Politics & economy

Julia Gillard Likes the Sound of her Own Voice and I’m Not Sure Why

October 14, 2010 by Peter Fletcher

It’s one thing for Julia Gillard to channel Kath Day-Knight, the mum of that foxy moron from Fountain Lakes, it’s another to do so with the verbosity of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Gillard, like Ahmadinejad, has a penchant for pleonasm.

For example, in response to Jeff Kennett’s claim that he was shot at twice, Gillard states: “What I would say overwhelmingly is this, we live in a wonderful, safe, peaceful country.” That sentence works better as: “We live in a wonderful, safe, peaceful country”. Same meaning, half the words.

Then there’s Gillard’s favourite: now let me say this. That annoying, throw-away phrase peppered her election campaign and her performance in parliament. It did nothing to portray her as either decisive or authoritative.

In her campaign launch Gillard listlessly proclaimed, “Now let me say this: I want to repay that debt. I definitely want to see this nation repay that debt”. It was a statement repeated often during the election campaign.

As a Prime Ministerial candidate there was no need to say “Let me say this”. Did she really think anyone would stand up and say “no, you can’t”? Just say what you want to say without the preface.

Then, if she intended repaying the nation’s debt, there was no need to say “I want to”. Either you will or you won’t. Yoda said it perfectly: “There is no try. Only do.”

Finally, the second sentence repeats the previous only this time the use of the word “definitely” makes her sound even more uncertain.

Simplified, her promise reads: I will repay our nation’s debt. Less words, less ambivalence, more certainty.

There are many similar examples. I won’t go through them all.

Put simply Gillard uses more words when less would be better. Especially when you sound like Kath Day-Knight.

Picture: Nigel Featherstone

Kevin Rudd: A study in hubris

June 24, 2010 by Peter Fletcher

The party’s over for Kevin Rudd. He’s no longer Prime Minister. In his place is Julia Gillard, Australia’s first female Prime Minister.

So just what went wrong for Rudd? Why did his popularity and support implode in such spectacular style?

Largely it was a matter of untrammeled hubris. In a sense he was a victim of his own early success. So convincing was his win, so clear his apparent mandate, that anything became possible. His detractors were belittled and bullied, his key allies were disenfranchised by his dictatorial style.

Such was the level of his misplaced self belief that he attempted to railroad the mining industry with an experimental resources tax. His miscalculation of their reaction beggars belief.

Earlier, through Minister Peter Garret, he presided over the home insulation fiasco. And let’s not forget the great moral imperative of our time, the Emissions Trading Scheme. Where once it held a central place in Labor policy, under Rudd’s rule, it was brushed aside, something to do on another, calmer day.

That the end came with such a wimper comes as no surprise. The shrill speech given to a hastily convened press conference on the eve of his departure smacked of a man who knew his time was up. Rudd’s last moments sounded like a football coach imploring a team being thrashed. He knew the game was lost.

Only Gillard could blow the final siren.

Why I wouldn’t bet against the house

June 24, 2010 by Peter Fletcher

I’ve read some rubbish masquerading as journalism but this one takes the cake. Here’s a few excerpts from an article on BRW entitled Betting Against The House.

There is one group of punters, however, who are pinning their hopes on the failure of the housing market…If you hear a strange counter-call, it’s probably Generation Y, sitting in the nosebleed section, hoping, pleading, fingers-crossed; building up a constant chant: “Crash, crash, crash, crash.”

Genration Y want, no scratch that, need to see property prices come tumbling down. We’ve had the obsession of home ownership instilled in us, but we just can’t afford to get on board.

With each news report of a stumble in building approvals here or skittish investors there, we are willing the whole property market to come tumbling down like a house of cards.

I wonder if she realises that if the housing market crashes her job will go too. So too that of thousands of other Australians. And that list would probably include her parents leading very possibly to them losing their home. There won’t be anyone worrying betting on the housing market , they’ll be too worried about feeding the kids.

I’m sure you get the picture.

My hope is that the article was a satirical piece and I missed the satire. Somehow I doubt it.

Financial crisis shows why a change of government is helpful

October 23, 2008 by Peter Fletcher

Alan Greenspan’s admission that he was “partially” wrong to resist calls for more regulation that may have averted the financial crisis in the US shows why it’s important to change governments on a regular basis. Without the closet cleaning that goes on during the transition problems become exacerbated by being ignored. In the case of the US mess there were plenty of signs pointing to a problem but the system of government and governance ignored them.

Is the future geothermal?

October 23, 2008 by Peter Fletcher

On the back of the news that “Geothermal energy developer Geodynamics is preparing to put its technology to the test and power up the South Australian town of Innamincka”, I question if there’s a serious future for this technology. To me it makes much more sense than being held to ransom by OPEC who, despite the world’s financial problems, are planning to cut production. Surely it makes more sense to put some serious efforts into this form of technology rather than developing nuclear power stations. If there is a future for geothermal lets put some effort into developing it now.

Business calls on Rudd government to come clean

October 16, 2008 by Peter Fletcher

Concerned industry leaders believe that an information vacuum is creating unnecessary worry and the Rudd government should now reveal the information that informed their decision to announce a $10.4 billion economic stimulus package.

The failure of the government to release this information invites skepticism and suspicion about the real motives behind the package.

Interest rates key to a real estate rebound

October 16, 2008 by Peter Fletcher

Headlines that ANZ economists expect the official cash rate to fall to 4.5% by the middle of next year should be welcome news to home owners.

With many real estate markets suffering from a glut of stock sharp reductions in interest rates together with a temporary doubling of grants available to first home buyers could be the stimulus for increased demand, lower stock levels, and higher prices.

I believe the next 3-6 months will present prime opportunities for people looking to make profits from the real estate market in the near term.