Something I can congratulate him on !!!


Quote:

THE government's white paper on counter-terrorism is a landmark, a watershed, a signal moment: choose your metaphor. What I mean to say is, it's a very important document, and for none of the reasons you have been hearing about in the past few days. Sometimes the press gallery and the main media commentators so spectacularly miss the point that you wonder what universe they are living in. For example, have you heard Hezbollah terror groups are operating in Australia? It's in the white paper, but not the media. Have you heard the government has declared the level of terror threat a society faces depends on the size and composition of its Muslim minority? It's in the white paper but not the media. The so-called announceables in the white paper were sensible, modest measures. Adding biometric scanning for visas for people from high-risk areas is a good step. As Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said in parliament yesterday, the 10 locations that will be named initially will not be the end of the story. The US requires everyone who enters the country to undergo fingerprint and retina scans. This is a limited measure. It only allows you to stop people already on your database. Nonetheless, it's a good move and I think should be extended to everyone who wants to come to Australia. Two chief lines of criticism of the government have emerged. One is that because the white paper and Kevin Rudd's remarks concentrate on the growing home-grown terror threat, he should have announcedmillions of dollars for domestic counter-radicalisation programs, as is done in Britain. This would be a catastrophe. Rudd deserves high praise for not going down this road. Britain's anti-radicalisation program is a cross between a fiasco and a disaster. It has empowered extremists, defined extremely conservative Islam as mainstream and demoralised moderates. No country in the West has done worse with its Muslim minority than Britain. Canberra would be insane to emulate this. Britain has had more terror attacks than any nation in Europe. France, which doesn't have a counter-radicalisation program, has had none. Do we really believe a federal bureaucracy that can't put pink batts into people's roofs safely can somehow find that tiny minority of Muslims who are destined to become terrorists and engage and convert them? If the federal government set out to convince me of anything I'd almost certainly end up believing the opposite. No doubt battalions of experts and ethnic con men are telling the government to splash out millions on people who will tell it there is a giant problem and only they can cure it. That way lies madness. The best counter-radicalisation program is a good, open decent society. Our settlement model is infinitely better than Britain's. There are only two overt counter-radicalisation programs we should engage in. One is to provide intensive settlement assistance to people we take in under the refugee and humanitarian program. To bring someone from war and refugee camp-living in Somalia or Sudan, with no competence at living in our sort of society, and dump them in Footscray or Bankstown with a Centrelink leaflet is asking for trouble. The other area we should work hard in is jails, where Islamist prisoners are recruiting people because they have much stronger beliefs than anyone around them. The other criticism of the white paper is for using the term jihadist. If it really was Rudd who insisted on this he deserves high praise. It is crucial we tell the truth. The al-Qa'ida version of jihad, like that of the Muslim Brotherhood or of many Wahabi Muslims and of the strand of Shia represented by the Iranian government, is, terribly, a minority but longstanding tradition within Islam. To pretend otherwise is to intellectually disable ourselves. The descriptive passages in the white paper are written in calm but straightforward language and have the virtue of telling the truth clearly and unapologetically. For example, the white paper states of violent jihadism: "The scale of the problem will continue to depend on factors such as the size and make-up of local Muslim populations, including their ethnic and-or migrant origins, their geographical distribution and the success or otherwise of their integration into their host society." This is a statement of the obvious but it is normally not allowed to be said. It begs the question: is it necessary for a liberal Western society to encourage immigration from predominantly Muslim countries with histories of significant minority support for extremism, when it is obvious such immigration will lead to big problems?

tbc

Quote:

This is a statement of the obvious but it is normally not allowed to be said. It begs the question: is it necessary for a liberal Western society to encourage immigration from predominantly Muslim countries with histories of significant minority support for extremism, when it is obvious such immigration will lead to big problems? With a most welcome clarity of thought and expression, the white paper states that radicalisation can be assisted by marginalisation, but the key is attraction to the jihadist ideology, which it summarises quite well. It also says: "There is no proven causal link between social disadvantage and terrorist behaviour." This is true, but again contradicts every bien-pensant orthodoxy. Rudd deserves a gold medal for speaking the truth in sentences such as that. The passage on Hezbollah is fascinating. The white paper says that apart from jihadist terrorism, there are groups in Australia that support overseas terrorist organisations with money but may well decide to attack their enemies in Australia. The only organisation it nominates in this category is "Hezbollah's external security organisation". I think this means we can infer they are pretty active here and ASIO must have them under pretty tight surveillance if it's willing to talk about them in a public document. The white paper confirms terrorism as a strategic threat, despite Hugh White's vapid denials in his regular Lateline sermons, because terrorists remain determined to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. One weakness, or contradiction, for the government is that the white paper rightly extols the need for tight border security, yet the government's policies have weakened border security to our north. Virtually any Middle East or South Asian Muslim who gets to Christmas Island now gets to stay in Australia permanently and ultimately gets access to family reunion. That's starting to be many thousands of people who have not been chosen under regular Australian procedures. Nonetheless this white paper deserves a solid A plus.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/opinion/clear-eyed-report-spells-out-the-risks/story-e6frgd0x-1225834048477

Boring. . .another copy and paste by a lazy Sprint.

And rudd sacked garrett too.

Sure, one could argue that it should have been done earlier or it appeared the garrett was going to be kept on but garrett was sacked.
Which most people thought should have been done

Quote:

Have you heard the government has declared the level of terror threat a society faces depends on the size and composition of its Muslim minority? It's in the white paper but not the media.

Are you sure? Have you got a link?

Here is the relevant section of the Whit paper:
The continuing resonance of the violent jihadist message within sections of Muslim communities in the Western world (including Australia) will lead to the creation and activity of new violent cells. This will include groups with little or no contact with core al-Qa’ida or its affiliates. The emergence of these groups is likely to be uneven across the West – indications are that for now, the phenomenon may have the biggest impact in the UK and parts of Europe but the US and Australia will not be immune. The scale of the problem will continue to depend on factors such as the size and make-up of local Muslim populations, including their ethnic and/or migrant origins, their geographical distribution and the success or otherwise of their integration into their host society.





Hello, hello, hello, who does this sound like, Abu?

A distorted narrative
Many distinct terrorist networks with differing and often local objectives share a broadly common set of beliefs that narrowly and simplistically interprets history and current affairs through the lens of the alleged oppression of Muslims, principally by the West. Groups like al-Qa’ida want people to believe:

•the West, led by the United States of America, is engaged in the systematic exploitation and repression of Muslims;
•governments in Muslim majority countries are illegitimate, corrupt and un-Islamic;
•the solution is the removal of Western interference in Muslim majority countries and the establishment of ‘truly Islamic’ systems of governance; and
•it is the religious duty of all Muslims individually to use violence to attack the political, military, religious and cultural enemies of Islam anywhere around the world.

http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/counter_terrorism/2_the_threat.cfm

I notice that those who still post about rudd, ruddy, or his colleagues without realizing that they are just gossiping over trivia have had little to say about reports that the same rudd, ruddy, (or whoever he is) won today's televised debate.

did you see the complete debate ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 12:41am:

did you see the complete debate ?

YEP, and so did all the voters in control of "the worm" Abbott was atrocious, he is a very bad debater, his honeymoon is over.
Its a pity really Australia needs a strong opposition to keep the government honest but Abbott is proving to be a very bad choice.
A lot of the right wing writers have been pumping him up saying he is a chance at winning the election but when you look at the stats he is performing as bad as Nelson and Turnbull. Rudd is still preferred PM by a country mile, and if an election were held today on these so called good numbers Abbott is polling the Libs would in fact lose more seats.
The libs stuffed up, they should have held of putting in Abbott until the last minute, he might have at least held the seats they have if they had.

Mr Abbott in my opinion could not disclose his policy if he had one, for danger of policy being picked up by the Government as they too did not start campaign and it would be hard to prove that idea was pinched from opposition.

Mr Abbott doesn’t easily waffle and maybe this is his weakness as leader must be good orator, but he appear to speak his mind and for some reason I believe that if he says that he will aim to open 3000 beds, chances are he will and not after he is elected second time.

As to current Government?
- they thrown out too much money for nothing and created unnecessarily enormous debt
- they promised many things, most yet to deliver
- they can cripple our economy for the sake of being first to implement ETS (just to do it, as with 2% of global pollution, no matter what we do it will be just for the sake of doing it and it will be easily absorbed by developing economy of China, India, Pakistan that are exempt from doing anything)

Not to mention target of 30 or 35 million people in Australia mostly to share inadequate: roads, hospitals, water as there is almost nothing on the horizon to double it with almost doubling population.

Woosh ,you've said a lot about nothing there happy, but one thing in particular sticks out, when is our population doubling? do you have relatives coming?

Oh you must have realised how stupid that comment was, you've just edited it.

I watched the debate Skipalong...  i switched off 9 and the stupid bloody worm...  which kept going up before Kruddy said anything and down whenever it was abbotts turn...  no truth in the worm.

As far as a debate goes I think Abbott won.
I note Kruddy kept lying about Abbott and the Billion dollars.

But Kruddy is a liar and a hypocrite.

lets work together he says yet for the last week the attack ads and the Labor party have been lying about Abbott and the Liberal health policies of the past. Gee that makes for cooperation doesn't it.

I'm afraid the wormhandlers fall into the category of dumb people that shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Abbott got suckered into the debate and suckered once again by the most cunning dishonest PM we have ever seen.  they set him up to expect a personal bollocking then changed tactic on him.  he should have adapted but stuck to whatever he had prepared. So it came out as defensive and negative, but when you are debating only one policy that becomes rather academic.

For those who cant see through the lying hypocritical wanker we have as a PM...  just don't vote.

Nobody here will be surprised, but I thought Abbott did better than Rudd. I am fast forgetting what they were actually saying but Abbott appeared to me as a real person while Rudd was acting - spin, outreach, staring and taking notes with a stiff back and thin lips.  For the first time I noticed that he is pouting a little when he speaks. I can't imagine having a conversation with him. A long meeting, yes, but not a conversation. Abbott reminded me of a handsomer version of Carr (with big ears). I think anyone could have an interesting chat with him. He is lucid like Howard, regarless of their ideology.

I don't hate Rudd but I honestly don't know what people see in him. He is a tremendous bore. He doesn't even have an ideology you can hate him for.

Grendel wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 2:00pm:

I watched the debate Skipalong...  i switched off 9 and the stupid bloody worm...  which kept going up before Kruddy said anything and down whenever it was abbotts turn...  no truth in the worm. As far as a debate goes I think Abbott won. I note Kruddy kept lying about Abbott and the Billion dollars. But Kruddy is a liar and a hypocrite. lets work together he says yet for the last week the attack ads and the Labor party have been lying about Abbott and the Liberal health policies of the past. Gee that makes for cooperation doesn't it. I'm afraid the wormhandlers fall into the category of dumb people that shouldn't be allowed to vote. Abbott got suckered into the debate and suckered once again by the most cunning dishonest PM we have ever seen.  they set him up to expect a personal bollocking then changed tactic on him.  he should have adapted but stuck to whatever he had prepared. So it came out as defensive and negative, but when you are debating only one policy that becomes rather academic. For those who cant see through the lying hypocritical wanker we have as a PM...  just don't vote.

Hi puppy, miss me?
I'm glad you think Abbott won the debate that makes three of you now. Your obvious bias is showing, yet again, Rudd s hitted on Abbott in that debate all you could here from people skills was a very nervous laughter in the background. As for Rudd himself, I'd flick him tomorrow and replace him with Gillard, so I unlike you I am speaking from an unbiased point of view.

I did not see the debate BUT can catagorically state that I heard nothing from rudd that had any substance.
In the same manner, nothing I heard from abbott I could disagree with.

How unusual for you to think that sprint. :P

Quote:

Hi puppy, miss me?

Yes but not your usual abuse.


Quote:

I'm glad you think Abbott won the debate that makes three of you now.

Actually that is completely incorrect (as usual)  Both he Australian and Sky News had Abbott as the winner in polls much wider and numerous than the wormhandlers.

Like I said...  in the DEBATE...  Abbott certainly won.  The other guy just mouthed platitudes.  (Oh and lies).  That aint debating.


Quote:

Your obvious bias is showing, yet again, Rudd s hitted on Abbott in that debate all you could here from people skills was a very nervous laughter in the background. As for Rudd himself, I'd flick him tomorrow and replace him with Gillard, so I unlike you I am speaking from an unbiased point of view.

Well no you are not... you prefer Gillard hence you have a bias for her.  I see Kruddy for what he really is and say so, you do not apparently.  BTW I prefer Gillard too...  and yes I am biased...  biased based on reason.

Problem is now even Julia is blotting her credibility copybook.

Malcolm Farr, not an Abbott fan, also agrees with me... how unusual, do you think he's unduly biased as well?

Quote:

Australia sick of all talk and no action on hospitals Malcolm Farr Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 07:13pm IT wasn’t a health debate. It was a political ambush, and it worked. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott walked into the trap without the protection of a policy, and was forced to rely on his undoubted abilities to attack and unsettle. However, that made him appear negative and even possibly dismissive of the health issue as he attempted to steer the debate on to economic management and the home insulation debacle. Most Australians believe the public health system is wrecked and they want solutions - from anyone. They don’t want the issue used as a political club wielded against the only side of politics yet to produce a health reform proposal. Voters are not necessarily endorsing the Government’s proposed hospital funding changes. They are, however, noting Abbott’s absence from the central debate. And this is where the noise of the trap snapping shut can he heard. The Opposition Leader is perfectly entitled to delay release of his health policies until closer to the election. It’s a difficult area and for the sake of voters he has to get it right. The problem for him is that the wider public debate on health will not wait for him. It is under way now, and he is not in it, except at a negative level. Further, the states will be part of this discussion with the Council of Australian Government meeting in mid-April to consider the Rudd proposals. And again, Abbott won’t be a participant - inside or outside the meeting room. Rudd highlighted his rival’s predicament by coming up with a well-practised appeal for co-operation across party divides on the health issue. At times he looked like he meant it. He would have been more convincing had the ALP not launched attack advertisements last week on Abbott’s time as health minister, and the Prime Minister hadn’t revived those claims yesterday. Rudd’s platitude count went through the National Press Club roof, and he added little to Government policy, reserving further details for discussions with the states. However, Rudd was not there for the policy contest. He was there to isolate Abbott from that contest, and to tell voters the Government was attempting to improve their hospitals. Those platitudes would not have been scoffed at by many parents. The only policy advancement was Rudd’s suggestion that block funding, the so-called blank cheque option, might be used to keep smaller hospitals going. This would be instead of funding based on the “activities” of the hospital, such as the number of operations performed. Rudd has already said that no hospitals would close under his proposals, and it is hugely unlikely that a government would be shutting hospitals down in an election year.

Seems the well known and experienced political journo and I agree Skip. There are those of us who will speak the truth Skip and others like yourself too afraid to.

Wow , I must have missed the bit where Mal says Abbott won the debate, care to point it out? all I can find is this



Quote:

Tony Abbott walked into the trap without the protection of a policy

and this


Quote:

However, that made him appear negative and even possibly dismissive of the health issue

and this


Quote:

Voters are not necessarily endorsing the Government’s proposed hospital funding changes. They are, however, noting Abbott’s absence from the central debate. And this is where the noise of the trap snapping shut can he heard.

and this

Quote:

The problem for him is that the wider public debate on health will not wait for him. It is under way now, and he is not in it, except at a negative level.

I cant see him say anywhere that Abbott won the debate though.

rotflmao

God you are predictable....

I will type this s l o w l y...  

I   already    gave   you   proof    that    not    every one   thinks    abbott   lost   the  debate...  I told you I didn't.  I know what a debate is BTW.

Farr's    article    backs    up    the    rest    of    what   I    told   you...  It    wasn't    about    who    won    the    debate  according   to   the  WORM.

Which    I     also    showed    was    a    complete    waste    of    time.

Only retards are gonna be obsessing about that Skip.

maybe you shouldn't vote eh?  ;D

It seems most of the MSM decided that Rudd won.
The love affair between Rudd and most of the media continues unabated.
All the debate did for me was to confirm Rudd can talk under water, and is a rude, ill mannered, ignorant pig, staring ahead during the entire 'debate', and never once looking at his opponent. Of course that shows a cowardice as well.

Grendel wrote on Mar 25^th, 2010 at 5:05pm:

rotflmao God you are predictable.... I will type this s l o w l y...   I   already    gave   you   proof    that    not    every one   thinks    abbott   lost   the  debate...  I told you I didn't.  I know what a debate is BTW. Farr's    article    backs    up    the    rest    of    what   I    told   you...  It    wasn't    about    who    won    the    debate  according   to   the  WORM. Which    I     also    showed    was    a    complete    waste    of    time. Only retards are gonna be obsessing about that Skip. maybe you shouldn't vote eh?  ;D

Yea I knew you were lying about Mal I just wanted to see if you'd admit, you couldn't even do that.
I can understand why you'd like people who dont agree with you be not allowed to vote, its the only way  the loony right will ever be elected.

Quote:

You need to be a moderator not a wet nurse.

Hmmm. I assume that was meant to be insulting. I didn't even know what the duties of a "wet nurse" were until you taught me. I'm still learning how to moderate - it's not as easy as I thought.

take it how you like...  nonetheless it's a fact.

This is my last word on this rubbish.

You people should spend more time debating politics on political sites and less time indulging your own egos and petty site and inter-site squabbles.

You aren't bloody stars on the world stage you know...  it's just an internet forum with a few nonentities on it.

get a grip...  and get real.

LOL, it looks like someone is off his medication ,yet again.

skippy. wrote on Mar 28^th, 2010 at 11:44am:

LOL, it looks like someone is off his medication ,yet again.

Careful skippy. You also bolted Mantra's site for similar reasons. Remember?

No worries Ethnic...  they cant debate and cant abide being proven wrong...  unfortunately I'm getting sick of proving them wrong year after year after year.

:)

could some mod delete the last umpteen posts, till we get back to the thread plse ??

Done Sprint, sorry it took a while but I do not always,
check every board, so if I do not get a PM about silly behaviour, It may take a while before I get to see it.
I am not inclined to indulge people being insulting, for their own amusement, or just for the sake of being insulting, and will suspend Grendel the next time I see him bring unwarranted abuse into a thread.

I deleted some posts by others who did nothing wrong, but they were referring to posts I deleted, so made no sense on their own, so I took them out as well, so do not think I removed posts only if they were inappropriate.

So please stay on subject from now on, and leave other issues for threads where they may be appropriate.

I did not see the debate, so I have only the general observation to make, that Rudd is indeed a man who comes across as a spin merchant, and Abbot had a long time as minister of health, where his only major concern seemed to be to minimise the amount of federal funding he could get away with, so of the two, while Rudd may be notoriously unreliable in providing a straight answer, his government is the one attempting to instigate the greatest reform to the Health System in our county's history, so I at least give him points for trying.
How it is implemented will very much be the measure of whether his goveernment goes down in history as a success, or a sad joke.

Stay on topic please BO.

Amadd wrote on Mar 30^th, 2010 at 6:37am:

Stay on topic please BO.

Yes and less abuse please, this is a family show.

Sooooooooooooo, back on topic, it looks like the debate did Kevvy the world of good,this mornings polls show him to have bounced right back and Abbott struggling for oxygen(skippucious say to much Lycra not good for  polls), so who's next on the blocks, bouncing Joe Hockey or back to the future with Mal? If the Liberals ever want to win government again they need a leader who appeals to moderate Australians, Abbott was good at getting back the rusted on rightards like beowulf but if they want mainstream support they need a moderate.

skippy - yes, I saw ruddy bounced back. it was like rubbing salk into my wounds.

i'n happy with Tony as leader.

Apparently the average person out there is quite happy as long as they are getting $900.00 cheques, baby bonuses, and home owners' grants,
and b----r whatever else is happening to the rest of the country.
I think a large section of the population has become very complacent, and consequently apathetic toward how the country is being run.
I wonder also about the $250,00.00 concession handed to the TV stations. ;)
If some people merely get their political news from the 6 o'clock news and/or Sunrise, what hope have they got of actually knowing what's happening?

Edit to add:
Then of course there's Q&A :D ....a  love- in for all lefties to enjoy and poke fun every time the token conservative opens his/her mouth. :D

Gianna wrote on Mar 30^th, 2010 at 9:27am:

Apparently the average person out there is quite happy as long as they are getting $900.00 cheques, baby bonuses, and home owners' grants, and b----r whatever else is happening to the rest of the country. I think a large section of the population has become very complacent, and consequently apathetic toward how the country is being run. I wonder also about the $250,00.00 concession handed to the TV stations. ;) If some people merely get their political news from the 6 o'clock news and/or Sunrise, what hope have they got of actually knowing what's happening? Edit to add: Then of course there's Q&A :D ....a  love- in for all lefties to enjoy and poke fun every time the token conservative opens his/her mouth. :D

Ooh another conspironut, the Labor party paid off the TV networks,hahahahahahahahahaha ::).
As for the rest of your post the rodent proved what you say is wrong, he lost the last election having introduced home owners grants, baby bonuses and middle class welfare, your argument is full of holes,next.

Quote:

Then of course there's Q&A  ....a  love- in for all lefties to enjoy and poke fun every time the token conservative opens his/her mouth.

Oh yea, the token conservative last night was a real goose,spot on  there,every time the goose on last night opened her mouth the whole audience pizzed them self laughing.

skippy. wrote on Mar 30^th, 2010 at 11:46am:

Quote: Then of course there's Q&A  ....a  love- in for all lefties to enjoy and poke fun every time the token conservative opens his/her mouth. Oh yea, the token conservative last night was a real goose,spot on  there,every time the goose on last night opened her mouth the whole audience pizzed them self laughing.

Good of you to prove my point so well.

I notice you didn't want to embarrass yourself anymore than you already have by mentioning  the Howard gov handouts that you blamed on Labor.

skippy. wrote on Mar 30^th, 2010 at 12:58pm:

I notice you didn't want to embarrass yourself anymore than you already have by mentioning  the Howard gov handouts that you blamed on Labor.

I notice you haven't a quote where I've said I approved of the handouts given out in Howard's era. Assuming can be a tricky pastime.

Quote:

Abbott was good at getting back the rusted on rightards like beowulf but if they want mainstream support they need a moderate.

You never learbn do you Skip.  if you like I could probably go to mantras site and find where you admitted you were wrong about me and my politics.

But why bother right...  you have memory problems.

I am a Conservative Left Winger.  Something you obviously cannot understand.  But I read an article by a woman journo today and guess what...  she admits to being one too.

Rudd is an abomination to me...  a liar and a hypocrite.  Abbott is much more honest even tough I don't agree with everything he says or believes.  In fact I have no love for him considering what he did to Hanson and One Nation. he was wrong then too.

It never gets tired, just like fart jokes, and seeing guys cop it in the kananny wackers.

Gotta love him, all the self awareness of an amoeba. ;D

You flaming me moderator?
Should I consider that abuse?

Just sharing the love Beo.

Tony will not win but he can expose Rudd and dent him for the next time.

off topic love it would seem moderator

tallowood wrote on Mar 30^th, 2010 at 10:27pm:

Tony will not win but he can expose Rudd and dent him for the next time.

Well I don't see to many dents, if an election were held on the current TPP Labor would actually  win an extra 18 seats just about wiping out the Liberal party as we know it. The Libs have sooooooooo many seats that are on a very small margin that anything like 54% to Labor would give them over 15 seats, 56% which is the current numbers would actually just about wipe the Libs off the planet. If you don't believe me read the experts, Possum is very good at the number crunch as is Antony Green.

As for beo, LOL, he's such an old lefty he thinks Abbott is a better choice than Labor, enough said. ;D ;D ;D

Tony Abbott will flog ruddulous.

It'lll be too easy, I can't wait

Gianna wrote on Mar 30^th, 2010 at 3:52pm:

skippy. wrote on Mar 30th, 2010 at 12:58pm: I notice you didn't want to embarrass yourself anymore than you already have by mentioning  the Howard gov handouts that you blamed on Labor. I notice you haven't a quote where I've said I approved of the handouts given out in Howard's era. Assuming can be a tricky pastime.

You need to be a little clearer with your posts, many people would think you were putting the blame on Labor for all that middle class welfare you complained about, I'm glad you cleared it up, you did not approve of all those handouts by Howard and Abbott,neither did I, did you complain loud and long about it at the time? I certainly did.

You think Labor is Left?

Oh dear Skippy not since Hawke buddy.  They are better friends with big business than the Libs these days.  Look at who they gave the BER jobs to.  need I say more?

Labor are a mess and Krudd the worst leader they have had in my lifetime.  Even Latham may have been better.  Certainly he nailed Krudd for what he is.

I can't believe you support Krudd.  I mean that is what you are doing by lying about what I say and believe, that is whom you are continually defending.

I'd much prefer Gillard and she's more Left than kevin 07.  Who is just an incompetant bureaucrat with a talent for sucking people in.  He's as disingenuous as a pollie can be Skip.  haven't you noticed?

if you are looking at polls to support your no dents theory, then think again.  At a footy match in QLD the other week he was booed by the crowed for quite a while.  More people there than in a selective polll Skip.  Seems they remember "Dr Death".

The polls will go up and down till the election.  I don't care if Labor win if they have good policies, as long as Krudd is no longer PM, his governance is not good for the country and he's becoming what Howard had become...  Labor may be too frightened to dump him and with his ego he'll be worse than Howard ever was.

Howard was voted out at the last election Skip.  Krudd wasn't voted in.

The Libs get NO money from big business.

that surprised me when I heard it, it's true.
big businesses drive labor

Grendel wrote on Mar 31^st, 2010 at 8:18am:

You think Labor is Left? Oh dear Skippy not since Hawke buddy.  They are better friends with big business than the Libs these days.  Look at who they gave the BER jobs to.  need I say more? Labor are a mess and Krudd the worst leader they have had in my lifetime.  Even Latham may have been better.  Certainly he nailed Krudd for what he is. I can't believe you support Krudd.  I mean that is what you are doing by lying about what I say and believe, that is whom you are continually defending. I'd much prefer Gillard and she's more Left than kevin 07.  Who is just an incompetant bureaucrat with a talent for sucking people in.  He's as disingenuous as a pollie can be Skip.  haven't you noticed? if you are looking at polls to support your no dents theory, then think again.  At a footy match in QLD the other week he was booed by the crowed for quite a while.  More people there than in a selective polll Skip.  Seems they remember "Dr Death". The polls will go up and down till the election.  I don't care if Labor win if they have good policies, as long as Krudd is no longer PM, his governance is not good for the country and he's becoming what Howard had become...  Labor may be too frightened to dump him and with his ego he'll be worse than Howard ever was. Howard was voted out at the last election Skip.  Krudd wasn't voted in.

Do you think Liberal are left?
As for the polls, you go on living in your dream world, I vote GREENS I have for twenty odd years now, I'm a true lefty and as far as I can see the best whore for me to sleep with out of Labor and Liberal is Labor. Now if the Libs got their act together and had a true Liberal like Turnbull as leader I could be persuaded to look at them in a couple more elections, but I don't believe Labor have done a bad job, in fact I think they've done a good job when you look at the rest of the world after the WFC.
As for Gillard, we agree,as I said to you last week, she is the best person in parliament to be PM of this country, in order for that to happen Labor need to be in power, so vote Greens and preference Labor my lefty chum.

no...  never said they were.  did I.  ::)

I don't usually vote for them either.  I'm a swinging voter not a rusted on tribal voter.  I vote for the policies I think will help my country.  Unfortunately no one party has all those policies.  certainly the major parties NEVER do.

yes if you vote Greens since Bob Brown has been in charge you are Lefty, but probably a prog, and most of them are mindless..  but being a one party man means you don't care about our country.

Doesn't mean I'm not or that many Labor voters who don't vote Green aren't either eh.  ;D

Turnbull should join the rest of the progs in labor.  That is where he belongs.  He is not a traditional liberal candidate.  he could even join a Kernot style democrats or the Greens(at a pinch).

just what has the ALP done a good job at Skip?

I await your list.

BTW you won't get rid of Rudd unless Labor lose.  And like Howard, the more he wins, the harder it will be to get rid of him.

Grendel wrote on Mar 31^st, 2010 at 8:44am:

no...  never said they were.  did I.  ::) I don't usually vote for them either.  I'm a swinging voter not a rusted on tribal voter.  I vote for the policies I think will help my country.  Unfortunately no one party has all those policies.  certainly the major parties NEVER do. yes if you vote Greens since Bob Brown has been in charge you are Lefty, but probably a prog, and most of them are mindless..  but being a one party man means you don't care about our country. Doesn't mean I'm not or that many Labor voters who don't vote Green aren't either eh.  ;D Turnbull should join the rest of the progs in labor.  That is where he belongs.  He is not a traditional liberal candidate.  he could even join a Kernot style democrats or the Greens(at a pinch). just what has the ALP done a good job at Skip? I await your list. BTW you won't get rid of Rudd unless Labor lose.  And like Howard, the more he wins, the harder it will be to get rid of him.

You're wrong on most of what you say, but I'm used to that.
The thing I think you're most wrong about is Turnbull, he is a true Liberal in the form that Menzies was and Frazer was and Gorton was and Holt was.
The Libs were Liberal under those men they were also progressive under those men, Howard f ucked the Liberal party with excessive conservatism, now people like you think that is normal, it is not, and Abbott is just a Howard clone, so if the punters hated Howard, as you suggest when you said they voted him out and not Rudd in, they'll hate Abbott for the same reasons.
As for the Greens, they have always been a left wing party, not just under Brown, their very nature is to care about social issues, unlike conservatives who only care about themselves and their pockets.

LOl  still on about Howard eh.

He let in more migrants than anyone else till Kruddy eclipsed him and howard brought in reform in many areas...  remember the GST?  Not exactly what a true conservative is.

As for being wrong...  well the facts and history bear me out more than you.  gorton was good...  fraser a disaster.

Abbott is not a howard clone, even though Rudd and the propaganda machine and progs would like you to think so... but I'm getting the feeling you are easily deceived

as for your progs...  PROGRESSIVE RIGHT OR LEFT SKIPPY?  there have always been wets and dries in the Liberals.  or are you confusing left right prog and cons?

If the libs are supposed to be conservative side of politics then is Turnbull a lib?  Turnbulls best fit is labor.  Always has been.

I don't want 2 labor parties. 1 is more than enough.

Since i don't care for either major party I don't see how you can continue lying about me either.

As for the greens if you knew their history you'd know that many people true greens true conservationists left that "party" when Bob took over.  mind you they weren't always called The Greens.

BTW you don't seem to know what a true conservative is.

It is clear for all who read this exchange that you have no place in the left of politics.

This has become boring,you've just reverted to your usual attack on the individual. disembark,disembark.

Well one thing that Labor does take credit for, and even though it cannot be accurately quantified just what would have happened if they had not taken action, they did provide an economic stimulus package, and we did not suffer the massive loss of confidence in our economy, and the subsequent downturn that such events inspire.

It is easy for critics to say it is all a waste of money, and indeed a massive amount was incredibly poorly managed, but nevertheless, poorly managed or not, it did flow into the economy, and our economy welcomed it with open, greedy, and grateful arms, and we avoided the massive recession which afflicted nearly every other developed nation.

The spin merchant Rudd knows the value of perceptions, and his policies did steer public perception through a period where any wrong move could have seen public confidence, and the economy, fall off into a downward spiral of fear, despair, and depression, but I must give credit where credit is due, they did avert that worst possible outcome from occurring.

So, give him the kicks up the bum he deserves for his appallingly poor Emmissions Trading Policy, or his poorly managed insulation scheme, and the also poorly considered repair package to fix the insulation scheme, and don't forget the bloody minded Broadband scheme, and the short sightedness which saw telstra excluded because it temporarily had a mad mexican at the helm, they are things worthy of criticism.
However, be fair and give credit where it is due, and accept that we did not just avoid the worst financial crisis in a century by accident.

Quote:

Re: Well done ruddy Reply #54 - Today at 9:18am Alert Board Moderator about this Post! Quote It is clear for all who read this exchange that you have no place in the left of politics. This has become boring,you've just reverted to your usual attack on the individual. disembark,disembark.

HERE i WAS THINKING THERE WAS HOPE FOR YOU AND A PROPER DIALOGUE.

gUESS I WAS WRONG.

There was no attack unless you mean your opening line on your previous post.

As for me being a lefty...  every political quiz puts me there continually.  I don't deny the obvious Skippy, you should stop doing it.

I don't think Mozz there is proof that the stimulus package and labor saved us from any financial crisis.

certainly it has been badly managed since the package included the BER, Batts etc, etc, etc...  just a waste of money for no real advantage in either education or environmentally.

Grendel wrote on Mar 31^st, 2010 at 9:53am:

I don't think Mozz there is proof that the stimulus package and labor saved us from any financial crisis. certainly it has been badly managed since the package included the BER, Batts etc, etc, etc...  just a waste of money for no real advantage in either education or environmentally.

The fact we are one of two advanced economies to escape a recession says that Mozz is indeed correct in his assertions that Labor handled the economic stimulus a lot better than the right wing care to admit.
AS for the Batts, yes some of the implementation was done in a poor manner, but the idea itself is good and contrary to beowulf claim that it was "of no real advantage" it was and is a huge advantage to insulate a home the power costs saved are enormous, only a climate confusionalist would speak such rot.

You talking to me now?
make up your mind Skippy.

There is a split on that theory Skippy.

I personally think what Rudd did had little effect over all except to deplete the coffers and build up a huge debt that we will have to pay back.  both of those facts are indisputable.

batts ...  some?  you are kidding they need to recheck every bloody installation...  but hey 100,000 I'd consider more than just "some".

insulation advantage...  not for those improperly done just for starters.  Also the gap left around light-fittings etc drops the efficacy of the insulation by 25% also no room is fully insulated unless there are NO window and all the walls are done.  YES, skippy, very little advantage unfortunately..  but hey some people are easily deceived.

I forgot to mention that the education building was also a great idea, again there have been some small problems but the fact it provided work for many people helped keep those people employed and the fact many of the buildings built were libraries in schools that did not have one is also a huge advantage to future education of our children.

Grendel wrote on Mar 31^st, 2010 at 10:12am:

You talking to me now? make up your mind Skippy. There is a split on that theory Skippy. I personally think what Rudd did had little effect over all except to deplete the coffers and build up a huge debt that we will have to pay back.  both of those facts are indisputable. batts ...  some?  you are kidding they need to recheck every bloody installation...  but hey 100,000 I'd consider more than some.

They need to recheck the ones that had foil insulation.
The last time I checked reputable builders new that foil insulation should only be used in new buildings. The fact that some dodgy people put foil in houses means that we have some dodgy tradespeople about, not a knew phenomena.

oh dear...  yes 100,000 of them apparently ask greg he'll tell you how many.

ps.  not only foil ones.

Grendel wrote on Mar 31^st, 2010 at 10:23am:

oh dear...  yes 100,000 of them apparently ask greg he'll tell you how many. ps.  not only foil ones.

So there must be lots of dodgy builders about hey?
What are they checking the other insulation for? its the foil ones that have started the fires.
Do you also blame the federal government for the dodgy mechanic who doesn't do the correct repairs?

tghe school building was a rort from go to today

it started off with the provisio that there had to be billboard alp advertisiing outside the school before they got any money !!!!!!

it was our money rudd gave away like confetti ina storm.
I want iot back, it was wasted and ripped off.
And that's HIS doing

Quote:

insulation advantage...  not for those improperly done just for starters.  Also the gap left around light-fittings etc drops the efficacy of the insulation by 25% also no room is fully insulated unless there are NO window and all the walls are done.  YES, skippy, very little advantage unfortunately..  but hey some people are easily deceived.

You don't know what you're missing, I lived in my place as I built it, I did the insulation a couple of years after I built it, it made a huge difference, at least 10 degrees in summer and winter.   I no longer need heating in winter and instead of it being cooler outside than inside during the summer it is now much cooler inside than out.
The other point is insulation when installed correctly does not need to be near light fittings, it is installed directly under the roofing iron or tiles,this is the very purpose of foil insulation, it is not meant to be laid on the ceiling.
Do you know what all this saves? it saves on fuel, you need far less fuel burnt to run your home, it also saves on power bills, that saves you money, but don't stop using that power to warm and cool yourself grendel, the power companies will lose all their profits if people like you wise up.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 31^st, 2010 at 10:40am:

tghe school building was a rort from go to today it started off with the provisio that there had to be billboard alp advertisiing outside the school before they got any money !!!!!! it was our money rudd gave away like confetti ina storm. I want iot back, it was wasted and ripped off. And that's HIS doing

Sorry sprint I know you get upset when the facts are laid out in front of you and you don't like what you read.
How's that conservative government going in NZ? did they escape the WFC as well as us?

skips - ddddddddduuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhh
kiwiland had a HUGE debt going into it and NO resources to sell.

had aussie been in that same situation, aussie would be identical.

find a brickwall tough enough to smash some sense into yourself

oh dear...  
for Skippy.
foil - electrocution and fires
non-foil - fires.
(due to heat build up by covering lights and transformers)

oh and Skippy...  theres a list somewher that says gregs first esimate has been updated to to 240,000 homes.
also that the 2nd go at it will be abandoned due to lack of funding left.

oh and...


Quote:

You don't know what you're missing, I lived in my place as I built it, I did the insulation a couple of years after I built it, it made a huge difference, at least 10 degrees in summer and winter.   I no longer need heating in winter and instead of it being cooler outside than inside during the summer it is now much cooler inside than out. The other point is insulation when installed correctly does not need to be near light fittings, it is installed directly under the roofing iron or tiles,this is the very purpose of foil insulation, it is not meant to be laid on the ceiling. Do you know what all this saves? it saves on fuel, you need far less fuel burnt to run your home, it also saves on power bills, that saves you money, but don't stop using that power to warm and cool yourself grendel, the power companies will lose all their profits if people like you wise up.

gee thanks Skip...  none of which refutes anything I said.   ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

(due to heat build up by covering lights and transformers)

So you didn't read my post?
if insulation is installed correctly there is no contact with lights.
So  how many fires have been caused this way from the current scheme"?, every story I've seen has blamed the poor installation of foil insulation(ooh look that rhymes).

OH DEAR i READ IT ALL BOYO...

cant help it if the flood of dodgey bros brought into the industry by government policy were shonks can we.

like I also said every gap around lights creates a 25% loss in efficiency.

nothing you say refutes anything I say...
you just go off on tangents

Grendel wrote on Mar 31^st, 2010 at 11:10am:

OH DEAR i READ IT ALL BOYO... cant help it if the flood of dodgey bros brought into the industry by government policy were shonks can we. like I also said every gap around lights creates a 25% loss in efficiency. nothing you say refutes anything I say... you just go off on tangents

LOl. tangents lol lol .

I'm very interested in this beo, can you find cut and pastes ( you know you love them) that
1-show how many homes need inspecting?
2- how many homes have had a fire from the current insulation process that used batts other than foil?
It would be best to provide gov numbers not opinions of journos.
Thankyou in advance.

probably but I'm busy
surely an intelligent person such as yourself caqn find a few facts through google  ;D

here you go lazybones
photo and info at this link.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/house-fires-linked-to-rudds-roof-insulation-plan-hit-120/story-e6frgczf-1225845178006

you want government direct info you can find it yourself, but I don't think they are making it publicly available yet. ;D ;D ;D

Grendel wrote on Mar 31^st, 2010 at 11:17am:

probably but I'm busy surely an intelligent person such as yourself caqn find a few facts through google  ;D

that's what i though too, so I tried and guess what? there doesn't seem to be anything about 200000 houses needing to be inspected.
Guess what else? I cant find anything about deaths or house fires from the current insulation scheme that relate to what you said, re homes insulated with non foil insulation. I thought you must have stumbled onto something the MSM have missed because they don't seem to be reporting these fires from the non foil insulated houses all they seem to talk about is foil insulation.

oh boo hoo

you better look above Skippy
I told you I was busy you ...........................................

now apologise

also about those moving goalposts...  

I suppose you want me to find the reinspection figures now eh?

lazy ...............

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TopStories/2010/03/10/Govt_orders_150000_insulation_checks_438455.html

Combet...  150,000

If i get time I'll find the most up to date or of course you could actually do it yourself for a change.

So far i just keep proving you wrong Skippy...  why cant you just admit it for once?  Stop making my life a misery.

You know if you paid more attention to Australian poliitcs and the media reporting etc you'd know all this stuff.

Quote:

THE number of house fires linked to government's bungled home insulation program has jumped to 120. Officials this morning told a senate inquiry into the scheme there had been 47 fires each in NSW and Victoria, caused by inept insulation installers. Queensland has had 17 fires. Just two weeks ago, Energy Efficiency Minister Greg Combet told parliament there had been 105 house fires. The inquiry continues.

Well um thanks for that but it doesn't address any of the points we are discussing, I'm interested in the 200000 houses that need reinspecting and the fires started by non foil insulation installed under the current scheme. You're a little off track comrade.

I never said that.  (200,000)
i'd have thought 100,000 or 150,000 would have been enough for any fair minded person anyway.

I even linked to a photo of nonfoil batts  Skippy

you keep lying.

DWMT

Quote:

The scheme, which was canned last month as a result of safety and compliance concerns, has so far been linked to 105 fires and four deaths. Energy Efficiency Minister Greg Combet, who has been tasked with winding-up the program, says the 150,000 household inspections will identify the extent of safety concerns. 'If a risk assessment identifies the need for more inspections, those inspections will be undertaken,' he told parliament on Tuesday. The government will also investigate claims of people who fraudulently claimed the rebate of up to $1,600 without undertaking the work. It will also assist industry and employees who will be out of work because of the termination of the program. Around 1.1 million homes have been insulated under the scheme, at a cost of approximately $1.5 billion. The safety inspection of 150,000 homes will be in addition to the inspections of 50,000 homes fitted with foil insulation already under way. So far five per cent of the homes inspected have had a positive fire risk and three per cent have had electrical risks.

Thats a bit better, but you said 240000, you're only 140000 out.

Quote:

oh and Skippy...  theres a list somewher that says gregs first esimate has been updated to to 240,000 homes.

You never said what?

I know what I said.

But you were lying.

How many times do i need to post facts over and over again before you stop asking me for proof.  I'm sick of it.

maybe you should read what I post.

As for the 240,000 I have no doubt the official 150,000 Greg said would be inspected will grow and I read 240,000 somewhere perhaps you can find it.  I note I never said it was an official figure.

hmmm  as for your maths....  240,000 - 150,000 = 90 thousand dear boy.  Whoever quoted the 240,000 is 90,000 out.  But they may yet be vindicated or even correct as we speak.

So who was right skip?
huh, huh, huh.....  

go on say it...  it wont hurt a bit  ;)

Tsk sk my maths was out. What was I lying about?

About me not providing you proof dear boy.

or were you continually hassling me because you just like yanking my chain?

Grendel wrote on Mar 31^st, 2010 at 11:57am:

About me not providing you proof dear boy. or were you continually hassling me because you just like yanking my chain?

LOL its a very nice chain beo.

As for your proof, well I was hoping that you'd provide proof of 240000 homes needing a re inspection, but you didn't.
I was also hoping for proof that house fires had started as a result of the current insulation installation scheme( there's that rhyme again lol) from non foil batts, something you have sadly not been able to produce and I have sadly not been able to find anything about that either.

I don't know why you are arguing with Beo on this, most of what he has said is correct.

It was well intentioned, but everything after that "intention" was a pathetic joke of ignorance and mismanagement.

Letting any clown do a course for a few hours, then set up a company and have his kids, and his cousins kids, running around people roofs is a disgrace, and foil should never have been considered as acceptable insulation anyway.

Foil is good for sarking, and to add an extra layer of insulation protection with it, but batts in the ceiling are the best way to insulate your house.

One thing Beo is wrong about is his figure about light fittings reducing effectiveness.
[quote]I also said every gap around lights creates a 25% loss in efficiency./quote]

So any house with more than 4 lights, just add insulation and it will act like reverse cycle aircon, in reverse, lol.

There have been fires caused by batts incorrectly laid over downlights, and really there is absolutely no excuse for this.
If I were in charge, I would be prosecuting every case of negligently incompetent installation, and taking their bloody homes off these shonks, they are crooks, and should face the full consequences of their crooked actions.

As for allowing sparkies to charge $400 per house to check if it is safe, well that is another joke, because I am not a sparky, but I can use test equipment, and I could inspect about 10 to 20 houses a day, in fact I could probably just find out the names of the good installers, and those of the bad installers, and just inspect the ones from the guys who were not crooks, and do even more, because you know very well they were done right in the first place.

Once more we see idiot politicians and bureaucrats who are flippin' clueless, getting expert advice from more who are only marginally less clueless.
So we get rid of the insulation rort, and replace it with the insulation inspection rort.
What is the bet we even get some guys who were fitting the insulation, starting a new company to inspect it? ;D

Ah that 25% was a quote from an insulation expert Mozz and it isn't a simple cumulative effect  any gap around lights decreases the effect by 25% overall.

You want an expert explanation seek an expert.

oh and logic dictates it can only decrease by up to 100% ie render the insulation useless ie as if it wasn't there.

If I get time I'll find one.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 31^st, 2010 at 1:36pm:

I don't know why you are arguing with Beo on this, most of what he has said is correct. It was well intentioned, but everything after that "intention" was a pathetic joke of ignorance and mismanagement. Letting any clown do a course for a few hours, then set up a company and have his kids, and his cousins kids, running around people roofs is a disgrace, and foil should never have been considered as acceptable insulation anyway. Foil is good for sarking, and to add an extra layer of insulation protection with it, but batts in the ceiling are the best way to insulate your house. One thing Beo is wrong about is his figure about light fittings reducing effectiveness. [quote]I also said every gap around lights creates a 25% loss in efficiency./quote] So any house with more than 4 lights, just add insulation and it will act like reverse cycle aircon, in reverse, lol. There have been fires caused by batts incorrectly laid over downlights, and really there is absolutely no excuse for this. If I were in charge, I would be prosecuting every case of negligently incompetent installation, and taking their bloody homes off these shonks, they are crooks, and should face the full consequences of their crooked actions. As for allowing sparkies to charge $400 per house to check if it is safe, well that is another joke, because I am not a sparky, but I can use test equipment, and I could inspect about 10 to 20 houses a day, in fact I could probably just find out the names of the good installers, and those of the bad installers, and just inspect the ones from the guys who were not crooks, and do even more, because you know very well they were done right in the first place. Once more we see idiot politicians and bureaucrats who are flippin' clueless, getting expert advice from more who are only marginally less clueless. So we get rid of the insulation rort, and replace it with the insulation inspection rort. What is the bet we even get some guys who were fitting the insulation, starting a new company to inspect it? ;D

What I'm arguing with him about is his assertions that 240000 homes are to be reinspected, he has since backed away from that and settled in 150000, and he also says homes with non foil insulation need to be reinspected, I have not seen that said anywhere in the media and asked him for proof, I;'m still waiting. As far as I know there have been no house fires from non foil insulation as a result of the current scheme, maybe I'm wrong I'm giving people the chance to prove me wrong.
As for the schemes implementation, as I have already said it was not done well, but the process of insulating your home is a great idea and as I've tried to point out to beo it is well worth doing.

as for the foil insulation itself, it is a great product, used correctly, which is placed under the roof, mostly roofing iron, not placed on the ceiling, which has caused the problems. I would doubt very much if any fires have started from installing foil insulation in the correct manner,under the roof. Foil insulation  is foil one side and batt material the other unlike sarking which is all foil.

I never asserted that Skippy...  Mozz noticed your being difficult for no reason, (and not just over that one figure which you kept misquoting btw)...I suggest everyone else will to.

I tell you what though I will assert that the whole sic 1.1 million should be inspected.

mind you they could cut it down by inspecting one from every company at random except for new companies inspect 3 from them and then if they are clear only those home from companies found to be shoddy.  But it'll still be more than a few hundred thousand.

You are again lying about me "backing away"...  why do you always feel the need to lie about what i say and think?
Everyone can read you know...  why else would they be here?

you still deny nonfoil fires yet they have been in the media,  Foil was exclisive to electrocution only Skip.  I even posted a link to photos of burnt batts.  You saw them and still ignore it and lie?

Why do you always waste my time and effort.  I go out of my way continually for you and you lie and obfuscate all the time.

just admit you are wrong or ignorant of the facts, but don't keep wasting everyones time.

as for correct installation etc and product choice we aren't talking about that.

Greg Combat has `no idea' on dodgy installers
   * Nicola Berkovic and Matthew Franklin
   * From: The Australian
   * March 12, 2010 12:00AM

KEVIN Rudd's hand-picked fix-it man for the botched $2.45 billion home insulation scheme, Greg Combet, has admitted it was so poorly administered he has no idea how many of the 10,000 companies that delivered the insulation were dodgy.

It appears that at least $10 million of taxpayers' money has already been spent on external consultants, home inspections and costs other than the cost of fitting ceiling batts.

This is in addition to about $50m still to be spent fixing safety problems with foil insulation and about $50m more inspecting 150,000 homes with non-foil batts.
THATS NONFOIL BATTS SKIPPY

The problems came to light yesterday as the Prime Minister admitted he knew as early as August of potential safety and quality risks in the program.

As the opposition sought to implicate him, Mr Rudd refused to make public the correspondence that came across his desk on the scheme, citing the need to maintain cabinet confidentiality.

He continued to back the performance of Peter Garrett -- the minister he demoted over the scheme last month -- saying the Environment Protection Minister had acted properly on . . . departmental advice at all times.

There was confusion about how the cost of cleaning up the mess left by the program, with the minister responsible, Mr Combet, saying the cost would come from within the scheme.

But Wayne Swan warned he might have to cut other services in next year's budget to cover losses.

Since the insulation scheme collapsed three weeks ago, the government has admitted to serious rorting and safety problems, including 105 house fires caused by inept installers.

Yesterday, amid growing community concern about the safety of homes insulated under the program, The Australian asked Mr Combet's office how many of the 10,000 companies registered for the program had been audited for compliance with its safety protocols.

A spokesman for Mr Combet said the minister did not know.

Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said this showed the government's clean-up effort was in chaos.

"The government has no idea of the true extent of the problems with this program if it cannot even say how many firms have so far been checked," Mr Hunt said.

The government has revealed that when the scheme was suspended, only 2500 businesses out of more than 7500 registered at the time could meet the program's training standards.
THATS A LOT OF COMPANIES SKIPPY

Government figures also suggest about 240,000 homes could have quality or safety issues.
THERE'S YOUR 240,000 SKIP.
Mr Combet has committed so far to inspecting only 150,000 roofs out of the million fitted with non-foil insulation.

However, Mr Combet said, the government was prepared to inspect more homes if necessary.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong could not say yesterday in parliament how long it would take to deliver on the government's promise to remove or install safety switches in all 50,000 homes fitted with foil insulation.

She also could not say what the government would do with up to 10 million sq m of foil that may be removed from homes.

The government has revealed it has so far spent $1.5bn on the insulation scheme -- which roughly equates to the cost of the 1.1 million rebates.

It is understood a further $10m in expenses has not yet been included, suggesting this amount has been spent on other items, including advice from external consultants and 15,000 safety inspections already carried out.

In parliament, Tony Abbott demanded to know whether the Prime Minister would guarantee that all 1 million homes with potentially dangerous insulation would be checked.

A spokesman for Mr Combet said the government had been advised that 150,000 was "a prudent number of houses to inspect at this stage".

Audits would be aimed at the 7.6 per cent of homes feared to have fire hazards, he said.

During question time, the Opposition Leader and Mr Hunt peppered the Prime Minister with questions about when he knew of concerns about safety standards and rorting under the scheme, and what he did in response.

Mr Rudd gave a lengthy description of all correspondence he received, revealing that Mr Garrett wrote to him on August 14 proposing measures to tighten aspects of the scheme that "were related to safety".

However, Mr Rudd refused to make public the correspondence, saying documents relating to the cabinet process would be "appropriately protected".

Despite Mr Combet being critical of the administration of the scheme in a speech to parliament on Wednesday, Mr Rudd said he still believed Mr Garrett had responded properly to all material put before him by his department.

"We intend to get on with the business of accepting responsibility for the problems which have arisen from the implementation of

oh and Skip...  I'm ready for an UNCONDITIONAL APOLOGY anytime you are ready.

grendel - AND a bit of bowing and scraping would be appropriate :-)

entirely in keeping that the righty is right and the lefty is bent

So the journo says 240000 but the government are committed to 150000, we already established that.
What I will unconditionally apologize for is saying I could not find anywhere that stated non foil batts would be inspected.
I still don't see where it says there have been fires from those batts though. But if its out there I'm sure you'll find it.
There you go beo you were kinda right for once, does it feel good?

I suggest you reread it Skippy before I have to cut and paste the appropriate piece that proves you wrong again.

Am I tired of having to continuously do it...  YES!

Quote:

Government figures also suggest about 240,000 homes could have quality or safety issues

If you mean this, that is a sentence written by a journo from the OZ (enough said) not a government quote beo.
It also says suggests, bugger  I suggest it could be a million, but it doesn't make it right. Quit while you're ahead, you've had your moment in the sun.

Ah bugger it...  your a schmuck.


Government figures also suggest about 240,000 homes could have quality or safety issues.

Government figures not just some journos Skippy


Quote:

This is in addition to about $50m still to be spent fixing safety problems with foil insulation and about $50m more inspecting 150,000 homes with non-foil batts. THATS NONFOIL BATTS SKIPPY

FOUND...  COPIED...  PASTED....  HIGHLIGHTED... EVEN A NOTE ADDED...  THE QUESTION IS...  HOW DO YOU KEEP MISSING THEM?

Quote:

I still don't see where it says there have been fires from those batts though.

GOOD GRIEF...  I POSTED AN ARTICLE LINK WHICH ALSO HAD A FERKIN PICTURE...  JUST FOR YOU...  IT SHOWED NON-FOIL-BATTS... BURNT-NON-FOIL-BATTS

I GIVE UP.

I just wasted a whole frekin day on you and believe me you aren't worth it.

Quote:

I GIVE UP.

Pity you were going so well too.
I've already said you were correct beo, what do you want? a medal?

I will add though had the government said it was 2400000 they would have quoted the person who said it not just said "government figures suggest".

I am not certain that the fires have been definitively proven as being caused by incorrectly installed insulation, skip, but the number of roof fires has risen dramatically since the scheme began, so on the surface it appears there may be a correlation.

In NSW the fire-brigade have stated that fires were due to insulation installation.

You think maybe the government figures and their acceptance of them is a lie?


Quote:

GREG HUNT I think the best thing we can do to ensure this there is public confidence is for the government to commit to inspecting all of the homes. We know from government evidence to the Senate Inquiry that there are approximately 240,000 dangerous or dodgy insulation jobs out of a million. And that's without even counting the 50,000 foil houses. So that's one in four houses has either a dangerous or substandard insulation job. And that is a very, very significant thing, particularly in light what is now 106 confirmed insulation fires. What is now a statement by one of the most senior fire brigade executives in the country that all homes must be inspected. So we want the government and we expect the government and the Prime Minister today to confirm that all homes will be inspected.

grendel - leftards are very rarely worth it
very rarely worth anything

would hardly even wipe dogshit off my shoe onto their tongue, they are not worthit

Well sprint I accept some people are retards but not all on the Left and Right are.

I'm still waiting for that list BTW Skippy....