Come On The Great Backflip Detectives, Where Are All The Posts?

[Aloysius]

ALP anonounce policy changes:

Uranium mining policy

IR policy

Education policy

Aboriginal wefare policy

The list goes on, add where you are so inclined.

What are we to think?

Words like "Imitation is the sincerest form of admiration spring to mind"

[DrP]

Words like "Imitation is the sincerest form of admiration spring to mind"

If by immitation you are implying that the ALP is immitating the Howard Liberal government's back flipping, then they have chosen wisely. Howard & Co are the uncontested masters of back flipping. Even a performing gymnastic troupe is nothing compared to Howard.

[Aloysius]

If by immitation you are implying that the ALP is immitating the Howard Liberal government's back flipping, then they have chosen wisely. Howard & Co are the uncontested masters of back flipping. Even a performing gymnastic troupe is nothing compared to Howard.

No the implication is that the ALP are moving their previously unpopular policies toward those adopted by the government earlier

[aztec]

No the implication is that the ALP are moving their previously unpopular policies toward those adopted by the government earlier

Perhaps with a different leadership there are new, smarter policies taking them in a new direction.

Working for a large multi-national I see this all the time. No one ever calls that backflipping.

[Thudd1503560234]

Uranium mining policy

They haven't changed their 'no new mines' policy. Rudd thinks that they should open up more uranium mines, but the issue will be debated at the next national conference and thus hasn't yet been decided. Their stance on nuclear power in Australia remains unchanged. Backflip: nil

IR policy

How so? Labor has opposed WorkChoices, the butchering of unfair dismissal laws, and so on, from day one, and that policy hasn't changed, reiterated only a week ago in a speech I found online. If the policy has changed, it's in a way I'm not familar with.

Education policy

You're talking about scrapping Latham's private schools hit list? While the intention may have had some merit, the implementation was lousy and it deserved to be scrapped. Are policy changed after a leadership change counted as backflips? If so then I bet we could find some doozies from when JWH first ascended.

Aboriginal wefare policy

And it's about time! Although it doesn't go anywhere near far enough, any improvement on the abysmal treatment of indigenous people by this government and governments past should be welcomed. If backflips are going to occur, at least let's see them occur in areas that are recognised as being of need, not from a knee-jerk reaction to try and desperately claw back sliding voters.

What are we to think? What I think is that some of the latest backflips by the government have been driving purely by convenience and appearance, and not from a genuine attempt by the government to improve the country. That's what is so appaling about the current administration - their barefaced manipulation of policy at any cost in order to remain in power.

[50mxe20]

What are we to think? What I think is that some of the latest backflips by the government have been driving purely by convenience and appearance, and not from a genuine attempt by the government to improve the country. That's what is so appaling about the current administration - their barefaced manipulation of policy at any cost in order to remain in power.

Show me a politician or political party that hasn't done this since time began! They are ALL tarred with the same brush. Sorry, my cynicism is showing. I don't have much truck with any of them or any of the partys. I'm the perfect swinging voter. Although sometimes, better the devil you know, than the devil you don't.

[Thudd1503560234]

Oh yes, they all do it, no argument from me there, but some of JWH's machinations in the past few years have just been (IMO) despicable.

[50mxe20]

Oh yes, they all do it, no argument from me there, but some of JWH's machinations in the past few years have just been (IMO) despicable.

He's no longer my favourite either!

[Aloysius]

They haven't changed their 'no new mines' policy. Rudd thinks that they should open up more uranium mines, but the issue will be debated at the next national conference and thus hasn't yet been decided. Their stance on nuclear power in Australia remains unchanged. Backflip: nil

How so? Labor has opposed WorkChoices, the butchering of unfair dismissal laws, and so on, from day one, and that policy hasn't changed, reiterated only a week ago in a speech I found online. If the policy has changed, it's in a way I'm not familar with.

You're talking about scrapping Latham's private schools hit list? While the intention may have had some merit, the implementation was lousy and it deserved to be scrapped. Are policy changed after a leadership change counted as backflips? If so then I bet we could find some doozies from when JWH first ascended.

And it's about time! Although it doesn't go anywhere near far enough, any improvement on the abysmal treatment of indigenous people by this government and governments past should be welcomed. If backflips are going to occur, at least let's see them occur in areas that are recognised as being of need, not from a knee-jerk reaction to try and desperately claw back sliding voters.

What are we to think? [i]What I think is that some of the latest backflips by the government have been driving purely by convenience and appearance, and not from a genuine attempt by the government to improve the country. That's what is so appaling about the current administration - their barefaced manipulation of policy at any cost in order to remain in power[/i].

Yes it's fair to say that - provided you also say that the backflips listed, by the ALP, are also seen as a similar exercise in a cynical grab for power - you can't have it both ways - it's either wrong for all or not at all

[Aloysius]

Perhaps with a different leadership there are new, smarter policies taking them in a new direction.

Working for a large multi-national I see this all the time. No one ever calls that backflipping.

I agree with you - trouble is if the government changes policy (improves) it's designated a back flip, but if someone else does the same - it's not

[Thudd1503560234]

It's when it's done for it's own convenient purposes that it becomes a backflip. The issue of David Hicks is the one that first comes to mind for me - their outright baldfaced lie about fighting to have him brought to trial. I'll leave it to others to add more.

I'm quite happy for the govt to change it's policy in the light of new information, changed circumstances, or just outright improvement. I wish they would! But the arrogance of the JWH regime in changing direction whilst claiming that they're actually not changing direction and that this has been their policy all along, to suit their political whims, has become breathtaking.

[Steve C]

Yes it's fair to say that - provided you also say that the backflips listed, by the ALP, are also seen as a similar exercise in a cynical grab for power - you can't have it both ways - it's either wrong for all or not at all

What backflips?

The changes, some subtle and some major, to existing ALP policy and philosophy are of course designed to help convince Australians who would have been unconvinced of the value of a Labor Government that stuck rigidly to outdated yet still existing policy.

And there in lies the indelible truth, that the circumstances are different for a Government and an opposition.

The present Government outlined it's policies prior to being elected, by refining and changing elements that Menzies, McMahon, Snedden, Gorton, Fraser and a raft of conservative luminaries had devised and refined in their turn from policy they had inherited, when it was in opposition. It's what is expected by the populace of our country. We don't desire or deserve to be voting for policies that are relevant to pre-WWII Australia. We know the underlying philosophies on offer are fundamentally centuries old, but the policies that enact those philosophies should be for those of us living now...

We are entitled to representation - not just through our elected members, but also by our opposition parties and candidates; and part of their respective responsibilities is to offer the plebiscite a viable and effective alternative, as well as stable and consistent implimentation of promised policies.

If the Government delivers stable and consistent implimentation of it's policies, and the plebiscite becomes disgruntled at the effect that such policies are having upon it, then it should be expected that the Government should either refine it's policies to enable the promised benefits of policy implimentation to actually occur, or face the plebiscite as a Government that perhaps failed to deliver on the benefits it's policies were promised to deliver; but at least displaying the gumption to remain committed to the philosophical underpinning of the policies it tried to impliment.

I suspect you can't see that the current tangential or even seeming 'reverse' directions of some present Governmental policy after several terms of consistent adherance to the policies up to the point of Mr Rudd's attainment of the Labor leadership is not only suspicious, but a covert admission that the real value the present Government ascribes to sticking to one's beliefs is outweighed by the benefit to be gained by retaining power at all costs.

Bottom line, we expect a candidate for leadership of our Nation to show they've got what it takes, as much as we want the current leader to prove he's got just as much if not more.

I'm afraid at this point John Howard is not leading. He is being driven. He's paying too much attention to Kevin Rudd, rather than showing the true assurance of a leader who doesn't look to anyone else when setting the agenda.

Of course you're entitled to see it differently... and what would a democracy be without differences of opinion? Even Fascist states have dissenters - for as long as they are allowed to remain free to dissent that is!

[-Bishop-]

I have no doubt Labor is back flipping on some policies, it's political nature to do so, and going into what could be the biggest election in a long time, your going to see both sides flip flop on any policy they need to in order to win votes.

[Aloysius]

What backflips?

The changes, some subtle and some major, to existing ALP policy and philosophy are of course designed to help convince Australians who would have been unconvinced of the value of a Labor Government that stuck rigidly to outdated yet still existing policy.

And there in lies the indelible truth, that the circumstances are different for a Government and an opposition.

The present Government outlined it's policies prior to being elected, by refining and changing elements that Menzies, McMahon, Snedden, Gorton, Fraser and a raft of conservative luminaries had devised and refined in their turn from policy they had inherited, when it was in opposition. It's what is expected by the populace of our country. We don't desire or deserve to be voting for policies that are relevant to pre-WWII Australia. We know the underlying philosophies on offer are fundamentally centuries old, but the policies that enact those philosophies should be for those of us living now...

We are entitled to representation - not just through our elected members, but also by our opposition parties and candidates; and part of their respective responsibilities is to offer the plebiscite a viable and effective alternative, as well as stable and consistent implimentation of promised policies.

If the Government delivers stable and consistent implimentation of it's policies, and the plebiscite becomes disgruntled at the effect that such policies are having upon it, then it should be expected that the Government should either refine it's policies to enable the promised benefits of policy implimentation to actually occur, or face the plebiscite as a Government that perhaps failed to deliver on the benefits it's policies were promised to deliver; but at least displaying the gumption to remain committed to the philosophical underpinning of the policies it tried to impliment.

I suspect you can't see that the current tangential or even seeming 'reverse' directions of some present Governmental policy after several terms of consistent adherance to the policies up to the point of Mr Rudd's attainment of the Labor leadership is not only suspicious, but a covert admission that the real value the present Government ascribes to sticking to one's beliefs is outweighed by the benefit to be gained by retaining power at all costs.

Bottom line, we expect a candidate for leadership of our Nation to show they've got what it takes, as much as we want the current leader to prove he's got just as much if not more.

I'm afraid at this point John Howard is not leading. He is being driven. He's paying too much attention to Kevin Rudd, rather than showing the true assurance of a leader who doesn't look to anyone else when setting the agenda.

Of course you're entitled to see it differently... and what would a democracy be without differences of opinion? Even Fascist states have dissenters - for as long as they are allowed to remain free to dissent that is!

The intended point of the thread was not politics or even backflipping - the point was - the unrestrained urge by some, to label government changes as backflipping, while at the time remaining strangely oblivious or at least unconcerned by similar "changes" made by the opposition.

This said regardless of the import, substance, wisdom, or efficacy of the proposed changes

[Steve C]

The intended point of the thread was not politics or even backflipping - the point was - the unrestrained urge by some, to label government changes as backflipping, while at the time remaining strangely oblivious or at least unconcerned by similar "changes" made by the opposition.

This said regardless of the import, substance, wisdom, or efficacy of the proposed changes

Ah...

So it's the posts being made by "some" that 'broadcast' changes to Government policies as being "backflips" that have compelled your initial response, rather than any of the actual policy changes from either side themselves?

Politics is such a wonderful thing. Some individuals are so immersed in it, that their blood boils and their eyes bulge at the merest suggestion that their political champions are being denigrated... whilst a fairly large majority of the populace are just happy if a political candidate "looks nice".

If we could harness all of the wasted energy that is expended through the emotional committment made by adherrants to particular political philosophies, we wouldn't have an energy crisis. The down side to sucking all that energy from those individuals who are so obsessed with "showing those who may not know what's really going on in the World of politics, what's really going on", would be the loss of such wonderfully enlightening and amusing forum 'debates' such as this.

It's no doubt concerning to one side's adherrants that some individuals may be convinced or seduced by posts that make statements from the so-called 'opposing side' that could be laughably ludicrous... We just have to hope that not everyone is a gullible donkey who believes everything they read. Mind you: if they did believe everything they read here, they'd be doing more double somersaults and backflips than any political party or leader could ever manage.

What's truly important - and certainly on a day that I must exercise my democratic right at my local polling place, is that the choice the majority of the electorate makes is one that doesn't erode our freedom to make such choices. If those we elect have the integrity to live up to their promises and enact policies that do bring tangible benefits for more than just a select few, it's icing on the cake.

All the rest is just political posturing, that's a peacock like dance that shows off pretty feathers. Watch peacocks closely and you'll notice, that as dumb as they are, not even they are all fooled by those flashy and loud, yet desperately hopeful feathers.

[Aloysius]

Ah...

So it's the posts being made by "some" that 'broadcast' changes to Government policies as being "backflips" that have compelled your initial response, rather than any of the actual policy changes from either side themselves?

Politics is such a wonderful thing. Some individuals are so immersed in it, that their blood boils and their eyes bulge at the merest suggestion that their political champions are being denigrated... whilst a fairly large majority of the populace are just happy if a political candidate "looks nice".

If we could harness all of the wasted energy that is expended through the emotional committment made by adherrants to particular political philosophies, we wouldn't have an energy crisis. The down side to sucking all that energy from those individuals who are so obsessed with "showing those who may not know what's really going on in the World of politics, what's really going on", would be the loss of such wonderfully enlightening and amusing forum 'debates' such as this.

It's no doubt concerning to one side's adherrants that some individuals may be convinced or seduced by posts that make statements from the so-called 'opposing side' that could be laughably ludicrous... We just have to hope that not everyone is a gullible donkey who believes everything they read. Mind you: if they did believe everything they read here, they'd be doing more double somersaults and backflips than any political party or leader could ever manage.

What's truly important - and certainly on a day that I must exercise my democratic right at my local polling place, is that the choice the majority of the electorate makes is one that doesn't erode our freedom to make such choices. If those we elect have the integrity to live up to their promises and enact policies that do bring tangible benefits for more than just a select few, it's icing on the cake.

All the rest is just political posturing, that's a peacock like dance that shows off pretty feathers. Watch peacocks closely and you'll notice, that as dumb as they are, not even they are all fooled by those flashy and loud, yet desperately hopeful feathers.

It's the evenhanded application of criticism / judgement that I'm encouraging - I don't care at all which political party one favours - this is an essential part of democracy. It's the intellectual dishonesty of applying different standards to different people that I object to.

Where ever it occurs it is plain untruthful and can only confuse an issue.

On an off topic note I heard a guy talking about fame on ABC National last night: He said something like - " over the last 200 years fame has changed from meritocracy to visibility"

Or "now - footballers (drugs or not) are famous because we see them - who ever heard of the discoverer of the human genome"

[Thudd1503560234]

Or "now - footballers (drugs or not) are famous because we see them - who ever heard of the discoverer of the human genome"

I was genuinely asked the other day "Who is Ben Cousins". Maybe they know the genome guy.

[stahc]

I was genuinely asked the other day "Who is Ben Cousins". Maybe they know the genome guy.

i give up...................who is ben cousins?

[Skid_MacMarx]

Is this all you have to throw at Labor, Aloysius?

How about explaining why your cane toad liberal mates have been caught fiddling? especially when your state is in a resource led boom?

greed? arrogance?

[Aloysius]

Is this all you have to throw at Labor, Aloysius?

How about explaining why your cane toad liberal mates have been caught fiddling? especially when your state is in a resource led boom?

greed? arrogance?

C'mon Skid - just asking for same rules for everyone - I know you would support that!

And the libs are not "my mates" so there

[Steve C]

C'mon Skid - just asking for same rules for everyone - I know you would support that!

Not sure that I would support it to the extreme letter of the law...

The same rules applying to the old and infirm as those for the young and healthy? The same for infants? And what about those who are mentally - through no fault of their own, incapable of comprehending the rules?

All of a sudden the rules have too become much more complicated to bring equity into what could have the potential to be - if applied without compassion or flexibility, something most unfair and contradictory to the seminal values that humanity harbours. I suppose there've been a few ruthless potentates who've applied the same rules to all through history - the latest to spring to mind being Pol Pot, who have governed with that principle.

Perhaps you are right though - I can see where one set of rules would be of extreme value. Manners. Consideration. Respect.

People are certainly becoming sick and tired of the lack of those three simple things in our everyday dealings. There's a rapidly growing number of people who couldn't give a rat's about what they say or do or behave like in public, who are aided and abetted by those who honestly don't know better as well as those who meekly turn the other way out of self concern.

Despite the fact the Howard Government had so long to do something about a change in the essential fabric of Australian-ness, they wait until a moment of significant social upheaval to make political mileage out of testing for Australian-ness, as though being Australian is so easily quantifiable. It may not qualify as a back flip, because it actually qualifies as criminal deriliction of preserving the noblest characteristics of Australian-ness.

[Aloysius]

Not sure that I would support it to the extreme letter of the law... The same rules applying to the old and infirm as those for the young and healthy? The same for infants? And what about those who are mentally - through no fault of their own, incapable of comprehending the rules?

All of a sudden the rules have too become much more complicated to bring equity into what could have the potential to be - if applied without compassion or flexibility, something most unfair and contradictory to the seminal values that humanity harbours. I suppose there've been a few ruthless potentates who've applied the same rules to all through history - the latest to spring to mind being Pol Pot, who have governed with that principle.

Perhaps you are right though - I can see where one set of rules would be of extreme value. Manners. Consideration. Respect.

People are certainly becoming sick and tired of the lack of those three simple things in our everyday dealings. There's a rapidly growing number of people who couldn't give a rat's about what they say or do or behave like in public, who are aided and abetted by those who honestly don't know better as well as those who meekly turn the other way out of self concern.

Despite the fact the Howard Government had so long to do something about a change in the essential fabric of Australian-ness, they wait until a moment of significant social upheaval to make political mileage out of testing for Australian-ness, as though being Australian is so easily quantifiable. It may not qualify as a back flip, because it actually qualifies as criminal deriliction of preserving the noblest characteristics of Australian-ness.

Just two things:

Almost anything "extreme " is untenable.

Backflips are backflips - in the eyes of an impartial backflip detective,

- regardless of who/whom the backflipee may be

[Aloysius]

http://news.www30.ninemsn.com.au/article.a...amp;_cobr=optus

More relevant data

[mello yello]

Backflips are backflips - in the eyes of an impartial backflip detective,

"Grain of sand in eye may hide mountain."

...Charlie Chan (Detective)

save : winky:

[Steve C]

http://news.www30.ninemsn.com.au/article.a...amp;_cobr=optus

More relevant data

Not sure what it's relevant too?

Ohh.... I see.

You believe that Mr Rudd is backflipping by risking a so-called stoush with Unions. How is he backflipping?

By offering a clarified policy position, that requires the Union movement look at seriously supporting a socialist (in both senses of the word) approach to the devolution of wealth, whilst acknowledging the role that business plays in the Australian economy without handing business the power of managing the economy or driving social agendas?

I can sure see such a plan as bringing Mr Rudd into direct conflict with the Union movement... Just so long as every Union leader is an Irish rabid Communist import trained for political subversion by the former Soviet Communist regimes, intent on destroying the Democratic freedoms of peace loving countries like Australia, that the Right Wing of the Liberal Party has been contending even up to this day.

That article is the most intellectually moribund piece of drivel I've read in a long time. It's just confirmation that NSW's election result really has put the wind up Liberal devotees who believed that many swinging voters in NSW wouldn't want a Labor led State and a Labor led Federal Government.

Now who is behind NineMSN again?... Wouldn't big business feel it's present freedom to operate at will 'under threat' if Mr Rudd got Union support for a more pro-active role by Government in Government/Business partnerships designed to improve National infrastructure? Nah... they are big grown up boys, who don't mind having a politician come along and tell them that those millions of dollars of investment will be shared using politicians rules.

I suppose it's not such a bad thing that the Liberal party has chosen to see Mr Rudd consolidating his recent elevation in position and reputation amongst the organisations that will either see what he is offering as the best chance they have to break the Howard government before another term, or risk the return of a Government which would enjoy seeing the end of them; as a back flip.

Mr Rudd can continue building his reputation as the best alternative for leader this country, with the people who matter most... the voters, whilst the Liberal party keeps coming up with the sort of drivel like this article, that is lapped up as the gospel of doom for the new enemy, by the small percentage of the party's own always gullible faithful.

Choice is simple really. The liberal party can continue to push poo uphill, or devise some way of bringing honesty back to their representatives. Not just the word variety of honesty - but the demonstrated kind. Mr Costello's latest Parliamentary demonstration of performance, showed him in a very poor light. He is certainly becoming a handicap to the likely return of a Liberal Government. If tantrum throwing is what you'd like from your current PM's successor, then you're welcome to him. I just wanted a dummy to stick between his whining saliva hurling lips. Trying to make Costello look like a measured and masculine enough Aussie to lead our country after that display would be a masterful feat of backflipism.

Rudd's action as stated in your quoted article a backflip? Maybe a full somersault where he's landed on his feet. Johnny's team's backflips have so far landed them flat on their faces...