# Who are you voting for?



## mark70920 (16 November 2007)

Now we have a week to go what decision have you made?


----------



## Absolutely (16 November 2007)

I am voting for Johnny. I don't trust little Kev. I don't think he is all he makes himself out to be. And I don't like the idea of complete labour political dominance on a state and federal level together.   

Change is hard and Johnny has had the courage to make significant changes - however unpopular they may me - ie the GST and Work Choices. It shows that he is interested in bettering the country and not just in staying popular with the fans.

Better the devil you know. I think Kev could be dire. but unfortunately - I expect he will win.


----------



## doctorj (16 November 2007)

Which house?


----------



## marklar (16 November 2007)

I'm voting for myself, I'm on the Senate ticket in Victoria 

m.


----------



## mark70920 (16 November 2007)

doctorj said:


> Which house?




Tried to keep it fairly simple , we could list every seat for both houses and every candidate , how far do you go 
However if you want to do it for both houses I think you would need to set up two polls.


----------



## Rafa (16 November 2007)

good work Mark...

I acutually think the poll should be only
Labor
Libs
Other with Pref to Labor
Other with Pref to Libs


Thats really all that matters as far as the lower house goes, with the preferential form of voting, plus it keeps things simple and to what really matter, i.e. which party do you want to form government?


----------



## Julia (16 November 2007)

Won't commit myself yet.  A few weeks ago it would definitely have been Liberal.  I quite like Kevin Rudd but the coast to coast Labor, plus Wayne Swan as Treasurer and Julia Gillard as anything put me off Labor.
And then there's Garrett!  No, I guess it will have to be Liberal.
What a miserable choice.


----------



## Timmy (16 November 2007)

Good poll - lets hope the sample size grows and knobblers dont vote more than once hahahahahaha


----------



## mark70920 (16 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> good work Mark...
> 
> I acutually think the poll should be only
> Labor
> ...




Thats exactly what I put , a higher power added the greens (Just add it to other with a Labor Perference  )


----------



## nioka (16 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Won't commit myself yet.  A few weeks ago it would definitely have been Liberal.  I quite like Kevin Rudd but the coast to coast Labor, plus Wayne Swan as Treasurer and Julia Gillard as anything put me off Labor.
> And then there's Garrett!  No, I guess it will have to be Liberal.
> What a miserable choice.




But then there is Costello and Abbot, a more miserable choice. Any independents in your area. They get my first preference (then Rudd.)


----------



## Dukey (16 November 2007)

How about Abbot re work choices!!  He's absolutely capable of losing it for the libs all by his lonesome...
"... if you don't like your work conditions... just find another job ya mug!!"  

Well - he'll be in the cue soon enough methinks


----------



## Julia (16 November 2007)

nioka said:


> But then there is Costello and Abbot, a more miserable choice. Any independents in your area. They get my first preference (then Rudd.)




Yep, Nioka, you are right to remind me about Abbott and Costello.
No, there is no Independant in this area.  I have emailed the Labor candidate twice with a question and not received any reply so he's earned a minus 10.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 November 2007)

I'll probably vote differently in House of Reps to Senate.


----------



## So_Cynical (16 November 2007)

Labor in the house of reps and Dr Karl Kruszelnicki in the senate.

Always take great pleasure in putting that idiot Hanson last on the Senate paper.


----------



## YELNATS (16 November 2007)

Julia said:


> the coast to coast Labor, put me off Labor.




But could coast-to-coast Labour help the country, by putting an end to the federal-state / state-federal blame game ???


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 November 2007)

So_Cynical said:


> Labor in the house of reps and Dr Karl Kruszelnicki in the senate.
> 
> Always take great pleasure in putting that idiot Hanson last on the Senate paper.




makes sense to me cynclal 



YELNATS said:


> But could coast-to-coast Labour help the country, by putting an end to the federal-state / state-federal blame game ???




exactly what I'm thinking yelnats


----------



## Julia (16 November 2007)

YELNATS said:


> But could coast-to-coast Labour help the country, by putting an end to the federal-state / state-federal blame game ???




Well, yes, it could.  But it could also ensure a rise in the GST.
It would certainly seem a good idea from the point of view of Health.


----------



## Julia (16 November 2007)

So_Cynical said:


> always take great pleasure in putting that idiot Hanson last on the Senate paper.




She was interviewed on ABC Local Radio Qld this evening and one of the questions was who would she ask to dinner at her home if she could have five people.  One proposed guest was Albert Einstein!!!
Can't you just imagine the conversation?


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Well, yes, it could.  But it could also ensure a rise in the GST.
> It would certainly seem a good idea from the point of view of Health.



Sometimes I wonder if a rise in the GST isn't just what we need   (although I haven't even seen speculation on that one, - by either party - and equally likely by either party etc etc - and it would have to be considered by a thousand committees no doubt first) 
those that spend the most pay the most.-
good way to tax the wealthy and kerb unnecessary spending.
(PS I am not an economist if you hadn't guessed already , lol)

also - a good ting about GST of course is that exporters effectively get supported (to compete on international market)  - how else do we combat the rising AUD ?


----------



## Aussiejeff (17 November 2007)

YELNATS said:


> But could coast-to-coast Labour help the country, by putting an end to the federal-state / state-federal blame game ???




Not according to the latest Westpoll today...

_"PRIME Minister John Howard has dramatically improved his standing in Western Australia but the Coalition is at risk of losing two seats to Labor, according to the latest Westpoll. Westpoll shows the *coalition ahead of the ALP 52 per cent to 48 per cent on a two-party preferred basis in WA*. 

The poll, published in today's The West Australian, is a *10-point turnaround from last month when the ALP led the Coalition 53-47*. Mr Howard is the preferred prime minister in WA, the first time since July. The Prime Minister scored 49 per cent to Labor leader Kevin Rudd's 41 per cent. 

The Liberals are attracting 47 per cent of the primary vote, up from 43 per cent in October. 
The ALP has dropped eight percentage points, recording 38 per cent."_

Of course, the Liberals have been claiming all along that these polls are "totally meaningless", so I would expect they will not try to make any mileage or make any comment at all regarding this "remarkable turnaround" in the Westpoll. 

I actually agree in part with the sentiment that most of these polls "cannot be trusted". All these newspapers are run by businesses who in one way or other, have a political bias or agenda barrow to push, which ultimately has to affect the way their polling questions or demographics are manipulated. The fact that they don't re-poll a set sample group over the whole pre-election period means you can never know whether that set section of the population is actually changing their opinion over time or not - unlike the ASF polls which are probably more reliable!!! Hahahaha... 

Cheers,

AJ

PS: Is anyone as p***ed off over the sheer quantity of political adverts on TV as I am? My Widescreen LCD is in serious danger of wearing a size 12 boot!


----------



## explod (17 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Sometimes I wonder if a rise in the GST isn't just what we need   (although I haven't even seen speculation on that one, - by either party - and equally likely by either party etc etc - and it would have to be considered by a thousand committees no doubt first)
> those that spend the most pay the most.-
> good way to tax the wealthy and kerb unnecessary spending.
> (PS I am not an economist if you hadn't guessed already , lol)
> ...





The idea that the ALP will raise GST appears to have no basis in fact.  Spread as part of the scare campaign.  In fact if Rudd increases spending towards education, hospitals and infrastructure, as indicated, the states will not required increases.  Against the ongoing bull of promises we have to tqke some of Rudd at face value, just as many on this thread say we should of Howard.    And on the issue of experience, they all have to start somewhere.

I'll give it to ALP and the Greens in the upper


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 November 2007)

explod said:


> I'll give it to ALP and the Greens in the upper



explod - yep - me too

there's an old bloke down the road - magic old bloke - WWII RAF veteran
he just wants to live long enough to see Labour get in again  - 
perhaps I'm misquoting him - but he would die the happier - and hopefully in another 20 years lol


----------



## Aussiejeff (17 November 2007)

Maybe Howard has a chance after all. The fact that both parties have admitted they can't really control many of the factors that affect interest rate rises has pretty much killed the debate over interest rates. The potentially major stumbling block for the Coalition of the last interest rate rise seems to have been forgotten by the electorate already....

With hindsight, I also reckon Rudd made a critical mistake in promising almost as much in tax cuts as Howard did. His argument of not spending as much would now be significantly more potent if he had instead spent say, only $10 Billion on tax cuts and up to $10 Billion on infrastructure (total "only" $20 Billion). As a potential swing voter to Labor, his current focus on the "we will spend less" argument has a bit of a hollow ring to it as a result of his initial "knee jerk", "me too" tax cuts. 

So, Howard might yet come home "with a wet sail"....


AJ


----------



## rederob (17 November 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> I actually agree in part with the sentiment that most of these polls "cannot be trusted". All these newspapers are run by businesses who in one way or other, have a political bias or agenda barrow to push, which ultimately has to affect the way their polling questions or demographics are manipulated. The fact that they don't re-poll a set sample group over the whole pre-election period means you can never know whether that set section of the population is actually changing their opinion over time or not - unlike the ASF polls which are probably more reliable!!! Hahahaha...
> Cheers,
> AJ



Maybe there was a poll that showed the coalition ahead since Rudd took the Labor helm - but I never saw one.
The consistency of the trend and the "gap" across all States and demographics suggests that the polls have got it right.
Centrebet has Labor at $1.20 and Coalition at $4.60 today.  Once labor moves to $1.10 it's put down your glasses.


----------



## hangseng (17 November 2007)

*Labor policy costings 'not submitted'*

"The deadline expired last night for policies to be sent to the department for checking the accuracy of their estimated cost."

"I am advised as of 5.30pm yesterday the Labor party had only submitted $2.4 billion out of the $12 billion of spending promises it has made so far in this election," Mr Howard told journalists in Adelaide.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Natio...icies-costed-PM/2007/11/16/1194766958206.html


Now why am I not surprised?


----------



## explod (17 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> *Labor policy costings 'not submitted'*
> 
> "The deadline expired last night for policies to be sent to the department for checking the accuracy of their estimated cost."
> 
> ...




That entire costing was a Howard furphy so Labor didn't bother as it was rigged against them.   Everyone has tired of Howard's tricks and are set to try something else.   

The polls yes, have been doggedly consistent all year, wont' change now


----------



## Julia (17 November 2007)

explod said:


> That entire costing was a Howard furphy so Labor didn't bother as it was rigged against them.   Everyone has tired of Howard's tricks and are set to try something else.



How could John Howard have rigged how Treasury would cost Labor's promises?
Why should Labor not be required to submit their plans to Treasury for costing?


----------



## hangseng (17 November 2007)

explod said:


> That entire costing was a Howard furphy so Labor didn't bother as it was rigged against them.   Everyone has tired of Howard's tricks and are set to try something else.
> 
> The polls yes, have been doggedly consistent all year, wont' change now





No "furphy" just plain fact that Labour have not submitted policies for costing

WHY NOT? what are they hiding?


----------



## explod (17 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> No "furphy" just plain fact that Labour have not submitted policies for costing
> 
> WHY NOT? what are they hiding?




My point is, (as has always been the practice) it would not matter what labor put forward, Costello would distort it with his usual smug asides.  In fact from that point he is as bad as Keating of late.   Power corrupts.


----------



## hangseng (17 November 2007)

explod said:


> My point is, (as has always been the practice) it would not matter what labor put forward, Costello would distort it with his usual smug asides.  In fact from that point he is as bad as Keating of late.   Power corrupts.




Yes it does, just look at the WA Labour party and it's past stalwarts Burke and Grill and current sitting member Shelley Archer. Labour has again demonstrated what corruption is all about.

Costello is quite simply an excellent treasurer and his fiscal management is on record. Who in the proposed Labour line up can compare or even come close?

Labour wee required to submit for costing evaluation and quite simply didn't. They have something to hide of that there is no doubt or they would have complied.


----------



## Julia (17 November 2007)

explod said:


> My point is, (as has always been the practice) it would not matter what labor put forward, Costello would distort it with his usual smug asides.  In fact from that point he is as bad as Keating of late.   Power corrupts.



What Costello might comment on afterwards isn't really the point, Explod.
Don't you think Labor has an obligation in all good faith to submit their plans to Treasury?  A lot of promises have been made by both sides  and we deserve to know that they are in fact fundable.


----------



## doctorj (17 November 2007)

explod said:


> In fact from that point he is as bad as Keating of late. Power corrupts.



Anyone "as bad as Keating" would get my vote in a heartbeat.  Its a shame there's no one of his ilk on either side of politics at the moment.


----------



## explod (17 November 2007)

doctorj said:


> Anyone "as bad as Keating" would get my vote in a heartbeat.  Its a shame there's no one of his ilk on either side of politics at the moment.




Sorry about that, it was in fact a poor attempt to ballance a weak argumant.  Interestingly was just leafing through John Edwards 'inside story' on Keating  (1996).   A couple of years ago was discussing politics with a Chinese businessman who said that they had regarded Keating as one of the best economists of the time.  There is no doubt that his hard decisions and goundwork made the ride easy for Howard.  The problem is, is that few people really understand the big picture in economics and many of its students a guided from clouded and narrow versions.   

For anyone really interested, a great place to start is the story of the Rothchilds and the establishment of banks.   A big message comes through when one learns that in some of the most important wars, both sides were financed by the one person.


----------



## spartn (17 November 2007)

hi guys

this will be my 3 election voting now. And out of all of them this has probably been the closest i will ever get to voting labour, but i wont. 

I am sorry if this offends people but i cant and will not vote for a party that wants to help people who are 38 and older buy there first home, i am 30 know i have just paid off my house in Lysterfield which i paid for just under 250K in 2001. All i have to say is where the hell where these people spending there money between 25 - 30 years old, owning a house is an Australian dream but it doesn't mean you don't have to sacrifice to buy and pay one off.

And one of my friends who is 40 is voting labor. And we where watching TV and having a few drinks the other night when that labor add about John Howard not doing anything for 11 years to help the education system. My mate, said "that is exactly right". But you have to understand my friend just spent a bit over $50K buying a new Holden Calais which he took a 7 year loan out for, and he puts his only child through a cheap state government school. Education to me isn't expensive, people just need to put there fuc*ing priorities straight, if you aren't able to do that neither Howard or Rudd will be able to help you, its that simple.

Spartn

"viking"


----------



## numbercruncher (17 November 2007)

Spartn - Its not an Offensive position you have there, but it is kinda bizarre or perhaps selfish ....

It seems you are voting Liberal solely because others may get access to things that you have wisely already paid for ? Its like a I didnt get it so you shouldnt either situation ?

When you purchased your house you got 7000 or 3pc of the cost from the Government, I bet First home buyers dont get 3pc of the purchase price anymore ?

John Howard got free Medical, Dental and Education his entire life but now makes everyone pay ... That sorta seems like a double take, he probably even got his first home at 4 or 5 times the average salary instead of 8+ times.(I did, you probably did too).


----------



## spartn (17 November 2007)

H Numbercruncher

I did get the first home owners grant, but i wasn't dumb enough to use that as my ownly deposit. The people going around saying that you dont need a deposit are more than likely the ones that are suffering now with the increase in interest payment, when i brought my house i also had an 18 thousand dollar deposit, which took 5 years to save up, and like my friend i could of wasted it on a car, but i didn't.

And, yes i did buy my house at just over 4 times my earnings, so i arguement is about 38 and over is the fact that why didn't they buy there house then, 7 years ago they would of been the age at what i am now, and i couldn't even contemplate buying my house at 30 let alone 40. What i am trying to put forward is you cant just blame the government, people have to take the blame for there own choices.

And ask people this question, how many people do you know that didn't have a single TV for the first 4 years after moving out of there parents house? Not many! and thats just one of the sacrifices I made, people cant even hold off buying a bloody TV, and for most its one of there first appliances they buy.

Spartn

:viking:


----------



## numbercruncher (17 November 2007)

Heya Spartan,


People can buy a TV from the warehouse etc for $99 new, so we cant really begrudge them these little "luxurys" can we ?

The way i see things at the moment is that "things" (toys,TVs etc) the things we dont need are relatively very very cheap especially compared to a decade ago, but the things people "must" have (shelter,food,schooling,medical) is in many cases becoming prohibitvely expensive especially compared to a decade ago and as measured as a share of average incomes.

The goal should be for each generation to progressively have it better than the last, I dont see that atm.

Perhaps we arrived at the promised land some time ago but decided to move on ? shift the goal posts so to speak ?


----------



## imajica (17 November 2007)

spartn said:


> hi guys
> 
> this will be my 3 election voting now. And out of all of them this has probably been the closest i will ever get to voting labour, but i wont.
> 
> ...




hehe he spend over 50k on a Holden Calais!!! what a bogan mobile! he definitely needs some therapy over that choice!


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 November 2007)

Thought for the day folks.
It goes without saying that many of us (most of us) obviously live in safe electorates. 
The vote for the House of Reps in these circumstances becomes pretty irrelevant. 
But the Senate, now that vote will count irrespective, and the vote to enjoy the most.  
.........
I just wish they could use slightly less paper 

Here are your choices folks , at least for Senate Group Voting Tickets :-


> http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/groupvotingtickets.htm
> Group ticket voting works by each group lodging a full ticket of preferences to all candidates on the ballot paper. When a voter selects a party using the group ticket voting square, the vote is deemed to have the full list of preferences lodged by that group. A group can lodge one, two or three tickets, with votes divided equally between the tickets. More than 95% of voters use the group ticket voting square, effectively meaning that the distribution of preferences in the Senate is determined largely by deals between political parties





> ACT
> Group A - Australian Labor Party
> Group B - Australian Democrats (Ticket 1 of 2)
> Group B - Australian Democrats (Ticket 2 of 2)
> ...





> NSW
> Group A - Liberal/National Coalition
> Group B - Citizens Electoral Council
> Group C - Family First
> ...





> NT
> Group A - Citizens Electoral Council
> Group B - Australian Labor Party
> Group C - Australian Democrats (Ticket 1 of 2)
> ...





> QLD
> Group A - What Women Want
> Group B - Liberty and Democracy Party
> Group C - Climate Change Coalition
> ...





> SA
> Group A - One Nation
> Group B - Group B Independents
> Group C - Christian Democratic Party
> ...





> TAS
> Group A - What Women Want
> Group B - The Greens (Ticket 1 of 2)
> Group B - The Greens (Ticket 2 of 2)
> ...





> VIC
> Group A - Climate Change Coalition
> Group B - One Nation
> Group C - Australian Democrats (Ticket 1 of 2)
> ...





> WA
> Group A - The Nationals
> Group B - Citizens Electoral Council
> Group C - Christian Democratic Party
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 November 2007)

You click on group voting , you accept their set of preferences as already negotiated between them ....

For instance, in NSW, the preference allocations for "Pauline's United Australia Party", can be found by clicking on that party...

(although I didn't realise all preference deals were done yet) . 

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/groupvotingtickets.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/gtv_nsw_d.htm



> NSW Group D - Pauline's United Australia
> Preferences  Candidate Party
> 1 BURSTON Brian Pauline's United Australia Party
> 2 CARTER John E Pauline's United Australia Party
> ...


----------



## Spaghetti (17 November 2007)

I am not voting Howard. He is morally bankrupt and has taken away too many freedoms and rights. He has become too secretive and hires total morons like Andrews. The war is unforgiveable, I mean you simply do not just go around invading countries that result in total destruction and massive loss of life without accountability.

The economy has been good to me because I realised that the share of profits allocated to shareholders was increasing for shareholders and decreasing for workers so I quit working and now trade the market for my living. However I am not entirely sure this is really an ethical way to run a country. 

So who I vote for will be the best one to knock off the liberal candidate.

I do hope Australia returns to be a nice country. Sick of rich people getting baby bonus and FOBG then complaining if a refugee gets a bed for a night or if a single mum has a galss of wine. A nasty streak seems to have grown under Howard's leadership along with right wing christianity strange enough.

So thats my feeling on the matter.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 November 2007)

mark70920 said:


> Now we have a week to go what decision have you made?





Hi mark70920, i`m submitting a blank piece of paper, meaning no one.

Why do you want to know?


----------



## Julia (17 November 2007)

Spaghetti said:


> I am not voting Howard. He is morally bankrupt and has taken away too many freedoms and rights. He has become too secretive and hires total morons like Andrews. The war is unforgiveable, I mean you simply do not just go around invading countries that result in total destruction and massive loss of life without accountability.
> 
> The economy has been good to me because I realised that the share of profits allocated to shareholders was increasing for shareholders and decreasing for workers so I quit working and now trade the market for my living. However I am not entirely sure this is really an ethical way to run a country.
> 
> ...




I think you're expressing how  a lot of people feel.  So easy to condemn people with nothing when you have plenty.


----------



## chops_a_must (17 November 2007)

spartn said:


> I did get the first home owners grant, but i wasn't dumb enough to use that as my ownly deposit.




And you are actually arguing that we don't need more funding for education? Geez... it's kind of funny... or sad... I'm not sure which.

I think people forget that most federal funding for education, goes into the tertiary system, which by and large, funds the education of citizens who at a point in their life need training/ education (and that society needs) that they would never be able to afford on their own at that time. But because they don't vote much, or don't generally get a vote on how their future education system is run, they haven't been catered too. It's not a matter of choosing cars over education. It's a matter of getting the brightest in society into the most needed positions, rather than having them go overseas or into a meaningless occupation that doesn't add value back to the community.

But now we can vote: People that have gone through the tertiary system, and have seen the massive staff cuts, massive fee increases, and massive loss in the quality of their education. For instance, my fees have gone up about 400% in 4 years. If I wanted to pay that, it would now cost me close to 15,000 per year. How many people here had to pay anything like that for their education? And what's worse, contact time, and class time has been cut by more than 50% for most courses. That's pretty drastic.

I just can't see how anyone can justify what has happened to the higher education system. And in my mind, if you vote in a way that does justify it, then you are a pretty low and despicable person.


----------



## wayneL (17 November 2007)

Spaghetti said:


> I am not voting Howard. He is morally bankrupt and has taken away too many freedoms and rights. He has become too secretive and hires total morons like Andrews. The war is unforgiveable, I mean you simply do not just go around invading countries that result in total destruction and massive loss of life without accountability.
> 
> The economy has been good to me because I realised that the share of profits allocated to shareholders was increasing for shareholders and decreasing for workers so I quit working and now trade the market for my living. However I am not entirely sure this is really an ethical way to run a country.
> 
> ...






Julia said:


> I think you're expressing how  a lot of people feel.  So easy to condemn people with nothing when you have plenty.



Agree here.

I've been bitching about this sort of social direction for a while. It's part of the progressive Americanization of Oz which I really detest. It's happening without the influence of the Howard cabal, so they are not totally to blame*, but they are certainly accelerating the process.

* The invasion of American business/men and their business practices are as much to blame.

Thankfully, I no longer have to make that decision. Now, how to get rid of Crash Gordon...


----------



## spartn (18 November 2007)

Chops a must

I spent 4 years studying finance at Melbourne University, and at the end had a HECS debt of over $70,000 dollars, now i am 30 and i am making more than that, so don't tell me about the cost of education because i have fricken been there.

Like i said about my friend who spent $50,000 on a new car and spends jack **** for his childs education, i personally just understand how people like that have the good damn balls to complain. 

It's the same as people who didn't bother the exercise because they figured it was more important to watch TV. And when they get sick they piss and moan about the price of health care.

And i have a questiion for the lot of you. Since the IR Laws were changed in 2005. Did you spend more time sitting in front of the TV set or did you spend more time trying to improve your financial situation?? I can almost guareentee what 95% of people did since than, and i have not a single once of compassion for those people, this is a democracy you get only what you deserve, plain and simple.

Spartn

:viking:


----------



## noirua (18 November 2007)

Don't forget, Mr Howard is very good at power walking and is up every morning regular and out to greet the media.


----------



## spartn (18 November 2007)

Spaghetti

One of my mates from university now works for the Brueau of Statistics in Melbourne, and one interesting fact before you start compliaining about how greedy the rich are is that out of all Australians the top 10% of the wealthiest people in Australia donate more than 70% of the money which goes to charity.

And if you find it unfair that the rich should get the baby bonus, i understand. But i also find it unfair that people who earn more than 300 - 400 K a year have to still pay for Medical Levy, while when most of them get sick they pay for it with there own money, now is that fair??

Spartn

:viking:


----------



## hangseng (18 November 2007)

spartn said:


> Chops a must
> 
> I spent 4 years studying finance at Melbourne University, and at the end had a HECS debt of over $70,000 dollars, now i am 30 and i am making more than that, so don't tell me about the cost of education because i have fricken been there.
> 
> ...




Agree completely.

I started out in life in the trade sector and progressed to higher education completely at my own expense and in my own time at a cost exceeding $50,000 without even trying to calculate lost income to achieve what I did.

I have watched the bleeding hearts complaining about what the likes of me now earn. While they chose the easy path of kicking back and enjoying (all the time teling me to loosen up a little), I chose to sacrifice both expense and personal enjoyment and time with my family. I now have a great life as do my well educated family.

I also listen to those who call them the "working" person and me they now call "lucky". As a great golfer once said "the harder I work the luckier I seem to get".

Take a longer term view of life, not the Y generation must have it now view. No government Labour, Liberal or otherwise will ever change that.

I once read a book by Harvey McKay and he stated the education you pay for will be valued, completed and you will learn as you have a stake in committing to making it work. Never a truer statement was made.


----------



## spartn (18 November 2007)

Hi Hangseng

I could not agree more with you. I respect people like you the most, one thing i just cant stand, is how people think luck has to do with it. all i have to say is "bull****"

Spartn

:viking:


----------



## numbercruncher (18 November 2007)

spartn said:


> Spaghetti
> 
> One of my mates from university now works for the Brueau of Statistics in Melbourne, and one interesting fact before you start compliaining about how greedy the rich are is that out of all Australians the top 10% of the wealthiest people in Australia donate more than 70% of the money which goes to charity.





I cant find any Info to confirm this , anyone have a link ? maybe it refers to Organisations as well as Individuals ?

Anyway, Australia (historically) is a very Charitable nation , some people donate something even more important than money, and thats their time, 18pc of Australians belong to voluntary organisations , and at the end of the day the SES or Rural fire brigades etc etc can have all the money in the world but without Labour they have nothing


----------



## Superfly (18 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> *Labor policy costings 'not submitted'*
> 
> "The deadline expired last night for policies to be sent to the department for checking the accuracy of their estimated cost."
> 
> ...




How Mr Howard pushes this hard...what can Labour say to get out of this...


----------



## chops_a_must (18 November 2007)

Superfly said:


> How Mr Howard pushes this hard...what can Labour say to get out of this...




I think it's a matter of principle after what the Liberals have done in the last few elections. The point could be made that the Liberals don't hand policy documentation to the Labor party.

And as long as the costings are independently verified, which I believe they are, I can't see the problem.


----------



## numbercruncher (18 November 2007)

Exactly, there is no problem, only person who thinks there is a problem is Johnny clutching at straws, no one else cares, wont be a single vote lost over that ..... Guess the Liberals will have to find something else quickly if they want to launch the mother of all scare campaigns.


----------



## hangseng (18 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> I think it's a matter of principle after what the Liberals have done in the last few elections. The point could be made that the Liberals don't hand policy documentation to the Labor party.
> 
> And as long as the costings are independently verified, which I believe they are, I can't see the problem.




*"as long as the costings are independently verified"*

Chops that is the whole point of this, Labour did not provide them to be "independently verified". They were required to be submitted for costing and failed to do so.

*Labour is hiding something, if they weren't they would have nothing to fear by doing so.*
Labour are fiscally void and completely irresponsible financial managers.


----------



## numbercruncher (18 November 2007)

Labor is hiding nothing ....


Its just pathetic Howard/Costello scare tactics and noone really cares.


The Howard Government has had access to the Finance Department all year, but Labor could only start getting its policies assessed once the election was called !

So the exact opposit could be the case if Labor wins election, next election Labor would have access to the finance dept all year and the opposition will get access once election is called.

Like i said Liberal needs to find another angle for the scare campaign no ones going to change votes because of this ,,,,,


----------



## nioka (18 November 2007)

spartn said:


> Spaghetti
> 
> One of my mates from university now works for the Brueau of Statistics in Melbourne, and one interesting fact before you start compliaining about how greedy the rich are is that out of all Australians the top 10% of the wealthiest people in Australia donate more than 70% of the money which goes to charity.
> :viking:




They get a tax deduction for it. They also only donate "surplus funds that they can't take with them. It is only money after all. My wife works one full day each week in a charity shop, freely giving her time ( something more valuable than money). I've spent years in surf clubs, rural, bushfire brigades, and as a shire councillor in the days when they weren't paid. Of course some of the rich aren't greedy but a hell of a lot are. Because some give to charity it doesn't make them special, I think it makes them human.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 November 2007)

nioka said:


> They get a tax deduction for it. They also only donate "surplus funds that they can't take with them. It is only money after all. My wife works one full day each week in a charity shop, freely giving her time ( something more valuable than money). I've spent years in surf clubs, rural, bushfire brigades, and as a shire councillor in the days when they weren't paid.



you've got my vote m8  - well done
A bloke at work gives hundreds of hours per year to SES.
organises / supervises boat races 
etc - deserves a bludy medal.


----------



## rederob (18 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> *"Chops that is the whole point of this, Labour did not provide them to be "independently verified". They were required to be submitted for costing and failed to do so.
> 
> Labour are fiscally void and completely irresponsible financial managers.*



*
I don't know what excuses people make for their laziness in posting, but if you prefer to believe what Howard trots out to what has actually been presented under the Charter of Budget Honesty, then so be it.
The fact is that Labor had, by end-October http://www.electioncostings.gov.au/index/opposition_costings, already presented 10 proposals for costing.

By the way, there is no "requirement" to submit anything for review by Treasury/Finance - it's a practice the parties should follow as it will ensure their costings are reliable.  

Most electors know that when Labor's interest rates were high, so were overseas rates.
Labor could point the electorate to the fact that our present interest rates are significantly higher than those in the US, or Japan - but it doesn't bother.

Labor knows that the Coalition has been asleep at the wheel in so many areas, and that the electorate knows this, too.

Meanwhile the only Coalition ads I see on tv, or hear on the radio, are based on scare tactics.  If Howard has a vision for the future, he needs to be out there selling it.  
Instead, Howard appears to be out there with a cheque book, buying his way back in.
and hangseng reckons Labor is fiscally void and completely irresponsible - an interest take!*


----------



## hangseng (18 November 2007)

rederob said:


> The fact is that Labor had, by end-October http://www.electioncostings.gov.au/index/opposition_costings, already presented 10 proposals for costing.
> 
> By the way, there is no "requirement" to submit anything for review by Treasury/Finance - it's a practice the parties should follow as it will ensure their costings are reliable.




"it's a practice the parties should follow as it will ensure their costings are reliable."

I agree, why then don't they provide all policies for costing, in particular taxation? Labour are selective and far from "reliable"

As for your cheap personal shots, they are just that and expected.


----------



## Julia (18 November 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Labor is hiding nothing ....



How do you know?



> Its just pathetic Howard/Costello scare tactics and noone really cares.



Not true.  I care and so do many others.



> The Howard Government has had access to the Finance Department all year, but Labor could only start getting its policies assessed once the election was called !



Well, what have they been doing for the last five weeks?



> Like i said Liberal needs to find another angle for the scare campaign no ones going to change votes because of this ,,,,,



Simply not true.  

Your comments are not objective.  There are still a lot of undecided voters out there - me among them - and Labor's apparent reluctance to have their policies costed by Treasury has a definite influence on how they/I feel.


----------



## mark70920 (18 November 2007)

spartn said:


> Spaghetti
> 
> One of my mates from university now works for the Brueau of Statistics in Melbourne, and one interesting fact before you start compliaining about how greedy the rich are is that out of all Australians the top 10% of the wealthiest people in Australia donate more than 70% of the money which goes to charity.
> 
> ...




Howards mate Richard Pratt donates lots of money to charity and the Libral Party , he also ripped off the Australia Public to the tune 400 to  700 million dollars , pleaded guilty and got fined a paltry 36 million dollars.


----------



## numbercruncher (18 November 2007)

Hi Julia,


Thanks for pulling me up, sometimes i need a good slapping. Good points you made, Im sure there are some undecided who's decision will hinge on this, Labor has already submitted plenty for costing they will get there, but surely you can see Liberal has a huge advantage in both time and resources. About the only people i see dwelling on this issue are Liberal supporters, your about the only undecided ive come across to seem concerned.

Wonder how different the world would be if Gore beat Johnny's mate Bush ?

Thats kinda how i view this election. 

Have a nice evening


----------



## Whiskers (18 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> "it's a practice the parties should follow as it will ensure their costings are reliable."
> 
> I agree, why then don't they provide all policies for costing, in particular taxation? Labour are selective and far from "reliable"
> 
> As for your cheap personal shots, they are just that and expected.




I'm a bit loathe to buy into this, but here goes.

As I recall this issue of policies getting costed by treasury comes up every year. I think it is all a bit of a beat up. After all John Howard didn't cost Work Choices before his last election. As far as I can recall he didn't announce a policy to introduce it pre election. It was only after he got control of the senate that he went goodie goodie, and went beserke with these policies. 

There is a lot of noise about can you trust wall to wall Labor. As a swinging voter, I am more concerned about a howard government with control of both houses in Canberra and what other radical policies might hit the table.

That's what turns me off him a lot, from once voting for him to now seriously considering giving Labour a go. His dishonesty over the handling of Iraq, the wheat board bribery scandal, children overboard etc, leaves him with little credability for me. I'm afraid he has turned out to be a bit of a cameleon, changing colour (policy) to please his audiance. I think many people won't forgive him this time, especially when there is a viable alternative.


----------



## rederob (18 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> "it's a practice the parties should follow as it will ensure their costings are reliable."
> 
> I agree, why then don't they provide all policies for costing, in particular taxation? Labour are selective and far from "reliable"
> 
> As for your cheap personal shots, they are just that and expected.



I suggest you stop showing your ignorance and come to grips with what Labor put to the PM (as required under the Charter) on 30 October - which, incidentally, was very well covered by all Australian media outlets.
Is there something else you would like to know before I turn in for the evening?


----------



## hangseng (18 November 2007)

rederob said:


> I suggest you stop showing your ignorance and come to grips with what Labor put to the PM (as required under the Charter) on 30 October - which, incidentally, was very well covered by all Australian media outlets.
> Is there something else you would like to know before I turn in for the evening?




No, but please have a good sleep.

I can learn nothing from you.


----------



## rederob (18 November 2007)

Julia said:


> There are still a lot of undecided voters out there - me among them - and *Labor's apparent reluctance to have their policies costed by Treasury has a definite influence on how they/I feel*.



Julia
Labor sent its key policies in for costing, and began on 26 October.
The Charter only allows Finance/Treasury to cost policies after the PM puts government into caretaker mode.
There is no capacity for the Opposition to have Treasury/Finance cost their policies without the government's consent, and the PM's once caretaker mode is invoked.
My earlier posted link can provide all the info you need on this issue.
It's a great con job that you and others seemed to have been sucked into if you believe Labor has dodged "costings", and who exactly has been perpetuating it?
Not another scare tactic from the Libs, surely?


----------



## rederob (18 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> No, but please have a good sleep.
> 
> I can learn nothing from you.



Yet I have learned from you.
And I continue to learn.
Many thanks for your honesty.


----------



## Dukey (19 November 2007)

Here's a nice bit of rhetoric from the one... the only ... Bob Ellis on the ABC website. Pretty much sums up where I'm at with this mob...  Full article linked above is worth a read - though rather bleak as Ellis tends to be - maybe he forgot to take his  medication...again...

"In my late old age, and my darkening humanist despondency (I'm an extremist, fundamentalist, humanist fanatic, my son says unforgivingly but kindly), I've lately thought of issuing a T-shirt, and it reads: 

'I think it's wrong to kill people; I think it's wrong to torture people, and wrong to hurt children. That's what I think. I'm a bleeding heart. How about you?' 

Because this is all, in the end, a bleeding heart is, and the Right was very shrewd when it made that description of ordinary human decency seem so damning, so naive, so unrealistic in a world of regrettable necessities like the inadvertent killing of tens of thousands of children, and the torture of many with dogs and sleeplessness and simulated drowning.

So I'm a bleeding heart, and I believe in right and wrong. And better and worse.

How about you?"

and OOhhh - those big red letters (added by myself - not Bob) are REALLY scary aren't they ? ...:hide:.. 
>> Anyone else notice how many big red letters have been all over the TV in this campaign of cr#p? And of course which side those ads were coming from?

.... & yes - I'm a bleeding Heart too - guess I forgot my medication ... again....

Good riddance John.


----------



## Superfly (19 November 2007)

Spaghetti said:


> I am not voting Howard. He is morally bankrupt and has taken away too many freedoms and rights. He has become too secretive and hires total morons like Andrews. The war is unforgiveable, I mean you simply do not just go around invading countries that result in total destruction and massive loss of life without accountability.
> 
> The economy has been good to me because I realised that the share of profits allocated to shareholders was increasing for shareholders and decreasing for workers so I quit working and now trade the market for my living. However I am not entirely sure this is really an ethical way to run a country.
> 
> ...




There are refugees and then their are economic refugess who try to enter Australia by unlawful means, and are rightly denied entry, show me one of our SE Asian neighbours who by their own actions don't support this type of action. 

Why should people who pay the most tax, get less benifets than people who pay the least tax.... 

What about Labour not costing their policys ????


----------



## Santoro (19 November 2007)

Superfly said:


> Why should people who pay the most tax, get less benifets than people who pay the least tax....




Something to do with keeping society civilized.....


----------



## rederob (19 November 2007)

Superfly said:


> What about Labour not costing their policys ????



Not so Superfly.

It is an interesting tactic though... say it often enough and someone is bound to believe you - irrespective of the facts.
hangseng can't learn from me
But I did offer a link above, and a fuller explanation below:


rederob said:


> Julia
> Labor sent its key policies in for costing, and began on 26 October.
> The Charter only allows Finance/Treasury to cost policies after the PM puts government into caretaker mode.
> There is no capacity for the Opposition to have Treasury/Finance cost their policies without the government's consent, and the PM's once caretaker mode is invoked.
> ...


----------



## Superfly (19 November 2007)

rederob said:


> Not so Superfly.
> 
> It is an interesting tactic though... say it often enough and someone is bound to believe you - irrespective of the facts.
> hangseng can't learn from me
> But I did offer a link above, and a fuller explanation below:




So Labour only have to lodge their key policies and not all policies, why is that .... are we meant to just trust Saint Kevin that everything else is ok.... 

Hope people don't begin to turn a blind eye to Saint Kevin just because it's not John Howard.... and give the looney left a free ride to take Australia backwards again....

Or are we not meant to ask the hard questions about Labour, only about the Libs.....


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 November 2007)

A quote from the past .. . In the words of Treasurer Peter Costello "The Howard treasurership was not a success in terms of interest rates and inflation... he had not been a great reformer."

As for stating the current finances of the nation .. let's hope Howard has done that a little more accurately this time.  (The fact is that Keating inherited from Howard an economy in poor shape and turned it around very dramatically).


----------



## Superfly (19 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> Agree completely.
> 
> I started out in life in the trade sector and progressed to higher education completely at my own expense and in my own time at a cost exceeding $50,000 without even trying to calculate lost income to achieve what I did.
> 
> ...




...Agree 100%


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 November 2007)

as a once-great golfer said - "who can afford to play golf these days"


----------



## numbercruncher (19 November 2007)

Superfly said:


> Why should people who pay the most tax, get less benifets than people who pay the least tax....





lol typical attitude of staunch Liberal supporters and a result of Howards devisive policies.

Next youll be demanding a halt to foreign Aid, afterall Foreigners pay us no tax !

Im sure Liberals will be happy to hear that they are recommending Fat people pay more for Airline tickets because of the extra weight costs, maybe itll get extended to Concert tickets too for the extra room they inhabit ?

This penny pinching attitude thats surfacing and spreading is really quite sad, and in a historical context UnAustralian. 

But we cant expect much more from the Liberal neoconservative mindset can we.


----------



## marklar (19 November 2007)

spartn said:


> I spent 4 years studying finance at Melbourne University



There is something seriously wrong with our education system if you were able to graduate from University with such poor spelling and grammar.  

m.


----------



## zt3000 (19 November 2007)

marklar said:


> There is something seriously wrong with our education system if you were able to graduate from University with such poor spelling and grammar.
> 
> m.




its called the internet .. no 1 can spil or tipe properly on here! lol


----------



## Dukey (19 November 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> lol typical attitude of staunch Liberal supporters and a result of Howards devisive policies.
> 
> Next youll be demanding a halt to foreign Aid, afterall Foreigners pay us no tax !
> 
> ...




Having been away from Oz for a few years , coming back periodically and now returned for good, I have notice a distinct increase in the prevalence of the un-Australian "I'm alright Jack" attitude, together with the  American "show me the money" attitude.
I believe this has been fostered by Howard, Ruddock and Co. with their vote buying, cunning fear campaigns and endless smarmy vilification of downtrodden folks who need a fair go. 

I - amongst many good Aussies I'm sure - am looking forward to a more compassionate Labor government to work on the traditional generosity, sympathy and empathy of the Australian people towards their brothers and sisters - both at home and abroad.

- Proud to have a bleeding heart.


----------



## Rafa (19 November 2007)

This is the most scary prospect of futher liberal power...
If there is one and only one reason to get rid of the liberals in Oz and the Repiblicans in the US, is their association with right wing churches.

It also shows more blatant missuse of the secrecy provisions...



> JOHN Howard has exchanged letters five times with the Exclusive Brethren since 2003, but after 14 months of stalling on a simple freedom-of-information request, his office will not release the correspondence until well after election day.
> 
> The Age was informed last week that it was authorised to receive edited copies of four letters from members of the secretive sect to the Prime Minister, and one from the Prime Minister to the Brethren sent as recently as September last year.
> 
> ...





http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/11/18/1195321608622.html


----------



## numbercruncher (19 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> This is the most scary prospect of futher liberal power...





Absolutely 


And thats before we even start on this chap ....


----------



## The Mint Man (19 November 2007)

I'm voting Liberal but I've got to say that I'm surprised at the poll result so far! Liberals are killing it!: considering the Galexy polls etc I'm 

I just don't see any substance in what Rudd says. We need someone who leads from the front, not sit back and see what the other 'mob' does then use that as a rule of thumb or straight out copy it.
Too much copy cating for mine

Cheers


----------



## numbercruncher (19 November 2007)

I cant see how anyone could possibly think Labor doesnt lead from the front .... Johnny only discovered climate change 5 minutes ago ...


Hell Costello didnt even know that we are experiencing high Inflation, If he had any idea they would of called the election prior to the RBA meeting.


Asleep on the job for sure.


----------



## nioka (19 November 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> I'm voting Liberal but I've got to say that I'm surprised at the poll result so far! Liberals are killing it!: considering the Galexy polls etc I'm Cheers



I'm surprised too but not the same way as you are. Howard should be ahead by a long way with an ASF audience who are interested in investing for profit. If he doesn't have a clear mandate here he will not get it out in the REAL world.


----------



## Julia (19 November 2007)

rederob said:


> Julia
> Labor sent its key policies in for costing, and began on 26 October.
> The Charter only allows Finance/Treasury to cost policies after the PM puts government into caretaker mode.
> There is no capacity for the Opposition to have Treasury/Finance cost their policies without the government's consent, and the PM's once caretaker mode is invoked.
> ...



Hello Rob,

Could "key" policies be similar to "core" promises, perhaps?
i.e. they can choose which ones Treasury are to have a look at?

So, just to be clear, are you saying that absolutely all that Labor has promised has been submitted for verification of their costings and thus we may be completely confident that none of their promises will fail to come to fruition should they form the government?


----------



## numbercruncher (19 November 2007)

> PM accuses Rudd of getting cocky
> 
> PRIME Minister John Howard has kicked off his final campaign week by accusing Kevin Rudd of acting as if he had already won the election.






> Asked what *he* planned to be doing next Sunday, Mr Howard replied: "Preparing for our fifth term in government. I will be talking to the treasurer and the deputy prime minister about that, and receiving some briefings from the head of *my* department about that, that is my plan.




http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22780458-952,00.html


Um ... So who is it getting cocky again, im confused ??


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 November 2007)

So here's a hypothetical .. (long odds this one) ... 

John Howard loses Bennalong, but Libs still win overall.  (he is the 15th seat to fall, and Labor need 16 etc ) 
Then one of his underlings resigns to permit him to stand in a bi-election, and resume his prime-ministerialship. 
- let's say for sake of argument that Ruddock resigns from Berowra. (northern suburbs of Sydney). Johnny is then member for Berowra. 
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?id=0J4

Then does Johnny have to move from Kirribilli. ?  (I don't even know where Johnny's real home is lol - probably up near Gordon somewhere?) 

I mean Maxine had to sell up and move to Bennalong to be given the chance to challenge him.  That's a big call (and a lot of inconvenience) on her part. 

(just a jest - and thousand to one -  don't sweat over this one - call it a "riddle" - then again , stranger things have happened).


----------



## zt3000 (19 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> good work Mark...
> 
> I acutually think the poll should be only
> Labor
> ...




thats actually a pretty good idea  i like .. they should also have a donkey vote category ... would be funny if that was the preffered vote ahaha


----------



## noirua (19 November 2007)

There is the all important question here "Will Kevin Rudd ruin the Australian Mining boom?" - click on video.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22539854-11949,00.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 November 2007)

If Howard leapfrogs Rudd and ends up ahead in the final poll

would that be called a Poll Vault ?
(sorry ABC, blatant plagiarism on my part )

(PS I notice Anthony Green calls em by-elections )


----------



## numbercruncher (19 November 2007)

noirua said:


> There is the all important question here "Will Kevin Rudd ruin the Australian Mining boom?" - click on video.
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22539854-11949,00.html





Only question I have is how much more boom will Rudd add to Mining !!

After all he is fluent mandarin and the Chinese President has already invited Rudd as his guest at the Beijing olympics. I didnt see Liberals get an invite as Presidental guests ...

Resource bulls will surely want to vote Rudd !


----------



## rederob (19 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Hello Rob,
> 
> Could "key" policies be similar to "core" promises, perhaps?
> i.e. they can choose which ones Treasury are to have a look at?
> ...



Julia
The Charter does not require any policies to be submitted for costing: It simply provides a basis for ensuring that if either the Coalition or Labor Party makes a policy/promise, it can be costed against a budget figure.
It also has an "independent umpire" flavour, so that one can't say the other is fudging their figures.
There is no requirement that the policy be implemented.
Moreover, the parties can make more policy announcements this week if they want, but they might not be in time to be costed as a 5 day timeframe is preferred (not essential - just based on best endeavours).
I can't tell you if "all" policies have been submitted for costing.
But I can tell you that both the Coalition and Labor parties have equally submitted 33 policies for costing.
Major media outlets have tallied up each of the respective parties' costings and thus far Labor has not racked up a bill that matches the Coalition's expenditure.
It does seem that many people have no idea what the Charter is about, and many also have swallowed some bogus line that Labor is not submitting policies for costing.
By the way, I haven't voted Labor for at least 20 years, and this year will not be any different.


----------



## numbercruncher (19 November 2007)

Interesting vote tally so far especially seen as in theory this type of forum should have a liberal bias ....

65 Lib and Prefs
69 Labor and Pref (incl green)


----------



## glenn_r (19 November 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Only question I have is how much more boom will Rudd add to Mining !!
> 
> After all he is fluent mandarin and the Chinese President has already invited Rudd as his guest at the Beijing olympics. I didnt see Liberals get an invite as Presidental guests ...
> 
> Resource bulls will surely want to vote Rudd !




You believe the reason the Chinese are buying our natural resources is because of who is in Government?

I'm still waiting to hear from Rudd as to how Labor will "control" interest rates and the union driven wages and conditions explosion, which eventually the consumer (you) will have to pay for.


----------



## mark70920 (19 November 2007)

glenn_r said:


> You believe the reason the Chinese are buying our natural resources is because of who is in Government?
> 
> I'm still waiting to hear from Rudd as to how Labor will "control" interest rates and the union driven wages and conditions explosion, which eventually the consumer (you) will have to pay for.





The sky is falling the sky is falling , there won't be a union driven wages explosion. Just more of the ill informed scare campaign. 

Let me expalin how inflation works , relevant to labour costs.
Pay rises are only inflationary if they are not accompanied by an increase in productivity, so if someone produces 10 items a week at a labor cost of a $1000 ($100 an item) and then get a pay rise of 10% ($1100) each item would now have labor cost of $110 , that causes inflation but if he now produces 11 items a week the labor cost would still be $100 an item , that’s not inflationary. 
So if the business you work for is producing more with less staff you deserve a pay rise and that won't affect inflation.
What both parties need to do to keep the lid on inflation and therefore interest rates, is to increase the productivity of our workforce. They need to be better trained , innovative and motivated. We need to invest in infrastructure again to help increase productivity.
There is no evidence that AWA's increase productivity and in fact the international evidence points to collective agreements(over individual agreements) giving the biggest increases in productivity.
Keep the lid on inflation vote for the party with the most productive IR plan and stop Listening to John Howard’s Lies.


----------



## noco (19 November 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> I'm voting Liberal but I've got to say that I'm surprised at the poll result so far! Liberals are killing it!: considering the Galexy polls etc I'm
> 
> I just don't see any substance in what Rudd says. We need someone who leads from the front, not sit back and see what the other 'mob' does then use that as a rule of thumb or straight out copy it.
> Too much copy cating for mine
> ...



I'm with you Mint Man. When you see the ASF poll the Libs 44.03% to Lab 38.06%
I would dearly like to know how the Morgan and Nielson polls are carried out.

It appears to me they do their polling in well known Labor strong holds, which indicates they are biased and are yearning for a change in Government for the sake of change.

We have in Townsville a company called AEC WHO CONDUCTED A POLL favouring Labor. The principal of AEC I believe has been involved with campaigning for Labor candidates in the past.

The same company did a poll on the two competing Mayors in the up and coming Local Gov. elections and AEC stated Labor Mayor Mooney would rump in. However, two other polls showed (a) 80% to 20% in favour of Mayor Tyrell from Thuringowa and (b) 79% to 21% in favour of Mayor Tyrell. 

The ASF poll is not the only one I have observed favouring the Libs. Unfortunately, the mentality of some people will look at the Morgan poll and will vote the way the polls show, just to be on the winning side.


----------



## numbercruncher (19 November 2007)

glenn_r said:


> You believe the reason the Chinese are buying our natural resources is because of who is in Government?




No ...


But i believe whomever is in Government definately can build on and expand our business dealings.

And for this you need to understand Chinese culture, build relationships , expand trust and dialogue, Rudd will deliver on this for sure, as can be seen by this sneak preview of Rudd's interaction with the President of China.

Our relationship with China should be expanded past the supply and demand curve to a level where China prefers to deal with Australia.

Rudd will deliver, Costello will kick back asleep at the wheel.


----------



## Aussie2Aussie (19 November 2007)

A swinger going Liberal.

Latham could easily have been elected Prime Minister and god knows where we would be if that was the case. It showed me that Labor leadership ballots are based on either very poor judging of character or that they dont care, as long as they get over the line.

Suspect that the overly disciplined and tight leash campaign that Labor is running re Rudds personality is because of a similar flaw existing.


----------



## skint (19 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> So here's a hypothetical .. (long odds this one) ...
> 
> John Howard loses Bennalong, but Libs still win overall.  (he is the 15th seat to fall, and Labor need 16 etc )
> Then one of his underlings resigns to permit him to stand in a bi-election, and resume his prime-ministerialship.
> ...




Hi 20/20 - the possibility of Johnny winning the election but losing Bennelong is unlikely but definitely possible. I heard some commmentary recently that the Chinese and Korean communities in Bennelong (and they're large) are appearing to turn their backs on the coalition. I was in Eastwood (part of Bennelong) the other evening and it did appear that there were more Maxine McKew posters than Howard posters outside Asian businesses, although this was just an impression. Unfortunately for me and fortunately for the good folk of ASF, I live outside Bennelong by the width of a road. In other words, I could throw a stone into Bennelong. I really liked the idea of the coalition losing by one seat and Bennelong being lost by one vote (mine). I don't think ASF would ever had heard the end of it! Skint changes the course of history! Oh well, I'll have to make do with my "portfolio triples overnight" fantasy. 
P.S. maybe I will give a stone a roost into Bennelong next Saturday. I might be lucky enough to land it on Howard's ugly melon.


----------



## Col Lector (19 November 2007)

The libs claim to be good economic managers. This is a farce when one considers 
1. The butchering of the Telstra privatisation. Initially the rationale behind this was to ensure Telstra had the capital to grow....a furphy when the fact was that the Howard Govt was milking it for dividends to the tune of 2 billion a year. The opportunity to put Australia at the forefront of telecommunications was badly blown...& now we are at the mercy of greedy self-absorbed Yanks. 
Does no one remember that Alston's main contribution was to provide plasma TV's for his mates. And by not providing broadband speeds that would allow "video-on-demand" he was basically cosying up to the media barons....and ensuring that both "free-to-air" & pay-TV would not  erode their audience (&hence power-base).
2. The US free-trade agreement...another farce according to a mate of mine who was intimately involved. The devil is in the detail. For example we are now allowed to export avocadoes...great you may think....but in reality we are only allowed to export in months when Oz production is minimal. Plenty more examples of this...plus we extended US patents...eg, pharmaceuticals, mickey mouse etc
The US negotiator (Zoellic (sic)) is now head of the World Bank so you can only imagine that this institution is now the vehicle to use to the advantage of the US.
3. The tardiness to negotiate a Oz-China free-trade agreement. Why? Howard was afraid to offend his/Liberals US masters. Whilst he dithered, China signed with our competitors.....Sth American nations, Cuba....even NZ.


----------



## genus (19 November 2007)

Spaghetti said:


> I am not voting Howard. He is morally bankrupt and has taken away too many freedoms and rights. He has become too secretive and hires total morons like Andrews. The war is unforgiveable, I mean you simply do not just go around invading countries that result in total destruction and massive loss of life without accountability.
> 
> The economy has been good to me because I realised that the share of profits allocated to shareholders was increasing for shareholders and decreasing for workers so I quit working and now trade the market for my living. However I am not entirely sure this is really an ethical way to run a country.
> 
> ...




Morally bankrupt but a champion for big business and the baby boomer generation.

I'm no economist nor the political type and all I truly understand from raw experience is that before the coalition were placed in power ...

I lived in a country which was not at war.

I never felt threatened or fearful of police or other public servants nor people of unfamiliar background.

Resource booms were clearly felt through all sectors of the economy right through to those on welfare.

My job was considered highly skilled and in demand, now it's become an imported comodity from countries I helped train up. My existence and worth in the workforce today is measured purely in what daily/hourly rate I can be pimped out at.

I never had to pay tax on income that I technically had not yet earned or banked.

I could calculate exactly how much tax I paid and felt the larger portion of my tax dollar went into public infrastructure projects, so I at least felt I also benefited in some way.

I could afford to be single and still buy a property. In fact to take my time to shop around for something suitable and tasteful.

I could get by without a car.

I never knew anybody that bought property sight unseen.

I rarely saw grandparents attending property inspections and auctions with their grandkids.

I never felt the need to get into debt to keep up with the Jones'

Even though I didn't spend it, I always had more disposable income than I anticipated left over to spend.

I didn't have to speak slowly in broken English to get what I needed at the local shop or goverment agency.

I never had private health cover. I'm conviced I would definitely have lost an eye a few months back had I not taken out private health cover under the coalition. And still my private health fund made a profit on me this year. Clearly nobody susbsidising for me in my hour of need.

I was naive and figuratively speaking blind to what has been changing around me. I can now see that my work hard, save well and avoid debt ethic has benefited others more than it has me.

I was far too blaise about one of the more important choices I could ever make and will never again make my mind up at the polling booth or simply select the prefered party box on the senate ballot.


----------



## kivvygosh (19 November 2007)

> When you see the ASF poll the Libs 44.03% to Lab 38.06%
> I would dearly like to know how the Morgan and Nielson polls are carried out.
> 
> It appears to me they do their polling in well known Labor strong holds, which indicates they are biased and are yearning for a change in Government for the sake of change.



It's called a random sample.  The ASF poll is clearly not a random sample - it is biased towards internet users who invest (or trade?) in stocks with an interest in discussing politics.  That is clearly not a random sample.

Morgan, Newspoll, ACNielsen and Galaxy all poll random samples.  You might believe that they are rigged, but it is quite a coincidence that all four have consistently been within 4-5% of each other all year.  The consistency of polls this year have been quite remarkable.

I think it's far more likely that the bias lies within you rather than the polls.


----------



## glenn_r (19 November 2007)

mark70920 said:


> The sky is falling the sky is falling , there won't be a union driven wages explosion. Just more of the ill informed scare campaign.
> 
> Let me expalin how inflation works , relevant to labour costs.
> Pay rises are only inflationary if they are not accompanied by an increase in productivity, so if someone produces 10 items a week at a labor cost of a $1000 ($100 an item) and then get a pay rise of 10% ($1100) each item would now have labor cost of $110 , that causes inflation but if he now produces 11 items a week the labor cost would still be $100 an item , that’s not inflationary.
> ...




Well I have ran my own small business since 1983 and luckily its a non union business, but I run a fair ship, fair pay for a fair effort and flexible conditions, which works both ways, there are no AWA's here just Federal award conditions and over award pay.

I'm just waiting to hear what us "Greedy and Rich employers" are going to be expected to pay and administer once this 70% Union biased Labor front bench decides what and how much more employers can afford to pay for.

Time will tell who is telling lies and sadly the Mr & Mrs Average Australian will think he/she is voting for the right party because of the same simple views you are sharing with us.

Finally you only have to look at an example of the integrity of Labor, my neighbor an assistant secretary of the ACTU was given the blue ribbon seat of Corio by alleged branch stacking which caused the ousting of the sitting Labor member of 15 years, what did Rudd do when this was brought to his attention, nothing, another example of union control of the Labor party.

The irony of this might cause some pain to Labor as the sitting member has now nominated as an independent and as he has a lot of community support here his preferences if directed to Liberal could cause a spill over to Liberal here in Corio.


----------



## Aussie2Aussie (19 November 2007)

Should the Liberals win but Howard lose Bennelong, then Mark Vaile becomes Prime Minister......not acting, but PM. This would remain the case until the Liberals could call a caucus meeting to elect a new leader, in a tight election with recounts and challenges likely, Vaile could remain PM for a couple of weeks.


----------



## Julia (19 November 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22780458-952,00.html
> 
> 
> Um ... So who is it getting cocky again, im confused ??




Yes, I made the same observation, Numbercruncher.  In Mr Howard's case, I'd call it denial, i.e. reluctance to face reality.  Such has been his demeanour right through the campaign and I suspect this has put even more people off him.


----------



## bassmanpete (19 November 2007)

> Pay rises are only inflationary if they are not accompanied by an increase in productivity, so if someone produces 10 items a week at a labor cost of a $1000 ($100 an item) and then get a pay rise of 10% ($1100) each item would now have labor cost of $110 , that causes inflation but if he now produces 11 items a week the labor cost would still be $100 an item , that’s not inflationary.




But then you get the unscrupulous businesses that say "Look, these guys have more money now, let's put our prices up!"

And to all those looking forward to a Labor government let me ask, do you REALLY think there will be fewer lies & unethical decisions than there have been in the last 11 years?


----------



## kivvygosh (19 November 2007)

> Should the Liberals win but Howard lose Bennelong, then Mark Vaile becomes Prime Minister......not acting, but PM. This would remain the case until the Liberals could call a caucus meeting to elect a new leader, in a tight election with recounts and challenges likely, Vaile could remain PM for a couple of weeks.



That's not true at all.  Costello would become the leader of the parliamentary Liberals, and he would therefore become the PM.  Vaile has the title of the deputy PM, but if something happens to the PM the deputy leader of the Liberal Party becomes the leader, and the leader of the Liberals - as the senior member of the coalition - will be the PM.



> Finally you only have to look at an example of the integrity of Labor, my neighbor an assistant secretary of the ACTU was given the blue ribbon seat of Corio by alleged branch stacking which caused the ousting of the sitting Labor member of 15 years, what did Rudd do when this was brought to his attention, nothing, another example of union control of the Labor party.



The Liberals did exactly the same thing with Mr Turnbull at the last election and faced a huge backlash from the outgoing member, Peter King.  Where's the integrity there?


----------



## numbercruncher (19 November 2007)

> God is not a Liberal, but he sure likes Liberal policies, Prime Minister John Howard has told Korean churchgoers in his marginal Sydney electorate.
> 
> At the Riverside Girls High School hall in Gladesville, Mr Howard addressed a Korean congregation through an interpreter telling them he shared their belief in God and the "transforming influence" of Jesus Christ.




http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/God-likes-Liberal-policies-Howard/2007/11/18/1195321595299.html

Has this guy been brainwashed by the brethen ? who informed him that God likes his policies ? Are we secular ? Have we been taken over by the religious right ?



> JOHN Howard has exchanged letters five times with the Exclusive Brethren since 2003, but after 14 months of stalling on a simple freedom-of-information request, his office will not release the correspondence until well after election day.




http://www.theage.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/pmbrethren-letters-held-until-after-poll/2007/11/18/1195321608622.html

Something is very fishy ....


----------



## Aussie2Aussie (19 November 2007)

kivvygosh said:


> That's not true at all.  Costello would become the leader of the parliamentary Liberals, and he would therefore become the PM.  Vaile has the title of the deputy PM, but if something happens to the PM the deputy leader of the Liberal Party becomes the leader, and the leader of the Liberals - as the senior member of the coalition - will be the PM.
> 
> The Liberals did exactly the same thing with Mr Turnbull at the last election and faced a huge backlash from the outgoing member, Peter King.  Where's the integrity there?




No, Costello can only become leader if he is elected as leader by the parliamentry caucus. It is not a right of passage as deputy "parliamentry leader" that you become leader automatically or for that matter PM. Leadership of the Liberal Party is determined by the Liberal Party Constitution, leadership of Australia is determined by the Australian Constitution.
As I said, until the liberals held a leadership contest, Mark Vaile would be PM.....think Harold Holt and Jack McEwan.


----------



## nioka (19 November 2007)

bassmanpete said:


> And to all those looking forward to a Labor government let me ask, do you REALLY think there will be fewer lies & unethical decisions than there have been in the last 11 years?




YES. YES. YES.


----------



## Julia (19 November 2007)

NO.   NO.    NO.
Which is why I don't want to vote for either party.


----------



## Superfly (19 November 2007)

Not a word about Labour not costing the bulk of their policies....


----------



## Julia (19 November 2007)

rederob said:


> Julia
> There is no requirement that the policy be implemented.



So everybody should feel quite happy if - whichever side is elected - they just say, OK, we've changed our minds now, sorry, just not going to do that.



> Major media outlets have tallied up each of the respective parties' costings and thus far Labor has not racked up a bill that matches the Coalition's expenditure.



But the difference is so small as to be insignificant.  Just sufficient for Mr Rudd to cleverly claim the moral high ground by being able to say that Labor is not going on such a spending spree as the Coalition.



> It does seem that many people have no idea what the Charter is about



No, I'm sure that's correct.  And we ignorant ordinary voters here don't really give a stuff about Charters.  We'd just like to know if we should reasonably have any expectation that all the big promises on both sides have been properly costed and those costings independently verified.  Doesn't seem like such a big ask to me.




> By the way, I haven't voted Labor for at least 20 years, and this year will not be any different.



Thanks for sharing, Rob.  Care to tell us for whom you will be voting?


----------



## bassmanpete (19 November 2007)

> YES. YES. YES.




Recall that the Whitlam government knew about Indonesian plans to annexe East Timor 3 days in advance but did nothing. Anyone remember Gareth Evans grinning broadly as he popped the champagne cork to celebrate Australia & Indonesia splitting East Timor's oil & gas reserves between themselves? Think of all those left-leaning people forever going on about 'Little Johnny' involving Australia in the illegal war in Iraq, and then recall that many of those same people wanted Australia to unilaterally invade East Timor in 1999 thus taking us into a war with Indonesia.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support John Howard, I'm just trying to make the point that both sides of politics lie, cheat, and do underhanded things. They just tend to do it over different issues


----------



## chops_a_must (19 November 2007)

bassmanpete said:


> Recall that the Whitlam government knew about Indonesian plans to annexe East Timor 3 days in advance but did nothing. Anyone remember Gareth Evans grinning broadly as he popped the champagne cork to celebrate Australia & Indonesia splitting East Timor's oil & gas reserves between themselves? Think of all those left-leaning people forever going on about 'Little Johnny' involving Australia in the illegal war in Iraq, and then recall that many of those same people wanted Australia to *unilaterally invade East Timor in 1999 thus taking us into a war with Indonesia.*



By Proxy, isn't that what you would have been asking the Whitlam government to do?


----------



## numbercruncher (19 November 2007)

> The Howard government secretly planned to take its unpopular Work Choices laws further two years ago but shelved the idea, documents confirmed on Monday.
> 
> Prime Minister John Howard's department drew up changes to the industrial relations laws in 2005, Channel Seven reported.
> 
> But voters will not be allowed to know what the government was planning, with a two-and-a-half year Freedom of Information (FOI) battle failed on Monday.




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/minisite/election_article.aspx?id=280266&sectionid=6046&sectionname=minisiteelection&rss=yes


These guys definately have some more evil plans in store, I suspect Costello will launch them.


----------



## bassmanpete (19 November 2007)

> By Proxy, isn't that what you would have been asking the Whitlam government to do?




Not really. But again I'm just trying to say that neither side, nor the middle, is as shining white as their supporters would like to believe. I always find it amusing on election night when the winning candidate's supporters get ecstatic when the result is announced. Hey, he/she's just going to c**p all over you just like he/she is over everybody else.

Anyway, that's my cynical opinion after 50 years of election watching!


----------



## nioka (19 November 2007)

Julia said:


> But the difference is so small as to be insignificant.  Just sufficient for Mr Rudd to cleverly claim the moral high ground by being able to say that Labor is not going on such a spending spree as the Coalition.?




You must be doing OK with the stock market. Can you give us a few tips. I mean if six or seven billion is insignificant to you then you are doing better than most of us.


----------



## Flying Fish (19 November 2007)

VOTE ONE RANDOM PARTY


----------



## Julia (19 November 2007)

nioka said:


> You must be doing OK with the stock market. Can you give us a few tips. I mean if six or seven billion is insignificant to you then you are doing better than most of us.




Nioka,
That comment is rather unworthy of you.
I'm not sure on what basis you assume that I am "doing OK with the stockmarket".  I don't recall commenting on the performance of my p/f.

The last I heard was that the difference was about 2 billion, i.e. The Coalition's promises (at that stage) were up around $49B and Labor's were about $47B.  That was on Radio National ABC.  I think that was before the "Launch" of both parties.

To draw comparisons between what Federal political parties are promising to the nation, and my paltry investment in the stockmarket is specious to say the least.   I really can't think of a more silly comparison.
Fairly obviously, the point I - and many others - have been trying to make is that both sides are being irresponsible with spending in an already overheated economy and that Labor is in no real position to take the moral high ground on this.


----------



## noco (20 November 2007)

kivvygosh said:


> It's called a random sample.  The ASF poll is clearly not a random sample - it is biased towards internet users who invest (or trade?) in stocks with an interest in discussing politics.  That is clearly not a random sample.
> 
> Morgan, Newspoll, ACNielsen and Galaxy all poll random samples.  You might believe that they are rigged, but it is quite a coincidence that all four have consistently been within 4-5% of each other all year.  The consistency of polls this year have been quite remarkable.
> 
> I think it's far more likely that the bias lies within you rather than the polls.




You are obviously a Labor supporter from your comments.
Suggest you log in to the Courier Mail poll! At 8am this morning the poll taken from 17504 voters in Queensland was Labor 32% and the Liberals at 58%.
Is it any wonder the result is such as it is,  after the shocking way Labor has handled the affairs of Queenslnd over the past 11 years. Sure need a change of Government up here and with good reason. Too hard for Beattie to handle. Yes ! he would say I have  stuffed up, but I'll fix it. He said he would fix the hospitals 3 years ago, but they are worse than ever. I'll stay with the Libs. Why try to fix something if it ain't broke.


----------



## numbercruncher (20 November 2007)

Noco,

This site poll is obviously is obviously Biased towards people who invest in stocks and use the internet.

Just as the courier mail survey is biased towards Internet users from Brisbane.

Just as the stamp collectors almanac's political survey is biased towards stamp collectors.

I would suggest that liberal supporters can see this as well ? surely its not just Labor supporter's who excercise commonsense ?



> Why try to fix something if it ain't broke.





Clearly something must be broke for the coalition to be losing so much support from middle Australia.

And if you so dissappointed with Qld STATE government, how is retaining the same Federal Gov going to alter things ? Johnny is obviously not providing the required Federal support for Australias states and territories.


----------



## Rafa (20 November 2007)

Julia said:


> The last I heard was that the difference was about 2 billion, i.e. The Coalition's promises (at that stage) were up around $49B and Labor's were about $47B.  That was on Radio National ABC.  I think that was before the "Launch" of both parties.




Well, after the launch the difference is easily above 7bill... that is approaching 1% of GDP, which is quite significant Julia.

But its also the difference in the spending, beyond the base 40billion in tax cuts/aged pensions. Most of the the further Liberal spending is in handouts under to guise of letting the people decide where they want to spend their money rather than the govt... whereas the labour spending is directly in infrastructure, equipment or personell.

Julia, surely you agree handing back money directly back to the people, be it baby bonuses, FHOG, and now education rebates is more inflationary that actually pumping it into services and infrastructure where you are atleast getting some output for it?


----------



## moXJO (20 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> Well, after the launch the difference is easily above 7bill... that is approaching 1% of GDP, which is quite significant Julia.
> 
> But its also the difference in the spending, beyond the base 40billion in tax cuts/aged pensions. Most of the the further Liberal spending is in handouts under to guise of letting the people decide where they want to spend their money rather than the govt... whereas the labour spending is directly in infrastructure, equipment or personell.
> 
> Julia, surely you agree handing back money directly back to the people, be it baby bonuses, FHOG, and now education rebates is more inflationary that actually pumping it into services and infrastructure where you are atleast getting some output for it?




One of the businesses shows I was half watching Sunday suggested both parties are spending close to a trillion in promises in the upcoming years, so it really was only a token effort. Still his ability to capitalize on looking like an economic conservative when really he is far from it gained kudos.


----------



## Julia (20 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> Well, after the launch the difference is easily above 7bill... that is approaching 1% of GDP, which is quite significant Julia.
> 
> But its also the difference in the spending, beyond the base 40billion in tax cuts/aged pensions. Most of the the further Liberal spending is in handouts under to guise of letting the people decide where they want to spend their money rather than the govt... whereas the labour spending is directly in infrastructure, equipment or personell.
> 
> Julia, surely you agree handing back money directly back to the people, be it baby bonuses, FHOG, and now education rebates is more inflationary that actually pumping it into services and infrastructure where you are atleast getting some output for it?



Rafa, thanks for providing the correct figure.  And yes, I agree that 7b
is significant.
Has Labor said they will discontinue the baby bonus, FHOG?
Let's not forget that, at least in the beginning, everything the Coalition promised, they echoed that they would do the same.  

You won't get any argument from me about some of the promises made by Mr Howard.  I mentioned  earlier in this thread (I think) that he lost me with that TV grab of $500K to save the orangutangs in Borneo where he went to visit the disabled child who had written to him (supposedly) about it.
And so many other things the Libs have come out with in the last few weeks -complete bribery.

To be quite honest, I am so fed up with all of them that most of the promises have just gone over my head so if you - or anyone - could clarify for me what Labor has actually promised to do in terms of services and infrastructure and the approximate value of those promises, I'd be grateful.

Are they, e,g, going to do something to help with our dwindling water supply?
This is a problem now in most of our capital cities.

And health/aged care?   My local member (National) has sent out a leaflet saying they will establish 24 hour medical clinics in all regional cities.
There is no stated amount for funding this.  I phoned to ask how they are planning to staff these clinics because all the local GP's are overworked now and people new to the district find it very difficult to get a doctor.  The person I spoke to didn't know but promised to find out and get back to me. She hasn't.  This is the sort of thing which makes me so cynical about both sides.  It's just so easy to say "we will do this" but often not so easy to actually implement the policy.  Ditto aged care - we will provide additional aged care beds.  OK, fine.  They can't get sufficient staff for nursing homes now, where are all the extras going to come from?

I do recall hearing Mr Rudd announce that Labor will reinstate the Commonwealth Dental Scheme.  Great.  Very much needed.
But there is also a shortage of dentists.  The local State funded and run free dental clinic here (Qld) has a 6 year waiting list.  The staff say that is because they just cannot attract the required number of dentists to service the demand.  So where are all Mr Rudd's extra dentists going to come from?

And then there's mental health.  We shouldn't be saving apes when we have mentally ill people who are homeless and being abused in miserable caravan parks.  Is either side going to do anything for these poor souls?

Obviously some of these questions are rhetorical just to illustrate my complete lack of faith in both sides.  But the infrastructure ones, e.g. water may be something someone can answer.


----------



## numbercruncher (20 November 2007)

Julia said:


> And health/aged care? My local member (National) has sent out a leaflet saying they will establish 24 hour medical clinics in all regional cities..





Oh my goodness, there are lies and then there is damned Lies.

How on earth could they roll out 24hr clinics in every regional city, I assume they are saying Independant to hospitals ? Hell there is already a huge shortage of Doctors and Nurses, gawd could you imagine the cost.

Surely 24hr mobile call out doctors would be an obvious and far far cheaper alternative.


----------



## Rafa (20 November 2007)

Julia, this has been the most disappointing campaign i have ever witnessed...


----------



## numbercruncher (20 November 2007)

noco said:


> At 8am this morning the poll taken from 17504 voters in Queensland was Labor 32% and the Liberals at 58%.
> .





I checked out that poll the difference is far too massive to be real.

I expect an army of Liberal blogger's where voting, clearing cookies and revoting, only logical explanation as the difference is way to massive



> Labor 32% (6442 votes) Liberal 57% (11493 votes) National 3% (611 votes) Greens 3% (771 votes) Democrats 0% (69 votes) Independent 0% (113 votes) Other minor party 0% (93 votes) Undecided 1% (284 votes) Sum votes: Total votes: 19876 votes so far




This numbers all round just look dodgy.


----------



## Julia (20 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> Julia, this has been the most disappointing campaign i have ever witnessed...



Yes, I completely agree.  I have genuinely been trying to find something about which to feel positive but just can't.  Honestly can't find a single person on either side in whom I could feel trust and optimism that they genuinely have the interests of the country at heart rather than self aggrandisement.


----------



## numbercruncher (20 November 2007)

Bit of a shock development ..... 





> THE Liberal Party has claimed 13 Labor candidates are ineligible to stand in Saturday's election. The shock development threatens to create a major distraction for Kevin Rudd's run to the poll.
> 
> According to Liberal Party headquarters, the 13 hopefuls are all ineligible because they failed to resign from Commonwealth jobs before nominating for parliament.
> 
> ...




http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22790990-5005961,00.html


could make things a bit juicy ?


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Honestly can't find a single person on either side in whom I could feel trust and optimism that they genuinely have the interests of the country at heart rather than self aggrandisement.




Politics is a stupid game, run by stupid people that have the same self interests as the rest of us.Money.


----------



## Rafa (20 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Yes, I completely agree.  I have genuinely been trying to find something about which to feel positive but just can't.  Honestly can't find a single person on either side in whom I could feel trust and optimism that they genuinely have the interests of the country at heart rather than self aggrandisement.




There is only ONE WINNER out of all this... the POLITICIANS.... 
and ONE LOOSER..... US!!!

But I won't be casting on donkey vote, I am voting labor, cause I have had enough of the Liberals and their lies and deciet.

Plus a rotating govt is the best way to get a reasonable overall outcome for all. I think most Australians know this, which is why they give most parties 3-4 terms at a time.


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 November 2007)

RIGHT!!! That's IT!!!! *I've HAD IT UP TO HERE!!!!*

I'm gonna vote for the Political Party that *BANS ALL UN-SOLICITED POLITICAL PARTY ADVERTISING* from TV and radio!! 

Fair dinkum, these crappy UNSOLICITED SPAM POLITICAL ads are DRIVING ME NUTS! Grrrr.....  

Geez, we have LAWS to stop idiots from SPAMMING us through phone and e-mail... so what about similar laws regarding this RUBBISH.

Honestly, pollies have plenty of air time on the TV and radio channels to talk/debate  endlessly about their "policies" - so WHY ARE THEY SPENDING ZILLIONS TO HAMMER US WITH PROPOGANDA ADS??????? The current un-regulated situation is just plain ridiculous.....

So, can someone point me in the right polling booth direction???


AJ


----------



## chops_a_must (20 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Are they, e,g, going to do something to help with our dwindling water supply?
> This is a problem now in most of our capital cities.
> 
> And health/aged care?   My local member (National) has sent out a leaflet saying they will establish 24 hour medical clinics in all regional cities.
> ...




Don't forget Julia, that rainfall is always higher under federal Labor.

Like I have said, if you trash the education system like has happened, this is the result. I'd hazard a guess that Labor will increase the number of places at Universities, because of the different funding arrangements and agreements. But the damage is going to be present, like you have listed above, for the next 10 years, until the the balance is brought back and essential service places in Unis are increased.

AWA's have totally f*cked the aged care industry, due to the linking of funding and licensing to the staffing arrangements. Not nurses, but carers etc. Ala TAFEs and child care centres. It's not really a wonder therefore that they can't get people to staff them.

Rudd promised here (Perth) to develop a centre for water excellence, I believe  in collaboration with the ISTP (Institute for Sustainable Terchnology and Policy), where I am a student, to develop technology and implement water plans and policy for the rest of Australia. It went totally unreported as far as I'm aware.

Hope this helps:



> A Rudd Labor Government will invest $20 million to establish a National Centre of Excellence in Water Desalination to help secure Australia’s permanent drinking water supply from the dangerous effects of climate change.
> 
> 
> Located in Perth, Federal Labor’s National Centre of Excellence in Water Desalination will be a world class facility developing and commercialising new water technology.
> ...




Cheers.


----------



## professor_frink (20 November 2007)

Due to a complete lack of attention from both major parties in my seat, I choose not to vote. Not one single ad has been run by either candidate on television in my area. I won't be voting for the labor candidate because I have absolutely no idea what he will do for the area. I won't be voting for the liberal candidate because I don't even know who he is.


----------



## Rafa (20 November 2007)

In regards to water, did anyone see the 7:30 report last night...

Turnbull found 10m to give to some company (partly owned by one of his biggest capmpaign donors) to investigate some new, unproven technique of creating clouds out of thin air... 

all the while refusing to give any grants to existing cloud seeding research and trials that have shown must better success rates!


----------



## Julia (20 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> In regards to water, did anyone see the 7:30 report last night...
> 
> Turnbull found 10m to give to some company (partly owned by one of his biggest capmpaign donors) to investigate some new, unproven technique of creating clouds out of thin air...
> 
> all the while refusing to give any grants to existing cloud seeding research and trials that have shown must better success rates!



Yes, Rafa.  I saw that item.
Sigh!


----------



## noirua (21 November 2007)

It does look as if there has been a late swing to the Liberals.  Probably the thoughts are either, "the devil you know" or "a safer pair of hands".


----------



## arminius (21 November 2007)

and you are still voting for these people julia? after everything that you've seen you are encourageing them to do it again? condoning their actions?
all because you're afraid of what might happen? 
bizarre.


----------



## rederob (21 November 2007)

noirua said:


> It does look as if there has been a late swing to the Liberals.  Probably the thoughts are either, "the devil you know" or "a safer pair of hands".



How about a statistical aberration!
I have followed the polling very closely and I haven't come across this so called "late swing" in recent hours.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Don't forget Julia, that rainfall is always higher under federal Labor.
> 
> Like I have said, if you trash the education system like has happened, this is the result. I'd hazard a guess that Labor will increase the number of places at Universities, because of the different funding arrangements and agreements. But the damage is going to be present, like you have listed above, for the next 10 years, until the the balance is brought back and essential service places in Unis are increased.
> 
> ...



great posts Julia and chops ..
all this duplication and waste - new tech colleges? why?   
why not make the existing ones work??

as they say ....   *If it's broke - fix it *!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 November 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> .......
> Honestly, pollies have plenty of air time on the TV and radio channels to talk/debate  endlessly about their "policies" - so WHY ARE THEY SPENDING ZILLIONS TO HAMMER US WITH PROPOGANDA ADS??????? The current un-regulated situation is just plain ridiculous.....
> 
> So, can someone point me in the right polling booth direction??? AJ




howdy AJ
did I hear $192mill spent by coalition in last 12 months ( tax payers money btw - not their own) ? - ( I knew the coalition / govt  spent about $111 in the 12 months to March, but it seems that "necessary dissemination of government information" suddenly escalation in recent months - hence $190mill + for the last 12 months.    That would be double the normal rate 

telling us how fair and well resourced the current systems are ... 
what a waste of money that was.

I hear the libs complain that the unions fund some of the ads for labor - well that's honest money at least - not like raiding govt coffers and saying it belongs to the coalition for their ads (imo)


----------



## tech/a (21 November 2007)

> I hear the libs complain that the unions fund some of the ads for labor - well that's honest money at least - not like raiding govt coffers and saying it belongs to the coalition for their ads (imo)




Really?

The unions dont have an agenda?
Why do they not fund liberal ad campaigns?


----------



## Aussiejeff (21 November 2007)

Actually, I don't care WHO is doing the ADVERTISING PROPOGANDA. 

What I AM against is the UNSOLICITED nature of the drivel - from all sides - that is foisted on free to air TV and radio. 

It's bad enough with the MAIL OUT ELECTIONEERING SPAM but you can't chose NOT to see the ads on TV or hear them on radio - there's JUST TOO MANY TO STOP in any one day! 

You can decide NOT to buy a newspaper and see the pages of PROPOGANDA (gee, did I use that word again?) or to NOT visit the Party websites (eeew!) or to NOT watch a payTV channel running political bumph, but the free to air media should be just that - FREE FROM DAMN POLITICAL ADVERTISING - honestly, what value is there in it to any party?

Double grrrrr....


AJ


----------



## skint (21 November 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Actually, I don't care WHO is doing the ADVERTISING PROPOGANDA.
> 
> What I AM against is the UNSOLICITED nature of the drivel - from all sides - that is foisted on free to air TV and radio.
> 
> ...




Radio and TV media blackout begins at midnight tonight. In the meantime - "calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean"


----------



## numbercruncher (21 November 2007)

tech/a said:


> Why do they not fund liberal ad campaigns?





Probably for the same reason that the cult of the "exclusive brethren" etc fund Liberals and not Labor, differing Ideaologies ?


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 November 2007)

tech/a said:


> Really?
> 
> The unions dont have an agenda?
> Why do they not fund liberal ad campaigns?



tech 
I think you missed the point
the unions (on behalf of Labor) use honest money to push their agenda - 
the coaltion use taxed money 

see the difference?


----------



## noirua (21 November 2007)

Labor appear to have a greener agenda which may slow the export of coal, iron ore and pig iron. This would worsen the Australian economy over time and lead to higher taxes.
Australia is moving ahead and looks to be taken more seriously in the world. Like it or not, it's the strength and wealth of the economy that counts.


----------



## Rafa (21 November 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Probably for the same reason that the cult of the "exclusive brethren" etc fund Liberals and not Labor, differing Ideaologies ?




I find it amazing that people who consider themselves athiest still vote for the Liberals when their policies closely line up with the bible belt...


----------



## Julia (21 November 2007)

arminius said:


> and you are still voting for these people julia? after everything that you've seen you are encourageing them to do it again? condoning their actions?
> all because you're afraid of what might happen?
> bizarre.



Arminius, I've not yet decided who I am voting for as I've already said on this thread.  My whole point is that - although I am unhappy with much the government has done - I simply don't believe that a change to Labor will do anything other than bring many of the same plus a whole set of new problems.
I'm not a dedicated Liberal voter.  I have voted Labor in the past.  I voted Labor in the State elections.  Just can't see that Mr Rudd and his team offer any improvement over the Libs.  And I have yet to read a single post on this thread which offers any concrete basis for believing that Labor will make Australia a better place.  All I've read from ardent Labor supporters is belief or faith.  A bit like religion really.


----------



## Julia (21 November 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Actually, I don't care WHO is doing the ADVERTISING PROPOGANDA.
> 
> What I AM against is the UNSOLICITED nature of the drivel - from all sides - that is foisted on free to air TV and radio.
> 
> ...



I even received an email yesterday from the Greens candidate.
No idea how she found my address:  I've never had any contact with the Greens.

Replied telling her it was an invasion of my privacy and to please remove me from her mailing list.  Just as bad as John Howard making phone calls to individuals, well a recorded message.


----------



## Duckman#72 (21 November 2007)

Julia said:


> I'm not a dedicated Liberal voter.  I have voted Labor in the past.  I voted Labor in the State elections.  Just can't see that Mr Rudd and his team offer any improvement over the Libs.  And I have yet to read a single post on this thread which offers any concrete basis for believing that Labor will make Australia a better place.  All I've read from ardent Labor supporters is belief or faith.  A bit like religion really.




A fanstastic summary of the election and all the posts to date.

The Libs have been very negative and appear have made a hash of the campaign however Labor appear more and more superficial (nice ads, snappy soundbites, real "Sunrise" stuff but I'm not convinced). 

They are the McDonald's of politics. They make you want to come in and try their food..........(but I don't think it's that good for you - despite what they say)


----------



## Aussiejeff (21 November 2007)

skint said:


> Radio and TV media blackout begins at midnight tonight. In the meantime - "calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean"




Thanks, skint, for those calming, soothing words (MEDIA BLACKOUT... hooray!)

I can't wait to see what Johnny Santa pulls out of his sack AT THE LAST MINUTE before the blackout commences ....  mebbe a spare "extra" 10 Billion for even more tax cuts?


AJ


----------



## Rafa (21 November 2007)

I think faith is a major driver in all elections... faith that the person you vote for will make your life better... Alas... what people fail to realise, only YOU can help yourself!

People have found that out the hard way after having faith in Howard last election, with his 'who do you trust' campaign...

Maybe Julia... a lot of people have lost faith in Howard...



But back to politics...

At this stage between the two, i expect the country to be run is much the same way, but with a touch more compassion, less vilification of minorities, and more oppurtunities for the poor to improve their lot with education and training (not facing 100k HECS debts...)

Health, i am not too fussed... no matter how bad our health system is, its still bloody good by world standards.

Infrastructure, i'd like to see money spent on infrastructure, especially rail and broadband and renewable energy.


----------



## noco (21 November 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Noco,
> 
> This site poll is obviously is obviously Biased towards people who invest in stocks and use the internet.
> 
> ...




How naive you are Numbercruncher, do you believe that only Liberal supporters use the internet? How can the Courier Mail know who is Labor and who is Liberal when using the internet except when they vote on the poll?

And just look at the Courier Mail today; 21,212 voters: Labor 32% Liberals 58%. Looks like Labor is down and out for the count in Queensland. Don't tell me you believe the Courier Mail is rigging this ballot. Maybe you only like to believe in the polls that favour Labor. How pathetic!

The state Labor Governments are receiving all the GST and more each year. 'Tis a pity they can't manage it better. Never hear the Labor Party talk about rolling back the GST anymore. 'Tis also a pity they did not stick to their agreement in abolishing a lot of their state tax's when given the GST. It would make it a lot easier on new home buyers.

I'll stick with the Libs. Who wants coast to coast Labor? What a disaster that would be. Some say it would be good if they all sang from the same sheet of music. The only trouble is the looney left and the right of Labor could never sing in harmony. One would be out of tune with other.


----------



## The Mint Man (21 November 2007)

noco said:


> Never hear the Labor Party talk about rolling back the GST anymore. 'Tis also a pity they did not stick to their agreement in abolishing a lot of their state tax's when given the GST. It would make it a lot easier on new home buyers.
> 
> I'll stick with the Libs. Who wants coast to coast Labor? What a disaster that would be. Some say it would be good if they all sang from the same sheet of music. The only trouble is the looney left and the right of Labor could never sing in harmony. One would be out of tune with other.



Excellent points.
Really makes you wonder what they will actually do with the IR laws when they get in.... I mean they say that they will do this and that but like Peter Garrett said, they will just change it all once they get in.

Cheers


----------



## skint (21 November 2007)

noco said:


> How naive you are Numbercruncher, do you believe that only Liberal supporters use the internet? How can the Courier Mail know who is Labor and who is Liberal when using the internet except when they vote on the poll?
> 
> And just look at the Courier Mail today; 21,212 voters: Labor 32% Liberals 58%. Looks like Labor is down and out for the count in Queensland. Don't tell me you believe the Courier Mail is rigging this ballot. Maybe you only like to believe in the polls that favour Labor. How pathetic!.




No, its you who's being naive here. A poll from this paper or that paper has zero reliability. It merely reflects the viewpoint of people who are likely to read that particular paper. For example, I vote Labor and read the Sydney Morning Herald. If I believed the polls in the SMH, I would be under the impression that Labor will every seat in the country. Whilst Newspoll and other polls are imperfect instruments, they are the most reliable we've have. Be interested to hear your comments come Monday if the coalition are trounced in Queensland.


----------



## noirua (21 November 2007)

Swing to Liberals in Western Australia "will make it increasingly difficult for Labor to win": http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/21/2096767.htm


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 November 2007)

skint said:


> Radio and TV media blackout begins at midnight tonight.



thanks skint - that's the best news I've had for weeks  

(btw - if you hear eerie noises after midnight, it'll just be Joh BPetersen rolling over in his grave thinking that Greens might outpoll the Nationals )


----------



## Gundini (21 November 2007)

While this poll number is very small, I find it interesting the Liberal Party is pulling away from Labor. Does this reflect the public sentiment? Surely my fellow ASF contibutors are an astute bunch, are they not?

Labor 43.79%

Liberal 50.39%

That suggests a return of the government, and while I find it hard to believe, it would seem the $4 something on offer for a Coalition win represents great value for mine. (For the betting Man/Woman that is)


----------



## numbercruncher (21 November 2007)

> A re-elected coalition government would change the law to pave the way for nuclear power stations, Prime Minister John Howard says.




http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/PM-says-Nuclear-power-is-on-his-agenda/2007/11/20/1195321781982.html


Latest news will change some people votes in both directions i Imagine, but youd think it will lose more votes than gain ? why did he make this announcement now instead of wait ?

Vote Lib for Nukes in your Neighbourhood.

Vote Lab for solar panels on your rooftops.


----------



## moXJO (21 November 2007)

arminius said:


> and you are still voting for these people julia? after everything that you've seen you are encourageing them to do it again? condoning their actions?
> all because you're afraid of what might happen?
> bizarre.




You know.... it's a lot of your attempts at emotionally blackmailing swinging voters on this forum that turned me off labor for so long.


----------



## Julia (21 November 2007)

moXJO said:


> You know.... it's a lot of your attempts at emotionally blackmailing swinging voters on this forum that turned me off labor for so long.



I've suppressed a similar response, moXJO, largely in the belief that in Arminius's case it has mostly been done in a sense of fun.
But anyway I think my own capacity to make decisions (although clearly wanting at the present time!) is sufficient to resist any attempts at said emotional blackmail!  Do agree, though, that a clearly presented argument as to the validity of a vote for either side will always beat any sort of personally critical approach.


----------



## IFocus (21 November 2007)

> The state Labor Governments are receiving all the GST and more each year. 'Tis a pity they can't manage it better. Never hear the Labor Party talk about rolling back the GST anymore. 'Tis also a pity they did not stick to their agreement in abolishing a lot of their state tax's when given the GST. It would make it a lot easier on new home buyers.




The numbers on revenue flow were out recently showing a clear decline in revenue from the Fed to the States as a percentage hence the States held onto old taxes as the Liberals play games on the big cost issues such as health and education.

A total disgrace for a federal government to be the problem rather than the solution and then throw in the farce of the single hospital take over in Tasmania proves they have no intention or plan to resolve issues other than to play games and spend over $400 mil telling me how wonderful they are at managing my taxes.


----------



## chops_a_must (21 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> did I hear $192mill spent by coalition in last 12 months ( tax payers money btw - not their own) ? - ( I knew the coalition / govt  spent about $111 in the 12 months to March, but it seems that "necessary dissemination of government information" suddenly escalation in recent months - hence $190mill + for the last 12 months.    That would be double the normal rate



Remember, it's only the Liberal Party that can keep this advertising boom going.


----------



## skint (21 November 2007)

Julia said:


> I've suppressed a similar response, moXJO, largely in the belief that in Arminius's case it has mostly been done in a sense of fun.
> But anyway I think my own capacity to make decisions (although clearly wanting at the present time!) is sufficient to resist any attempts at said emotional blackmail!  Do agree, though, that a clearly presented argument as to the validity of a vote for either side will always beat any sort of personally critical approach.




The reasons I have for voting labor (or exhausting my preferences to Labor), are that even though they're a long way from perfect, they have outperformed the coalition in every portfolio over the years IMO. These are just a few examples. I hope my reasons are sufficiently clearly presented LOL.

*The Economy* - it took a Labor gov't to 1)float the dollar and deregulate the money markets making Aust. competitive. 2)abolish centralised bargaining which had been in place since 1907. 3)curtail the last wages explosion that occured in 1981-3 under Howard 4)tie wage increases to productivity increases and 5)propose to the Reserve an inflation target of 2-3% which it adopted. Other developed countries have since followed suit. These are the big reforms that have placed Aust in the position it is in. Ironically many still believe that these occured under the coalition. Howard also conceded on the 7:30 report last night that the only reason home interest rates didn't rocket above 12% or so under his treasuryship was because they were CAPPED! and he hadn't floated the dollar.  The coalition's reforms have been largely to introduce Work Choices and little else. New Zealand introduced these types of laws years ago with litle or no effect on productivity. Besides presiding over a massive global boom, I fail to see what large and innovative economic reforms the coalition have achieved.  

*Health -* Recall that it was Whitlam that introduced universal Health Medicare), leaving the US as the only developed economy without it. We all know what happens if you're in the bottom 25% of the pop. in the US and get crook. Howard fought to dismantle Medicare for years and has not outlined any plan to improve the system now. I believe Rudd's proposal to Federalise Health is a good one. Time will tell how well he achieves this, but its a start.

*The Environment -  * Again a no-brainer. Labor's record could be a lot better but is clearly ahead on this issue. Ratifying Kyoto is largely symbolic but is an obvious first step to show that we're serious. Setting carbon targets and so on is the inevitable path that the world is going in, so better to adapt now than do so in a more expensive panic later. Howard has publicly denied climate change until 10 mins ago and only in response to the political fallout. He is still not prepared to actually do anything.

*Education* - Again, whilst Labor's education revolution is a bit of an overstatement, they could hardly do worse. I can't recall the exact numbers, but Aust's education expenditure ,as a percent of GDP, has consistently and dramatically fallen over the last  decade relative to other modern economies. This also has significant implications for the economy. Howard's only ideas were to stick a priest in every school, prescribe some warped view of Aust. history and pour money into the schools that least need it.

*Defence* - taking a country unnecessarily to war at huge expense and against all advice (except George W) is probably the most serious crime a government can commit.  Does anyone seriously think that was a good idea or that we haven't increased the terrorist threat as result? The coalition also spent a squillion on a pile of crap planes, but then again Beazley bought a pile of crap submarines, so I guess that evens out. 

Unfortunately Labor is unambiguously imperfect but relative to the current mob, its a pretty clear cut for mine. I wish my investment decisions were as simple!


----------



## chops_a_must (21 November 2007)

skint said:


> *Education* - Again, whilst Labor's education revolution is a bit of an overstatement, they could hardly do worse. I can't recall the exact numbers, but Aust's education expenditure ,as a percent of GDP, has consistently and dramatically fallen over the last  decade relative to other modern economies. This also has significant implications for the economy. Howard's only ideas were to stick a priest in every school, prescribe some warped view of Aust. history and pour money into the schools that least need it.



While we are on Howard's performance last night. There were a couple of absolute doozies.


> HOWARD: You learn by experience. You have to go through things to actually understand it...
> 
> KERRY O'BRIEN: Or you can learn by a study of the past.
> 
> ...




You can't learn from reading a book? WTF?

Sorry Nick, and everyone else here who votes Liberal and advises reading books, I just can't learn anything from you guys anymore...

And geez... It's a good thing I'm out murdering Jews on a grand scale isn't it? Christ, I'm sure as hell glad I haven't learned anything or understood any history from not actually being involved in it.

A number of weeks ago, my 80 something year old nan said Howard was senile. I think she was perhaps on the mark. Slip ups like this just weren't a part of his daily routine previously. But no wonder he hates the education system.

Maybe he is postulating the importance of being involved in history, because he knows he now is it.


----------



## moXJO (21 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> While we are on Howard's performance last night. There were a couple of absolute doozies.
> 
> 
> You can't learn from reading a book? WTF?



LOL that’s a statement you would expect from G Bush
Maybe Howard needs new glasses.


----------



## skint (21 November 2007)

Hi Chops, I forgot about the "can't learn from books" line. It was a pearler! Howard's ability to duck and weave, which has been his trademark just wasn't there. Kerry O'Brien nailed him...again..and again..and again. He did all but stick a carrot up his date!


----------



## Woodchips (21 November 2007)

I will be voting Liberal. I don't agree with everything John Howard stands for but overall he's on the money. 

Rudd has successfully made a mountain out of a mole hill in this election. The facts are that interest rates are still relatively low, average wages are increasing steadily, unemployment is at record lows and we've kept tidy budget surpluses for some time now. The economy is very strong so we're seeing upward pressure on inflation but that is to be expected under these conditions. As long as this is kept in check it won't be a problem.

Even in the midst of a severe drought and high oil prices average wage rises have still outstripped rises in average consumer prices and food prices. You might want to read the following article:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22059550-601,00.html 



> According to Commsec chief economist Craig James average wages have risen by 25%, while average consumer prices have risen by 14 per cent and food prices have gone up by 18 per cent. So an average wage buys 50 per cent more bread, 56 per cent more rump steak, 60 per cent more eggs and, surprisingly, 78 per cent more petrol now than it did five years ago, according to his figures.




Listen to Rudd and you'd be forgiven for thinking that half the population is starving to death but the fact is that working families are actually doing pretty well.

To me Rudd is a great big bundle of cliches. His rhetoric is incessant and at times patronising. At heart, Garrett is an emotionally driven environmental radical, the LAST PERSON we need making any sort of decisions on environmental matters. I would take Malcolm Turnbull any day and what a waste of talent it would be if he lost his seat.

I really hope the country comes to its senses on election day - coast to coast Labor is not a pretty thought and the thought of Bob Brown working closely with Kevin Rudd and Peter Garrett on environmental issues is even more frightening. . 

WC


----------



## Aussiejeff (21 November 2007)

Gundini said:


> While this poll number is very small, I find it interesting the Liberal Party is pulling away from Labor. Does this reflect the public sentiment? Surely my fellow ASF contibutors are an astute bunch, are they not?
> 
> Labor 43.79%
> 
> ...




Unfortunately, you forgot to distribute the preferences of the "minor parties" in the ASF poll - you know - the ones that say _"Other - with a Liberal or Labor preference"_... and I'm pretty sure most all of the Green preferences would go to Labor too.

So that would make it about 50.56 Coalition to 49.44 Labor on a "2 party preferred" basis - a whole lot closer than what you may be thinking.




AJ


----------



## chops_a_must (21 November 2007)

Woodchips said:


> Even in the midst of a severe drought and high oil prices average wage rises have still outstripped average consumer prices and food prices. You might want to read the following article:
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22059550-601,00.html



Take out executive salaries, and they haven't.


----------



## Junior (21 November 2007)

Woodchips said:


> I will be voting Liberal. I don't agree with everything John Howard stands for but overall he's on the money.
> 
> Rudd has successfully made a mountain out of a mole hill in this election. The facts are that interest rates are still relatively low, average wages are increasing steadily, unemployment is at record lows and we've kept tidy budget surpluses for some time now. The economy is very strong so we're seeing upward pressure on inflation but that is to be expected under these conditions. As long as this is kept in check it won't be a problem.
> 
> ...




Take out the HUGE impact the mining boom has had on our economy and it would not be looking so good.


----------



## skint (21 November 2007)

Woodchips said:


> I will be voting Liberal. I don't agree with everything John Howard stands for but overall he's on the money.
> 
> Rudd has successfully made a mountain out of a mole hill in this election. The facts are that interest rates are still relatively low, average wages are increasing steadily, unemployment is at record lows and we've kept tidy budget surpluses for some time now. The economy is very strong so we're seeing upward pressure on inflation but that is to be expected under these conditions. As long as this is kept in check it won't be a problem.
> 
> ...




If you read my earlier post (3:49pm), I outlined the large economic reforms that have placed Aust in the competitive position it is in. They occured under Labor. Also, if you take out the miner's, AWA's have left people significantly worse off, especially women, retail and hospitality worker's etc. Wages in the latter groups (and obviously there are a great many) have fallen by $80-$100. Further, of course we are having huge surpluses. The mining component of the boom alone has added over $80b dollars, even before considering other sectors of the economy that has benefited from the GLOBAL boom. Your confusing genius with boom.


----------



## Rafa (21 November 2007)

this is probably one thing i am most looking forward too....



> *I'll end secrecy: Rudd*
> 
> Labor leader Kevin Rudd has pledged to end the culture of secrecy he claims has been a hallmark of the Howard government, describing it as a cancer eating away at the function of democracy.
> 
> ...




http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-...nd-secrecy-rudd/2007/11/21/1195321837158.html


----------



## Woodchips (21 November 2007)

skint said:


> If you read my earlier post (3:49pm), I outlined the large economic reforms that have placed Aust in the competitive position it is in. They occurred under Labor.




They did, but I am talking about the current crop - I don't for one second deny the achievements of previous Labor governments with regard to economic reform.



skint said:


> ...if you take out the miner's, AWA's have left people significantly worse off, especially women, retail and hospitality worker's etc. Wages in the latter groups (and obviously there are a great many) have fallen by $80-$100.




They're _average _wages and are deceptive when there's been compositional changes in employment especially in typically low wage industries. Full time employment has risen across the board since Workchoices was introduced and many of these new full-time employees in retail and hospitality were previously part-time low wage workers or unemployed low wage workers. They inevitably drag the average wages for such industries down.

Point is that average wages in most other industries have grown and _real_ wages growth as measure by the WPI (which isn't affected by compositional changes) has continued to grow somewhere around 1% since Workchoices. So the divergence that you are referring to with respect to retail and hospitality is a result of compositional changes in employment only. Its almost certainly a statistical artifact.

As for women, I am yet to see the figures that suggest that they are worse off. When I looked up the figures recently, average female wages growth grew by 5.1% since Workchoices, compared to the 5 year average of 4.6% and the 20 year average of 4.2%. 



skint said:


> Further, of course we are having huge surpluses. The mining component of the boom alone has added over $80b dollars, even before considering other sectors of the economy that has benefited from the GLOBAL boom. Your confusing genius with boom.




There's no denying it, a lot of it is about the mining boom. But given that everyone acknowledges the past and future economic benefits of this mining boom, doesn't it make sense to encourage mining investment so that we can ride the wave for everything that its worth? A highly regulated labour market is not conducing to mining investment! Neither are strikes.

But of course, you can always just manage Chinese investments in Latin American real estate right?   There's a bit more crud from Mr Rudd.

Would I call John Howard a genius? Nah, not in a heart beat! But I still reckon he's the better man for the job :

WC


----------



## chops_a_must (21 November 2007)

Woodchips said:


> As for women, I am yet to see the figures that suggest that they are worse off. When I looked up the figures recently, average female wages growth grew by 5.1% since Workchoices, compared to the 5 year average of 4.6% and the 20 year average of 4.2%.



There is a big difference between "since" and "because of". It is a fact that women on AWA's (on the whole) have seen their pay decrease whilst women working without AWA's, have had their pay increased.


----------



## skint (21 November 2007)

Woodchips said:


> They did, but I am talking about the current crop - I don't for one second deny the achievements of previous Labor governments with regard to economic reform.
> 
> 
> They're _average _wages and are deceptive when there's been compositional changes in employment especially in typically low wage industries. Full time employment has risen across the board since Workchoices was introduced and many of these new full-time employees in retail and hospitality were previously part-time low wage workers or unemployed low wage workers. They inevitably drag the average wages for such industries down.
> ...




Back then there were those saying the sky would fall under Labor and as you recognise, it was Labor that made the reforms. Nothing to date suggests things would be significantly different IMO.

I agree there is compositional change but that's not what I'm refering to. I should have been more specific. Those that are employed (of either gender) in jobs  that are in higher demand have no problems and account for much of the pay rises. Lower paid workers have suffered when they've moved from awards or enterprise bargaining agreements. There is a mountain of evidence to indicate these groups have been hammered. A low paid worker on $700 per week one day, and $600 the day after is not compositional change. The wealth gap has been increasing in Aust. and elsewhere. Workchoices accelerates this gap with all the commensurate socioeconomic consequences.  

You seem to be also suggesting that Labor would not want the minerals boom to continue. Of course, everyone wants the minerals boom to continue as long as possible. Its ludicrous to suggest that either party wouldn't. This notion that Labor would seek to adopt a "highly regulated labour market" is also ludicrous, given that Labour deregulated the labour market in the first place. Enterprise bargaining introduced the efficiencies necessary without moving to a dog eat dog world with no benefits to productivity. Workchoices is not about productivity. Its about ideology. You only have to look to the US to see the problems with an entrenched underclass that results from a Howardesque mentality.


----------



## nioka (21 November 2007)

Gundini said:


> While this poll number is very small, I find it interesting the Liberal Party is pulling away from Labor. Does this reflect the public sentiment? Surely my fellow ASF contibutors are an astute bunch, are they not?
> 
> Labor 43.79%
> 
> ...




 More a reflection of the fact that the "capitalists" and the money men ( make that people, not men) who deal in shares, while they may not represent a true cross section of society are are highly represented on these forums. Rudd has out performed Howard in the media these last two days.  Rudd will win, don't take the $4 unless it is for second place.  Even if the Libs creep in they may not have Howard as it is highly likely he will lose his own seat so that means Costello.


----------



## Nyden (21 November 2007)

I believe a lot of people are toying with the notion of Rudd, they're fascinated by all of his appearances on talk-shows, & what not - but, I doubt he'll win. Fear of Labor will triumph at the end of the day, and fear of change. 

I will be taking that $4 bet actually, I'll put a couple of hundred on it for a kick 

I guess there is some silver-lining though, if Labor win that is. They'll be blamed for any possible recession; and we won't see them in a fed position again for another decade or 2


----------



## noco (21 November 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> Excellent points.
> Really makes you wonder what they will actually do with the IR laws when they get in.... I mean they say that they will do this and that but like Peter Garrett said, they will just change it all once they get in.
> 
> Cheers




You know Mint Man we should all vote Labor this time and give Australia a "GOOD DOSE OF HARD LABOUR" for 3 years and then we can kick them out for another decade. Trouble is what a mess to clean up after they stuff things up. I would hate to be  in the Coalition Party that finally kicks Labor out of Queensland and it will happen! They will have years of infrastructure to catch up on ; health, education, water storage etc.etc.etc.
There is nothing like learning the hard way when a die hard can't be told.


----------



## Duckman#72 (21 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> You can't learn from reading a book? WTF?




Hi Chops

I just noticed the message on the bottom of your posts.

"You learn by experience. You have to go through things to actually understand it"

Isn't that pretty much Howard's point exactly.

Duckman


----------



## numbercruncher (21 November 2007)

or maybe we should just vote Liberal again so they can stand by and let the education and health system collapse, strip every employee of their rights, embark on a few more wars for oil, killing and displacing hundreds of thousands of people, build Nuclear reactors all over the country side all while beleiving that our hole in the ground economy will support the nation for eternity.

Then when it all collapses maybe theyll be gone for a few decades ?


----------



## nioka (21 November 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> or maybe we should just vote Liberal again so they can stand by and let the education and health system collapse, strip every employee of their rights, embark on a few more wars for oil, killing and displacing hundreds of thousands of people,?




Isn't that what we did three years ago?


----------



## chops_a_must (21 November 2007)

Duckman#72 said:


> Hi Chops
> 
> I just noticed the message on the bottom of your posts.
> 
> ...




No.

Because it's flawed by his adventures in Iraq. Supporting the US wrongly in regards to Vietnam has not stopped him wrongly supporting the US in Iraq.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 November 2007)

> Because it's flawed by his adventures in Iraq. Supporting the US wrongly in regards to Vietnam has not stopped him wrongly supporting the US in Iraq.




spot on chops
question is, will that idiot Bush attack Iran as well. 
thanks god we won't have "MT Johnny" around to follow him there as well 

ps MT = "me too" of course


----------



## Rafa (21 November 2007)

I have a question for you true blue liberals....

How do you tolerate a leader, who despite his rhetoric, has managed to turn Australia into a welfare state... or more specifically... a middle class welfare state.

I can understand a lot of you supporting Costello and his views as part of the HR Nicholls society, because ideologically that fits... But Howard has in many ways, outdone labor and has managed to turn Australia, whilst in the midst of  boom condition, to also have record welfare payments! Do we really need things like the baby bonus (for spending on plasma tv's), medicare safety net (which helps those who go to the most expensive doctors), private health insurance rebate (for those rich enough to afford private health cover), childcare rebate and now the education fees tax deduction (again going to those who pay fees) when that money collectively could quite possibly fix the problems in health, education and child care?

Whatever happened to small govt liberals...??? I would rather the welfare be focussed on those who really need it, and the rest of my taxes given back, thank you very much.




> *Welfare bill soars despite PM's aspirations*
> 
> ALTHOUGH the Prime Minister, John Howard, wants Australia to move from a "welfare state to an opportunity society", new figures show *welfare expenditure has increased every year since 1998, and at $90 billion rivals expenditure on health.*
> 
> ...




http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-...pms-aspirations/2007/11/20/1195321782677.html


----------



## skint (21 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> No.
> 
> Because it's flawed by his adventures in Iraq. Supporting the US wrongly in regards to Vietnam has not stopped him wrongly supporting the US in Iraq.




Moreover, aside from the lessons of Vietnam, Howard's own disastrous experience in Iraq, has only encouraged him to dig a deeper hole for Australia but also Iraq. :swear:


----------



## wayneL (21 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> I have a question for you true blue liberals....
> 
> How do you tolerate a leader, who despite his rhetoric, has managed to turn Australia into a welfare state... or more specifically... a middle class welfare state.




This is exactly the reason I've gone off the Liberals (aside from the Iraq farce and America sycophancy).

It's pork barreling of the first order, and if many Liberals were honest with themselves, they've been pork barreled.


----------



## marklar (21 November 2007)

m.


----------



## Julia (21 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> Do we really need things like the baby bonus (for spending on plasma tv's)



No.  We do not.  The baby bonus is encouraging breeding amongst those least likely to make a contribution to our society.
But has Labor suggested abolishing this?  No.




> medicare safety net (which helps those who go to the most expensive doctors)



I don't think that's really a fair comment.  I see many people on very low incomes who have sick children or are ill themselves, who really benefit from this.  There is considerable uniformity in doctors' fees overall so I don't think well off people necessarily incur greater medical bills.



> private health insurance rebate (for those rich enough to afford private health cover)



Rafa, I don't believe having private health insurance is a measure of one's financial situation at all.  I had a number of years when I was really poor - even had to depend on a government sickness benefit for a while - but always chose to go without something else to pay for private cover.
It has nothing to do with wealth or elitism.  It simply has to do with complete lack of faith in the public health system.



> childcare rebate and now the education fees tax deduction (again going to those who pay fees) when that money collectively could quite possibly fix the problems in health, education and child care?



The childcare rebate seems unreasonable to me, but again have Labor said they will abolish this?  I don't think so.  I might well feel differently if I needed childcare personally.  Easy to say it's unimportant when I don't personally benefit from it.
No objection to any rebates to do with any aspect of education.  It is the backbone of any decent society.



> Whatever happened to small govt liberals...??? I would rather the welfare be focussed on those who really need it, and the rest of my taxes given back, thank you very much.p




This is where we differ.  I would much prefer the tax cuts not to happen.
The benefits to individuals are not that great, but the benefit of that amount as a whole spent on, say, health would be of benefit to all of us.

I understand absolutely your point about middle class welfare, and your resentment that these rebates etc appear to be going to people who least seem to need it.  I'm just suggesting that what appears to be is not always the case and that it's very, very difficult to separate out any welfare measure into those who genuinely need it and those who don't.


http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-...pms-aspirations/2007/11/20/1195321782677.html


----------



## Julia (21 November 2007)

skint said:


> The reasons I have for voting labor (or exhausting my preferences to Labor), are that even though they're a long way from perfect, they have outperformed the coalition in every portfolio over the years IMO. These are just a few examples. I hope my reasons are sufficiently clearly presented LOL.
> 
> *The Economy* - it took a Labor gov't to 1)float the dollar and deregulate the money markets making Aust. competitive. 2)abolish centralised bargaining which had been in place since 1907. 3)curtail the last wages explosion that occured in 1981-3 under Howard 4)tie wage increases to productivity increases and 5)propose to the Reserve an inflation target of 2-3% which it adopted. Other developed countries have since followed suit. These are the big reforms that have placed Aust in the position it is in. Ironically many still believe that these occured under the coalition. Howard also conceded on the 7:30 report last night that the only reason home interest rates didn't rocket above 12% or so under his treasuryship was because they were CAPPED! and he hadn't floated the dollar.  The coalition's reforms have been largely to introduce Work Choices and little else. New Zealand introduced these types of laws years ago with litle or no effect on productivity. Besides presiding over a massive global boom, I fail to see what large and innovative economic reforms the coalition have achieved.
> 
> ...



Skint, thanks for a really useful post.  I didn't come here to live until 1993 so I'm interested in what you say.
And yep, it's crystal clear, thanks!


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Remember, it's only the Liberal Party that can keep this advertising boom going.




actually $196 million last financial year - 
plus (says Rudd) approx $1 million per day since.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/19/2095035.htm


> Labor, Democrats slam Govt advertising spending
> Posted Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:30pm AEDT
> The Prime Minister's department's annual report has revealed the Federal Government *spent more than $196 million on advertising campaigns last financial year.*
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 November 2007)

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2092980.htm




> Bob Ellis on Right and Wrong. The Right's dirty tricks are many and cunning and foul and they stink in the nostrils of our neighbourly democracy - disfranchising 200,000 students, vagrants and people between addresses for instance, disqualifying George Newhouse, pretending Hicks, Habib, Haneef and Tony Tranh have somehow, somewhere imperilled Australia, pretending interest payments under Hawke and Keating weren't half, in real terms, of what they are now. But their most remarkable success, I think, has been to abolish - or terminally diminish - the concepts of 'better' and 'worse', and 'right' and 'wrong'.



http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2074467.htm



> Irfan Yusuf on (screwed up/ confused) religion in politics.   In the NSW State Election, Nile candidates gave preferences to allegedly non-Muslim Liberals such as Liverpool candidate (and nominally Lebanese Shia) Ned Mannoun. Nile refused preferences to nasty Muslim types like Marrickville businessman (and Coptic Christian) Ramzy Mansour. Hopefully the Coalition isn't running any Christians with stereotypical Muslim-sounding names in this election.


----------



## Aussiejeff (22 November 2007)

Oh dear. After last nights fiasco (where Lib party members were expelled over the distribution of racial slur pamphlets trying to implicate Labor with Islamic terrorism) in Jackie Kelly's seat - including distribution by her hubby - the best defence so far offered (by Jackie I believe) is that it was meant to be sort of tongue-in-cheek campaign move!!

Crikey, the poo is hitting the fan thick and fast for both sides now, but this doozy takes the cake.......

Good luck explaining this one, Johnny. 


AJ

PS: Good grief, Jackie is on the radio now saying "it was only a funny prank... it's terrible that Labor goons mounted a Chaser style operation to catch my husband and his colleagues...." ... she is a seriously sick puppy to think that this won't hurt the Liberal Party "at all". Go figure.


----------



## numbercruncher (22 November 2007)

It should be obvious to voters by now just how dodgy and dishonest the Liberals have become , look at this one from a few months back ....



> LIBERAL Senator Bill Heffernan's latest foray into the world of strange politics has been to pose as an Australian Security Intelligence Organisation agent.
> 
> That's when he's not phoning Queensland farmers claiming to be Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce, to ask them what they think of "that Bill Heffernan bloke".
> 
> ...




http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/asio-agent-heffernan-makes-odd-calls/2007/06/23/1182019436635.html


----------



## Aussie2Aussie (22 November 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> It should be obvious to voters by now just how dodgy and dishonest the Liberals have become , look at this one from a few months back ....
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/asio-agent-heffernan-makes-odd-calls/2007/06/23/1182019436635.html




Same tactics used by every party at every election - nothing new, it is either Labor gets caught or Liberal.

In my electorate, Bennelong, I have seen posters go up one day, to drive by the next to see it defaced or gone entirely, then replaced with a new one or with one from an opposing party and then the cycle starts again - that goes for Labor, Liberal, Democrat, Christian Democrat ..........


----------



## Superfly (22 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> spot on chops
> question is, will that idiot Bush attack Iran as well.
> thanks god we won't have "MT Johnny" around to follow him there as well
> 
> ps MT = "me too" of course




So it's ok to let the mad Moollars get the bomb ?...

...anti-Americanism from left voters....


----------



## Aussie2Aussie (22 November 2007)

Just in case anyone thinks that the Liberals are the only ones that do this kind of stuff.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...r-safe-ALP-seat/2005/01/26/1106415668219.html

http://lee.greens.org.au/index.php/content/view/1077/42/

http://mcv.e-p.net.au/news/gay-claim-dirty-tricks-campaign-2.html

http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests/victoria/farce/

these after a not even really trying!


----------



## chops_a_must (22 November 2007)

Aussie2Aussie said:


> Just in case anyone thinks that the Liberals are the only ones that do this kind of stuff.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...r-safe-ALP-seat/2005/01/26/1106415668219.html
> 
> ...



Pre-selections are notoriously bad for this kind of rubbish.

I can remember a famous Western Australian by the name of Graham Kierath, some of you will know that name, was handing out fake how to vote cards for the greens. What disturbed me most about that was seeing his very young family members knowingly doing it. I don't think I've ever seen such a peaceful person fire up so much, as I did Janet Woollard that day.

I've also been chased with a hammer by a local Liberal campaign manager. That was pretty scary. Wasn't even doing anything. Just put my flag down and off we went. The police weren't too impressed that's for sure.

Numerous candidates have been beaten up. Could keep going on.

But in general, it appears the greens and labor seem to get the worst of it. They're probably too pacifistic to do anything back. Or not as inclined to do as much in the first place. Anecdotally anyway.


----------



## Gundini (22 November 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Unfortunately, you forgot to distribute the preferences of the "minor parties" in the ASF poll - you know - the ones that say _"Other - with a Liberal or Labor preference"_... and I'm pretty sure most all of the Green preferences would go to Labor too.
> 
> So that would make it about 50.56 Coalition to 49.44 Labor on a "2 party preferred" basis - a whole lot closer than what you may be thinking.
> 
> ...




Not true, actually, I did distribute those preferences, but didn't add the Green vote or Nationals vote. So, if the Greens get all of the Labor vote preferences,(a massive 5.35%) and Liberal get all the National preferences,(a minor 1.07%) then the current poll looks like this:

Labor 50.27%

Liberal 49.73%

which still represents excellent value at $4 something on Liberal. (For the betting Man/Woman that is)


----------



## Woodchips (22 November 2007)

skint said:


> Back then there were those saying the sky would fall under Labor and as you recognise, it was Labor that made the reforms. Nothing to date suggests things would be significantly different IMO.




Probably because the memory of the sky actually falling in under Whitlam was fresh in their minds. : But OK, fair enough.



skint said:


> There is a mountain of evidence to indicate these groups have been hammered.




If there is a mountain of evidence they must be hiding pretty well skint because to be honest I hear a lot of people talk about it in theory, but in practice they cant produce the figures.  There will inevitably be _some_ people that are worse off in certain circumstances, thats the nature of reform. But the numbers ive seen suggest that overall, the country is benefiting from these changes. Just as most economists now agree that the country has benefited overall from the introduction of the GST. Who knows, the figures might tell a different story in 5 years, but right now the signs are positive.



skint said:


> You only have to look to the US to see the problems with an entrenched underclass that results from a Howardesque mentality.




That is a very general statement that once again is not backed up by any evidence. There are many differences between the US and Australia, and there are many reason why the US is in the state that its in. And you're putting it all down to a 'Howardesque mentality'? Not even sure what you mean by that.

If you want compare Australia with a country that has undertaken significant IR reforms, you only have to look across the TAsman. New Zealand put through 3 phases of workplace reforms back in 1993 - there was actually a substantial increase in productivity post reform, contrary to all of the scare mongering that was going on before they were introduced. And the fact is that New Zealand went much further with their reforms than we are with Workchoices. Interestingly, Helen Clarke kept all of those workplace reforms under the next Labour government. 



skint said:


> Workchoices is not about productivity. Its about ideology.




You can call it whatever you like, but the fact is that Workchoices will have an impact on productivity. Some economic estimates suggest that reform to unfair dismissal rules can increase productivity by up to 2.4%. Its all in the literature.

Anyway, I wont be able to comment here till after the election, good luck to everyone and I hope your team wins. As long as that team isnt the Greens.

WC


----------



## noirua (22 November 2007)

Don't forget, that a strong mining and oil industry, backed up by continued increases in capacity at Australias Eastern Ports is absolutely vital to the countries growth and prosperity and of all Australians.
The Liberal leader, John Howard is a steady hand in this respect.


----------



## nioka (22 November 2007)

noirua said:


> .
> The Liberal leader, John Howard is a steady hand in this respect.




He certainly thinks so. But then he isn't going to stay on is he? I can't see why Rudd can't do better. Rudd will get on with our best customer prospects and maybe we will all be able to share in the prosperity of the nation.


----------



## Aussiejeff (22 November 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Thanks, skint, for those calming, soothing words (MEDIA BLACKOUT... hooray!)
> 
> I can't wait to see what Johnny Santa pulls out of his sack AT THE LAST MINUTE before the blackout commences ....  mebbe a spare "extra" 10 Billion for even more tax cuts?
> 
> ...




Bit of a larf having to quote oneself, but the temptation was too great after seeing this news item today re: Final Fling Pork Barreling....

*"THE Coalition has pledged to pump another $7.3 billion into the transport infrastructure fund"*.

I got close to the $10 Billion Pork Barrell call .... anyone wanna throw me a bag of peanuts for a prize??  

Any more for any more????

Ka-ching, ka-ching.......

LOL

AJ

PS: If only stock price movements were soooooo predictable.


----------



## Aussie2Aussie (22 November 2007)

nioka said:


> He certainly thinks so. But then he isn't going to stay on is he? I can't see why Rudd can't do better. Rudd will get on with our best customer prospects and maybe we will all be able to share in the prosperity of the nation.






Who knows Rudd, I dont and the Australian community does'nt either. Labor have run a fantastic campaign and have been more disciplined than I have ever seen them, part of that is the image work on a man that is presenting himself as an alternative Prime Minister who has not been allowed to truly show himself.

The press have a lot to answer for this as they are blinded by the prospect of seeing Howard off; never sympathetic to conservative politics anyway, they see a good relationship with a new Labor Government as more important than doing what they should be - investigating and challenging. If the Liberals were appearing in the polls as even a 50/50 chance, Rudd would be under much more scrutiny.


----------



## noirua (22 November 2007)

nioka said:


> He certainly thinks so. But then he isn't going to stay on is he? I can't see why Rudd can't do better. Rudd will get on with our best customer prospects and maybe we will all be able to share in the prosperity of the nation.





At the moment, Australia sells all the coal, oil, gas, iron ore etc., it can possibly get through the ports. The next few years needs continued expansion at many ports, Newcastle in particular, and I remain unconvinced that Kevin Rudd is the man to go full out for Australia, in this respect, and has, I believe, a stronger green agenda than meets the eye.


----------



## nioka (22 November 2007)

noirua said:


> At the moment, Australia sells all the coal, oil, gas, iron ore etc., it can possibly get through the ports. The next few years needs continued expansion at many ports, Newcastle in particular, and I remain unconvinced that Kevin Rudd is the man to go full out for Australia, in this respect, and has, I believe, a stronger green agenda than meets the eye.



What did Howard do in that regard in the last 11 years? Why is it in such a mess.


----------



## noirua (22 November 2007)

nioka said:


> What did Howard do in that regard in the last 11 years? Why is it in such a mess.




The reason for the problems in getting the go-ahead for the Newcastle Port expansion lies solely with the ruling Labor Party of New South Wales. They were pushed for nearly three years to agree a go-ahead by the coal mining companies. Now the port has 39 ships waiting with four in dock and this is down from 70 ships and this only due to cutting back the miners quotas.


----------



## Rafa (22 November 2007)

the whole pamphlet thing has really put a sour taste in many peoples mouths... 

whilst most parties do their fair share of dirty tricks, one thing it does highlight, is the fact that the liberals, esp under howard, are never backward in slagging of minority groups and playing on people fears in the name of political gain.

i.e. there is no regard for collateral damage, people outside the political arena are hurt. That is the big difference in tactics. Those in the political system are paid to cop it... not members of the public.

such sort of immoral disregard for minority groups is very concerning, but is not unexpected from the liberals under howard.




> THE sister of a Bali bomb victim says she is angry over the way tragedy was used in bogus election flyers distributed by Liberal party supporters in western Sydney.
> 
> Georgia Lysaght lost her brother Scott, 34, in the October 2002 bombings that killed 202 people, mostly western holidaymakers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kauri (22 November 2007)

Bad timing... a week earlier and we could have had another "children overboard" and "Tampa" rolled into one..   
Cheers
..........Kauri


*



			<H2>Navy in high-seas rescue of stricken fishing boat


Click to expand...


*


> _21st November 2007, 17:00 WST
> _
> _Sixteen Indonesians rescued from a leaking fishing boat by the Australian navy were tonight being taken to Christmas Island for assessment by immigration authorities.
> The three men, three women and 10 children aboard the wooden vessel were picked up by HMAS Ararat yesterday after their engine failed in rough conditions in the Timor Sea.
> ...



_</H2>_


----------



## The Mint Man (22 November 2007)

noirua said:


> The reason for the problems in getting the go-ahead for the Newcastle Port expansion lies solely with the ruling Labor Party of New South Wales.




And some of the same people that voted the Iemma government in are going  to vote for Rudd on the weekend. east to west Labor governments, what a great idea.
These people sure like punishment!
The states have also been uncooperative with the Liberal government over the last 12 months or so in the lead up to this election, no doubt at the request of Kevin Rudd just so he can say that Labor wall to wall would actually be a good thing.

Kevin Rudd has been going on about new leadership yet he has basically copied the Liberals each step of the way, how is that new leadership?  Kevin Rudd (and the rest of the Labor party) has been against almost everything the Liberal government has done up until now, strange that don't you think?
I can only think of one reason why Kevin Rudd and the other heavies in the Labor party have suddenly decided to tow the Liberal line.... because they know they would not have a hope in hell of winning this election if they took their *true beliefs* and displayed them to the people, if they did that then this election would be more about the parties as a whole and their respective policies as opposed to the man. 
Like Peter Garrett said, they will just change it all once they get in, Garrett is a part of the front bench and he knows things only the front bench would know. I truly believe this remark was a warning to Australian voters. Yes he did say that it was just a joke but who is to know if he is telling the truth or just trying to save his @rse? As every good comedian knows, there is a bit of truth behind every joke!

Now just on voting for the man.... I don't understand this concept of voting for the new, fresh face, after all you should not be voting for a man, *you should also consider the team*. Just like a coach, be it cricket, rugby, NRL,AFL, soccer, net ball etc. they all have one aim and that is to pick the best possible team. Sure the captain is important but he is nothing without the skill of his team mates..... and lets be honest, when you compare Labor to the Liberals, well lets just say they are worlds apart. Even Labor supporters know deep down that their team has not got what it takes when it comes to the crunch. 
And come to the crunch it will!

Cheers


----------



## mark70920 (22 November 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> Just like a coach, be it cricket, rugby, NRL,AFL, soccer, net ball etc. they all have one aim and that is to pick the best possible team. Sure the captain is important but he is nothing without the skill of his team mates.....
> Cheers




Even the Australian Cricket Selectors know you can't keep the same Captain forever and if the Captain does not have the support of his team , well he is a lame duck. But most of our modern Captains have taken the hint when tapped on the shoulder and retired on top. Allan Border , Mark Taylor , Steve Waugh all mature enough to accept advise that their time was up.


----------



## nioka (22 November 2007)

noirua said:


> The reason for the problems in getting the go-ahead for the Newcastle Port expansion lies solely with the ruling Labor Party of New South Wales. They were pushed for nearly three years to agree a go-ahead by the coal mining companies. Now the port has 39 ships waiting with four in dock and this is down from 70 ships and this only due to cutting back the miners quotas.



 The question still is "What did Howard do about it in 11 years and what will he do now." Maybe Rudd will work with the labor and get something going. 
 Maybe we have all Labour state governments because of the Federal Liberals. Maybe if we have Labor federally then we will get some Liberal states. I do not like our State Government but I like the Liberals federally a lot less. 
 Nothing I have seen on these forums so far has convinced this long term Liberal supporter from defection. Nothing at all. Menzies must be writhing in his grave with their antics.


----------



## Aussie2Aussie (22 November 2007)

nioka said:


> Nothing I have seen on these forums so far has convinced this long term Liberal supporter from defection. Nothing at all.





Sure


----------



## moneymajix (22 November 2007)

*HELP WITH DECIDING HOW TO VOTE*


http://www.howshouldivote.com.au/

Enter your postcode and dive straight in to our quick twenty question quiz. It will match YOUR answers to the candidates in YOUR electorate and produce YOUR own unique personalised how-to-vote card based on which candidates are most like YOU!

How does it work?
We've asked every candidate in each electorate to answer twenty questions that cover a wide range of issues that are of interest to voters. Now you can answer the same quiz and compare your views to the people you are considering voting for. 



I just answered the quizz. The person most aligned with my answers to the quizz is probably not someone I had seriously considered. Interesting.


----------



## nioka (22 November 2007)

moneymajix said:


> *HELP WITH DECIDING HOW TO VOTE*
> 
> 
> http://www.howshouldivote.com.au/
> ...



Interesting. Labor came out well ahead. An independant close behind. Confirms my intentions.


----------



## Aedo (22 November 2007)

moneymajix said:


> *HELP WITH DECIDING HOW TO VOTE*
> 
> 
> http://www.howshouldivote.com.au/
> ...




Only gave results for the green/labor/christian democrats - no other candidates had completed a questionaire.

Basically useless


----------



## Aussie2Aussie (22 November 2007)

What a load of crap, the site is run by Get-Up an anti Liberal activist group.
Below is, surprise, surprise the results for my seat...although I answered it with intent in the most extreme anti Labor manner.

Recommended preferencing.
7 PETERS, LindsayThe Australian Greens 
5 GOLDFINCH, PeterAustralian Democrats (NSW)  
2 LEYONHJELM, David Liberty & Democracy Party  
9 SPENCER, Gavin Citizens Electoral Council (NSW)  
13 WATERSON, VictorOne Nation (NSW)  
12 MARKWELL, Lorraine Family First (NSW)  
3 CORDINER, Graeme Independent (NSW) 
4 ALLEN, David L Independent (NSW)  
8 TAHIR, Yusuf Independent (NSW)  
11 HOWARD, John Liberal Party of Australia 
6 TRACANELLI, Margherita Climate Change Coalition 
10 PEEBLES, Robyn Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group) 
1 MCKEW, MaxinePARTY: Australian Labor Party (NSW)

Based on your answers to our candidate match, Maxine MCKEW, in selected Bennelong electorate is best suited for you. For more information on Maxine MCKEW View Profile


----------



## Julia (22 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> the whole pamphlet thing has really put a sour taste in many peoples mouths...
> 
> whilst most parties do their fair share of dirty tricks, one thing it does highlight, is the fact that the liberals, esp under howard, are never backward in slagging of minority groups and playing on people fears in the name of political gain.
> 
> ...



Rafa, is that really fair?  Let's look at what actually happened.  The husbands of two Liberal candidates misguidedly and stupidly printed off some completely inappropriate leaflets and letterboxed them.  As soon as it became known, John Howard dismissed the people concerned from the Liberal party and condemned their action in the strongest possible terms.

Your post suggests he - and the rest of the party hierarchy knew and approved of what happened.  If that is what you think, then on what basis have you drawn that conclusion?

I know you are a Labor supporter, but usually your comments are fair and measured.

Just look at the situation quite pragmatically.  This drama today has been a real blow to the Liberal party.  It is politically disastrous not because of any action by the Libs as a party, but because of the stupidity of a couple of their members who will by now be appreciating how dumb they were.
John Howard may be many things but he is not stupid.  No way in the world would he condone such a politically stupid action.

Labor, predictably, have jumped all over this, blaming the Liberals as a party.
Of course they would.  Just too good an opportunity to ignore the reality and paint that oh so expressive picture which your post mirrors.


----------



## Julia (22 November 2007)

moneymajix said:


> *HELP WITH DECIDING HOW TO VOTE*
> 
> 
> http://www.howshouldivote.com.au/
> ...




This quiz is nonsense.  Mine came out with Family First as my first preference!
They would be the absolute last on my voting preference list.


----------



## chops_a_must (22 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Rafa, is that really fair?  Let's look at what actually happened.  The husbands of two Liberal candidates misguidedly and stupidly printed off some completely inappropriate leaflets and letterboxed them.  As soon as it became known, John Howard dismissed the people concerned from the Liberal party and condemned their action in the strongest possible terms.
> 
> Your post suggests he - and the rest of the party hierarchy knew and approved of what happened.  If that is what you think, then on what basis have you drawn that conclusion?
> 
> ...




I don't think Rafa is implicating Howard in his post. I think he's saying it just exemplifies the desperation shown by the Libs in this campaign under Howard.

It will be particularly interesting to see the voting results in this seat now. It's hard to imagine it being anything other than a gimme for Labor. It reflects incredibly badly on the candidate and retiring candidate for that matter.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 November 2007)

Julia said:


> ....  *As soon as it became known*, John Howard dismissed the people concerned from the Liberal party and condemned their action in the strongest possible terms.



gee julia ... minor correction lol...  (how old are you again lol) 

*as soon as they were caught *


----------



## ghotib (23 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Rafa, is that really fair?  Let's look at what actually happened.  The husbands of two Liberal candidates misguidedly and stupidly printed off some completely inappropriate leaflets and letterboxed them.  As soon as it became known, John Howard dismissed the people concerned from the Liberal party and condemned their action in the strongest possible terms.
> 
> Your post suggests he - and the rest of the party hierarchy knew and approved of what happened.  If that is what you think, then on what basis have you drawn that conclusion?



I know you're a Queenslander, Julia, so you might not be aware that one of the husbands in question was a senior member of the State Liberal executive and is aligned with a hard-right power bloc in the NSW Liberal Party which gets credited with, among other things, the dismal showing of the coalition at the last state election. I wasn't aware of that either till today - State-level party apparatchiks, of whichever party, don't usually have much profile.

That doesn't mean that Howard, or indeed the Federal executive, knew about this "tactic" in advance. I'm inclined to agree that Howard himself would have stopped it because of the risk of backfire. However on Lateline tonight Philip Ruddock denied knowing the names of the people who had been ejected from the Party. The only way that could possibly be true is that he's deliberately avoided being told, which is a deviçe he and this government have used far too many times for me to find it believable. 

BTW, Howard didn't dismiss them from the party. He dissociated himself from their actions and told the party organisation to handle it:



> Mr Howard has disassociated himself from the alleged activities of people connected to Liberal MP Jackie Kelly who is retiring from her western Sydney seat of Lindsay.
> 
> "The first I knew about this was yesterday morning," Mr Howard told ABC radio today.
> 
> ...




I cut my political teeth in inner Sydney when the ALP right wing ruled it by thuggery,  corruption, and voter ignorance or indifference. They held power for so long that they couldn't believe they'd ever be beaten by fair means or called to account for foul. And that's why I passionately believe that "it's time" is a great reason to change government. We usually wait one or two terms over time. Keating should never have won in 1993; Howard should never have won in 2004. 

Cheers

Ghoti


----------



## Julia (23 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> It will be particularly interesting to see the voting results in this seat now. It's hard to imagine it being anything other than a gimme for Labor. It reflects incredibly badly on the candidate and retiring candidate for that matter.




Exactly.  And that was what I was trying to convey, i.e. that no way would John Howard or the party hierarchy have instigated this stupidity.


----------



## Julia (23 November 2007)

ghotib said:


> BTW, Howard didn't dismiss them from the party. He dissociated himself from their actions and told the party organisation to handle it:



OK, fine, whatever.  My point was that he was not aware of it in advance and therefore can hardly be blamed for it.



> I cut my political teeth in inner Sydney when the ALP right wing ruled it by thuggery,  corruption, and voter ignorance or indifference. They held power for so long that they couldn't believe they'd ever be beaten by fair means or called to account for foul. And that's why I passionately believe that "it's time" is a great reason to change government. We usually wait one or two terms over time. Keating should never have won in 1993; Howard should never have won in 2004.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Ghoti



So if Howard should never have won in 2004, you would have been happy with Mark Latham as Prime Minister?

Regards
Julia


----------



## explod (23 November 2007)

I think there is some splitting of hairs a bit to turn arguments.  The emergence of Latham handed the 04 election to Johnny on a plate.

This thread has turned into part of the true blue and born to rule line of desperation.   Like the old tactics of the DLP many years ago.  It failed then and will fail again.

People are looking for fresh air at a time when they sense difficult times ahead.   Howard's speak is almost condescending and the rank and file always revolt against being put down.

The ALP will romp it in.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 November 2007)

ghotib said:


> Keating should never have won in 1993; Howard should never have won in 2004.



Ghoti, and did GW Bush ever win really? - I mean if the votes had been correctly counted even.  Off topic I guess, except that this is the bloke (GWB) we've been REALLY following ever since.  



> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2004/11/65757
> Researchers: Florida Vote Fishy
> Kim Zetter  11.18.04 | 12:18 PM
> *Electronic voting machines in Florida may have awarded George W. Bush up to 260,000 more votes than he should have received, according to statistical analysis conducted by University of California,* Berkeley graduate students and a professor, who released a study on Thursday.
> ...






> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/3956129.stm
> New Florida vote scandal feared
> Tuesday, 26 October, 2004, 17:06 GMT 18:06 UK
> *A secret document obtained from inside Bush campaign headquarters in Florida suggests a plan - possibly in violation of US law - to disrupt voting in the state's African-American voting districts, a BBC Newsnight investigation reveals*.
> ...






> Ion Sancho, a Democrat, noted that Florida law allows political party operatives inside polling stations to stop voters from obtaining a ballot.
> 
> Mass challenges
> 
> ...



I think I prefer our compulsory voting system at least


----------



## Aussie2Aussie (23 November 2007)

ghotib said:


> II cut my political teeth in inner Sydney when the ALP right wing ruled it by thuggery,  corruption, and voter ignorance or indifference. They held power for so long that they couldn't believe they'd ever be beaten by fair means or called to account for foul. And that's why I passionately believe that "it's time" is a great reason to change government. We usually wait one or two terms over time. Keating should never have won in 1993; Howard should never have won in 2004.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Ghoti




And you dont think the same guys are around anymore!!!! Why do you think WA is going Liberal, they know these same guys you refer to as those that "ruled it by thuggery,  corruption..." are still with us.

Having lived not that long ago in WA for a few years, I can guarantee that those thugs and the corruption still exist. 

What really turned me aginst Rudd was his trip to WA to get the blessing of those very same thugs for his run against Beazley.


----------



## moXJO (23 November 2007)

Aussie2Aussie said:


> And you dont think the same guys are around anymore!!!! Why do you think WA is going Liberal, they know these same guys you refer to as those that "ruled it by thuggery,  corruption..." are still with us.
> 
> Having lived not that long ago in WA for a few years, I can guarantee that those thugs and the corruption still exist.
> 
> What really turned me aginst Rudd was his trip to WA to get the blessing of those very same thugs for his run against Beazley.




Have to agree same thing happening where I live. Unions forced a subbie to join the union before letting him on site to do his work luckily it went to court. Also a big smear campaign against the local liberal member. Her house has been paint bombed ,threats etc. Although this has always been a corrupt little labor town.


----------



## ghotib (23 November 2007)

> So if Howard should never have won in 2004, you would have been happy with Mark Latham as Prime Minister?



Probably not. So it Latham had won in 2004, I would probably be voting for the Coalition in 2007. 



> And you dont think the same guys are around anymore!!!! Why do you think WA is going Liberal, they know these same guys you refer to as those that "ruled it by thuggery, corruption..." are still with us.
> 
> Having lived not that long ago in WA for a few years, I can guarantee that those thugs and the corruption still exist.



They're always around in every party. My point is that leaving a party in power for too long lets them get entrenched.

I also think parties need a bit of time in opposition to clean themselves out and to review their policies and their procedures in relative privacy so they don't get locked in to their own pasts. 



> Ghoti, and did GW Bush ever win really? - I mean if the votes had been correctly counted even. Off topic I guess, except that this is the bloke (GWB) we've been REALLY following ever since.



It is off-topic but it's worth the reminder that the independent Australian Electoral Commission is very precious. Our votes will be counted and if the final result is wrong it will be because the voters were wrong. Which is good because the voters have the capacity to fix things next time. If we choose to use it.

Ghoti


----------



## Rafa (23 November 2007)

it looks like i wasn't clear in my previous post... in no way was i saying Howard knew about this... Sorry if anyone thought otherwise...

What i will say however, is that under Howards reign, appealing to the racist, homophobic, and bigoted in all of us, has been an valid tactic (and lets face it, we all have that deep down within us... I certainly do)

There are numerous times during which he has given implicit endorsement, and sometimes even explicit endorsement of vilification of a group of people. If the so called statesman...and leader of the country can do it, why not those in the rank and file?


and the fact is, whether endorsed or not, whether deliberate or accidental... has enough anti muslim sentiment been stirred to cost labor votes???



PS: and for the other issue of corruption and thuggery and rouge elements (like jackie kelly's husband, or the WA union thugs), etc... Any govt that has been in power for too long will develop such elements. All govt's need to turnover every 6-10 years... It makes for a healthy balanced country. I hope some of the states start being run by liberal govt's in the near future...


----------



## Rafa (23 November 2007)

From the Australian



> *Racial pamphlet a re-rerun: candidate*
> Sid Marris | November 23, 2007
> 
> A WESTERN Sydney Labor candidate subjected to a racially-charged bogus pamphlet at the last election says Liberals have "form" on this behaviour.
> ...


----------



## noco (23 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Rafa, is that really fair?  Let's look at what actually happened.  The husbands of two Liberal candidates misguidedly and stupidly printed off some completely inappropriate leaflets and letterboxed them.  As soon as it became known, John Howard dismissed the people concerned from the Liberal party and condemned their action in the strongest possible terms.
> 
> Your post suggests he - and the rest of the party hierarchy knew and approved of what happened.  If that is what you think, then on what basis have you drawn that conclusion?
> 
> ...




Julia I would dearly like to know where these inappropriate leaflets originated from; with modern tech.today they could have come from anybodies computer includind perhaps a Labor supporter. Was it in fact  a trap set for a couple of inexperienced and naive Liberal People who thought they were on to something to their advantage. Maybe they should have checked the origin of it first. Come what may, an AFP investigation might bring out the truth.


----------



## Rafa (23 November 2007)

noco said:


> Julia I would dearly like to know where these inappropriate leaflets originated from; with modern tech.today they could have come from anybodies computer includind perhaps a Labor supporter. Was it in fact  a trap set for a couple of inexperienced and naive Liberal People who thought they were on to something to their advantage. Maybe they should have checked the origin of it first. Come what may, an AFP investigation might bring out the truth.




Noco, your sounding like those Arabs who claim 9/11 was done by the US govt


----------



## Julia (23 November 2007)

ghotib said:


> They're always around in every party. My point is that leaving a party in power for too long lets them get entrenched.
> 
> I also think parties need a bit of time in opposition to clean themselves out and to review their policies and their procedures in relative privacy so they don't get locked in to their own pasts.
> 
> ...



Yes.  One of the things I have been thinking about during this endless campaign is "what would the Howard government be like if it were in fact returned to power yet again?"
And the answer I come up with is smug, dictatorial, and likely to do little to change the concerns I - and I think most people - have.

Still can't feel good about Labor because of the Union influence (much as Mr Rudd has attempted to minimise this) and just the personality of people like Ms Gillard and Mr Swan.


----------



## Julia (23 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> and the fact is, whether endorsed or not, whether deliberate or accidental... has enough anti muslim sentiment been stirred to cost labor votes???
> 
> 
> PS: and for the other issue of corruption and thuggery and rouge elements (like jackie kelly's husband, or the WA union thugs), etc... Any govt that has been in power for too long will develop such elements. All govt's need to turnover every 6-10 years... It makes for a healthy balanced country. I hope some of the states start being run by liberal govt's in the near future...



Rafa, I doubt that any anti muslim sentiment would have genuinely been stirred on the basis of this behaviour.  Honestly think most people will see it for what it is.

Jackie Kelly when interviewed should have just said she was appalled that her husband could have been involved in any such thing.  Instead she really made the whole thing worse with her silly suggestion that it was all a bit of a prank!  Made herself look almost as silly as her husband.


----------



## explod (23 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Rafa, I doubt that any anti muslim sentiment would have genuinely been stirred on the basis of this behaviour.  Honestly think most people will see it for what it is.
> 
> Jackie Kelly when interviewed should have just said she was appalled that her husband could have been involved in any such thing.  Instead she really made the whole thing worse with her silly suggestion that it was all a bit of a prank!  Made herself look almost as silly as her husband.




Yes, as the reaction of John Howard who, as we all on instict would be, apalled at such a so called stunt.   The reaction of Kelly..........interesting to say the least   ??


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 November 2007)

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2099008.htm
Howard’s time dissolves in racist farce .. Trevor Cook.


> Much more dramatically, the bogus islamic pamphlet saga has exposed a deep and worrying element that has been evident throughout Howard’s career. He may not condone racism but his political behaviour has encouraged it. From his refusal to condemn Hanson, to his refusal to say sorry to our indigenous community, to his ‘we will decide who comes here’, Howard has encouraged insularity and resentment.
> 
> Now this tragic failure of leadership has returned as farce to stain his last days in office. In fact, Jackie Kelly will bookend his prime ministerial career from the triumphant victory of a heartland labor seat in 1996 to *a piece of grubby stupidity aimed at exploiting racial tensions*.
> 
> Howard’s lifelong ambivalence to the use of racism in politics has been a betrayal of the Liberal Party’s better instincts and one that will have major repercussions for the party’s future and for future interpretations of the Howard legacy.



I'd agree for sure.

Incidentally, another previous Jacky Kelly staffer says she organised bogus "how-to-vote" cards in previous elections. 

I've noly got one question - why don't they make an example of her, and send a message to future politicians contemplating electoral cheating. 


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/22/2097666.htm
> ..... Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett says the situation in Lindsay shows it has now become acceptable in Australian politics to play the race card.
> 
> "I've got no doubt the Prime Minister, as the person who takes ultimate responsibility, has fostered an environment where these sorts of things are seen as acceptable or worth a shot within the Liberal Party," he said.






> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/21/2097484.htm
> The fake pamphlet says: "we gratefully acknowledge Labor's support to forgive our Muslim brothers who have been unjustly sentenced to death for the Bali bombings".
> 
> It called for more mosques to built and also says: "Labor was the only political party to support the entry to this country of our grand mufti reverend Sheikh al Hilali and we thank Hon. Paul Keating for over-turning the objections of ASIO to allow our grand mufti to enter this country."




If Labor lose Lindsay - they'll be entitled to a "rematch " (imo)


----------



## Rafa (23 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Rafa, I doubt that any anti muslim sentiment would have genuinely been stirred on the basis of this behaviour.  Honestly think most people will see it for what it is.




you have greater faith in humanity than I....

I for one, an extremely surprised that race has not entered into this campaign earlier... in my mind there is no doubt this will only be a benifit to the govt amongst the swining voters who watch shows like today tonight and ACA.

divide and conquer is a age old tactic ... and the best way to do it, is to sit idly by whilst others do your handiwork.... no one does it better than our PM.

as i said in an earlier post - Those in the political system are paid to cop it... not members of the public.

unfortunately, i am more certain of a liberal victory now, than at any time in the last 6 weeks...


----------



## Julia (23 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> you have greater faith in humanity than I....



Yep, a regular little Pollyanna, that's me.



> unfortunately, i am more certain of a liberal victory now, than at any time in the last 6 weeks...




Presumably you mean just in this seat, not overall???


----------



## numbercruncher (23 November 2007)

> Mega poll predicts Labor landslide
> Friday Nov 23, 2007
> 
> ninemsn's Passion Pulse, the biggest poll of the election campaign, leaves no room for doubt — Kevin Rudd will be the prime minister of Australia by the end of tomorrow night.




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/minisite/election_article.aspx?id=328104&sectionid=6046&sectionname=minisiteelection


Seems "average" Australians have had a gutful of the Liberal's ...




> Who will you be voting for in the election?
> Thanks for voting 10134 votes since Nov 22 2007
> Liberal/Nationals   37%  3714 votes
> Labor   48%  4821 votes
> ...




Todays yahoo 7 poll predicts something similar http://au.yahoo.com/


----------



## Rafa (23 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Yep, a regular little Pollyanna, that's me.









I was actually thinking overall result... it all hinges on how much the anti muslim sentiment gets traction in the next day or so...

16 seats is one hell of a task...

the odds still show coalition at $4 bucks


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> 16 seats is one hell of a task...
> 
> the odds still show coalition at $4 bucks



we should have a guessing comp... 

a) Libs will win and know they've won before WA polls close
b) Libs will win and know they've won by 9pm AEDT Saty (Sydney time)
c) Libs will win and know they've won by midnight AEDT Saty (Sydney time)
d) Libs will win within 1 week 
e) Libs will win after longer than 1 week or after a legal challenge

f) Lab will win after longer than 1 week or after a legal challenge
g) Lab will win within 1 week 
h) Lab will win and know they've won by midnight Saty AEDT (Sydney time)
i) Lab will win and know they've won by 9pm AEDT Saty (Sydney time)
j) Lab will win and know they've won before WA polls close


----------



## chops_a_must (23 November 2007)

> Much more dramatically, the bogus islamic pamphlet saga has exposed a deep and worrying element that has been evident throughout Howard’s career*. He may not condone racism but his political behaviour has encouraged it. From his refusal to condemn Hanson, to his refusal to say sorry to our indigenous community, to his ‘we will decide who comes here’, Howard has encouraged insularity and resentment.
> *
> Now this tragic failure of leadership has returned as farce to stain his last days in office. In fact, Jackie Kelly will bookend his prime ministerial career from the triumphant victory of a heartland labor seat in 1996 to a piece of grubby stupidity aimed at exploiting racial tensions.
> 
> Howard’s lifelong ambivalence to the use of racism in politics has been a betrayal of the Liberal Party’s better instincts and one that will have major repercussions for the party’s future and for future interpretations of the Howard legacy.




In the past I think he has condoned racism.

I wonder how many of our asian friends on these boards would actually be here if Howard had got his way in the 80s, or even know what he proposed. I was only a kid at the time, but I still remember it, and obviously more clearly than other people much older than I.

Hmm yes, promising to end Asian immigration in the 80s... and refusing to speak out against Hanson... You tell me the link! Yet the asian community will vote Liberal in droves, and most likely, one will try and give me a how to vote card.

But that is something I like to remind them of...


----------



## greggy (23 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> the whole pamphlet thing has really put a sour taste in many peoples mouths...
> 
> whilst most parties do their fair share of dirty tricks, one thing it does highlight, is the fact that the liberals, esp under howard, are never backward in slagging of minority groups and playing on people fears in the name of political gain.
> 
> ...



Hi Rafa,

Any remaining chance of retaining this Liberal seat has now disappeared.  Although I'll be switching my vote over to the ALP  tomorrow in what I think will be an election result that will be closer than most people think. I think you've gone a bit far in your comments in relation to the Liberals never being "backward in slagging of minority groups..."  There are indeeed racists in all political parties. They deserve no respect.  Australia would be better off without such individuals.


----------



## Rafa (23 November 2007)

greggy, i said Liberals under Howard...

i don't know what happened in the past, but howard has been around for yonks and chops already raised the 'end asian immigration' cry from Howard in the 80's....   but since entering office its been one minority group after another
it started with the aborigines, then asians, then unemployed, then single mothers, then refugees, then muslims, and now even attempts to vilify africans.

Now i am not saying that none of this is justified, infact i agree with most of it... but is making a big hoo haa via the populist media the right way to go about it, unless the aim is inflame the situation rather than actually solve it!

Maybe the rest of the liberal party don't support this sort of vilification, but they keep voting howard as their leader and the need to stay in power overides any moral obligation to to stop picking on minorities... certainly Jackie Kelly's husband feels this way.


for what its worth 2020, i am picking 
c) or h) i.e. result won't be known till WA results come in...

but as we all know, the bookies know best  they are still predictiing an easy labor win
----------------------
Daffy is predicting Labor will win 20 seats - four more than it needs to form government.

Punters betting with Sportingbet reckon the margin will be bigger. They have backed into $2.50 favourite a two-party preferred vote for Labor of somewhere between 53 and 53.99 per cent.

That range would produce a winning margin of between 16 and 26 seats.
---------------------------


Well, i am out for the rest of the night.
Good luck to all, may the best man win...


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> ...for what its worth 2020, i am picking
> c) or h) i.e. result won't be known till WA results come in...



rafa, yep - especially considering Qld is 1 hour behind Sydney at the moment. (crucial seats up there)
I'm on h)


----------



## robots (23 November 2007)

hello,

Would like to wish Johnny and the team all the best. The past 14 yrs have been tremendous and the next 14 under john & co will be just as impressive.

Go liberals.

Thankyou

robots


----------



## rederob (23 November 2007)

robots said:


> hello,
> 
> Would like to wish Johnny and the team all the best. The past 14 yrs have been tremendous and the next 14 under john & co will be just as impressive.
> 
> ...



Wow
What an endorsement of Keating's last 3 years in governement!
Maybe he was just liberal with his thinking as he labored over politics.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> we should have a guessing comp...
> 
> a) Libs will win and know they've won before WA polls close
> b) Libs will win and know they've won by 9pm AEDT Saty (Sydney time)
> ...



I'm expecting a Labor win to be reasonably apparent around 8 - 9 pm but no official acceptance as such until maybe 10 -11. Just my guess of course.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 November 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm expecting a Labor win to be reasonably apparent around 8 - 9 pm but no official acceptance as such until maybe 10 -11. Just my guess of course.



hey smurf - 
maybe followed by WA seceding about 11 or 12 midnight lol?


----------



## numbercruncher (23 November 2007)

The Brits are calling it " the first Climate change election "




> The lucky country?
> The Australian prime minister, John Howard, has poured scorn on the idea of global warming. But now the trees are dying, the crops are failing and the rivers are drying up. As the country prepares to go to the polls, Julian Glover reports on the world's first climate change election




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/23/climatechange.australia


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 November 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> ... Julian Glover reports on the world's first climate change election






> The lucky country?
> The Australian prime minister, John Howard, has poured scorn on the idea of global warming. But , just as the trees are dying, the crops are failing and the rivers are drying up. ...........



............God shows he has a wicked sense of humour, and sends down a bit of rain   

PS you may or may not have picked up from my posts (and I've been talking global warming here for 18 months) ...
but I am REALLY REALLY looking forward to voting tomorrow lol.    NEVER have I looked forward to voting so much lol.  (sorry to bore you folks) 

And I'll be honest, I have voted Liberal many many more times than Labor 
I have (as an employer) been taken to court - and taken for a ride - over unfair dismissals in the past ( $5K was about standard to buy your way out of a totally fabricated penalty)  - 

but I just feel we are about to fall off the right hand end of the world here 
:hide:

Kevin 07 - and of course he'll be aiming to be more than a one-termer


----------



## numbercruncher (23 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> ....NEVER have I looked forward to voting so much lol.  (sorry to bore you folks):





Me to 2020 , last three elections ive foolishly and selfishly voted with my wallet for Liberal, now ive taken the time to think about the big picture and consider the consequences ive realised im voting for my Kids and not only Australias future but quite possibly the planets future.

I like that old(ish) Indian proverb , Once the Last River is polluted, the last fish is caught and the last tree is cut down, only then will mankind realise he cant eat money.

Sustainability is what its all about.

Rock on Labor


----------



## insider (23 November 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Me to 2020 , last three elections ive foolishly and selfishly voted with my wallet for Liberal, now ive taken the time to think about the big picture and consider the consequences ive realised im voting for my Kids and not only Australias future but quite possibly the planets future.
> 
> I like that old(ish) Indian proverb , Once the Last River is polluted, the last fish is caught and the last tree is cut down, only then will mankind realise he cant eat money.
> 
> ...




That's  the story of Easter Island... This actually happened... So I was told


----------



## Aussie2Aussie (23 November 2007)

You have got to love these  guys....11th hour stuff and they will say, well I told you before the election.

ABC

*Rudd 'backtracked on Indigenous pledge'
Posted 5 hours 35 minutes ago *


Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson has lashed out at the Labor leader, accusing him of heartlessly abandoning his pledge to recognise Indigenous Australians in the constitution.

In an interview with The Australian newspaper, Kevin Rudd said that a referendum on Aboriginal reconciliation would not happen in the first term of a Rudd Labor government, if at all.


The Australian

*Labor admits to $400m hole* 
November 23, 2007 
Labor has accepted there is a $400 million hole in its election costings, but still claims it has spent half as much as the Coalition overall.

A reduction in tax on non-residents – designed, Kevin Rudd says to boost the international funds management sector, allowing Chinese money to invest in Latin American real estate via Australian firms – has turned out costing $505 million, Treasury says. 

Labor original estimate the cost of the measure – reducing withholding tax from 30 per cent to 15 per cent - at $105 million over the four-years forward estimates. 

But Labor’s independent panel of experts, which includes the former treasury official Greg Smith, has accepted Treasury’s costings.


----------



## Nyden (23 November 2007)

Aussie2Aussie said:


> You have got to love these  guys....11th hour stuff and they will say, well I told you before the election.
> 
> ABC
> 
> ...





Election hasn't even happened yet - & Labor's already backing out of things!





> Kevin 07 - and of course he'll be aiming to be more than a one-termer



That's *if* he even makes it that far


----------



## Julia (23 November 2007)

Well, good on Noel Pearson for attacking him on this.  So he should.
Then I expect after the election we'll find out about all the non-core promises.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 November 2007)

> Kevin 07 - and of course he'll be aiming to be more than a one-termer






Nyden said:


> That's *if* he even makes it that far



Nyden ...True lol - 
one of us will be truly pissed off come announcement-of-the-winner time


----------



## numbercruncher (23 November 2007)

He hasnt said hes never going to do it, propaganda squad ....




> "From my point of view, the key thing is closing the gap (between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal living standards) and the key to this also is to introduce policies that give effect to closing the gap,'' Mr Rudd said.
> 
> "I am concerned about making advances on the practical front first. Let's take other things subsequent to that.''




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22808741-601,00.html

Whats more important fidding around with paper work or Improving Aboriginal living conditions and life expenctancy ?


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 November 2007)

certainly Noel Pearson has been close to the Libs lately - then again the intervention (that he has supported so loudly) has conveniently skirted around his neck of the woods 



> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/31/2020784.htm
> 
> NLC chairman slams Pearson
> Posted Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:48pm AEST
> ...


----------



## Miner (24 November 2007)

marklar said:


> I'm voting for myself, I'm on the Senate ticket in Victoria
> 
> m.




Great to hear
So like the Tasmanian Senator who made teh deal in GST and created the opportunity to have a huge cash money (black money) which side will you take my dear would be senator ?
Regards


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 November 2007)

mark70920 said:


> Let me expalin how inflation works , relevant to labour costs.
> Pay rises are only inflationary if they are not accompanied by an increase in productivity, so if someone produces 10 items a week at a labor cost of a $1000 ($100 an item) and then get a pay rise of 10% ($1100) each item would now have labor cost of $110 , that causes inflation but if he now produces 11 items a week the labor cost would still be $100 an item , that’s not inflationary.




My wages and shopping trolley experience tells me that wage increase and goods and services increase happen together.I can`t see which comes first.What, do you really think that giving a bloke an extra buck an hour is gonna get him running faster.lol.



> We need to invest in infrastructure again to help increase productivity.




Do you have peripheral vision????



> There is no evidence that AWA's increase productivity and in fact the international evidence points to collective agreements(over individual agreements) giving the biggest increases in productivity.




Correct.


----------



## rederob (24 November 2007)

odds improving on coalition - down to $3.45 for a win from around $4 earlier in the week
mug punters still suggest it's a landslide looming
i'm pretty sure a politician will win
and lose


----------



## chops_a_must (24 November 2007)

I don't want to give anyone nightmares or anything.

But is it just me, or has Howard's behaviour and speeches this week reminded you of one of those guys practically begging girls for sex at a pub or nightclub? I'm sure the women will know what I mean. Anyway, I hope he doesn't go on to pick anyone up at this late hour.


----------



## Aussiejeff (24 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> I don't want to give anyone nightmares or anything.
> 
> But is it just me, or has Howard's behaviour and speeches this week reminded you of one of those guys practically begging girls for sex at a pub or nightclub? I'm sure the women will know what I mean. Anyway, I hope he doesn't go on to pick anyone up at this late hour.





On the radio this morning he sounded "punch drunk".... or maybe it was something stronger! He's on a 24 hour non-stop S.O.S. bender.....

LOL


AJ


----------



## explod (24 November 2007)

I worked a polling booth till 9.am today.  And in my 40 years I have not seen such a focus of young people seeking ALP how to vote cards.  The age group I would say was from 18 through to 32year olds.

Dont think it will affect the outcome here on the Mornington Peninsula, which is very stong Liberal, but may indicate a larger effect in other places.


----------



## Aussiejeff (24 November 2007)

explod said:


> I worked a polling booth till 9.am today.  And in my 40 years I have not seen such a focus of young people seeking ALP how to vote cards.  The age group I would say was from 18 through to 32year olds.
> 
> Dont think it will affect the outcome here on the Mornington Peninsula, which is very stong Liberal, but may indicate a larger effect in other places.




Hey Explod .... same thing occured at Wodonga West polling booth - massive queues of voters - not seen it like this before at 8.30am! Took almost 20 mins to get in. Lots of young voters asking for Labour how-to-vote papers. Go figure....

Now, for some reason I cannot get the Start New Thread option up. Maybe I have been banned!  I thought it would be fun to start a post-poll *"Who Did You Vote For Today"* thread with the same options as this "Who Are You Going To Vote For" thread. Can you or anyone else set one up?? I can't wait to VOTE TWICE  hahahaha... Let's see if ASF can predict the outcome before 7pm tonight!!

Cheers,


----------



## chops_a_must (24 November 2007)

explod said:


> I worked a polling booth till 9.am today.  And in my 40 years I have not seen such a focus of young people seeking ALP how to vote cards.  The age group I would say was from 18 through to 32year olds.
> 
> Dont think it will affect the outcome here on the Mornington Peninsula, which is very stong Liberal, but may indicate a larger effect in other places.




Is that really a surprise?

When you have absolutely screwed over young people as much as the Libs have?


----------



## hangseng (24 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Is that really a surprise?
> 
> When you have absolutely screwed over young people as much as the Libs have?




"When you have absolutely screwed over young people as much as the Libs have?"

Yes, why would they want to have a strong robust economy with the lowest unemployment ever? Much better what Labour brought in, dole for school leavers, higher social security payments and many more such disincentives to work.

18-20 year olds should never have been given the vote (Labour again), they still in psycholigical and physiological development and can barely control or understand themselves at such an impressionable young age.


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> 18-20 year olds should never have been given the vote (Labour again), they still in psycholigical and physiological development and can barely control or understand themselves at such an impressionable young age.




ok kids
"sit!"
"stay" lol

(sorry hangseng - couldn't resist )

seem to recall a slave girl (back in the South) could get her freedom if she had 5 kids by the time she was 20 years old    - something similar to Aus these days


----------



## mark70920 (24 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> "When you have absolutely screwed over young people as much as the Libs have?"
> 
> Yes, why would they want to have a strong robust economy with the lowest unemployment ever? Much better what Labour brought in, dole for school leavers, higher social security payments and many more such disincentives to work.
> 
> 18-20 year olds should never have been given the vote (Labour again), they still in psycholigical and physiological development and can barely control or understand themselves at such an impressionable young age.





If your old enough to go to war , you deserve a vote. Die for your country but have no say in who runs it. Sounds like a dictatorship.


----------



## chops_a_must (24 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> "When you have absolutely screwed over young people as much as the Libs have?"
> 
> Yes, why would they want to have a strong robust economy with the lowest unemployment ever? Much better what Labour brought in, dole for school leavers, higher social security payments and many more such disincentives to work.
> 
> 18-20 year olds should never have been given the vote (Labour again), they still in psycholigical and physiological development and can barely control or understand themselves at such an impressionable young age.




What a foolish thing to say.

I've done political work since I was 16, and have had to see people vote for things that are directly going to disadvantage me, without me having a say. Why shouldn't people be given a say about their education when they are actually going through it?

I've said numerous times, and given evidence, that higher learning in this country has been trashed.

Young people don't really care as much about economics as old fogies. Especially when it is so short sighted. At the moment, youth are worrying about what their world is going to be like in 30-40 years time. And right now, their futures have been mortgaged by people that wont be around at that time...

P.S. and no, unemployment is not at all time record lows.


----------



## numbercruncher (24 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> "
> 18-20 year olds should never have been given the vote (Labour again), they still in psycholigical and physiological development and can barely control or understand themselves at such an impressionable young age.





Whoa, I think you maybe the exact reason i voted against the Costello clan.

Maybe we could apply that logic to other age groups or ethnic groups or geographic locations or education levels or whatever ..... scary ....


----------



## Gundini (24 November 2007)

Not to be a bearer of Good or Bad news as you all see it but:

Exit poll conducted by News says Labor are leading the race.

This is a poll from readers after they voted today....

And Howard to lose his seat, which is a bit sad, but not over yet!

http://www.news.com.au/


----------



## hangseng (24 November 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Whoa, I think you maybe the exact reason i voted against the Costello clan.
> 
> Maybe we could apply that logic to other age groups or ethnic groups or geographic locations or education levels or whatever ..... scary ....





I was 17 and a 2nd year apprentice when the decision to bring this in was made. Myself and all my friends recall this as party time for those around us who chose not to work, rather seeing the dole as a 'free ride' and free ride they did. The social reformists all saw it as being marvellous, the thinking saw this as giving the vote to young radicals out to save and change the world. A world they knew little of.

I am now 51 and see how ridiculous it was giving the vote to people this young.


----------



## chops_a_must (24 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> I was 17 and a 2nd year apprentice when the decision to bring this in was made. Myself and all my friends recall this as party time for those around us who chose not to work, rather seeing the dole as a 'free ride' and free ride they did. The social reformists all saw it as being marvellous, the thinking saw this as giving the vote to young radicals out to save and change the world. A world they knew little of.
> 
> I am now 51 and see how ridiculous it was giving the vote to people this young.




Everyone over the age of 65 should not have the right to vote, given the increased risks of senility, early onset dimentia and parkinsons. This age could even be lowered because some people as young as 50 already suffer from these symptoms, albeit unrecognised to themselves and as yet, undiagnosed.


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Everyone over the age of 65 should not have the right to vote, given the increased risks of senility, early onset dimentia and parkinsons. This age could even be lowered because some people as young as 50 already suffer from these symptoms, albeit unrecognised to themselves and as yet, undiagnosed.



chops I've three things to say ...
1. you youngsters keep repeating yourselves!!
2. you shouldn't insult your seniors like that , and
3. you keep repeating yourself!! !


----------



## hangseng (24 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Everyone over the age of 65 should not have the right to vote, given the increased risks of senility, early onset dimentia and parkinsons. This age could even be lowered because some people as young as 50 already suffer from these symptoms, albeit unrecognised to themselves and as yet, undiagnosed.





A long bow you draw there chops. Increased risk there may be, however also there are placed the wisest of sages we should be listening to and learning from. I learnt more from a dying man in his 80's than I ever did at school or uni. The same learnings that have aided and taken me through to the successes I enjoy today.

Your nic heading says it all "Can't Learn By Reading A Book!". What a shame most young people think this is how you learn what life is really about.


----------



## doctorj (24 November 2007)

Rather than discriminate based on age, I'd like to see some kind of exam administered to allow people to prove they are suitable to vote.  The test should include questions about current world affairs, the policies of major political parties and a basic IQ test.


----------



## chops_a_must (24 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> A long bow you draw there chops. Increased risk there may be, however also there are placed the wisest of sages we should be listening to and learning from. I learnt more from a dying man in his 80's than I ever did at school or uni. The same learnings that have aided and taken me through to the successes I enjoy today.
> 
> Your nic heading says it all "Can't Learn By Reading A Book!". What a shame most young people think this is how you learn what life is really about.



It's a quote from Howard! Ahahahahahaha! And most young people don't read books...

I've seen very few 80 year olds give any sort of solutions for the problems my generation will be facing.

The point was, and I wasn't being serious with what I said, I'm just demonstrating the absurdity of the position; that voting discrimination based on age is silly. Anyone handing out how to vote cards would know of people that have no idea who is Labor and who is Liberal, those are the people that shouldn't be allowed to vote.


----------



## hangseng (24 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> It's a quote from Howard! Ahahahahahaha! And most young people don't read books...
> 
> I've seen very few 80 year olds give any sort of solutions for the problems my generation will be facing.
> 
> The point was, and I wasn't being serious with what I said, I'm just demonstrating the absurdity of the position; that voting discrimination based on age is silly. Anyone handing out how to vote cards would know of people that have no idea who is Labor and who is Liberal, those are the people that shouldn't be allowed to vote.




"I've seen very few 80 year olds give any sort of solutions for the problems my generation will be facing." 

So you believe they don't know what it is like to be young? The young should open their minds to what these people have to offer (and they have so much), instead of believing they already know it all and have 'been there done that'.


----------



## chops_a_must (24 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> "I've seen very few 80 year olds give any sort of solutions for the problems my generation will be facing."
> 
> So you believe they don't know what it is like to be young? The young should open their minds to what these people have to offer (and they have so much), instead of believing they already know it all and have 'been there done that'.




Old people should look at what young people have to offer. It's a two way street...


----------



## RichKid (24 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> "I've seen very few 80 year olds give any sort of solutions for the problems my generation will be facing."
> 
> So you believe they don't know what it is like to be young? The young should open their minds to what these people have to offer (and they have so much), instead of believing they already know it all and have 'been there done that'.




*The old believe everything.  The middle-aged suspect everything.  The young know everything. (Oscar Wilde)*

After observing this recent exchange I wonder if Mr Wilde got it right?

.....but the die has been cast ladies and gentlemen, for the next term at least...

fwiw, everyone in society has a place and something to contribute, the young are often at the forefront of technological change- often to the benefit of the old (eg biotechnology). OTOH, I for one love reading biographies, many of the more enjoyable ones are written be those in the last quarter of their lifespan...and yes, they do have much to offer, certainly to this young man.


----------



## numbercruncher (24 November 2007)

Weve climed Mount Everest, now we are headed for the North Pole !




ps. 68 is a good age to retire at anyways ...


----------



## numbercruncher (24 November 2007)

Mr Howard is getting absolutely wooped in Bennelong, looks like if Libs blag it, it'll be Costello for pm ??


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 November 2007)

Life is all about how others see you.


----------



## numbercruncher (24 November 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Life is all about how others see you.




Exactly! and only if Mr Howard and the liberals had heard this advice some time ago the swing wouldnt be as positively massive as it is at the moment.

Amazing swing of votes!


----------



## hangseng (24 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Old people should look at what young people have to offer. It's a two way street...




I agree


----------



## numbercruncher (24 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> I agree





WOW - Rudd is having an effect on people already !!


Welcome to the new tolerant, cooperative , progressive Australia


----------



## Julia (24 November 2007)

RichKid said:


> *The old believe everything.  The middle-aged suspect everything.  The young know everything. (Oscar Wilde)*
> 
> After observing this recent exchange I wonder if Mr Wilde got it right?
> 
> ...



Good to see at least one young man has not succumbed to the arrogance displayed by some others on this thread.  Thanks, Rich, for restoring the balance somewhat and displaying some civility and sense.


----------



## hangseng (24 November 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> WOW - Rudd is having an effect on people already !!
> 
> 
> Welcome to the new tolerant, cooperative , progressive Australia




You jest!

I have always been there, the reason I refused to succumb to union pressures long ago as an apprentice. Rudd or Labour will never influence me, nor narrow minded views so often portrayed.

Labour are regressive and it will show again as it has done so many times before. I hope you don't own any uranium shares in Australian leasehold companies.

Watch Kevin Reynolds and Joe McDonald welcomed back to the Labour fold with all being forgiven. As they said "we're comin back"

Good luck.


----------



## explod (24 November 2007)

explod said:


> I think there is some splitting of hairs a bit to turn arguments.  The emergence of Latham handed the 04 election to Johnny on a plate.
> 
> This thread has turned into part of the true blue and born to rule line of desperation.   Like the old tactics of the DLP many years ago.  It failed then and will fail again.
> 
> ...




I particularly liked the way Rudd focused outside of himself on to the jobs to be done.

Johnny was self centred and that tendacy has always been the downfall of the conservatives.


----------



## Rafa (25 November 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm expecting a Labor win to be reasonably apparent around 8 - 9 pm but no official acceptance as such until maybe 10 -11. Just my guess of course.




Smurf... How come you know it all


----------



## chops_a_must (25 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Good to see at least one young man has not succumbed to the arrogance displayed by some others on this thread.  Thanks, Rich, for restoring the balance somewhat and displaying some civility and sense.




I don't think I was being arrogant on this thread Julia. Providing a counter argument or an extension of the opposite's position hardly counts as arrogance...

I love old people. They form most of my clientele. And I especially learn a hell of a lot from my nan who remains one of the sharpest people I've ever met. And if I have given an impression otherwise, it was a mistaken one.


----------



## chops_a_must (25 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> Labour are regressive and it will show again as it has done so many times before. I hope you don't own any uranium shares in Australian leasehold companies.
> 
> Watch Kevin Reynolds and Joe McDonald welcomed back to the Labour fold with all being forgiven. As they said "we're comin back"
> 
> Good luck.




Regressive? Hmmm... As opposed to moving towards a culture akin to Mississippi in the 50s?


And I don't think they will be able to make a comeback. They were already outlawed by every other union apart from their own, well before the election. Unions WA for instance, wont even speak to them. Not very well known, but true none the less.

P.S. - looks like my eco-tech shares might be in for a bit of a bull run.


----------



## Aussiejeff (25 November 2007)

Well, well.

Sadly for the naysayers, it looks like the media polls were in the ballpark all along. Even the call a few weeks back that John Howard had a real battle on his hands against Maxine have come to fruition.

Maybe at the next elections, the media polls will be regarded with a little less scepticism?

As for the ASF polls which consistently (but mistakenly) showed an easy coalition win would be the result - well, that was probably consistent given the likely background of the majority of respondents here.

AJ


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 December 2007)

2020hindsight]
question is said:


> So it's ok to let the mad Moollars get the bomb ?...
> ...anti-Americanism from left voters....




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/04/2109658.htm?section=justin



> US Democrats call for change of course on Iran
> Posted Tue Dec 4, 2007 6:08pm AEDT
> 
> The opposition Democrats in the United States have called for a rethink of policy towards Iran, now that it appears the Iranian Government *is not trying to develop a nuclear weapon*.
> ...


----------



## >Apocalypto< (7 December 2007)

I voted for *BIG KEV*, this was a remembrance vote. God bless his soul.


----------

