard, who as PM runs the entire country, to take time out to pour over catalogues and match fabrics. Considering that the chairs would need to be custom made, $3000 isn't really all that extreme. Do some research into the prices of executive office furniture to see this for yourself.
The same applies to the dining room. Foreign dignitaries are entertained on a regular basis in that room. Maintenance is something to be expected, and you can't cut corners on something like that. John Howard doesn't own the building, he just lives in it.
These comments will no doubt make me a lightning rod for quite a few people's scorn. Trust me, I'm not a fan of the current government's management either. I could think of plenty of better uses for this money. But don't blame the PM for this spending, blame whoever was the first king to have a big chair or impress diplomats with extravagance. Media reports like this are so common, and do so much to change people's point of view. It's your - our - everyone’s - responsibility as free thinking people of this democratic nation to see through the bias of things like this.
I think the actual cost is beside the point - Howard spent more money digging his brother out of a financial black hole than he has on his chairs.
The point is it is symptomatic of the attitude Howard has grown over the past 11 years. He has barely been touched in the polls up until now (except when he brilliantly manufactured the children overboard incident just before the previous to last election), and has started to spread his wings.
When he took power, he madea huge fuss about being accountable, and how his ministry would be squeaky clean. This has been slipping from the moment he took power.
The fact is, the seats for his private dining room don't need to be $3000 each. I can guarantee that you, or I, would not be able to tell the difference between those, or a $500 chair.
The point is, it's a waste of money, that Howard thinks he can get away with. And he has, for the past 11 years.
The 'bias' in the media is not against him, it's that finally, people are starting to make him accountable.
No other politician in the world would have the guts to come up with 'core' and 'non-core' promises. 'Non-core' promises are the ones he doesn't expect he has to keep, and doesn't aknowledge they are 'non-core' until after an election!
I'm not a huge Labor fan, but Howard has become what he promised he wouldn't be when he took power. And it's about time the general media picked up on that, and informed everyone else.
I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about the chairs for the House of Representives. They were replaced a year or so ago I believe (although, I might have that wrong - my memory is a little fuzzy).
I wasn't meaning to attack your point (dispite having done that - sorry once again). I completely agree that over the past 11 years of Howard's government the moral degredation of the average politician has increased. I'm more frustrated at the stupidity of this situation. Howard has done some really genuinly crap things, yet the average Australian seems to care so much more about things like these chairs. It's heaps easier to sell newspapers that talk about the cost of chairs, but real issues like education, health, and social inequality, get passing nods. People should care infinately more that John Howard send us to war in Iraq dispite massive public opposition than how much more comfortable his arse is than ours.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on your point there. It's a shame that a point as small as a set of chairs gets people's blood boiling, when Howard has made himself the first PM to ever send our troops into a war where we were the agressor.
I heard a great point someone in American media made. There was such an outpouring of grief for the 32 students and teachers killed in the latest mass shooting over there, however more than 30 American troops die each week in Iraq.
It's interesting to note that these chairs, and the design consultancy fees, were authorised before Rudd took control, and it looked liked there would be no contest again.
To me, at least, it is a great example of Howard's arrogance. I look forward to his hopeful destruction in the polls in November.
But I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on the other spending you mentioned here. See, this is an irritation that I have had for a very long time, and so now you are getting all of it in one hit. Every time the government spends any money on apparently opulent state owned furniture the other side immediately start pointing and waving flags. When you hear something like this it's just an automatic reaction to hate him for having the nerve to spend all that money - our money - on something that each of us makes do with for a tiny portion. But this is the House of Representatives, the central hub of our government. Images of happenings in that room get broadcast all over the world, we would be a laughing stock if the MPs each got out their bag chairs at the start of the day. John Howard was probably advised that they needed new furniture in the first place, and sure he may have signed the bill, but that’s because he is the PM; who else should sign it? He only ever sits in one of those 150 plus seats, and he doesn't get to take it with him when he retires.
The "design team" would be well qualified to advice on the best options. You can't expect John Howard, who as PM runs the entire country, to take time out to pour over catalogues and match fabrics. Considering that the chairs would need to be custom made, $3000 isn't really all that extreme. Do some research into the prices of executive office furniture to see this for yourself.
The same applies to the dining room. Foreign dignitaries are entertained on a regular basis in that room. Maintenance is something to be expected, and you can't cut corners on something like that. John Howard doesn't own the building, he just lives in it.
These comments will no doubt make me a lightning rod for quite a few people's scorn. Trust me, I'm not a fan of the current government's management either. I could think of plenty of better uses for this money. But don't blame the PM for this spending, blame whoever was the first king to have a big chair or impress diplomats with extravagance. Media reports like this are so common, and do so much to change people's point of view. It's your - our - everyone’s - responsibility as free thinking people of this democratic nation to see through the bias of things like this.
Reply
The point is it is symptomatic of the attitude Howard has grown over the past 11 years. He has barely been touched in the polls up until now (except when he brilliantly manufactured the children overboard incident just before the previous to last election), and has started to spread his wings.
When he took power, he madea huge fuss about being accountable, and how his ministry would be squeaky clean. This has been slipping from the moment he took power.
The fact is, the seats for his private dining room don't need to be $3000 each. I can guarantee that you, or I, would not be able to tell the difference between those, or a $500 chair.
The point is, it's a waste of money, that Howard thinks he can get away with. And he has, for the past 11 years.
The 'bias' in the media is not against him, it's that finally, people are starting to make him accountable.
No other politician in the world would have the guts to come up with 'core' and 'non-core' promises. 'Non-core' promises are the ones he doesn't expect he has to keep, and doesn't aknowledge they are 'non-core' until after an election!
I'm not a huge Labor fan, but Howard has become what he promised he wouldn't be when he took power. And it's about time the general media picked up on that, and informed everyone else.
Reply
I wasn't meaning to attack your point (dispite having done that - sorry once again). I completely agree that over the past 11 years of Howard's government the moral degredation of the average politician has increased. I'm more frustrated at the stupidity of this situation. Howard has done some really genuinly crap things, yet the average Australian seems to care so much more about things like these chairs. It's heaps easier to sell newspapers that talk about the cost of chairs, but real issues like education, health, and social inequality, get passing nods. People should care infinately more that John Howard send us to war in Iraq dispite massive public opposition than how much more comfortable his arse is than ours.
Reply
I heard a great point someone in American media made. There was such an outpouring of grief for the 32 students and teachers killed in the latest mass shooting over there, however more than 30 American troops die each week in Iraq.
Reply
It's interesting to note that these chairs, and the design consultancy fees, were authorised before Rudd took control, and it looked liked there would be no contest again.
To me, at least, it is a great example of Howard's arrogance. I look forward to his hopeful destruction in the polls in November.
Reply
Leave a comment