Bowside,
You are the one that brought up the 'bash' business. I was just responding to that.
IS did actually, I was responding to him. But it's semantics in any case - lets forget about it.
It isn't quite what I was saying. A few comments:
1. I don't think he personally is envious, but he is certainly leveraging tall poppy syndrome in his audience.
2. I agree that people will often (but not always) use their money and influence to promote their self interests. This will include billionaires.
3. I don't understand how you don't see the irony of what you are saying however. There is no doubt that Swan was also promoting his own self interest. He was using his own influence and power to do so publicly. If he is allowed to do it - why aren't others?
4. If a billionaire was using his influence to push an agenda that aligned with what the Labor party wanted to do, but against the Liberal party - do you think Swan would have mentioned them in his article and speech? Funny how Swan would only consider it promoting self interest or not in the benefit of the Australian people if it is against what his beliefs are (do you really think all his ideas and beliefs are for the benefit of the majority of Australians)?
5. Why did he not have a go at the multi-nationals, BHP, Rio and Xstrata, they were the main objectors to the first mining tax. He didn't pick out these guys because it wasn't in his own interest.
I was sort of typing the original post knowing that you would point this out, I see the irony and I understand the point you are trying to make. I would argue that Plamer, Reinhardt and Forrester are promoting self interest whereas swan as treasurer is promoting the nations interest.
I think swans self interest and the nations interests are different things. If swan was really obsessed with self interest, economically at least he would probably not be in government but rather working somewhere in the private sector. He is the treasurer, it is part of his job to use his power and influence to further the national interest. That is why the Australian public elected him.
You then go on to say "If he is allowed to do it - why aren't others?", if that is in reference to the public criticisms of palmer and co., I actually said a few posts above that I thought there is nothing wrong with them being critical - but that doesn't make their criticisms valid. If it is a reference (as I suspect it is) to using ones influence/money/power to influence others, then again I would argue that swan has a mandate to influence (in the national interest of course) by virtue of being the treasurer.
At the end of the day, yes, for the
most part I think his ideas and beliefs
as treasurer are for the benefit of the majority of Australians - as they should be. You obviously don't - fair enough. I dont think there is much to be gained from talking about this any further.
I apologise for the quality of my response and the spelling and grammatical errors - it is late.