Keating blasted over McGuinness attack

http://news.smh.com.au/keating-blasted-over-mcguinness-attack/20080131-1pad.html

Former prime minister Paul Keating was "cowardly and dishonourable" to attack journalist Paddy McGuinness after his death, says historian and Quadrant editor Keith Windschuttle.

Mr McGuinness, a former editor of the Sydney-based monthly journal, is described as "a liar and a fraud" with the "morals of an alley cat" in an opinion piece by Mr Keating published in The Australian Financial Review (AFR).

Mr McGuiness died on Saturday after a long battle with cancer. His funeral is in Sydney on Friday.

Mr Keating wrote that an obituary published in the AFR, which Mr McGuiness also edited, had described the former Quadrant editor as a contrarian or agent provocateur.

"He was none of those things," Mr Keating said.

"He was a fraud. But let me calibrate that. He was not just a fraud, he was a liar and a fraud."

Mr Keating accused Mr McGuinness of having a "prejudiced, capricious and intellectually corrupt mind that was all over the shop depending on what suited his miserable purposes at the time".

Mr Windschuttle, an historian, author and ABC board member, offered a brief riposte to Mr Keating on behalf of his predecessor at the Quadrant.

"Keating should have made his accusations when Paddy was alive and able to answer him back," he told AAP.

"It is cowardly and dishonourable to make them now he is dead."

Mr Keating, who was prime minister from 1991 to 1996, defended his attack on Mr McGuinness by saying his "moral position" allowed him to do so.

"In a long public life I have made it a rule never to speak ill of the dead; to not criticise someone who can no longer respond to the criticism," he wrote.

"I am going to break that rule in the case of Paddy McGuinness.

"I do so for this reason: in the last two decades of his life, McGuinness heaped more vitriol and contumely on me than anyone in public life.

"Working on the notion that 'the dogs may bark but the caravan moves on', I rarely responded to his unreasonable and unceasing tirades.

"So, in that piggy bank of reasonableness, I have a massive store of credits that, in all fairness, I am in a moral position to draw on."

Mr Keating said Mr McGuinness, as editor of the AFR when Labor won government in 1983, had been "cut to the quick" when he (Mr Keating) had surpassed "his modest reform agenda" within the first two months of taking over treasury.

"He could never have imagined that, within a year of taking office, the guy in the navy blue suit from Sussex Street, one of the 'thugs' on the Right, would have completely deregulated the banking system, removing all deposit maturity and lending controls, totally abolishing exchange controls while moving the exchange rate from a price-based to a quantity-based system", Mr Keating wrote.

"And at the same time, reducing previous treasurer John Howard's profligate budget deficit by a substantial proportion of GDP.

"What, as editor of the AFR, could he say?

"He was obliged to applaud.

"And it rankled with him for the balance of his professional life."

Keating was a dim-witted offensive fool when he was ruining the country and nothing has changed to make him in any way smarter or better mannered.

Pretty consistent form for someone who once described Australia as "the arse end of the earth".

Even Hayden has condemned his attack on McGuinness. Stan Zemanek often attacked Keating, and several years ago Keating called up, calling himself "Paul", and launched into attack mode. Zemanek eventually worked out it was Keating, and quite an interesting "debate" followed. It could have been worse: We could have had Latham.

deepthought wrote on Jan 31^st, 2008 at 7:17pm:

Keating was a dim-witted offensive fool when he was ruining the country and nothing has changed to make him in any way smarter or better mannered.

Who will be remembered: Howard or Keating?

 :-? 8-) ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2008 at 2:30pm:

deepthought wrote on Jan 31st, 2008 at 7:17pm: Keating was a dim-witted offensive fool when he was ruining the country and nothing has changed to make him in any way smarter or better mannered. Who will be remembered: Howard or Keating?  :-? 8-) ;D

Both.  Johnny for the best modern PM Australia has enjoyed and Cheating for failing to lodge his tax returns, indulging in impressive cheating of the tax office with a piggery, calling the press "phuqing animals."  and saying Laurie Oakes is "a cane toad".

I know who I prefer, being normal as I am, but each to his own style.   To some Cheating represents the pinnacle of arseholery - to me he is an oaf.

Simply put - Keating is just becoming a grumpy old man.  It's a very common phenomena and eventually happens to most ageing men.  Everyone talked about Keating's comments, but Carr was just as cutting, although he chose his words more carefully.


Quote:

Bob Carr's effort in The Australian on Wednesday was more measured - the rapier rather than the cruise missile - but none the less lethal. His thesis was that McGuinness had led a "Praetorian Guard" of right-wing media commentators who, over 10 years, had locked John Howard into the policies that eventually destroyed him: support for George Bush and the Iraq war, the denial of the reality of climate change and, above all, Work Choices. "In the end," Carr wrote with a barely concealed chortle, "when the electorate wanted Howard to ratify Kyoto and wind back the commitment in Iraq, the symbiotic link with the Praetorians made it impossible for the emperor to shift. And they fed and nurtured and consolidated his attachment to the orthodoxies that did him in." That sounds about right. It has an exquisite poetic justice to it. But the intriguing thing about that lot - McGuinness, Keith Windschuttle, David Flint, Piers Akerman and so on - is the fear and loathing that poured from them like molten lava during the Howard ascendancy. I have always assumed it had something to do with their tortured march from the pseudo-Marxist excesses of their youth to the neo-conservative follies of their descent into old age. In a lifetime of trumpeting every political opinion under the sun, the only possible self-justification was a continuum of incandescent rage against those who dared to differ. http://www.smh.com.au/news/mike-carlton/brutal-reality-on-friend-or-foe-keating-gets-it-right/2008/02/01/1201801034795.html

mantra wrote on Feb 5^th, 2008 at 12:30pm:

Simply put - Keating is just becoming a grumpy old man.  It's a very common phenomena and eventually happens to most ageing men.  Everyone talked about Keating's comments, but Carr was just as cutting, although he chose his words more carefully. Quote: Bob Carr's effort in The Australian on Wednesday was more measured - the rapier rather than the cruise missile - but none the less lethal. His thesis was that McGuinness had led a "Praetorian Guard" of right-wing media commentators who, over 10 years, had locked John Howard into the policies that eventually destroyed him: support for George Bush and the Iraq war, the denial of the reality of climate change and, above all, Work Choices. "In the end," Carr wrote with a barely concealed chortle, "when the electorate wanted Howard to ratify Kyoto and wind back the commitment in Iraq, the symbiotic link with the Praetorians made it impossible for the emperor to shift. And they fed and nurtured and consolidated his attachment to the orthodoxies that did him in." That sounds about right. It has an exquisite poetic justice to it. But the intriguing thing about that lot - McGuinness, Keith Windschuttle, David Flint, Piers Akerman and so on - is the fear and loathing that poured from them like molten lava during the Howard ascendancy. I have always assumed it had something to do with their tortured march from the pseudo-Marxist excesses of their youth to the neo-conservative follies of their descent into old age. In a lifetime of trumpeting every political opinion under the sun, the only possible self-justification was a continuum of incandescent rage against those who dared to differ. http://www.smh.com.au/news/mike-carlton/brutal-reality-on-friend-or-foe-keating-gets-it-right/2008/02/01/1201801034795.html

While it may be a common phenomenon Cheating has always been 'grumpy'.   Even young Cheating was grumpy.  

To Richard Carlton

"You (Richard Carleton) had an important place in Australian society on the ABC and you gave it up to be a pop star...with a big cheque...and now you're on to this sort of stuff. That shows what a 24 carat pissant you are, Richard, that's for sure"

To Jim McClelland

"That you Jim? Paul Keating here. Just because you swallowed a phuqing dictionary when you were about 15 doesn't give you the right to pour a bucket of testicles over the rest of us."

He bellowed at a uni student

"Go and get a job!"

And he said about Mike Codd

"Codd will be lucky to get a job cleaning shithouses if I ever become Prime Minister."

Cheating was a nasty and bitter clod all his life.  He wasn't smart enough to be Prime Minister or even Treasurer but he hung out at the right ALP hovels and he rooted the right ALP backsides.  Then he rooted Australia good and proper.

Quote:

To Richard Carlton "You (Richard Carleton) had an important place in Australian society on the ABC and you gave it up to be a pop star...with a big cheque...and now you're on to this sort of stuff. That shows what a 24 carat pissant you are, Richard, that's for sure" To Jim McClelland "That you Jim? Paul Keating here. Just because you swallowed a phuqing dictionary when you were about 15 doesn't give you the right to pour a bucket of testicles over the rest of us." He bellowed at a uni student "Go and get a job!" And he said about Mike Codd "Codd will be lucky to get a job cleaning shithouses if I ever become Prime Minister."

Classic!! :)

Aussie wrote on Feb 5^th, 2008 at 9:34pm:

Classic!! :)

deepthought wrote on Feb 4^th, 2008 at 10:53pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2008 at 2:30pm: Who will be remembered: Howard or Keating?  :-? 8-) ;D Both.  Johnny for the best modern PM Australia has enjoyed and Cheating for failing to lodge his tax returns, indulging in impressive cheating of the tax office with a piggery, calling the press "phuqing animals."  and saying Laurie Oakes is "a cane toad". I know who I prefer, being normal as I am, but each to his own style.   To some Cheating represents the pinnacle of arseholery - to me he is an oaf.

Yes I picked you for the former Aussie.  Cheating was the kind of Australian who made the honest, hard working, sophisticated Australian embarrassed and the rednecks beam with pride at one of their own making it to the trough.

Quote:

Cheating was the kind of Australian who made the honest, hard working, sophisticated Australian embarrassed and the rednecks beam with pride at one of their own making it to the trough.

That's funny.  Keating obviously wasn't cut out to be a long term PM - but he had a good shot at it and made some good financial reforms at the time.  I don't mind Keating, although I'm not a big fan (because of the piggery), but at least he gives people something to talk about.  He is angry and he should have gotten over it by now, but it's part of his personality and he will probably be that cynical until the day he dies.

On the other hand Howard will never be a colourful person and will fade away into oblivion shortly, but Keating will get attention for the rest of his life, negative or positive.  He makes the headlines and people listen to him.

mantra wrote on Feb 6^th, 2008 at 10:05am:

Quote: Cheating was the kind of Australian who made the honest, hard working, sophisticated Australian embarrassed and the rednecks beam with pride at one of their own making it to the trough. That's funny.  Keating obviously wasn't cut out to be a long term PM - but he had a good shot at it and made some good financial reforms at the time.  I don't mind Keating, although I'm not a big fan (because of the piggery), but at least he gives people something to talk about.  He is angry and he should have gotten over it by now, but it's part of his personality and he will probably be that cynical until the day he dies. On the other hand Howard will never be a colourful person and will fade away into oblivion shortly, but Keating will get attention for the rest of his life, negative or positive.  He makes the headlines and people listen to him.

I think I would rather be remembered for making a difference, not for being an offensive dimwit.  Cheating makes the headlines and people laugh at him.

John Howard's Australia was a remarkable place.  More people employed than at any time since the 60s, less industrial action than at any time since before the First World War, inflation held virtually static for a decade, wages growth every single year for the entire term of the government, tax cuts practically every budget since the beginning of the coalition government, a savings plan for the first time in history, a revolutionary tax act with consumer taxes for the first time in history, a leading edge industrial regime which saw huge jobs growth and a reversal of the casual army created by Cheating, health budgets growing by a figure nearly twice that of inflation, more money spent per child on education than most countries in the world, the introduction of the Medicare 'safety net', the introduction of targetted welfare to even out the inequities in the system, the complete repayment of mountainous Liebor debt they inherited, budgets in surplus every year for a decade, the doubling and redoubling of household wealth    . . . . .

It was an awesome period which will never be repeated in the near future.

He must have been a very communicator, as he and his Government were thrown out.  Or the fact might be that Australia and his own electorate had had a gut full of the 'lying todent.'

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2008 at 4:54pm:

He must have been a very communicator, as he and his Government were thrown out.  Or the fact might be that Australia and his own electorate had had a gut full of the 'lying todent.'

He was an excellent communicator.  To those with two eyes and who didn't have hearing issues of course.  Sadly there do appear to be a lot of one eyed people with the inability to discern fact from fiction.

Luckily the truth reveals itself in remarkable ways, if not always pleasant circumstances  - as those Mitsubishi workers and distressed mortgagors can attest.

Incidentally as Australia's second longest serving PM he has nothing to be ashamed of in losing his throne.

So, the majority of Australians and the majority of those who live in hayseed's own electorate are one eyed, stupid people.

No need to respond, as all of us know that you will just say, "Yes."

Do carry on DT.

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2008 at 8:48pm:

So, the majority of Australians and the majority of those who live in hayseed's own electorate are one eyed, stupid people. No need to respond, as all of us know that you will just say, "Yes." Do carry on DT.

I don't recall mentioning the word 'stupid'.  Very smart people can be duped old feller.  Little Kevvy waves his arms about with impressive vigor and spouts words that sound effective.  But I have seen his like before and am not easily fooled.  Additionally I know a great deal about business and am aware that very little he burbled was viable or even possible.  I am also dreadfully analytical and very little he pontificated was feasible or even achievable.

For example his broadband cable.  No other first world country's government in the world that I am aware of has funded a broadband network.  Why?  Well even if you don't know the answer the simple fact of them avoiding such an idea seems to indicate that it is problematic.  Yet the media fell for it, they trumpeted it like a lump of glorious twaddle and those without any technical knowledge gushed, cooed and stained their trousers.

But if you know anything at all about technology you will know that only a fool would even consider dreaming about it.  Something less than a fool is required to boast about it.  Something a fool wipes off his shoe would suggest doing it.  Guess where Little Kevvy was placed?

Do carry on, DT.  All the one eyed stupid people will be with you.

(Sorry freediver, but trying to engage this bloke sensibly is way beyond my patience level.  Over to someone else to assist raising his post count.)

(Sorry freediver, but trying to engage this bloke sensibly is way beyond my patience level.  Over to someone else to assist raising his post count.)

= (I am not able to counter DT's sensible posts that are filled with logic so I will now ignore them because I have been bested and shown to be an ignoramus)

Put simply - Rudd's in because we couldn't stand Howard anymore.  The guy communicated on one level only - make as much money as quickly as you can and stuff the consequences.  He was a bulldozer ramming through legislation almost daily.

Of course money is important, but what's the point of being wealthy if you can't get your sick child in to see a qualified doctor in emergency because of the shortage of doctors and nurses.   What's the point of having a booming mining industry if their waste products pollute the environment, harm people and leak toxins into our underground water basins and why sign international human rights treaties if you're not going to abide by them?  

In fact Howard emanated Keating to a certain extent, but was more extreme.  But he just didn't have the charisma and as soon as he opened his mouth - few of us, apart from the die hard liberals, believed anything he said.  There was always a double meaning and more often or not, his generosity extended only to those who were wealthy.  

mantra wrote on Feb 7^th, 2008 at 6:08am:

Put simply - Rudd's in because we couldn't stand Howard anymore.  The guy communicated on one level only - make as much money as quickly as you can and stuff the consequences.  He was a bulldozer ramming through legislation almost daily. Of course money is important, but what's the point of being wealthy if you can't get your sick child in to see a qualified doctor in emergency because of the shortage of doctors and nurses.   What's the point of having a booming mining industry if their waste products pollute the environment, harm people and leak toxins into our underground water basins and why sign international human rights treaties if you're not going to abide by them?   In fact Howard emanated Keating to a certain extent, but was more extreme.  But he just didn't have the charisma and as soon as he opened his mouth - few of us, apart from the die hard liberals, believed anything he said.  There was always a double meaning and more often or not, his generosity extended only to those who were wealthy.

I expect you had both hands over your ears then.

Today the lowest income earners pay very little income tax, they have targetted welfare which boosts their incomes and they get a raft of benefits never before seen in Australia, like the baby bonus, first home owners grant, family benefits, medicare safety net etc.

At no other point in Australia's history have the most disadvantaged been catered for.

But it has been difficult to get the benefit to them at times due to the rapacity of State Liebor Governments who care nothing for people.  A good example is when John Howard increased the old age pension to cover a rise in costs which may have been experienced by the introduction of the GST.  So what did the NSW Liebor Government do to help those on fixed incomes?   Increased its rents of public housing to get more money from the newly enriched poor people.

Now the money for rents is paid as a subsidy to avoid Liebor State Governments digging deep into the pockets of the disadvantaged.

John Howard did what Keating didn't want to do - he helped ordinary people.   Keating made Skase, Bond, Holmes a Court, Murdoch, Packer et al very very rich.  And he crushed the spirits of Australia with his artificial 'recession we had to have'.  The only person that suited was him.

Quote:

Today the lowest income earners pay very little income tax, they have targetted welfare which boosts their incomes and they get a raft of benefits never before seen in Australia, like the baby bonus, first home owners grant, family benefits, medicare safety net etc.

First of all in regard to the medicare safety net etc.  This is excellent for those with large families or for those who can afford to see a specialist - even plastic surgery.  As long as it's done on the specialists' premises it is reimbursed.  For single people and those on low incomes it is useless.  The net is $1000 for a worker and $700 for a pensioner.   How many specialist visits, providing you can afford to see one, would it take for this safety net to kick in.  

What has the baby bonus done for us.  It has encouraged drug addicts, irresponsible youth and those not in a position to raise a child decently to have children.  Child abuse in NSW has escalated four fold since the baby bonus was introduced.   As far as family benefits go - yes it does appear to be very generous and allows those on good incomes to pay no tax.  As far as the benefits go - this has resulted in a fatter nation with obesity in Australia escalating, but the purpose has been to increase consumerism and this has worked because our nation's debt is now $1 trillion, which is the worth of the economy.

Child abuse in NSW has escalated four fold since the baby bonus was introduced.

Can you link me to more info on that please mantra?

mantra wrote on Feb 7^th, 2008 at 9:42am:

Quote: Today the lowest income earners pay very little income tax, they have targetted welfare which boosts their incomes and they get a raft of benefits never before seen in Australia, like the baby bonus, first home owners grant, family benefits, medicare safety net etc. First of all in regard to the medicare safety net etc.  This is excellent for those with large families or for those who can afford to see a specialist - even plastic surgery.  As long as it's done on the specialists' premises it is reimbursed.  For single people and those on low incomes it is useless.  The net is $1000 for a worker and $700 for a pensioner.   How many specialist visits, providing you can afford to see one, would it take for this safety net to kick in.   What has the baby bonus done for us.  It has encouraged drug addicts, irresponsible youth and those not in a position to raise a child decently to have children.  Child abuse in NSW has escalated four fold since the baby bonus was introduced.   As far as family benefits go - yes it does appear to be very generous and allows those on good incomes to pay no tax.  As far as the benefits go - this has resulted in a fatter nation with obesity in Australia escalating, but the purpose has been to increase consumerism and this has worked because our nation's debt is now $1 trillion, which is the worth of the economy.

The safety net is not designed to kick in early just so everyone has a free ride - it is designed to kick in if an individual or a family have some heavy medical costs.   This ensures that the cost is mitigated by the excellent targetted scheme directed at that specific incidence.   That's why it is called targetted welfare - the previous government brilliantly apportioned welfare to iron out the bumps for those most in need.

I completely reject the allegation that the baby bonus has done what you say.  And governments don't make people eat a lot.  When do people in your world take responsibility for themselves?

This nation has no debt.  None.   Zip.   Zilch.   Zero.    I have no idea where you got your figure from - it is fantasy.

Quote:

Child abuse in NSW has escalated four fold since the baby bonus was introduced

Freediver - there is some information that I have accessed over the past few months - and can now only find bits and pieces.  There are articles inferring there is a correlation between the two - but I will try and find them in the next day or so and start a thread on this.


Quote:

it is designed to kick in if an individual or a family have some heavy medical costs

Yes and that includes cosmetic surgery.


Quote:

This nation has no debt.  None.   Zip.   Zilch.   Zero

Are you serious?

We have no government debt mantra - Howard paid it off, but we do have very high personal/business debt to foreigners. This would tend to indicate that Australians are living beyond their means. We are spending our income while foreigners are investing in our future and reaping the rewards. However there is not a lot that can be done about it from a legislative perspective. Replacing income tax with a GST should reduce it to some extent.

mantra wrote on Feb 7^th, 2008 at 7:58pm:

Quote: Child abuse in NSW has escalated four fold since the baby bonus was introduced Freediver - there is some information that I have accessed over the past few months - and can now only find bits and pieces.  There are articles inferring there is a correlation between the two - but I will try and find them in the next day or so and start a thread on this. [quote]it is designed to kick in if an individual or a family have some heavy medical costs

Yes and that includes cosmetic surgery.


Quote:

This nation has no debt.  None.   Zip.   Zilch.   Zero

Are you serious?
[/quote]

Deadly serious.  John Howard completely cleared a mountain tens of billions of dollars of government debt left by Cheating while still keeping the budget in surplus and increasing spending to benefit ordinary Australians with massive increases in the health and education budget allocations.

Cheating was the worst thing that ever happened to this country (I suspect Little Kevvy will grab his crown before very long though - he's not just dumb and incompetent like Cheating, he doesn't even have any ideas).

Sorry - you said the nation has no debt.  The nation is in debt to the tune of nearly a trillion dollars which is the size of our economy.  The government is free and clear of course at the sacrifice of services and privatisation.  Is there any point to a government being debt free, while its citizens are hocked to their eyeballs?

mantra wrote on Feb 7^th, 2008 at 9:44pm:

Sorry - you said the nation has no debt.  The nation is in debt to the tune of nearly a trillion dollars which is the size of our economy.  The government is free and clear of course at the sacrifice of services and privatisation.  Is there any point to a government being debt free, while its citizens are hocked to their eyeballs?

No, the nation has no debt.  None at all.  Zip   Zilch.  Nada.  

That Coles Myer, Crazy Clarks, Ford Motor Company or the bloke down the road does is irrelevant.  No taxpayer owes any country any government (or national) debt.

The balance of trade is not a debt you (nor I) need be concerned with.  It is the individual's problem.

This nation owes no one anything.  John Howard made sure of that.

The Liebor States are a different matter - they owe mountains.  But that is your State Liebor Party which has done that to you, as Little Kevvy surely will.   No Liebor government can manage an economy.  They never have, never will. Their priority is their mates, the rich and corporations.