Kevin Rudd February 5, 2010
We’ve got to be very careful about industrial relations systems which enables people, incrementally, to be exploited
Matthew Spencer February 5, 2010
It doesn’t cater for kids like me who want to do 1.5 hours after school to get a little bit of money and get a taste for work.
(HT: Heath)
Are you arguing that they are being exploited and this is a good thing or they are not being allowed to be exploited and this is a bad thing?
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
5 Feb 10 at 12:53 pm
Maybe you should ask the kid if he thinks he is being “exploited”.
Semi Regular Libertarian
5 Feb 10 at 1:30 pm
LOL – “exploited.” That’s new Kevi-speak for giving kids a job.
C.L.
5 Feb 10 at 1:36 pm
Maybe you should ask the kid if he thinks he is being “exploited”
Maybe you could ask the kid if he and his parents would get a kick out of driving to and from 1-hour shifts at work.
THR
5 Feb 10 at 1:46 pm
“Maybe you could ask the kid if he and his parents would get a kick out of driving to and from 1-hour shifts at work.”
Apart from your grossly presumptuous inference he doesn’t or can’t get there any other way, is this what communism is about? Mum and Dad don’t want to drive little Johnny to work?
Most parents, excluding those raised in the misery of generational poverty want and encourage, and yes even support their children to get a job.
Communism: Mum and Dad don’t want to drive you to work.
Semi Regular Libertarian
5 Feb 10 at 1:49 pm
If the shifts are too short they don’t have to do them. However there are clearly kids who find it convenient.
The article says
“One of the teens, Matthew Spencer, is not happy about the change. “I was pretty annoyed,” said Matthew, who had worked in the shop’s timber yard for three years.
“I needed the job to keep a bit of money coming in, because I just bought a car with help from Mum and Dad. Without working, I can’t pay them back.”
He said the law was too strict.
“It doesn’t cater for kids like me who want to do 1.5 hours after school to get a little bit of money and get a taste for work.”
jtfsoon
5 Feb 10 at 1:51 pm
Is too far to Tractor Factory 47 for you Boris. Your sense of enterprise must be quashed.
Infidel Tiger
5 Feb 10 at 1:53 pm
Communism: Keep those damned kids off the roads!
Semi Regular Libertarian
5 Feb 10 at 1:53 pm
If the shifts are too short they don’t have to do them
This is a myth. Most kids would get the flick very quickly if they started trying to negotiate with bosses. Same with all the people who want decent-sized shifts, but who would get bumped down to shorter ones if employers could get away with it. It happens all the time – if workers are entitled to a tea-break every 4 hours, employers start assigning 3.75 hours shifts.
THR
5 Feb 10 at 1:54 pm
THR lives in a world where kids come home with black lung, rattan marks and a turnip.
Infidel Tiger
5 Feb 10 at 1:57 pm
Do you do 1-hours shifts where you work, IT? If not, why do think it fair that others should be forced to?
THR
5 Feb 10 at 1:57 pm
“Most kids would get the flick very quickly if they started trying to negotiate with bosses.”
I didn’t, this is not true, they need to sort out stuff like rosters etc. I got time off for sport or sickness in that I offered to take up other people’s shifts when they couldn’t come in.
I negotiated, and before I left, I was offered quite a lot of work, even though my pay rate increased.
Please stop peddling these antediluvian myths about capitalists.
Semi Regular Libertarian
5 Feb 10 at 1:59 pm
“If not, why do think it fair that others should be forced to?”
Clearly they are not forced to, but K Rudd forced them out of a job.
Semi Regular Libertarian
5 Feb 10 at 1:59 pm
The point is if you start increasing restrictions on the terms of trade then there are less trade to go around and therefore those who want to trade have less to choose from. In this case, now that we have this min no of hours rule, the number of job opportunities is reduced. There is no need to ‘negotiate’ if you have the luxury of choice. Which has the better chance of getting you the better deal? having more jobs to look for or ‘negotiating’ over the first job you can find in a market with less job opportunities.
I have never understood the left’s strong preference for ‘voice’ over ‘exit’.
jtfsoon
5 Feb 10 at 2:00 pm
Please stop peddling these antediluvian myths about capitalists.
Aren’t you the one who suggested that competition would increase in a voucherised health system, as everybody has access to the net, money, transport, and the ability to sift through medical outcomes studies? You have something to tell us about myths?
THR
5 Feb 10 at 2:00 pm
“Aren’t you the one who suggested that competition would increase in a voucherised health system”
I think something more like HECS would be better. Continue to keep on thinking you know better than everyone else, because you “have teh internet”.
Semi Regular Libertarian
5 Feb 10 at 2:01 pm
Clearly they are not forced to, but K Rudd forced them out of a job.
You may live in the capitalist utopia of libertarian fantasy, where everybody acts only according to rational ‘choice’, and where capitalists are kindly and benevolent, but most of Australia doesn’t. Hence the overwhelming rejection of Workchoices. Deal with it.
THR
5 Feb 10 at 2:09 pm
THR, if you want to frame debate in terms of populism, remember that you called a majority of Australians racist.
Semi Regular Libertarian
5 Feb 10 at 2:11 pm
THR, if you want to frame debate in terms of populism, remember that you called a majority of Australians racist.
Really? You can show where?
In any case, if ‘flexibility’ was so wonderful, why did Australians reject it? This was during a boom, remember, and there could not have been a better time for propagandists to put a nice face on said ‘flexibility’. So what happened? The entire country was duped by ‘union thugs’? Or, just maybe, this ‘flexibility’ is a crock of shit, entirely asymmetrical, and based on idiotic and cretinous assumptions?
THR
5 Feb 10 at 2:14 pm
Really? You can show where?
.
Actually I seem to recall that you recently said that Australia was a racist country. But in fairness I don’t think that comment is relevant to the current thread.
daddy dave
5 Feb 10 at 2:19 pm
My recollection is that I was arguing that there was still quite a bit of racism in Australia. One Nation, etc.
THR
5 Feb 10 at 2:21 pm
“In any case, if ‘flexibility’ was so wonderful, why did Australians reject it?”
1. They got sold a pup re: anti employer populism.
2. No one liked Howard after 11 years.
3. Work Choices wasn’t the best they could do.
4. There were no tax cuts which would have been an acceptable quid pro quo.
5. Rudd sold himself as Howard lite.
“Or, just maybe, this ‘flexibility’ is a crock of shit, entirely asymmetrical, and based on idiotic and cretinous assumptions?”
Given your economic paradigm is actually mathematically impossible, you should be more genial.
I thought you did say that a majority of Australians were racist when discussing Pauline. Could you clarify what you meant?
Semi Regular Libertarian
5 Feb 10 at 2:24 pm
1. They got sold a pup re: anti employer populism.
‘False consciousness’, is it? You’re beginning to sound like a vulgar Marxist yourself.
Sure, there were other reasons why Howard got voted out, but Workchoices was the main one. Most of the other stuff (Coalition contempt for AGW, Hicks, asylum seekers, etc) was old news even before Rudd came along. Every survey on this issue, not to mention the election poll itself, showed pretty clearly that Australians rejected Workchoices. Middle-class urban seats like Deakin even threw out the Libs to elect a union boss, FFS.
Now, you mention tax cuts as a quid pro quo – is this not an admission that Workchoices (and ‘flexibility’ more generally) is the worker getting it in the neck?
Given your economic paradigm is actually mathematically impossible, you should be more genial.
I’m not really sure what you’re talking about it, but you’re missing the point in any case. Whatever one’s paradigm, it’s obvious that this idea of teenage workers calling the shots with their employers is the stuff of fantasy.
I thought you did say that a majority of Australians were racist when discussing Pauline. Could you clarify what you meant?
My argument is that more Australians are racist, roughly speaking, than is often acknowledged. My point was that a million Australians could vote One Nation. Not all of them would be budding fascists, but you only need a minority who are, when they’ve got such large numbers of sympathisers.
THR
5 Feb 10 at 2:33 pm
“‘False consciousness’, is it? You’re beginning to sound like a vulgar Marxist yourself.”
You don’t think the general public, as an average of individual values, makes mistakes whilst usually being correct?
“Now, you mention tax cuts as a quid pro quo – is this not an admission that Workchoices (and ‘flexibility’ more generally) is the worker getting it in the neck?”
Have you actually talked to a unionist? Work Choices is unpopular, but a lot of the reform was done before then. Most are pissed that they pay well over 40% of their total income on tax. Some pay more.
“I’m not really sure what you’re talking about it”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okishio%27s_theorem
“it’s obvious that this idea of teenage workers calling the shots with their employers is the stuff of fantasy.”
It happened in real life with me.
“My argument is that more Australians are racist, roughly speaking, than is often acknowledged.”
Characterising a group infers a majoritarian trait.
Semi Regular Libertarian
5 Feb 10 at 2:40 pm
One Nation’s political economy was virtually indistinguishable from the Australian left’s – right down to the ‘We’re Full’ population philosophy. Hanson’s remarks about Asians were far tamer than Whitlam’s on Vietnamese boat people.
C.L.
5 Feb 10 at 2:46 pm
I think it’s probably fair to say that Australia, along with every other nation on earth, is comprised of a majority of racists.
FDB
5 Feb 10 at 2:47 pm
Really FDB?
tal
5 Feb 10 at 2:52 pm
Have you actually talked to a unionist? Work Choices is unpopular, but a lot of the reform was done before then.
Yes, I’ve talked to unionists. Workchoices was flexibility for employers alone. It was used to shift thousands of (usually low-income) workers onto pro forma contracts. According to you, all of these people could simply have negotiated a few sweeteners, or got another job. But that didn’t happen.
All of the supposed flexibility of Workchoices was around long before. Workers pre-2005 could already be placed on AWAs or common law contracts. Workchoices is best understood as a means of employers swindling more from their workers, and workers, to their credit, correctly assessed it as such.
Maybe we can come back to Okishio another time. Criticising the most controversial aspect of Marx’s theory (i.e. tendency of the rate of profit to fall) is hardly proving anything to be a ‘mathematical impossiblity’.
Characterising a group infers a majoritarian trait.
If you say so.
One Nation’s political economy was virtually indistinguishable from the Australian left’s – right down to the ‘We’re Full’ population philosophy.
Wasn’t Hanson explicitly calling for welfare cuts and the printing of more money? Neither the ALP nor the Greens (nor the far left, for that matter) advocate any such thing.
THR
5 Feb 10 at 2:53 pm
FDB You must have had bad experiences of workplaces.
All those I have known have been as flexible as the law and unions allow them to be. By and large private employers want to meet employees’ needs. No utopia, just common sense.
Unions tend to oppose casual work because casual workers are not usually interested in joining a union.
Remember that unions are businesses and use their powers to increase revenue. They don’t do that to the total exclusion of all else but it is a powerful part of their motivation.
ken nielsen
5 Feb 10 at 2:56 pm
THR, you’ve just avoided the issue of tax cuts. Okishio didn’t just smash Marx’s “most controversial idea”, he blew the basis of Marxism trumping “capitalism” out of the water. The criticisms of privately owned capital are garbage.
“hardly ….a ‘mathematical impossiblity’.
Yes it is.
Semi Regular Libertarian
5 Feb 10 at 2:57 pm
FDB I don’t agree with your characterization of WC but I will agree it was probably a step too far.
To me the worst thing about the Rudd changes is that they took us back before 2005.
ken nielsen
5 Feb 10 at 2:58 pm
One Nation’s left-wing objectives, vis-a-vis economics:
11) To ensure our society remains benevolent in its approach to our fellow citizens in genuine need.
12) To treat all Australians equally and justly and with government assistance based on need not race.
15) To restrict immigration except that related to investment and for this to continue at least until Australia’s unemployment crisis is resolved.
17) To restrict foreign ownership of Australia, end the sale of public assets and repeal United Nations treaties of no benefit to Australia.
18) To restore tariff protection, revitalise Australian industry and manufacturing and initiate financial support for small business and the rural sector, in particular in the interest of creating national wealth and employment.
20) To re-establish and maintain a genuine publicly-owned national bank like the Commonwealth Bank used to be, to develop our country for the benefit of all Australians.
Add the shared anti-Asian rhetoric, and I give you Gough Hanson and Pauline Cairns.
C.L.
5 Feb 10 at 3:00 pm
THR, you’ve just avoided the issue of tax cuts.
Let’s get this straight. In order to maximise profits for employers, you want workers to take a hit on their pay and conditions. Since this is totally unpalatable, however much you try to polish this turd, you then concede that workers need to be compensated by way of a tax cut. In other words, you want public services to take a cut in order for private profits to increase. Do you have any schools and hospitals in particular in mind?
As for Okishio – your link points to the theory attacking only one thing – the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. I would agree that this latter theory needs some revising from its earliest inception. However, it isn’t the cornerstone of radical political economy that you seem to think it is.
THR
5 Feb 10 at 3:05 pm
Ken ,
Workchoices did nothing. Possum some time ago showed that employment figures were no different pre and post work choices.
It was a long term policy that was aimed at destroying unions. As it is Unions are doing that fins themselves.
Gough Whitlam,favoured immigration, actually cut tariffs by 25%. McMahon and Gorton did more at restricting foreign ownership than Gough.
Gough’s much vaunted program had its origins in the Vernon Report
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
5 Feb 10 at 3:06 pm
One Nation’s economic policy is explicitly aimed at re-invigorating manufacture in Australia. It’s as if the past 3-4 decades didn’t happen. One Nation doesn’t resemble the contemporary left in any meaningful way.
THR
5 Feb 10 at 3:13 pm
possum is a trained economist I take it?
or is he another non-economist you rely on for your economics homer?
how long did work choices last? long enough to perform such a simplistic test? what were the counterfactuals? was it an econometric test or simply a naive look at employment levels?
jtfsoon
5 Feb 10 at 3:14 pm
One Nation’s economic policy is explicitly aimed at re-invigorating manufacture in Australia
This is the intellectual face of One Nation on the web
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/
jtfsoon
5 Feb 10 at 3:15 pm
” As it is Unions are doing that for themselves.”
That’s true. Unions never really learnt that they need to earn membership. For many years there was de facto compulsory unionism in many industries.
Pretty much like many previously regulated industries, they did not learn how to work under the new rules.
Personally I think that is a pity – one day we might regret the death of unions. But as you say they did it to themselves.
ken nielsen
5 Feb 10 at 3:16 pm
Not only does One Nation resemble the contemporary left, its economic policies are doppelgangers for the ideas expressed by Australian Greens, Fairfax journalists, lumpen socialists and Larvatus Prodeo commenters. The left has even adopted Hanson’s stance on immigration curtailment.
C.L.
5 Feb 10 at 3:19 pm
Tricky Kevi.
Tom Switzer in The Spectator:
Our Nixonian PM.
“…Rudd is manifestly divorced from reality…”
C.L.
5 Feb 10 at 3:26 pm
Statman he is far more qualified than you to talk on the subject, by the way found out about the productivity controversy yet it isn’t in Wikipedia you know
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
5 Feb 10 at 3:27 pm
The difference is Nixon was a lot smarter and more serious about ideas
jtfsoon
5 Feb 10 at 3:28 pm
yeah Staman he was soooo smart all briefings to him had to be done in a Reader Digest type template
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
5 Feb 10 at 3:48 pm
“Rudd is manifestly divorced from reality”
Right, he won the last election and will win the next. Which reality are you staring at CL?
rog
5 Feb 10 at 3:51 pm
you dope Homer, you are the last person who should be commenting on anyone else’s intelligences.
firstly all presidents gets readers’ digest type briefings as do all politicians for that matter.
secondly everyone who knew or worked with nixon, whether it was kissinger, etc said he was smart. even democrat presidents like Clinton who consulted him.
in any case we can be confident he was smarter than you.
jtfsoon
5 Feb 10 at 3:57 pm
yeah Staman he was soooo smart all briefings to him had to be done in a Reader Digest type template
Homer, you intimated yesterday that you’re giving parliamentary evidence. Could you elaborate a little as I’m dying with curiosity as to who is taking your advice.
JC
5 Feb 10 at 4:01 pm
Homer, you intimated yesterday that you’re giving parliamentary evidence. Could you elaborate a little as I’m dying with curiosity as to who is taking your advice.
My sincere condolences to the Committee, stenographers, audience, etc.
dover_beach
5 Feb 10 at 4:06 pm
No doubt there’ll be lots of reading recommendations in his testimony.
Say, Homer testifying may not be such a bad idea. The experience might be so traumatic some government ministers might decide to leave public life forever.
jtfsoon
5 Feb 10 at 4:09 pm
“20% of this, 60% of that in 20 or 30 or 40 years time… thats what I call evasion.”
Rog, on Kevin Rudd’s manifest unreality, December 7, 2007.
C.L.
5 Feb 10 at 4:46 pm
No statmn they do not. Where did you read that rot in Wikipedia.
H R Haldeman deliberately wrote that because Nixon was nowhere as intelligent as you attempt to make out.
Why people at this blog have a preoccupation with how allegedly intelligent politicians are when there is no correlation with performance is quite baffling.
I didn’t intimate that all. the quote of Calwell was used ‘Two wongs do not make a white’. It has always been put forward by people that this was evidence of his racism. i merely stated that he was responding to an interjection from a liberal member by the name of White.
It was quick wit something lacking here.
you are going well,
No idea of productivty debate, no idea of the blogosphere’s leading writer on statistics, no idea on Nixon.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
5 Feb 10 at 4:48 pm
yeah Staman he was soooo smart all briefings to him had to be done in a Reader Digest type template
Barack Obama uses a teleprompter to address sixth graders.
Last year, Homer hailed the inarticulate deficit tripler as one of the best and smartest managers EVER!
C.L.
5 Feb 10 at 4:53 pm
Two wongs do not make a white’. It has always been put forward by people that this was evidence of his (Calwell) racism. i merely stated that he was responding to an interjection from a liberal member by the name of White.
OMG. I’m speechless.
Homer you’re insane.
JC
5 Feb 10 at 4:53 pm
yeah and you are idiot. Remain speechless and we will be better off
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
5 Feb 10 at 4:55 pm
Why people at this blog have a preoccupation with how allegedly intelligent politicians are when there is no correlation with performance is quite baffling.
“Al is the most perceptive Journalist around and if a mack truck is coming you better take warning.”
- Homer backs Alan Ramsey’s prediction that Mark Latham was about to run over John Howard at the polls, June, 2004.
C.L.
5 Feb 10 at 4:56 pm
by gingo what has this to do with the topic CL.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
5 Feb 10 at 4:58 pm
“Why people at this blog have a preoccupation with how allegedly intelligent politicians are when there is no correlation with performance is quite baffling.”
Indeed. You should know.
C.L.
5 Feb 10 at 5:00 pm
Homer
Have you now shame? I would have thought the skanky ho fiasco that you managed to embroil yourself would have been a decent lesson to you.
You are now suggesting that Calwell’s remark ” two wongs don’t make a white”, was a reply to a Mr. White in parliament at the time.
Lets extend this factoid of yours…
How do you make sense of it. What was the reference to the two Wongs all about?
Homer, you’re gone past being retarded. I can’t honestly figure how your brain reminds your heart to continue pumping.
Can I pay for you to have brain MRI as I would like to know what’s going on in that skull of yours.
JC
5 Feb 10 at 5:01 pm
Gillard throwing her own IR philosophy under the bus:
Also at that link, Rudd accused of misleading Parliament.
Whatever it takes, for Tricky Kev.
C.L.
5 Feb 10 at 5:02 pm
CL:
Haven’t you got a comment on Homer’s new discovery…… that Calwell famous remark was not racist at all and was in fact just referring to “white” across the benches.
Entered as Wikihomer entry: 13,457.
JC
5 Feb 10 at 5:04 pm
The two Wongs were young Penny’s Grandparents
tal
5 Feb 10 at 5:06 pm
Yea that’s right…..
According to Homer Artie was referring to Penny Wongs.
LOl.
JC
5 Feb 10 at 5:09 pm
JC, Calwell did indeed make the remark with reference to the then Member for Balaclava, T. W. White, as a joke. What Homer left out was that Calwell was a neanderthal on brutally applying the WAP and that he later lied about the precise details of the ‘two Wongs’ joke. Homer is incorrect about Calwell answering an interjection from the Member for Balaclava. That never happened. Calwell gratuitously referred to him (and invented TWO Wongs) just to make his one-liner work. That this was misunderstood in Asia was entirely predictable – thus demonstrating also that Calwell was a bone head.
C.L.
5 Feb 10 at 5:12 pm
You complete nimrod, Homer.
This late onset of retardation irritates everyone here.
JC
5 Feb 10 at 5:12 pm
Okay:
Here’s the full quote from the former leader of the ALP.
The [deportation] policy which I have just mentioned relates to evacuees who came to Australia during the war. This Chinese is said to have been here for twenty years, and obviously, therefore, is not a wartime evacuee. Speaking generally, I think there is some claim for him to be regarded as a resident of Australia, and I have no doubt his certificate can be extended from time to time as it has been extended in the past. An error may have been made in his case. The gentleman’s name is Wong. There are many Wongs in the Chinese community, but I have to say – and I am sure that the Honourable Member for Balaclava will not mind me doing so – that “two Wongs do not make a White”.”
The obvious point of the remark was racist. No question. Artie thought he was being clever in the double meaning of “White”.
JC
5 Feb 10 at 5:18 pm
I think that’s a reasonable interpretation. He was, in effect, joking that two Asians don’t equal a respectable European dude.
C.L.
5 Feb 10 at 5:22 pm
Yes, even in its appropriate context the remark is racist.
dover_beach
5 Feb 10 at 5:23 pm
It’s a little known fact that the Wongs and the Skanky Hos are distant cousins
tal
5 Feb 10 at 5:24 pm
The obvious point of the remark was racist. Artie thought he was being clever in the double meaning of “White”.
Yes, the meaning is clear enough, but that won’t stop Von Homer. I bet you a thousand Reichmarks this will be the next Thread of Doom.
Michael Fisk
5 Feb 10 at 5:28 pm
It’s a little known fact that the Wongs and the Skanky Hos are distant cousins
You just couldn’t resist, could you?
Michael Fisk
5 Feb 10 at 5:29 pm
You people do not give up even when the black and white tells you differently.
I do like it when Forrest accuses others of racism though
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
5 Feb 10 at 5:33 pm
Yeah, sorry Michael.Inappropriate?
tal
5 Feb 10 at 5:33 pm
Oh I get get it now. The “Wongs” Artie was referring to were the Asian Warlord’s mistresses both named Wong and for ease one later changed her name to Skanke Ho Wong. The other ALP opposition leader was referring to Skanke Ho Wong.
That’s easily solved.
——————-
Fisk… No bet.
That’s not a bet. You’re just trying to steal money off me
JC
5 Feb 10 at 5:35 pm
Homer:
What racism?
JC
5 Feb 10 at 5:36 pm
You people do not give up even when the black and white tells you differently.
Says the very, very dirty kettle.
JC
5 Feb 10 at 5:37 pm
Homer has put the ‘interjection’ explanation many times before. In effect, Homer has argued that Calwell was being interrupted in the House by T.W. White and cut him down – ex tempore – with an irony-laden or sarcastic rejoinder that “two Wongs don’t make a White” (as though caricaturing the Member for Balaclava’s own prejudices). This is totally untrue and a complete invention of Homer’s. T.W. White was mentioned by Calwell solely because of his surname. And there were never two Wong gentlemen involved in the case under discussion but only one. Calwell concocted a gormless gag whose purpose was to put down Asians.
C.L.
5 Feb 10 at 5:41 pm
Homer, in discussing the deportation of a Chinese resident, Arthur Calwell said that “two Wongs don’t make a White”. It was a racial jibe.
Michael Fisk
5 Feb 10 at 5:45 pm
Yeah, sorry Michael.Inappropriate?
No, what I mean is that we are already going to have a Thread of Doom. You seem hell-bent on making this one a two-fer
Michael Fisk
5 Feb 10 at 5:47 pm
claptrap.
well no there were two Wongs only one had a problem.
but then again even when it said in black and white the WAP was gone in 1966 you argued differently so nothing is new
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
5 Feb 10 at 5:50 pm
well no there were two Wongs only one had a problem
Homer, there were not “two Wongs”. There was only one Wong under discussion. Here is what Arthur Calwell said about a Chinese man facing deportation:
The gentleman’s name is Wong. There are many Wongs in the Chinese community, but I have to say – and I am sure that the Honourable Member for Balaclava will not mind me doing so – that “two Wongs do not make a White
Michael Fisk
5 Feb 10 at 5:54 pm
I’m sure there were two Wongs at the time Homer. I’d reckon there were several million of them seeing it’s a pretty popular Chinese name and about as close as you could get to Smith, you clown.
However which two Wong’s was Artie referring to.
Hit us with this one. We’re ready.
JC
5 Feb 10 at 5:58 pm
All of this simply illustrates that Calwell and Labor were wholly unprepared for the dismantling of the WAP that began under Menzies in the late 40s, extended throughout the 50s and 60s and which was carried on by Harry Holt. Calwell was not a bad or evil person. He was actually a very fine man. He would loathe the modern ALP, with its Gillards, Albaneses, Garretts, Ranns and Blighs. I presume he would also look dim-simly on Penny Wong.
C.L.
5 Feb 10 at 6:04 pm
This discussion is hilarious
tal
5 Feb 10 at 6:07 pm
Yea Homer always adds humor in a discussion. He loves leading with his chin and we love it too.
JC
5 Feb 10 at 6:16 pm