Thursday 19 August 2010

AUDIO INTERVIEW: Jim Turnour on Cairns unemployment increase

Federal Leichhardt MP Jim Turnour, talks with CarinsBlog author, Michael Moore, following today's news of an increase in unemployment in Cairns and Far North Queensland. [Download MP3]


yk said...

What a disgrace. There are more Labor politicians in Cairns than there are fleas on the back of the average dog and our unemployment rate is among the highest in the country. Exactly what are they doing? Well, we found out this afternoon in this interview. They are talking non stop garbage! Dear old Jim is going to do, you know, lots when he is re-elected. He, you know, is going to fix things. Warren Entsch is, you know, going to take Cairns backwards. The only thing I really know is that there will be one more on the unemployment list after Saturday night.

Oliver Redlynch said...

This area doesn't need politicians, it needs ruddy miracle workers. Diversification of the local business has been ignored for DECADES whilst everyone pursued the "easy money" of tourism. Yes - diversification means INVESTING IN APPROPRIATE INFRASTRUCTURE (like roads and the NBN). So - we THEN have a GLOBAL turn down (yes - that means NOT JUST Australia) - coupled with swine flu, dengue scares and the like, and suddenly its the 3 year old politician Jim that "suddenly" cops the blame for "doing nothing" when tourism and building dries up. Get real people. Warren is no miracle worker, though he's going to need some to fullfill all the promises he's made. God help Cairns in the next three years, its going to need it.

Lil at Yorkeys said...

YK - you can talk yourself blue in the face over our useless Labor pollies in FNQ (and I agree, a useless bunch they are), but until Cairns diversifies itself away from its almost total dependence on tourism, this will occur time & again every time there is a downturn - which is about every 10 years. But yeah, Turncoat fighting for the NQEA contract to remain here, & about a thousand other things he could have fought for. What Wazza II will do is anyone's guess. Then again, if Labor is re-elected federally, & Wazza is elected in Leichardt, perhaps Wazza can make like an independent? Worth thinking about.

I remember there was a great sign posted on a bridge before an election in Melbourne years ago:
Don't Vote - It Only Encourages Them.

Thaddeus said...

"Wazza" aka "Shazza" will do exactly what he did last time and fly the party line faithfully in Leichhardt. He wasn't close buddies with John Howard for nothing. If you have a good look at the man, he isn't what he was when first elected all those years ago. Someone has pointed out that his eyes in particular look "sick".
Get up close to him for a reality check and notice other tell-tale signs. We all age, and we all get sick in our lives. Frankly, I don't believe he has the vigour and endurance any more to represent this electorate.

Tom said...

Correct on the health front Thaddeus. Wazza is dead man walking. He'll not get passed the half-way mark before nature claims him as a grossly failed specimen of humanity. Then; a by-election

KitchenSlut said...

I would hope "Wazza" doesn't get "passed" that could indeed be painful for both parties! On a personal level and despite opposing his candidacy as a retrograde step I do hope he makes it "past" the half way mark because I don't wish ill health on anybody?

Perhaps Tom should reconsider his judgement on a "grossly failed specimen of humanity" which reflects rather more poorly on himself than Entsch?

Tom said...

Ha, just a typo in my haste KitchenSlut (you make them too).
And why does my comment reflect more poorly on myself? Entsch looks like a man who has almost killed himself with a lifestyle of over-indulgance. It's a valid lay observation by a constituent upon a candidates apparent health outlook. He is not a good look, and no party would have such a look in their prime ministerial candidates.

KitchenSlut said...

"He is not a good look, and no party would have such a look in their prime ministerial candidates."

"Look" is what matters most? perhaps thats part of the problem How many past leaders would have been rejected on that modern basis?

The comment "grossly failed specimen of humanity" justifies my comments despite your attempts to now spin around it which only become more contemptible?