Home > Politics (general) > Chutzpah

Chutzpah

March 23rd, 2010

According to the Courier Mail

Anna Bligh has turned down an invitation to debate the opposition leader on her privatisation plans, arguing there would be no point outside an election year.

For chutzpah, this beats the classic illustration (the kid who murdered his parents then appealed for clemency on the grounds that he was an orphan). In case Premier Bligh has forgotten, 2009 was an election year, and she had ample opportunities to debate the proposal before the election.

Categories: Politics (general) Tags:
  1. paul walter
    March 23rd, 2010 at 18:18 | #1

    As if she’d get a reasoned response from the opposition, anyway. They are even “drier” than she is.
    Bligh’s point is so fundamentally absurd and perhaps despicable.
    In a democracy, the reps should always welcome a chance to explain policy, including by presentation of real data. In our society, instead, we get FOI, shonky trade protocols and commercial in confidence, let alone the Murdoch press character assassins and tabloid smut teev.
    Welcome to the mushroom club, children: kept in the dark and fed on B…….t.

  2. Alice
    March 23rd, 2010 at 18:37 | #2

    Like the mailouts sent by Bligh…here little kiddies…you dont really know anything about why these assets are being sold (but we rely on your faith in us).

    Wake up kiddies. As for Bligh…its time for another Bligh mutiny against the mutant labor right.

    Time Bligh and her ill equipped lot of neoliberal right wings went…but for gods sake dont vote the opposition in (what can you tell voters who think they only have a two horse race??)

    So infuriating.

  3. stockingrate
    March 23rd, 2010 at 20:22 | #3

    One debating point from me: “Will the sale increase foreign ownership of this profitable mining related industry?” the answer is obviously yes, but I would like to see Bligh say it.

  4. Alice
    March 23rd, 2010 at 20:56 | #4

    I wouldnt even call it chutzpah. Thats being way too polite about Bligh. Id call it the hide of Jesse (the elephant at Taronga Park Zoo in the 1930s).

  5. paul walter
    March 23rd, 2010 at 22:57 | #5

    btw, anyone watch Clinton and Netanyahu on Latteline?

  6. March 24th, 2010 at 00:10 | #6

    “Chutzpah”?

    The AIPAC is holding its grovelling session in the US at the moment and the US is doing just fine (9.9s all the way without even a hint of a 9.6 or lower! Superb!). Obama even stiffed Rudd to make sure he could be on hand.

    Anyway, as Peter Beattie said of the Traveston Dam: “The deal is done.”

    You see, that’s the way it is when you have no upper house, a one-paper state and an unaccountable and opaque governing system.

    When were you asked to vote on Fluoride, Traveston, ‘asset sales’, the ‘Clem7′, fossil-fuel guzzling desalination plants, Tazers, limiting personal injury claims, the foreign owned ‘Go Card’ or anything else of vital importance imposed upon you by this uni-cameral government?

    “I voted for Australia’s most first chick premier”, is not democracy.

    Surely somebody should ask Queenslanders:

    Do you want change, or do you accept this status quo?

  7. paul walter
    March 24th, 2010 at 01:16 | #7

    Re Megans definitive point, “…somebody should ask Queenslanders”, I’d reckon you’d get the same response from a majority in every country in the world if asked that.
    And Jesse the Elephant, #4.

  8. March 24th, 2010 at 01:50 | #8

    Sorry to seem dim,

    what do you reckon that majority response in every country in the world would be?

    Change?
    or
    Status Quo?

  9. paul walter
    March 24th, 2010 at 01:53 | #9

    Well, let’s have a think. Haiti, Bangla desh, Afghanistan, Palestine…

  10. gerard
    March 25th, 2010 at 09:30 | #10

    once every three years we get to choose a single district representative from either Bligh-Labor or the LNP – on the basis of no-knowledge of what either are going to do. Go democracy.

    How do we get mixed-member representation like Tasmania has? This is a serious question.

  11. Fran Barlow
    March 25th, 2010 at 09:39 | #11

    @gerard

    How do we get mixed-member representation like Tasmania has? This is a serious question.

    I don’t see how we can Gerard. Neither major political coalition would see this as being in its interests. From their POV, it is far better to be out of power completely, with the possibility of getting back in a couple of cycles and again having absolute power, than to allow third parties scope to make victory pyrrhic, wedge you on either side and perhaps even destroy you completely. Having a single and persistent rival is far better. Even crushing victories after the rival has split often turn out to be more trouble than they are worth for the top bananas.

    You only have to look at the first 10-15 years after Federation at Federal level to understand why the major parties like it how they like it.

  12. smiths
    March 25th, 2010 at 13:59 | #12

    john, this piece is right up this very alley
    <blockquote
    There is, then, little doubt from the hard data that PFPs are poor value for money. Yet, this is not the conclusion of the committee's report. Unfortunately the PFP contracts have generally been drawn up with the inclusion of such high cancellation payments that it is uneconomical for the government to buy back the contracts. This means that if hospitals have to be closed as patterns of treatment or population distributions change, the ones most likely to be closed will be the state-financed ones, since the rent of the PFPs will have to be paid – whether or not they continue to be used.

    The attraction of PFPs for Gordon Brown and the Labour government since 1997 has been that PFI investment has not generally appeared in the total of public sector debt. Brown's upper target for public sector debt to national income was 40%, ridiculously low by international standards. PFPs enabled the government to hide much of the repayment liabilities and, until the crisis, get under the 40% target.

    We have already seen that the future annual payments due on PFPs amount to more than £200bn. At a conservative estimate, at least half of this is an excess cost attributable to private finance. But, again, you will not find this hard data in the committee's main report.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/19/pfi-hospitals-private-finance-projects

  13. smiths
    March 25th, 2010 at 13:59 | #13

    ahhhrrrggg, i wish there was an edit function on this blog, my blockquote was ruined

  14. gerard
    March 26th, 2010 at 09:08 | #14

    @Fran Barlow
    well, in QLD I’d even settle for a state Senate. But I guess we’re not going to get that either. What a joke our democracy is.

Comments are closed.