Please explain
The one thing I always liked about Pauline Hanson was that she seemed more interested in finding out what someone meant than appearing ignorant. Of course, she is ignorant about many things, but she's not alone in that. At least she didn't pretend.
I'm never going to love the Liberals, but I so wish I could understand what they said. If the government doesn't explain itself, you can't have a democracy. In a democracy, people who WANT to be engaged should be able to find a way to do that.
This was brought to mind by the lead in the online SMH today:
The Federal Government said today it would be in a better position to keep a tight regulatory reign on Telstra after it is sold off.
Hunh? Why? I can understand that telcos will still be highly regulated, but how would the regulator's position be better? How?
This reminded me of hearing that idiot Mark Vaile on the radio a few weeks ago talking about the evil States failing to invest in infrastructure. I can't find the transcript online, but he was banging on about the evil Queensland government not providing some important thingy or another for some particular port. Catherine McGrath pointed out that the port in question had been privatised. Now, I understand that governments provide some investment in the private sector because it's in the community's interest to do so. But isn't there something obviously cacky about privatising only the profit?
It's funny, because Vaile thought federal investment in regional infrastructure was a bloody great idea in 2003. Of course that surplus has since been thrown away on tax cuts for people who earn more money than us and Family Benefit Part B.
I don't get it.
I'm never going to love the Liberals, but I so wish I could understand what they said. If the government doesn't explain itself, you can't have a democracy. In a democracy, people who WANT to be engaged should be able to find a way to do that.
This was brought to mind by the lead in the online SMH today:
The Federal Government said today it would be in a better position to keep a tight regulatory reign on Telstra after it is sold off.
Hunh? Why? I can understand that telcos will still be highly regulated, but how would the regulator's position be better? How?
This reminded me of hearing that idiot Mark Vaile on the radio a few weeks ago talking about the evil States failing to invest in infrastructure. I can't find the transcript online, but he was banging on about the evil Queensland government not providing some important thingy or another for some particular port. Catherine McGrath pointed out that the port in question had been privatised. Now, I understand that governments provide some investment in the private sector because it's in the community's interest to do so. But isn't there something obviously cacky about privatising only the profit?
It's funny, because Vaile thought federal investment in regional infrastructure was a bloody great idea in 2003. Of course that surplus has since been thrown away on tax cuts for people who earn more money than us and Family Benefit Part B.
I don't get it.
posted by Zoe at 10:01 pm
<< Home