PM called a disgrace by Canberran

Thumper 23 October 2007 83

The Prime Minister, according to the Herald Sun, while on his usual morning walk, was called a ‘disgrace’, and ‘a bad economic manager’.

Okay, which one of you guys did it?

Or is the Chaser in town?

[Update: PM hasseled again this morning in SA]

John Howard has been heckled for the second day running during his early morning walk when a middle aged man called him a ‘bloody arsehole’ while walking along the banks of the River Torrens.

No originality these South Australians.

And love or hate Howard, I think one needs to respect the position of PM.

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
83 Responses to PM called a disgrace by Canberran
« Previous 1 3 4 5
Lord Mælinar Lord Mælinar 7:53 am 24 Oct 07

@Astrojax – As is the case for formulas, a branch on which a formula occurs may be extended by
splitting at the end so that both 1 and 2 are new leaves. This completes the specification of the tableau system for LP.

This system notably omits the cut rule, which is given in Figure 1.3. For any formula ‘, the cut rule allows any branch to be extended by splitting at the end so that both ‘ and ¬’ are new leaves.

While the LP tableau system is cut-free (that is, without cut), the system does not have
the subformula property due to the presence of the rule.5

That any good ? – extracted from a paper on Semantic Cut-elimination for two explicit modal logics. Google 0.17.

AussieGal83 AussieGal83 7:44 pm 23 Oct 07

Ralph, your a legend man. 🙂

ant ant 9:24 pm 22 Oct 07

I wish the guy had given him a real serve, rather than just gibbering at him.

VYBerlinaV8...the_original_and_best VYBerlinaV8...the_original_and_best 9:12 pm 22 Oct 07

“VY will be the only winner, in the ever escalating gap between people who own land, and those who rent it off them.”

9 years ago I was broke, with nothing but a newly printed degree and a HECS debt. What you’ve described above is my plan, to a tee.

Lord Mælinar Lord Mælinar 7:08 pm 22 Oct 07

Ralph only understands L33t – for he is Silent Bob

1sn4 th4t r1gh4 R4lph ?

Cameron Cameron 5:48 pm 22 Oct 07

lemaChet – he IS the Prime Minister. At least until the G-G says otherwise. CONVENTION is what makes him a caretaker prime minister (and in fact PM altogether).

But if it helps you sleep at night believing that there is no government, then go for it…

terubo terubo 5:07 pm 22 Oct 07

I wish it to be known that I have received accusatory mails from former acquaintances in another State, who read this article and somehow assumed that I was the ill-tempered bozo bailing up the Man of Steel.

For the record, it was not me. I am usually to be found at work, when the MoS staggers around LBG.
-He should be at work too.

Ralph Ralph 4:58 pm 22 Oct 07

Gee, all the special people are coming out of the woodwork now.

ALP stooge alert.

lemaChet lemaChet 4:54 pm 22 Oct 07

He’s NOT the PM! He’s a caretaker PM at best, but as far as i’m concerned, parliament has been dissolved, so there is not a “government” per say

Aurelius Aurelius 4:48 pm 22 Oct 07

Arguing on the internets is like coming first at the Special Olympics – you may win, but you’re still retarded.

caf caf 4:33 pm 22 Oct 07

This speech by RBA Governor Ian McFarlane contains some perspective on this issue. To those arguing the toss over how much people are paying on interest repayments, Graph 3 (household debt servicing ratio) is probably a useful one to look at:

* Yes, there’s a bump around 1990 due to the high interest rates.
* Yes, it’s higher now than even then.
* The overall trend is up, from just under 4% in the late 70s to about 6% now.

BeyondThought BeyondThought 4:15 pm 22 Oct 07

a couple of points I can’t be bothered stringing into a proper arument:

1: Nobody actually paid 22% on their mortgage
2: Real wages have increased by about 19% over
the past decade (that is after inflation, working)
hours and everything else is factored in).
3: To a certain extent houses are more expensive
because they are bigger.

I know these facts are unhelpful because we all know Howard is responsible for cancer, global warming, the drought, famine, flood, fire and every other unfortunate fate that has / will / may beset humanity.

Lord Mælinar Lord Mælinar 4:12 pm 22 Oct 07

@VY my income has only gone up by about $10k in 20 years.

Conversely, house prices have extended into fairy tale land.

There are a lot more houses in Canberra now than there were 20 years ago, the only thing that has changed is market-driven perception that owning your own house with a fairy tale mortgage when you are 20 is a normal thing.

VY will be the only winner, in the ever escalating gap between people who own land, and those who rent it off them.

The obscure reference to Nobles and Serfs is intentional – it’s coming back to that.

VYBerlinaV8...the_original_and_best VYBerlinaV8...the_original_and_best 3:50 pm 22 Oct 07

And in the short term property price dip I’ll zip in and pick up a few nice investments that I’ll rent back to the market for about the same as they cost me to hold. Then when interest rates come back down and everyone realises that supply problems still aren’t solved… well, you do the math.

Ingeegoodbee Ingeegoodbee 3:49 pm 22 Oct 07

I was kidding!

Ralph Ralph 3:43 pm 22 Oct 07

it might do somthing to ease the affordability crisis.

No, people still have to live somewhere.

Ingeegoodbee Ingeegoodbee 3:39 pm 22 Oct 07

That’s one of the interesting points about the whole fiscal management debate. Howard want’s the electorate to be frightened about a return to 17% when rates only have to go up 1% and there’ll be a hoard of households in a world of pain … mind you though, with the housing market flooded by the subsequent deluge of houses as a result of mortgage defaults, it might do somthing to ease the affordability crisis.

VYBerlinaV8...the_original_and_best VYBerlinaV8...the_original_and_best 3:37 pm 22 Oct 07

Lord Mael – has your income risen in the last 18 years? Perhaps more households now have 2 adults working rather than 1? Also that housing is historically a bit more expense than in the past 20 years?

House prices have nowhere to go but up, because the supply side has not been solved.

Ralph Ralph 3:36 pm 22 Oct 07

And what were incomes back then, lord?

Lord Mælinar Lord Mælinar 3:32 pm 22 Oct 07

in 1989 a house in Canberra was ~$100k.

You Phd’s go calculate for Lord Mæl the differential between $100k @ 17% and $400k @ 6%.

« Previous 1 3 4 5

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter


Search across the site