Some of you will have noticed how Malcolm and some of the other members of the *blue* team have been bleating on about the "boat people" and how the supposed current influx of them is a direct result of our government's *slack, lax and inapropriate* immigration policy.
It's interesting because Possum has done some clever analysis here on whether it's the "pull" or "push" factors that are driving this - a must read for those who can.
The truth is that it's the environment that the "boat people" are trying to escape from rather than the environment that they are trying to escape to that is driving these movements.
In other words, things are so bad at home that they will risk their lives to find somewhere else to live.
But its the *numbnuts* in the *blue* team and sadly also Malcolm who are trying to suggest that all of this is due to some imagined *hopelessly dark* policy of our government.
The thing is that these *blues* have nothing worthwhile to contribute.
And they are doing it because they know that there is a smallish subset of our community - fuelled by an opportunistic media - who are so thick, so dumb, so uninformed, so racist and so bogan that they will lap it up and cheer the *blues* on.
They hope that the temporary support of these people will somehow improve the *blues* abysmal polling.
Well they won't - all it really does is diminish the respect that thinking Australian's have for the *blues* version of "Opposition".
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
PacBrands and clever management
How the worm turns.
Remember how a year or so ago Pacific Brands was in the news because they were sacking local staff, moving all of their production offshore and closing down their Australian manufacturing operations?
And their CEO - Sue Morphet was exposed as just another executive on an outrageous salary.
All of which was justified on the basis of having to tweak and fine tune the business to make it operate better - for the shareholders.
Well, yesterday at their annual general meeting all of this was exposed as the BS that it is.
As a result of their inability to manage their exposure to currency movements, it was revealed that the business is down around $40 million.
So they apparently needed to move their Australian manufacturing offshore to take account of a cheaper cost base in Asia. They also had to sack over 1000 staff and pay their CEO and other executives enormous sums to ensure that they had the best possible management.
But they stuffed up their currency hedging and are now in the red to the tune of $40 million as a result.
I wonder if anyone else has noticed the contradiction. If you send manufacturing offshore then you obviously need to pay much more attention to your currency risk - why didn't they?
I wonder what their next great idea will be? Sell their products locally in peso's and eliminate the currency problem.
PacBrands shareholders should be revolting.
Remember how a year or so ago Pacific Brands was in the news because they were sacking local staff, moving all of their production offshore and closing down their Australian manufacturing operations?
And their CEO - Sue Morphet was exposed as just another executive on an outrageous salary.
All of which was justified on the basis of having to tweak and fine tune the business to make it operate better - for the shareholders.
Well, yesterday at their annual general meeting all of this was exposed as the BS that it is.
As a result of their inability to manage their exposure to currency movements, it was revealed that the business is down around $40 million.
So they apparently needed to move their Australian manufacturing offshore to take account of a cheaper cost base in Asia. They also had to sack over 1000 staff and pay their CEO and other executives enormous sums to ensure that they had the best possible management.
But they stuffed up their currency hedging and are now in the red to the tune of $40 million as a result.
I wonder if anyone else has noticed the contradiction. If you send manufacturing offshore then you obviously need to pay much more attention to your currency risk - why didn't they?
I wonder what their next great idea will be? Sell their products locally in peso's and eliminate the currency problem.
PacBrands shareholders should be revolting.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Jetstar and Flight Centre Suck
This year I have done about 16 trips - a trip being defined as going somewhere away from home base and then returning to base sometime later. Today I am attempting to undertake trip number 17 - without much success.
I almost always book online and often will book directly with the airline but sometimes I use Flight Centre or Webjet to find the best deals and flight frequency.
That is a big mistake - because I have just discovered that the *aggregators* don't actually pass through my contact details when booking a flight on my behalf.
Today I discovered the unhappy reality of this. Last week I booked a trip to Hobart from Melbourne using Flight Centre and flying with Jetstar today and back next Tuesday.
Bad luck for me that the outbound Jetstar flight has been cancelled. And they didn't bother to contact me to make alternative arrangements.
When I fronted up to check in I discovered that I had been shifted to a Qantas flight - TWO FRIGGIN HOURS later. How is that going to play out with my Hobart arrangements this evening?
Fortunately I now have an extra couple of hours to post airline and travel stories on my blog.
Excuse me, but I am well known to both Jetstar and Qantas. As I mentioned earlier, I am about to embark on my 17th trip of the year - probably more than 30+ flight legs. What is their excuse for not contacting me?
Over 35 years of flying domestically and internationally with these and other airlines - and all I get today from the Jetstar checkin person is a lecture about how it's my fault that they didn't contact me.
Jetstar and their customer service sucks and Flight Centre needs to work hard to capture any of my future business.
I almost always book online and often will book directly with the airline but sometimes I use Flight Centre or Webjet to find the best deals and flight frequency.
That is a big mistake - because I have just discovered that the *aggregators* don't actually pass through my contact details when booking a flight on my behalf.
Today I discovered the unhappy reality of this. Last week I booked a trip to Hobart from Melbourne using Flight Centre and flying with Jetstar today and back next Tuesday.
Bad luck for me that the outbound Jetstar flight has been cancelled. And they didn't bother to contact me to make alternative arrangements.
When I fronted up to check in I discovered that I had been shifted to a Qantas flight - TWO FRIGGIN HOURS later. How is that going to play out with my Hobart arrangements this evening?
Fortunately I now have an extra couple of hours to post airline and travel stories on my blog.
Excuse me, but I am well known to both Jetstar and Qantas. As I mentioned earlier, I am about to embark on my 17th trip of the year - probably more than 30+ flight legs. What is their excuse for not contacting me?
Over 35 years of flying domestically and internationally with these and other airlines - and all I get today from the Jetstar checkin person is a lecture about how it's my fault that they didn't contact me.
Jetstar and their customer service sucks and Flight Centre needs to work hard to capture any of my future business.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Tax and Equity in OZ
Anyone who is even remotely concerned about tax and equity in Australia MUST read this.
Ken Henry is clearly a person who understands the problem and wants to deal with it.
I have been waiting for someone with power to talk about this and set in train a process for change for 30 years - and here he is.
Thank goodness - he is a breath of fresh air.
Lets now just get on with it and build an equitable and fair system.
Ken Henry is clearly a person who understands the problem and wants to deal with it.
I have been waiting for someone with power to talk about this and set in train a process for change for 30 years - and here he is.
Thank goodness - he is a breath of fresh air.
Lets now just get on with it and build an equitable and fair system.
Monday, October 12, 2009
The Advertiser - ho hum
This is what happens when you are running a 20th century monopoly business in a 21st century reality world - and have not prepared yourself, your staff or your customers for change.
Rupert is grappling with this problem on a global scale and "The Advertiser" is feeling the hard edge in downtown Adelaide.
As an aside, the thing that infuriates me about this petty little paper is it's inability to tell the truth - about anything. It's obviously reporting about a parallel universe that is far far away near la la land. But I digress.
Here's the explanation of why they are in this mess and what they should do to fix it.
But they won't because Adelaide is a provincial town - populated by insular people with quaint habits and hyper sensitivities - and some of them work at "The Advertiser".
Rupert is grappling with this problem on a global scale and "The Advertiser" is feeling the hard edge in downtown Adelaide.
As an aside, the thing that infuriates me about this petty little paper is it's inability to tell the truth - about anything. It's obviously reporting about a parallel universe that is far far away near la la land. But I digress.
Here's the explanation of why they are in this mess and what they should do to fix it.
But they won't because Adelaide is a provincial town - populated by insular people with quaint habits and hyper sensitivities - and some of them work at "The Advertiser".
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Battle of the big ideas
The contest between Labor and Liberal - indeed all political parties should really be a battle of the *big ideas*.
Each party should have a robust "idea generator culture" where elected members and others can contribute and debate the big ideas and then offer the best of them to the electorate at the next election.
These big ideas should reflect the policy positions of the parties with respect to the major issues that influence our lives - indeed all government touchpoints.
But do they?
The last time the Liberals had a *big idea*, they didn't even bother to mention it prior to imposing it on the electorate after the 2004 election - that was WorkChoices. Not so much a big idea as a big cock up.
In contrast, the *reds* seem to generate a lot of big ideas - the most recent is the work that Frank Brennan and others have done with The National Human Rights Consultation Committee.
This is important work and will add enormously to the debate around human rights and how we as a nation should move forward.
But already the usual suspects have started to criticse the report - without offering any constructive alternatives - except the status quo - which seems also to be the *blues* position.
In particular, the Murdoch press apparently think that any ideas that come from the *red* team are bad - while non-ideas from the *blue* team are good. It's all very tiresome.
I would actually like to see (and hear) the *blues* generate some *big ideas* so that we can get to learn what they stand for and what they intend to offer at the next election.
I know the *reds* will be doing it - and hope we can encourage the other teams to generate and publish their *big ideas* too.
Are the *blues* up to it? Do they actually have any *big ideas*? Can they mention them?
Each party should have a robust "idea generator culture" where elected members and others can contribute and debate the big ideas and then offer the best of them to the electorate at the next election.
These big ideas should reflect the policy positions of the parties with respect to the major issues that influence our lives - indeed all government touchpoints.
But do they?
The last time the Liberals had a *big idea*, they didn't even bother to mention it prior to imposing it on the electorate after the 2004 election - that was WorkChoices. Not so much a big idea as a big cock up.
In contrast, the *reds* seem to generate a lot of big ideas - the most recent is the work that Frank Brennan and others have done with The National Human Rights Consultation Committee.
This is important work and will add enormously to the debate around human rights and how we as a nation should move forward.
But already the usual suspects have started to criticse the report - without offering any constructive alternatives - except the status quo - which seems also to be the *blues* position.
In particular, the Murdoch press apparently think that any ideas that come from the *red* team are bad - while non-ideas from the *blue* team are good. It's all very tiresome.
I would actually like to see (and hear) the *blues* generate some *big ideas* so that we can get to learn what they stand for and what they intend to offer at the next election.
I know the *reds* will be doing it - and hope we can encourage the other teams to generate and publish their *big ideas* too.
Are the *blues* up to it? Do they actually have any *big ideas*? Can they mention them?
Friday, October 9, 2009
Malcolm and the blues
I must confess - as someone who doesn't often vote for the *blues* that I like Malcolm - he is not your typical *blue* MP because he is youngish, smart, capable, successful, intelligent and most of all - he understands (and wants to deal with) the carbon problem.
Now this might mean that he is attractive to a wide range of potential *blue* voters - but apparently he is not at all attractive to existing *blue* voters - duh.
According to "The Australian" today, he is his own worst enemy and his problems with the *blues* are largely of his own making and by the way he should pull his socks up and become well more *blue*.
Excuse me - he is doing the job that I would expect him to do if I were a *blue* supporter. Just because the existing supporters and their cheer squad in the Murdoch press don't think he is dumb enough or compliant enough or subserviant enough doesn't mean that he should actually be any different.
In fact, Malcolm is now in a unique position. If he can push through the current crisis and assert his leadership then it may well be that the *numbnuts* will leave (or at least pull their heads in) and the *blue* team will come back to the centre where they can re-acquire the support of mainstream Australia.
If he manages to do that successfully then Kevin and co will really have a contest on their hands at the 2010 election.
Now this might mean that he is attractive to a wide range of potential *blue* voters - but apparently he is not at all attractive to existing *blue* voters - duh.
According to "The Australian" today, he is his own worst enemy and his problems with the *blues* are largely of his own making and by the way he should pull his socks up and become well more *blue*.
Excuse me - he is doing the job that I would expect him to do if I were a *blue* supporter. Just because the existing supporters and their cheer squad in the Murdoch press don't think he is dumb enough or compliant enough or subserviant enough doesn't mean that he should actually be any different.
In fact, Malcolm is now in a unique position. If he can push through the current crisis and assert his leadership then it may well be that the *numbnuts* will leave (or at least pull their heads in) and the *blue* team will come back to the centre where they can re-acquire the support of mainstream Australia.
If he manages to do that successfully then Kevin and co will really have a contest on their hands at the 2010 election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
