|
Post by Old Man Sashi on Feb 16, 2006 13:09:35 GMT 10
Whatever Henry Whittington did, it must have been pretty bad, because Cheney decided that a simple letter to him saying "I dont like you" was not enough - he went and shot the guy (allegedly an accident, but I think thats BS - i bet you Bush is sitting in the White House very happy he's sort of gotten rid of Whittington)
For those of you unaware, Whittington is a loyal Republican and a prominent lobbyist - im sure Cheney shot him to shut him up...
or as some people might say "mujhe lakta hai ki dal meh kuch kala hai"
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Apr 6, 2006 11:23:46 GMT 10
More Berlusconi brilliance theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18725588%255E2703,00.htmlThe right-wing audience applauded as he insisted he would win the election. "I respect the intelligence of Italians too much to think there are so many of these arseholes around they could vote against their own interests," he said. But wait, theres more... ...far-right candidate Alessandra Mussolini, a grand-daughter of Italy's fascist dictator, defended Mr Berlusconi, saying that all left-wing voters were not only "arseholes" but "cowards" as well.Australian politics is so boring sometimes...
|
|
|
Post by Staggy on Apr 11, 2006 12:05:06 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by velvet pants on Apr 11, 2006 14:56:24 GMT 10
Damn! I thought it was gonna be Mussolini for sure... freaky Italians...
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Apr 12, 2006 22:00:31 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 27, 2006 17:42:45 GMT 10
Well, on the topic of unpopular politicians, I think Brendan Nelson and John Howard have to be getting pretty high up there this week. If only Private Kovco had been carrying an ID card... maybe that's the line the libs should take. Seriously, first a soldier "accidentally shot himself in the head" while cleaning his gun, then we just forgot his body in Kuwait? What the hell happened to him? www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/04/27/1145861448743.htmlI'm gonna stop pretending I care too greatly - fact is I laughed out loud when I heard about the wife or Mum giving Howard a "polite Australian" spray in the car this morning. It's probably just an innocent mixup... probably. Certainly, a couple of mistakes with the body of a bloke with his brains blown out doesn't compare to the much murkier 350 odd deaths in the SIEV X scandal, but guess which one's gonna matter more to the voting public? This will certainly will achieve a hell of a lot more than the AWB scandal has for the ALP.
|
|
|
Post by barker on Apr 28, 2006 12:09:12 GMT 10
I don't agree that this reflects anywhere near as badly on the Fed Gov as the AWB scandal.
Whatever it was that actually lead to the soldiers death, accident, suicide, cleaning or a knock, I don't think anybody is going to get to cut at Nelson about it. All he's done so far is try to end speculation until a report has been finalised.
also the wrong body thing was a fuckup - indicative of the operation in Iraq overall - but i don't buy that Nelson or Howard can be at all held resposible, or will be considered responsible for it. That's stretching ministerial responsibility a little too far. - that is as opposed to the AWB, where in parts Vaile and Downer were or should have been far more involved.
the idea of 'Ministerial responsibility' has become a joke under this government (ref SIEV X, Tampa, AWB, Cornelia Rau etc) , but i think that critics have a tendecy to take it too far and try to blame everything on the ministers. sometimes the pub service get it wrong. this is one of those cases.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 28, 2006 13:11:20 GMT 10
I agree Phil, it's a bit too big a stretch of ministerial responsibility (although Nelson first saying he was cleaning his gun, then saying he moved and it accidentally discharged... maybe there's something there but it really isn't too big a deal) to blame this on the gov't.
What I was saying is the political fallout will be far greater than AWB. The people who hate the government are convinced they knew something was up and did nothing, and everybody else doesn't give a stuff so long as they keep their interest rates down.
THe difference with this is I think people care about the handling of dead Aussie war heroes a lot more than someone knowing about someone else paying a trucking company to pay money to the Iraqi government several years ago. Just too many links to care enough or understand enough. But Kovco plays well politically - how the hell do you lose the only Aussie who's died in Iraq in 3 years, and grab some random Bosnian instead? (Pretty easily when their brains have exploded all over the place, I'd say, but strangely nobody in the media's putting it that crudely.)
Where are the people complaining about chartering a plane to fly halfway across the world, just to pick up a coffin asap and run it back as fast as possible, using taxpayer dollars and maybe military resources to help patch up a domestic political problem? Just leave it an extra 24 hours and send it home on the next flight available. That's the only real scandal for me - another use of public money for mere political purposes.
Meanwhile, has anyone seen the Bosnian gov't chartering a plane to fly straight out here? No! Cos a body's a body, ppl die all the time, particularly in war.
Sorry, I sound heartless, but it really is a ridiculous over-reaction considering the massive amount of Iraqis who've died and no doubt not been buried in the most timely method possible. The fact that this might be politically important, while AWB won't be, is a disgrace.
|
|
|
Post by TS on Apr 28, 2006 16:34:57 GMT 10
I agree with a lot of what Julian said - and Phil "the idea of 'Ministerial responsibility' has become a joke under this government (ref SIEV X, Tampa, AWB, Cornelia Rau etc)" i'm shocked to hear you talk like this. Don't tell me you're.... *gulp* turning towards the light?
|
|
|
Post by barker on Apr 28, 2006 17:04:23 GMT 10
lol - don't get too excited tim. i was just suggesting that as soon as you fuck up your job, it's worth having enough perspective not to blame Bracks for it.
Further, I don't think that ministerial responsibility dissolving is a necessarily bad thing. I think that of late, the attempts to blame the person at the top has resulted in nobody being blamed or held accountable at all. calls from the alp for downer and vaile to resign were a laughable token gesture. Minsters almost never resign it those circumstances. I know there was one in the keating government who did, who is used by those who champion blaming the person at the top regardless of the circumstances, but that's almost it.
Further, operationally, I think it is ludacris to suggest that every minister should read, acknowledge, understand and be responsible for every memo that crosses their desk. unless it's an endemic, cultural, or high level issue, when ppl in the pub serv mess up, they should be held personally accountable. Ministerial resp does have far smaller importance in today's Aus than in 95, but i don't think that that is a necessarily bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 28, 2006 22:51:27 GMT 10
The more accuarate date for the death of Ministerial Responsibility in Federal politics is circa 1997. Stumbled on this cute little resource... www.australianpolitics.com/executive/ministry/resignations.shtmlFlesh that out with this little article... www.theage.com.au/news/shaun-carney/howard-ministers-are-bloody-hard-to-sack/2005/07/15/1121415624454.htmlSeriously, you're right to say that as soon as Tim fucks up his job, we shouldn't blame Bracks for it. But the point where ministerial responsibility kicks in is right here. If Tim wastes his time and is lazy to the point of spending countless hours on the MAD forum, Bracksy shouldn't resign because of that. But if Bracksy fosters a culture where wasting time and being lazy to the point of spending countless hours on the MAD forum is ok, and if this is to the detriment of the Victorian public that Tim and Bracksy should serve, if Tim goes and does just that, that's where Tim shouldn't be blamed, but rather Bracksy should be held responsible. However, Tim spending countless hours on the MAD forum is to the benefit of the Victorian public, so it's all good, and we should applaud Bracksy for this.
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Apr 29, 2006 17:05:59 GMT 10
i can't believe that Phil thinks watering down ministerial responsbility - even as a concept - is a good thing. If Minister's aren't responsible for the bad things that happen under their watch then they should shut the fuck up when something good happens - because "its not their responsibility".
Bracks doesn't read everything either, and yet he is held responsible for everything - fuck-ups in hospitals, crime on public transport, delays in building projects, and really he can't control most of those things. But thats ok because whenever anything good happens - like people enjoying the Commonwealth Games - the government takes the credit. Thats how it works. The ALP were right to call for Downer and Vaile to resign. We all knew they wouldn't - because Howard doesn't fire people who fuck up (no one was punished over Cornelia Rau, or 'children overboard' or 'no WMD' or any other government lie/mistake) but when we stop at least asking for the right thing to be done then thats when we've totally given up.
When Australia started talking about going to war in Iraq, Saddam started cutting AWD's contracts - pretty soon after however he restored them, and Vaile and Downer were thrilled about it - it was "a great win for Australian industry". We we now know why that happened. And for Vaile and Downer to say "well sure there was TWENTY-SIX cables warning about this (not a matter of reading "every memo that crosses their desk" - but a series of diplomatic cables warning of potentially a major breach of domestic and international law) then they should resign.
At the very least they should have the honesty and the decency to admit that they were negligently stupid.
No they don't have to read everything, but if they don't design their offices (in terms of appropriate staffing and oversight of information) so that important things are put in front of them, then they have failed in their obligation. this is why senior staff are paid so much - often more than the Minister - because they have decide what gets passed up the chain and what doesn't - thats their job.
But fine Phil, imagine for a moment that Ministerial responsibility isn't that important (even though its a pillar of Westminster democracy, and Howard was the the guy who said in '96 that he'd impliment a code of conduct for ministers precisely so that they would be held to account), then who is responsible? Someone in Downer in Vaile's officers must have read those cables - an advisor, chief of staff, departmental secretary, somebody. and yet NO ONE has been sacked or punished in anyway from with DFAT or the government.
P.s. for the record my actions aren't covered by traditional (now apparently obselete) notions of westminister accountability because i'm not a public servant. i don't work for a department. Public servants are meant to be neutral and objective - in the service of the people, i'm meant to be biased and partisan - in the service of the Government. subtle but important difference.
But i'm sure its all the same to Phil....
|
|
|
Post by nat on Apr 29, 2006 18:02:03 GMT 10
This is all very good and interesting, and I agree with Tim but can we please keep the intellectual stuff on anywhere BUT the Sashi board? My hopes are dashed when I get on, see that someone has posted, purportedly to make fun of someone in the club... but then we get intelligent political discussion! C'mon guys... At least leave part of this board for the young minds which are in their 8th week at uni and are wondering how the hell they'll manage the next 5 years...
|
|
|
Post by parkvillehanger on Apr 29, 2006 19:06:46 GMT 10
Sorry Nat – it would make no sense for me to reply in another thread.
Above, I threw together the barely thought through categories of – “unless it’s an endemic, cultural, or high level issue” – then it may not be appropriate or sensible to be blaming the Minister, and if this is described as watering down a fundamental right of our liberal-democratic Westminster society- fine.
Those vague categories completely take into account what Julian said about culture, eg the culture within DIMIA, - being that is unequivocally a responsibility of Vandstone.
Further, with ‘high level issue’ the gov should take the credit for the success of the Commonwealth games, but shouldn’t take credit for the success/failure of the script of the opening ceremony. Also, w AWB, I completely agree that downer and vaile should be responsible – as it was a high level issue. But even beyond that, the strength of Tim’s argument lies in the 26 memos, but I’d argue that if it was 1 memo, the same degree of interrogation would not be justified.
You’re right in-so-far as I don’t have enough knowledge of the institutional structure of the pub serv (highlighted by my not knowing the specific nature of your job) to know exactly who should be held responsible, but that by no means implies that I don’t think anybody should be held responsible, nor does it undermine my not accepting a blanket responsibility of Ministers.
While there are many circumstances when a minister should be held responsible, I think that there are also many when they should not – and that that is too infrequently recognised. I think ministers should be held responsible when it is reasonable to do so, not under any circumstance just by virtue of their being ministers. There really was nothing Nelson could do to stop the death of that soldier, or to ensure that the ppl in Kuwait packed the correct body into the plane. As such, it is not reasonable to hold him accountable for either. If such reasonableness undermines a metaphorical pillar of Westminster democracy, so be it.
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Apr 29, 2006 21:09:24 GMT 10
Only someone with a dangerously underdeveloped understanding of the theory and practice of governance would so insouciantly abandon a "metaphorical pillar of Westminster democracy" with just six letters of contemplation - "so be it". Way to balance up the pros and cons there Darth.
The reality is that the Minster MUST be responsible for everything that happens in their department, otherwise its unclear exactly why they are placed in charge of it in the first place.
But there are two points that need to be clarified. The first is that "being held responsible" doesn't always equate with 'resigning'. to this extent i agree with Phil, the minister shouldn't resign over any and every fuck-up. But they should take responsibility - fire/punish SOMEONE who was directly responsible and then have the decency to be embarrassed about it and apologise. The smug and arrogant way the Howard government deals with all criticism is an affront to any decent notion of taking responsibility.
Secondly because Phil bravely (and thats not sarcasm) confesses to a lack of understanding about the structure of the public service, i'll give him and anyone else in the same boat, a very quick guide to how it works.
Not only does the Minister receive reports of various kinds (diplomatic cables being one of the most serious, and informal discussions with section-heads being one of the least) but Ministers also have multiple PAs (personal assistants) and EAs (Executive Assistants), plus a Chief of Staff and at least one Deputy COS, and then a number of departmental Directors and a host of advisors - political, policy and media, to provide oversight and advice.
Also, for the bigger Ministries there are "Parliamentary Secretaries" who are basically 'junior ministers', and they exist exactly to help deal with the burden of paperwork and oversight of large departments. Downer has a few Parl Secs - one for trade, one for foriegn affairs, etc.
Bare in mind that all of the people i just named are 'political' staff, not public servants (but there are heaps of Secretaries - who run deparments - and advisors who are all there to help the Minister and make sure they see important stuff- unless the Minister makes it clear that he would 'rather not know'), and all have (varyingly) high levels of access to information. In the case of AWD, its IMPOSSIBLE that the cables weren't seen by many/most of those people, and they're all paid effectively to "troubleshoot" for the minister - and information suggesting a massive conspiracy to violate international law should have raised a red flag immediately - whether it was 1 cable or 101 cables, when experienced diplomats and advisors who are working in the Middle East or at the UN suggest that there is even a VAGUE RUMOUR that Australia was illegally funding a dictator, any political advisor worth their salary would be FREAKING OUT.... unless of course they were told not to...
But lets me quickly take up Phil's red herring - because i'm feeling fiesty - of Privte Kovco and whether Minster Nelson could/should have done something.
Honestly, and in all fairness, its a little hard to know given that we have no idea yet how he died. BUT, should his body have been kept in the most dilapidated morgue i've ever seen? No it should not. Is Nelson responsible for ensuring that ADF personal follow the rules laid down in the military code of conduct (requiring that live ammunition not be kept in weapons when a solider is not in an active combat zone - and Kovco was in a barricks, in the Green Zone) - yes he is. Should he resign? No, not yet, but lets wait and see what the full story is.
|
|