It’s not the rudeness, disparaging comments or thoroughly offensive antics of Judith Sloan that were at issue in the radio discussion I was involved in this morning on the economy, universities and other matters (listen here - http://tiny.cc/nsizaw ), it was the vacuous line that she took in discussing every issue.
Among the interruptions and bluster, Ms Sloan failed to mention any facts to support her assertions, and floundered over some very basic issues covering the mining tax, how to deal with any future global economic shock and fiscal policy. Quite astoundingly, her only answer when repeatedly questioned about what she’d do if Australia confronted another GFC type event was to cut wages. Not sure if that helps highly geared consumers or their banks or do much for the supply of labour either.
There were other issues she mentioned which on reflection had little factual support, but listen to the discussion and form your own views.
You are more tolerant than me Stephen. I just had to turn it off. She was breathtakingly rude. Far too much for a sunday morning. No doubt that sort of thing goes down well in faculty meetings but on radio she came across as a hectoring ignorant bully. And of course when she was asked for specifics she had nothing. Then there was "Steve Gates".
ReplyDeleteIn other words she has all attributes of a modern conservative politician. She'll go far in tony abott's liberal party..
Rudeness and disparaging comments! Mate, go back and look at your posts on Hockey and Robb. Don't like the taste of your own medicine, hey?
ReplyDeleteDrpage: Proving someone is not speaking the truth is neither rude nor disparaging. If it looks like a pooh, smells like a pooh, calling it a pooh is not rude. Cheers
ReplyDeleteThat was quite a performance by Sloan. For some reason, I finder her answer that she has no intention of entering politics not all that convincing.
ReplyDeleteI must confess to not knowing much about Judith Sloan.
ReplyDeleteBut if we’ve learnt anything in the last few weeks it’s that nothing rubs people the wrong way than the Rudd-like arrogance that Sloan was showcasing.
I missed the humour in her repeated line ‘maybe if you had gone to a real university’, but that might just be me.
We should aim for a little more humility and respect in public discourse, and that includes responses to people’s blogs, ‘drpage’.
As for Sloan entering parliament- if the Liberal Party were to give her a safe seat, she’d be perfect for the job. But why would she bother? She currently has more freedom to influence public policy than a parliamentarian does, but without the accompanying responsibility. This is the reason Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones have never taken up offers for Liberal preselection.
Stephen, I heard this morning's discussion. Judith Sloan is arrogant, rude, insulting, bombastic, patronizing, facile and WRONG in so many of her pronouncements. I loved that you stuck to your guns till she eventually answered the question of what she would advocate in next GFC - cut wages she admitted (most reluctantly it seemed) Jonathan Green should have made some attempt to keep her relevant and civil and it would have been a lot more interesting. I have been wondering why she gets so much airplay - she must seek it out I suppose. I wish there were some thoughtful conservative commentators in Australia.
ReplyDeleteMs Sloan has become a regular on The Drum and also appeared on Q&A a few weeks back. I didn't hear her on the radio yesterday but Jan's comments resonate with me from what I have seen of her elsewhere on the ABC. On Q&A she kept interrupting other guests and frequently employed the eye roll and heavy sigh, gestures that are sure signs you don't have anything else to offer. She has a really nasty attitude to other guests and wants to dominate the debate to exclusion of everyone else.
ReplyDeleteBTW, as a male I find the use of the word patronizing quite sexist - Ms Sloan would better be described as matronising. See definition #1 at the link below. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=matronize