# 2010 Federal Election



## wade (18 May 2010)

lets see how ASF members vote


----------



## frankie_boy (18 May 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*

Cant do another stint of KRudd...


----------



## drsmith (19 May 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*

Neither of them as leaders but at some point a decision will have to be made about which party.

Perhaps the opposite in the Senate to what I vote for in the House of Reps. That might be the best way to limit the idiological wandering of either major party. Better than voting Green or for a minor party me thinks.


----------



## GumbyLearner (19 May 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*

Canberra Blouse dude

Canberra Blouse all the way.

Vote no to all of the above!

alp
libs/nats
greens
dems

None of the above gets my vote because the above stated are profit-focused (usually nepotistic that's the most important point IMVHO!) parasites that couldn't care less about you, me, ya mum, ya grandad, ya nan, ya friends or the country BEFORE THEMSELVES & THEIR INTERESTS!!!!!!!! Of course disregarding and stomping on your family that served in the Great War or WW2 for that matter etc..

if you happen to vote with characters like this on the ballot paper because seriously none of them care about you as an ordinary citizen going about your business paying your taxes-> $,&.*,+,^,%,@ 

That should make sense to the *well-schooled, self-entitled & related*[/B] well-versed inheritors of this great nation.

As the ASF member (can't think of it at present)from Tweed Heads would put it.



NONE OF THE ABOVE!


----------



## Sdajii (19 May 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*

It's like trying to choose what to have for dinner when your options are poisoned gravel and broken glass coated in anthrax.


----------



## drsmith (19 May 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*



GumbyLearner said:


> Vote no to all of the above!



That just leaves not voting at all.

Do that as a society and we would quickly be reduced to a dictatorship.



Sdajii said:


> It's like trying to choose what to have for dinner when your options are poisoned gravel and broken glass coated in anthrax.



And abstinence is not a practical option.


----------



## GumbyLearner (19 May 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*



drsmith said:


> That just leaves not voting at all.




Totally! Hit the nail on the head there Doctor.

Get me a Doctor, I must be insane!   ROTFLMAO

If there is a fair dinkum non-feather nesting candidate, I'll compulsorily vote for him/her.

otherwise, nah 

NOT INTERESTED!!!!


----------



## So_Cynical (19 May 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*



drsmith said:


> That just leaves not voting at all.
> 
> Do that as a society and we would quickly be reduced to a dictatorship.
> 
> ...




I vote informal sometimes, just put a 1 or x in all the boxes...sometimes its the only thing i feel comfortable doing as occasionally i just have on confidence at all in the big 2, and due to 2 party preferred voting...any vote that's not Labor or Liberal simply ends up being one or the other so informal is then the only other genuine option.

Senate excepted of course.


----------



## GumbyLearner (19 May 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*



Sdajii said:


> It's like trying to choose what to have for dinner when your options are poisoned gravel and broken glass coated in anthrax.




A crude and non-appetizing example but yes you're right!


----------



## wade (19 May 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*

I don't think abbott is fit to lead a country but I want to make sure rudd wont get another term and thats where i think most of abbotts votes will come from


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (19 May 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*



wade said:


> I don't think abbott is fit to lead a country but I want to make sure rudd wont get another term and thats where i think most of abbotts votes will come from



But voting for the leader means you are voting for the party too. Overall the opposition is the better pick with better ideology.


----------



## GumbyLearner (19 May 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*

I'm just waiting for a new thread. The skirts that run this show will start a new thread. Where can I post next?


----------



## sails (19 May 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*



It's Snake Pliskin said:


> But voting for the leader means you are voting for the party too. Overall the opposition is the better pick with better ideology.




Snake, I agree.  IMO this poll would be better if it reflected the party rather than voting for the personality.

Unless in the electorate of one of the leaders, we vote for our local representatives, not the actual leader.  

Leaders can be tipped out, so obviously the policies of the party are of more importance.

Although Abbot may not be a good alternative, I prefer the fiscal policies of the libs.  Hopefully they can get their leadership issues sorted soon.


----------



## Joe Blow (19 May 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*



sails said:


> Snake, I agree.  IMO this poll would be better if it reflected the party rather than voting for the personality.




I have now modified the poll to reflect this. I am assuming that most of the people who have already voted would probably have voted the same way whether it was the leader or the party listed. 

However, given that this thread will probably become the main discussion thread for the 2010 federal election it is better that the poll was modified sooner rather than later.


----------



## Mister Mark (19 May 2010)

The old saying that any government is as good as an opposition makes it is so true here, if Howard or Keating were opposition leaders they would eat this government, but what ever the result neither krud or abbot will be leaders of their parties this time next year


----------



## IFocus (19 May 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*



It's Snake Pliskin said:


> But voting for the leader means you are voting for the party too. Overall the opposition is the better pick with better ideology.




I would ague against that statement long and hard.


----------



## wayneL (19 May 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*



IFocus said:


> I would ague against that statement long and hard.



You would still lose though. :


----------



## Uncle Festivus (19 May 2010)

It's all un-democratic banter and semantics while ever we have a system wherby 1 or 2 'unrepresentative swill' in the Senate have final say?


----------



## Macquack (19 May 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*



IFocus said:


> I would ague against that statement long and hard.






wayneL said:


> You would still lose though. :




We shall see what the '"Australian" people say at the next election. 

I agree with IFocus.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (19 May 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*



IFocus said:


> I would ague against that statement long and hard.



Go for it.


----------



## mbirbeck (19 May 2010)

Rudd has to go

Stupid Stupid Stupid decisions on giveaways and then taxes, the usual ALP crap of giving all the money away to the stupid and people that do not contribute to the economy and then taxing the crap out of anyone who has done well(Our golden goose the mining industry).  Surely there must be more than 50% idiots in this country but Rudd the Dudd is there to start with so probably not


----------



## austiart (19 May 2010)

return costello as pm, would he?


----------



## Julia (19 May 2010)

wade said:


> I don't think abbott is fit to lead a country but I want to make sure rudd wont get another term and thats where i think most of abbotts votes will come from



Agree.  But the Libs still need to present a credible alternative.
Before tonight I'd have voted Liberal in this Poll, but after seeing Joe Hockey's pathetic performance on the 7.30 Report this evening, I voted Neither.  That will change, but right now I just feel disgusted with both sides.
The Libs should have the government's collective head on a platter, but they are so incompetent I fear Rudd will be re-elected.

And so far the polls which show such a reduction in voter approval for Rudd are not showing most of those votes going to Abbott.  They seem to be more going to the Greens, probably in the wake of the shelving of the ETS.




It's Snake Pliskin said:


> But voting for the leader means you are voting for the party too. Overall the opposition is the better pick with better ideology.



Snake, I'm not sure that is how most of the electorate vote.  Personalities have become very important.  I so detest Rudd that I would vote for almost anyone to get him out, but so far have not seen any opposition policies that particularly impress me.

And ideology is well and good, except when the people charged with coming up with policy based on that ideology seem incapable of clear expression and costings of said ideology.


----------



## gooner (19 May 2010)

Hmmm, so the choice is between Tony (homosexuality threatens me) Abbott who will take us back to compulsory church attendance, ban pre-marital sex and make the pope the head of state replacing the Queen and Kevin (I'm an economic conservative) Rudd who appears to throw money around like confetti at a wedding, is killing the golden goose of mining and will spend $50,000 of my family's money on a new NBN so I can get faster pr0n, which I don't watch (honestly).

So, rule by the pope or economic meltdown. Really is a Clayton's choice.

Think I might move back to England. Good exchange rate at the moment.  Shame about the weather etc etc. Good pubs and football though.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (20 May 2010)

Julia said:


> Snake, I'm not sure that is how most of the electorate vote.  Personalities have become very important.  I so detest Rudd that I would vote for almost anyone to get him out, but so far have not seen any opposition policies that particularly impress me.
> 
> And ideology is well and good, except when the people charged with coming up with policy based on that ideology seem incapable of clear expression and costings of said ideology.



Julia,

Fair comments.

Popstar like leaders or pollies get elected based on their brand. It's like marketing. What voters need to do is look at the team and what they stand for. This is evident in their policies and moral fortitude or lack of. What is their ethos? What is their future vision? etc etc. Unfortunately we really only have duopolies so our choice is not that great.


----------



## sails (20 May 2010)

gooner said:


> Hmmm, so the choice is between Tony (homosexuality threatens me) Abbott who will take us back to compulsory church attendance, ban pre-marital sex and make the pope the head of state replacing the Queen and Kevin (I'm an economic conservative) Rudd who appears to throw money around like confetti at a wedding, is killing the golden goose of mining and will spend $50,000 of my family's money on a new NBN so I can get faster pr0n, which I don't watch (honestly).
> 
> So, rule by the pope or economic meltdown. Really is a Clayton's choice.
> 
> Think I might move back to England. Good exchange rate at the moment.  Shame about the weather etc etc. Good pubs and football though.




lol Gooner, do you really think the Libs would allow Abbott to do as you suggest above?  I would think he would lose leadership very rapidly if he pulled anything like such silly stunts.


----------



## wayneL (21 May 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*



Macquack said:


> We shall see what the '"Australian" people say at the next election.
> 
> I agree with IFocus.




Of course you do, such is the tribal nature of politics.

So you would equate electoral success with the logic of ideology?

I definitely wouldn't. That would mean that liberal ideology was superior for over a decade previous to this gu'mint, but now labor ideology is. 

That is fuzzy thinking. The fact is that many people vote on whims, tribalism, pork barrelling, personality populist policy making etc etc, but rarely on the basic platform of a particular ideology.

Any discussion on ideology would need to venture deep into logic, psychology, economics and a host of social sciences. Perhaps on this level the bods from the Von Mises Insitute and The Fabian Society would be an entertaining face off.

On this level the Fabians have it all over the Austrians in base cunning and political subterfuge, but not the logic of people's well being and prosperity. 

We shall see in due course the failure of Social Democracy (In fact we can see it clearly now, but it's just that the indomitable spirit true Capitalism keeps it propped up)


----------



## Tink (21 May 2010)

Undecided.

Last election, Libs were completely wiped out, federal and state.

I would rather abit of both than all one way


----------



## Bill M (21 May 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*



drsmith said:


> That just leaves not voting at all.
> 
> Do that as a society and we would quickly be reduced to a dictatorship.
> 
> ...




Hello drsmith, there are times that I feel really pumped up and want to vote and there are times that I am not. In my voting years of past I would have been very happy not to vote at all about 50% of time. It really urks me that in a so called democracy we are forced to vote, I reckon it should be up to individual whether they want to vote or not. To me it is just like a dictatorship when I am forced to vote. This is one election I do not want any part of, they can all go and get @#%%&^*!


----------



## noco (26 May 2010)

Geez, the way Rudd is going about things ATM, one might get the impression he is trying to loose the next election fearing the tangle he has got himself into, he may not know how to get out of it.
Another  three years of broken promises and debacles would be just too much to accept.


----------



## nioka (26 May 2010)

At this stage it looks like the big winner will be the greens. They will get a protest vote from a lot of unhappy chappies who don't want either other party. That will mean a bigger disaster than we have now as the party that gets the most seats will be reliant on the greens to govern. That is why we will not see a double disolution as the greens would strengthen their position more there than they will with a normal election.

Remember green around the ears and solid wood between them is how I see most greens.


----------



## Putty7 (26 May 2010)

I didn't vote in the last election, coming from a farming background I have had National and Liberal fed into me for years, but after working in mining and construction for the last five years, well the five years before I took this year off to trade, I watched the big companies use any excuse to push employees wages down and the contractors tried to follow suit blaming the big companies, the bottom line was they were all still making similar money it was just a good time to short the employees so to speak, this was the Libs doing. 

I couldn't bring myself to vote for Labour and I certainly wasn't voting for the Howard Costello Libs that was thrown together at the last minute when it became clear Howard was to retire during the 3 year term. I coped the fine even though none of them were worth my time standing in line at the voting office, my mindset was I was not going to vote when there was nothing to vote for. 

Rudd and Labour have made so many stuff ups doing things on the run rather than doing their due dilligence I have to vote in this election to make sure it does not continue. 

The school fiasco, the insulation fiasco, the hand out of $900 which most people use to pay debt or go to the pub with, the cigarette tax grab disguised as to be given to the health system, save the whales from the Japanese fiasco, the ETS backflip when the taxation nature of it came out when Abbott came in to bat and Malcom retired hurt,  was the mining tax responsible for the drop in the dollar and the fall in the stock market, maybe not but my belief is it gave a credible excuse to short the cr*p out of Australia in a time when we looked strong and secure to International investors. I would have missed a few no doubt but this rubbish can not be allowed to continue.

Where is Costello when you blo*dy need him !!


----------



## Aston (2 June 2010)

I was gobsmacked after reading the following article, which provides examples of the rorting of the federal government's schools stimulus scheme.  For example $600,000 for a “a canteen that's not big enough to put in the fridge or freezer."  Who is signing off on this and how do people get away with it. Someone in the government needs to be made accountable for this blatant waste of tax payer’s money.   

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/canteen-too-small-for-a-pie-warmer/story-e6frg6n6-1225867479199


----------



## Julia (2 June 2010)

Aston said:


> I was gobsmacked after reading the following article, which provides examples of the rorting of the federal government's schools stimulus scheme.  For example $600,000 for a “a canteen that's not big enough to put in the fridge or freezer."  Who is signing off on this and how do people get away with it. Someone in the government needs to be made accountable for this blatant waste of tax payer’s money.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/canteen-too-small-for-a-pie-warmer/story-e6frg6n6-1225867479199




Aston, I tried to post up a link to tonight's 7.30 Report where Julia Gillard was quite rigorously interviewed about this, but can't find a linkable reference.
She is quite amazing in her capacity to sound quite reasonable while completely ignoring the actual question.
Another thread on this forum laments the sad lack of care for our aged people.
There's something particularly immoral about all this waste, while we have sectors of our community so much in need of funding.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 June 2010)

From conversations with people in Townsville, the atmosphere in the electorate about the federal election is rather like that prior to Howard replacing Keating in 1996.

People are waiting, not saying much, sitting on their verandahs, with their baseball bats, waiting to punish Rudd and his blundering party for the wasted opportunities of a huge surplus and the possibility of our major miners moving their operations to Africa, Canada and Chile.

I see no spontaneity in the shows of support for Rudd or Labor up here. The usual suspects in the unions front up for noddy opportunities when government ministers or Rudd visit North Queensland to be interviewed on TV.

If they could stuff up something as simple as home insulation, imagine what they would do with major infrastructure, publicly funded from this tax. 

The divisions have started in Labor, and will spread, as the potential leaders position themselves for the leadership of Labor.

The result of the election is a foregone conclusion in the house of Reps, a Coalition victory.

gg


----------



## DB008 (15 June 2010)

They are both as bad as each other.

The huge back-flip that Rudd has done on Climate Change is just mind-blowing. How many Australian delegates went to Copenhagen and how much money did that cost? Now it's all dead and buried like it never happened. If climate change was so important, how come there is absolutely no interest in it from any political party (Liberal or Labor).

Tony Abbott, as others have said, is just too conservative and Christian IMO. 

I don't know who l'll be voting for. 
They all lie through their teeth just to get your vote. Once they are in power, nothing happens. Terrible.


----------



## Julia (15 June 2010)

DB008 said:


> I don't know who l'll be voting for.
> They all lie through their teeth just to get your vote. Once they are in power, nothing happens. Terrible.



I think you're expressing how much of the electorate feels - frustrated and powerless.  It's just not possible to vote for either of them or the Greens, without being aware of a huge downside to all of them.

I don't remember a time when the political choices have been so dismal.


----------



## So_Cynical (15 June 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> the possibility of our major miners moving their operations to Africa, Canada and Chile.




What...the big miners are gona dig up all there ore and move it to Africa Canada and Chile?


----------



## DB008 (15 June 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> What...the big miners are gona dig up all there ore and move it to Africa Canada and Chile?




Nope, Afghanistan.
2 sides to the coin
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7150081.ece
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/14/say_what_afghanistan_has_1_trillion_in_untapped_mineral_resources


----------



## orr (15 June 2010)

Julia said:


> I so detest Rudd that I would vote for almost anyone to get him out, but so far have not seen any opposition policies that particularly impress me.




Now you know how I felt for the 'decayed' on from 1997. I'd lean toward anything progressive though. 
What would be the cost of a couple of extra percentage points of Unemployment, Through a sustained recession? have you had a look around the other western democracies.
There might be the 'Gang of Four' (great band by the way)... but I'm sorry Bronwyn Bishop, Barnaby Joyce, Eric Abetz, Phil Ruddock, no matter what their policies are there's your Clang of four...


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 June 2010)

DB008 said:


> The huge back-flip that Rudd has done on Climate Change is just mind-blowing. How many Australian delegates went to Copenhagen and how much money did that cost? Now it's all dead and buried like it never happened.




Yes indeed. We are still slowly but surely poisoning the planet.


----------



## zzaaxxss3401 (15 June 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*



So_Cynical said:


> I vote informal sometimes, just put a 1 or x in all the boxes...sometimes its the only thing i feel comfortable doing.




I hope you don't complain at the next election, that you're sick of the "current Government" (whoever it is). If you don't vote (or vote incorrectly), you've got no one to blame but yourself.

We're lucky here where voting is compulsory. If we didn't have to vote, would we bother. Obviously you wouldn't. If only 50% of the country voted. And 50% voted for the winning party, then they have actually won with only 25% of the vote - hardly a majority (of the 100% potential voters).

Rudd appears to have wasted his 3+ years, whilst Abbott just seems to have very weird ideas about what's best for Australia. If Costello was leading the Libs, I'm pretty sure he'd get my vote... but Abbott... ummm definitely NOT!


----------



## Sdajii (15 June 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*



zzaaxxss3401 said:


> I hope you don't complain at the next election, that you're sick of the "current Government" (whoever it is). If you don't vote (or vote incorrectly), you've got no one to blame but yourself.




I'm not sure I agree with that. It really does look like we are stuck with no good options. We're damned which ever one we take. It's quite horrible.

I'm actually a fan on non compulsory voting. Most people are uninformed, and shouldn't be voting. The ones who would choose to vote are the ones who care enough to read into it and inform themselves.

We all know most people are stupid, and if you force everyone to vote, you run the country based on a stupid decision. The propaganda used to convince people to vote for each party is just empty emotional fluff. That's what we're basing the way we're run on. I'd rather see a few informed people who care make the decision rather than a mass of naive morons.

For the record, I don't vote, because I don't consider myself adequately informed to do so (though I have no doubt I'm better informed than most voters).


----------



## So_Cynical (15 June 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*



zzaaxxss3401 said:


> I hope you don't complain at the next election, that you're sick of the "current Government" (whoever it is). If you don't vote (or vote incorrectly), you've got no one to blame but yourself.
> 
> We're lucky here where voting is compulsory. If we didn't have to vote, would we bother. Obviously you wouldn't.




Dude your clearly missing my point...i vote because i have to and i take that seriously...seriously enough that sometimes i decide that with the 2 party preferred voting system we have, both candidates don't deserve my vote.

And if the current leadership prevails at the next election that's exactly what ill be doing...and because its a deliberate act i will certainly not be complaining about the outcome other than complaining about how i hate 2 party preferred voting.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 June 2010)

Don't vote then. Makes my vote worth more


----------



## nioka (16 June 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*



Sdajii said:


> We all know most people are stupid,




 What a stupid statement.

 Are you stupid to make such a statement?

 How do YOU define stupid?

 I suggest most people are NOT stupid.

 Then again we are all guilty of some stupidity at times. (After all I am replying to your stupid post.)


----------



## Julia (16 June 2010)

zzaaxxss3401 said:


> We're lucky here where voting is compulsory. If we didn't have to vote, would we bother. Obviously you wouldn't.



That's not true at all.  I spent most of my life in NZ where voting is not compulsory.  The usual participation rate was around 80%.  Far more meaningful, imo, to have 80% of the population voting because they care enough to want to do so, than to force people who know nothing and care less to mark something on the ballot paper.

There's a good reason candidates are keen to be listed at the top of the ballot paper.


----------



## Bolle (16 June 2010)

Once again, very excellent point and well put, Julia.  I would absolutely prefer a non-compulsory system.  Far more democratic.

For what it's worth, I would have liked to see "Greens" as an option on this poll.  I think i may vote green, simply based on the fact that they are opposed to the internet filter.

Whatever else happens, I feel compelled to vote against internet filtering.

(Having said that, I also think Kevin Rudd is a complete waste of oxygen, and cannot wait for him to be moved on.)  Tony Abbott, I don't feel particularly strongly in favour of.  

I sort of wish the leadership battle was between Joe Hockey and Julia Gillard.  That would be much more interesting.  

A more worthy contest, if you will.


----------



## YELNATS (16 June 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*



Sdajii said:


> For the record, I don't vote, because I don't consider myself adequately informed to do so (though I have no doubt I'm better informed than most voters).




What do you mean? 

Do you mean you don't register a valid vote (ie. you "vote informal"), even though you present yourself at a polling booth and have your name so recorded as having voted?

Or do you mean you are not even on the electoral role, legally or otherwise? 

From the AEC website:
Quote
Who is eligible to enrol?
Any person who:
is 18* years of age or over, and 
is an Australian citizen**, or 
was a British subject on a Commonwealth electoral roll as at 25 January 1984
Note: A person who is serving a sentence of imprisonment of three years or longer is not entitled to enrol or vote in federal elections.
Unquote

Non-voting is illegal for eligible persons.


----------



## Julia (16 June 2010)

Bolle said:


> For what it's worth, I would have liked to see "Greens" as an option on this poll.  I think i may vote green, simply based on the fact that they are opposed to the internet filter.
> 
> Whatever else happens, I feel compelled to vote against internet filtering.



I feel similarly.  The Greens are also prepared to hold a genuine debate about voluntary euthanasia, about which I feel even more strongly than about the internet filtering.  They are socially progressive in a way neither of the two god bothering parties are.

But then I'd fear that the Greens would sacrifice the economy for everything ultragreen, impose massive taxes on e.g. coal fired electricity which would mean we'd have an underclass of Australians too poor to heat/cool their homes, cook proper meals etc.  
They are so fanatical about the environment that they lose objectivity about what can reasonably be imposed on the population.

Bob Brown at least doesn't yell and rant.  I'm more than a bit tired of the overblown, high volume nonsensical rhetoric spewing from the two leaders.


----------



## Logique (17 June 2010)

Libs nearly 65% on your poll! The Rudd govt is a goner if this is reflected in the wider electorate.


----------



## Whiskers (17 June 2010)

Rudd putting in a much more amiable performance on the 7.30 Report tonight.

Looks very neatly dressed too, maybe bright new shirt, tie and suite... or maybe it's just my better TV reception tonight.

O'Brien threw in a stinger or was that a stinker at the last... will you resign and hand over the reigns to Gillard.


----------



## Julia (17 June 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Rudd putting in a much more amiable performance on the 7.30 Report tonight.
> 
> Looks very neatly dressed too, maybe bright new shirt, tie and suite... or maybe it's just my better TV reception tonight.
> 
> O'Brien threw in a stinger or was that a stinker at the last... will you resign and hand over the reigns to Gillard.



Amiable?  He was at the start patronising, with that amused expression which says "I realise I have to front up here, so I'll do my best to look as though I'm not in the least bothered about anything - all a bit of a joke, really".

Which he then proceeded to confirm by saying his line at the ball last night apparently addressed to miners:
"Mate, I've got a very long memory"
was just a throw-away line meant in jolly good humour.

What is it with this man that he thinks anyone will actually believe that, given the bitterness of the current fight?  
No one considering such a remark would remotely interpret it as anything other than a threat.

How many facades have we seen from Mr Rudd?  A few months ago the abject contrition and repetitive mea culpas all over the media, and now the "I'm going to just ride roughshod over all my mess and hope my sheer brashness will convince the electorate".

But never once have I seen what resembles a real person.


----------



## noco (17 June 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Rudd putting in a much more amiable performance on the 7.30 Report tonight.
> 
> Looks very neatly dressed too, maybe bright new shirt, tie and suite... or maybe it's just my better TV reception tonight.
> 
> O'Brien threw in a stinger or was that a stinker at the last... will you resign and hand over the reigns to Gillard.




You know something Whiskers, I thought he was his usual self, BLAH,BLAH,BLAH.
The lies he told on the 7.30 report about his "I've got a long memory" being a throw away line was a typical cover up for his big mouth.
The further lies he told about all decisions not being made by the gang of four.
Poor old "Midnight Oil" had to find out about the dumping of the ETS in the paper. I'd like to see Peter Garrett (a cabinet minister) blow the whistle on Rudd over the Home Insulation program, having told Rudd on several occassions about existing problems months before it was ceased.
It's a wonder Garrett has not jumped ship to the Greens!!!!!!!!
If the polls for Labor get any worse, Rudd won't resign, the Party will kick him out, then we'll have Gillard who is even worse. She couldn't organise a p@#s up in a brewery.


----------



## zzaaxxss3401 (18 June 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*



Sdajii said:


> I'm not sure I agree with that. It really does look like we are stuck with no good options. We're damned which ever one we take. It's quite horrible.



That's what you should be telling your local MP. Get them to release some policies NOW, instead of waiting for the race to actually start. I've contacted several current and "shadow" MPs - unfortunately, I've either received a standard response, or none at all. But if everyone did it, perhaps they'd realise that there are a lot of undecided voters out there - because of our options.

Hmmm... New Zealand is looking good right about now - Skiing, space (all the Kiwis are over here looking for jobs), no import duty on luxury cars, stable government (they kicked the last one out because they were sick of him... I mean her).


----------



## noco (18 June 2010)

*Re: 2010 Elections*



zzaaxxss3401 said:


> That's what you should be telling your local MP. Get them to release some policies NOW, instead of waiting for the race to actually start. I've contacted several current and "shadow" MPs - unfortunately, I've either received a standard response, or none at all. But if everyone did it, perhaps they'd realise that there are a lot of undecided voters out there - because of our options.
> 
> Hmmm... New Zealand is looking good right about now - Skiing, space (all the Kiwis are over here looking for jobs), no import duty on luxury cars, stable government (they kicked the last one out because they were sick of him... I mean her).



Sorry to disagree with you on Coalition policy release old mate.
If Abbott releases any policy too soon, you can betcha boots Rudd will copy and present it  in a different format.
As I commented some time back, when you are in battle, don't shoot 'till you see the whites of their eyes.


----------



## Julia (18 June 2010)

zzaaxxss3401 said:


> Hmmm... New Zealand is looking good right about now - Skiing, space (all the Kiwis are over here looking for jobs), no import duty on luxury cars, stable government (they kicked the last one out because they were sick of him... I mean her).



No capital gains tax and non-means tested national superannuation.
Recently judged - along with Finland and Denmark - as the world's least corrupt country.
I'd be back there in a millisecond if the weather improved.


----------



## Logique (18 June 2010)

The smirk..it was just a joke...mea culpa...we''ll do it better next time thing - might have worked for QLD ex-premier Peter Beattie, but it looks very forced on Kevin Rudd. 

Rudd is now officially in trouble, because Kerry O'Brien and the 7:30 Report have turned on him. There was no soft-soaping, no circling of the wagons last night, Kerry went straight for the jugular.  

The ABC's agenda was confirmed when the Clarke and Dore comedy skit then took up the attack, followed by the ABC announcing the repeat next week of the Australian Story program about Julia Gillard.


----------



## Calliope (17 July 2010)

Now we know The decision who to vote for on the 21st August is now easy. Gillard stands for everthing that is good for hard working Australians *going forward.*

Abbott stands for everything that is bad for hard working Australians going backward.


----------



## J&M (17 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> Now we know The decision who to vote for on the 21st August is now easy. Gillard stands for everthing that is good for hard working Australians *going forward.*
> 
> Abbott stands for everything that is bad for hard working Australians going backward.




Going forward to where ?????
They cant organise FA 
Look at the mining tax
The insulation debacle where 4 died 
The asylum seekers where Timor wont agree
Not to mention the schools where excess money was spent
all at a cost to US the tax payers  
James


----------



## Dumdumdumdum (17 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> Now we know The decision who to vote for on the 21st August is now easy. Gillard stands for everthing that is good for hard working Australians *going forward.*
> 
> Abbott stands for everything that is bad for hard working Australians going backward.




Let me guess, someone who earns over 150k a year isn't a 'hard working australian' ?


----------



## drsmith (17 July 2010)

A balanced article from The Australian.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ser-of-two-evils/story-e6frg6zo-1225892968027



> THE stage for the election campaign has been set...... But for voters the choice between the major parties won't be an easy one. Neither side inspires confidence to become custodians of the national interest for the three years ahead.
> 
> On the one hand people don't think Tony Abbott is ready to become prime minister, and his team isn't ready to sit confidently around a cabinet table. Even some Liberals think a return to government this year would be too soon.
> 
> But after a full term of bungled policy implementation by the Labor government, voters know the incumbents aren't worthy of holding on to office either.



Kinda sums it up really.


----------



## So_Cynical (17 July 2010)

James

They cant organise FA - Same as the Lib/Nats then...Howard did almost nothing over 10 years. 
Look at the mining tax  - All sorted
The insulation debacle where 4 died  - Action in the courts has been taken against the dodgy installation company's 
The asylum seekers where Timor wont agree  - Big deal..Nauru is keen
Not to mention the schools where excess money was spent  - Stimulus worked
all at a cost to US the tax payers  - Pretty sure we are getting a tax cut.


----------



## So_Cynical (17 July 2010)

Dumdumdumdum said:


> Let me guess, someone who earns over 150k a year isn't a 'hard working australian' ?




Unless there a tradie or working in the mines etc...no there not hard working  just over paid and well qualified.


----------



## Julia (17 July 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Look at the mining tax  - All sorted



All sorted??  They simply gave in to the big miners and in the process grossly distorted the figures which are only now becoming clear.
The miners, other than BHP, RIO and XStrata are not at all happy so it's definitely not 'all sorted'.



> The insulation debacle where 4 died  - Action in the courts has been taken against the dodgy installation company's



A bit late for the dead young men, wouldn't you say?   Proper supervision of the training process would have prevented this.
And then we have all the hundreds who have rorted the payments.  Hardly an appropriate use of taxpayer funds.

Then there's all the rorting in the BER, Ms Gillard's own program.
And in today's paper there is a report of enquiries also being held into the computers in schools program, an investigation by the Auditor-General into a 2.5billion program to set up trade training centres in schools, and a potential audit into the "My School" website.

The auditor also plans to probe the administration of $2bn a year in childcare subsidies to families, as well as the Council of Australian Governments' agreement to provide a preschool place for every Australian child by 2013.

*All the audits implicate the sweeping portfolio of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations which Ms Gillard managed before she wrested the prime minister's job from Kevin Rudd last month.*



> The asylum seekers where Timor wont agree  - Big deal..Nauru is keen



Yep, a Howard government initiative.


> Not to mention the schools where excess money was spent  - Stimulus worked



With huge waste of taxpayer funds, resulting in over-stimulus to the economy and the obvious sequelae that we have seen in several interest rate rises.

The only thing I can think of that the government has got right is the well timed announcement of the government guarantee for the banks at the early stages of the GFC.


----------



## Dumdumdumdum (17 July 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Unless there a tradie or working in the mines etc...*no there not hard working*  just over paid and well qualified.




yeh..... an analyst putting in 60-80 hour working week isn't working hard is he...

oh yeh i forgot, its not hard unless you are using your hands


----------



## Calliope (17 July 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Look at the mining tax - All sorted
> The insulation debacle where 4 died  - Action in the courts has been taken against the dodgy installation company's.
> The asylum seekers where Timor wont agree  - Big deal..Nauru is keen
> Not to mention the schools where excess money was spent  - Stimulus worked
> all at a cost to US the tax payers  - Pretty sure we are getting a tax cut.




I see you have reverted back to So_Gullible.


----------



## wade (17 July 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Unless there a tradie or working in the mines etc...no there not hard working  just over paid and well qualified.




thanks for that ignorant generalisation


----------



## noco (17 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> Now we know The decision who to vote for on the 21st August is now easy. Gillard stands for everthing that is good for hard working Australians *going forward.*
> 
> Abbott stands for everything that is bad for hard working Australians going backward.




LOL Calliope, you are being facetious. I think we all know you better than that.


----------



## So_Cynical (17 July 2010)

Dumdumdumdum said:


> yeh..... an analyst putting in 60-80 hour working week isn't working hard is he...
> 
> oh yeh i forgot, its not hard unless you are using your hands




Hard work can be painful in my experience, its work that can require personal risk, work that can take you out of your comfort zone...as far as im concerned if your not sweating and or in some kind of discomfort then your not working HARD.

Working long hours doing whatever in a office is never ever hard, im sure it can be demanding in its own way but if you call any type of office work hard then what do you call physical work 500 meters underground in temperatures over 35c ?


----------



## Dumdumdumdum (17 July 2010)

so essentially what you are saying is that if you aren't sweating you aren't "working hard"?

such a battler's attitude


----------



## So_Cynical (17 July 2010)

Dumdumdumdum said:


> so essentially what you are saying is that if you aren't sweating you aren't "working hard"?
> 
> such a battler's attitude




Its a realistic attitude..one that comes from a life of more than 15 different jobs often requiring working outside my comfort zone.

If we divide work into 5 category's of ease, and undergound mining fits into the Hard category...where to you think analysing fits? 


Very easy
Easy = analysing, anything in a office.
Moderate
Hard = under ground mining, extended off shore fishing, roof installation.
Very hard


----------



## explod (17 July 2010)

Dumdumdumdum said:


> so essentially what you are saying is that if you aren't sweating you aren't "working hard"?
> 
> such a battler's attitude




Churchill laid bricks for leasure.   Working effects the male ego of protector and provider.  Peace of mind gives ballance and time for decisions and ideas  to gestate.


----------



## Calliope (17 July 2010)

I just saw Gillard in her first election commercial. She was so sweet and charming how could anyone not trust her and follow her through thick and thin.

I guess I must be an old cynic. Her saccharine sweet act almost made me throw up.


----------



## drsmith (17 July 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> If we divide work into 5 category's of ease, and undergound mining fits into the Hard category...where to you think analysing fits?
> 
> 
> Very easy
> ...



Physical bias in those definitions.


----------



## namrog (17 July 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Its a realistic attitude..one that comes from a life of more than 15 different jobs often requiring working outside my comfort zone.
> 
> If we divide work into 5 category's of ease, and undergound mining fits into the Hard category...where to you think analysing fits?
> 
> ...




Dont waste your breath so Cynical, you're probably talking to a lot here who wouldn't have a clue what real work is about, I say real work not necessarily hard work, though hard work does usually equate to real work..
Work that contributes something of benefit to the world, whether by a service , manufacturing, growing produce, designing, planning, building, creating, scientific endeavour, education, medicine  etc etc, work that gets things done....
As opposed to paper shufflers and pushers such as those in the financial industrys e.g. accountants, financial planners, annalists, bankers , professional traders, and the likes that use other peoples money and hard work to over pay themselves without having to guarantee anything of benefit to their clients, and certainly nothing or little of value to the world in general....also add in the majority of forum jockeys on ASF, who appear to kick with their right foot, and seem to have all the time in the world to contribute to this type of thread, and actually have the gaul to talk about doing something, anything  for the benefit of Australia. It's laughable, because they certainly can't to be doing a lot of real work, they spend so much time in front of the puter..  
Say  no  more...


----------



## Julia (17 July 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Hard work can be painful in my experience, its work that can require personal risk, work that can take you out of your comfort zone...as far as im concerned if your not sweating and or in some kind of discomfort then your not working HARD.
> 
> Working long hours doing whatever in a office is never ever hard, im sure it can be demanding in its own way but if you call any type of office work hard then what do you call physical work 500 meters underground in temperatures over 35c ?






explod said:


> Churchill laid bricks for leasure.   Working effects the male ego of protector and provider.  Peace of mind gives ballance and time for decisions and ideas  to gestate.



So Cynical, your comments above show little understanding of the effects of psychological stress and constant high concentration in a mentally demanding role.

Why do you think so many people turn to hard physical activity as a means of relaxation?  Hard physical work/activity burns off stress, anxiety and depression.  The nation's gyms are full of such people.

When the person who has engaged in hard physical work for the day finishes, he goes home, probably has a few beers, and doesn't give the job a thought until he clocks on again the next morning.  The person working in a highly competitive, mentally demanding job, however, may likely get little sleep because of the anticipation of another stressful day ahead where the smallest lapse in concentration can have major effects.

Explod makes a good point.  Repetitive, physical activity, often something as simple as walking or running with its endorphin release can indeed generate new ideas and solutions to problems.


----------



## dutchie (18 July 2010)

namrog said:


> Dont waste your breath so Cynical, you're probably talking to a lot here who wouldn't have a clue what real work is about, I say real work not necessarily hard work, though hard work does usually equate to real work..
> Work that contributes something of benefit to the world, whether by a service , manufacturing, growing produce, designing, planning, building, creating, scientific endeavour, education, medicine  etc etc, work that gets things done....
> As opposed to paper shufflers and pushers such as those in the financial industrys e.g. accountants, financial planners, annalists, bankers , professional traders, and the likes that use other peoples money and hard work to over pay themselves without having to guarantee anything of benefit to their clients, and certainly nothing or little of value to the world in general....also add in the majority of forum jockeys on ASF, who appear to kick with their right foot, and seem to have all the time in the world to contribute to this type of thread, and actually have the gaul to talk about doing something, anything  for the benefit of Australia. It's laughable, because they certainly can't to be doing a lot of real work, they spend so much time in front of the puter..
> Say  no  more...




So you don't think some of us might have already put in some hard years and are now reaping the benefits and relaxing a bit from hard physical work?

Are you not being hypocritical in hanging out with us "non workers" who contribute nothing??!!


----------



## Aussiejeff (18 July 2010)

Interesting how this ASF poll (started a few weeks aback) absolutely flies in the face of the latest main stream media polls.

Have they "moved forward" & fallen in love with Julia? :1luvu:

Perhaps we at ASF should also "move forward together" and have an update poll in a couple of weeks?


----------



## bassmanpete (18 July 2010)

Julia said:


> So Cynical, your comments above show little understanding of the effects of psychological stress and constant high concentration in a mentally demanding role.
> 
> Why do you think so many people turn to hard physical activity as a means of relaxation?  Hard physical work/activity burns off stress, anxiety and depression.  The nation's gyms are full of such people.
> 
> ...




Totally agree Julia. For the first 10 years of my working life I did physically demanding work; then I became a computer programmer/analyst. However 'hard' the physical work was it never left me feeling drained in the evening like the mental work did.


----------



## Calliope (18 July 2010)

Aussiejeff said:


> Interesting how this ASF poll (started a few weeks aback) absolutely flies in the face of the latest main stream media polls.




It is not surprising. ASF members are capable of thinking for themselves.



> Have they "moved forward" & fallen in love with Julia?




It would be a risky business falling in love with the Virgin Queen.

You may have noticed that Gillard never misses an opportunity to extol the virtues of her parents. However she nominates neither as her role model. Her role model, she says, is a lying, fornicating, adulterous boozehound...Bob Hawke.


----------



## Calliope (18 July 2010)

A poll in today's Brisbane Sunday-Mail. One thing it shows is that Labor supporters don't read newspapers online.

Results: Who would you vote for?
Thanks for voting!

Which party will get your first preference?
Labor
16.7% (1065 votes)
Liberal
63.67% (4060 votes)
National
4.96% (316 votes)
Greens
6.68% (426 votes)
Independent or some other party
4.23% (270 votes)
None of them
3.76% (240 votes)
Total votes: 6377


----------



## Macquack (18 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> Her role model, she says, is a lying, fornicating, adulterous boozehound...Bob Hawke.




Loosen up Calliope.

Bob Hawke is a great "aussie" bloke who liked a beer.



> His academic achievements were complemented by setting a new *world speed record for beer drinking*: a yard glass (approximately 3 imperial pints or 1.7 litres) in eleven seconds.[10] In his memoirs, Hawke suggested that this single feat may have contributed to his political success more than any other, by *endearing him to a voting population with a strong beer culture*.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Hawke

How come anyone who is labor is the devil in your eyes?


----------



## Calliope (18 July 2010)

Macquack said:


> .
> Bob Hawke is a great "aussie" bloke who liked a beer



.

Your role model too it seems. He certainly had a foul mouth.



> How come anyone who is labor is the devil in your eyes?




Not all. I much prefer Keating to Fraser.


----------



## So_Cynical (18 July 2010)

Julia said:


> So Cynical, your comments above show little understanding of the effects of psychological stress and constant high concentration in a mentally demanding role.




Oh com on Julia...constant high concentration and psychological stress..so you think you don't have to constantly concentrate when working on a 3 story roof? or on the deck of a boat that's in constant motion? somehow you think there's no stress involved with this type of work?

I'm stunned.

--------------------



drsmith said:


> Physical bias in those definitions.




Of course there's a physical bias...hard work is physical.


----------



## namrog (18 July 2010)

dutchie said:


> So you don't think some of us might have already put in some hard years and are now reaping the benefits and relaxing a bit from hard physical work?
> 
> Are you not being hypocritical in hanging out with us "non workers" who contribute nothing??!!




I have no doubt that some are reaping the benefits of their lifes work and good luck to em, I'm sure most deserve their rewards,  that's why i said majority...

And no, I'm not being hypocritical, I have a busted shoulder at the moment that's stopping me from doing much, so here I am on an online forum wasting time .....


----------



## drsmith (18 July 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Of course there's a physical bias...hard work is physical.



Demanding work however is not limited to physical work.

Work using the brain has generally been higher paid than physical work as it is easier to learn the skills to do the latter.


----------



## Aussiejeff (18 July 2010)

drsmith said:


> Demanding work however is not limited to physical work.
> 
> Work using the brain has generally been higher paid than physical work as it is easier to learn the skills to do the latter.




Wot has that got to do with title of this thread?

Do you mean electronic voting should be introduced??

Please explain!


----------



## So_Cynical (18 July 2010)

Thread back on topic



wade said:


> lets see how ASF members vote




ASF members have overwhelmingly voted for the Liberal/national coalition 62.96% clearly demonstrating the political conservatism of the majority of ASF members. 

-------------

Now for a reality check lets see how the major betting and bookmaking agency's rate the chances of a Lib/Nat victory 24.5% according to crikey.com.au as of last Friday 16/7/10

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/07/16/betting-market-friday-16/

Perhaps we need to do a "who do you think will win poll" because even thou the vast majority of ASFers will vote Lib/Nat i doubt the majority of them are silly enough to think Abbott can actually win. 
~


----------



## drsmith (18 July 2010)

Aussiejeff said:


> Wot has that got to do with title of this thread?
> 
> Do you mean electronic voting should be introduced??
> 
> Please explain!



Not if the filter passes muster.


----------



## grace (18 July 2010)

Aussiejeff said:


> Interesting how this ASF poll (started a few weeks aback) absolutely flies in the face of the latest main stream media polls.




Our ASF poll is not surprising.  ASF members are not what I would consider main stream.

I don't think the real result will be anything like the ASF poll though.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 July 2010)

grace said:


> Our ASF poll is not surprising.  ASF members are not what I would consider main stream.
> 
> I don't think the real result will be anything like the ASF poll though.




I suppose on ASF, people know the value of a quid, and don't waste it on bloody pink batts and million dollar school canteens.

gg


----------



## electronicmaster (18 July 2010)

We need to make sure none of the major parties come to power.  We need a mixed bag of parties that is ruled only by a lesser party.  

The goal behind this idea?   So we become in control of our own destiny.

That is?  If you value true freedom, free speech and a free economy ......

Imagine:-

- Restructuring of the media
- Eliminating GST.  
- Demolishing  all government debt   
- Removal of the British Empire and laws
- Restoring the constitution, and removing amendments that relate to the British Empire 
- Demolishing the Central Bank that is linked to the FED Reserve
- Removal of Income Tax, Stamp duty and Capital Gains Tax
- Removal of the Debt system by implementing a credit (real wealth) system.
- Our money is backed 100% buy Gold and/or Silver.  No deviations


----------



## Calliope (18 July 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> ASF members have overwhelmingly voted for the Liberal/national coalition 62.96% clearly demonstrating the political conservatism of the majority of ASF members.




It just goes to show the majority of ASF members are not as gullible as you. However you can take comfort from the knowledge that the majority of voters in general *are* as easily manipulated as you..


----------



## Macquack (18 July 2010)

What background do you come from Calliope, to be such a superior fellow?


----------



## Calliope (19 July 2010)

Macquack said:


> What background do you come from Calliope, to be such a superior fellow?




It has to be worked at. Take a tip from me. You can't acquire it by sitting on your backside watching whales.


----------



## Mofra (19 July 2010)

Labour has now confirmed they will receive Green preferences for the election, which paves the way for a campaign to appeal to "middle Australia".

Once again we will have the choice of two parties who have reasonably similar policies, or minor parties who (with few exceptions) are likely to wield little in the way of political power.

Should think the % of primary vote that goes to the two major parties will reduce this election.


----------



## dutchie (19 July 2010)

Mofra said:


> Labour has now confirmed they will receive Green preferences for the election




If this is true then its all over for the Libs.


----------



## Calliope (19 July 2010)

dutchie said:


> If this is true then its all over for the Libs.




Yes and Labor will give Greens preferences in the Senate, thus ensuring that the Greens will control the Senate and hamstring any Reps legislation they don't agree with.

This just shows the stupidity of Labor spin doctors getting their knickers in a knot about Abbott's Work Choices policies. The Greens hate the bosses even more than Labor.

The Coalition is on track to lose the election. They will probably be better off in Opposition than being hamstung in Government.

All legislation during the next term will be regressive.


----------



## Mofra (19 July 2010)

dutchie said:


> If this is true then its all over for the Libs.



It was always on the cards. Neither party provides too much in the way of confidence to the voter so minor parties & preferences will be very important. 
I'd expect Family First to direct preferences to the Libs.


----------



## Julia (19 July 2010)

Let's remember that "giving preferences" is just a recommendation to voters, and something that will go on the How to Vote cards.

It's still an individual voter choice.  I don't know, but I'd imagine that of all voters Greens fans will be more likely to make their own decisions than necessarily follow like sheep what The Greens recommend.

That said, I guess most Greens voters are not going to be too likely to be handing preferences to the Opposition.


----------



## drsmith (19 July 2010)

Tony Abbott needs to focus his message on industrial relations.

If it's coalition policy not going to change IR laws for the term of the next government then that's all he needs to comment about. 

Any tweaks within current IR laws should then be presented as a policy position.


----------



## noco (19 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> Yes and Labor will give Greens preferences in the Senate, thus ensuring that the Greens will control the Senate and hamstring any Reps legislation they don't agree with.
> 
> This just shows the stupidity of Labor spin doctors getting their knickers in a knot about Abbott's Work Choices policies. The Greens hate the bosses even more than Labor.
> 
> ...




Calliope, maybe the Australian public needs another good 3 years dose of Labor. It may keep them out for for two decades. If the Coalition wins they may only get one decade.

I just can't see any improvement in labor during the next 3 years. It will be the same old stuff ups, one after the other.


----------



## dutchie (19 July 2010)

noco said:


> I just can't see any improvement in labor during the next 3 years. It will be the same old stuff ups, one after the other.




Your right there noco but the electorate can't understand that.

Australia Corp. can't afford to waste money again.


----------



## sails (19 July 2010)

Would that sweet, angelic face really waste Australia's money - the perfectly made up face, the perfected smile...  Wonder how long it will last after the election.

She reminds me of a toddler who has made an awful mess and then give an angelic smile as if to say, "who me"... lol

No wonder she wants to "move forward".  Just like a toddler she is probably hoping we will believe the smile and forget the numerous messes.


----------



## nioka (19 July 2010)

Where is Bill Hayden's drovers dog?. This is an election that he needs to be a candidate. Without a dog to vote for I will have to vote informal. I could not bring myself to vote for Abbott and I dont trust Gillard. Neither could compete with man's best friend so I need a dog to vote for. However even voting for the dog wouldn't work because I'd have to finally give a preference to one of the two parties. 

The greens look like being the big winners here. They probably will end up with easily holding a balance of power in the senate. That is like giving the Nimbys the power over development applications. The democrats would have had a field day in this election if they hadn't selfdestructed.

Decisions, decisions, decisions. Only a few weeks to make up my mind. At present I look like writing "none of the above" on the ballot slip. Has anyone a sound reason (unbiased please) why I should not do just that.

P.S. It is a pity that stocks could not get as much coverage on a STOCK forum as does politics.


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2010)

nioka said:


> Where is Bill Hayden's drovers dog?. This is an election that he needs to be a candidate. Without a dog to vote for I will have to vote informal. I could not bring myself to vote for Abbott and I dont trust Gillard. Neither could compete with man's best friend so I need a dog to vote for. However even voting for the dog wouldn't work because I'd have to finally give a preference to one of the two parties.
> 
> The greens look like being the big winners here. They probably will end up with easily holding a balance of power in the senate. That is like giving the Nimbys the power over development applications. The democrats would have had a field day in this election if they hadn't selfdestructed.
> 
> ...




Got any stocks that are firing more than politics nioka and I will follow you. Have you heard of the "Property Council of Australia"? Had some great policy but failed due to infighting. The Greens will be the winners out of all this election stuff. Balance of power and other such like things. The likes of explod & Co will be the grinners and the winners. Hung parliament with the voting veto on a Green Army. Harumph.

UNLESS ...... Abbott or Gillard can have a decisive conflict which will sway the voting public. "Children Overboard" ...... "Tampa Affair" kind of thing will influence this decision. Can you see one? You have a very high IQ ? Anything on the horizon? Theorise.

P.S. WCR is a nobody cigar box share that has potential (no involvement and am not spruiking)


----------



## Julia (19 July 2010)

drsmith said:


> Tony Abbott needs to focus his message on industrial relations.
> 
> If it's coalition policy not going to change IR laws for the term of the next government then that's all he needs to comment about.
> 
> Any tweaks within current IR laws should then be presented as a policy position.



That's right.  Mr Abbott's big problem is that he seems to quite genuinely attempt to answer journalists' questions truthfully, and this gets him into trouble.  They are adept at putting words into his mouth.
He needs to take a lesson from the government.  They simply decide on a set phrase and repeat it ad nauseam in the face of any question at all.
Instead of getting sidetracked, as he did today, about e.g. "would he never, ever change the workplace relations laws?" where obviously no sane person would say this, he tried to explain his definition of maintaining Labor's legislation, and it all went wrong from there.

He really has a huge problem in expressing himself and that's just not acceptable in a Prime Minister.




sails said:


> Would that sweet, angelic face really waste Australia's money - the perfectly made up face, the perfected smile...  Wonder how long it will last after the election.
> 
> She reminds me of a toddler who has made an awful mess and then give an angelic smile as if to say, "who me"... lol
> 
> No wonder she wants to "move forward".  Just like a toddler she is probably hoping we will believe the smile and forget the numerous messes.



I watched the 7.30 Report this evening, feeling just as you describe, Sails.
At the beginning of the interview, Kerry O'Brien seemed determined to not respond to her girlish sweet smile and gushing manner, but eventually he succumbed.   The questions were asked in an oh so gentle manner, a completely different approach to that which he employs with male politicians.
Shame on him for the preferential treatment in the face of a bit of calculated charm.


----------



## nioka (19 July 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Got any stocks that are firing more than politics nioka and I will follow you.




SDL. Came out of suspension today. I bought 200,000 on open at 11.5c. They closed the day at 12c but the good part is the final quotes. "buys" have more in the 11.5c and 11c than the total of all the sells at any price. good fundamental prospects as I see them.

BUL. I see great potential for this coal seam gas. I bought again at 14c.( As you know I intend to turn $5,000 into $50,000 in two years with BUL and thats no BULL.)

EKA. Sold ex rights to the SPP today and maintained their price. Analyst reports say they are underpriced. I am accumulating them. My choice for the best short term investment for $1500.

AUT. Refer to the AUT discussion threads. Great potential here in my view.( plenty of ASF politics here also and it is interesting that I started the AUT discussion exactly 4 years ago. Doesn't time fly when you are having fun.)

LYC. The basket price of rare earths keep increasing. China restricting exports of these vital elements and Lynas getting closer to production and well ahead of any competition.

CER. Owning valuable realestate with a very good chance that its funding probems are under control and priced well below NTA where those assets have been valued way down because of the GFC. Valuations are way below replacement value and no value is placed on the considerable goodwill.

VPG. Similar to CER.

EDE. Waiting the results of trials of its Hythane fuel with extensive trials in India and California.

TAS. Interesting prospecting in a large area next to Olympic dam. Also a major shareholder in EDE who have other interests apart from Hythane.

However please do your own research. I'm often wrong and have a few dogs to prove it. I usually only talk about stocks that I  am prepared to put money into and I have plenty at risk with all these.


----------



## wayneL (19 July 2010)

nioka said:


> Where is Bill Hayden's drovers dog?. This is an election that he needs to be a candidate. Without a dog to vote for I will have to vote informal. I could not bring myself to vote for Abbott and I dont trust Gillard. Neither could compete with man's best friend so I need a dog to vote for. However even voting for the dog wouldn't work because I'd have to finally give a preference to one of the two parties.
> 
> The greens look like being the big winners here. They probably will end up with easily holding a balance of power in the senate. That is like giving the Nimbys the power over development applications. The democrats would have had a field day in this election if they hadn't selfdestructed.
> 
> ...




Australia needs a secular classical liberal party (i.e. a proper liberal party, not a conservative one such as family first) like we have in NZ to counter the greens www.act.org.nz

IMO


----------



## nioka (19 July 2010)

wayneL said:


> Australia needs a secular classical liberal party (i.e. a proper liberal party, not a conservative one such as family first) like we have in NZ to counter the greens www.act.org.nz
> 
> IMO




I'm beginning to think we need "One Nation" back just to spoil the party and get things fired up. I have never in my many years been so disgusted with politicians.


----------



## sinner (19 July 2010)

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...tony-abbott-says/story-e6freo8c-1225812010013

*All kids must read the Bible, federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says*



> BIBLE classes should be compulsory so children have a fundamental understanding of Christianity on leaving school, Tony Abbott says.
> 
> "I think everyone should have some familiarity with the great texts that are at the core of our civilisation," said the Federal Opposition leader.
> 
> ...


----------



## So_Cynical (19 July 2010)

It only occurred to me today that its almost an absolute certainty that Tony Abbott has only got 35 days left as opposition leader...he will concede late on election nite and step down and declare the leadership vacant.

So im wondering what the right wing of the ASF thinks will happen next, Hockey, Abbott, Bishop  Turnbull  its a hell of a choice.


----------



## sails (19 July 2010)

Julia said:


> That's right.  Mr Abbott's big problem is that he seems to quite genuinely attempt to answer journalists' questions truthfully, and this gets him into trouble.  They are adept at putting words into his mouth.
> He needs to take a lesson from the government.  They simply decide on a set phrase and repeat it ad nauseam in the face of any question at all.
> Instead of getting sidetracked, as he did today, about e.g. "would he never, ever change the workplace relations laws?" where obviously no sane person would say this, he tried to explain his definition of maintaining Labor's legislation, and it all went wrong from there.
> 
> He really has a huge problem in expressing himself and that's just not acceptable in a Prime Minister.




I agree, Julia.  His lack of being able to express himself is one of his biggest drawbacks.  He seems to be trying hard - haven't noticed quite so many " aahs" lately.  That type of habit can be difficult to break quickly so he'd have to be putting in a fair bit of effort.

However, I guess it really comes down to the policies of each party.  Leaders can be quickly removed -  24 hours or less is all it takes.  So there's no point it being a popularity contest.

Our choice is clearly between another three years of the same costly labor mistakes and backflips or give fiscal management back to the libs.  




> I watched the 7.30 Report this evening, feeling just as you describe, Sails.
> At the beginning of the interview, Kerry O'Brien seemed determined to not respond to her girlish sweet smile and gushing manner, but eventually he succumbed.   The questions were asked in an oh so gentle manner, a completely different approach to that which he employs with male politicians.
> Shame on him for the preferential treatment in the face of a bit of calculated charm.




I didn't watch it, Julia.  I am so disgusted by the charade that I usually walk away when she comes on...


----------



## nioka (19 July 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> So im wondering what the right wing of the ASF thinks will happen next,




Right wing? Left wing? Do we have a union and a union rep? And here was me thinking we only had right wingers with a few not so right.


----------



## Datsun Disguise (19 July 2010)

nioka said:


> P.S. It is a pity that stocks could not get as much coverage on a STOCK forum as does politics.




:iagree:
I almost started a thread asking if ASF could really continue to be called ASF when the general chat outnumbers stock chat by 2 to 1. But I would have been perpetuating the problem.

sorry :topic


----------



## drsmith (19 July 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> It only occurred to me today that its almost an absolute certainty that Tony Abbott has only got 35 days left as opposition leader...he will concede late on election nite and step down and declare the leadership vacant.
> 
> So im wondering what the right wing of the ASF thinks will happen next, Hockey, Abbott, Bishop  Turnbull  its a hell of a choice.



That will be 35 days longer than Julia's stint as opposition leader when Tony wins the keys to the lodge.


----------



## Julia (20 July 2010)

wayneL said:


> Australia needs a secular classical liberal party (i.e. a proper liberal party, not a conservative one such as family first) like we have in NZ to counter the greens www.act.org.nz
> 
> IMO



ACT is headed by Roger Douglas, known for "Rogernomics", isn't it Wayne?
As I recall it's very, very ultra Right.  They have moderated their approach in recent years.  Do they have seats in Parliament?


----------



## Calliope (20 July 2010)

Julia said:


> That's right.  Mr Abbott's big problem is that he seems to quite genuinely attempt to answer journalists' questions truthfully, and this gets him into trouble.  They are adept at putting words into his mouth.
> He needs to take a lesson from the government.  They simply decide on a set phrase and repeat it ad nauseam in the face of any question at all.
> Instead of getting sidetracked, as he did today, about e.g. "would he never, ever change the workplace relations laws?" where obviously no sane person would say this, he tried to explain his definition of maintaining Labor's legislation, and it all went wrong from there.
> 
> He really has a huge problem in expressing himself and that's just not acceptable in a Prime Minister.




Abbott is lurching from one disaster to another. His pledge not to change Fair Work Australia rolleyes is crazy. He is deserting his constituency and kowtowing to the unions. If the unions are going to roll him in the election, he could at least go down with his principles intact and not appear so spineless.

I'm afraid his days are numbered. Liberal candidates are not putting his face on their election material.

The debate with Gillard on Sunday will further expose him as a ditherer. She will play with him like a cat with a mouse, while smiling sweetly.


----------



## Blitzed (20 July 2010)

I'm very upset at this union commercial..

the abbot family; fair use or will it be copyright abuse  « @ Now


----------



## Julia (20 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> Abbott is lurching from one disaster to another. His pledge not to change Fair Work Australia rolleyes is crazy. He is deserting his constituency and kowtowing to the unions. If the unions are going to roll him in the election, he could at least go down with his principles intact and not appear so spineless.



Exactly so.  Hasn't he considered all the small business owners who are his natural voters and who he is alienating with this stuff?



> I'm afraid his days are numbered. Liberal candidates are not putting his face on their election material.



Agree.  In fact, impossible though it might seem, I reckon the Libs would be better off dumping him now and replacing him with either Hockey or Turnbull.



> The debate with Gillard on Sunday will further expose him as a ditherer. She will play with him like a cat with a mouse, while smiling sweetly.



He's at a further disadvantage because he is known to actually like her.
Plus his very conservative nature will find it difficult to overcome his reluctance to be tough on her because she's a female.

But even apart from that, the Libs appear to be without an overall strategy other than cutting spending which will, of course, lose jobs.  Everything they are saying does indeed seem like 'going back to the past'.  Mr Abbott seems to think he can re-create the Howard era.  So depressing.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 July 2010)

I agree.

Voting Abbot is going back to the past.
The Libs have got to renew themselves before they will get my vote again.

I dislike a few of the opposition ministers at present, Julie Bishop for one.

They need new blood, a new vision and new ideas.


----------



## wayneL (20 July 2010)

Julia said:


> ACT is headed by Roger Douglas, known for "Rogernomics", isn't it Wayne?
> As I recall it's very, very ultra Right.  They have moderated their approach in recent years.  Do they have seats in Parliament?




Rodney Hyde is boss cocky now. ACT is in coalition with the Nationals (as is The Maori Party) so are in fact part of the gu'mint.

Ultra right? Hmmmmmm is depends what you mean by "right". Classical Liberalism is regarded as "left" because of the social progressiveness of CLs, yet their Austrian School economics are usually associated with the right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Though I note that Inaccurapedia have them listed as both "classical liberal" and "right wing"


----------



## gordon2007 (20 July 2010)

Julia said:


> Agree.  In fact, impossible though it might seem, I reckon the Libs would be better off dumping him now and replacing him with either Hockey or Turnbull.




Couldn't agree more. I quite like Abbott myself but I'm sure I'm in the minority there. I think they missed the boat by not choosing Hockey. He would of really given Julia or Krudd a good run for their money.


----------



## Macquack (20 July 2010)

*Costello sends up Gillard*
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/07/19/2958289.htm

Peter Costello showing his true colours and school boy humor attempts to take the piss out of Julia Gillard's voice by reciting "moving foward".

I was waiting for Julia Gillard to "move forward" and knock Costello out. Pity she was not there as I reckon she could hold her own against that soft ****.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 July 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> Couldn't agree more. I quite like Abbott myself but I'm sure I'm in the minority there. I think they missed the boat by not choosing Hockey. He would of really given Julia or Krudd a good run for their money.




I like Abbott too. He is like a Boy's Own man.
He would be a great bloke to be friends with. 
Running the country though?


----------



## wayneL (20 July 2010)

Macquack said:


> *Costello sends up Gillard*
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/07/19/2958289.htm
> 
> Peter Costello showing his true colours and school boy humor attempts to take the piss out of Julia Gillard's voice by reciting "moving foward".
> ...




Ohhhh the irony. 

Hypocrisy anyone?


----------



## noco (20 July 2010)

Knobby22 said:


> I like Abbott too. He is like a Boy's Own man.
> He would be a great bloke to be friends with.
> Running the country though?




Strange is it not, Abbott tries to express his honesty and gets ostracized for it.
Just goes to show how spin and BS  beats the hell out of honesty. Voters just love it.


----------



## IFocus (20 July 2010)

> That's right.  Mr Abbott's big problem is that he seems to quite genuinely attempt to answer journalists' questions truthfully, and this gets him into trouble.  They are adept at putting words into his mouth.
> He needs to take a lesson from the government.  They simply decide on a set phrase and repeat it ad nauseam in the face of any question at all.
> Instead of getting sidetracked, as he did today, about e.g. "would he never, ever change the workplace relations laws?" where obviously no sane person would say this, he tried to explain his definition of maintaining Labor's legislation, and it all went wrong from there.
> 
> He really has a huge problem in expressing himself and that's just not acceptable in a Prime Minister.




Abbotts problem is that his heart and soul wants a reincarnation of work choices but Australia has rejected this. 

So what is it that Abbott really stands for?

Cognitive Dissonance 

That's his problem!





> I watched the 7.30 Report this evening, feeling just as you describe, Sails.
> At the beginning of the interview, Kerry O'Brien seemed determined to not respond to her girlish sweet smile and gushing manner, but eventually he succumbed.   The questions were asked in an oh so gentle manner, a completely different approach to that which he employs with male politicians.
> Shame on him for the preferential treatment in the face of a bit of calculated charm.




Disagree Abbott just about always takes a combative stance hence a combative interview but in fact Kerry let Abbott of the hook so bad last time I nearly threw up.

Gillard to the contrary takes a moderate stance...........


----------



## IFocus (20 July 2010)

Classic Abbott problem boat people

Spruks it up with a boat person



http://www.smh.com.au/federal-elect...ruit-shop-goes-pearshaped-20100720-10iux.html


----------



## namrog (20 July 2010)

The thing is, that phony tony has an imaje problem ..

In parliment under Howard, he played the role as one of Howards attack dogs, a role he revelled in and seemed to enjoy, where his agression and nastiness was allowed and even encouraged ..
He was seen as grubby and slimy in a sort of way, one of the jobs he was given was to snoop around like a private eye and dig up dirt on Pauline Hanson, this is the type of job he was seen to be good for...!!

And now, despite everyone being able to see right through him,  he is trying to reinvent himself and portray himself as a rational, honest, fair dinkum, middle of the road sort of fellow, when everyone knows that he is in political terms, little johnnys love child, and will revert to those same johnnie pollicies at the drop of a hat..   

The people are not stupid, and simply don't trust or believe him....


----------



## drsmith (20 July 2010)

IFocus said:


> Classic Abbott problem boat people
> 
> Spruks it up with a boat person
> 
> ...



Shouldn't be a problem.

He came by boat and has since made a productive life in Australia. From his (and his family's perspective), that's very much good on him. From a broader perspective however, it does not justify people smuggling. 

Is that really too difficult for the Australian public at large to understand ?


----------



## SmellyTerror (20 July 2010)

I want to vote for the party that doesn't want to obscenely punish refugees - pretty much the most helpless people on earth - for LEGALLY asking for help, and who isn't bat**** insane.

So obviously I'm voting... uh.... Donkey, I guess.

I suppose I could remove the objection to insanity and vote Green. They might be cross-eyed dingbats, but at least they have some balls.

I like balls.

But honestly, voting for either of the big-two would make me feel like some kind of sucker. I'd need to take a bath afterwards. I mean, look at this whole campaign: they've both got such similar policies that they're reduced to arguing over *WHO'LL ACTUALLY DO IT*. It's a bloody farce. It's brand-name politics, principle and vision be damned.

And **** me! They've even forgotten what their brands ARE. You've got the Libs who want to continue Howard's effort to shift the entire taxation burden over to business, and the Labs who are displaying such lefty-pinko policies as (idiotic) censorship, (idiotic) reffo-bashing, (idiotic) business tax cuts, and industrial relations / environment policy that consists *entirely* of fire and noise. If you plonked down the two party's policies in front of a foreigner, party names removed, they'd probably guess the labs were right-wing and the libs were centre. But people go right on voting for the brand name.

Who was the wise man who said this? "The problem with democracy is that people are ****ing morons".

Oh, that's right. It was me.


----------



## drsmith (20 July 2010)

Both sides want to be small targets. The ALP are at a disadvantage here due to the quantity of major policy failures while in government, all other things being equal. 

The problem for the Coalition is that other things are far from equal. The ALP is currently far more adept at playing the small target at both the leadership and support levels. Tony Abbott is campaigning to the beat of the ALP's drum.


----------



## GumbyLearner (20 July 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> I want to vote for the party that doesn't want to obscenely punish refugees - pretty much the most helpless people on earth - for LEGALLY asking for help, and who isn't bat**** insane.
> 
> So obviously I'm voting... uh.... Donkey, I guess.
> 
> ...




That's one of the top political posts I have read on ASF. Great post ST.
It all comes down to *who* is the worst. 
I intend to vote for the least worst. Oxymoron 

Do you trust the Rann & Rudd governments for allowing Chinese nationals to work for $1.90 per hour dismantling a Mitsubishi factory in Adelaide? (I'm sure Weary Dunlop & the fellas were paid less in Burma/Myanmar) 

Or do you trust Abbott and his wholehearted support for Michael Johnson MP Member for Ryan using his position to profit in Parliament to try and wrangle a $12 million dollar (for himself) coal mine deal with the Chinese?

Or do you trust the Greens? Who think everyone should go back and live like the Flintstones? 

It's so hard to choose!


----------



## Calliope (20 July 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> That's one of the top political posts I have read on ASF. Great post ST.




 Are you serious?


----------



## drsmith (20 July 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Or do you trust the Greens? Who think everyone should go back and live like the Flintstones?



That alone eliminates the Greens.


----------



## GumbyLearner (20 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> Are you serious?




Unless you can convince me that your posts are completely objective? Er..Um Yes!


----------



## Julia (20 July 2010)

Knobby22 said:


> I like Abbott too. He is like a Boy's Own man.
> He would be a great bloke to be friends with.
> Running the country though?



Agree.  I'd like to meet him.  
However, I'm still confused about what he stands for.  Sometimes he appears authentic and honest, too honest for the game playing that's required perhaps, and at other times we see the ducking and weaving that he so displayed as a member of the Howard government.
Overall, the one word that always comes to mind is 'erratic', and that's not a quality one wants in a prime minister.




IFocus said:


> Abbotts problem is that his heart and soul wants a reincarnation of work choices but Australia has rejected this.



You're right.  And this is why he's having such difficulty with discussing the subject.  He's now also going too far with rejecting Work Choices or any variation thereof, and significantly risking getting his major constituency off side.

And you've hit on what is quite possibly his major problem in the whole campaign, i.e. that he's basically forthright and honest (well, for a politician)
and he's trying to reconcile this natural trait with the need to pander to what the polls are saying.  Hence his lack of capacity to be convincing.



> Disagree Abbott just about always takes a combative stance hence a combative interview but in fact Kerry let Abbott of the hook so bad last time I nearly threw up.



Isn't it interesting how our natural inclinations colour what we want to see.
We probably both saw the same interviews and viewed them quite differently.



> Gillard to the contrary takes a moderate stance...........



Yep, she's all girlish, sweet reason, carefully treading the middle ground so as to garner the most votes.  She 'understands' the people who are alarmed about the boat people, just as well as she 'understands' those who are upset about children being kept in detention centres.  They are all absolutely right and absolutely justified in their opinions.

Trouble is, with this approach, we have no real idea what she is really about and therefore what she will come up with when she is re-elected.

Abbott, at least, will during the campaign give us a more clear picture of the sort of government he would lead.


----------



## GumbyLearner (20 July 2010)

drsmith said:


> That alone eliminates the Greens.




Well in my mind yes I agree. *Use Value/Exchange Value?* The Greens think they are one and the same. So I won't vote for them and anyone who has looked into that closely shouldn't vote Green IMO.


----------



## SmellyTerror (20 July 2010)

> Or do you trust the Greens? Who think everyone should go back and live like the Flintstones?




God, I'm going to sound like a greeny, but...


...they actually have some reasonably sensible policies. 


There, I've said it. I disagree with a lot of what they want, but their plan for using fewer coal-powered power stations does actually involve replacing that power with _other power_. Now, you may think that their plans for alternate power are completely stupid (raises hand) but the result of this - by their own policies - would actually mean that if they can't find economically viable alternatives, we keep the coal power. In fact, they expect to keep a lot of it for a few decades at least anyway - they just want new projects to be something else.

That "something else" might boil down to "magic", but at least they're not proposing to reduce the amount of power generation in the country.

They've also consistently come out AGAINST idiotic boondoggle crap like ethanol in fuels (!) and KRudd's lobotomy of a ETS (!). Their climate change measures include stuff like greater efficiency of existing systems and investment in public transport, and basically getting ready for disasters in general (climate change or no, disaster preparedness is a bloodgy good thing, and at present is pretty sub-standard). All of these are good even if you think global warming is bunk.

I know all this, because I got my **** kicked in an argument with a mate a couple of weeks ago. ****ing greeny.

On the other hand, they hate nuclear, which as far as I can see means they've got pretty much no hope at all. It's like saying *"Everyone! I have a plan to save the world!" *"How?" *"With this awesome carrot!"*
Ok, yeah, so they are still bat**** insane...

Oh well. Donkey it is then, I guess.


----------



## Calliope (20 July 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Unless you can convince me that your posts are completely objective? Er..Um Yes!




Why? Are yours? Are anybody's?


----------



## drsmith (20 July 2010)

The Australian Political Service statement of oath:



> *A member of parliament can squander billions of dollars,* a member of parliament can run naked down George Street and survive but a member of parliament cannot mislead this place and survive.''



What is remarkable is who said it.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/ute-saga-puts-brakes-on-parliament-20090622-ct80.html


----------



## wayneL (21 July 2010)

Re The Greens

The catchphrase du jour is "The greens are to yellow to admit they're red"... or they're watermelons, green on the outside, red on the inside.

When people vote for the Greens, they're not just voting for saving the world with ST's carrot, they're voting for a party with an internationalist socialist/communist agenda.

Is that the sort of protest vote people really want? Maybe, maybe not, but I really don't think people are thinking it through or realize what those clowns have in their manifesto.


----------



## SmellyTerror (21 July 2010)

Even if they're not communist, they have a lot of similarities, don't they? Massive awesome plans, but only if you think of a "plan" as an objective, with no actual method for achieving it.

I even have a soft spot for the commies, but again: bat**** insane. Capitalism has the amazing property of being strengthened by human greed. Communism is destroyed by it. So unless your political system is intended to govern magical fairies, then....


----------



## Mofra (21 July 2010)

drsmith said:


> He came by boat and has since made a productive life in Australia. From his (and his family's perspective), that's very much good on him. From a broader perspective however, it does not justify people smuggling.
> 
> Is that really too difficult for the Australian public at large to understand ?



It does make it a little hard to demonise "the brown hordes coming across the seas" when they are shown to be human and productive though, doesn't it?


----------



## Mofra (21 July 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Even if they're not communist, they have a lot of similarities, don't they? Massive awesome plans, but only if you think of a "plan" as an objective, with no actual method for achieving it.



Massive awesome plans like spending $43b on infrastructure with barely a rudimentary plan of the project first?

Oh, wait...


----------



## SmellyTerror (21 July 2010)

Ahhh, Australian politics.

Step 1: make a massive bonfire of money

Step 2: ???

Step 3: profit!


----------



## Southern X (21 July 2010)

If the Greens are commies then the Liberals are fascists by any UNreasonable extension of the Australian political spectrum.

Now, if the commie Greens give their preferences to Labor (why no "u") and Labor reciprocates with senate prefernces does that make Labor a bunch of pinkos?

This leaves us with a political palette of: Green, red; Labour, pink, and; Liberal, black (but they'd prefer white thank you very much).

Throw in some purple Monarchists, grey for a nod to demographics...

... et voila: A Technicolour Yawn!

SX


----------



## son of baglimit (21 July 2010)

do we have a thread where we can be critical of various policy releases, or shall we add it here.

i admit i had a good laugh at todays news of abbotts plan to expand the education refund to include pretty much everything else associated with schooling, and then expanding the refund by 20% and bringing forward the upgrade to jan 2011.

these additional costs he wants eligible are, if you wanted to generalise, the domain of the private school kid, rather than those attending government schools. 

the education tax refund is based on eligibility to receive family tax benefit part A from centrelink, a payment based on a families income - ie mum & dad combined. essentially its an extension of FTB-A. 
the problem is though how many of those receiving FTB-A do send their children to private schools ?

for many the limits set currently, or even the limits set under abbotts plan, are fully spent on the current 'eligible essentials', and adding uniforms wont leave much scope to add anything else.

if you ask me its a headline grabber but the detail, for those who have some ability to logically approach things, would see it is very much a hollow, and pointless policy announcement.

if there were any sectors of the economy it would suit, that would likely be those with larger families, who may provide the necessary resources, but have their kids share them, or hand them down.

hey, a good policy for catholics - i knew there was something in it !!!!


----------



## wayneL (21 July 2010)

Southern X said:


> If the Greens are commies then the Liberals are fascists by any UNreasonable extension of the Australian political spectrum.
> 
> Now, if the commie Greens give their preferences to Labor (why no "u") and Labor reciprocates with senate prefernces does that make Labor a bunch of pinkos?
> 
> ...




Let's call a spade a spade:

Labor => Social Democrats

Liberal => Conservative (a conservative is not a fascist)

Green => Social Democrats/Communists

What is missing is a true liberal party.


----------



## drsmith (21 July 2010)

son of baglimit said:


> i admit i had a good laugh at todays news of abbotts plan to expand the education refund to include pretty much everything else associated with schooling, and then expanding the refund by 20% and bringing forward the upgrade to jan 2011.



From a tax management perspective, this along with the ALP's school uniform counterpart are crap.

Tax rebates and deductions should be reduced (simplified) if not eliminated alltogether. This would provide the scope to increase the tax free threshold and reduce marginal rates and make income tax overall much simpler.


----------



## son of baglimit (21 July 2010)

drsmith said:


> From a tax management perspective, this along with the ALP's school uniform counterpart are crap.
> 
> Tax rebates and deductions should be reduced (simplified) if not eliminated alltogether. This would provide the scope to increase the tax free threshold and reduce marginal rates and make income tax overall much simpler.





SIMPLER LOL

you havent done ya tax return for this year yet have ya.

blows ya mind - they used to calculate a lot of things themselves, now we have to do it for them.


----------



## drsmith (21 July 2010)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/07/21/2960540.htm

He's as thick as he looks.

Meanwhile on Hey Hey............


----------



## dutchie (22 July 2010)

Predictions and observations.

Libs looking pretty pathetic.
Labour will win in a canter.
Australia will suffer doubly in next economic downturn.
Libs will have to clean up the mess in 4 years time.


----------



## SmellyTerror (22 July 2010)

> Libs will have to clean up the mess in 4 years time.




Yeah, I mean all they need to do is what they did last time to become brilliant financial managers: engineer a global commodities boom. Which they did with their awesome voodoo powers and their extensive contacts with the Crab People. Or something.

...and THEN they'll piss most of the windfall away bribing the electorate with short term guff, while our infrastructure continues to fall further and further behind. Just like last time. Just like the current mob.

I've never been able to find any significant difference in policy between the big parties. The stuff they choose to argue about is all fire and noise. On fundamentals they are almost identical.

I honestly do not understand how people can have such loyalty to parties that have blatantly nothing to stand for.


----------



## Logique (22 July 2010)

Indeed Dutchie and ST,
another economic downturn under a Labor government would see us very vulnerable without a national surplus to buffer the impact. Labor won't create a surplus, only fritter it away, as they have done this term. 

They cannot help themselves but to shovel out more middle class welfare, and to adopt madcap schemes that do little more than raise cost of living and cause inflation. This won't get any better with a Greens balance of power in the Senate.

All the Labor election rhetoric is of a smaller Australia, of revisiting migration levels, and of financial conservatism and fiscal restraint. 

This is so much hypocrisy from Labor. I predict ever bigger buckets of money be flung like confetti over that demographic slice of Australia qualifying as 'working families', who doubtless can scarcely believe the welfare sweet spot they are in.   

Once upon a time it took two parents to raise a child, and parents accepted the responsibility for supporting their children. Now apparently in 'smaller Australia' the financial responsibility has devolved to become the collective  responsibility of all taxpayers, and 18 weeks of sitting down on 'parental leave' is apparently a productivity measure. 

Increasingly one parent can raise a child, because day care and education rebates kick in. Think of the social consequences in a couple of decades time.

Being fair, the Liberals are just as culpable as Labor in this respect.


----------



## noco (22 July 2010)

One just cannot help think there may have been some conspiracy in the change of leadership in the Labor Party before the election.
Within a week after Rudd's political assassination, he (Rudd) flies  to the USA to see UN General Secretary Moon and comes back with the news that Moon would like Rudd to be his Climate change adviser. Was this a deal stitched up at Copenhagen? One could not beleive an appointment of this calibre would happen over night.
Rudd always did have his eye on the UN Secretariat job and it would appear he may have had a leg up which was too good to refuse.
So to relieve himself of the Prime Minitership and the fact Labor had "LOST IT'S WAY", according Gillard, the opportunity arose for Gillard to dispose of Rudd to free him to take up his long desired ambitions to enter the UN.
Rudd's 'CROCODILE TEARS' MAY HAVE BEEN A GOOD ACT INDEED. 
Conspiracy????????? We may never know!!!!!!!


----------



## Calliope (22 July 2010)

noco said:


> .
> Conspiracy????????? We may never know!!!!!!!




I don't think so. At least I hope not. He is cleverly hiding his rage at his fall from head rooster to feather duster at the hands of a traitorous deputy.

But he is Australia's best chance of delivering us for the evils of Gillard's destruction of our economy with a union power takeover.

He will exact his revenge in due course and destroy Gillard. He may self-destruct in the process.


----------



## Calliope (22 July 2010)

The Smiling Assassin.



> Kevin Rudd is again sucking oxygen from Julia Gillard’s campaign.
> 
> The constant focus on Mr Rudd - and chatter over his future as a diplomat - is of deep concern inside Labor, whose strategists fear he is costing them votes.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-elect...en-from-gillards-campaign-20100722-10lsm.html


----------



## Mofra (22 July 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> I've never been able to find any significant difference in policy between the big parties. The stuff they choose to argue about is all fire and noise. On fundamentals they are almost identical.



Bingo. Regardless of result, neither major party deserves to hold a clear majority in the senate until they offer some clear differentiation with each other.

Abbott's extension of the ALP schools policy smacks of Rudd's "me too" proposals in 07


----------



## Julia (22 July 2010)

noco said:


> One just cannot help think there may have been some conspiracy in the change of leadership in the Labor Party before the election.
> Within a week after Rudd's political assassination, he (Rudd) flies  to the USA to see UN General Secretary Moon and comes back with the news that Moon would like Rudd to be his Climate change adviser. Was this a deal stitched up at Copenhagen? One could not beleive an appointment of this calibre would happen over night.
> Rudd always did have his eye on the UN Secretariat job and it would appear he may have had a leg up which was too good to refuse.
> So to relieve himself of the Prime Minitership and the fact Labor had "LOST IT'S WAY", according Gillard, the opportunity arose for Gillard to dispose of Rudd to free him to take up his long desired ambitions to enter the UN.
> ...



I don't think so, noco.  If Mr Rudd had stitched himself up a deal with the UN, and decided that was his preference over being Australian PM (or if he saw the writing on the wall given the polls), surely he'd have saved himself the ignominy of being dumped in such a humiliating fashion.  He'd have just announced he was off to the UN.

Quite likely, imo, that he has been doing some keen negotiating in Washington and perhaps has just adjusted the timing if there is indeed a job available for him.  I haven't read or heard anything about this position.  Does anyone have a link?




Calliope said:


> I don't think so. At least I hope not. He is cleverly hiding his rage at his fall from head rooster to feather duster at the hands of a traitorous deputy.
> 
> But he is Australia's best chance of delivering us for the evils of Gillard's destruction of our economy with a union power takeover.
> 
> He will exact his revenge in due course and destroy Gillard. He may self-destruct in the process.



I agree.  Remember how he said to the miners "we have a long memory".
How much longer and more virulent will that memory be when it involves his own personal downfall!
If he doesn't go to Washington, I reckon Julia Gillard will be asking for a world of trouble if she includes him in her Ministry.

Maybe Mr Rudd and Mr Turnbull can start off a "Political Dumpees" club.


----------



## Calliope (22 July 2010)

This really is a Clayton's job. Can you imagine Rudd serving on a panel of equals.. Where's the kudos in that?





> A spokesman for Mr Rudd said in a statement that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon had telephoned Mr Rudd a couple of weeks ago and discussed his interest in a development-related role.
> 
> In the statement, Mr Rudd reaffirmed his intention to serve another full term as the federal member for his Brisbane seat of Griffith.
> 
> ...




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/rudd-confirms-talks-with-un-boss-20100722-10m3i.html


----------



## noco (22 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> This really is a Clayton's job. Can you imagine Rudd serving on a panel of equals.. Where's the kudos in that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Calliope and Julia, Kevin Rudd is a very ambitious man and his desire to enter the UN is well known and one can be assured the UN would not have had to twist his arm. He has been sniffing at the UN  door for years.

I believe he would be more than happy to have started in any minor position as a lever into something of a more important role. He has had the Secretary Generals job in mind for a long time.

My prediction is if that opportunity arises, he will not see out his three years if Labor is re-elected


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 July 2010)

Oh, is there an election on? Not being a baby or a redneck from the Western Suburbs of Sydney I have been blissfully unaware of an outbreak of kissing and false promises.

gg


----------



## Julia (22 July 2010)

noco said:


> Calliope and Julia, Kevin Rudd is a very ambitious man and his desire to enter the UN is well known and one can be assured the UN would not have had to twist his arm. He has been sniffing at the UN  door for years.
> 
> I believe he would be more than happy to have started in any minor position as a lever into something of a more important role. He has had the Secretary Generals job in mind for a long time.



Yes, noco, his ambitions have been obvious for some time.
What I was disagreeing with was your contention that there was some sort of conspiracy in which he was actively involved in his execution.  That he would subject himself to such public humiliation, nationally and internationally, would be utterly out of character.  And to be fair, no sane person would agree to go along with that if they had a choice.


----------



## noco (22 July 2010)

Julia said:


> Yes, noco, his ambitions have been obvious for some time.
> What I was disagreeing with was your contention that there was some sort of conspiracy in which he was actively involved in his execution.  That he would subject himself to such public humiliation, nationally and internationally, would be utterly out of character.  And to be fair, no sane person would agree to go along with that if they had a choice.




Well Julia, Rudd is either insane or ruthless. After all, which ever way one looks at it, it is a means to the end result and that is the top job in the UN which is far more impotant to him than being PM of Australia.


----------



## dutchie (23 July 2010)

Why would the UN give him a job on a committee - he might not turn up or he might send his dog as a proxy.

Why would the UN employ a person who is so incompetent his own party had to get rid of him.

You can also substitute "his current electorate" for "UN job"


----------



## SmellyTerror (23 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> But he is Australia's best chance of delivering us for the evils of Gillard's destruction of our economy with a union power takeover.




(Not really aimed at you, just some general points, more aimed at media coverage, but that roughly match the statement above).

1. The Labor party is the unions’ party. The unions started it. It’s right there in the name, even. This is not a secret – if anything, Labor isn’t doing ENOUGH for the unions – it’s *their* bloody party! If Bruce Willis started a party called the Bruce Willis party, and then the party was occasionally doing what Bruce Willis wanted, it would be a bit silly for people to suddenly say “Hang on! The Bruce Willis party is just a tool of Bruce Willis!!!” Well spotted, there.

So I don’t really understand all this handwringing in the media about union influence. They’re supposed to have influence. That’s the whole point of the party. It’s like revealing that the Greens with want stuff for the environment. 

And yet we’ve got one union ending their affiliation, and the big bruiser CFMEU actually demonstrating against the current industrial relations laws (the Ark Tribe thing), where the government is not giving an inch. In other words, Labor isn’t actually doing a whole lot of what the unions want. Almost every change in legislation – precious little – from the previous government is little more than window dressing. Hardly anything has changed.

2. Destroy the economy HOW? I also don’t understand how everyone keeps harping on about the deficit. Did you guys not notice the GFC??? Did it pass you by? Or Howard’s commodities boom that might have helped his lot out just a little bit?

Look, the Libs were being asked, during the worst of the crisis, what they would be doing different. Would you be spending less? The answer was: “no. But (waving hands wildly in the air) we would spend the money _better_”. Well maybe they would have – though I’d give an exactly 50-50 chance of that, given that Australian politics is essentially a random policy generator – but there’s no denying that the deficit WOULD HAVE BEEN ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME. 

Revenues went down (not helped, by the way, by Howard’s policy of putting more of the tax burden on companies via bribery of the electorate- err, sorry, perfectly sensible tax cuts – which left us more vulnerable to a downturn in trade than we otherwise would have been), and at the same time the need to spend a dump truck of money in a hurry came along. NO-ONE in politics denied that we had to spend a dump-truck of money, the only area left for argument was where to spend it (something the opposition could, happily for them, be extremely vague about).

The next person to whine “but the deficit!” gets a smack upside the head.

If anything, we should be spending MORE. This silly idea that we need to get into surplus by X date is pure idiocy. This is just the sort of time when you SHOULD run up a (sensible) debt, especially given our reasonably low rate of it. Times like this are pretty much what debt is for. This is a perfect opportunity to get some real transport infrastructure spending done – it’ll keep us growing, getting us a stronger position in the world economy, and hell, we need that stuff anyway. We’re at a time when slow-burn stimulus is what we need (as opposed to emergency money-dumps which were generally agreed to be needed for earlier in the piece) – but we’re not going to, because everyone is suddenly an economic luddite, terrified of debt.

Humans. They make me all punchy.


----------



## Calliope (23 July 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> (Not really aimed at you, just some general points, more aimed at media coverage, but that roughly match the statement above).
> 
> 1. The Labor party is the unions’ party. The unions started it. It’s right there in the name, even. This is not a secret – if anything, Labor isn’t doing ENOUGH for the unions – it’s *their* bloody party! If Bruce Willis started a party...




I didn't read the rest of your long winded diatribe. The above was enough to see where you are coming from.

On the other hand the Liberal Party was founded on the principle of assisting small business. The unions see their role as hindering small business.

The unions now have an open slather. Especially as that wimp Abbott has walked away from his obligations to protect small business from the union predations. As we have seen, big business can look after itself.


----------



## trainspotter (23 July 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> (Not really aimed at you, just some general points, more aimed at media coverage, but that roughly match the statement above).
> 
> 1. The Labor party is the unions’ party. The unions started it. It’s right there in the name, even. This is not a secret – if anything, Labor isn’t doing ENOUGH for the unions – it’s *their* bloody party! If Bruce Willis started a party called the Bruce Willis party, and then the party was occasionally doing what Bruce Willis wanted, it would be a bit silly for people to suddenly say “Hang on! The Bruce Willis party is just a tool of Bruce Willis!!!” Well spotted, there.
> 
> ...




So ST try and understand the implications of your thesis. You are in business and things are looking happy as a clam so you go and spend spend spend and have an overdraft that is manageable. Then you start to notice that income is starting to dwindle and sales are down. You have to let a few staff go. Carry less stock. Overdraft is still there eating away with interest component and fees. You let a few more staff go. Then the Unions come in and tell you that you cannot sack those people and they must be reinstated. The overdraft is biting. Sales are down. Wages are through the roof due to ridiculous Union demands. The bank manager calls to tell you that you are behind in payments. You have a massive clearance sale to create cashflow and quit your stock for cost. This pays the wages and the over heads but not the overdraft. The bank manager calls again but this time he is not so polite. You can't afford to buy more stock and the bank wont budge on the overdraft. In fact they want to reduce the amount you owe them. You sell some assets to cover this base. You have a small fire sale of the remnanats of stock you had in the shop to cover wages. The bank forecloses. All staff now looking for another job. You are bankrupt. Great thesis this debt thingy aint it?

What part of this do you not understand? Do you want to have double digit inflation? If the Guvmint goes on a spendathon what do you believe will happen? OOOOOOOOPPPPPPSSSSSSS too late !! Interest rates are going up. Inflation is going up. Bankruptcies are going up. GOSH !

Please pick me to be the first for the "smack upside the head".

Imbeciles. They bother me.


----------



## Mofra (23 July 2010)

Trainspotter, I'm not sure if the union metaphor is particularly relevant given Abott's "workchoices is dead" mantra throughout the campaign. If he was offering a clear choice on the issue I'd be much happier - agree or disagree with opposition policy, I'd like to see some clear differences so that the major parties are in fact offering a clear alternative choice, rather than just a mad scramble to claim/spin their similar policies are closer to the middle ground.


----------



## Logique (23 July 2010)

Ha ha. Tell us what you really think Traino.

I'm tremendously excited by this new Labor idea today - a Citizens Assembly, of 150 ordinary Australians, to examine the evidence and advise the putative Labor-Greens government on climate change action. To be chosen (as I heard it) randomly from the electoral roll. Sort of like a conscription ballot. 

I'm going to be chosen I just know it. 

Let's see, there'll be me, and the likes of (NSW QC) Julian Burnside, and actor Cate Blanchett, and lots of (hard Left activist group) GetUp reps. All of us chosen. Randomly.


----------



## SmellyTerror (23 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> I didn't read the rest of your long winded diatribe. The above was enough to see where you are coming from.




Well that’s certainly a well considered position, then. You must be worth talking to!  I should point out that it’s not a diatribe, and probably agrees with most people here more than it disagrees. You should try reading things you’re answering. In fact, I’m pretty sure it’s a rule on the forum…

You didn’t see where I explain that they’re not really doing what the unions want, or where I talk about the Libs having largely the same policies. You read a line and assume I’m a rah-rah Labor voter, when in reality I have plenty of contempt for both of them. That seems to be pretty similar to you, judging by your second-last line.

I could have read your first line and assumed you’re an idiot, but I’ll give the benefit of the doubt in this case.




> On the other hand the Liberal Party was founded on the principle of assisting small business. The unions see their role as hindering small business.




Just because they SAY that’s what they stand for, doesn’t make it so. Look at what they actually do.

As per other thread: 
re: small business: it really does seem to me that Labor’s policies have been more friendly to small business than the Libs for a long time. How many small businesses loved the “simpler” GST? Or loved income tax cuts while business got squat? And now Lab wants company tax to go down, and Lib wants it up. The issue of Work Choices is nothing by comparison: noting that Casuals do not now, or have ever had, any recourse to unfair dismissal laws (it’s perfectly legal to just take them off the roster without explanation). So why most small businesses give a crap about industrial relations is beyond me.

So why exactly are small businesses the Libs’ core again? Neither party gives the slightest damn about consistency, and haven’t for decades. Again, it’s a constant surprise to me that people still believe in the brand-names. The Libs are no more the party of business than the Labs are the party of the workers



> The unions now have an open slather. Especially as that wimp Abbott has walked away from his obligations to protect small business from the union predations. As we have seen, big business can look after itself.




Which is why one union is breaking their affiliation, and another is getting thousands of protestors coming out against the government. Yeah, that’s open slather all right.


----------



## SmellyTerror (23 July 2010)

trainspotter said:


> So ST try and understand the implications of your thesis. You are in business and things are looking happy as a clam so you go and spend spend spend and have an overdraft that is manageable. Then you start to notice that income is starting to dwindle and sales are down. You have to let a few staff go. Carry less stock. Overdraft is still there eating away with interest component and fees. You let a few more staff go. Then the Unions come in and tell you that you cannot sack those people and they must be reinstated. The overdraft is biting. Sales are down. Wages are through the roof due to ridiculous Union demands. The bank manager calls to tell you that you are behind in payments. You have a massive clearance sale to create cashflow and quit your stock for cost. This pays the wages and the over heads but not the overdraft. The bank manager calls again but this time he is not so polite. You can't afford to buy more stock and the bank wont budge on the overdraft. In fact they want to reduce the amount you owe them. You sell some assets to cover this base. You have a small fire sale of the remnanats of stock you had in the shop to cover wages. The bank forecloses. All staff now looking for another job. You are bankrupt. Great thesis this debt thingy aint it?
> 
> What part of this do you not understand? Do you want to have double digit inflation? If the Guvmint goes on a spendathon what do you believe will happen? OOOOOOOOPPPPPPSSSSSSS too late !! Interest rates are going up. Inflation is going up. Bankruptcies are going up. GOSH !
> 
> ...




Train, you’ve missed the point.

Even if we ignore the fact that an individual business *is not being relied on to improve the conditions of all the other businesses in the country*, and so needs only to look after its own interests, while we’re relying on the government to stimulate the entire economy… 

Even ignoring the fact that the Libs said, right through the GFC, that they’d be spending about the same amount and would therefore have about the same deficit right now (a point I made, but which you’ve apparently ignored)…

Even then, your analogy is bunk.

You’ve got a business hitting a hard patch, but instead of running at a loss / spending reserves and going into debt for a while to ride it out, it just decides to close shops under your management. Fewer stores -> fewer sale - > less money -> more store closures. If they survive the downturn, they come back into better times a fraction of their original size. 

Good thinkin'.

OBVIOUSLY spending cuts in some areas are part of smart financial management, but to suggest that Australia’s low level of debt is anywhere near threatening double-digit inflation or a “fire sale” then you are completely deluded. Cutting spending to deal with recession or depression is probably the single most pilloried idea in economic history.

But that’s your plan, is it?

Nice.

PS: you’re calling people imbeciles now, in a post proving you either didn’t read or didn’t understand the argument you’re responding to? Keep it classy, Train. Keep it classy.


----------



## Julia (23 July 2010)

Logique said:


> Ha ha. Tell us what you really think Traino.
> 
> I'm tremendously excited by this new Labor idea today - a Citizens Assembly, of 150 ordinary Australians, to examine the evidence and advise the putative Labor-Greens government on climate change action. To be chosen (as I heard it) randomly from the electoral roll. Sort of like a conscription ballot.
> 
> ...




Reminds me of Kev's talkfest soon after he was elected where everyone was so agog with excitement that they were 'being heard'.  I can't now even remember the name of the event.

When you're there, Logique, - randomly, of course - won't you be so in awe of the aforementioned barrister and actor, plus no doubt more of the same ilk, that you will be rendered mute?


----------



## Calliope (23 July 2010)

Julia said:


> Reminds me of Kev's talkfest soon after he was elected where everyone was so agog with excitement that they were 'being heard'.  I can't now even remember the name of the event.
> 
> When you're there, Logique, - randomly, of course - won't you be so in awe of the aforementioned barrister and actor, plus no doubt more of the same ilk, that you will be rendered mute?




It doesn't matter how Gillard stacks the "Citizens Assembly",  Bob Brown will only accept one solution and he will soon have the muscle to get it ,assisted by Labor preferences.  Brown wants a carbon tax that will cripple the hated coal industry, and he will settle for nothing less.


----------



## trainspotter (23 July 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Train, you’ve missed the point.
> 
> Even if we ignore the fact that an individual business *is not being relied on to improve the conditions of all the other businesses in the country*, and so needs only to look after its own interests, while we’re relying on the government to stimulate the entire economy…
> 
> ...





Smelly .. then I have missed the point.

I bow down to your superior knowledge in such matters of politics and business acumen. It is clear that your intellect knows no bounds. 

I am in awe of the sagacity of your sublime response and can only hope that one day I will be able to climb to the giddy heights of your understanding on this subject matter.

P.S. May I remind you of one of my favourite phrases "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones"


----------



## Calliope (23 July 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Smelly .. then I have missed the point.
> 
> I bow down to your superior knowledge in such matters of politics and business acumen. It is clear that your intellect knows no bounds.
> 
> ...




Trainspotter, according to Smelly I am an idiot and you are deluded. Smelly Terror got his name at school by bullying deluded idiots like you and me. He liked the title so much that he kept it.


----------



## Julia (23 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> It doesn't matter how Gillard stacks the "Citizens Assembly",  Bob Brown will only accept one solution and he will soon have the muscle to get it ,assisted by Labor preferences.  Brown wants a carbon tax that will cripple the hated coal industry, and he will settle for nothing less.




That will certainly be his plan.  I actually fear a Greens dominated Senate even more than another term of Labor in the House of Reps.


----------



## noco (23 July 2010)

Why is Julia Gillard still insisting she is negotiating with East Timor when East Timor has emphatically told her "NO DEAL".
Why is Julia Gillard being so deceitful with the Australian voters. She won't talk to Nauru because they are not signatories with UNHCR but she will with Indonesia who also are not associated with the UN refugee convention.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...t_timor_warns_gillards_plan_has_ceased_to_be/


----------



## Calliope (24 July 2010)

noco said:


> Why is Julia Gillard still insisting she is negotiating with East Timor when East Timor has emphatically told her "NO DEAL".
> Why is Julia Gillard being so deceitful with the Australian voters. ]




That's an easy one noco. She is a lying rodent.

Her betrayal of Rudd has come back to haunt her. The polls apparently indicate she could win in a landslide, *but* (and it is a big but) they also show the polling is reversed in Qld when she could lose up to ten seats.

And all because she deposed their favorite son.


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> And all because she deposed their favorite son.



Sorry mate but  Kev has never been Q's favourite son. That is Artie Beetson.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 July 2010)

Julia said:


> That will certainly be his plan.  I actually fear a Greens dominated Senate even more than another term of Labor in the House of Reps.




Julia, I must admit to feeling a deep foreboding about the future of Australia.

My response at present is to disengage from what passes for political discourse.

I wait for the coming degeneration of our country into a chaotic shambles led from a big brother type central office, lets call it *Centralink*, run by what is left of a once great party, the ALP,  and the mad Greens.

gg


----------



## noco (24 July 2010)

Calliope, thought this article by the 'MAGPIE' in today's Townsville Daily Bulletin may just make your day. 

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2010/07/24/157081_magpie.html


----------



## Calliope (24 July 2010)

noco said:


> Calliope, thought this article by the 'MAGPIE' in today's Townsville Daily Bulletin may just make your day.
> 
> http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2010/07/24/157081_magpie.html




That sums her up exactly.


----------



## drsmith (24 July 2010)

The Democrats are a sad and sorry lot these days.

http://www.democrats.org.au/policies/

There's not much substance there.


----------



## wayneL (24 July 2010)

drsmith said:


> The Democrats are a sad and sorry lot these days.
> 
> http://www.democrats.org.au/policies/
> 
> There's not much substance there.




Their problem is that they're openly socialist, something the Labor Party doesn't have the balls to admit.


----------



## drsmith (25 July 2010)

It was a challenge but I managed to find something on tax.

http://www.democrats.org.au/policies/policy_dis.htm?id=50&policy=Tax

How many elections have there been since 2004 ?

Their 2010 election campaign is MIA. Perhaps symbolic of the substance of the major parties.

http://www.democrats.org.au/campaigns/

Don Chipp must be turning in his grave.


----------



## disarray (25 July 2010)

the media took all of 1 month to turn gillard into a bimbo. when she was minister she was asexual(ish), then she became PM and the stylists moved in and did a decent job on hair and makeup so she cut a hittable figure on telly. now the latest pictures on the car rebates are just a joke and make her look like some kind of camwh0re. pic1 (tiny as it is) makes me rage.

it's embarassing.


----------



## Macquack (25 July 2010)

disarray said:


> the media took all of 1 month to turn gillard into a bimbo. when she was minister she was asexual(ish), then she became PM and the stylists moved in and did a decent job on hair and makeup so she cut a hittable figure on telly. now the latest pictures on the car rebates are just a joke and make her look like some kind of camwh0re. pic1 (tiny as it is) makes me rage.
> 
> it's embarassing.




Get over it Disarray.

Julia Gillard combs her hair and smiles, and she is a "camwh0re"???

I know you dont like muslims but perhaps you would prefer Julia to dress like this?


----------



## Julia (25 July 2010)

disarray said:


> the media took all of 1 month to turn gillard into a bimbo. when she was minister she was asexual(ish), then she became PM and the stylists moved in and did a decent job on hair and makeup so she cut a hittable figure on telly. now the latest pictures on the car rebates are just a joke and make her look like some kind of camwh0re. pic1 (tiny as it is) makes me rage.
> 
> it's embarassing.



That's pretty unreasonable, isn't it, disarray?   I have lots of complaints about Ms Gillard but her appearance isn't one of them.


----------



## trainspotter (25 July 2010)

I like the pearls she is wearing though. A finer example of Pinctata Maxima baroque strand I have not seen. The earrings don't seem to match as they appear more semi rounds. I also notice she has not taken them off in every interview I have watched. Must be new as looking back in her previous images she only wore the occasional small gold chain and the odd hoop earring.

Oh oh ... I am falling under her Medusa like stare .... must resist .... hypnotic trance .... *blink* .... I will obey.


----------



## electronicmaster (25 July 2010)

trainspotter said:


> I like the pearls she is wearing though. A finer example of Pinctata Maxima baroque strand I have not seen. The earrings don't seem to match as they appear more semi rounds. I also notice she has not taken them off in every interview I have watched. Must be new as looking back in her previous images she only wore the occasional small gold chain and the odd hoop earring.
> 
> Oh oh ... I am falling under her Medusa like stare .... must resist .... hypnotic trance .... *blink* .... I will obey.




lol, She waddles like a duck.  

....Or a Penguin.  She would do well for a part in the next Batman Movie.


----------



## trainspotter (25 July 2010)

Just thought I might *smack myself upside of head* in regards to the debt/deficit/money timebomb we will have to pay back. If 16 billion a year in INTEREST COMPONENT doesn't frighten you then I don't know what will. That is an awful lot of schools and hospitals going up in compound interest. (this would be the overdraft I was referring to in previous post)

Now let's look at the nett result of this spendathon of the Labor Govt. This Govt is borrowing this money from offshore right? The same place as the banks get it from and sell it to us nupties right? The Govt gets the good funds rate due to it's AAA rating so therefore the banks get a slightly higher rate which they pass onto us. If you follow this train of thought then the Govt is responsible for pushing up interest rates due to wholesale funding costs increasing due to the Govt soaking up the available funds at a rate of 100 million dollars a day. (this would be the bank manager I referred to in previous post)

But wait there is more. The Govt then spends this money stimulating the economy which in turn drives up wages. On the 4th June 2010 the "low paid workers" received an extra $26 per week. You cannot employ casual workers for less than a 3 hour shift due to changes under "Fair Work" policies either. This increases inflation (REAL INFLATION) not the seasonally adjusted hidden under the carpet Govt paper peddling. (this would be the union wage claims I referred to in previous post)

Fill in the blanks here and draw your own conclusions.

Yes the Liberals agreed to the "stimulus packages" for Round 1. Round 2 and 42 billion they did not agree with. They only wanted to spend 15 billion and not on pink batts and school halls and the third lot of $900 cheques.

I could go on but I am sure the FACTS would only be polluted by some acne faced college graduate with no life experience or political nouse.

Consider myself *smacked upside head* appropriately.


----------



## electronicmaster (25 July 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Just thought I might *smack myself upside of head* in regards to the debt/deficit/money timebomb we will have to pay back. If 16 billion a year in INTEREST COMPONENT doesn't frighten you then I don't know what will. That is an awful lot of schools and hospitals going up in compound interest. (this would be the overdraft I was referring to in previous post)
> 
> Now let's look at the nett result of this spendathon of the Labor Govt. This Govt is borrowing this money from offshore right? The same place as the banks get it from and sell it to us nupties right? The Govt gets the good funds rate due to it's AAA rating so therefore the banks get a slightly higher rate which they pass onto us. If you follow this train of thought then the Govt is responsible for pushing up interest rates due to wholesale funding costs increasing due to the Govt soaking up the available funds at a rate of 100 million dollars a day. (this would be the bank manager I referred to in previous post)
> 
> ...




I call that Tyranny.  I'm not kidding.  These Politicians helped create this economic mess, and now they are imposing more taxes and destruction to our own wealth and rights. 

People needs to ask these questions:-

Anyone here agree to green power solutions?  
How about Cash for Clunkers deal they are trying to offer us?
A new carbon tax?

Any of that Sound familiar? 

Again, this is a global agenda. Nothing here mentioned serves any of our interests.

-The clunkers will be going to China
-Carbon tax enforces world government and is effectively a Global Tax for SDR's
-Green power solutions is costly and the most inefficient power source ever created by man.  The debt will be crazy.  You would never make back those costs in 50 years or more.

Any one know what Human Capital is?  Our government thinks it is an investment of some sort.


----------



## warakawa (25 July 2010)

Why is the green party so anti-China? With the current economic relationship we have with China, can be afford to vote for the green party?


----------



## Julia (25 July 2010)

warakawa said:


> Why is the green party so anti-China? With the current economic relationship we have with China, can be afford to vote for the green party?



Presuming you meant to say "can we afford to vote for the green party?"
No.  And not just because of China, either.


----------



## gav (25 July 2010)

*Women give Gillard the winning edge*

"With Ms Gillard Australia's first female Prime Minister, women are shoring up Labor's numbers, with female voters preferring Labor by 58 per cent to 42 per cent, while support among men is tied at 50-50."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/women-give-gillard-the-winning-edge-20100723-10oxh.html


----------



## gav (25 July 2010)

I'd normally vote for the Liberal, but I detest many of their current policies.  
Who will I vote for?
Labor - Not after their c***ups of the past 3 years
Watermelon Party - I'd rather vote Labor

Maybe the Sex Party?  At least they seem to promote individual's rights...


----------



## disarray (25 July 2010)

Macquack said:


> Julia Gillard combs her hair and smiles, and she is a "camwh0re"???




it's not about julia gillard, it's about her portrayal by the media. the media has changed their representation of her now she has a higher profile.

when she was a minister it was about what she said and did, now she is PM the media has taken the airbrush and photoshop skills to her image. i think this detracts from the serious things she represents like policy and her role as head of our government, and i object to the media manipulating people's images to suit their standards (which usually end up objectifying women).



			
				Macquack said:
			
		

> I know you dont like muslims but perhaps you would prefer Julia to dress like this?




i think you're the one who needs to get over it.


----------



## IFocus (25 July 2010)

disarray said:


> it's not about julia gillard, it's about her portrayal by the media. the media has changed their representation of her now she has a higher profile.
> 
> when she was a minister it was about what she said and did, now she is PM the media has taken the airbrush and photoshop skills to her image. i think this detracts from the serious things she represents like policy and her role as head of our government, and i object to the media manipulating people's images to suit their standards (which usually end up objectifying women).




Certainly more pressure on females when it comes to presentation Barnaby is a testament for that god love him.


Anyone see Crean today on insiders today a polished performance from an old war horse, came across as fairly genuine


----------



## sam76 (25 July 2010)

Just watching the debat (because it seems to be on every channel)

To me it seems that the women in the audience are supporting Gillard simply because she's a woman.

The worm is constantly positive for the female viewers but yet moves inbetween + and - for Abbott.

Are the men the only ones actually listening to them?


----------



## Duckman#72 (25 July 2010)

Holy Smoke!!!

Hold the front page - Tony's back in the game!!!!!!

Great performance tonight. Clearly outpointed Gillard. On several occasions she couldn't think to change course. Tony actually made some positive comments off the cuff. Julia didn't.

Well done. Great effort. I'm surprised. 

Duckman


----------



## noco (25 July 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Holy Smoke!!!
> 
> Hold the front page - Tony's back in the game!!!!!!
> 
> ...




Yes I agree, Abbott was intrepid and won the debate by a good nose. The Sky News judges were unanimous in their decision, however Channel 9, as per usual, hand picked their audience to give Gillard 63% to 37% Abbott.

It will be interesting to observe other polls which will no doubt be out and about tomorrow.


----------



## Duckman#72 (25 July 2010)

noco said:


> Yes I agree, Abbott was intrepid and won the debate by a good nose. The Sky News judges were unanimous in their decision, however Channel 9, as per usual, hand picked their audience to give Gillard 63% to 37% Abbott.
> 
> It will be interesting to observe other polls which will no doubt be out and about tomorrow.




I watched it on ABC 24 - and it was great not to "be told by a worm" when either side was performing well or poorly.

Even allowing for my bias - how could it possibly have been 63% - 37%??? Gillard provided nothing of substance - continued to labor the point about Work Choices and didn't seem to acknowledge her part in any of the past 3 years of rubbish.

Duckman


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 July 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Even allowing for my bias - how could it possibly have been 63% - 37%???
> Duckman




37% represents the minority. Tony Abbot and followers are in the minority. Nothing wrong with that though. Someone has to lose.


----------



## noco (25 July 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> 37% represents the minority. Tony Abbot and followers are in the minority. Nothing wrong with that though. Someone has to lose.




The current Courier Mail poll at 8.27 pm with some 430 voters has given Abbott 78.6% to Gillard 21.4%.

No doubt one would have to agree Channel 9 is biased with the 150 hand picked audience.


----------



## Logique (25 July 2010)

This is how you know that the ALP leader got owned tonight: 

Fairfax journalist Annabel Crabb afterwards came onto ABC local radio in NSW. "....um...er..incredibly even...Abbott wants a higher company tax...um...er...Abbott wants a higher company tax...".  

But later she came onto ABC TV, doubtless realizing in the interim that her journalistic reputation was at stake "...a deadheat..er...narrowly to Abbott..." (through clenched teeth). Poor Annabel, had she perhaps hoped to preside over the anticipated slaughter by Saint Julia?

Abbott's closing summation was killer. Absolutely owned Gillard.

To give heart to fellow Australians in decent (i.e. non NSW) states - the NSW state seat of Lindsay in Penrith, western Sydney - in a by-election this month was a swing of 25% away from the NSW Labor government - now Liberal held. 

There is a God.


----------



## drsmith (25 July 2010)

I missed it (not delayed telecast in Perth like with sport). Did see an interview with Bob Brown on ABC 24. According to him, mining generates 179,000 jobs in Australia.

I'd like to see a debate between him and Tony Abbott.


----------



## GumbyLearner (25 July 2010)

Does anyone know where I can watch a replay?

Has anyone posted any links on the web yet?

I'd appreciate any links.

Thanks 
GL.


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 July 2010)

drsmith said:


> I missed it (not delayed telecast in Perth like with sport). Did see an interview with Bob Brown on ABC 24. According to him, mining generates 179,000 jobs in Australia.




Bob didn't consider that "business" related to mining generates millions of jobs; from the engineering businesses to the I.T. businesses to the hire businesses to the transport  businesses to the housing businesses to the retail stores to tourism businesses and even the pie vans make a living from mining.

Bobby Brown ... isn't he an American actor?


----------



## noco (25 July 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Does anyone know where I can watch a replay?
> 
> Has anyone posted any links on the web yet?
> 
> ...




I-pac 648 on Sky News.


----------



## electronicmaster (25 July 2010)

Any of these sound familiar? 

Read my lips: no more taxes


Barack Obama's version of "read my lips NO NEW TAXES"


Of course this happens afterwards


----------



## noco (25 July 2010)

noco said:


> The current Courier Mail poll at 8.27 pm with some 430 voters has given Abbott 78.6% to Gillard 21.4%.
> 
> No doubt one would have to agree Channel 9 is biased with the 150 hand picked audience.




The latest Courier Mail poll 9.17 pm.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/cs/Sa...ndation/News_Poll/saveResult&site=CourierMail


----------



## Julia (25 July 2010)

sam76 said:


> J
> To me it seems that the women in the audience are supporting Gillard simply because she's a woman.





IFocus said:


> Certainly more pressure on females when it comes to presentation Barnaby is a testament for that god love him.



I'm really disappointed to think that women would vote for Ms Gillard purely because she's female.  That's an indictment on those women.  Surely we can leave gender out of it.  It's just not relevant when it comes to running the country.



> Anyone see Crean today on insiders today a polished performance from an old war horse, came across as fairly genuine



He got an incredibly easy interview from Barrie Cassidy who failed to challenge pretty much anything he said.  The interview was notable, however, for the very clear warning Crean delivered to Kevin Rudd:  i.e. 'shape up and become a team player or you're out'.



Duckman#72 said:


> I watched it on ABC 24 - and it was great not to "be told by a worm" when either side was performing well or poorly.
> 
> Even allowing for my bias - how could it possibly have been 63% - 37%??? Gillard provided nothing of substance - continued to labor the point about Work Choices and didn't seem to acknowledge her part in any of the past 3 years of rubbish.
> 
> Duckman



Duckman, that discussion following the debate on Channel Nine would presumably have constituted people who usually watch "60 Minutes".
You can draw your own conclusions.  It's probably the crappiest (not sure if that's a word?) waste of TV time that passes for current affairs ever.
That result is absolutely not mirrored anywhere else.

I was pleasantly surprised by both of them.  It was a civil and reasonably sensible hour.  My own view is that Tony Abbott is very much in the running, certainly equal pegging or slightly ahead of Ms Gillard this evening.
Kudos to both of them.


----------



## So_Cynical (25 July 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Holy Smoke!!!
> 
> Hold the front page - Tony's back in the game!!!!!!
> 
> ...




LOL Duckman were we watching the same debate?

I couldn't honestly say i saw Tony out point Julia on anything...Julia came across as calm and in control, stuck to policy and the big picture and stayed on message...and seems to have a better message.


----------



## Julia (25 July 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> LOL Duckman were we watching the same debate?
> 
> I couldn't honestly say i saw Tony out point Julia on anything...Julia came across as calm and in control, stuck to policy and the big picture and stayed on message...and seems to have a better message.



LOL, So Cynical, you can hardly be considered to be objective.
If Ms Gillard had performed like a kindy kid, you'd still have seen her as outstandingly the winner!
It's a shame you're quite devoid of any objectivity.


----------



## So_Cynical (25 July 2010)

Julia said:


> LOL, So Cynical, you can hardly be considered to be objective.
> If Ms Gillard had performed like a kindy kid, you'd still have seen her as outstandingly the winner!
> It's a shame you're quite devoid of any objectivity.




I consider myself very objective...i know what's what and what's not, i didn't declare Julia the winner, i didn't carry on as others have in this and other political threads...i simply stated that i never saw Tony clearly out point Gillard (as Duckman said) at any time.

In election debates its the governments to lose, its the Govt that carry's the bulk of the down side risk...and Julia didn't lose it just as Tony didn't win it.

Have to say im amazed at the political clout that the boat people/asylum seekers issue has...pretty amazing how a few thousand people who wont be voting can have such an influence.


----------



## noco (25 July 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> I consider myself very objective...i know what's what and what's not, i didn't declare Julia the winner, i didn't carry on as others have in this and other political threads...i simply stated that i never saw Tony clearly out point Gillard (as Duckman said) at any time.
> 
> In election debates its the governments to lose, its the Govt that carry's the bulk of the down side risk...and Julia didn't lose it just as Tony didn't win it.
> 
> Have to say im amazed at the political clout that the boat people/asylum seekers issue has...pretty amazing how a few thousand people who wont be voting can have such an influence.




So_Cinical, I'm afraid you are very much alone tonight. Sleep well and wake in the morning to reality. Julia lost the debate without a doubt.


----------



## noco (25 July 2010)

Latest Courier Mail  poll 10.13 pm 

http://www.couriermail.com.au/cs/Sa...ndation/News_Poll/saveResult&site=CourierMail


----------



## Macquack (25 July 2010)

noco said:


> So_Cinical, I'm afraid you are very much alone tonight. Sleep well and wake in the morning to reality. Julia lost the debate without a doubt.




Noco, see if you can repeat the above after election night.

Giving credit where credit is due, Abbott (the underdog) performed up to his best and just matched it with Gillard for the first time. 

Noticeable absent from Abbott's performance were the usual "ums' and "ahs" and that ridiculous laugh.


----------



## GumbyLearner (25 July 2010)

noco said:


> I-pac 648 on Sky News.




cheers noco. got it.

http://www.a-pac.tv/


----------



## noco (26 July 2010)

Macquack said:


> Noco, see if you can repeat the above after election night.
> 
> Giving credit where credit is due, Abbott (the underdog) performed up to his best and just matched it with Gillard for the first time.
> 
> Noticeable absent from Abbott's performance were the usual "ums' and "ahs" and that ridiculous laugh.




Macquack, after viewing the opinion polls this morning, Abbott would no doubt take some heart.
Kevin Rudd and the new mining advertising against the Government RRT may also have an impact on Gillard.
Gillard has made some fatal errors since the assassination of Kevin Rudd, which shows what am amateur she really is at politics. The next 4 weeks will tell.


----------



## Calliope (26 July 2010)

Yes, Abbott is finally getting his act together, whereas Gillard is bogged down in Labor-speak and role playing. She has nowhere to go but backwards.

Apparently women still prefer her to Abbott, whose biggest drawback according to the elitists is that he is a Christian. On the other hand Gillard is favored even though she models herself on the adulterer Bob Hawke and she has been the femme fatale in marriage breakups herself.


----------



## explod (26 July 2010)

Most everyone is arguing for themselves on this thread and over 60% of contributers on it by the poll above vote Liberal anyway.

There are the good the bad and the ugly on all sides but a skewed discussion is a bit of a waste.

The polling on the debate was very much skewed by the media straight after, particularly Oaks who detests anything Labor and was a Howard Fellow.

The full polling in another week will tell the bigger story, bye till then. 

cheers explod


----------



## wayneL (26 July 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> I consider myself very objective...




I think any person who considers them self a socialist democrat (AKA Labor Party supporter) cannot by definition be objective. Social democracy flies in the face of human nature itself; it has never worked successfully as a system, ever, without the the influence of the capitalistic spirit to prop it up.

One need only look to any purportedly successful socialist state to see that it is the profit motive at the root of its success, AKA capitalism. Social democracy has always spoilt the work of the producers by elevating the non-producers. Social democracy has only ever placated the producers via political spin, warts and all "no-frills" analysis will always see socialist ideology on the outer

By any objective measure, this is counter-productive, ergo  for social democrats, objectivity must be supplanted by ideology.


----------



## explod (26 July 2010)

> I think any person who considers them self a socialist democrat (AKA Labor Party supporter) cannot by definition be objective. Social democracy flies in the face of human nature itself; it has never worked successfully as a system, ever, without the the influence of the capitalistic spirit to prop it up




Rubbish, Sweeden which I have been to is a perfect example of very good Government and the Krona I think is about the strongest backed currency as well.

All sides of Government are only as good as the honesty of the parliamentarians and the *power* of the lobby groups.

Have another think Waynel


----------



## Calliope (26 July 2010)

explod said:


> Most everyone is arguing for themselves on this thread and over 60% of contributers on it by the poll above vote Liberal anyway.




I think that most of the voters above had low expectations that the Coalition could win. They now see a glimmer of hope.

The reason for the 60% is that most ASF contributors are capable of thinking for themselves and are not hidebound by indoctrinated dogma.


----------



## wayneL (26 July 2010)

explod said:


> Rubbish, Sweeden which I have been to is a perfect example of very good Government and the Krona I think is about the strongest backed currency as well.
> 
> All sides of Government are only as good as the honesty of the parliamentarians and the *power* of the lobby groups.
> 
> Have another think Waynel




ROTFLMAO.

I just knew somebody would bring up Sweden. Actually It's an excellent example of my point, it's you who should have another think explod.


----------



## explod (26 July 2010)

wayneL said:


> ROTFLMAO.
> 
> I just knew somebody would bring up Sweden. Actually It's an excellent example of my point, it's you who should have another think explod.




A little bit more info on that champ.  



> The reason for the 60% is that most ASF contributors are capable of thinking for themselves and are not hidebound by indoctrinated dogma.




Think for themselves !  a bit elitist there Calliope, maybe you could also  enlighten on the content of the superiority


----------



## wayneL (26 July 2010)

explod said:


> A little bit more info on that champ.




DYOR Chief.


----------



## Calliope (26 July 2010)

explod said:


> Think for themselves !  a bit elitist there Calliope, maybe you could also  enlighten on the content of the superiority




I can see why you are confused. You don't know what an elitist is. They are people, generally on your side of politics, who claim to know better than we do, what is good for us. Your idol, Bob Brown is one.


----------



## explod (26 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> I can see why you are confused. You don't know what an elitist is. They are people, generally on your side of politics, who claim to know better than we do, what is good for us. Your idol, Bob Brown is one.




Just like litle johnny, blair and bush on Iraq, Saddam kept em all in check bit now the terrorists are running the show.  Iran, Pakistan and the entire iddle East is a time Bomb.  Of course Saddam was okay whilst trading with the US, he made the mistake of selling oil out the back door.

spare me pal


----------



## BrightGreenGlow (26 July 2010)

I'm guessing xplod was over-the-moon when he received his stimulus money. What did you spend it on? Also, I wonder what Gillard's rear end smells like???


----------



## wayneL (26 July 2010)

explod said:


> Just like litle johnny, blair and bush on Iraq, Saddam kept em all in check bit now the terrorists are running the show.  Iran, Pakistan and the entire iddle East is a time Bomb.  Of course Saddam was okay whilst trading with the US, he made the mistake of selling oil out the back door.
> 
> spare me pal




Blair is one of yours.


----------



## explod (26 July 2010)

BrightGreenGlow said:


> I'm guessing xplod was over-the-moon when he received his stimulus money. What did you spend it on? Also, I wonder what Gillard's rear end smells like???




What has any of that to do with the price of eggs?    Intelligence?    Deeeeeeeeeeeer

On a lighter note, ya need to keep away from my dunny sometimes.


----------



## explod (26 July 2010)

wayneL said:


> Blair is one of yours.




Yep, sure that Bob Brown would agree with Tony Blair


----------



## Julia (26 July 2010)

Lord, fellas, couldn't we have this discussion without the personal stuff and the schoolboy lavatory 'humour'?

Wayne, I know almost nothing about Sweden.  If you could give us a synopsis of their situation, I'd much appreciate it.


----------



## Timmy (26 July 2010)

Julia said:


> Wayne, I know almost nothing about Sweden.  If you could give us a synopsis of their situation, I'd much appreciate it.




Thats a good ikea.                                                         ... sorry


----------



## Calliope (26 July 2010)

explod said:


> Just like litle johnny, blair and bush on Iraq, Saddam kept em all in check bit now the terrorists are running the show.  Iran, Pakistan and the entire iddle East is a time Bomb.  Of course Saddam was okay whilst trading with the US, he made the mistake of selling oil out the back door.




What bought this on??? Are you still confused? :shake:

This thread is about the election. You should take Comrade Gillard's advice and move forward.


----------



## explod (26 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> What bought this on??? Are you still confused? :shake:
> 
> This thread is about the election. You should take Comrade Gillard's advice and move forward.




You, et al., had moved the discussion to intelligence but if you cannot explain, then move on forward we shall.


----------



## wayneL (26 July 2010)

Julia said:


> Wayne, I know almost nothing about Sweden.  If you could give us a synopsis of their situation, I'd much appreciate it.




Sweden is often touted as a model Socialist economy. While it is true that it is a welfare state with many state owned businesses, the driving force behind their economy is in fact the private sector, it is a mixed rather than a socialist economy. Sweden succeeds in spite of state intervention in the economy, not because of it.

This is the reason for my comments above.


----------



## Calliope (26 July 2010)

Some of the preselections made by the Liberals and the LNP makes you wonder if they are really trying. Why they nominated that fat clown for Chifley is a mystery. Of course he had no chance of winning, but he had great potential to make the Libs look like idiots.

In the winnable seat of Longman in Qld their candidate is a kid of 19 who is still wet behind the ears. He is not only young but he doesn't even look his age. He still has his adolescent pimples.


----------



## BrightGreenGlow (26 July 2010)

I still cannot see how any of the following groups of people could possibly think of voting for Labor.
+ Telstra shareholders
+ Anyone who wants the full version of the internet, not China's.
+ Government employees of QLD
+ Anyone who works in the mining industry
+ Anyone that has Superannuation

I don't understand why Labor is a head in the interest polls? Even the women that I know haven't bought Labor's sex change novelty.


----------



## lil smoochie (26 July 2010)

noone good to vote for, and no-one good enough in Australia to even replace any of them. 

Just received a letter from Mr Joe Hockey promising a whole bunch of 'real action' blahblahblah.

I'm going to close my eyes and pick one out of the hat to vote. 

I don't care anymore, we're all DOOOOMED either way!


----------



## pixel (26 July 2010)

Here is the latest candidate. He's fixed ASF, he'll fix Australia for good.

We're all right behind Joe Blow for PM


----------



## GumbyLearner (26 July 2010)

explod said:


> Just like litle johnny, blair and bush on Iraq, Saddam kept em all in check bit now the terrorists are running the show.  Iran, Pakistan and the entire iddle East is a time Bomb.  Of course Saddam was okay whilst trading with the US, he made the mistake of selling oil out the back door.
> 
> spare me pal




Yeah Little Johnny and Al Downer will never live down oil for food for weapons in Iraq. It is funny how so many assume that the cr@p only flows in one direction and down onto ALP. Sometimes it does flow down on the Little Johnnys of this world.  

Whatever you do don't mention bailing out little Johnny's brother Stan Howards' business. Or the fact that Al Downer Iraqi deals didn't turn into "a thing that battered" his career.


----------



## Mofra (26 July 2010)

gav said:


> Maybe the Sex Party?  At least they seem to promote individual's rights...



They certainly have a different policy on inflation :


----------



## J&M (26 July 2010)

pixel said:


> Here is the latest candidate. He's fixed ASF, he'll fix Australia for good.
> 
> We're all right behind Joe Blow for PM




Now that is so funny well done !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
I wont ask where you found it or who produced it 
just cracked me up big time 

Joe's  the MAN


----------



## explod (26 July 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Whatever you do don't mention bailing out little Johnny's brother Stan Howards' business. Or the fact that Al Downer Iraqi deals didn't turn into "a thing that battered" his career.




Funny the little ole party they were having on this thread seems to have stopped.   Other beings with other thoughts do not equate with the intelligence it seems.

Good one Gumby


----------



## drsmith (26 July 2010)

Mofra said:


> They certainly have a different policy on inflation :



One could imagine they would actually encourage stagflation and hyperinflation


----------



## So_Cynical (26 July 2010)

wayneL said:


> I think any person who considers them self a socialist democrat (AKA Labor Party supporter) cannot by definition be objective. Social democracy flies in the face of human nature itself; it has never worked successfully as a system, ever, without the the influence of the capitalistic spirit to prop it up.
> 
> One need only look to any purportedly successful socialist state to see that it is the profit motive at the root of its success, AKA capitalism. Social democracy has always spoilt the work of the producers by elevating the non-producers. Social democracy has only ever placated the producers via political spin, warts and all "no-frills" analysis will always see socialist ideology on the outer
> 
> By any objective measure, this is counter-productive, ergo  for social democrats, objectivity must be supplanted by ideology.




LOL the first couple of times i read your post i thought you were being to deep and meaningful for me to get my head around...then it slowly became clear that you think i cant be objective simply because i disagree with you. 

I think anyone that thinks that a person having a leftist political view somehow excludes them from being able to think and see objectively, is probably missing a little objectivity themselves. 

--------------------

Back on topic and away from the personal...i though Tony did ok on the 7.30 report tonight, a couple of times he wanted to um and ah and even have a giggle, but stopped himself and actually sounded a little prime-ministerial...the only time he looked uncomfortable was when work no-choices was brought up.


----------



## drsmith (26 July 2010)

and high interest rates.


----------



## wayneL (26 July 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> LOL the first couple of times i read your post i thought you were being to deep and meaningful for me to get my head around...then it slowly became clear that you think i cant be objective simply because i disagree with you.
> 
> I think anyone that thinks that a person having a leftist political view somehow excludes them from being able to think and see objectively, is probably missing a little objectivity themselves.




So you don't have any countering logic?


----------



## Calliope (26 July 2010)

explod said:


> Other beings with other thoughts do not equate with the intelligence it seems.
> Good one Gumby




If you are referring to you and gumby, you got that right. Not many signs of intelligent life there.


----------



## noco (26 July 2010)

This link from the Australian sums up Julia Gillard to a 'T'.

How can some voters be engrossed with her spin and her lies about what she really stands for? 

This Prime Minister of ours is doing a real con job and the naive are falling for it.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...t-another-phoney/story-fn59niix-1225896765834


----------



## drsmith (26 July 2010)

Where do they stand on vertical fis......cal imbalance ?


----------



## Julia (26 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> In the winnable seat of Longman in Qld their candidate is a kid of 19 who is still wet behind the ears. He is not only young but he doesn't even look his age. He still has his adolescent pimples.



I was dismissive of him too, until I heard him speaking a few days ago and quite changed my mind.  I'd vote for him if he were in my area.



BrightGreenGlow said:


> I still cannot see how any of the following groups of people could possibly think of voting for Labor.
> 
> + Anyone who wants the full version of the internet, not China's.



It's entirely likely that the Coalition would also support the internet filter.



> + Government employees of QLD



If you mean employees of the Qld State government, then I don't see the logic there.  Federal Labor is not the same thing.
(I'm no fan of Labor, just disputing your logic.)



> + Anyone that has Superannuation



Why?  What is the basis for this objection?





So_Cynical said:


> and away from the personal...i though Tony did ok on the 7.30 report tonight, a couple of times he wanted to um and ah and even have a giggle, but stopped himself and actually sounded a little prime-ministerial...the only time he looked uncomfortable was when work no-choices was brought up.



Wow, So cynical, that's a generous concession coming from you!
I agree:  he has really improved and did pretty well tonight.
The reason he looks uncomfortable when Work Choices is raised is because he's genuinely divided on this, i.e. he almost certainly does still believe in some variation of it, but acknowledges that it has been rejected by the electorate.
In that acknowledgement, though, he has gone too far in the other direction and is letting down his business voters.


----------



## SmellyTerror (27 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> Trainspotter, according to Smelly I am an idiot and you are deluded. Smelly Terror got his name at school by bullying deluded idiots like you and me. He liked the title so much that he kept it.




Actually, I explicitly *refrained* from calling you an idiot. See? It's right there in the bit of my post that included the word "idiot".

You seem to be having a good go at proving me wrong, though.

And for Train, I said that he was deluded *IF* he thought Australia was presently at risk of double-digit inflation and a "fire-sale" of assets.

I don't think that's a radical position.

....
Words. They're for reading.

...and now, something for everyone:



> The Great Debate was a close-run contest, but in the end The Candidate I Support definitely defeated The Candidate I Dislike. They spoke to The Issues, where The Candidate I Support just waffled. There was some warmth there, some understanding, some wit – I liked the amusing crack The Candidate I Support made about The Candidate I Dislike: respectful but highlighting why it would be terrible for the country if The Candidate I Dislike were to win on August 21. The Candidate I Support looked serious, and spoke directly and plainly – where The Candidate I Dislike seemed rattled, scripted, unreal.
> 
> Both candidates understood what’s most important in this election: hysterical paranoia about the tiny number of people arriving by boat seeking refuge from persecution. I like the way The Candidate I Support is determined to stop this. The Candidate I Support also reassured me that the view I’d already adopted about the replacement of Kevin Rudd is entirely correct, which was nice. Where The Candidate I Dislike avoided answering the journalists’ questions, instead delivering lame talking points that wouldn’t persuade anyone, The Candidate I Support tackled them Prime Ministerially and gave me excellent reasons to vote for them.
> 
> ...




(From http://anonymouslefty.wordpress.com/ - whose nutty views I in no way endorse, but who at least seems to hate many of the people and things I hate)


----------



## SmellyTerror (27 July 2010)

wayneL said:


> I think any person who considers them self a socialist democrat (AKA Labor Party supporter) cannot by definition be objective. Social democracy flies in the face of human nature itself; it *has never worked successfully as a system, ever, without the the influence of the capitalistic spirit to prop it up*.
> 
> One need only look to any purportedly successful socialist state to see that *it is the profit motive at the root of its success, AKA capitalism*. Social democracy has always spoilt the work of the producers by elevating the non-producers. Social democracy has only ever placated the producers via political spin, warts and all "no-frills" analysis will always see socialist ideology on the outer
> 
> By any objective measure, this is counter-productive, ergo  for social democrats, objectivity must be supplanted by ideology.




(My bolds).

Wayne, all due respect (which is a lot), but you seem to think Social Democracy rejects capitalism. It doesn't.

Social democracy is NOT democractic socialism, and it's sure as hell not communism (which you seem to be arguing against). I know it's very "People's Front of Judea", but it's a split off from the left movement that the Bolshies hate more than they hate pretty much anyone. You could ask a commie what they think of the Labor party, but you'd need to be ready to wipe off the spit afterwards.

Early social democracy (like, a hundred years ago) was based on the idea of evolution-to-communism, but it's not been like that in my lifetime. They explicitly embrace capitalism now, which is why the commies hate 'em so much.

I'd say that the social democratic institution of universal health care is a good example of an objectively successful policy outcome that is directly within social democracy's sphere (CHRIST I wish I could write less like a wanker. It's a bloody curse).


----------



## wayneL (27 July 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> (My bolds).
> 
> Wayne, all due respect (which is a lot), but you seem to think Social Democracy rejects capitalism. It doesn't.
> 
> ...




It only means that the socialists have embraced pragmatism, the end game is still the same. Of course in the meantime it exposes a cognitive dissonance as is obvious in the Wikipedia article on SD, evidenced by these two concurrent statements:



> The chief goal of modern social democracy is to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social democracy while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, rather than creating an alternative socialist economic system.[3]
> Social democracy supports gradualism; the belief that gradual democratic reforms to capitalist economies will eventually succeed in creating a socialist economy,[4]


----------



## Calliope (27 July 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> You seem to be having a good go at proving me wrong, though.




You make it easy, when your political views are based on hate. I guess you hate 60% of those who voted in the above poll.



> ... whose nutty views I in no way endorse, but who at least seems to hate many of the people and things I hate)


----------



## noco (27 July 2010)

The Labor Party dirty tricks campaign is exposed in the Courier Mail today and how Labor Party MP'S are brainwashed into what they have to say in unison. I wonder if Kevvie leaked it.
That's our new Prime Minister mirroring Kevin Rudd's propaganda to control the Labor Party puppets. Julia Gillard is becoming a gang of one with it's all me, I and my. 

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...orward-in-unison/story-fn5z3z83-1225897283027


----------



## Calliope (27 July 2010)

noco said:


> The Labor Party dirty tricks campaign is exposed in the Courier Mail today and how Labor Party MP'S are brainwashed into what they have to say in unison. I wonder if Kevvie leaked it.
> That's our new Prime Minister mirroring Kevin Rudd's propaganda to control the Labor Party puppets. Julia Gillard is becoming a gang of one with it's all me, I and my.
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...orward-in-unison/story-fn5z3z83-1225897283027




When asked about this by Madonna King on ABC AM this morning Gillard deflected the question as nonsense with her usual throaty chuckle.

The truth is, noco, Labor *has* to have a cheat sheet. There is no future for any of their politicians (or any socialists) who try to think for themselves. Even *BIG SISTER* has to toe the line. She dutifully quotes the cheat sheet every day.


----------



## Logique (27 July 2010)

Stokholm has a more expensive cost of living than New York - some model! 
Implications for Australia - better become a 'Working Family' real quick if this is the future. Latch fast onto the public social democrat teat. Bills..electric, gas, water...away we go.

From: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Europe/Sweden-POLITICS-GOVERNMENT-AND-TAXATION.html
Like its Nordic neighbors Norway and Denmark, Sweden is a constitutional monarchy.
Legislative power is vested in a unicameral parliament (Riksdag) with 349 seats whose members are elected for 4-year terms on a proportional basis by universal suffrage. After elections in September 1998, the seats were distributed as follows: *Social Democrats (131), *Moderates (82), the *Left Party (43), *Christian Democrats (42), the Center Party (18), the Liberal Party (17), and the *Greens (16). *

*The Social Democratic Party, which had been Sweden's ruling party since World War II*, regained office in the 1994 elections. With its *traditional ties to the trade-union movement*, it has made reducing unemployment a top priority, and stands for a strong public sector . Blue-collar workers and public-sector employees form its base. The conservative Moderate Party demands minimum involvement by the government, lower taxes, public assistance for private industry and business, and a strong defense. *The Left Party has socialist and communist traditions and normally supports the Social Democratic government*, *but it opposes EU membership fearing that European integration and regulations would jeopardize benefits for Swedish workers*. The Christian Democratic Party supports a traditional values-based government, is strongly anti-abortion, and pleads for greater support for families in order to fight youth problems, alcoholism, and crime. It demands more aid to developing countries and a more liberal immigration policy.

From: http://www.numbeo.com/LivingCost/co...=Sweden&city1=Melbourne&city2=StockholmRecent Recent Comparisons : Cost of Living Index: 
*Stockholm is 20.59% more expensive than Melbourne*


----------



## derty (27 July 2010)

Both sides have cheat sheets, they both have talking points, they both are masters of spin and they both all try to follow the party line. Every now and then some idiot has a brain fart and heads off on a tangent and causes his/her party some grief, but by in large it is a tightly coordinated and constructed effort.

It is amusing the number of thin brained, mono-optical pundits. The poo is stinky on both sides  (very stinky)


----------



## Logique (27 July 2010)

The article by Michael Kroger is something I've thought for a while. 

Labor rarely hangs onto Left faction PMs for long. They are useful at times for getting through elections, read Rudd and Gillard. But the model in NSW has been that the Right, with the complicity of trade unions, elects Premiers, i.e. voters don't get a look in.

And the NSW model has come to Canberra, as the Rudd sacking showed.

Gillard needs to look over her shoulder if the polls turn bad. It will be Bill Shorten, just a matter of when. It would be an achievement for Gillard if she were still there to lead Labor to the next election.


----------



## Calliope (28 July 2010)

> Julia Gillard now appears to be the victim of a systematic attempt from within her own party to blow her campaign out of the water. Labor strategists must be terrified about what more there is to come. This introduces total unpredictability, and gives the opposition windfall ammunition.




There is much speculation as to where the leaks are coming from. Laurie Oaks says they are coming from "close to home."

My guess is that the source is Tim Mathieson. Tim is a drifter and the last thing he wants is to be constantly under the spotlight and to be trotted out as resident gigolo on formal occasions at the Lodge.

He had a good thing going back in Altona where he could live in the shadows and also get a bit on the side when Julia was away. She's probably thinking of dumping him any way. He doesn't fit her plans.

Julia praying in Brisbane yesterday that there will be no more leaks.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/sabotage-and-there-may-be-more-to-come-20100727-10uc0.html


----------



## noco (28 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> There is much speculation as to where the leaks are coming from. Laurie Oaks says they are coming from "close to home."
> 
> My guess is that the source is Tim Mathieson. Tim is a drifter and the last thing he wants is to be constantly under the spotlight and to be trotted out as resident gigolo on formal occasions at the Lodge.
> 
> ...




It would appear there is enough venom in the Labor Party to implode the Party apart and it is just not wishfull thinking.
If Gillard does win this election she will no doubt have a divided party and that will not be good for this country.
It is very evident from events of the past couple of days there is a lot of resentment over the political assassination of Rudd.  
The next poll should show Gillard well behind. Could be the beginning of the end for Julia.


----------



## Calliope (28 July 2010)

noco said:


> It would appear there is enough venom in the Labor Party to implode the Party apart and it is just not wishfull thinking.
> If Gillard does win this election she will no doubt have a divided party and that will not be good for this country.
> It is very evident from events of the past couple of days there is a lot of resentment over the political assassination of Rudd.
> The next poll should show Gillard well behind. Could be the beginning of the end for Julia.




Noco, if Rudd is behind the leaks it would be the greatest service he has done for his country.


----------



## Calliope (28 July 2010)

What a hypocrite. This is the woman who was prepared to waste billions on BER and other stupidities, and still hasn't admitted her to her complete lack of fiscal ability.

*Gillard puts best gloss on ugly Labor leak...but questions remain*



> Julia Gillard has made an impressive effort to turn a sudden new Labor campaign liability into an asset, but big questions remain.
> 
> Facing the damaging revelation that she opposed key Labor welfare reforms on political grounds, she asserted that she was merely being tough-minded with public moneys.
> 
> Instead of the emerging impression that she is a flinty and ruthless political operator, Gillard sought to create the picture of a rigorous fiscal conservative.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-elect...stions-remain-20100728-10v43.html?autostart=1


----------



## IFocus (28 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> What a hypocrite. This is the woman who was prepared to waste billions on BER and other stupidities, and still hasn't admitted her to her complete lack of fiscal ability.




You must have missed this the other night?

Nobel Prize winning economist Professor Joseph Stiglitz speaks with Kerry O'Brien.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2965891.htm?layout=popup

KERRY O'BRIEN: I'm not sure how much you know about Australia's stimulus packages in response to the crisis, but to the extent that you do, how did the quality of Australia's stimulus compare with that in the US and elsewhere, in terms of its effectiveness?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I did actually study quite a bit the Australian package, and my impression was that it was the best - one of the best-designed of all the advanced industrial countries. When the crisis struck, you have to understand no-one was sure how deep, how long it would be. There was that moment of panic. Rightfully so, because the whole financial system was on the verge of collapse. In that context, what you need to act is decisively. If you don't act decisively, you could get the collapse. It's a one-sided risk.

KERRY O'BRIEN: There's been a lot of criticism of waste in the way some of Australia's stimulus money was spent. Is it inevitable if you're going to spend a great deal of government money quickly that there will be some waste and can you ever justify wasting taxpayers' money?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: If you hadn't spent the money, there would have been waste. The waste would have been the fact that the economy would have been weak, there would have been a gap between what the economy could have produced and what it actually produced - that's waste. You would have had high unemployment, you would have had capital assets not fully utilised - that's waste. So your choice was one form of waste verses another form of waste. And so it's a judgment of what is the way to minimise the waste. No perfection here. And what your government did was exactly right. So, Australia had the shortest and shallowest of the downturns of the advanced industrial countries. And, ah, your recovery actually preceded the - in some sense, China. So there was a sense in which you can't just say Australia recovered because of China. Your preventive action, you might say pre-emptive action, prevented the downturn while things got turned around in Asia, and they still have not gotten turned around in Europe and America.


----------



## wayneL (28 July 2010)

IFocus said:


> You must have missed this the other night?
> 
> Nobel Prize winning economist Professor Joseph Stiglitz speaks with Kerry O'Brien.




After recent awarding of the NP (need we look any further than Al Bore?), I would assign no credibility whatsoever to Nobel Laureates... most particularly in the field of economics (and of course peace).

Stiglitz  is a socialist and Keynesian which of course will win him fans amongst the cognitively dissonant Laborites and short termists, but amongst those concerned with long term economic health of western economies, he is regarded as a clown.

My personal opinion of him is even worse.


----------



## Ageo (28 July 2010)

wayneL said:


> After recent awarding of the NP (need we look any further than Al Bore?), I would assign no credibility whatsoever to Nobel Laureates... most particularly in the field of economics (and of course peace).
> 
> Stiglitz  is a socialist and Keynesian which of course will win him fans amongst the cognitively dissonant Laborites and short termists, but amongst those concerned with long term economic health of western economies, he is regarded as a clown.
> 
> My personal opinion of him is even worse.




Couldnt agree more!


----------



## IFocus (28 July 2010)

wayneL said:


> After recent awarding of the NP (need we look any further than Al Bore?), I would assign no credibility whatsoever to Nobel Laureates... most particularly in the field of economics (and of course peace).
> 
> Stiglitz  is a socialist and Keynesian which of course will win him fans amongst the cognitively dissonant Laborites and short termists, but amongst those concerned with long term economic health of western economies, he is regarded as a clown.
> 
> My personal opinion of him is even worse.




Don't hold an opinion on the man but his CV here for those interested seems rather extensive.

http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download/Stiglitz_CV.pdf


His point on waste is worth reading


----------



## Julia (28 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> What a hypocrite. This is the woman who was prepared to waste billions on BER and other stupidities, and still hasn't admitted her to her complete lack of fiscal ability.
> 
> *Gillard puts best gloss on ugly Labor leak...but questions remain*
> 
> ...



To Kerry O'Brien's credit, he gave Wayne Swan a pretty hard time over the Rudd Factor this evening, his very questions making it entirely obvious that popular consensus had Mr Rudd as the leaker.


----------



## Timmy (28 July 2010)

IFocus said:


> Don't hold an opinion on the man but his CV here for those interested seems rather extensive.
> 
> http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download/Stiglitz_CV.pdf
> 
> ...




Thanks IFocus.
I haven't (as yet) had time to look through his CV in much detail.  Appears that he is close to the trenches of real-world policy formulation and implementation processes; might account for his differing views from those who take a more ideological view from the 'ivory-towers'?


----------



## Logique (29 July 2010)

As a completely unbiased and non-partisan broadcaster, Kerry O'Brien must have seen that other completely unbiased and non-partisan ABC broadcaster, Tony Jones, in action with George Monbiot on climate change.

Because we've had something similar here, with O'Brien and Stiglitz on fiscal stimulus. In a court room it would be called 'leading the witness', but Stiglitz seemed all too willing. 

Here's the guy who didn't make it onto the 7:30 Report, and as you read what he said, it may give you a clue as to why:  







> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...-edge-of-ruin-20100725-10qeu.html?autostart=1
> 
> When the emails started going out that *Niall Ferguson *was coming to Australia to deliver a big address in Sydney on Wednesday, tickets to the dinner sold out quickly. Many more people want to attend than could be accommodated.
> 
> ...



Not sure what he thinks the Future Fund is, but you get the general idea. Mind you the Future Fund is fairly narrowly targeted to public servant superannuation.


----------



## Calliope (29 July 2010)

wayneL said:


> Stiglitz  is a socialist and Keynesian which of course will win him fans amongst the cognitively dissonant Laborites and short termists, but amongst those concerned with long term economic health of western economies, he is regarded as a clown.
> 
> My personal opinion of him is even worse.




It became obvious that Stiglitz was a biased clown when O'Brien was so obviously pleased with him.

Rudd saving the country from the GFC is now part of Labor folklore, and will soon go into school history books, along with all their other propaganda.


----------



## Mofra (29 July 2010)

Logique said:


> Here's the guy who didn't make it onto the 7:30 Report, and as you read what he said, it may give you a clue as to why:
> 
> Not sure what he thinks the Future Fund is, but you get the general idea. Mind you the Future Fund is fairly narrowly targeted to public servant superannuation.



Cheers for posting Logique - I would suggest both major parties are guilty of frittering away the proceeds of the mining boom without using the funds particularly well. 
The level of waste in the Defence Force alone is abysmal and in my experience has been that way going back past the recent Labour and Liberal giovernments, back to the Keating years at least.


----------



## moXJO (29 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> Rudd saving the country from the GFC is now part of Labor folklore, and will soon go into school history books, along with all their other propaganda.




lol What happens to the national school curriculum if liberals win? I would hate to see the amount of lefty spin the teachers must have inputted


----------



## nioka (29 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> It became obvious that Stiglitz was a biased clown when O'Brien was so obviously pleased with him.
> 
> Rudd saving the country from the GFC is now part of Labor folklore, and will soon go into school history books, along with all their other propaganda.




We all see what we want to see. I thought it was a well conducted interview with a good explanation that there were some benefits gained from the spending and that there would have been more waste if we/they had not wasted as they did. At least Rudd can claim that we did better than the rest of the western world....... because we have.


----------



## trainspotter (29 July 2010)

It is better to do something and fail then it is to do nothing at all. Fifty percent of something is better than one hundred percent of nothing.

As we do not know what the Libs may/may not/should/should have done during the GFC they were not in power at the time to spend the monies. I agree that the stimulus was totally necessary for the good of the country. My objection was that it should have stopped after the second wave thusly reducing the waste and rorting of the system we now have laid before us.


----------



## trainspotter (29 July 2010)

Any thoughts as to why Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin Rudd have dropped their affiliated party logos from their advertising propoganda? Their spokespeople are telling the story that the people in their electorate already know who they are so they do not have to "brand" their advertising. Are they setting themselves up for a fall or are they paving the way to become *SHOCK HORROR* ...... dare I say it ...... Independents?


----------



## Logique (29 July 2010)

trainspotter said:


> . I agree that the stimulus was totally necessary for the good of the country. My objection was that it should have stopped after the second wave thusly reducing the waste and rorting of the system we now have laid before us.



Stimulus spending was necessary, I doubt there'd be an argument from anyone on that score, and certainly not from the Coalition. I think the discussion is about the targeting of the programs, and the efficiency and quality of management applied. And whether it was a little panicky, going too far and for too long.


----------



## Happy (29 July 2010)

trainspotter said:


> ... I agree that the stimulus was totally necessary for the good of the country. ....




I don't agree, as consecutive interest rate raises were caused by artificial boom using borrowed money.


----------



## trainspotter (29 July 2010)

Happy said:


> I don't agree, as consecutive interest rate raises were caused by artificial boom using borrowed money.




Interest rates were at emergency levels to stop the country from hitting the wall like a bug on a windscreen. Had to be done otherwise there would have been massive foreclosures and bankruptcies, floundering business's etc etc. 
While it has succeeded in jump-starting the monetary base it has failed to increase the money supply or velocity (the ratio of economic transactions to the money supply). Thus, while the banks now have the ability to make new loans, not enough qualified borrowers are interested in borrowing money, and banks are not willing to loan money to anyone that is not a prime borrower. What we need to stimulate the economy is "velocity" which measures the rate at which money in circulation is used for purchasing goods and services. 

Debt is a problem only when it becomes unserviceable.


----------



## Julia (29 July 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Any thoughts as to why Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin Rudd have dropped their affiliated party logos from their advertising propoganda? Their spokespeople are telling the story that the people in their electorate already know who they are so they do not have to "brand" their advertising. Are they setting themselves up for a fall or are they paving the way to become *SHOCK HORROR* ...... dare I say it ...... Independents?



I've had exactly the same thought in both cases.  



Logique said:


> Stimulus spending was necessary, I doubt there'd be an argument from anyone on that score, and certainly not from the Coalition. I think the discussion is about the targeting of the programs, and the efficiency and quality of management applied. And whether it was a little panicky, going too far and for too long.



Agreed.  And it seems weird that following several interest rate rises to contain the expanding economy, they are continuing to borrow money to continue to stimulate the economy!
We'll never know, but I think the Libs would have been more likely to have targeted the spending better, and had more controls to prevent rorting.


----------



## Happy (29 July 2010)

trainspotter said:


> ....
> 
> Debt is a problem only when it becomes unserviceable.




We were conditioned to include debt into our way of life.

Crafty, and tricky and all those in a BANK love it and all the lemmings that go this way.


----------



## wayneL (29 July 2010)

Logique said:


> Stimulus spending was necessary, I doubt there'd be an argument from anyone on that score...




There is an entire school of economics that would argue that it is exactly the wrong thing to do. I agree with them.


----------



## trainspotter (29 July 2010)

Happy said:


> We were conditioned to include debt into our way of life.
> 
> Crafty, and tricky and all those in a BANK love it and all the lemmings that go this way.




I concur Happy wholeheartedly !! I prefer NOT to be in debt but the odd occassion you HAVE to for tax purposes etc. What boils my blood is that we are supposed to be in the worst GFC on record blah blah blah but the banks are still making record profits. Commonwealth Bank is ranked one of the safest and most profitable banks in the world !! DAMMIT, ANZ first half profit up 36% to 1.9 BILLION $$$$$$$ GOSH !!!!!

*pulls out mirror and has good look at oneself*


----------



## Happy (29 July 2010)

wayneL said:


> There is an entire school of economics that would argue that it is exactly the wrong thing to do. I agree with them.




For a while I thought better not stick my head out as I might be all alone.

Than heavens you are here!


----------



## trainspotter (29 July 2010)

You are not alone in thinking this Happy.

Private consumption did increase minimally in the December 2008 and March 2009 quarters, no doubt due in part to cash handouts.

It was a dramatic loosening of monetary policy and an exchange rate depreciation of nearly 30 per cent on a sustained basis throughout the crisis interval that best explains how Australia avoided a narrowly defined recession.

In other words, the floating dollar, not fiscal stimulus, really did the trick.

Paul Keating, Bob Hawke, Peter Costello and John Howard can all claim some credit, the first pair for the float of the dollar, and the second for making the Reserve Bank more independent.

Also China continuing to buy our mineral wealth as well as low foreign debt all played an integral part as to why we scraped through shinier than most.

Ummmmmmmm another reason was the big 4 banks had very little debt compared to "others" as well as NO toxic debt _*ie *_non performing or non recourse loans.

RBA dropping interest rates to emergency levels helped.

Many reasons can be thrown up but I am not sure if the "exclusivity" of one particular reason would suit the hypothesis.


----------



## Calliope (29 July 2010)

nioka said:


> . At least Rudd can claim that we did better than the rest of the western world....... because we have.




Yes, *we* did better because we started off from a much sounder base.  No thanks to Rudd.


----------



## trainspotter (29 July 2010)

Did anyone see the Chasers on ABC last night? Julie Bishop can stare down a concrete garden gnome. Julia Gillard said this "I am looking forward to going forward with the Australian people going forward." ........ I just lost it.


----------



## wayneL (29 July 2010)

http://blog.mises.org/?s=stimulus


----------



## IFocus (29 July 2010)

Liberals' double counting staggers 



> OUR first campaign lesson in economic comedy comes from Tony Abbott's 1.5 per cent cut in the company tax rate.
> 
> He is pretending to pay for it by scrapping Labor's 1 per cent cut to the company tax rate -- a double counting exercise that has to be seen to be believed.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ounting-staggers/story-e6frgd0x-1225898204648


----------



## gav (29 July 2010)

wayneL said:


> http://blog.mises.org/?s=stimulus




I subscribe and get their emails daily


----------



## drsmith (30 July 2010)

One of the little-seen rituals of Australian politics is occurring around the country today, with election officials drawing balls from mini lottery-style baskets to determine the order names will appear on ballot papers.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/.a/6a00e0097e4e688833013485da2f0d970c-pi


----------



## trainspotter (31 July 2010)

Heeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ..... what is going on here? Latest polls out show Coalition has the lead in primary votes? Kruddy is in hospital having his gall bladder removed, Latham has hit Kruddy on the head as the leak meister ...... FAR OUT MAN !! Nuffin said in here? Is this because we have been relegated to the #2 page or what?

We need to keep posting in here as well and not just on the #1 page !!!!!!!


----------



## wayneL (31 July 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Heeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ..... what is going on here? Latest polls out show Coalition has the lead in primary votes? Kruddy is in hospital having his gall bladder removed, Latham has hit Kruddy on the head as the leak meister ...... FAR OUT MAN !! Nuffin said in here? Is this because we have been relegated to the #2 page or what?
> 
> We need to keep posting in here as well and not just on the #1 page !!!!!!!




Just heard it on the radio over here. Early days yet, but looks like the Catholic Autocracy might get the nod over an Orwellian Dystopia.


----------



## overit (1 August 2010)

Is this even legal? 



> *Parties bet they will lose *
> 
> EXCLUSIVE
> 
> ...


----------



## Calliope (1 August 2010)

Gillard and Swan now say that Rudd is an "honorable man."

And of course his gang of assassins are "honorable" people. They are all honorable. As Marc Antony said;

The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault;
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest,
For Brutus is an honorable man;
So are they all, all honorable men, 
...


----------



## Calliope (1 August 2010)

If our leaders think Rudd is an honourable man, then God help us.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ever-really-knew/story-e6frezz0-1225899480960


----------



## noco (1 August 2010)

Julia Gillard's defacto gets had up for drunk driving 10 years ago in his own BMW and that is his problem.

But for Gillard's defacto to get caught running a red light and speeding in Gillard's Government tax payers funded car is Gillard's problem OMG.

She also says her prayers go out to Kevin Rudd's speedy recovery from hospital. I thought she was a self confessed athiest.

That's our unelected Prime Minister and she wants us to reelect her.


----------



## DocK (1 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Did anyone see the Chasers on ABC last night? Julie Bishop can stare down a concrete garden gnome. Julia Gillard said this "I am looking forward to going forward with the Australian people going forward." ........ I just lost it.




I found myself shaking my head with disbelief at Julie Bishop's appearance - I cannot for the life of me understand what would motivate her to be televised acting so foolishly.  Maybe I'm "old school" but I like my politicians to appear at least semi-intelligent and credible - in my view Rudd lost a lot of credibility due to his hunger for media attention - is this now common to all politicians?  Sure, they need their faces and message broadcast, but appearing on shows such as Chasers, Rove etc doesn't do much to make me take them seriously - just the opposite in fact.  Every time I see one of our pollies making an idiot of themselves in an attempt to win "popularity" I cringe.

What's next - Abbott v Gillard on Minute to Win It???


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (1 August 2010)

Tony Abott looks the better leader by far. He looks, sounds, more genuine. He seems more real.


----------



## prawn_86 (1 August 2010)

DocK said:


> What's next - Abbott v Gillard on Minute to Win It???




Sadly in our 2 party political system, with no policies to diferentiate themselves, and a populous that couldnt care if they did, the winner simply comes down to media saturation and salience.

It becomes about what will the 'consumer' remember first at the sotre &/or polling booth. Very few people actually care about policies and most know there is no real difference, so they will simply go with one that has got the most attention (whether the voter realises this or not).

This is the downfall of having compulsary voting. The politician have the vast populous where they want them. IE - comfortable, but not well off enough to have a hard think about things. Most people are simply chugging along trying to pay of their mortgage and raise their kids, they couldnt give a toss about the future. Take away the debt and have people live within their means then they would actually start to question things, as the majority of ASF members do


----------



## Julia (1 August 2010)

prawn_86 said:


> Sadly in our 2 party political system, with no policies to diferentiate themselves, and a populous that couldnt care if they did, the winner simply comes down to media saturation and salience.



Prawn, I think you may be underestimating the involvement and interest of the populace.  My impression is that most people have quite a reasonable level of interest in differentiating between the two brands, and 'brands' is what it has become about.

There is one definite difference and that is that the coalition is much less likely to ever waste money on the scale the government has with its pink batts, BER, Green Loans and other similar schemes.   Countering this is that the coalition may well sacrifice necessary infrastructure and e.g. healthcare
in their quest to restore a surplus.



> It becomes about what will the 'consumer' remember first at the sotre &/or polling booth. Very few people actually care about policies and most know there is no real difference, so they will simply go with one that has got the most attention (whether the voter realises this or not).



Perhaps that's right.  But given the media saturation of both leaders, I think a lot of votes will come down to who appears the most trustworthy.  Hence the sudden fall off in the polls for Ms Gillard after the leaks suggesting she could not be trusted.



> This is the downfall of having compulsary voting. The politician have the vast populous where they want them. IE - comfortable, but not well off enough to have a hard think about things.



I agree absolutely about compulsory voting.  It's not the case in NZ and they usually get about an 80% turnout.  Obviously these are the people who are informed and interested enough to vote.  Compulsory voting just generates votes from people who either don't care or haven't a clue.


----------



## noco (1 August 2010)

Andrew Bolt has carried out some research on Julia Gillard's background revealing her close association with the Communist party and the Fabian Society and she can't escape the fact the DNA is still embodied in her.

That's our unelected Prime Minister

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...look_at_past_extremism_lets_look_at_gillards/


----------



## nioka (1 August 2010)

prawn_86 said:


> Sadly in our 2 party political system, with no policies to diferentiate themselves, and a populous that couldnt care if they did, the winner simply comes down to media saturation and salience.



The sad part as I see politics in Australia is the preferential system where you have very little chance of a choice between the two parties. In the end it means that you have to vote for one or the other. The allocation of the green preferences will determine who wins in many cases. Because of that there will be blackmailing deals made that will tie the hands of a winner. If it were not there you could find more quality independent candidates. People that join one of the major parties as the only way to get in. Once in they must toe the party line regardless of how it affects their electorate.  I dont WANT to vote for any of the big 2 or the greens at this stage.


----------



## Calliope (1 August 2010)

nioka said:


> The sad part as I see politics in Australia is the preferential system where you have very little chance of a choice between the two parties. In the end it means that you have to vote for one or the other.




The problem with the two party system is that one party stands for everything that is good and the other party stands for everything that is bad.

You need to be an educated voter to know which is which.


----------



## nioka (1 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> The problem with the two party system is that one party stands for everything that is good and the other party stands for everything that is bad.
> 
> 
> You need to be an educated voter to know which is which.




Are you for real, that statement must be a misprint.

I've possibly voted in more elections than you have had birthdays does that make me an educated voter? No it doesnt. Does my uni degree make me educated? No it doesnt. Being born in the biggest depression and starting work at 9 probably qualifies me more than most. Even then I still dont know what an educated voter needs to know but one thing I do know is that an educated voter would never say that one party stands for all that is good and the other party stands for all that is bad. You have failed miserably, stay back after class.


----------



## So_Cynical (1 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> The problem with the two party system is that one party stands for everything that is good and the other party stands for everything that is bad.
> 
> You need to be an educated voter to know which is which.




Its that simple hey  Calliope care to make the case for why work choices was good for us and the economy?

---------------------

Wayne im wondering if you think Calliope is capable of being objective because he/she's not a socialist?


----------



## Macquack (2 August 2010)

noco said:


> Andrew Bolt has carried out some research on Julia Gillard's background revealing her close association with the Communist party and the Fabian Society and she can't escape the fact the DNA is still embodied in her.
> 
> That's our unelected Prime Minister
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...look_at_past_extremism_lets_look_at_gillards/





Bolt is a bum lazy journalist so devoid of intelligent comment he has to rehash the same story he has previously written and try to make it look new. Good try you wanker.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (2 August 2010)

Macquack said:


> Bolt is a bum lazy journalist so devoid of intelligent comment he has to rehash the same story he has previously written and try to make it look new. Good try you wanker.



Macquack,

Bolt is no fool. I have heard him on radio take lefties apart with facts and logic which highlighted his intelligence. 

What about the Fabians is beneficial as you see it?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (2 August 2010)

prawn_86 said:


> Sadly in our 2 party political system, with no policies to diferentiate themselves, and a populous that couldnt care if they did, the winner simply comes down to media saturation and salience.
> 
> It becomes about what will the 'consumer' remember first at the sotre &/or polling booth. Very few people actually care about policies and most know there is no real difference, so they will simply go with one that has got the most attention (whether the voter realises this or not).
> 
> This is the downfall of having compulsary voting. The politician have the vast populous where they want them. IE - comfortable, but not well off enough to have a hard think about things. Most people are simply chugging along trying to pay of their mortgage and raise their kids, they couldnt give a toss about the future. Take away the debt and have people live within their means then they would actually start to question things, as the majority of ASF members do



That's a good post Prawn.


----------



## wayneL (2 August 2010)

Macquack said:


> Bolt is a bum lazy journalist so devoid of intelligent comment he has to rehash the same story he has previously written and try to make it look new. Good try you wanker.




So hang on! Bolt is a lazy unintelligent wanker because he has the temerity to highlight Dullard's core beliefs?

Methinks thou doth protest too much.


----------



## Calliope (2 August 2010)

nioka said:


> Are you for real, that statement must be a misprint.
> 
> I've possibly voted in more elections than you have had birthdays does that make me an educated voter? No it doesnt. Does my uni degree make me educated? No it doesnt. Being born in the biggest depression and starting work at 9 probably qualifies me more than most. Even then I still dont know what an educated voter needs to know but one thing I do know is that an educated voter would never say that one party stands for all that is good and the other party stands for all that is bad. You have failed miserably, stay back after class.




Obviously my post went completely over you head. It apparently upset you. Perhaps you are too far outside the square.

My comment refers to the impression an impartial observer might get on listening to the antagonists.

Perhaps "educated" was the wrong word. I should have said "intelligent". You go on about how educated *you* are, but you have failed miserably on the intelligence test.

Keeping *you* back after class can't fix that.


----------



## sails (2 August 2010)

Macquack said:


> Bolt is a bum lazy journalist so devoid of intelligent comment he has to rehash the same story he has previously written and try to make it look new. Good try you wanker.




Haha - thanks for the entertainment, Macquack...

So, Andrew Bolt writes some useful history on Gillard and that's bad in your books...

But it's OK for Gillard to plaster the airwaves with advertisments with any negative history they can find on Abbott.  And these advertisments are highly personal attacks on Abbott too - it's not just about history.

Every time I see these advertisments against Abbott, it simply reminds me that Gillard's history is probably many times worse - possibly very unAustralian ...

If Gillard can dish it out, she should be willing to take it.  Me thinks she is hoping Abbott won't stoop down to her level by returning similar nasty personal attacks.  I hope he does educate the public with her history, but without the nastiness.


----------



## nioka (2 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Obviously my post went completely over you head. It apparently upset you. Perhaps you are too far outside the square.
> 
> My comment refers to the impression an impartial observer might get on listening to the antagonists.
> 
> ...




Up close and personal. I"ve broad shoulders, no problem. but I do have a social conscience. That is the difference between the parties. One has one hasn't. Maybe that is the difference between you and I. As you get older you may develop one so all is not lost at this stage.


----------



## Calliope (2 August 2010)

nioka said:


> Up close and personal. I"ve broad shoulders, no problem. but I do have a social conscience. That is the difference between the parties. One has one hasn't. Maybe that is the difference between you and I. As you get older you may develop one so all is not lost at this stage.




You are so patronising. Up "close and personal"? You were the one who suggested I needed more schooling to reach you lofty hard-won standards. 

By the way, which party has the social conscience?


----------



## Timmy (2 August 2010)

Unreported conversation:


----------



## nioka (2 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> By the way, which party has the social conscience?




DYOR. "As is the case always on a STOCK forum".

However I can remember having discussions on wage rates with a prominent LIB one day many years ago when he came out with " Our job is to keep the working class men paid just as much as they need to survive and the women bare footed,pregnant and scrubbing over a wash tub. A deputy Premier too. 

Another incident that I remember. I was invited to join Sir Hudson Smith ( Quantas Chairman at the time) on a fishing trip at The Bay of Islands in NZ. I actually spent most of the day with the deckie while Smithie spent the day scoffing whisky with the Skipper. The deckie was hoping for a big marlin as it would mean the difference of a bonus or no bonus. He told me it was critical. Without bonuses the pay was rubbish. No marlin were caught but I did have some fun with big Kingfish so I ended up giving a bonus to the deckie. He was not even thanked by anyone else.


----------



## Calliope (2 August 2010)

nioka said:


> I actually spent most of the day with the deckie while Smithie spent the day scoffing whisky with the Skipper. The deckie was hoping for a big marlin as it would mean the difference of a bonus or no bonus. He told me it was critical. Without bonuses the pay was rubbish. No marlin were caught but I did have some fun with big Kingfish so I ended up giving a bonus to the deckie. He was not even thanked by anyone else.




The "deckie" probably thought you were patronising him. But it just indicates to me that you are the workers' friend, you have a "social conscience" and that you have a heart of gold. 

You are indeed a socialist elite.


----------



## Julia (2 August 2010)

nioka said:


> DYOR. "As is the case always on a STOCK forum".



Nioka, you've had plenty of opportunity to hammer your point about more stock posts in the appropriate place.  If you could keep the references in capitals out of the election thread, it would be much appreciated.



> However I can remember having discussions on wage rates with a prominent LIB one day many years ago when he came out with " Our job is to keep the working class men paid just as much as they need to survive and the women bare footed,pregnant and scrubbing over a wash tub. A deputy Premier too.
> 
> Another incident that I remember. I was invited to join Sir Hudson Smith ( Quantas Chairman at the time) on a fishing trip at The Bay of Islands in NZ. I actually spent most of the day with the deckie while Smithie spent the day scoffing whisky with the Skipper. The deckie was hoping for a big marlin as it would mean the difference of a bonus or no bonus. He told me it was critical. Without bonuses the pay was rubbish. No marlin were caught but I did have some fun with big Kingfish so I ended up giving a bonus to the deckie. He was not even thanked by anyone else.



So, from relating these two little anecdotes (and I'm truly impressed that you were invited to join Sir Hudson Smith) you seem to be implying that these two individuals exemplified the character of the Liberal Party.  That hardly seems either reasonable or intelligent to me.


----------



## trainspotter (2 August 2010)

nioka ... this is the GENERAL CHAT section and not the STOCKS section.  Just because you thanked a deckie wih a "bonus" does not mean that is classed as social conscience? The deckie got paid to do the job period. All deckies will whinge that they are underpaid and overworked and will tell lies to the punters to try and squeeze money out of them.

Anyways ...... Joolyah has decided to let us all see the "REAL" Julia Gillard as she has taken control of her own media and re-election campaign. ROFL !

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-el...eal-me-as-polls-flatline-20100802-111q2.htmls


----------



## Calliope (2 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> nioka ... this is the GENERAL CHAT section and not the STOCKS section.
> 
> Anyways ...... Joolyah has decided to let us all see the "REAL" Julia Gillard as she has taken control of her own media and re-election campaign. ROFL !
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/federal-el...eal-me-as-polls-flatline-20100802-111q2.htmls




Her new strategy is to dig up all the dirt she can on Abbott. They have started off by turning an innocuous comment on Labor "waffle" into an insult to the disabled. Shock! Horror!

It's almost as bad as that nasty Downer rubbishing poor Kevvie while he is suffering in hospital with a belly-ache. 

Rudd may be a serial leaker, but it seems Tanner is now under the spotlight for Oakes's leaks. He is a known Gillard hater.


----------



## nioka (2 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> nioka ... this is the GENERAL CHAT section and not the STOCKS section.




I'll make a deal. I'll be happy for you to post on stocks if you don't mind me posting on general chat..


----------



## Mofra (2 August 2010)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Bolt is no fool. I have heard him on radio take lefties apart with facts and logic which highlighted his intelligence.



Have to disagree. Bolt tends to oversimply situations to adjust to the tabloid editorialism that earns him a crust. His "interesting" use of logic and crusade for the far, far, far right tend to be tend to override any sense of proper discussion when Bolt is concerned.


----------



## nioka (2 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Nioka, you've had plenty of opportunity to hammer your point about more stock posts in the appropriate place.  If you could keep the references in capitals out of the election thread, it would be much appreciated.
> 
> 
> So, from relating these two little anecdotes (and I'm truly impressed that you were invited to join Sir Hudson Smith) you seem to be implying that these two individuals exemplified the character of the Liberal Party.  That hardly seems either reasonable or intelligent to me.




Hint taken. I'll sit in the corner wearing the dunces hat and try and work out why so many liberals ( small l, I don't want to shout) that I know have exactly the attitude that I have mentioned.


----------



## trainspotter (2 August 2010)

nioka said:


> I'll make a deal. I'll be happy for you to post on stocks if you don't mind me posting on general chat..




LOL ... *DYOR. "As is the case always on a STOCK forum". *Your words not mine. I hardly believe we need each others permission as to where either of us post. Knock yourself out Big Fella.


----------



## Mofra (2 August 2010)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Tony Abott looks the better leader by far. He looks, sounds, more genuine.



Abbott ranks with Garrett & Penny Wong in the "sell-out own beliefs for political gain".

Garrett - Once uber-green, now pro-uranium for political gain
Wong - Openly gay Senator against same sex marraige for political gain
Abbott - Pro-workchoices but avoiding putting it to the people for political gain

I have to distrust anyone who is willing to play political football at the expense of their own beliefs. Unfortunately, there are few in Canberra who stick with those beliefs


----------



## Calliope (2 August 2010)

nioka said:


> Hint taken. I'll sit in the corner wearing the dunces hat and try and work out why so many liberals ( small l, I don't want to shout) that I know have exactly the attitude that I have mentioned.




I hope you gave them a good nagging to put them on the right track. You have inspired me to develop a "social conscience".  I intend to meet the prawn trawlers when they come in and give the "deckies" a handout to support their starving families.


----------



## Calliope (2 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Anyways ...... Joolyah has decided to let us all see the "REAL" Julia Gillard as she has taken control of her own media and re-election campaign. ROFL !




Will the REAL Julia cut out the baby hugging or will she start eating them?


----------



## overit (2 August 2010)

Out come the bribes to buy a few more votes and make the worker poorer. 



> *Families with teens to get $4000 *
> 
> The Family Tax Benefit (Part A) rate for families supporting teens who are studying will go up from $51 per fortnight to $208 per fortnight.
> 
> ...


----------



## Calliope (2 August 2010)

It still looks like the old FAKE Julia to me. The REAL Julia should have blood on her hands.

Julia Gillard chats to students at McCarthy Catholic College in Sydney


----------



## nioka (2 August 2010)

Surprising that someone hasn't run with this one;

"Labor to get $300 million from Medibank19:04 AEST Mon Aug 2 
Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan has announced an extra $360 million in "savings" to help fund Labor's election commitments - including $300 million from a special dividend payment from Medibank Private.

Mr Swan said Monday's announcement brought total savings for the campaign to $2 billion over four years.

"In recognition of Medibank Private Limited's strong capital position it will pay a special one-off dividend of $300 million in 2010/11 to the government," he said in a statement.

The treasurer said Medibank's capital reserves would remain well above the Private Health Insurance Administration Council's prudential requirements.

The Rudd government converted Medibank to a for-profit government-owned business in October 2009.

Mr Swan also took a swipe on Monday at the coalition's plan to privatise Medibank, saying it would remove "an important downward pressure on premiums in the private health insurance market".

"Medibank Private has had premium increases below industry standards for the past three years," he said.

But opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey accused Labor of a quick-fix."

I'm interested as a member of Medibank Private since day1.

 Which is the worst of the two evils, the funds drain by labor or the sell out by libs?. I'd be happy for it to be privatised as long as the long term subscriber/members got a few bonus shares because it is subscribers funds that they are both talking about.

If we got some bonus shares then we could discuss it under "Stocks" (note small print).


----------



## drsmith (2 August 2010)

overit said:


> Out come the bribes to buy a few more votes and make the worker poorer.



If it's so good now, why not as a stimulus measure measure during the GFC ?

She's also turned turtle on another debate with Tony Abbott.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/02/2971373.htm

Desperate stuff.


----------



## Julia (2 August 2010)

It seems a bit odd that Ms Gillard has specified that if a second debate is held it's to be confined to talking about the economy.
Have they got some evidence of Tony Abbott wasting money when he was in the Health p/f?   If she's planning to focus on how the government saved Australia from sure ruin during the GFC by the wasteful stimulus, can't Mr Abbott point to the now apparent over-stimulation of the economy as evidenced by several interest rate rises, not to mention all the rorting and waste of taxpayer dollars?

There's no mention of this in the article above, but on "PM" this evening, the journalist suggested the date offered by the PM is the date programmed for the Coalition's campaign 'launch'.  It's a little difficult to imagine that that would be a coincidence.

Ms Gillard does seem to be realising that she is - as she says - in "the fight of her life".  If she loses, after the spectacular ousting of Kevin, she will herself be deposed in very short order.


----------



## drsmith (2 August 2010)

Tony Abbott has turned her down on the basis that he won't change his campaign schedule just because the PM's campaign is in trouble.


----------



## Julia (2 August 2010)

Do you think he did the right thing?  Won't he now be subject to repeated accusations that he was 'too afraid' to debate her a second time?


----------



## Calliope (2 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> If it's so good now, why not as a stimulus measure measure during the GFC ?
> 
> She's also turned turtle on another debate with Tony Abbott.
> 
> ...




She wants to nominate the terms of the debate. Abbott should debate her on his own terms. It should be about why Labor is directing Senate preferences to the Greens. 

The editorial in the Australian tells how destructive to the economy the Green's control the Senate would be. It doesn't matter who wins in the Reps, if the Greens control the Senate the country is rooted.



> Party leader Bob Brown called for gay marriage and euthanasia for everybody interested. He promised to protect fish by banning offshore oil and gas exploration and he pork-barrelled with suggestions for a very fast train system. "We are putting together a fantastic and very realistic transport system for this whole nation while the big parties are transporting coal," he said. That will be the coal exports that help keep the economy afloat and produce the income Senator Brown needs to fund his schemes. It was typical of the Greens, who are utterly uninterested in the inevitable compromises of practical politics




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-on-centre-stage/story-e6frg71x-1225899728106


----------



## drsmith (2 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Do you think he did the right thing?  Won't he now be subject to repeated accusations that he was 'too afraid' to debate her a second time?



Yes. He can exploit the ALP's desperation for better terms.

It would be good to see some economic discussion of the Green's policies. A corporate tax of 33% combined with a RRT of 50% results in a total tax take from mining of 66.5%. Perhaps they prefer it stay in the ground.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (3 August 2010)

Mofra said:


> Have to disagree. Bolt tends to oversimply situations to adjust to the tabloid editorialism that earns him a crust. His "interesting" use of logic and crusade for the far, far, far right tend to be tend to override any sense of proper discussion when Bolt is concerned.



 Have to disagree. Over simplification would be much like _framing_ which may come from politicians. _Carbon footprint_ is one where people quickly and easily attach to the simple message and act in a fascist like manner when they try to talk over the opposition to it. We hear about _skeptics_ in a negative light. Skepticism is healthy and genuine. 

Mofra you seem skeptical which is ok.

But in any discussion or argument the issue is the issue, not the negatives of the person introducing the argument, or informing by the media just because (1) a decoy is needed, and (2) ideology gets in the way.  

So what about the Fabians is beneficial for Australia? Anyone?


----------



## Calliope (3 August 2010)

Forget about the REAL Julia . The FAKE Julia *is* the REAL Julia. In an interview on 7 last night she is still giving non-answers. 

She cannot make any changes or display any honesty without going cap in hand to the faceless men in the party machine to whom she owes her job. She is their puppet.


----------



## moXJO (3 August 2010)

> BUSINESSES and Governments need to do more to improve employees' work-life balance as it continues to worsen and impact on families, unions say.
> The ACTU said Australians are under too much pressure at work and families are suffering as a result.
> 
> "It's getting harder, not easier for working people and this is having a negative effect on children ... and the whole community," ACTU president Ged Kearney said.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/work-life-balance-worsening-union/story-e6frg90f-1225900382729
Wow that’s not what the union ads on TV tell you. So under labor things are worse
I'm still waiting for something beneficial to small business from either side of politics to swing my vote their way. Hopes that Gillard might have been different have been dashed.


----------



## Mofra (3 August 2010)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Have to disagree. Over simplification would be much like _framing_ which may come from politicians. _Carbon footprint_ is one where people quickly and easily attach to the simple message and act in a fascist like manner when they try to talk over the opposition to it. We hear about _skeptics_ in a negative light. Skepticism is healthy and genuine.
> 
> Mofra you seem skeptical which is ok.
> 
> ...



Snake, I have to admit I'm one of a larger group that has to wear the label of "denier" because I'm not convinced of the science of climate change, but that is beside the point.

Bolt's core audience are the Herald-Sun public - the tabloid that pitches to it's readers at a year 8 level (The Age, it's major rival, pitches at a year 11 level). It is inevitable that some dumbing down will occur, however it appears the Bush-esque mentality of "black or white, you're with us or against us" is Bolt's modus operandi. Obviously Bolt is more editorialist as opposed to journalist so any sense of balance is a not a pre-requisite for his articles, however I belive that purs him in a more extreme category than just the "framing" of politicians you're highlighted above.

FWIW you wont want to start me on the "misguided priciples" of the Fabians - halfway through Greenspan's autobiography and his thoughts on their philosophy are very hard to argue against


----------



## noco (3 August 2010)

Julia said:


> It seems a bit odd that Ms Gillard has specified that if a second debate is held it's to be confined to talking about the economy.
> Have they got some evidence of Tony Abbott wasting money when he was in the Health p/f?   If she's planning to focus on how the government saved Australia from sure ruin during the GFC by the wasteful stimulus, can't Mr Abbott point to the now apparent over-stimulation of the economy as evidenced by several interest rate rises, not to mention all the rorting and waste of taxpayer dollars?
> 
> There's no mention of this in the article above, but on "PM" this evening, the journalist suggested the date offered by the PM is the date programmed for the Coalition's campaign 'launch'.  It's a little difficult to imagine that that would be a coincidence.
> ...




Julia, Tony Abbott initially requested three debates with Julia Gillard and when she thought she was on top, she refused. Now that she is running scared of losing, she has back flipped in her usual manner and wants a second debate on the economy. 
I beleive a debate on the economy between Swan and Hockey has been organised before the election. Perhaps she does not have faith in Swan fearing he may goof.
This new tack of seeing the real Gillard is just another ploy to gain attention away from the Labor Party split with all the adverse leaks of last week.
That's our unelected Prime Minister. What will be her next circus act?


----------



## Logique (3 August 2010)

Julia said:


> ....the [second debate] date offered by the PM is the date programmed for the Coalition's campaign 'launch'.  It's a little difficult to imagine that that would be a coincidence.
> Ms Gillard does seem to be realising that she is - as she says - in "the fight of her life".  If she loses, after the spectacular ousting of Kevin, she will herself be deposed in very short order.



I think Julia Gillard is keeping the seat warm for Bill Shorten, whatever happens.

With the second debate, I think Peter Dutton got it right last night on Q&A, it's quite clearly a clever stunt from the ALP back room smarties. Offer a date the Libs couldn't possibly accept, and then accuse them of running scared.

IMHO not a big issue in the election, the Libs had earlier asked for three debates and were turned down by now flip-flopping Labor.

Saw Bob Brown on tv at the Greens campaign launch. In a moment of supreme irony, he said it's frightening that Tony Abbott might be elected! This from a party that wants to shut down the energy sector that currently provides 98% of national baseload power!  I notice Calliope provided an interesting link above from the Australian.

Q&A was fun last night. For once Libs & NP weren't outnumbered, Craig Emerton was not happy, and interrupted everyone manically. 

There was a Greens party rep on the panel, but she wasn't going to be overly supportive of Emerton - it might have drawn too much attention to the cosy back room preferences swap between their parties - which Bob Brown disowns - for public consumption anyway = irrational, hypocritical, write your own ticket.

Who is the real Julia Gillard? I say who is really leading the Greens party?


----------



## Calliope (3 August 2010)

moXJO said:


> I'm still waiting for something beneficial to small business from either side of politics to swing my vote their way. Hopes that Gillard might have been different have been dashed.




Did you really expect that Gillard would be a supporter of small business?  You only had to listen to all the venom she sprayed about Work Choices and the Libs easing of the Unfair Dismissal Laws for small businesses.


----------



## drsmith (3 August 2010)

Logique said:


> Q&A was fun last night. For once Libs & NP weren't outnumbered, Craig Emerton was not happy, and interrupted everyone manically.



Peter Dutton was head and shoulders above the other 3 politicians there. Craig Emerton for the most part realised this and spent most of his efforts trying to get a rise out of Barnaby. 

One dissapointing aspect about last night's show was that neither of the Coalition members did not get a chance to respond to internet sensorship when that issue was raised.


----------



## moXJO (3 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Did you really expect that Gillard would be a supporter of small business?  You only had to listen to all the venom she sprayed about Work Choices and the Libs easing of the Unfair Dismissal Laws for small businesses.




You would be surprised sometimes. 
Both sides are rather anemic this election regarding small business.
One of many things that irks me when labor is in government, everyone expects more for doing nothing.


----------



## Logique (3 August 2010)

Private health insurance rebate:

it is Greens policy to abolish this, and push everyone into the already overcrowded public system. Labor has the stated intention to means test the rebate at the higher income earner level, but I think we all know they want to go further in reducing the rebate.

As such great proponents of public health - can they indicate which public hospital Mr Rudd attended for his gall bladder operation, and how long he spent on the waiting list, as a public patient?


----------



## Calliope (3 August 2010)

I watched a re-run of Q&A this morning. The audience laughed when Craig Emerson spoke so fondly of Julia saying that he had known her since 1998.

This was a canny audience. They knew that this was when Emerson deserted his wife and three kids and shacked up with the fair Julia in Canberra. He was her live-in lover.


----------



## Julia (3 August 2010)

Logique said:


> Private health insurance rebate:
> 
> it is Greens policy to abolish this, and push everyone into the already overcrowded public system. Labor has the stated intention to means test the rebate at the higher income earner level, but I think we all know they want to go further in reducing the rebate.
> 
> As such great proponents of public health - can they indicate which public hospital Mr Rudd attended for his gall bladder operation, and how long he spent on the waiting list, as a public patient?



Yes, this is just one of the scary policies of the Greens, and one with which Labor will have sympathy.  However, to abolish the rebate would be hugely unpopular with a large section of the electorate so I'd be very surprised if it happened.  Undoubtedly they'd institute a fairly tough means test, though.

I was expressing fear about the Greens with a friend yesterday, and he reminded me that on anything too extreme, e.g. they want to close down all the coal fired power stations (most of the country's source of electricity), the government and the coalition would probably vote together, making the Greens irrelevant.
I can't stand Christine Milne:  she is so strident and is already declaring that they will have all the power after the election.


----------



## Calliope (3 August 2010)

We are going to see more of the REAL Julia;

“You’ve been seeing glimpses of me,” the Prime Minister revealed on the Nine Network’s Today . “*But I’m going to make sure you see a whole lot more of me*. I’m going to be really going for it now."

After the FAKE Julia photo spread in the Womens Weekly the REAL Julia is going to do a centre-fold spread for a men's magazine.


----------



## trainspotter (3 August 2010)

Perish the thought Calliope !


----------



## drsmith (3 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Yes, this is just one of the scary policies of the Greens, and one with which Labor will have sympathy.  However, to abolish the rebate would be hugely unpopular with a large section of the electorate so I'd be very surprised if it happened.  Undoubtedly they'd institute a fairly tough means test, though.



The Democrats would go the full journey, phasing out all private health insurance subsidies. One would assume this also means the medicare levy surcharge which is also in effect a subsidy.

http://www.democrats.org.au/policies/Action2010/Health_AP.pdf

It's hard to imagine the Greens being idiologically different.

Government support of private health needs to be reformed. The current situation where you take private health cover to avoid a tax (a tax that should have never been levied in the first place) with no consideration to the service received is ridiculous.

If the government provides universal health care then support has to be offered to the private health sector. It is unreasonable to expect people to pay twice. A simple model would be goverment healthcare to a given level (scheduled fee) with this payable to private sector services. Private health insurance could then cover the difference between the scheduled fee and the private fee.


----------



## drsmith (3 August 2010)

Julia has lifted the restriction from a Sunday 8th dabate to any time.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...nomy-at-any-time/story-fn59niix-1225900561807

Hopefully Tony will stand his ground.


----------



## noco (3 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> I watched a re-run of Q&A this morning. The audience laughed when Craig Emerson spoke so fondly of Julia saying that he had known her since 1998.
> 
> This was a canny audience. They knew that this was when Emerson deserted his wife and three kids and shacked up with the fair Julia in Canberra. He was her live-in lover.




I watched Craig Emmerson on AM Agenda (Sky News) being interveiwed with Senator George Brandis and Emmerson became a hysterical comic in his own right when he was like  a cracked record about Work Choices. He repeatedly tried to talk over Brandis time and time again. What a clown he is.


----------



## IFocus (3 August 2010)

Mofra said:


> Have to disagree. Bolt tends to oversimply situations to adjust to the tabloid editorialism that earns him a crust. His "interesting" use of logic and crusade for the far, far, far right tend to be tend to override any sense of proper discussion when Bolt is concerned.




Good summery Mofra Bolt is intelligent but continually disappoints due to the reasons you note.


----------



## IFocus (3 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> Peter Dutton was head and shoulders above the other 3 politicians there. Craig Emerton for the most part realised this and spent most of his efforts trying to get a rise out of Barnaby.
> 
> One dissapointing aspect about last night's show was that neither of the Coalition members did not get a chance to respond to internet sensorship when that issue was raised.




Dutton is one of the few bright lights in the liberal party............pity they forced him back into a marginal while all the Howardite deadwood sit in safe seats.


----------



## IFocus (3 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> Julia has lifted the restriction from a Sunday 8th dabate to any time.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...nomy-at-any-time/story-fn59niix-1225900561807
> 
> Hopefully Tony will stand his ground.




Hopefully he wont and be exposed on his weak economic credentials like raising business tax.


----------



## warakawa (3 August 2010)

after watching the Sex Party vs Family First today, I might vote for Family First.


----------



## drsmith (4 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> Hopefully he wont and be exposed on his weak economic credentials like raising business tax.



The message on that became somewhat confusing with the release of his revised maternity leave scheme,



> Ah, says Abbott, but it's only temporary: "Once the budget position has been restored, we will reduce the levy and eventually abolish it," says the Liberal policy published yesterday.
> 
> OK, and when will the budget position be restored? This takes us back to Abbott's first answer. If he won't say, we can't know.
> 
> ...




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-elect...-coalitions-economic-woes-20100803-115g5.html

I suspect that by "budget position" he was referring to debt on the government balance sheet rather than the annual income statement. 

It wasn't clear though and this is something where he has to be absolutely clear.

I agree though that from a tax perspective, it's bad policy. Sound tax policy is sadly lacking from both sides in this campaign.


----------



## drsmith (4 August 2010)

warakawa said:


> after watching the Sex Party vs Family First today, I might vote for Family First.



The Sex Party and Family first could join forces and call themselves Sex First.

Family would then be second as in nature.


----------



## noco (4 August 2010)

I don't see how the Coalition can possibly estimate a timetable to have the economy back into surplus when they do not know what the real Labor Party state of the economy will be if the Coalition wins the election.
It could be a lot worse than the Labor Party are revealing. It happened before Howard took over only to find a $10 billion bigger deficet.
IMHO the Labor Party are exaggerating their estimate of 3 years just to gain traction for the 2010 election.


----------



## Logique (4 August 2010)

Sorry to interupt the flow,
but do people think this Abbott 'no means no' so-called gaff about the debate is anything other than political opportunism from his enemies? A poll today in the SMH has it running at precisely 50-50 on 28,000 votes. Not the best choice of words sure, but perhaps a little precious here?


----------



## Calliope (4 August 2010)

Logique said:


> Sorry to interupt the flow,
> but do people think this Abbott 'no means no' so-called gaff about the debate is anything other than political opportunism from his enemies? A poll today in the SMH has it running at precisely 50-50 on 28,000 votes. Not the best choice of words sure, but perhaps a little precious here?




50/50 on a lefty newspaper like the SMH is actually a vote of confidence in Abbott.


----------



## Timmy (4 August 2010)

Logique said:


> this Abbott 'no means no' so-called gaff ... A poll today in the SMH has it running at precisely 50-50 on 28,000 votes.




The poll on the SMH ... hmmmm ....

Just as an experiment I voted three times on it ... before I got bored.  
(Just erase cookies after you vote each time ... too easy).

If the party faithful are thus motivated (& either party can do it, not picking sides) the poll might say whatever the faithful want it to say.

Etc.


----------



## trainspotter (4 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> The Sex Party and Family first could join forces and call themselves Sex First.
> 
> Family would then be second as in nature.




The sublime clarity of this post borders on sagacity IMO.

I am still wiping tears from my eyes.


----------



## Calliope (4 August 2010)

While the feminists are waxing indignant on another thread on sexual harassment at DJs, Abbott should not be allowed to slip under the radar. What he said was so sexist it was something bloody awful. He actually said that he assumed that when Gillard said "no" she meant "no".

Shock! Horror! I hope the electorate is aware that when the when they wake up on 22 August, that the new PM could be a sexual harasser, who will probably make it legal. 

The alternative of re-electing an economic ignoramus doesn't look too bad after all.


----------



## Julia (4 August 2010)

Logique said:


> Sorry to interupt the flow,
> but do people think this Abbott 'no means no' so-called gaff about the debate is anything other than political opportunism from his enemies? A poll today in the SMH has it running at precisely 50-50 on 28,000 votes. Not the best choice of words sure, but perhaps a little precious here?



Logique, I made just this point on the DJ's thread yesterday.  Other than Wayne, who understood the connection I was trying to make, it probably didn't make sense to most on that thread.
It goes to our readiness to leap into outrage mode in so many areas, and our seemingly incessant need to look for offence in an otherwise quite ordinary comment.  Political opportunism?  Sure, but so silly that it may well backfire on the complainers.


Timmy said:


> The poll on the SMH ... hmmmm ....
> 
> Just as an experiment I voted three times on it ... before I got bored.
> (Just erase cookies after you vote each time ... too easy).
> ...



That's so right, Timmy.  I've done the same thing, expecting to get an advice "You have already voted on this poll", but no I could have happily voted a thousand times should I have wanted to.

On a different matter, the government announced that they have had the completely unexpected good luck to be paid a special bonus of $300 million from Medibank Private.  It seems the health insurer is so rolling in cash that it's able to make this paltry sum available to the government in order to assist the funding of their election promises.

"The Australian" today points out that this equates to $195 more per member on premiums, or that amount less in payments to hospitals.  Either way, members are the losers in the name of assisting the government's election campaign.   Considering the exponential rise every year in premiums, I doubt I'm the only member who is feeling very cranky indeed about being so ripped off.


----------



## Julia (4 August 2010)

On the BER Taskforce:



> The taskforce established to investigate waste under Julia Gillard's schools stimulus program has spent more than $1.1 million on consultants' fees in its first three months of operation.
> 
> Taskforce head Brad Orgill has told a Senate enquiry that about $80,000 alone was paid to public relations consultant Michael Salmon for eight weeks of media management.
> 
> The costings show that the BER taskforce has hired 12 companies to help investigate claims of wastage and rorting in the $16.2 billion program.


----------



## Calliope (4 August 2010)

Julia said:


> On the BER Taskforce:




So the rorters are investigating the rorters. It is obvious that they will give Gillard a pass on BER. They will have to dig up a scapegoat though.


----------



## Logique (4 August 2010)

> From Julia:
> Logique, I made just this point on the DJ's thread yesterday. Other than Wayne, who understood the connection I was trying to make, it probably didn't make sense to most on that thread.



Oops, this went over my head also. With Medibank Private - I would not be happy either. 

Found this interesting today, strength in Vic/SA/Tas won't deliver as many seats as weakness in QLD/NSW/WA will cause losses, and in [not a leaker] Lindsay Tanners's seat in Melbourne:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...verse-poll-slide/story-fn59niix-1225900799957


> The problem for Labor and Gillard is that Labor's support is at a highwater mark in Victoria and South Australia, where the maximum net gain they could hope to garner is four seats, while in Queensland and NSW a swath of seats on slim margins could result in a loss of 16 seats. Western Australia still seems unhappy with Labor after the mining tax, and another seat would be lost there on these figures.
> As well, the Greens would pick up Lindsay Tanner's seat of Melbourne and Labor expects to lose Solomon in the Top End.


----------



## DocK (4 August 2010)

Logique said:


> Sorry to interupt the flow,
> but do people think this Abbott 'no means no' so-called gaff about the debate is anything other than political opportunism from his enemies? A poll today in the SMH has it running at precisely 50-50 on 28,000 votes. Not the best choice of words sure, but perhaps a little precious here?




Totally ridiculous that his opponents and a few humourless types have jumped all over him for his choice of words.  I thought he made a good point and had a bit of a chuckle at his wording.  I think anyone with an ounce of sense can tell the difference between political point-scoring and supposed denigration of a serious issue.  Political correctness run amok.
I would like to see a debate though, but a _real_ debate, not a repeat of that parody of politeness passed off as a debate last week.



Julia said:


> Logique, I made just this point on the DJ's thread yesterday.  Other than Wayne, who understood the connection I was trying to make, it probably didn't make sense to most on that thread.
> It goes to our readiness to leap into outrage mode in so many areas, and our seemingly incessant need to look for offence in an otherwise quite ordinary comment.  Political opportunism?  Sure, but so silly that it may well backfire on the complainers.




I think you assume a lack of intelligence amongst posters on the DJ's thread that is not necessarily so.  I for one understood perfectly where you were coming from, and doubt that I'm alone there, but felt that your linking of this issue was off topic and diverting the gist of that thread, so ignored the post over there.  However, I agree there are some that will choose to be outraged by the least innocuous comment if it suits them, and this is a perfect example of that imo.  The campaigning on both sides has made for lacklustre tv viewing due to the obvious terror of putting a foot (or word) wrong shown by both Abbott and Gillard.  Personally, I'd love to see them both care a little less about being popular with everyone, and care a little more about standing up for what they believe in - whatever that may be.  A large part of the electorate is having trouble telling them apart - let alone actually believing in them having a conviction to cling to between them!  All the flip-flopping just leaves me more dismayed at the lack of leadership potential on show these days.   Our politicians used to have a bit of character and personality about them, and love them or hate them at least you had a fair idea what their vision for Australia was - the current crop seem more interested in their "image" and media portrayal. 

Rant over.


----------



## overhang (4 August 2010)

Timmy said:


> The poll on the SMH ... hmmmm ....
> 
> Just as an experiment I voted three times on it ... before I got bored.
> (Just erase cookies after you vote each time ... too easy).
> ...




Polling on Fairfax and News corp sites doesn't work that way anymore.  Your IP is logged to ensure a single vote per IP.  Now it will appear that you voted as you will have the option to vote again because your cookies are deleted however your vote wont count.  I presume this is to give users voting under the same IP the impression there vote counted however this is not the case.
  However a proxy server or static IP can be used to get around this but that's out of the average voters capability's, but yes in a nutshell online polling should be taken as a grain of salt.


----------



## explod (4 August 2010)

After my distribution of preferences on the poll of this thread the Libs now lead by 70%

So a real analysis of the truth will not be seen here.

Just heard Abbot is going to get the seniors back into work.  The Grandchildren will not be too happy at losing jobs over this.


----------



## DB008 (4 August 2010)

Did an early vote yesterday as l am moving house (and state) tomorrow.
Took about 5 minutes.


----------



## IFocus (4 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> The message on that became somewhat confusing with the release of his revised maternity leave scheme,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I don't think its likely to see daylight (maternity leave scheme) if Abbott gets up, seems it was used as a circuit breaker to get him into the game with the women's vote.

Given he isn't being the real Tony (running from the debate) I guess we will have to wait if the Liberals get in to see the ego get unleashed.

Fascinating watching Abbott play the small target.


----------



## noco (4 August 2010)

overhang said:


> Polling on Fairfax and News corp sites doesn't work that way anymore.  Your IP is logged to ensure a single vote per IP.  Now it will appear that you voted as you will have the option to vote again because your cookies are deleted however your vote wont count.  I presume this is to give users voting under the same IP the impression there vote counted however this is not the case.
> However a proxy server or static IP can be used to get around this but that's out of the average voters capability's, but yes in a nutshell online polling should be taken as a grain of salt.




No trouble voting twice or more in Federal and State elections.

Anyone can go from one polling both to another and vote ten times if you want to or even vote for a deceased  person. No ID required. Just front up state your name or a deceased person and bingo you get your slip no questions asked.

I can't beleive with modern technology that this sort of rort is still allowed to exist and it is well known and proven in the last Queensland state election that some Labor supporters voted in this manner. The trouble was the rorters were investigated by the rorters.


----------



## explod (4 August 2010)

noco said:


> No trouble voting twice or more in Federal and State elections.
> 
> Anyone can go from one polling both to another and vote ten times if you want to or even vote for a deceased  person. No ID required. Just front up state your name or a deceased person and bingo you get your slip no questions asked.
> 
> I can't beleive with modern technology that this sort of rort is still allowed to exist and it is well known and proven in the last Queensland state election that some Labor supporters voted in this manner. The trouble was the rorters were investigated by the rorters.




Maybe, but your name is physically crossed off a copy roll and the rolls are brought together later and audited so I do not think you know what you are talking about.


----------



## pilots (4 August 2010)

Explod, this is the trouble, what if I voted twenty times in your electorate, and each time I use your name. Now what would happen if say the xyz party gets in by 19 votes, will we have a whole new election, and what are they going  to charge you with??? voting twenty times. This is only one off the problems we have with this voting system we have.


----------



## explod (4 August 2010)

pilots said:


> Explod, this is the trouble, what if I voted twenty times in your electorate, and each time I use your name. Now what would happen if say the xyz party gets in by 19 votes, will we have a whole new election, and what are they going  to charge you with??? voting twenty times. This is only one off the problems we have with this voting system we have.




It would soon be realised and good investigators can smell whats going on from questioning and I am sure there would be some set ups to catch them out at the next election.

What you say sound feasible in theory but pretty sure that most voters are reasonably honest.

To change an election it would take thousands of voters in many electorates to change results unless they are close to deadlock.


----------



## drsmith (4 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> I don't think its likely to see daylight (maternity leave scheme) if Abbott gets up, seems it was used as a circuit breaker to get him into the game with the women's vote.
> 
> Given he isn't being the real Tony (running from the debate) I guess we will have to wait if the Liberals get in to see the ego get unleashed.
> 
> Fascinating watching Abbott play the small target.



The same could be said about the leaders and policies from both sides.


----------



## IFocus (4 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> The same could be said about the leaders and policies from both sides.




Yes a real boring election but with polls flowing to Abbott so Labors change in tactics to try and bring Abbott out might liven things up a little....hopefully

I think at this point Abbott might get up


----------



## Julia (4 August 2010)

DocK said:


> I think you assume a lack of intelligence amongst posters on the DJ's thread that is not necessarily so.



I am absolutely not assuming any lack of intelligence on the DJ's thread and would ask you not to make such incorrect assumptions about what I was thinking.  On the contrary, there have been many insightful comments on that thread.  




> I for one understood perfectly where you were coming from, and doubt that I'm alone there, but felt that your linking of this issue was off topic and diverting the gist of that thread, so ignored the post over there.



I did say:


> With apologies for somewhat diverting from the topic, but on the subject of being precious,



However, you're quite entitled to complain about the comment being off topic because it didn't have direct reference to DJ's.   I'm very sorry.


----------



## noco (4 August 2010)

explod said:


> Maybe, but your name is physically crossed off a copy roll and the rolls are brought together later and audited so I do not think you know what you are talking about.




explod, I do know what I am talking about because it did happen in the last state election.

If I place a legitimate vote in my name and some one else uses my name to vote in another ten polling booths, how can they prove it was me. The eleven rolls are marked off and one candiddate gets another 10 votes. Now as you say, the rolls are physically marked off and audited later, but how do the officals know how those votes were placed against a certain candidate? They would not have a clue. My vote could be for one candidte and the other ten might have been placed against an opposing candidate  It's a rort and you know as most others do that the criminal factor in some Labor Party branches know how to exploit the system.

I will prove my point at the coming election and vote for a deceased friend of mine who passed away last month. His name will still be on the roll and the officials at the polling booth in my area would not have a clue. I will then go to another booth and do the same thing. So tell me explod, how will the officails contact a deceased person or even pin it on me.

I will let you know the results after the election OK!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## sails (5 August 2010)

*Devils inside hidden Green agenda *



> ...If the Greens get their way we'll have huge industries banned, businesses driven broke and power prices driven through the roof, with not enough electricity for what industries will be left.
> 
> So, with our income slashed to ribbons, what do the Greens propose? Not deep cuts in every government program but a spending spree to make Kevin Rudd seem a miser...






> ...Yet the Greens plan to do their best to attract more people to their new nation of freeloaders. Any "asylum seeker" making it here by boat would be freed into the community within 14 days, security checks permitting, and rewarded with benefits, medical services and school for children. These goodies will be offered to "environmental refugees", too....




It's a worry...

Full story here: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/el...den-green-agenda/story-fn5zmod2-1225894722878


----------



## Calliope (5 August 2010)

Only a fraction of the 390,000 Queenslanders missing from the electoral roll have enrolled. A campaign to get people to enroll only picked up 23,000 new voters or changed details.

This is helpful to the Coalition as the dimwits who didn't bother to enrol would normally be left-leaning voters.


----------



## DocK (5 August 2010)

Please excuse my ignorance, but how does the electoral roll (or equivalent) work in other countries?  In the USA for instance, where voting is optional, do they have a system that  prevents people from voting more than once?  Seems very odd to me that in these days of ubertechnology we do not have a nationwide data base that is electronically "checked off" when you vote so that there is no option to use the same identity at another location.  Perhaps I should pitch the idea to the Govt, go public, have an IPO and post under the "Stocks" forum??


----------



## Mofra (5 August 2010)

DocK said:


> Please excuse my ignorance, but how does the electoral roll (or equivalent) work in other countries?  In the USA for instance, where voting is optional, do they have a system that  prevents people from voting more than once?  Seems very odd to me that in these days of ubertechnology we do not have a nationwide data base that is electronically "checked off" when you vote so that there is no option to use the same identity at another location.  Perhaps I should pitch the idea to the Govt, go public, have an IPO and post under the "Stocks" forum??



In the US they tend to have state-based systems, if my memory of the Florida scandal is correct.
Iraq had a fingerprint system, where people who finally voted for the first time in their lives would proudly display their ink-stained fingers for the camera.
In some African countries, whoever can stuff the ballot box the quickest usually wins. It's amazing that such poor countries with a lack of transport and infrastructure can still manage a 130% turnout for their elections


----------



## DocK (5 August 2010)

Mofra said:


> ...snip...
> 
> It's amazing that such poor countries with a lack of transport and infrastructure can still manage a 130% turnout for their elections




 I don't know whether our system of compulsory voting is ideal or not, but at least it works better than some


----------



## overhang (5 August 2010)

noco said:


> explod, I do know what I am talking about because it did happen in the last state election.
> 
> If I place a legitimate vote in my name and some one else uses my name to vote in another ten polling booths, how can they prove it was me. The eleven rolls are marked off and one candiddate gets another 10 votes. Now as you say, the rolls are physically marked off and audited later, but how do the officals know how those votes were placed against a certain candidate? They would not have a clue. My vote could be for one candidte and the other ten might have been placed against an opposing candidate  It's a rort and you know as most others do that the criminal factor in some Labor Party branches know how to exploit the system.
> 
> ...




Ive never given it much thought but your exactly right, even though they would know you voted twice at the end of the day they cannot prove which votes are which hence they are counted.
  Now and maybe Julia could answer this but wouldn't the rorting be even more prolific in NZ as voting is not compulsory but enrollment is.  Now I would assume that the majority of people living in housing commission would be in the 20% of non voters allowing others to vote using their name and this would be undetectable.  
Electronic voting anyone?


----------



## pilots (5 August 2010)

Overhang, what would happen if I voted 30 times, and ABC party got in to power with say 15 votes, do we hold a new election???


----------



## explod (5 August 2010)

noco said:


> explod, I do know what I am talking about because it did happen in the last state election.
> 
> If I place a legitimate vote in my name and some one else uses my name to vote in another ten polling booths, how can they prove it was me. The eleven rolls are marked off and one candiddate gets another 10 votes. Now as you say, the rolls are physically marked off and audited later, but how do the officals know how those votes were placed against a certain candidate? They would not have a clue. My vote could be for one candidte and the other ten might have been placed against an opposing candidate  It's a rort and you know as most others do that the criminal factor in some Labor Party branches know how to exploit the system.
> 
> ...




Well the system works because most people are basically honest, if you are not then I cannot help that.

When you front to vote you are asked (and required by law) to give your full name and your address.  If you are prepared to give the full name and address of the deceased then you have lost me pal.

I do think it is a good reason for all persons over eighteen to have full photo and signature ID.


----------



## Julia (5 August 2010)

overhang said:


> Ive never given it much thought but your exactly right, even though they would know you voted twice at the end of the day they cannot prove which votes are which hence they are counted.
> Now and maybe Julia could answer this but wouldn't the rorting be even more prolific in NZ as voting is not compulsory but enrollment is.  Now I would assume that the majority of people living in housing commission would be in the 20% of non voters allowing others to vote using their name and this would be undetectable.
> Electronic voting anyone?



Sorry, overhang, like you, I've never thought about it until noco brought it up, and I've been away from NZ for 18 years.  As I recall voting in NZ, it was as it is here in that you turn up, give your details, and are crossed off the list.
Is electronic voting rortproof?   Wasn't it electronic voting that allowed George W. to get in unfairly?



explod said:


> I do think it is a good reason for all persons over eighteen to have full photo and signature ID.



Yes, that should be required when the roll is marked off.  Good idea.


----------



## Calliope (5 August 2010)

It looks like Gillard will give Rudd the Indigenous Affairs job. This is a job which is dear to his heart as demonstrated by his apologies to our native people and the Stolen Generation. 

He knows that he has a lot of work to do on their housing, health, education and jobs to bring them up to par with the rest of the population.

As his government has done nothing about this issue in the past three years, he has a big job in front of him, which will be made much harder because there is no money.

On the positive side it will give him a lot of travel opportunities and to hold a few inquiries, forums etc.

Of course he will fail and that is what Gillard is counting on.



> She said Mr Rudd would hold a senior position in any ministry in a re-elected Gillard government but signalled he could be given a role other than foreign affairs, saying “obviously there are a wide variety of roles” he could serve in.
> 
> She cited Mr Rudd's passion for public policy in many areas, including ending indigenous disadvantage.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...sneak-into-power/story-fn59niix-1225901577821


----------



## explod (5 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> On the positive side it will give him a lot of travel opportunities and to hold a few inquiries, forums etc.
> 
> Of course he will fail and that is what Gillard is counting on.




Why will he fail ?    That needs to be backed up Calliope.

We all have our failures in business and life as we go along.  Rudd must have been successful in some ways to get where he did.   Why because we are perhaps on the other side of the fence do we wish someone is going to fail, *like a wish*  Sort of like "hope his chooks all die" was an old one.

Lot of immaturity in the political stuff these days.   Bring back the good old day Chifley, Menzies, Frazer and Keating.   Had different views but were honest people and gave the people reasons and looked after the constituencies before self interests.


----------



## sails (5 August 2010)

*Swan should know weekly interest bill*

Swan is potentially spending 4-5 Billion per year of taxpayers funds in interest and yet he apparently has no idea what the number is...

And between Labor and the Greens, appears they intend to keep up this awful spending spree if they get back in.

Someone has to repay this ever growing debt.  Some heritage to leave for our grandchildren. I guess some don't care...


----------



## noco (5 August 2010)

explod said:


> Well the system works because most people are basically honest, if you are not then I cannot help that.
> 
> When you front to vote you are asked (and required by law) to give your full name and your address.  If you are prepared to give the full name and address of the deceased then you have lost me pal.
> 
> I do think it is a good reason for all persons over eighteen to have full photo and signature ID.




Yes explod, that is my point,  I agree fully the polling booths should ask for an ID and 99.9% of voters would surely have a drivers license or a pension card if you were past the driving age. That would surely stop 99% of the rorts that has been happening.

When I test the system, I can assure you I will be honest enough to stop the official from ruling out the deceased person's name before it happens. I will also explain to the official my reason for doing it.


----------



## noco (5 August 2010)

explod said:


> Why will he fail ?    That needs to be backed up Calliope.
> 
> We all have our failures in business and life as we go along.  Rudd must have been successful in some ways to get where he did.   Why because we are perhaps on the other side of the fence do we wish someone is going to fail, *like a wish*  Sort of like "hope his chooks all die" was an old one.
> 
> Lot of immaturity in the political stuff these days.   Bring back the good old day Chifley, Menzies, Frazer and Keating.   Had different views but were honest people and gave the people reasons and looked after the constituencies before self interests.




And John Howard.


----------



## explod (5 August 2010)

noco said:


> And John Howard.




Agree, but we cannot say so with certainty before the fact.

Ole Krudd on tv tonight like a presidential candidate.  Just loves the glow of media.  A shame he could not deliver on the shine, but the charm certainly wont' harm labor


----------



## noco (5 August 2010)

explod said:


> Agree, but we cannot say so with certainty before the fact.
> 
> Ole Krudd on tv tonight like a presidential candidate.  Just loves the glow of media.  A shame he could not deliver on the shine, but the charm certainly wont' harm labor




I don't know about that. Remember Rudd said he had a long memory and I'm also not sure wether Ms Gillard is all that happy about him coming back into the picture before the election. He may just take some of the shine off her glitter.


----------



## overhang (5 August 2010)

pilots said:


> Overhang, what would happen if I voted 30 times, and ABC party got in to power with say 15 votes, do we hold a new election???



Well lets take an electorate size of 80000 (small electorate), your 30 votes have contributed .037% to the outcome. Yes that's possible but highly improbable but to answer your question I don't know I mean its pretty much a coin flip regardless of your votes and I would bet that there would be a greater margin of error than .037% in counting alone.



Julia said:


> Sorry, overhang, like you, I've never thought about it until noco brought it up, and I've been away from NZ for 18 years.  As I recall voting in NZ, it was as it is here in that you turn up, give your details, and are crossed off the list.
> Is electronic voting rortproof?   Wasn't it electronic voting that allowed George W. to get in unfairly?




No worries Julia 18 years is a long time between drinks.  True Florida is a good example of flaws with electronic voting, then we have the Afghan election with the tampered ink.  I'm sure we could have Labor come up with an alternative tamper proof method to voting


----------



## Julia (5 August 2010)

explod said:


> Agree, but we cannot say so with certainty before the fact.
> 
> Ole Krudd on tv tonight like a presidential candidate.  Just loves the glow of media.  A shame he could not deliver on the shine, but the charm certainly wont' harm labor



Ah explod, do you really believe in the magnanimous, utterly forgiving Kevin, who is putting all his humiliation aside for the sake of the Party?   He will be very smug in the knowledge that the Labor machine is so desperate it has had to beg him to come back and at least put on a show of solidarity.

It began with the interview on Radio National last night with Phillip Adams.  For anyone interested, the "Late Night Live" interview is presently being replayed on ABC Local Radio from 9.10 to 10 pm  Adams and Rudd are great mates from some time back and **** in each other pockets in this interview to a quite nauseating degree.

How humiliating is it for Julia to concede that she is losing so badly that she needs Mr Rudd to come back and prop her up?  Where do you think all the media attention will be?  On Mr Rudd, of course.  She will fade into the background.   I might be wrong, but Mr Rudd - being the archetypal strategist that he is - is likely thinking Labor will lose the election, Julia will be smartly dumped, leaving the way wide open for the party faithful to beg his forgiveness and beseech him to come back to lead them out of the wilderness.

Of course, I may be way too cynical and in reality, Kev, having parted with his gall bladder, has been filled with love and forgiveness, and really, truly believes that it's up to him to save the country from Mr Abbott.  Given Mr Rudd's self belief, such a scenario is quite plausible.

Interesting times ahead.

Meantime, Ms Gillard in her desperation has addressed whatever the group is which represents the canonisation of Mary McKillop (sorry, I'm not up in the religious lingo), and will shortly be addressing the Australian Christian Lobby, following being told in Nth Queensland by a group of Christian women that there's no way they would vote for her after her avowed atheism.

Hypocrisy doesn't come close to covering it!



noco said:


> I don't know about that. Remember Rudd said he had a long memory and I'm also not sure wether Ms Gillard is all that happy about him coming back into the picture before the election. He may just take some of the shine off her glitter.



Yep, we don't know whether Julia has been given a choice about Kev coming back.  Given the power of the Labor Party machine, she may have just been told what is happening, no choices   Just smile and pretend you're thrilled to have him at your side with all his wise guidance.


----------



## drsmith (5 August 2010)

From an entertainment perspective, it's worth seeing the ALP lose just to witness the political bloodbath that would occur within the ALP after such a loss.


----------



## ghotib (5 August 2010)

The Australian Electoral Commission website has a background paper on electoral fraud and multiple voting. It's a PDF, so I'll just quote 3 paragraphs about the effect of multiple voting on the election results. If anyone wants to read about the processes for for ensuring the integrity of the rolls and the vote, the full paper is at http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Pub...s/files/2010-eb-fraud-and-multiple-voting.pdf. BTW, the penalty for fraudulent voting can be 12 months imprisonment. 


> 30. The cases that remain after these elimination processes are referred by the DROs to the AEC’s National Office through the Australian Electoral officer (AEO) for the state or territory. Those instances that evidence apparent multiple voting are then referred to the AFP for consideration. The AFP may then refer the matter to the Commonwealth DPP for possible prosecution of the individual under s. 339 (1), (1a) or (1c) in accordance with the Commonwealth Prosecution Policy.
> 
> 31. In addition to identifying cases for possible prosecution, the AEC examines all detected cases of multiple voting in each division after the election to determine whether the level of multiple voting possibly exceeded the margin by which the candidate was elected. if this is the case, the AEC will consider disputing the election result by petition to the Court of Disputed Returns under s. 357 of the Act as outlined below.
> 32. It is not possible, or necessary, to remove multiple ordinary votes cast at the polling place from the count of votes, because they cannot be identified under the secret ballot system. The AEC is able to determine whether the number of multiple votes detected would have affected the margin by which the candidate was elected in the division.



The AEC has quite a lot of experience at running elections and with attempts to influence outcomes. Not saying everything is always squeaky clean, but I do believe the results are a true reflection of voter opinion on the day. 

Ghoti


----------



## BrightGreenGlow (6 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> From an entertainment perspective, it's worth seeing the ALP lose just to witness the political bloodbath that would occur within the ALP after such a loss.




After all ALP's failures I cannot believe the good-for-nothing-lazy-no-hopers that normally vote Labor still are willing to vote Labor. Truly amazing... maybe due to the Labor biased main media.... guess everyone still believes what they see on TV.


----------



## nioka (6 August 2010)

BrightGreenGlow said:


> After all ALP's failures I cannot believe the good-for-nothing-lazy-no-hopers that normally vote Labor still are willing to vote Labor. Truly amazing... maybe due to the Labor biased main media.... guess everyone still believes what they see on TV.




Lazy no hopers? How about all those hard working people working under "work choices" conditions that were at work by 7.30 this morning, will work hard all day meeting job requirements that match the conditions of $1 day paid workers in third world countries, will be under pressure to perform all day until 4.30 pm. Working hard so some company director can live a luxury life and help supply income through dividends etc for others. Fair shake of the sauce bottle. 

Get real. Look beyond your protected lifestyle, protected by those that work hard ALL their life.

There are two sides to every story


----------



## DocK (6 August 2010)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=572275&postcount=384

posted this on another thread, but it may be more pertinent here.


----------



## sam76 (6 August 2010)

nioka said:


> Lazy no hopers? How about all those hard working people working under "work choices" conditions that were at work by 7.30 this morning, will work hard all day meeting job requirements that match the conditions of $1 day paid workers in third world countries, will be under pressure to perform all day until 4.30 pm. Working hard so some company director can live a luxury life and help supply income through dividends etc for others. Fair shake of the sauce bottle.
> 
> Get real. Look beyond your protected lifestyle, protected by those that work hard ALL their life.
> 
> There are two sides to every story




All those people should have worked harder at school, went to uni and then got a decent job.



*ducks head* lol


----------



## Logique (6 August 2010)

explod said:


> Ole Krudd on tv tonight like a presidential candidate.  Just loves the glow of media.  A shame he could not deliver on the shine, but the charm certainly wont' harm labor



Yes I was struck by how presidential and imperturbable he looked.

I wonder how (current Foreign Minister) Stephen Smith is feeling about this 'make Rudd Foreign Minister' talk - must think he's become invisible.

All the same, if they are going to have Rudd in the cabinet, they'd be mad not to make him Foreign Minister. Get him out of the country and out of harms way, he can tool around over there at the UN, happy as. Smith is competent enough to do well in another portfolio.


----------



## nioka (6 August 2010)

sam76 said:


> All those people should have worked harder at school, went to uni and then got a decent job.
> 
> 
> 
> *ducks head* lol




OK. Can you tell me how all those useless uni graduates would find jobs if there was no one left to do all the hard work. There are too many of them out there now adding to the cost of production. I can just see a uni graduate collecting the garbage, checking out at Coles, cleaning the rest rooms, plucking chickens, slaughtering your meat, growing your vegs,cleaning your fish, building your house, driving your train or bus, etc etc and on and on. 

Like I said get out into the REAL world.


----------



## sam76 (6 August 2010)

ha ha!

You're so easy to bait Nioka, lol 

Just joshing mate, the world needs ditch diggers otherwise who would the graduates have to manage?.


----------



## trainspotter (6 August 2010)

nioka said:


> OK. Can you tell me how all those useless uni graduates would find jobs if there was no one left to do all the hard work. There are too many of them out there now adding to the cost of production. I can just see a uni graduate collecting the garbage, checking out at Coles, cleaning the rest rooms, plucking chickens, slaughtering your meat, growing your vegs,cleaning your fish, building your house, driving your train or bus, etc etc and on and on.
> 
> Like I said get out into the REAL world.




Q; What did the uni graduate say to the hard working honest man?
A; "Do you want fries with that?"

Look around nioka. It seems your prejudices towards people with education are starting to show. Very narrow minded point of view there Big Fella.


----------



## DocK (6 August 2010)

Dontcha love democracy - whether you've a string of uni degrees or barely educated, your vote is equal.


----------



## Calliope (6 August 2010)

Logique said:


> Yes I was struck by how presidential and imperturbable he looked.
> 
> I wonder how (current Foreign Minister) Stephen Smith is feeling about this 'make Rudd Foreign Minister' talk - must think he's become invisible.
> 
> All the same, if they are going to have Rudd in the cabinet, they'd be mad not to make him Foreign Minister. Get him out of the country and out of harms way, he can tool around over there at the UN, happy as. Smith is competent enough to do well in another portfolio.




Not too logical Logique. The Foreign affairs job would give him the opportunity to make infinite mischief overseas. He has a head start over the unknown Gillard in the way he has lobbied overseas leaders. He is well known overseas and apparently liked by Obama and other leaders. However in the country our future depends on (the rat f*****s) his influence has disappeared

He is the one most would identify with Australia. As for Gillard...it's Julia who?


----------



## BrightGreenGlow (6 August 2010)

nioka said:


> Lazy no hopers? How about all those hard working people working under "work choices" conditions that were at work by 7.30 this morning, will work hard all day meeting job requirements that match the conditions of $1 day paid workers in third world countries, will be under pressure to perform all day until 4.30 pm. Working hard so some company director can live a luxury life and help supply income through dividends etc for others. Fair shake of the sauce bottle.
> 
> Get real. Look beyond your protected lifestyle, protected by those that work hard ALL their life.
> 
> There are two sides to every story




There might be two sides. However, those same 7:30am working people should be lucky to have a job and not live elsewhere. Maybe the big cats get paid too much but it's better than handing out free money all the time and ending up in Debt, Killing people, destroying the mining sector and putting our broadband network further in the dark ages with the NBN.


----------



## nioka (6 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Q; What did the uni graduate say to the hard working honest man?
> A; "Do you want fries with that?"
> 
> Look around nioka. It seems your prejudices towards people with education are starting to show. Very narrow minded point of view there Big Fella.




I have a uni degree. Worked hard to get it as a mature age student. I've employed plenty of people with degrees and plenty without. I've mixed it with the top and the bottom and I've found idiots at both levels but the percentage of idiots is low generally and genuine people are just as likely to be found at both levels. I've one prejudice, I loathe people that have a tendency towards "I am holier than thou". There are a few posting on these forums but thankfully only a minority. I have no prejudice against educated people as long as they dont think they know it all because of a little piece of paper and a gown and hat proves it.

I rest my case. Next subject please. Back to stocks, for a Friday it is not too bad today.


----------



## pilots (6 August 2010)

nioka said:


> Lazy no hopers? How about all those hard working people working under "work choices" conditions that were at work by 7.30 this morning, will work hard all day meeting job requirements that match the conditions of $1 day paid workers in third world countries, will be under pressure to perform all day until 4.30 pm. Working hard so some company director can live a luxury life and help supply income through dividends etc for others. Fair shake of the sauce bottle.
> 
> Get real. Look beyond your protected lifestyle, protected by those that work hard ALL their life.
> 
> There are two sides to every story



Nioka, why not do what I did, I did not like the job, so I moved on until I found one that I liked. Nioka you need company directors getting LOTS and LOTS of money, you see they are the people that hire people. If Labor had its way we would all be the same, but never for get this, ONLY RICH PEOPLE HIRE PEOPLE, poor people hire NO ONE. I am now a self funded retire still paying TAX,


----------



## Mofra (6 August 2010)

DocK said:


> Dontcha love democracy - whether you've a string of uni degrees or barely educated, your vote is equal.



A degree means you are qualified, not necessarily educated in the truest sense of the word


----------



## nioka (6 August 2010)

BrightGreenGlow said:


> There might be two sides. However, those same 7:30am working people should be lucky to have a job and not live elsewhere.



 Shouldn't we all thank our lucky stars for that, particularly those that are getting benefit from those that were on the job at 7.30 am. I went fishing at 5AM today and there was plenty of action going on even at that time of the day. Ambulance entering the hospital as I drove past. Imagine the action there by some of the labor supporters. Maybe the sick and injured appreciate them being on the job. Thats the REAL world.


----------



## moXJO (6 August 2010)

pilots said:


> ONLY RICH PEOPLE HIRE PEOPLE




I don't think small business owners would agree with this statement. However those that want to achieve more for themselves, use leverage by hiring other people to increase their chances of being richer.


----------



## trainspotter (6 August 2010)

nioka said:


> I have a uni degree. Worked hard to get it as a mature age student. I've employed plenty of people with degrees and plenty without. I've mixed it with the top and the bottom and I've found idiots at both levels but the percentage of idiots is low generally and genuine people are just as likely to be found at both levels. I've one prejudice, I loathe people that have a tendency towards "I am holier than thou". There are a few posting on these forums but thankfully only a minority. I have no prejudice against educated people as long as they dont think they know it all because of a little piece of paper and a gown and hat proves it.
> 
> I rest my case. Next subject please. Back to stocks, for a Friday it is not too bad today.




What's the air like up there nioka? I did not know we were in a litiguous situation where you had to appeal to the jury and "rest your case"? Or are you putting your brief "case" on the ground as you are tired of carrying it around because it is stuffed full of money?


----------



## BrightGreenGlow (6 August 2010)

nioka said:


> Shouldn't we all thank our lucky stars for that, particularly those that are getting benefit from those that were on the job at 7.30 am. I went fishing at 5AM today and there was plenty of action going on even at that time of the day. Ambulance entering the hospital as I drove past. Imagine the action there by some of the labor supporters. Maybe the sick and injured appreciate them being on the job. Thats the REAL world.




Yeah lucky there are ambulances Nioka. I'm surprised the ALP in QLD haven't sold them yet? You seem to like the world we live in??? :S


----------



## Calliope (6 August 2010)

Mofra said:


> A degree means you are qualified, not necessarily educated in the truest sense of the word





Yes we had a doctor in Queensland who proved this point. He was called Dr Death.

There is a condition where people often claim they are competent when they are too incompetent to know they are incompetent.

:topic Sorry about that but you have to jump in whenever there is a window of opportunity.


----------



## BrightGreenGlow (6 August 2010)

Just looking at a new article today at news.com.au

"Results: Campaign comebacks
Thanks for voting!
Who would you rather vote for?
Kevin Rudd
13.39% (220 votes)
*John Howard
64.94% (1067 votes)*
Julia or Tony
9.49% (156 votes)
None of the above
12.17% (200 votes)
Total votes: 1643

Go Johnny!


----------



## trainspotter (6 August 2010)

Gilard not afraid of BER scrutiny ? Funny how Brad Orgill could find anything amongst the 254 complaints about rorting. According to the report they were just that ...... "complaints" ??????

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-elect...-out-by-up-to-12-per-cent-20100806-11lpi.html


----------



## derty (6 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> There is a condition where people often claim they are competent when they are too incompetent to know they are incompetent..



Yes it is called the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Most commonly displayed on climate change discussion threads.


> The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect


----------



## nioka (6 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Yes we had a doctor in Queensland who proved this point. He was called Dr Death.
> 
> There is a condition where people often claim they are competent when they are too incompetent to know they are incompetent.
> 
> :topic Sorry about that but you have to jump in whenever there is a window of opportunity.




Ah it's great to see something we actually agree on. I actually spent some time in the Bundy hospital. Lucky I didn't need an operation and luckier still that i didn't get one that I didn't need.

Another fact from my numerous visits to hospitals; The older nurses without degrees were better and worked harder than the newer ones with the University degree.


----------



## Calliope (6 August 2010)

Is it just possible that the Labor strategists will cannibilise the old Julia and the old Rudd and come up with a composite Gillirudd?


----------



## trainspotter (6 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Is it just possible that the Labor strategists will cannibilise the old Julia and the old Rudd and come up with a composite Gillirudd?




Ruddiculous proposal Calliope. Kevin Gillard and Julia Rudd have a secret lovechild ...... see piccy below. His name is Bill Shorten


----------



## Happy (6 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Is it just possible that the Labor strategists will cannibilise the old Julia and the old Rudd and come up with a composite Gillirudd?




I thought about it too.

As soon as Labor Party machine realised they have little or no chance with Kevin, they came up with FEMale as natural progression next choice will be Native Australian with Sorry MK2 flavour. or some boat refugee.

As we’ve got to giv’em a chance.


----------



## IFocus (6 August 2010)

Found this interesting shows Abbott really is a..........

The Australian has been more critical of Tony Abbott than The Age writes Geoff Elliott in The Australian.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...n-both-campaigns/story-e6frgd0x-1225901842911


----------



## wayneL (6 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> Found this interesting shows Abbott really is a..........




Eh?

Your Orwellian controllers have trained you too well.


----------



## IFocus (6 August 2010)

noco said:


> And John Howard.




AKA Lying little Rodent


----------



## IFocus (6 August 2010)

wayneL said:


> Eh?
> 
> Your Orwellian controllers have trained you too well.





Surely you mean my Commissars


----------



## Calliope (7 August 2010)

What is Labor's new strategy?:dunno: Laurie Oakes doesn't know either. But Rudd is right in one aspect. If Abbott does get up it will be by default



> * So now we have the real Kevin and real Julia campaigning together and Labor morale, for the moment, has been lifted. But it is, when you think about it, a quite ridiculous situation.
> 
> Gillard knifes Rudd because she says the Government lost its way. She and other ministers then use the ousted PM as a scapegoat for every mistake, eschewing all responsibility themselves.
> 
> ...




http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/el...gillards-saviour/story-fn5zmod2-1225902259065


----------



## SmellyTerror (7 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> You make it easy, when your political views are based on hate. I guess you hate 60% of those who voted in the above poll.




Ok ok, sorry, not really back in the thread, but I can't let this go.

I had said: I'm going to assume you're NOT an idiot.

You said something dopey.

I said: well I *was* assuming you're not an idiot, but you're having a good go at proving I'm wrong (ie - proving that you ARE an idiot).

Your answer: "You make it easy". Apparently, I make it easy to prove *you're* an idiot.

Sir, *YOU NEED TO READ WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE SAYING.*

*You are arguing with an imaginary person*. Almost nothing about what you think I'm saying is true. Given your clear inability to actually comprehend the posts you read, I can see how you missed the stunningly subtle idea that my line about "hating the same things" was a joke.

Why do you bother to come here? What do you expect to achieve? You can't learn anything if you don't bother to understand what people are saying, and you won't convince anyone when you make no attempt to address anything they've actually said.







...


And since I'm here: *Wayne*, I'm pretty disappointed with this post.



wayneL said:


> It only means that the socialists have embraced pragmatism, the end game is still the same. Of course in the meantime it exposes a cognitive dissonance as is obvious in the Wikipedia article on SD, evidenced by these two concurrent statements:




...you give the second quote as this:

"Social democracy supports gradualism; the belief that gradual democratic reforms to capitalist economies will eventually succeed in creating a socialist economy,"

...conveniently skipping the rest of the sentence, that clearly shows it was _*past-tense*_. As explained elsewhere in the article, and *in the post you were answering*, the ideology has changed. The whole point of my post was that you appeared to be thinking of the long-discarded version of the ideology, when in modern usage it's changed.

So, yeah, if you show the older version and the newer version together with no context, then no crap you get "cognitive dissonance".

Here's the full sentence you chopped (my bolds and bigs):

"Social democracy, *as practiced in Europe in 1951, was *a socialist movement supporting gradualism; the belief that gradual democratic reforms to capitalist economies will eventually succeed in creating a socialist economy,[4] rejecting forcible imposition of socialism through revolutionary means."

I can't see how your mangling half that quote to make a point _directly refuted by the full quote_ is anything but dishonest. So: see also the comic.

You guys just want an echo-chamber, don't you?


----------



## wayneL (7 August 2010)

Smelly,

The article purports that a socialist economy is no longer the goal. I don't believe that.

Do you honestly believe that with a free rein, that SDs wouldn't create a socialist economy _poste haste_?

Neither does Wikipedia apparently:


----------



## Calliope (7 August 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Your answer: "You make it easy". Apparently, I make it easy to prove you're an idiot.




No, quite the reverse. It has been suggested to me that you are on substance abuse. Your posts seem to indicate that. And you do have long periods when you are out of this world.

Try and chill out.


----------



## So_Cynical (7 August 2010)

Save your breath Smelly...apparently only right wing conservative capitalists have objectivity and the required intelligence to make good political decisions.

The ASF gang of 4 have said so...so it must be true.


----------



## drsmith (7 August 2010)

Why is it that with both major parties, the only red in the background in their media statements is in the Australian flag ?


----------



## drsmith (7 August 2010)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/photos/2010/08/07/2976441.htm

The happy couple.


----------



## drsmith (7 August 2010)

A third Julia or Kevin ?


----------



## Calliope (7 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/photos/2010/08/07/2976441.htm
> 
> The happy couple.




The Women's Weekly air brushed out the decolletage. Will Kevin fall for the wiles of the temptress? Do not miss the next thrilling episode of this exciting story of true love being rediscovered. Which of the faceless men will play match maker? How will they restore Kevin's image and still keep Julia's image intact? All will be revealed in the next episode.


----------



## noco (7 August 2010)

Just can't wait for Mark Latham's show on 60 minutes coming to your TV screen Aug 15. I heard a whisper, it could be explosive.


----------



## Calliope (7 August 2010)

It's not surprising that Rudd and Gillard detest each other. They are an obnoxious pair, and neither of them can trust the treacherous Swan. It is also not surprising that the only decent one in the gang of four decided he'd had enough of this nasty trio.


----------



## So_Cynical (7 August 2010)

Australian Workers Union "The Abbott Family" video 

They're tricky and there sneaky, dishonest and cheeky, they're altogether freaky...the Abbott Family.

LOL
~


----------



## moXJO (7 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Australian Workers Union "The Abbott Family" video
> 
> They're tricky and there sneaky, dishonest and cheeky, they're altogether freaky...the Abbott Family.
> 
> ...





LOL trust the unions to come up with that


----------



## noco (7 August 2010)

moXJO said:


> LOL trust the unions to come up with that




Yes and the unions may be trouble for infringing copy rights. I understand there could be court challenge over that add!!


----------



## drsmith (7 August 2010)

Kevin Will Survive

http://media.smh.com.au/opinion/national-times/kevin-rudd-will-survive-1753521.html


----------



## trainspotter (7 August 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Ok ok, sorry, not really back in the thread, but I can't let this go.
> 
> I had said: I'm going to assume you're NOT an idiot.
> 
> ...




Can I have the same medication that Smelly Terror is on Nurse Ratched? He reminds me of rederob. Obviously your superior intellect and grasp of the spoken word as well as the grammatical prose you display is of a very well educated person who requires a massive amount of stimulus. You do not seem to be getting it from here so WHY do you bother ?

The rest of us just drink the Kool - Aid.

Nurse Ratched: Aren't you ashamed? 
Billy: No, I'm not. 
Nurse Ratched: You know Billy, what worries me is how your mother is going to take this. 
Billy: Um, um, well, y-y-y-you d-d-d-don't have to t-t-t-tell her, Miss Ratched. 
Nurse Ratched: I don't have to tell her? Your mother and I are old friends. You know that. 
Billy: P-p-p-please d-d-don't tell my m-m-m-mother.


----------



## trainspotter (7 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Save your breath Smelly...apparently only right wing conservative capitalists have objectivity and the required intelligence to make good political decisions.
> 
> The ASF gang of 4 have said so...so it must be true.




Save your fingers from wearing out the keyboard So_Cynical ... apparently the only people intelligent enough to understand Smelly & your posts are Left Wing, Card Carrying, Trade Unionists who still believe that Stalinism is a totalitarian government of the people, by the people, for the people.


----------



## Calliope (7 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Save your breath Smelly...apparently only right wing conservative capitalists have objectivity and the required intelligence to make good political decisions.




So-Smelly and So-Gullible have a lot in common, and it's certainly not objectivity or intelligence.


----------



## trainspotter (7 August 2010)

Taken from the Greens website:

2: equity of access to the essentials of life and promoting *equality* are central goals for a civilised society.  (read Communism)

6: the fulfilment of human potential and the enrichment of lives is best achieved when people work together for common goals. : Hahahahahhaaa

9: long term government *borrowing* is the preferred mechanism for funding long term infrastructure investments. More debt !

13: progressive taxes such as income taxes are preferable to regressive forms of taxation such as the GST. HEY !! What happened to rule #2 where we are all equal? HUH ??

29: return the company tax rate to *33% *and broaden the company tax base by reducing tax concessions. Yeah right ..... they got my vote ! Pffffffttttttt

I could not read anymore as I was beginning to feel stupefied and my brain had turned to mush. I also felt an irresistible urge to go hug a tree and crap in the woods and wipe my @rse with a rabbit. Dunno why?

http://greens.org.au/policies/sustainable-economy/economics for those who need to be dumbed down to a Bob Brown level.


----------



## So_Cynical (7 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> So-Smelly and So-Gullible have a lot in common, and it's certainly not objectivity or intelligence.




Got anything else besides personal attacks?  

This forum has been so much more enjoyable since i put noco on ignore last week..i have a feeling its going to be even more enjoyable with you on ignore, the Labor bashing threads that the gang of 4 find so interesting would certainly look strange with all of them on ignore.


----------



## drsmith (7 August 2010)

Taken from the Greens website:

2: equity of access to the essentials of life and promoting *equality* are central goals for a civilised society.  (read Communism)
_I'd like to see what they consider as appropriate marginal rates for income tax. All they present is 50% for incomes over $1mil._

6: the fulfilment of human potential and the enrichment of lives is best achieved when people work together for common goals. : Hahahahahhaaa
_A bit tree huggy that statement. What to they mean in terms of policy specifics ?_

9: long term government *borrowing* is the preferred mechanism for funding long term infrastructure investments. More debt !
_Do they understand the difference between debt as a slave and debt as master ?_

13: progressive taxes such as income taxes are preferable to regressive forms of taxation such as the GST. HEY !! What happened to rule #2 where we are all equal? HUH ??
_Progressive taxes such that everyone earns the same amount of income is a manifestation of true Communism._

29: return the company tax rate to *33% *and broaden the company tax base by reducing tax concessions. Yeah right ..... they got my vote ! Pffffffttttttt
_Add that to their 50% resources profit tax and the total take from resources profit would be 66.5%. Perhaps they just want it to stay in the ground regardless of the economic cost._


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Save your breath Smelly...apparently only right wing conservative capitalists have objectivity and the required intelligence to make good political decisions.




And so you put your non-objectivity and miscomprehension on show.

I never said only right wing conservative capitalists have objectivity and the required intelligence to make good political decisions. I said that social democrats (AKA socialists) cannot be objective for the reasons I detailed at the time.

The leap from my statement to your sarcasm is a non sequitur and a tad disingenuous.



> The ASF gang of 4 have said so...so it must be true.




As my point above was referenced above, I can only conclude that I am a member of your "right wing, conservative gang of 4".

Excuse me, but I'd like to refuse membership of said gang. If you had been following along you would know that I am a classical liberal/libertarian, not a conservative. I was a member of the Lib Dems and was active within the "Orange" group (classical liberals) when I lived in the UK.

Although admittedly if presented with a binary choice between socialists and conservatives, I'll go with the conservatives every time.


----------



## Calliope (8 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Got anything else besides personal attacks




Have you?



> This forum has been so much more enjoyable since i put noco on ignore last week..i have a feeling its going to be even more enjoyable with you on ignore




Well thats a shame. If you keep this up you will have nobody to insult and abuse.

P.S. I know you will read this. If you think I am a right wing capitalist you must be a Marxist.


----------



## SmellyTerror (8 August 2010)

wayneL said:


> Smelly,
> 
> The article purports that a socialist economy is no longer the goal. I don't believe that.
> 
> ...




*1. YOU quoted from that source to support your argument. YOU DID.*

Now you want to tell me it's a crap source?

2. *You intentionally deleted the part of the quote that directly refuted what you were saying*, and then used that quote and that source as an authority to back you up.

That is nothing more than lying. YOU ARE A LIAR. And unrepentant once caught. Nice.

I have explained how your view of social democracy is wrong. The only source YOU have also says you're wrong. So what on earth does it take to convince you that you're wrong about anything? Whatever vague opinion you have about a complex economic and political ideology must be right, and any evidence to the contrary is clearly flawed? When the actual definition of the thing you’re criticising refutes your criticism, you what? You just blindly assume that your own prejudice trumps political theory?

Arrogance? Or just ignorance?



Calliope said:


> No, quite the reverse. It has been suggested to me that you are on substance abuse. Your posts seem to indicate that. And you do have long periods when you are out of this world.
> 
> Try and chill out.




Do you understand that you've clearly made an **** of yourself?  By failing to read what you were responding to, you have admitted to being an idiot. You still don't seem to understand that, even with me using small words.

You seem to have the ultimate defence: unassailable ignorance. Your only answer is a completely nonsensical and irrelevant post. You could copy-and-paste that same line and use it in every argument you ever get into with the same effect. 

Me: I *don’t* think you’re an idiot.
You: Yes I am!
Me: Uh, you just said you’re an idiot.
You: No I didn’t. Quite the reverse. Also, you’re on drugs!

Read the words. Understand the words. Pretty sure it’s a forum rule.



trainspotter said:


> Can I have the same medication that Smelly Terror is on Nurse Ratched? He reminds me of rederob. Obviously your superior intellect and grasp of the spoken word as well as the grammatical prose you display is of a very well educated person who requires a massive amount of stimulus. You do not seem to be getting it from here so WHY do you bother ?




So let's see. I've shown that Wayne has intentionally misquoted a source to prove himself right, when the source actually says he's wrong. Can you address this point? Does it matter to you? Am I wrong? Go read the quote. Go read what he said. How on earth am I insane for pointing out a clear and easily verifiable fact? How is it an amazing feat of insanity to be offended when someone clearly and blatantly lies? Is lying ok in your world?

I've clearly shown that Calliope doesn't actually read what he responds to, because in his own post he essentially admitted he was an idiot (because he skimmed the post just enough to see "you're proving me wrong" and decided I was talking about his awesome points of logic, not my own judgement that he *wasn't* an idiot). This is a simple matter of following the conversation. And even with it being explained in several different ways now, he doesn’t seem to understand.

...and your response is a completely irrelevant screed.

So pointing out when you guys are saying stupid **** is actually insane, is it? Maybe I should leave you to your circle-jerk. Or maybe you guys would be better to take all of this to PM or email, since you clearly can't handle anyone disagreeing with you.

HOW CAN YOU GUYS EVER BE SHOWN TO BE WRONG? When the facts are *clearly* against you, you just bluster, call names, and wave your hands in the air, all the time accusing others of being irrational.

People who disagree with you are not automatically frothing madmen. You are capable of being incorrect, right? – but how will you ever know if you don’t bother to address the points?

And  to clear up some misperceptions:
1.	My posts to now haven’t been angry – I’ve been using bold and caps to highlight parts so that the folk who so clearly have minimal attention spans will be able to see which bits are more important. Hell, I put in a comic. You think comics are signs of rage?
2.	…but this post was a bit angry, in a rolled-eyes, frowny sort of way.
3.	I type fast, but not hard.
4.	I’m voting Liberal this year (since the net filter is now the only point of significant difference) – though my primary / preferences will go to a good half of the minors first, because the majors **** me.


----------



## trainspotter (8 August 2010)

*Mein Gott* Smelly Terror you do bait up easily don't you? If your sublime intellect slowed down to grasp the inferences of my post you would comprehend the point I was making is that you are IN THE ASYLUM ! It does not matter whether you are wrong or right, who is a liar and who is Godlike in their approach. *YOU* have chosen to enter through the front doors of this mad house willingly, now *YOU* are the one postulating like a prima donna on steroids complaining you don't like the conversation and the Kool Aid tastes off !! Pfffffffffftttttttt irrelevant screed indeed.

*HENCE* my reference to the classic movie "One flew over the cuckoo's nest". It must be tough being the only sane person when the lunatics are on the grass.

Now for the other part of your derogatory post to the members of ASF that you feel that it is necessary to sharpen your tongue on. Perhaps if you showed a MODICUM of tolerance and stopped treating people like IDIOTS then you might have half a chance of engaging someone in a conversation where you get to shine and you can show everyone how clever you are with your razor quips and scintillating dialogue.

I bet you are a real JOY in the outside world where people are to be stepped on and abused the moment they cannot keep up with your sagacity. Waaaaaaahhhh !


----------



## Calliope (8 August 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Do you understand that you've clearly made an **** of yourself?  By failing to read what you were responding to, you have admitted to being an idiot. You still don't seem to understand that, even with me using small words.




Never mind Smelly I find your nasty posts good comedy, and unlike So_Gullible you do not put me on "ignore.". 



> You seem to have the ultimate defence: unassailable ignorance. Your only answer is a completely nonsensical and irrelevant post. You could copy-and-paste that same line and use it in every argument you ever get into with the same effect.




I don't get into arguments. I just try to point out to you and the rest of the small gang of leftiies the stupidities of your contributions to this thread. I try to do this without the use of abuse, insults or gutter language. No doubt it upsets you that I won't join you in the gutter.


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> *1. YOU quoted from that source to support your argument. YOU DID.*
> 
> Now you want to tell me it's a crap source?
> 
> ...




ROTFLMAO

Dude! This is politics. Such is the nature of politics, but I'm not a liar any more than you or the Fabian Socialist riff raff you have become seduced by.

That you actually believe the SD's "for public consumption" rhetoric shows a quaint and endearing naivete on your part... and a typical lack of objectivity. 

There are several layers to political parties and none more so than those of the left. Start peeling that onion and you eventually come to the putrid core of socialist ideology.


----------



## noco (8 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/photos/2010/08/07/2976441.htm
> 
> The happy couple.




Are we witnessing a 'PUNCH AND JUDY SHOW' or some sort of 'SOAP OPERA' with the Labor Party.

The ginger pussy cat (Julia) scratches the eyes out of the little jack russell (Kevin 07). Now Kevvie when you you can see again I want you to help me because I'm in a bit of trouble.  I've mad a bit of a mess of things over the past month and everyone is laughing at me. Kevvie will you please help me, stand by me and be my body guard?

I'm also a bit shaken by that bull terrior (Mark Latham) down the road. I think he is about to pick a fight with me and I need you Kevvie to prorect me.

I also know Mr Rabbit (aka Tony) is sitting up on the hill looking down on all that's happening to us and laughing his head off.

Now Kevvie I want you to find Mr. Magoo ( Bill Shorten). Tell him to get his shot gun out and shoot that bull terrior and that wabbit before the election. If you don't do as I say we'll all be in the poo on the 22 August. So Kevvie get movin forward for Christ sake.


----------



## moXJO (8 August 2010)

Now Latham is in the mix
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillard-attacks-mark-latham-over-inappropriate-ambush/story-fn59niix-1225902607150



> JULIA Gillard has attacked Mark Latham over his ambush in Brisbane yesterday, accusing him of "inappropriate" treatment of a prime minister.




Old Abbott must be thanking his lucky stars that he has to do bugger all. Rudd, Gillard and Latham are currently like the three stooges. Then there is the call of one of the union members to get their $500k back 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/union-boss-wants-500k-alp-donation-back/story-fn59niix-1225902317727



> LEFT-WING unionist Dean Mighell has taken extraordinary legal action to try to force federal Labor to return a $500,000 union donation.
> The donation was handed over yesterday after a plea for funds by Labor's campaign director, Karl Bitar.
> 
> In a day of drama, union officials said Mr Bitar addressed officials from the Communications Electrical and Plumbing Union, telling them the $500,000 was necessary to allow the ALP to finance more television advertisements, particularly in NSW and Queensland, during the final two weeks of the campaign.




Seems the factions are turning on one another in an ugly fashion


----------



## trainspotter (8 August 2010)

The Australian Greens ....... Ya gotta love 'em ! http://greens.org.au

3.people have the right to assume their self-identified sex. I am a Klingon ... does this count?

38.oppose the establishment of new coal-fired power stations, new coal mines and the expansion of existing mines, as the technology to capture and store greenhouse gas emissions remains unproven. Last time I looked Australia is one great big mine. We are not a manufacturing nation. We are a primary producer.

46.amend the Fringe Benefits Tax to remove the incentive to increase vehicle use. HUH ?? The more you use the vehicle under FBT the less tax incentives there are?? HUH?

I have scanned their website and there is not much substance in the way of well thought out policy. Mainly feel good rhetoric which is not commecially viable in the real world.


----------



## Calliope (8 August 2010)

The meeting of two Labor deadbeats. I love it.


----------



## SmellyTerror (8 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> *Mein Gott* Smelly Terror you do bait up easily don't you?
> 
> ...
> 
> Now for the other part of your derogatory post to the members of ASF that you feel that it is necessary to sharpen your tongue on. Perhaps if you showed a MODICUM of tolerance and stopped treating people like IDIOTS then you might have half a chance of engaging someone in a conversation where you get to shine and you can show everyone how clever you are with your razor quips and scintillating dialogue.




So your response is basically "I know we're wrong, but nyah nyah nyah nyah nyaaaah". Hell, you're reduced to criticising me for being _grammatical_. Have I criticised anyone's grammar, or spelling, or ideology? No. I have stuck completely to the arguments (or lack of them) presented here on this forum.

And that's a lot more than I can say for you guys.

And re: tolerance: My first post to Wayne (you read it, right?) started with: "With all due respect (which is a lot)..." etc. and was perfectly polite. There were no "quips". It was a fairly dry and factual description of a political ideology. He responded by lying, and others backed him up with, as you describe it, "baiting".

Yeah, you guys are real noble.

The whole Calliope thing was from me saying he WASN'T an idiot, and he completely failed to grasp what I'd said, and disagreed with me. How is it intolerance to say someone is NOT an idiot? How is it treating someone like an idiot to say someone is not an idiot? And hell, if I did call him an idiot now (and I HAVEN'T) I'd actually be agreeing with him. Every time I try to make him understand this, he throws back a nonsensical insult.

You guys have done nothing but try to insult me. You've made no points - by your own admission, you're just baiting me. So, what now? You want me to be *more civil*? Is that the response you usually expect from someone you're baiting?

WTF?

You seem to read disagreement, and automatically assume it's an insult. Again, if you can't handle disagreement, why are you on a public forum?

I am addressing the points (or lack of them) from three people. You are "baiting" one with no attempt to explain your position. No crap my posts are longer.



Calliope said:


> Never mind Smelly I find your nasty posts good comedy, and unlike So_Gullible you do not put me on "ignore.".




I said you were NOT an idiot, and you (rudely) disagreed with me!!!

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Why is this hard for you to understand? How is that me being nasty? WTF is wrong with you???

Who am I insulting? I called Wayne a liar only after I showed without any ambiguity that he lied. It's a statement of fact. I've pointed out over and over that you don't read what you're responding to, and this is also a statement of fact.

Case in point:



> ...you and the rest of the small gang of leftiies the stupidities of your contributions to this thread.




From the very post you are responding to:



> And to clear up some misperceptions:
> ...
> 4. *I’m voting Liberal this year* (since the net filter is now the only point of significant difference) – though my primary / preferences will go to a good half of the minors first, because the majors **** me.




So how the HELL does voting Liberal make me a lefty?

READ THE POSTS YOU ANSWER. It's common courtesy, and there's no way you can possibly have a sensible discussion without doing that.


---
So you guys enjoy baiting? Sweet. Because I enjoy butchering people's flawed arguments. As I have yours. Hell, you're not even bothering to defend yourselves anymore.

You guys are like the black knight. Your limbs are all over the floor, and you're just plowing on like nothing's happened. "Only a scratch"!



wayneL said:


> ROTFLMAO
> 
> Dude! This is politics. Such is the nature of politics, but I'm not a liar any more than you or the Fabian Socialist riff raff you have become seduced by.
> 
> ...




It's a political ideology. It has a definition. You don't get to come along and say, "pfff, that's not what it means". That IS what it means. Look it up!

Great, they might well have cunning plans to take over the world in a communist revolution. The Libs *might* have plans to eat babies. But someone who says "I'm a social democrat" is saying they subscribe to the actual official meaning of the phrase, not whatever it is a dude on the forums thinks it means. In fact, the modern term is used to specifically *distance* themselves from other forms of socialism. They are NOT saying that they're commies. If you want to chose to believe that's what they're saying, great, but *you can hardly criticise people for following a irrational ideology that they do not actually purport to follow.*

I can't say "Liberals are crazy, because they want to eat babies!" But, they don't want to eat babies! "Oh sure, they say that, but they really DO want to, so anyone who votes Liberal is a baby-eating bastard!"

I think it's true, therefore it's true. That doesn't work.

And yes, you deliberately took out part of the quote that contradicted you. You made the quote say the opposite of what it actually said (ie that it was about the present form of the ideology, and not the past form). If someone says "I am not a murderer" and I quote them as saying "I am a murderer", that's a lie.


----------



## trainspotter (8 August 2010)

RE: The Trade Unionist wanting the 500,000 dollars donation back.

After reading the article I am perplexed that 500k can be EFT by a Union to the Labor party to assist a TV campaign in NSW and QLD ?  I understand that both are intertwined but surely they would have sorted out the budget for their advertising campaigns long before this?


----------



## trainspotter (8 August 2010)

_So your response is basically "I know we're wrong, but nyah nyah nyah nyah nyaaaah". Hell, you're reduced to criticising me for being grammatical. Have I criticised anyone's grammar, or spelling, or ideology? No. I have stuck completely to the arguments (or lack of them) presented here on this forum._ Smelly Terror wrote.

Nope ........ it's more like "ner ner ner ner Nerrrrrrrrrr" ! Why do you bother to respond? To prove how great a wordsmith you are? Once again you have misinterpreted my post about using bait. I never said that we were baiting you ! I said that *YOU* bait up easily. Now who is not reading the posts correctly ?

Now leave me alone as Nurse Ratched has my medication for me.


----------



## SmellyTerror (8 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Nope ........ it's more like "ner ner ner ner Nerrrrrrrrrr" ! Why do you bother to respond? To prove how great a wordsmith you are? Once again you have misinterpreted my post about using bait. *I never said that we were baiting you !* I said that *YOU* bait up easily. Now who is not reading the posts correctly ?
> 
> Now leave me alone as Nurse Ratched has my medication for me.



(my added bold)



Uh.

....uh.



Saying "ner ner ner ner Nerrrrrr" *is* baiting.



...but.... but let me see if I understand you: you're not baiting. And I bait up easily, but that doesn't mean anyone is baiting. Because "bait up" means.... um, something different. Obviously. There's certainly no *bait*, in any case.

And you're not trying to make any point, and completely nonsensical posts are fine, because it's an asylum. And that means, what? That no-one can be wrong? That saying people are wrong is... failing to show decorum? If someone says something dopey, or actually lies, we should pretend they didn't? That saying someone is NOT an idiot is, in fact, saying that they ARE an idiot, because, again, this is an asylum?

And we're really just here to show off our wit, not to actually have any meaningful discussion. Oh, and we should use small words because long words might mean you're saying you're smart, and smart people totally ruin the mood.

Is that it? 

Anyone else care to translate for me?


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2010)

Smelly, 

So what you are saying is:

1/ The socialists have realized their ideology is a failure.

2/ Recognized that free enterprise is the only viable way to have a successful economy.

3/ Decided to leech from the producers to create a welfare dependent client constituency, AKA welfare state.

Yes?

It's still socialism, abeit a pragmatic version that recognizes and farms the power of the profit motive.


----------



## Calliope (8 August 2010)

Smelly, I offered you the easy way out by suggesting that your nonsense posts could be blamed on "medication".

How else can you explain this nonsense Smellyism?;



> Me: I don’t think you’re an idiot.
> You: Yes I am!
> Me: Uh, you just said you’re an idiot.
> You: No I didn’t. Quite the reverse. Also, you’re on drugs!


----------



## SmellyTerror (8 August 2010)

*Arguing on the internet*

Yes, I do think there's a point. I do think people can change their minds.

I change my mind.

I argue hard because I want to LOSE. I can test my beliefs and my thinking against people who think otherwise, and I can hope to be convinced by them and _switch sides_, because then my outlook has been improved. 

Evolution of competing philosophies by natural selection  can only happen if I cram different ones into the same head and see which eats the other.

Think about all those dudes who were *certain* the world was flat, or that draining your patient's blood was really good for them, or that eplipetics were possessed by demons. Or the people who think communism is flawless, or that nuclear power is an unalloyed evil.

Think of all those things that are clearly wrong on a blazing, fundamental level, while the people who believe(d) them somehow walk(ed) around without noticing.

Now think about all the things you believe. What are the chances that you have managed to be perfectly right about all of them? That you have not one belief that future generations will scoff at? That you don't hold on to something as obviously wrong as (pick anything you think is obviously wrong)? All of those other people, convinced of something that is critically, laugably wrong - what are the chances that you don't suffer from the same disease? What are the chances that you are the one, perfect human?

The chances are pretty much nothing.

*SOMETHING YOU BELIEVE IS UTTERLY, FUNDAMENTALLY, WRONG.*

...probably lots of things. Maybe most things.

That's why I like to read and discuss stuff on this forum - a lot of smart people believe things that are frequently contrary to what I believe. I want them to convince me, or at least for my own belief system to have had a good test. I don't want to find a group of people who agree with me and engage in a textual circle-jerk. What's the point?

And that's why I get frustrated when people don't want to address the points, and just want to throw insults or one-liners. How the hell am I going to see if you actually have a firmer grip on reality than I do, if you won't actually explain yourself? If I point out what I think is a flaw in your reasoning, this is as much an opportunity for you to show me why it's not a flaw, as it is an opportunity for you to reconsider your own opinion.

It is NOT an insult.

I am guilty of sloppy reasoning, and unsupportable positions. Everyone is. It is not an insult to point that out to me. You are doing me a FAVOUR.

I mean, why else are people here? Are some people really just trying to show other people how smart they are, or looking for their beliefs to be vindicated by faceless strangers? Are people just looking for an echo-chamber?

What's the point?


----------



## SmellyTerror (8 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Smelly, I offered you the easy way out by suggesting that your nonsense posts could be blamed on "medication".
> 
> How else can you explain this nonsense Smellyism?;




Ugh.

Dude. FFS. Just... just read the bloody posts. Look, here are direct quotes, in chronological order.

you: 







> I didn't read the rest of your long winded diatribe. The above was enough to see where you are coming from.




me: 







> I could have read your first line and assumed you’re an idiot, but I’ll give the benefit of the doubt in this case.




you: 







> Trainspotter, according to Smelly I am an idiot...




me: 







> Actually, I explicitly refrained from calling you an idiot. See? It's right there in the bit of my post that included the word "idiot".
> 
> You seem to be having a good go at proving me wrong, though.




you: 







> You make it easy, when your political views are based on hate.




Do you see? Does it make sense now? I pointed out that reading one line of a post, out of context, is silly. If I'd read just the first line of your post, I could have concluded you were an idiot. But I won't conclude that, and will give you the benefit of the doubt.

You decide I actually called you an idiot. I pointed out that I'd actually *avoided* saying it, and I was assuming you were *not* an idiot, but that you were apparently trying to prove me wrong. You answered that I was making it easy (to prove me wrong). Ie. that I was wrong about you not being an idiot. Ie. that you are an idiot.

Do you get it now? I honestly can't see any more ways I can explain this. Every time I try to point this out, you just throw brief insults and nonsensical non-arguments, like a chimp flinging pooh.

You think I insulted you. When I try to point out that I didn't, your only answer is to keep insulting me.

W
T
F
?

(PS: the chimp thing might be considered an insult, but 1. I hope it's clear I'm describing your actions, not you; and 2. apparently the people want "quips", and I thought it was a funny image. Hope there's no offense).


----------



## SmellyTerror (8 August 2010)

wayneL said:


> Smelly,
> 
> So what you are saying is:
> 
> ...




Pretty much, yeah (though I'd object to the subjective language  ).

But the quote from you I was responding to was this:



> ...has never worked successfully as a system, ever, without the the influence of the capitalistic spirit to prop it up.




Point being that it's not supposed to.

Your error (still making it? "The socialists have realised...") was lumping all socialists together. Like I said in the first post. There are plenty of socialists who believe in a command economy, and there are plenty who disagree with that and believe in moderated capitalism. These groups have different names.

Social democrats do NOT want communism. That's why they're called social democrats, and why they're very VERY different (to the point of spitting hate) from democratic socialists. As I said: very "Peope's Front of Judea".

Plenty of hard-core socialists *haven't* recognised the failure of their ideology. That's why the dudes that have discovered that socialism can only work in small doses and only inside a democratic and largely capitalist framework need a name to differentiate themsevles from the nuts. And if it's a crap and misleading name, well blame the politics professors that decide to go on using it... /shrug

My point was to correct what you appeared to believe: that is, that social democrats reject capitalism. They don't. The world is not black-and-white, all-or-nothing.

Re: point 3, again, I'd use universal health care as an example of a successful "socialist" policy. It's not all bad. It's a philosophy that - we agree - needs to be scrutinised carefully to prevent ridiculous excess, and will always carry a element of inefficiency and corruption, but it also gives us some pretty decent net-outcomes. Just like a lot of philosophies. 

So it's unfair to dismiss anyone who identifies as an SD as lacking objectivity.

The "welfare state" can be an unmitigated disater if it goes too far. But with no welfare at all, you've got something just as bad, IMO.

Or do you oppose universal health care?


----------



## basilio (8 August 2010)

Well this debate is becoming heated.  Why doesn't that surprise me?

On the actual issue of the thread , 2010 Election,  I feel pretty disappointed with both Labour and Liberal approaches. I feel as if all we see are either mindless, nasty negativity or juicy little bribes scattered around localities and interest groups.

I've yet to see a coherent policy position put forward explaining what should be done in a particular area, why we should do it and how it's going to be achieved. And this is supposed to be about how we run the country.

The only party that actually puts up some clear policies along the above lines is The Greens (_Boo, hiss,  Bxxxxx communist/fascist ratbags... Let's get the abuse over with quickly shall we.._ )

  _____________________________________________

Once upon a time I actually tried to engage other members in discussions that could explore big picture issues. But then I discovered that there was a large lack of respect for evidence, little respect for another point of view and a reflex determination from some participants to mindlessly abuse other members. Just not much fun is it ? And a lot like being One flew over the Cuckoos Nest. And maybe one of the reasons for a slowing down in participation on this site.

Cheers.


----------



## SmellyTerror (8 August 2010)

I think I need to use more smilies. 

Problem with the Greens is uncosted half-policy. Even for people who agree with the general thrust, there's nothing to go on. You want to do a million amazing things? Cool! How? Oh, you have no idea? Just trust you? Uh...

There is genuinely nothing worth voting for this year, IMO.

The only tidbit I've got, the only difference in the major parties, is the recent Libs announcement that they'll ditch the net filter. That's it. I otherwise disagree with / have contempt for as much in Lab and Lib policies, and that's a LOT of disagreement and contempt, but since my electorate will come down to one or the other, it looks like the Libs win my bit of paper.

Democracy reduced to choosing between dumb and dumber. To think people died for this...


----------



## basilio (8 August 2010)

( Totally) Out of left field - but maybe has something to say.

*This fragile Filament*


> This little string we have – this little line between you and me – it’s fragile.
> 
> The internet is an amazing thing: for all the data available, and the fun and the wealth of knowledge that even ten years ago was out of most people’s reach. But for me, the most valuable thing about the internet is the very deep friendships I have made here. I have relationships that stretch back for years. People who I may never meet, but I love nonetheless.
> 
> ...




http://remittancegirl.com/discussions/this-fragile-filament/#comments


----------



## SmellyTerror (8 August 2010)

New discussion, worth a thread? I'll go make one...

...even though I'm not going to have time to post in it for at good week...


----------



## Calliope (8 August 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> You think I insulted you. When I try to point out that I didn't, your only answer is to keep insulting me.




Never mind, you will get over it in time. You worry too much about whether I am a liar and why I won't play along with you on such trivia. It may be OCD.


----------



## Julia (8 August 2010)

basilio said:


> Well this debate is becoming heated.  Why doesn't that surprise me?
> 
> On the actual issue of the thread , 2010 Election,  I feel pretty disappointed with both Labour and Liberal approaches. I feel as if all we see are either mindless, nasty negativity or juicy little bribes scattered around localities and interest groups.
> 
> ...






basilio said:


> ( Totally) Out of left field - but maybe has something to say.
> 
> *This fragile Filament*
> 
> ...



Completely agree with both your above posts, Basilio (with the minor exception that I cannot share your enthusiasm for The Greens).
The quoted passage "This Fragile Filament" is great.  Thank you.


----------



## drsmith (8 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> The meeting of two Labor deadbeats. I love it.



Julia handled the encounter with Mark Latham well, but it is another stark reminder of how much the furniture has been trashed in the house of Labor.


----------



## Calliope (8 August 2010)

This useless clown is my local member.



> FEDERAL Sunshine Coast MP Peter Slipper clocked up almost $30,000 in taxi fares over 14 months, among a raft of claims that made him the state's most expensive politician after former prime minister Kevin Rudd.
> 
> New figures reveal that Mr Slipper's expenses bill for the six months to the end of 2009 was $640,562 – above Treasurer Wayne Swan's $491,236 and second only to Mr Rudd's $1.18 million.
> 
> ...




http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...0-in-mp-expenses/story-e6freoof-1225902504533

I hope this bloke does his dough;



> Centrebet spokesman Neil Evans said they had received a $250,000 bet at 9.08pm yesterday on Mr Slipper to win Fisher at $1.08 - potentially giving the regular Brisbane client a profit of $20,000.




http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...l-seat-of-fisher/story-e6freon6-1225902598275


----------



## IFocus (8 August 2010)

Basilio said:


> Well this debate is becoming heated.  Why doesn't that surprise me?
> 
> On the actual issue of the thread , 2010 Election,  I feel pretty disappointed with both Labour and Liberal approaches. I feel as if all we see are either mindless, nasty negativity or juicy little bribes scattered around localities and interest groups.
> 
> ...





Nice post Basilio one of the better efforts on the thread thanks for putting it up.


----------



## IFocus (8 August 2010)

basilio said:


> ( Totally) Out of left field - but maybe has something to say.
> 
> *This fragile Filament*
> 
> ...




The bating going on in this thread is quite horrible thanks again.


----------



## IFocus (8 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> The bating going on in this thread is quite horrible thanks again.




The Baiting is also horrible


----------



## IFocus (8 August 2010)

"Coalition cracks show as populism reigns"



> Tony Abbott has a very strong chance of becoming prime minister, having run the most invisible campaign in living memory. Abbott is not even really playing small-target politics at the moment. He's playing no-target politics. It's not "me too". The government isn't popular enough for that. It's just "look at them".





http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/coalition-cracks-show-as-populism-reigns-20100807-11pib.html


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Re: point 3, again, I'd use universal health care as an example of a successful "socialist" policy. It's not all bad. It's a philosophy that - we agree - needs to be scrutinised carefully to prevent ridiculous excess, and will always carry a element of inefficiency and corruption, but it also gives us some pretty decent net-outcomes. Just like a lot of philosophies.
> 
> So it's unfair to dismiss anyone who identifies as an SD as lacking objectivity.
> 
> ...




Do I sense some objectivity creeping in? 

Hence you cannot be a Social Democrat. Indeed I suspect that you are actually a Social Liberal... folk who retain a vestige of objectivity while possessing a so called "social conscience"

Regarding UHC, I must admit to a cognitive dissonance. The compassionate me insists that in a civilized society, no person should go without at least some sort of state safety net with regards to health care. The objective me observes how badly the state can f~~~ up UHC, making it substandard and expensive to run. But the issue runs much deeper as far as I'm concerned.

I think health care should be universally attainable, but with as little government involvement as possible. How this could be achieved is beyond me, but IIRC Oz had a pretty workable system along these lines before the Great Socialist Balls Up of the early 70's.


----------



## trainspotter (8 August 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> (my added bold)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




_"Yes, I do think there's a point. I do think people can change their minds.

I change my mind.

I argue hard because I want *to LOSE.* I can test my beliefs and my thinking against people who think otherwise, and I can hope to be convinced by them and switch sides, because then my outlook has been improved. "_

I was going to write some massive missive to this response ....... but I gave up. You go and *LOSE* it Tiger ! 

If you want to test your beliefs and ideals please PM me and I wll be only be too happy to discourse your diatribe.

I look forward to hearing from you and wil be only too happy to offer you a one way ticket to "Carnivale"


----------



## Julia (8 August 2010)

Back on the election, television shots this evening of Kevin Rudd campaigning in Queensland show a pale, somehow diminished figure.   I found it hard not to feel sorry for him.   Even if he has negotiated some sort of deal to be Foreign Minister or whatever, he has still been publicly humiliated in the most dramatic way.


----------



## trainspotter (8 August 2010)

_"Once upon a time I actually tried to engage other members in discussions that could explore big picture issues. But then I discovered that there was a large lack of respect for evidence, little respect for another point of view and a reflex determination from some participants to mindlessly abuse other members. Just not much fun is it ? And a lot like being *One flew over the Cuckoos Nest.* And maybe one of the reasons for' ....._ 

more than happy to discourse a meaningful topic once you lose all respect for the other  participants ...... What you need to keep in mind is YOUR perspective and what YOU hope to get out of the conversation, just becuae you did not receive the responses YOU wanted does not mean it was a waste of time? Please try again ......... as useless as it sounds ....


----------



## drsmith (8 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Back on the election, television shots this evening of Kevin Rudd campaigning in Queensland show a pale, somehow diminished figure.   I found it hard not to feel sorry for him.   Even if he has negotiated some sort of deal to be Foreign Minister or whatever, he has still been publicly humiliated in the most dramatic way.



According to Ol Kev, the Coalition will be ripping up broadband from the ground (complete with hand gesture).


----------



## trainspotter (8 August 2010)

I completely enjoyed Laurie Oakes this Morning:

Laurie " So six weeks ago you could not wait to get rid of Kevin Rudd as he was seen as a liabilty to the Labor Party?"

Patsy " Yes that is rigHt Laurie"

Laurie "So what has changed that you now need him back to bolster your campaign to be re-elected?"

Patsy : DEAFENING SILENCE !


----------



## basilio (8 August 2010)

> *more than happy to discourse a meaningful topic once you lose all respect for the other participants* ...???... What you need to keep in mind is YOUR perspective and what YOU hope to get out of the conversation, just becuae you did not receive the responses YOU wanted does not mean it was a waste of time? Please try again ......... as useless as it sounds ....




Not quite sure what you are saying trainspotter. Would you like to recheck your comment and perhaps clarify ?


----------



## basilio (8 August 2010)

And thanks for the kind comments on my observations on what has been going on this thread.


----------



## Calliope (9 August 2010)

basilio, anything sensible you may have said is negated by this stupidity;




> *The only party that actually puts up some clear policies along the above lines is The Greens (Boo, hiss, Bxxxxx communist/fascist ratbags... Let's get the abuse over with quickly shall we.. )
> *




If you wish to set out your reasons for your support of the Greens I have started a thread for that purpose. I await you response with interest. Green's supporters among ASF members are naturally thin on the ground.


----------



## basilio (9 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> basilio, anything sensible you may have said is negated by this stupidity;
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hmm The main point I was trying to get across in my original comment was  that Labour and Liberal were campaigning on basically bribes, smear and negativity.  I referenced The Greens because they at least were presenting a set of policies about *where* they thought Australia should be going , *why *we should be going there and *how* this might be achieved.

You might not agree with it but at least it could be discussed semi rationally.

As to your offer to actually discuss The Greens policies... I noticed that the thread heading was *The Greens - the New Radical Socialists. *I just assumed from the title it was another opportunity to smear anything left of Genghis Khan.


----------



## Calliope (9 August 2010)

basilio said:


> I just assumed from the title it was another opportunity to smear anything left of Genghis Khan.




You assumed wrong, it's a forum for you to defend your socialist ideologies. Go for it.


----------



## Julia (9 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> I completely enjoyed Laurie Oakes this Morning:
> 
> Laurie " So six weeks ago you could not wait to get rid of Kevin Rudd as he was seen as a liabilty to the Labor Party?"
> 
> ...



Who is Patsy?
Laurie Oakes' observation, of course, is what is making the Labor Party look so foolish.


----------



## trainspotter (9 August 2010)

basilio said:


> Not quite sure what you are saying trainspotter. Would you like to recheck your comment and perhaps clarify ?




Sorry basilio ...... very bad Cybil moment there. What I was trying to get across (inadequately) was that people have differences of opinions in a topical conversation all the time. Just because you do not get the answers you want or are heckled with obtuse and vitriolic comments does not mean you should give up. Hope this clarifies what I was not trying to say.


----------



## trainspotter (9 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Who is Patsy?
> Laurie Oakes' observation, of course, is what is making the Labor Party look so foolish.




Patsy = Julia Gillard / Definition:- Slang a person easily imposed upon or victimised.


----------



## basilio (9 August 2010)

> Sorry basilio ...... very bad Cybil moment there. What I was trying to get across (inadequately) was that people have differences of opinions in a topical conversation all the time. Just because you do not get the answers you want or* are heckled with obtuse and vitriolic comments* does not mean you should give up. Hope this clarifies what I was not trying to say.




Thanks for the clarification. I don't mind discussing ideas and I hopeI can see other arguments. 

I'm not that impressed however with reflex abuse and I wish there was less of it in some parts of this forum. At some stage I also try and see if other people are willing or have the capacity to recognize some fundamental facts that should be the starting points for a particular discussion. If I don't think that is there I guess there is not going to be a fruitful conversation.

For example. There have been some long and very heated threads on climate change in this forum. On almost all the credible scientific evidence to date our civilizations production of greenhouse gases is creating a monstrous problem. And even if the evidence wasn't 100% certain prudent thinking would say "Let's take appropriate action because the downside of being wrong and not doing so will be horrendous".  

But in this forum and around the world the relentless personal abuse and a refusal to accept well understood scientific knowledge and then physical data (temperature readings, climate observations ) has  crippled this debate.

I wish I had an answer for this.


----------



## Calliope (9 August 2010)

Laurie Oakes says Mark Latham is full of bile. Perhaps he should get his gall bladder removed. This simple operation will turn the nastiest critic into a well behaved puppy dog.


----------



## basilio (9 August 2010)

Well there is obviously synchronicity at work in the universe. Just as  I finished my last post I received an email which offered another perspective on people and "crackpots" (however they may be defined)


> An elderly Chinese woman had two large pots each hung on the ends of a pole which she carried across her neck.
> One of the pots had a crack in it while the other pot was perfect and always delivered a full portion of water.
> At the end of the long walks from the stream to the house the cracked pot arrived only half full.
> For a full two years this went on daily with the woman bringing home only one and a half pots of water.
> ...





Cheers


----------



## trainspotter (9 August 2010)

There is no answer basilio to people who do not want to believe in climate change nor do they want to change their opinion no matter what the studies performed by the scientists say.

"A productive, healthy debate is informative and insightful, and collectively moves the debaters and the audience closer to a potential solution or agreement."

Unleash the psychologists http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2952229.htm

As for the knee jerk reactionaries who immediatley play the man and not the ball - I think this picture sums it up nicely.


----------



## wayneL (9 August 2010)

basilio said:


> Thanks for the clarification. I don't mind discussing ideas and I hopeI can see other arguments.
> 
> I'm not that impressed however with reflex abuse and I wish there was less of it in some parts of this forum. At some stage I also try and see if other people are willing or have the capacity to recognize some fundamental facts that should be the starting points for a particular discussion. If I don't think that is there I guess there is not going to be a fruitful conversation.
> 
> ...




How utterly pompous.

Apparently:

1/ "Evidence" for one point of view is more valuable than the opposing point of view.

2/ "Reflex Abuse" is abhorrent from those of one point of view, but not from those of the other point of view.

Unbelievable


----------



## trainspotter (9 August 2010)

Back to the politics - Wayne Swan vs Joe Hockey at the National Press Club in Canberra today should be a rip snorter ! 

Joe: We created the surplus for you to spend it so we are better at economics !
Wayne: We created a deficit for you to pay off so we are better at economics !

Abbotts Liberal Launch yesterday was a fizzer IMO with a lot of details white washed BUT policies will be forthcoming prior to election day. Spent a lot of time on the negative Labour bagging. The party faithful were beside themselves. Sheeeeeeeeesh !

Julia Gillard in Perth today out on the hustings - West Australia has a number of marginal seats, including Swan, Canning, Stirling and Hasluck, which Labor will need to win or retain to stay in government.


----------



## Logique (9 August 2010)

Anybody else finding the unfairfax sites slow atm? Must be a lot of election traffic. Paul Sheehan needs to watch out, he'll end up going the way of Miranda Devine - out, and off to Murdoch press. Corker article today:


> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...asion-halftruths-and-spin-20100808-11q54.html
> *An unhealthy blend of evasion, half-truths and spin *
> August 9, 2010    by Paul Sheehan
> 
> ...


----------



## basilio (9 August 2010)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by basilio View Post
> Thanks for the clarification. I don't mind discussing ideas and I hopeI can see other arguments.
> 
> ...





> How utterly pompous.
> 
> Apparently:
> 
> 1/ "Evidence" for one point of view is more valuable than the opposing point of view.




Wayne, that is because the evidence confirming human induced climate change is overwhelming while evidence against the proposition isn't. Either 99% of the climate scientists, their research and observations are devastatingly mistaken or we are all cooked.  I repeat again



> * And even if the evidence wasn't 100% certain prudent thinking would say "Let's take appropriate action because the downside of being wrong and not doing so will be horrendous".*


----------



## Julia (9 August 2010)

Basilio, don't we already have various threads on climate change?
Do you really have to hijack the election thread to promote your personal climate beliefs?


----------



## Calliope (9 August 2010)

> SO to all of my crackpot friends have a great day and remember to smell the flowers on your side of the path!




Basilio, I think you have been sniffing something else.


----------



## derty (9 August 2010)

Apologies for the off-topic digression ladies and gents, but this is pure gold.

Calliope you could not have chosen a better user-name for yourself. 



			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> A calliope is a musical instrument that produces sound by sending a gas, originally steam or more recently compressed air, through large whistles, originally locomotive whistles.
> 
> A calliope is typically very loud. Even some small calliopes are audible for miles around. There is no provision for varying the tone or loudness. The only expression possible is the timing and duration of the notes.


----------



## Calliope (9 August 2010)

derty said:


> Apologies for the off-topic digression ladies and gents, but this is pure gold.
> Calliope you could not have chosen a better user-name for yourself.




Nor You.
Yes, they used to use them on carousels. It is also the small town in Qld where I was born. The town was named after the naval ship _Calliope_ which brought the Governor of NSW to Port Curtis in 1854. It was also one of the Spanish ships in the Armada. Calliope is also one or the muses. 

And people who throw mud can end up *derty *


----------



## trainspotter (9 August 2010)

JOE Hockey presented a positive agenda for economic policy under an Abbott government and won today's National Press Club debate with Wayne Swan. 

The Treasurer's appeal to the electorate was rooted in a defence of the government's management of the global financial crisis.

Swan managed to puncture a number of the coalition's claims. Mr Hockey admitted that the budget would have gone into deficit under a Liberal government and also conceded that interest rates paid by home buyers now are lower than it was at the end of the Howard government.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ebate-on-economy/story-fn59niix-1225903056487

If the Labor Govt had a disastrous week of politics why has the latest polls got them in front again? Has the Libs lost their nerve and is their message just not getting through anymore?


----------



## explod (9 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> If the Labor Govt had a disastrous week of politics why has the latest polls got them in front again? Has the Libs lost their nerve and is their message just not getting through anymore?




What message?, 

they have not made any statement with substance that the rank and file battler can see as easing thier fears for the future

ALP do not either but there is some belief that they saved us in the GFC, so in worrying times people will gravitate with the status que.

It is 80 year since a first term government were tossed out so its a bit tough for the Lubs.


----------



## DocK (9 August 2010)

explod said:


> What message?,
> 
> they have not made any statement with substance that the rank and file battler can see as easing thier fears for the future
> 
> ...




Also a very long time since a first term PM was ousted before he could run for re-election, so I wouldn't be relying too strongly on precedence or history if I were a Labour supporter.


----------



## trainspotter (9 August 2010)

Ummmmmm ...... No RSPT for a start? How about the No carbon tax to be introduced. Reduce waste and promote savings perhaps? I have a vague recollection of such utterances passing the lips of the leader of the opposition.

True that Labor can crow about their success in leading us through a GFC. Might have had something to do with the state of the economy they inhereted to be able to spend so much. Pity about the mismanagement and the implementation of their schemes though.

History is against the Libs from snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. 

Would make for interesting history though. First female PM to lose first term Govt !


----------



## IFocus (9 August 2010)

I honestly cannot believe they could mess this up

"Hockey's $7b contradiction of Abbott "



> Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey has contradicted his leader to the tune of $7 billion during today's federal election economic debate with Treasurer Wayne Swan.




Apparently Robb came out after and said the difference is the mining tax except that doesn't seem to add up either.

This bit I don't understand as I though $4bill 



> Mr Hockey also provided an "absolute guarantee" that a coalition government would roll out its $8.8 billion paid parental leave scheme exactly as promised.





http://www.smh.com.au/federal-elect...b-contradiction-of-abbott-20100809-11syu.html


----------



## drsmith (9 August 2010)

The Coalition will win if they don't trip over their own feet.

The image of Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd together over the weekend speaks a thousand words.


----------



## Julia (9 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> If the Labor Govt had a disastrous week of politics why has the latest polls got them in front again? Has the Libs lost their nerve and is their message just not getting through anymore?



My guess would be that the Kevin fans are deluded enough to have swallowed the line that all he cares about is the good of the Labor Party, and believe that now he and Julia are holding hands in true joyful union, they can once again believe that all is well with the world.



trainspotter said:


> True that Labor can crow about their success in leading us through a GFC. Might have had something to do with the state of the economy they inhereted to be able to spend so much. Pity about the mismanagement and the implementation of their schemes though.



There was a party political broadcast from Ms Gillard on ABC Radio this evening.  She compared Australia's position with that of e.g. the US and Europe.  She didn't, of course, see any need to mention that Australia had a very healthy surplus, well regulated banks, and overall an economic situation completely different from those countries with whom she was making the comparison.  





drsmith said:


> The image of Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd together over the weekend speaks a thousand words.



Yep, it reminded me of that infamous scene of Rudd with poor Kristina Keneally.   Julia and Kev couldn't even hold it together long enough to give a joint press conference after their meeting.  I can't see them actually campaigning together.


----------



## trainspotter (9 August 2010)

Is it just me or is this Govt trying to increase inflation? 10% pay increases for teachers if they evidence that there is an improvement in grading of students? 100k for high schools and 75k to primary schools if they increase attendance? GOSH the rorting that could go on there ! The mind boggles of the stupidity of this statement.

Can't wait for Q&A tonight ...... wonder if this question will come up?

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/gillard-warms-up-for-qa-at-school-20100809-11tps.html


----------



## trainspotter (10 August 2010)

Just what we need ! Another layer of bureacracy ??????

The most improved schools will be assessed by a *new Office of National School Evaluation to be established* as an independent unit within the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority.

The office will operate like *old-style school inspectors* and develop a national school improvement framework for assessing schools, which will include school attendance, literacy and numeracy rates for primary schools, Year 12 results and retention rates for high schools, as well as a self-evaluation report from schools.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...for-top-teachers/story-fn59niix-1225903189735

Nope ...... no rorting allowable here *wink wink nudge nudge say no more*


----------



## basilio (10 August 2010)

Had to say I was surprised and impressed with Julia Gillard on QANDA tonight. 

Seemed absolutely on top of all the questions. Managed to answer them properly (or was reminded to do so and responded) Didn't over talk or become boring.  Didn't seem to use the negativity card that much.  Overall warm, witty and wise. When they panned across the audience everyone seemed quite focused on her responses.

It will be interesting to see how Tony Abbott fares next week.


----------



## moXJO (10 August 2010)

Q&A is all scripted and carefully answered before hand. I say bring back the school kids to ask on the spot questions.


----------



## noco (10 August 2010)

basilio said:


> Had to say I was surprised and impressed with Julia Gillard on QANDA tonight.
> 
> Seemed absolutely on top of all the questions. Managed to answer them properly (or was reminded to do so and responded) Didn't over talk or become boring.  Didn't seem to use the negativity card that much.  Overall warm, witty and wise. When they panned across the audience everyone seemed quite focused on her responses.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how Tony Abbott fares next week.




Apart from her warm. witty and wise dialogue, spin and waffle, did you learn anything what she she stands for?

I certainly didn't.


----------



## bellenuit (10 August 2010)

I've just watched the first 45 minutes or so of the ACS debate on communications policy between Stephen Conroy, Tony Smith and a Greens guy.

I'm surprised the moderator is allowing Conroy to also act as moderator, asking his own questions of Smith and interjecting every time Smith is answering.

That being said, I think Smith is terrible. He gives me the impression that he is way out of his depth.


----------



## wayneL (10 August 2010)

basilio said:


> Had to say I was surprised and impressed with Julia Gillard on QANDA tonight.




Why am I surprised that you're surprised?

Why am I not surprised that you're impressed?


----------



## drsmith (10 August 2010)

bellenuit said:


> I've just watched the first 45 minutes or so of the ACS debate on communications policy between Stephen Conroy, Tony Smith and a Greens guy.
> 
> I'm surprised the moderator is allowing Conroy to also act as moderator, asking his own questions of Smith and interjecting every time Smith is answering.
> 
> That being said, I think Smith is terrible. He gives me the impression that he is way out of his depth.



I saw the last part of it and Smith didn't seem to have the confidence of the other two. Conroy was rude with his interruptions of Smith, trying to reduce it to a childish one on one debate.


----------



## basilio (10 August 2010)

> Quote:
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted by basilio View Post
> ...




Droll Wayne...Your certainly on top form today..

I was impressed with Julia Gilllard when she was deputy PM. I thought she turned wooden after she became PM and last nights performance reinforced  just how good she is a getting across all issues and communicating effectively with the public.

Seems as if a few other people  might be agreeing.



> *
> Huge betting plunge for Labor*
> DARREN GOODSIR
> August 10, 2010 - 2:06PM
> ...




Please don't cry Wayne. It doesn't become you.


----------



## moXJO (10 August 2010)

> she appeared confident and forthright under tricky questioning


----------



## Calliope (10 August 2010)

I hope we have no more boring debates.


----------



## drsmith (10 August 2010)

Who is making the wagers ?



Calliope said:


> I hope we have no more boring debates.



Hopefully there will be enough infomation around in the last week to make an assessment on both sides.


----------



## wayneL (10 August 2010)

basilio said:


> Please don't cry Wayne. It doesn't become you.




I live in NZ. It is pure altruism that I wish for the destruction of the Fabianist Social Democrats in Australia. But it actually won't make an iota of difference to me.

It's La Dolce Vita over here in Hawkes Bays... good weather, good food, good woobla, business is going well etc.

Why would I cry?


----------



## trainspotter (10 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> Who is making the wagers ?
> 
> Hopefully there will be enough infomation around in the last week to make an assessment on both sides.




I am betting that the CFMEU and the MUA would have placed a large wad of cash for the win.


----------



## Julia (10 August 2010)

basilio said:


> Had to say I was surprised and impressed with Julia Gillard on QANDA tonight.
> 
> Seemed absolutely on top of all the questions. Managed to answer them properly (or was reminded to do so and responded) Didn't over talk or become boring.  Didn't seem to use the negativity card that much.  Overall warm, witty and wise. When they panned across the audience everyone seemed quite focused on her responses.



I've only watched the first half but found it entirely predictable and pretty boring.  She declared all the questions asked were "great questions" and for the most part then proceeded not to answer them.

Tony Jones was much better than usual in bringing her back to the question.  She did look pretty uncomfortable when asked if she had apologised to Kevin Rudd.

She did give a great reply to how she would rate Mark Latham.

But overall, to me it's like someone pressing "Play" on a tape recorder as the same cliches are trotted out time after time.  I just can't get any sense of who she is underneath the cardboard cutout, carefully scripted persona.




moXJO said:


> Q&A is all scripted and carefully answered before hand. I say bring back the school kids to ask on the spot questions.



Yep, I agree.  It was quite obvious that QANDA was well and truly scripted.


----------



## moXJO (10 August 2010)

I think labor will take it out. 

Liberals have already said they will vote against the internet filter either way, but are against the NBN. So most tech heads will simply vote labor and get both their wishes. While against the idea of spending that much money, I am for NBN now after talks with those in the industry.
Labor is also spending (wasting) more on infrastructure which is needed.
Liberals policies are not really being heard by the public.
Labor voters rust on pretty quick as well, despite cockups to the wazoo. It would take a whole lot more pain for voters to wake up and change yet. And if they were not swayed by the past years disasters and the axing of Rudd, then labor is a safe bet.


----------



## drsmith (10 August 2010)

moXJO said:


> I think labor will take it out.



I'm backing disunity within the ALP to be the defining issue.

If not then Bob Hawke after all this time will be wrong.


----------



## Calliope (10 August 2010)

Brave, sick Kevin for godsakes, he had a minor keyhole operation.

Q&A last night.



> Ms Gillard refused to say that she had apologised "face to face" to Mr Rudd but described him as brave for leaving his sick bed to campaign for Labor.  She said the Rudd government had been in a "downward spiral" until six weeks ago, forcing her to step in.




Read more: http://www.news.com.au/features/fed...qa/story-e6frfllr-1225903234507#ixzz0wBa07CjC


----------



## drsmith (10 August 2010)

With all the shenanigans going on with costings claims, Kerry O'Brian's interview with Tony Abbott tonight should be interesting.


----------



## IFocus (10 August 2010)

Julia said:


> There was a party political broadcast from Ms Gillard on ABC Radio this evening.  She compared Australia's position with that of e.g. the US and Europe.  She didn't, of course, see any need to mention that Australia had a very healthy surplus, well regulated banks, and overall an economic situation completely different from those countries with whom she was making the comparison.




Our banks didn't take up a lot exposure to the various leveraged toxic paper being sold around the globe and this was due to the fact that they were absolutely creaming it here with fees. Hence our banks didn't take a hit like many others in the US / Europe.
Regulation I believe had very little to do with this aspect more straight out dumb luck.

Another point largely overlooked was Ken Henry convinced Rudd, Swan and Tanner to go early in front of the curve unlike US / Europe that went behind the curve.  This was because of Henry's experience from pass down turns and dealing with the serve drop in confidence.

The threat I believe from the current Liberal front bench is that they some how know better and would dismiss Treasury's advice.


----------



## Calliope (10 August 2010)

In Kerry O'Brien's interview wth Tony Abbott tonight O'Brien was at his nastiest. Abbott acquitted himself well.


----------



## basilio (10 August 2010)

Interesting 7.30 program with Kerry O'Brien and Tony Abbott.

I thought Kerry dissected Tony's policies very carefully.  Managed to point out that during the GFC the govt lost $110m in income from tax side and that as far as stimulus packages the opposition supported all of the first $25 b and about half of the next package. There was about $20b of stimulus package that the Liberals didn't support.
*
What all that meant was that when  the Liberals are decrying the $200b  government debt Labour ran up in fact there is only about $20b they could/would have done differently.*

Worth a look in IView to make up your own mind.


----------



## nioka (10 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Abbott acquitted himself well.






Not how I saw the result. You should look at it with both eyes. He has almost lost the vote from me that he almost had as a result of his puny answers.


----------



## So_Cynical (10 August 2010)

I found another little, somewhat amusing election video.

Election 2010 Spoof Trailer - GetUp! 
~


And Tony Abbott's archaic views 
~


----------



## trainspotter (10 August 2010)

xxx


----------



## trainspotter (10 August 2010)

basilio said:


> Interesting 7.30 program with Kerry O'Brien and Tony Abbott.
> 
> I thought Kerry dissected Tony's policies very carefully.  Managed to point out that during the GFC the govt lost $110m in income from tax side and that as far as stimulus packages the opposition supported all of the first $25 b and about half of the next package. There was about $20b of stimulus package that the Liberals didn't support.
> *
> ...




Yeppers 20 billion australian dollars ... now say it real slowly ......... twenty thousand million dollars .... yeppers ............. T W E N T Y        B I L L I O N         D O L L A R S !! 

Now lets say they have got this at ummmmmmmmmm 3% from an offshore source ...... what is the interest on this basilio ???

Gosh ...... a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money !

Do you see any infrastructure? How about a hospital or two? What about a pay rise for the coppers, nurses and teachers? Any more doctors or beds in the wards?

Where did it go? Ohhhhhhhhhhh in your roof and for school halls and the green energy rebates. What happened to them? Ohhhhhhhhh theyr'e being investigated for rorting ???  Yep ....... money well spent. I am so glad the Labor Party spent my future on this !


----------



## tayser (10 August 2010)

The Liberals announced their so-called National Broadband Network today, and predictably - and correctly - they're getting mauled for it.

No vision, back to the good old days of Telstra swinging its over-sized dick around no ubiquity whatsoever, completely and utterly woeful.


----------



## Julia (10 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> In Kerry O'Brien's interview wth Tony Abbott tonight O'Brien was at his nastiest. Abbott acquitted himself well.



I actually thought quite the opposite, i.e. that Kerry O'Brien was more benign than usual and Tony Abbott looked a total fool over the Libs' broadband policy.  It's just not OK to say "oh, I'm no tech-head" and fail to be able to articulate how the plan will work.
Mr Abbott did improve later in the interview, but still was hardly convincing.




basilio said:


> What all that meant was that when  the Liberals are decrying the $200b  government debt Labour ran up in fact there is only about $20b they could/would have done differently.[/B]



The Libs have never said they would not have instituted a stimulus package.
What they would have done is spend it on essential infrastructure that would offer jobs and lasting benefits into the future, rather than waste it on cash handouts and rorted stuff like the pink batts and overpriced school halls.

Re taking the advice from Treasury, considering how often Treasury gets it wrong, I wouldn't be putting any store by their advice being best.

Someone on "Insight" tonight, when asked who they would be voting for, said "The Reserve Bank:  they seem to be the only people who know how to run the country".   An astute observation.


----------



## IFocus (10 August 2010)

A slightly more balanced view of stimulus

"Claims of stimulus waste were greatly exaggerated " 



> Media reporting and opposition politicking have left many people with the impression much, if not most, and maybe even all of the billions spent on school buildings under the Rudd government's stimulus package has been wasted.






> It will have delivered more than 10,500 construction projects to more than 7900 primary schools by late next year. About a third of the money is going on multi-purpose halls, almost 30 per cent on classrooms and a quarter on libraries, with the remainder going on covered outdoor learning areas and other things.
> 
> Spending of the money is being administered by 22 state government, Catholic and independent school authorities. Although the NSW government accounts for 22 per cent of the projects, it attracted 56 per cent of the complaints. The Victorian government, with a 12 per cent share of projects, attracted 20 per cent of the complaints.




http://www.smh.com.au/business/claims-of-stimulus-waste-were-greatly-exaggerated-20100808-11qdj.html


----------



## IFocus (10 August 2010)

Hockey uses the line government borrowing effect interest rates for banks........



> One way the Liberals do this (so far it hasn't suited Labor to run this line) is to exaggerate the effect of the budget on the level of interest rates. One rarely fully articulated argument is that budget deficits - which have to be covered by government borrowing - leave fewer funds available to be borrowed by the private sector and thus force up interest rates.
> 
> This would be true if our capital markets were cut off from the rest of the world but, since they're not, it isn't. Effectively, both our public and private sectors borrow in the global market, where their demand is too small to have any effect on world interest rates.




http://www.smh.com.au/business/dont-be-fooled-by-debt-spin-20100806-11ogq.html


----------



## trainspotter (10 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> A slightly more balanced view of stimulus
> 
> "Claims of stimulus waste were greatly exaggerated "
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/claims-of-stimulus-waste-were-greatly-exaggerated-20100808-11qdj.html




Very true Ifocus but if this were the case why has the BER and the pink batts as well as the green rebates been suspended and an independent inquiry called? 

THE NSW government yesterday made the first official admission that the federal government's $16 billion school building program is failing to deliver value for money after Education Minister Verity Firth reversed a decision to build an overpriced $1 million shade structure instead of new classrooms.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...ip-off-admission/story-e6frgczf-1225845583633

Oh well ......... hardly a rip off at all then?


----------



## Calliope (10 August 2010)

Julia said:


> I actually thought quite the opposite, i.e. that Kerry O'Brien was more benign than usual and Tony Abbott looked a total fool over the Libs' broadband policy.  It's just not OK to say "oh, I'm no tech-head" and fail to be able to articulate how the plan will work.
> Mr Abbott did improve later in the interview, but still was hardly convincing.




He was never going to be able to provide a good argument against Labor's broadband policy, except Labor's dismal efforts at managing anything, and that's why O'Brien concentrated on that. But then who does understand it? 

Everybody wants faster broadband. But not everybody needs it. I live in a regional area and get efficient service on ADSL2+. Spending 42 billion would provide me with  a speedier service that I don't need. Providing fibre optic cabling to every home is wasteful.

I think the money could be better spent elsewhere.


----------



## drsmith (10 August 2010)

Julia said:


> I actually thought quite the opposite, i.e. that Kerry O'Brien was more benign than usual and Tony Abbott looked a total fool over the Libs' broadband policy.  It's just not OK to say "oh, I'm no tech-head" and fail to be able to articulate how the plan will work.
> Mr Abbott did improve later in the interview, but still was hardly convincing.



My thoughts too. He looked like a fool over his complete lack of knowledge on broadband. He does not have to be a Bill Gates but some basic knowledge about their own policy would obviously have been useful.

Has the Coalition anywhere responded to the questions of towers and spectrum that was raised in the wake of their broadband proposal ? 

The Coalition have argued themselves into a bit of a hole over debt and deficit but it's not difficult to argue that they could have got more value for money/spent less money and achieved the same employment result given the problems the goverment has had with the administration of these measures.

Joe Hockey during the treasurer's debate commented that the coaltition suggested $15-20bn as a response to the ALP's $42bn with the intention of negotiating. This would suggest the Coalition was prepared to spend more but obviously not as much as the ALP's $40-odd bn.

On other economic matters, Hockey has a good point regarding the leaking of treasurary estimates of savings from scrapping the NBN and it will be interesting to see where the truth lies there. Their handling of the ALP's current spending however is amateurish at best, even to the point on how it's displayed on the Coalition's website. In addition to a decimal point error (small beer) and one (or more) duplications (relatively small beer), have they have included government policies that have been re-badged for the election and possibly have prior funding ?

They are foolish to think that at this stage the government would leave itself exposed to a 3.whatever billion $ black hole and should check the detail far better than they have.

I said somewhere that the Coalition will win if they don't trip over their own feet. They have had some serious stumbles today.


----------



## moXJO (10 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> A slightly more balanced view of stimulus
> 
> "Claims of stimulus waste were greatly exaggerated "



Giving everyone $900 kind of throws out any argument that it was sensible spending.


tayser said:


> The Liberals announced their so-called National Broadband Network today, and predictably - and correctly - they're getting mauled for it.
> 
> No vision, back to the good old days of Telstra swinging its over-sized dick around no ubiquity whatsoever, completely and utterly woeful.




Libs have shot themselves in the foot over saying they will oppose this and the mining tax IMO.


----------



## roland (10 August 2010)

I am trying hard to convince myself that voting Libs is the way to go, but having a problem with not feeling embarrassed with having Tony Abbot as our future PM.

The more I hear his stop/start hesitant monologue the more I dislike the guy.

Seems like yet another election where the vote will go to to the least damaging of 2 x bad choices rather than the best of 2 x able competitors.

Wish it were more than a 2 horse race.


----------



## drsmith (10 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> Have they have included government policies that have been re-badged for the election and possibly have prior funding ?



Gateway WA - Perth Airport and Freight Roads - Friday, 30 July 2010, listed as $480m but had prior federal government funding of $350m.

http://www.nationbuildingprogram.gov.au/projects/ProjectDetails.aspx?Project_id=WAN008



roland said:


> I am trying hard to convince myself that voting Libs is the way to go, but having a problem with not feeling embarrassed with having Tony Abbot as our future PM.



If they can't convince Australia at large they would be a better Federal Government than the incumbents, then they are a very sorry lot indeed.


----------



## moXJO (10 August 2010)

Difficult election this one. Maybe policies being set out, too lazy at this time to look though so a few off the top of my head.

Libs
No internet filter, but no NBN
Paid parental leave (but hikes up tax for large companies that will be passed on)
Mental health policy 
Cut BER

Labor 
Internet filter (should be shot down by greens and libs in upper house) and NBN
ETS ewww everything goes up
Teachers pay offs
Super clinics
BER


anyone else?


----------



## drsmith (10 August 2010)

Anyone but the Greens.


----------



## overhang (11 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> He was never going to be able to provide a good argument against Labor's broadband policy, except Labor's dismal efforts at managing anything, and that's why O'Brien concentrated on that. But then who does understand it?
> 
> Everybody wants faster broadband. But not everybody needs it. I live in a regional area and get efficient service on ADSL2+. Spending 42 billion would provide me with  a speedier service that I don't need. Providing fibre optic cabling to every home is wasteful.
> 
> I think the money could be better spent elsewhere.




Ok fair enough you don't want a NBN but at least the 42 billion would actually achieve its objective of providing faster internet for all Australians using new infrastructure. The coalition policy is a 6 billion dollar white elephant, why on earth would they just not oppose the NBN all together instead of providing a 6 billion dollar waste as an alternative.


----------



## Calliope (11 August 2010)

overhang said:


> Ok fair enough you don't want a NBN but at least the 42 billion would actually achieve its objective of providing faster internet for all Australians using new infrastructure. The coalition policy is a 6 billion dollar white elephant, why on earth would they just not oppose the NBN all together instead of providing a 6 billion dollar waste as an alternative.




It's quite obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. The much vaunted initial roll out in Scottsdale Tasmania has run into hurdles. The take up rate has been much lower than expected and the base  base costs for the service are about $90 per month.  It's a typical Labor stuff-up. 
The state government is considering making take up mandatory




> *Hitches and glitches for broadband rollout*
> Updated Thu Jul 29, 2010 ABC News
> 
> There've been promises that superfast broadband on the $43 billion National Broadband Network will push Tasmanians ahead of the pack.
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/29/2968068.htm


----------



## sails (11 August 2010)

roland said:


> I am trying hard to convince myself that voting Libs is the way to go, but having a problem with not feeling embarrassed with having Tony Abbot as our future PM.
> 
> The more I hear his stop/start hesitant monologue the more I dislike the guy.
> 
> ...




Seems a shame that fiscal policy is shelved and the outcome of this election may go to the most eloquent speaker.

The libs haven't dished up the constant circus acts displayed by labor and yet the libs are being ridiculed simply because Abbott doesn't have Gillard's ability to spin his way out of difficult questions.

I certainly do agree that it comes down to voting for the least damaging for our country.


----------



## moXJO (11 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> It's quite obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. The much vaunted initial roll out in Scottsdale Tasmania has run into hurdles. The take up rate has been much lower than expected and the base  base costs for the service are about $90 per month.  It's a typical Labor stuff-up.
> The state government is considering making take up mandatory
> 
> 
> ...




NBN is a good thing. I think it could change how we work/live. Labors mismanagement of it is the downside. If labor wasn't such a basket case at managing their projects then I think some of the policies had merit.


----------



## overhang (11 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> It's quite obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. The much vaunted initial roll out in Scottsdale Tasmania has run into hurdles. The take up rate has been much lower than expected and the base  base costs for the service are about $90 per month.  It's a typical Labor stuff-up.
> The state government is considering making take up mandatory
> 
> 
> ...




The irony of your statement and ignorance is astounding, as you really have no idea do you? This is old news and Conroy now backs the NBN to be opt out rather than opt in, also the Tasmanian roll out has been on time and under budget.  $90 a month, I pay $110 now for a service 1/5th the speed.


----------



## Mofra (11 August 2010)

moXJO said:


> NBN is a good thing. I think it could change how we work/live. Labors mismanagement of it is the downside. If labor wasn't such a basket case at managing their projects then I think some of the policies had merit.



Many years ago I was invovled in a C3I study that found that only 4% of large projects in the world were delivered on time and on budget, so any sort of "mismanagement" attack will work regardless of who is in power and thus whoever is in opposition.

In terms of project wastage, the Defence Department certainly has a solid starnglehold on the title, and has done so under both sides of the political landscape.


----------



## Mofra (11 August 2010)

Julia said:


> I actually thought quite the opposite, i.e. that Kerry O'Brien was more benign than usual and Tony Abbott looked a total fool over the Libs' broadband policy.  It's just not OK to say "oh, I'm no tech-head" and fail to be able to articulate how the plan will work.
> Mr Abbott did improve later in the interview, but still was hardly convincing.



I actually was embarrassed on Abott's behalf; when he counter O'Brien's assertion of a 12Mbps peak speed noted by the opposition communications Minister with a comment about speeds "upwards of 12Mbs" I think the Lib strategists would have cringed.

Have to remain unconvinced when Abott & Hockey continually contradict each other on just the basic figures, let alone the detail of the economic plan. 

This really is the election that no party will win, but one will lose.


----------



## Surly (11 August 2010)

sails said:


> Seems a shame that fiscal policy is shelved and the outcome of this election may go to the most eloquent speaker.
> 
> The libs haven't dished up the constant circus acts displayed by labor and yet the libs are being ridiculed simply because Abbott doesn't have Gillard's ability to spin his way out of difficult questions.
> 
> I certainly do agree that it comes down to voting for the least damaging for our country.




On the 7pm Project last night, Gillard was asked directly by Steve Price several times for a date when a Carbon Tax would be enacted. All we got was the same stupid annoying laugh and babble about committees, research, consensus and finally no earlier than 2012.

I am not for a carbon tax but this is the same non committal rubbish that we have seen since Rudd/Gillard entered office.  If this is the "real julia" she looks the same as old julia to me. All talk no action. Lets just bluff our way through this for as long as we can.

I am hoping no one else sees this as her ability to spin her way out of anything.

cheers
Surly


----------



## trainspotter (11 August 2010)

The question Kerry O'Brien asked of Tony Abott was a doozy !

KERRY OBRIEN:  Do you know what peak speed is?

TONY ABBOTT: Again, if you're gonna get me into a technical argument, I'm going to lose it, Kerry, because I'm not a tech head. But we are offering 12 and up and we think in the vast ...

KERRY O'BRIEN: But you're guaranteeing 12?

TONY ABBOTT: That's right. But in the vast majority of cases, it will be a lot more than that, a lot faster than that.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Well, are you sure about - can you really give that guarantee when you don't seem to know what peak speed is. I'll tell you what it is. *It's quite an easy concept to understand. *Peak speed is the best speed at which you can download material, usually when people are least likely to be using the internet, like at midnight. At other times, when there is congestion on the net, the speed will be much lower than that. So how can you say as a matter of course that the speeds your system will deliver will actually, more often than not, be much more than 12?

Bwaahahhahahahahaaaaaaaaa ........ release the hounds !

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2979381.htm


----------



## Calliope (11 August 2010)

overhang said:


> This is old news and Conroy now backs the NBN to be opt out rather than opt in.




Old news? 11 days ago actually. I don't have any faith in anything Conroy says. He probably thinks his scheme will make internet filtering easier.


----------



## Logique (11 August 2010)

The discussion of the leaders styles is interesting. Bob Brown's pompous self-righteousness, Abbott's staccato delivery, Gillard's glib energizer-bunny waffle. 

For Gillard, the Lady Macbeth simile from some commentators is not mis-placed, blood still adheres to those hands. Mr Emerson may once have drunk her contact lenses in a glass of water. A pair of glasses would complete a truer image for madame, a certain gormless policy myopia.

And of the endless blatherings and strategic girly-giggle:



> It is a tale
> Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
> Signifying nothing.
> 
> Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 19–28



N'est ce pas?


----------



## Calliope (11 August 2010)

Everybody wants faster broadband, just as everyone wants faster trains and faster roads

It's a matter of affordability. This poll on comparebroadband.com.au suggests most people would opt out of Conroy's highspeed, high cost, fibre optic service. 
Question


> Would you pay $100 per month for 60GB with the NBN's 100Mbps ultra high speed optical fibre internet?
> Yes
> No
> I don't know




Answers


> Yes 33% (120 votes)
> No 61% (221 votes)
> I don't know 6% (21 votes)
> Total Votes: 362




It's only a small sample, but it is indicative.


----------



## moXJO (11 August 2010)

Mofra said:


> Many years ago I was invovled in a C3I study that found that only 4% of large projects in the world were delivered on time and on budget, so any sort of "mismanagement" attack will work regardless of who is in power and thus whoever is in opposition.
> 
> .



BER.... WA and christian schools compared to the other states. Seemed to be a difference there.

Insulation in roofs then tearing it out again, not to mention destroying an entire industry, isn't your run of the mill mismanagement.

Bit of scrutiny considering how many govt departments and consultants we inevitably hire to over watch these programs would have been nice.


----------



## basilio (11 August 2010)

> The question Kerry O'Brien asked of Tony Abott was a doozy !
> 
> KERRY OBRIEN: Do you know what peak speed is?
> 
> ...




I too felt embarrassed for Tony Abbott as he slowly strangled himself on this question.

Kerry was correct in saying that understanding Peak Speed was not a huge technical issue *and in fact is at the core of why we are looking for faster broadband*.  I think this exchange shook Tony's credibility to the core in terms of being across the various policy areas that a  PM should understand.

It will be interesting to see how he handles QANDA next week.


----------



## trainspotter (11 August 2010)

basilio said:


> I too felt embarrassed for Tony Abbott as he slowly strangled himself on this question.
> 
> Kerry was correct in saying that understanding Peak Speed was not a huge technical issue *and in fact is at the core of why we are looking for faster broadband*.  I think this exchange shook Tony's credibility to the core in terms of being across the various policy areas that a  PM should understand.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how he handles QANDA next week.




Absolutely agree basilio - Labor had a great victory when Tony did not even turn uo for the announcement of the "BRO" (I am assuming this is Broadband Run Out ??) Turning point in the election IMO. A few more gaffes like this and you can put a fork in him cause he is DONE !


----------



## overhang (11 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Everybody wants faster broadband, just as everyone wants faster trains and faster roads
> 
> It's a matter of affordability. This poll on comparebroadband.com.au suggests most people would opt out of Conroy's highspeed, high cost, fibre optic service.
> Question
> ...




That poll is rather misinforming as it makes out as if that’s the entry level pricing which isn’t the case, the median broadband price in Australia would probably be about $50 a month so naturally a poll that insinuates that the average Australian would need to pay double is going to suggest no.  The entry level plan is $30 which is obviously affordable to any existing broadband user.  Now people such as yourself will argue that most people wont require 100mbps but the internet is evolving, websites are requiring greater bandwidth and just as the transition from dial up to ADSL1 took place the same needs to happen from copper to fibre.


----------



## awg (11 August 2010)

I want to express my boredom and frustration with being in the 2nd safest Labor seat in Australia, especially election time.

We never get anything, our local rep is a hack, and no amount of voting concern will change a thing. ( With the possible exception of Senate) 

If you live in a marginal you are lucky!

Both Fed and State govt spit in the face of most Hunter electorates


----------



## overhang (11 August 2010)

awg said:


> I want to express my boredom and frustration with being in the 2nd safest Labor seat in Australia, especially election time.
> 
> We never get anything, our local rep is a hack, and no amount of voting concern will change a thing. ( With the possible exception of Senate)
> 
> ...




You and me both awg, my electorate has had a coalition member for 55 years now, we receive no additional funding  from either party election after election.  I'll be voting Independent because they have more of a show at reducing the margin.


----------



## trainspotter (11 August 2010)

Thinking about it realistically ....... what actually changes when there is a change in Government? Under both parties I still have managed to survive and truly have not noticed an amazing difference between either party? Both have failed to deliver any major reforms that I am aware of? Most of it is tweaking around the edges really !! Whoooopeeeee 2% off tax for companies. I just get slugged somewhere else. 

The last major policy that I can actually credit that made any difference to Australia as a Nation was the GST. And barely even then. Some things went down and others went up ?? Still have the same money circling around just in different areas.

Anyone else got some policies that are/were earth shattering? HUH ?? 

SO what If I can get my internet faster?? I already have too many options available to me for high speed internet. SO what about Work Choices ?? I employ people and it did not make one iota of difference to me.


----------



## Calliope (11 August 2010)

awg said:


> We never get anything, our local rep is a hack, and no amount of voting concern will change a thing. ( With the possible exception of Senate)
> If you live in a marginal you are lucky!




I'm in the same situation as you except that my guy is a Liberal and is completely useless. He is the guy who was photographed in Parliament asleep not long ago. Members in safe seats get very lazy. There should be a time limit on them. 

He was approached  by the party to stand aside for Mal Brough. He declined of course.


----------



## sails (11 August 2010)

This could make things interesting:



> "If the leak has come from Treasury then it is in all likelihood a criminal offence," Mr Robb said.




Full story:  http://www.businessspectator.com.au...k-source-be-found-886YS?OpenDocument&src=hp14


----------



## drsmith (11 August 2010)

sails said:


> This could make things interesting:
> 
> Full story:  http://www.businessspectator.com.au...k-source-be-found-886YS?OpenDocument&src=hp14



Are the Coalition conceeding the miscalculation ?

This could be something made up by the ALP. On the other hand, the Coalition could be hiding behind the treasury leak aspect of this.


----------



## trainspotter (11 August 2010)

Gillard was offered three debates by Tony Abbott during the course of the electioneering to which she agreed to only one. Now she is accusing him of "running from an economic debate"? Ummmmmm ... wasn't she the one that said NO ? Me thinks she is gaining the upper hand on the high ground.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...e-on-the-economy/story-fn59niix-1225903905156


----------



## drsmith (12 August 2010)

The Coalition seem to be having a problem or two with their webpage.

http://www.liberal.org.au/Policies.aspx

There's nothing in the links.


----------



## wayneL (12 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Gillard was offered three debates by Tony Abbott during the course of the electioneering to which she agreed to only one. Now she is accusing him of "running from an economic debate"? Ummmmmm ... wasn't she the one that said NO ? Me thinks she is gaining the upper hand on the high ground.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...e-on-the-economy/story-fn59niix-1225903905156




It's a dangerous debate.

The best economics is hard-nosed and requires difficulty for many in the short term in order to obtain the best medium/long term result.

But the socialist bastids will argue for shorter term touchy feely concepts using a number of argumentative fallacies such as appeal to sympathy, argument by emotive language, straw man, argument by slogan, non sequitur etc etc etc... all to the detriment of medium/long term economic health.

It easy to villainize the correct economic approach under campaign circumstances as most people wouldn't have a clue and are only interested in what they are going to "get" from the government in the next three years.

It's a big problem for economic liberals and forces them to into the left hand side of the social liberal camp.


----------



## Mofra (12 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Thinking about it realistically ....... what actually changes when there is a change in Government? Under both parties I still have managed to survive and truly have not noticed an amazing difference between either party? Both have failed to deliver any major reforms that I am aware of? Most of it is tweaking around the edges really !! Whoooopeeeee 2% off tax for companies. I just get slugged somewhere else.
> 
> The last major policy that I can actually credit that made any difference to Australia as a Nation was the GST. And barely even then. Some things went down and others went up ?? Still have the same money circling around just in different areas.



Real economic reform has stalled since the introduction of the GST (which by most measures has been a success, even if the implementation was largely ballsed up by the states). We're stuck with two major parties who come from ideological opposites who are now both so earnest in their clamour for the centrist vote they are barely distinguishable from each other. 
No wonder this election campaign seems to be far more "presidential" than others, with more of a focus on the leaders than the parties - they just ain't that different folks.


----------



## noco (12 August 2010)

Lies, lies and more Labor Party lies by Wayne Swan. The man couldn't  lie straight in bed if you paid him.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...obs-boost-claims/story-fn59niix-1225904135466


----------



## Logique (12 August 2010)

Is Leigh Sales of ABC Lateline running for PM at all? Now there's a 'ranga' I could vote for. Her profesionalism stands out like a beacon amongst the Kerrys, the Tonys and the Frans of the stable. Wouldn't be surprised to see one of the commercial networks snap her up soon, I mean how long can a quality journo put up with that ABC crap?

Post-election I think it should be like that iced coffee advert on tv...._I think we need to go for a coffee, Kerry, Tony and Fran._

NSW posters will have heard the follow up press, Abbott jumped down from the podium (a la West Wing), at the Town Hall debate, in a d'oh, why didn't we think of that moment for Labor. He did well, widely considered to have 'won', whatever that means.


----------



## noco (12 August 2010)

Logique said:


> Is Leigh Sales of ABC Lateline running for PM at all? Now there's a 'ranga' I could vote for. Her profesionalism stands out like a beacon amongst the Kerrys, the Tonys and the Frans of the stable. Wouldn't be surprised to see one of the commercial networks snap her up soon, I mean how long can a quality journo put up with that ABC crap?
> 
> Post-election I think it should be like that iced coffee advert on tv...._I think we need to go for a coffee, Kerry, Tony and Fran._
> 
> NSW posters will have heard the follow up press, Abbott jumped down from the podium (a la West Wing), at the Town Hall debate, in a d'oh, why didn't we think of that moment for Labor. He did well, widely considered to have 'won', whatever that means.




Getting down to the audience level played out well for Abbott.

In contrast, Gillard sat on a stool up top like a school teacher talking to a class full of kids. Her opening statement went something like this :- "now all those who reckon they could not meet their mortgage if they lost their job, please raise their right hand". OMG what an opening.


----------



## basilio (12 August 2010)

> In contrast, Gillard sat on a stool up top like a school teacher talking to a class full of kids. Her opening statement went something like this :- "now all those who reckon they could not meet their mortgage if they lost their job, please raise their right hand". OMG what an opening.




Sounds very clever to me. Identifies right from the start how important employment is to people as far as keeping a roof over their heads. Neat trick too in saying "mortgage" rather than rent.


----------



## noco (12 August 2010)

basilio said:


> Sounds very clever to me. Identifies right from the start how important employment is to people as far as keeping a roof over their heads. Neat trick too in saying "mortgage" rather than rent.




Fair suck of the sauce bottle basillio, it was a leading question.

I don't think there were many people in the audience who did not put up their hand.
Of course one would not be able to pay a motgage if they lost their job. So what is the point?


----------



## trainspotter (12 August 2010)

basilio said:


> Sounds very clever to me. Identifies right from the start how important employment is to people as far as keeping a roof over their heads. Neat trick too in saying "mortgage" rather than rent.




Ummmmmmm ..... remind me never to go to an auction with you. Very bad things happen when you raise your right hand.

Could also explain as to why Gillard was deemed to lose the debate if she was being condescending and talking down to the people. Unfortunately did not watch the program so really don't have an opinion either way.


----------



## drsmith (12 August 2010)

Wayne Swan rules out a carbon tax/ETS in Labor's next term.



> KERRY O'BRIEN: Very briefly, *address Joe Hockey's question about a carbon tax. You would say an ETS.
> 
> Is there any likelihood of a second Gillard Government introducing an Emissions Trading Scheme within your next term?*
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2981491.htm


----------



## moXJO (13 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> Wayne Swan rules out a carbon tax/ETS in Labor's next term.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2981491.htm




I wonder how NZ is doing with their carbon tax?


----------



## noco (13 August 2010)

News Poll shows Labor are ahead by 7.5%.

Looks like we are in for another 3 years of HARD LABOUR.


----------



## trainspotter (13 August 2010)

Not over yet noco. Still another week to go. Someone will make a monumental mistake and sway the great unwashed mases into the other camp. Education Policy out today from the Libs. Watch the media hacks swarm over this.

The Libs have not helped themselves with a Treasury blooper of 800 million by the way. Then they want the head of the source on a pike?? Suited them when they had Godwin Grech pumping them full of furphies.


----------



## noco (13 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Not over yet noco. Still another week to go. Someone will make a monumental mistake and sway the great unwashed mases into the other camp. Education Policy out today from the Libs. Watch the media hacks swarm over this.
> 
> The Libs have not helped themselves with a Treasury blooper of 800 million by the way. Then they want the head of the source on a pike?? Suited them when they had Godwin Grech pumping them full of furphies.




Will be interesting to see what Mark Latham is up to on 60 minutes Sunday night. He may have a bomb shell somebody else posted a week ago.


----------



## SmellyTerror (13 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> _"Yes, I do think there's a point. I do think people can change their minds.
> 
> I change my mind.
> 
> ...





I'd love to lose. My point, and the problem, is that I'm engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

I'll LOSE when someone can show me a better way of looking at the world. Can't see how you're going to do that without, you know, presenting _any actual arguments_.


----------



## SmellyTerror (14 August 2010)

moXJO said:


> Insulation in roofs then tearing it out again, not to mention destroying an entire industry, isn't your run of the mill mismanagement.




(And to the larger issue of who-would-have-stuffed-the-stimulus-the-worst):

The insulation scheme was blatantly idiotic. You pump an insane amount of money into a small industry, what the hell do you think will happen? Gee, shonks came out of the woodwork to lap at the public teat? Who coulda seen THAT coming? State OH&S laws aside, it was a clear recipe for disaster.

So my question is: *WHY DIDN'T THE OPPOSITION SEE IT COMING?*

Isn't that their job? You know, scrutinising government policy to find problems? With no details at all, just the money amount and the target industry, anyone could have seen that there would have been a disaster. So why the hell did the opposition, apparently brilliant financial managers, NOT notice the glaring stupidity of this plan until AFTER it cost this country billions of dollars and who knows how many lives?

'Course, we're so used to oppositions doing nothing more than whine that we seem to have forgetten they have an actual job. But I think that's a fair question the next time the Libs whinge about this particular screw up: what the hell were you guys doing?

'Cause you sure as hell weren't doing your job.

I personally can't believe that the Lib's plan would have been any less rushed and half-arsed than the other mob's effort. I mean, politicians being asked to spend a LOT of money. When has that ever gone well?


----------



## SmellyTerror (14 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Thinking about it realistically ....... what actually changes when there is a change in Government? Under both parties I still have managed to survive and truly have not noticed an amazing difference between either party? Both have failed to deliver any major reforms that I am aware of? Most of it is tweaking around the edges really !! Whoooopeeeee 2% off tax for companies. I just get slugged somewhere else.
> 
> The last major policy that I can actually credit that made any difference to Australia as a Nation was the GST. And barely even then. Some things went down and others went up ?? Still have the same money circling around just in different areas.
> 
> ...




QFT.

Faffing about at the edges, the lot of them. Same policies, just brand names and packaging.

There really needs to be another party. Maybe two. Lib and Lab have gone to the insipid middle, and there's no-one to the left or the right that aren't clinically insane.


----------



## noco (14 August 2010)

Wayne Swan paid a visist to Townsville this week and introduced the candidate for the seat of Herbert as Tony Murphy (Tony Mooney). The Magpie in the Townsville Bulletin today 14/08/2010 sums up Swan's visit. 

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2010/08/14/163011_magpie.html


----------



## Calliope (14 August 2010)

According to the latest polls Gillard's bacon will probably be saved by the Democratic Republic of Victoria.


----------



## DocK (14 August 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> (And to the larger issue of who-would-have-stuffed-the-stimulus-the-worst):
> 
> The insulation scheme was blatantly idiotic. You pump an insane amount of money into a small industry, what the hell do you think will happen? Gee, shonks came out of the woodwork to lap at the public teat? Who coulda seen THAT coming? State OH&S laws aside, it was a clear recipe for disaster.
> 
> ...




The nasty, cynical and suspicious side of me is thinking that if they _did _notice the glaring stupidity of the insulation plan their first thoughts would have been along the lines of "hopefully they'll stuff it up big time and we can hang them with it at the next election", rather than any thought for the good of the country occurring to them.  Sadly, that seems to be what politics is about these days - winning elections, rather than responsible governing.


----------



## Calliope (14 August 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> 'Course, we're so used to oppositions doing nothing more than whine that we seem to have forgetten they have an actual job. But I think that's a fair question the next time the Libs whinge about this particular screw up: what the hell were you guys doing?
> 
> 'Cause you sure as hell weren't doing your job.




That's a fair assessment. However when I look at the faces on the opposition front bench, I don't see anyone capable of actually exploiting the government's stupid mistakes. The men behind the scenes must be just as inept.

Their advertising campaign is weak and insipid. There is so much baggage the Labor camp is carrying and yet the Coalition don't seem able to exploit it.


----------



## trainspotter (14 August 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> I'd love to lose. My point, and the problem, is that I'm engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
> 
> I'll LOSE when someone can show me a better way of looking at the world. Can't see how you're going to do that without, you know, presenting _any actual arguments_.




LOLOL ... argue amongst yourself. It will be the only way you will be able to keep up with your rapier wit.


----------



## drsmith (14 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Their advertising campaign is weak and insipid. There is so much baggage the Labor camp is carrying and yet the Coalition don't seem able to exploit it.



A simple response to the stimulus management is that it's much easier to spend money than it is to save it.

The Coalition should focus more on the fact that they supported both the stimulus packages (the only difference being the quantum of the second) and then turn the debate to the subsequent management of those packages.

The campaign from both sides has now degenerated into a taxing and spending race to the bottom. The Coalition by putting a 1.5% levy on companies to fund it paid parental leave scheme put itself in the same boat as the ALP with its RRT. One is left to wonder whether the Coalition would have been better off raising additional taxes in the form of resource rents (or at least reviewing the issue) and offering tax cuts/reform in the context of prudent budget manegement.

The Liberal's web page won't even load. That sort of sums up their campaign.


----------



## Calliope (14 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> A simple response to the stimulus management is that it's much easier to spend money than it is to save it.
> 
> The Coalition should focus more on the fact that they supported both the stimulus packages (the only difference being the quantum of the second) and then turn the debate to the subsequent management of those packages.
> 
> ...




Yes Doc I feel much the same way. The Australian has run a swag of material over the past few months highlighting Labor management failures, which they have failed to take advantage of. I think they have blown it.

I now get the feeling that The Australian is positioning itself to come out, in their editorial next Saturday morning, in favour of Gillard. In a similar way they endorsed Rudd in 2007.


----------



## Julia (14 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> I now get the feeling that The Australian is positioning itself to come out, in their editorial next Saturday morning, in favour of Gillard. In a similar way they endorsed Rudd in 2007.



They have already started this, viz Paul Kelly's lengthy article in today's 'Weekend Australian'.  Complete change of tune.


----------



## drsmith (14 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Complete change of tune.



It's certainly a far cry from the pounding they were giving the BER earlier in the week.


----------



## noco (14 August 2010)

Don't miss Mark Latham on 60 Minutes ch 9 7.30 pm tomorrow evening. I think it may be explosive.

Latham wants revenge on both Gillard and Rudd as the hatred is very evident.


----------



## drsmith (14 August 2010)

noco said:


> Don't miss Mark Latham on 60 Minutes ch 9 7.30 pm tomorrow evening. I think it may be explosive.



Given he has long since published his diaries, I suspect it will be little more than mildly amusing.

I'll be watching it though, just in case. Good marketing by CH9.


----------



## Julia (14 August 2010)

Kevin Rudd will be interviewed on channel 7's "Sunday Night" tomorrow. 
Not sure if I can cope with him being all brave and stoic, marching forward in good heart for the sake of the mighty Labor Party.


----------



## trainspotter (15 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Kevin Rudd will be interviewed on channel 7's "Sunday Night" tomorrow.
> Not sure if I can cope with him being all brave and stoic, marching forward in good heart for the sake of the mighty Labor Party.




I think it will be a shot in the arm for the Libs. If Kevin Rudd comes across as being unfairly hung by the Labor Party then it might sway a few swinging voters. If they have pictures of him playing with kiddies and looking human rather than a robot and answering questions frankly, people will empathise with him that the back stabbing by the Labor factions (Bill Shorten) was unneccesary. Ooooopsies.


----------



## Calliope (15 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Kevin Rudd will be interviewed on channel 7's "Sunday Night" tomorrow.
> Not sure if I can cope with him being all brave and stoic, marching forward in good heart for the sake of the mighty Labor Party.




It is in Rudd's best interests for Gillard to win the election. Whatever his plans for the future are, he has a better chance of achieving them from a Government base rather than an Opposition base. 

Prior to the election he will keep his true feelings well under control. The test will be if he is asked tonight whether he admits that his government had "lost it's way," as Gillard asserts.


----------



## noco (15 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> It is in Rudd's best interests for Gillard to win the election. Whatever his plans for the future are, he has a better chance of achieving them from a Government base rather than an Opposition base.
> 
> Prior to the election he will keep his true feelings well under control. The test will be if he is asked tonight whether he admits that his government had "lost it's way," as Gillard asserts.




Calliope, come what may whether Gillard and Labor win or lose this election there will be plenty of BLOOD LETTING after the event. The division in that party has not yet been exposed and imho is far deeper than one could ever imagine.


----------



## Happy (15 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> …
> 
> Prior to the election he will keep his true feelings well under control. The test will be if he is asked tonight whether he admits that his government had "lost it's way," as Gillard asserts.





I just cannot believe that people will try to give Gillard another 3 years to do whatever after all the same Labor Machinery with just different mouthpiece could not do in 2 and  ¾ years.


----------



## explod (15 August 2010)

Happy said:


> I just cannot believe that people will try to give Gillard another 3 years to do whatever after all the same Labor Machinery with just different mouthpiece could not do in 2 and  ¾ years.




An interesting statment there Happy.

Krudd failed and was kicked out because he was a one man band.

Everything Gillard et al. did was dictated under the autocratic oversight of Rudd.   So how can anyone yet judge Gillard.   Who knows she may be billy's pal of the saviour sent by the one up above.

I do not get the idea that because of past behaviours and actions, mostly influenced by others that the future and or the performance of others may in fact be different this time.  The fact that she was educated under the shadow of unions does not dictate that she will be overly slanted that way either.   We just do not yet know.

I am not too bright sometimes but IQ amperage seems a bit low on some of those who are p.....d off about the ALP taking over the Liberal high ground.  Get over it.

You'd all be a lot less frustrated if you followed the greens where we may one day be able to bring about some change with our own input too.


----------



## Calliope (15 August 2010)

explod said:


> I am not too bright sometimes...
> You'd all be a lot less frustrated if you followed the greens where we may one day be able to bring about some change with our own input too.




How about telling us what these changes are, that you would like the Greens to bring about, and what would be your input?


----------



## Julia (15 August 2010)

explod said:


> Krudd failed and was kicked out because he was a one man band.



Or perhaps more because the Labor machine observed the diminishing polls and decided he must be the cause.  If the polls hadn't panicked them, they wouldn't have cared what his style was.  Julia was going to save them from the failure of Kevin, but lo, it didn't seem to be working, so down on their knees they go to plead with failed Kevin to stop his damaging leaks, and come back on board.   The Australian voter is not so stupid that they don't see all this.




> Everything Gillard et al. did was dictated under the autocratic oversight of Rudd.   So how can anyone yet judge Gillard.



Far be it from me to defend Mr Rudd, but it has been widely reported that the very action which began Rudd's demise - the axing of the ETS - was insisted on by Gillard, Swan and Tanner, Rudd himself being reluctant to not stick with it.

You can't excuse Ms Gillard from responsibility for any of Labor's decisions, Explod.
To look for the best in the best of all possible worlds, Panglossian style, may be a nice characteristic, but imo it's leading you to a lack of connection with reality.


----------



## explod (15 August 2010)

Julia said:


> You can't excuse Ms Gillard from responsibility for any of Labor's decisions, Explod.
> To look for the best in the best of all possible worlds, Panglossian style, may be a nice characteristic, but imo it's leading you to a lack of connection with reality.




Not excusing her at all, just trying to offer other thoughts from the trend of bias here.  Now that she is running the ship no one can say *exactly* which way that will go.

And sorry for not being connected.   Sometimes it is lonely if you offer other alternatives to what people do not want to see.   And if you have grown up the hard way you know exactly what reality is.  Most Liberals I associate with down here on the Morningon Peninsula (where they are the strong majority) would not know what day it is, let alone see another side to any picture.

One of the greatest things about forums such as this Julia, is that we are pushing boundaries to new ideas and approaches as, for example,  in the Dick Smith thread.

Anyway take note of your comment and try to be more real in future.


----------



## drsmith (15 August 2010)

explod said:


> Krudd failed and was kicked out because he was a one man band.



Wasn't it a 4-person kitchen cabinet ?



explod said:


> Everything Gillard et al. did was dictated under the autocratic oversight of Rudd.   So how can anyone yet judge Gillard.



She has rushed to the polls with ill-considered ideas of her own as leader.



explod said:


> You'd all be a lot less frustrated if you followed the greens where we may one day be able to bring about some change with our own input too.



Have you squirreled away some hard assets (gold, commodities, property etc) for your grandchildren in case they find the grass not to be as green on the other side as you imagine ?


----------



## noco (15 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> How about telling us what these changes are, that you would like the Greens to bring about, and what would be your input?




Calliope, I experienced a sample of a Green change last Tuesday evening 8.30 to 10 pm when the power went off for an hour and a half.

I said to my wife this is what could happen if the Greens took over and closed down all the coal fired power stations and we had to rely on solar energy.

There would be wind farms strecthing every 500 metres from Melbourne to Perth.

We'd  have acre upon acre of solar panels which are only 15% efficient in comparison to coal fired power which is 35% efficient, but at least it would be base load.

The fishing industry would fold.

We would run out of water because the Greens would not build a dam due to  the red nosed wombat habitat or the luing fish would die. Why build expensive saline convertor plants when a very large proportion of our rain water runs out to sea. We have an abundance of water that is wasted. We, in North Queensland could have hydro power from the Burdiken Dam if the spill way was raised another 2 metres. It could have been built with the wastage from the Labor stimulas package.

We would run out of food because we had no water for the crops.

Farmers would not be able to fertilize sugar crops because it would kill the Great Barrier Reef.

There would be mass unemployment.

The Greens have no policies which would improve or beneit our way of life.


----------



## drsmith (15 August 2010)

Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott are having a second debate. It's a debate about a debate.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-at-public-forum/story-fn59niix-1225905504794


----------



## Calliope (15 August 2010)

I said yesterday that the Australian was positioning itself to editorialise in favour of Labor. Todays News Limited Sunday paper editorials say;  

Sydney:  Sunday Telegraph...give Labor another term.

Melbourne:  Sun  Herald...      ditto  

Adelaide:  Sunday Mail...        ditto

Brisbane:  Sunday Mail...give Abbott a go.


----------



## drsmith (15 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> I said yesterday that the Australian was positioning itself to editorialise in favour of Labor.



The Australian has backed off a little from an article this morning suggesting a Galaxy poll put the 2PP vote was in favour of the Coalition.



> Ignore the reports that put the Coalition ahead on the national two party preferred vote ...... 51.4 to 48.6. Any national calculation from these numbers has Labor ahead around 51 to 49. (Antony Green explains how someone stuffed up.)



http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/galaxy/


----------



## explod (15 August 2010)

> drsmith:  Have you squirreled away some hard assets (gold, commodities, property etc) for your grandchildren in case they find the grass not to be as green on the other side as you imagine ?




You betcha, 

you dont think a Greens party that makes it eventually into government will succeed by tipping the bucket all the way over do you.

There is some reality in the fine print but off topic in this thread.


----------



## noco (15 August 2010)

Is it possible this U-Tube on the future of Australia under Labor 2010 to 2013 could be right.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ments/galaxy_queensland_could_finish_gillard/


----------



## drsmith (15 August 2010)

explod said:


> You betcha,



A bet each way is not a luxury that would be afforded to most Australians under the Greens.



explod said:


> you dont think a Greens party that makes it eventually into government will succeed by tipping the bucket all the way over do you.



Financial markets would tip the bucket or at least that would be the Greens excuse.


----------



## drsmith (15 August 2010)

noco said:


> Is it possible this U-Tube on the future of Australia under Labor 2010 to 2013 could be right.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ments/galaxy_queensland_could_finish_gillard/



If both sides can't at some point resist ever increasing spending on middle class welfare, we could potentially go in that direction regardless of who is in power.

The only potential difference with the ALP/Greens is that it may happen quicker.


----------



## explod (15 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> Financial markets would tip the bucket or at least that would be the Greens excuse.




A good point, yet Governments would have you believe that they have some say over interest rates and financial markets.   Look at the Mining Industry Capaign as an example.

Fairy tales


----------



## noco (15 August 2010)

noco said:


> Don't miss Mark Latham on 60 Minutes ch 9 7.30 pm tomorrow evening. I think it may be explosive.
> 
> Latham wants revenge on both Gillard and Rudd as the hatred is very evident.




What a fizzer Mak Latham was on 60 minutes. 

The anti-climax to the whole show was Mark Latham suggesting everybody submit a blank ballot paper in the box on the 21st.


----------



## drsmith (15 August 2010)

noco said:


> What a fizzer Mak Latham was on 60 minutes.
> 
> The anti-climax to the whole show was Mark Latham suggesting everybody submit a blank ballot paper in the box on the 21st.



In that case I won't be watching it.


----------



## electronicmaster (15 August 2010)

noco said:


> The anti-climax to the whole show was Mark Latham suggesting everybody submit a blank ballot paper in the box on the 21st.




What the heck, I'm going to VOID my vote.

Some interesting information I found about The Exposure within Australia of Political Corruption


----------



## IFocus (15 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> If both sides can't at some point resist ever increasing spending on middle class welfare, we could potentially go in that direction regardless of who is in power.
> 
> The only potential difference with the ALP/Greens is that it may happen quicker.




Thought Howard was the specialist at this?


----------



## Julia (15 August 2010)

noco said:


> What a fizzer Mak Latham was on 60 minutes.
> 
> The anti-climax to the whole show was Mark Latham suggesting everybody submit a blank ballot paper in the box on the 21st.



Agree.  It was pathetic in every way, made him look like even more of a loser, and would not have damaged either major party imo, though doubtless that was his intent.
The piece with Pauline Hanson was particularly embarrassing for both of them.

Did anyone watch the Channel 7 interview with Kevin Rudd?  Ostensibly about his aortic valve transplant many years ago, but the timing makes it pretty obvious that it was politically motivated.  Showed our Kev in a warm and fuzzy, lovely bloke light, all gratitude and forgiveness.  It certainly wouldn't win any votes for the Labor Party, and will reinforce the anger that many feel about the nature of his demise.


----------



## trainspotter (15 August 2010)

Front page of the Sunday Times in Western Australia has Gillard and the ALP being flogged. Apparently did a poll of 4000 people in marginal seats around Australiua (no this is not a typo ... this is how Julia pronouces it) and ALP is on the nose. Predicting a 4 seat margin overall. Fascinating stuff ! 

Good that Krudd came across as human BTW. Will throwback to the Labor stronghold that they did the wrong thing by axing him when the voters get their pencils and white paper on August 21st.

Having Latham on Chanel 9 shows to me how desperate the ALP actually was back in them days. What has changed?


----------



## nioka (16 August 2010)

I thought that Latham made some very good points. He does have an axe to grind so he is a little biased but no more than quite a few of the regular posters on these threads. Pauline Hanson did at least remind us of how underhand Abbott can be, there is little doubt that he is the main one responsible for the creation of Australia's first political prisoner.

Maybe he has a point, a blank paper may just be the way to go.


----------



## wayneL (16 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> Thought Howard was the specialist at this?




Probably your first statement on politics I can actually agree with.


----------



## drsmith (16 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> Thought Howard was the specialist at this?



He was and I have commented on this in the past.

The broader problem is that both sides target the swinging voter essentially with bribes and this of course is the middle class. It is this that needs to change.


----------



## drsmith (16 August 2010)

In the economic race to the bottom, spending is being delayed beyond 2013 and this identified as savings.



> Victorian Regional Rail Link – re-phasing of project milestone payments
> 
> The Gillard Labor Government will also re-phase funds available for the Victorian Regional Rail Link to reflect completion of delivery milestones for the project.  The final payment will be increased from $100 million to $300 million and will be made upon the project’s scheduled completion in late 2014.  Funding of $80 million in 2012-13 and $120 million in 2013-14 will be re-phased into 2014-15 for this purpose.
> 
> The overall funding for the project remains unchanged and this change will not affect the scheduled delivery of the project.



http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/updated-net-budget-impact-of-election-policies-(18/

It wouldn't suprise me if the Coalition is not squeaky clean on this front either.


----------



## Calliope (16 August 2010)

Why Labor will win;



> 1. *Gender*. Many women will not have the heart to vote out Australia's first woman prime minister after barely two months in office, a humiliation of historic proportions and enough to give pause.
> 
> 2. *The Greens*. As if the Greens would ever do a preference deal with the Liberals. The Greens' preference agreement with Labor, plus compulsory preferential voting, means a vote for the Greens in an election for the House of Representatives can serve as a protest vote against Labor but still end up as a vote for Labor.
> 
> ...




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ard-to-resist-20100815-1251x.html?autostart=1


----------



## moXJO (16 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Why Labor will win;
> 6. The pie-eaters. Finally, we get to the most structural and disturbing aspect of the election, the growing primacy of the pie-eaters. As the recent British election showed, when sections of a country become addicted to government spending (Scotland and Wales), the electorate will vote out of self-interest and vote for the party of big government. That is, vote Labor, no matter how bad the record.




I think this is a big one this time round.


----------



## nioka (16 August 2010)

Calliope,

Pie eaters?  Please explain.. I recall seeing a news clip the other day which featured your beloved Tony... eating a meat pie. Does that mean he will vote for Julia. 

Had one myself on Sunday. Am I now a "pie eater"? Does that mean I must vote for Julia?

The power of the pies, are they taking over from cocaine as a drug of choice. ? Will they be banned? I was told recently that if I go to the AFL grand final to take a packed lunch as there weren't going to be any "pies"there. That's taking drugs in sport a little too far isn't it.


----------



## Calliope (16 August 2010)

nioka said:


> Pie eaters?  Please explain..




You obviously didn't read the link.


----------



## wayneL (16 August 2010)

nioka said:


> Calliope,
> 
> Pie eaters?  Please explain.. I recall seeing a news clip the other day which featured your beloved Tony... eating a meat pie. Does that mean he will vote for Julia.
> 
> ...




met·a·phor   [met-uh-fawr, -fer]  Show IPA
–noun
*1.
a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our god.”Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).*
2.
something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.


----------



## wayneL (16 August 2010)

> 6. The pie-eaters. Finally, we get to the most structural and disturbing aspect of the election, the growing primacy of the pie-eaters. As the recent British election showed, when sections of a country become addicted to government spending (Scotland and Wales), the electorate will vote out of self-interest and vote for the party of big government. That is, vote Labor, no matter how bad the record.




Just one aspect of Fabian socialist gradualism - gradually install/groom a client constituency.


----------



## nioka (16 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> You obviously didn't read the link.




Do you mean that the picture of Tony eating a pie was actually Tony being fed, and consuming, one of Julia's pork pies. I'll probably be OK. The one I had was beef and mushroom. Maybe Tony's pie was beef too .


----------



## Calliope (16 August 2010)

Gillard has her current boy friend on display at the launch. And her old role model.


----------



## Mofra (16 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> If both sides can't at some point resist ever increasing spending on middle class welfare, we could potentially go in that direction regardless of who is in power.



It's not just the spending on middle class welfare - it's the fact that it is too hot an issue politically for real reform in the area, so we're almost assured of being stuck with it until a leader with real courage of conviction (ruling out Abbott & Gillard) makes it to the top of one of the two major political parties.


----------



## noco (16 August 2010)

Can the real Julia Gillard please stand up and explain why in her election speech she quoted Kevin Rudd as a great achiever.

On the 23rd June she politically assassinated Rudd because she said Kevin Rudd and his Government had lost it's way.

If he is now a such great achiever, why was he replaced by his assassin?


----------



## trainspotter (16 August 2010)

GAAAAAAAAWD Calliope I almost lost my dinner after looking at Gizzard smooching the Hairdresser boyfriend (dunno why I gave him a capital for his profession) Imagine the world players meeting this dude. "SO what do you do for a living?" they ask "I sell hairpsray" he answers. YAY ! 

Anyways .... 2010 election is gonna be a rip snorter. I am having a massive Don's Party at my joint and watching the results on the big screen (Thanks to the Labor Govt for the 3 x $900 so that everyone now has one from Harvey Norman) 

Open door policy ... may the best man/woman/party/greenie win and I will take a hit for the team and agree as to what the people choose.


----------



## electronicmaster (16 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Gillard has her current boy friend on display at the launch. And her old role model.




lol   :whip :sheep: ld: ld: ld:

That's funny :sheep: :sheep: :whip


----------



## Julia (16 August 2010)

noco said:


> Can the real Julia Gillard please stand up and explain why in her election speech she quoted Kevin Rudd as a great achiever.
> 
> On the 23rd June she politically assassinated Rudd because she said Kevin Rudd and his Government had lost it's way.
> 
> If he is now a such great achiever, why was he replaced by his assassin?



You would have to hope that the voting public is asking about this very breathtaking piece of hypocrisy.

I've been waiting for some journalist to comment on the fact that the damaging leaks have stopped now that Mr Rudd has been welcomed back to the fold, rising bravely from his sick bed.


----------



## trainspotter (16 August 2010)

Julia said:


> You would have to hope that the voting public is asking about this very breathtaking piece of hypocrisy.
> 
> I've been waiting for some journalist to comment on the fact that the damaging leaks have stopped now that Mr Rudd has been welcomed back to the fold, rising bravely from his sick bed.




Lazarus with a triple bypass I believe. Also resembles that little kid who put his finger in the dyke to stop the leak. No pun intended. Or is it?


----------



## Duckman#72 (16 August 2010)

Tony gave another strong performance on Q & A. Unlike Julia who seems increasingly reliant upon worn cliches, Tony was forthright, upfront and statesmanlike in his appearance tonight.

He is meeting every challenge put to him. Even on potential "disaster categories" like gay marriage and religion, Tony's responses seem considered, measured, logical and well articulated. 

It makes the arguments against having "The Mad Monk" in power almost seem ludicrous.

Before the campaign had begun, it was generally considered that Julia would "wipe the floor" with Tony at public forums/debates and media sessions. Surprisingly, Tony has hardly put a foot wrong at these events and in fact, is walking away from them with positive conversions.    

Keep it up Tony.


----------



## trainspotter (16 August 2010)

Oh oh ... Tony has backed down and agreed to a debate on the "economics" as long as Julia agrees to meet the very next day on a Q&A in a Sydney town hall again. BIG MISTAKE !


----------



## Duckman#72 (16 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Oh oh ... Tony has backed down and agreed to a debate on the "economics" as long as Julia agrees to meet the very next day on a Q&A in a Sydney town hall again. BIG MISTAKE !




I know. I hope I'm proven wrong - but Tony has more to lose here than Julia. 

Having said that - he has his tail up and he is on a roll when it comes to public speaking forums (and he is a confidence player).

He just needs to keep ramming home the following:

* There would NOT be 200,000 unemployed if the Coalition were in power when the GFC hit. The Coalition agreed to the majority of the stimulus but questioned the level of the latest round of spending. (Proven justifiably)

* The primary reason for Australia coming out of the GFC in such good shape goes to the strength of the economy and the decisions of previous Governments.

* I'm sick of hearing Swan and Gillard say regarding the stimulus - "I'm for jobs. I don't apologise for that. I had a job to do and I did it". Well sorry Julia - if someone is in need, buy them a coat....don't try and keep them warm by burning hundred dollar bills on the footpath. No one is doubting that you were attempting to keep Australians employed - but you are missing the point. The point is that there were a number of ways to have achieved that and the choices you made were clearly inadequate and poorly managed. Your motives are not in question but your economic credentials certainly should be.    

Duckman


----------



## drsmith (16 August 2010)

Coopers Sparkling is good stuff.


----------



## sails (17 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Oh oh ... Tony has backed down and agreed to a debate on the "economics" as long as Julia agrees to meet the very next day on a Q&A in a Sydney town hall again. BIG MISTAKE !




Tony's confidence seems to be rising, so hopefully he will do OK.  He doesn't have to waste brain power with spin which his opponent will no doubt continue to do.

I like the fact that Tony has only agreed provided Julia meets his terms and conditions. He hasn't meekly given in to her demands and taunts.


----------



## Logique (17 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> Coopers Sparkling is good stuff.



You're not wrong there Dr Zacchary!

Watched Four Corners and Lateline last night. '..Won't it be your biggest mistake (ditching Rudd) if you don't win..' said Four Corners, '..it's not about me..' came the beaming reply from Julia. 

It's always been about you Ms Gillard.

On Lateline I was mightily impressed with some straight talking from regional independents Bob Catter (QLD) and Tony Windsor (NSW). Currently three indeps, might be four after the election, and some chance they'll have the balance of power in the lower house. Regional Australia strikes back!

Wayne Swan -what have you got to say about the 280,000 pensioners and retirees who can't access their frozen funds in REITS and mortgage funds, and why, because in a blind panic you decided to govt guarantee funds in the banks, leading to a run on these managed funds, and their eventual freezing.

Still frozen these REITS, with no answers for the people caught by this hasty and ill-conceived decision by Labor. 

So much for the ALP's economic management of the GFC. Funny, haven't seen this featured on the (not your) ABC.


----------



## Calliope (17 August 2010)

Gillard was still calling Abbott, Mr Rabbit at her launch yesterday. We are now repeatedly harangued on TV by a nasty bloke with a hard hat and a dirty face who also calls him Mr Rabbit.


----------



## Happy (17 August 2010)

Eventually Liberals will have their turn, like Labor did only because lots of people were convinced that we need change.


----------



## Julia (17 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Oh oh ... Tony has backed down and agreed to a debate on the "economics" as long as Julia agrees to meet the very next day on a Q&A in a Sydney town hall again. BIG MISTAKE !



TS, he really had no choice.  It was either agree, on his terms, at least, or be labelled too frightened to accept.



Duckman#72 said:


> I know. I hope I'm proven wrong - but Tony has more to lose here than Julia.
> 
> Having said that - he has his tail up and he is on a roll when it comes to public speaking forums (and he is a confidence player).
> 
> ...



Agree, Duckman, he has plenty of ammunition to fire.  I'm actually surprised that Ms Gillard appears to think she is in an unassailable position on this topic.



sails said:


> Tony's confidence seems to be rising, so hopefully he will do OK.  He doesn't have to waste brain power with spin which his opponent will no doubt continue to do.
> 
> I like the fact that Tony has only agreed provided Julia meets his terms and conditions. He hasn't meekly given in to her demands and taunts.



Yes, true.   And this is a sign of his increasing confidence.  She has throughout the campaign, along with her colleagues been hugely more personal and unpleasant in her personal taunts toward Tony Abbott.  Imo she'd have been more credible, had she left the personal stuff out.


----------



## Duckman#72 (17 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Yes, true.   And this is a sign of his increasing confidence.  She has throughout the campaign, along with her colleagues been hugely more personal and unpleasant in her personal taunts toward Tony Abbott.  Imo she'd have been more credible, had she left the personal stuff out.




Yes Julia. For weeks now, Tony has been far less "negative" and personal than the Government. It is working in his favour.

Duckman


----------



## Les_Meldow (17 August 2010)

Definately Liberal. Labor wants to bring in a NBN but still has the intent on introducing a internet filter which will restrict things that they see fit we can and can't see (human rights anyone) and also the filter will greatly reduce speeds.


"THE Gillard government has succumbed to pressure and delayed the introduction of its mandatory internet filtering scheme.

The government will wait until a review of refused classification requirements is done.

*If Labor wins the upcoming election -- poised in the coming months -- this could see a 2012 start date for the controversial plan, which was introduced by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd prior to the 2007 federal election.*

The review into transparency and accountability measures into RC categories will take one year to be completed.

Legislation will then be introduced to require all ISPs to filter the RC content list. Once the legislation has passed implementing the web filter plan would take another 12 months.


The Greens yesterday urged Prime Minister Julia Gillard to put the filtering plan on hold or risk affecting Labor's election chances.

Greens Senator Scott Ludlam said the friendless net filter proposal is one policy that Labor will probably regret taking into the 2010 election.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy today clarified that the purpose of the review is to ensure that material included in the RC category "correctly reflects current community standards".

"As the government's mandatory ISP filtering policy is underpinned by the strength of our classification system, the legal obligation to commence mandatory ISP filtering will not be imposed until the review is completed," Senator Conroy said.

The Australian Online understands the review will be headed by an independent expert in the field who will be supported by a number community assessment panels.

In conjunction with the review three of Australia's largest ISPs -- Telstra, Optus and Primus -- have agreed to block a list of child abuse URLs compiled by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

"I welcome the socially responsible approach taken by some of Australia's largest ISPs. Between them they account for around 70 per cent of internet users in Australia," Senator Conroy said.

"I encourage other Australian ISPs to follow the example of these ISPs, as well as the large number of ISPs in other western democracies, who already block this abhorrent content."

*Ms Gillard had backed the filtering plan. She made her support known to ABC radio this week,* saying she understood public concerns over the scheme but that Senator Conroy was working to find a resolution that would be in the "right shape".

When asked if Ms Gillard had set a deadline for the filtering legislation to be introduced, Senator Conroy said: "We are prepared to spend as much time as necessary to make sure we get it right."

"The discussions we're having behind the scenes with various players are more interested in getting the implementation and the actual policy right rather than saying it's got to be done by some artificial deadline."

The filter had been opposed by US Ambassador to Australia Jeff Bleich who urged the government to ditch the plan, saying child pornographers could be captured and prosecuted without using mandatory internet filters.

RC broadly consists of illegal content but Google and various internet experts believe the list could potentially contain legitimate material."



Had to laugh at Julia Gillard's speech yesterday when she said she was speaking "off the cuff" and "from the heart". I can not post links or images yet but go to TheAge and check out Julia Gillards notes for the speech. An absolute lie her whole speech was , just a sham.
 Move along Labor.


----------



## sails (17 August 2010)

Les_Meldow said:


> ...Had to laugh at Julia Gillard's speech yesterday when she said she was speaking "off the cuff" and "from the heart". I can not post links or images yet but go to TheAge and check out Julia Gillards notes for the speech. An absolute lie her whole speech was , just a sham.
> Move along Labor.




Link already posted in the Gillard thread:  https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=575028#post575028

Yes, the SMH photos shows the wad of papers on the lectern and another shows a stagehand putting the notes in place.


----------



## trainspotter (17 August 2010)

But when it is all over we can sit around a bit of blue cable thread across OZ and marvel at the joy and socio economic well being it has brung. Three cheers for the Labor Party


----------



## IFocus (17 August 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Tony gave another strong performance on Q & A. Unlike Julia who seems increasingly reliant upon worn cliches, Tony was forthright, upfront and statesmanlike in his appearance tonight.
> 
> He is meeting every challenge put to him. Even on potential "disaster categories" like gay marriage and religion, Tony's responses seem considered, measured, logical and well articulated.
> 
> ...




Abbott's performance was I thought outstanding compared to where he started from only 6 months or so ago.

I think Abbott has a very real chance of winning and wont be surprised if he gets up.

No matter his current face he puts on Abbott will remain a right wing social conservative with little vision for the future and will be the 1st prime-minister of Australia to bring that background to power.


----------



## Happy (17 August 2010)

Do we have anywhere how much this super fast internet connection is going to cost average Joe Blow per month?

And what would be monthly download limit?

Will it also count upload for the monthly allowance?


----------



## trainspotter (17 August 2010)

Happy said:


> Do we have anywhere how much this super fast internet connection is going to cost average Joe Blow per month?
> 
> And what would be monthly download limit?
> 
> Will it also count upload for the monthly allowance?




43 billion dollars for every man, woman and child in Australia over an 8 year period. (as long as there are no cost blowouts) Other than that ... NO.

1 gig per second. Reeeeely reeeely FAST !

Depends on what they decide on a monthly cost I suggest?

Sorry Happy ... not having a go ... but the NBN thread is working on these critical matters as we speak.

Libs did a major PUSH tonight on several TV channels and got the message across with aplomb IMO. Lost me in the middle bit for awhile but got back on track in the ending. Eyes only glazed over the once.

P.S. I am still grinning about the Ifocus post ... very clever. I dips me lid.


----------



## noco (18 August 2010)

The link below shows just how far the Labor Party will go to deceive voters of the real facts.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...mments/column_labors_launch_says_no_to_labor/


----------



## Timmy (18 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Gillard was still calling Abbott, Mr Rabbit at her launch yesterday.




Haven't stopped giggling since reading this, best post on the thread


----------



## Mofra (18 August 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> The primary reason for Australia coming out of the GFC in such good shape goes to the strength of the economy and the decisions of previous Governments.



What was it that people were saying about politics and spin?

China is very much the overhwelming factor that has driven our economic performance under _both_ governments - either government trying to take credit for this, and anyone actually believing them, merely shows how easily manipulated the Australian electorate is.


----------



## Happy (18 August 2010)

noco said:


> The link below shows just how far the Labor Party will go to deceive voters of the real facts.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...mments/column_labors_launch_says_no_to_labor/





I wander if there is enough bad things done to get Labor party deregistered, tradesmen or other professionals doing similar things are.

I know, not possible just a thought thou.


----------



## Calliope (18 August 2010)

I loved this headline in the Brisbane Courier-Mail this morning;

*Labor to Teach Financial Skills*



> Students across Australia would learn about mobile phone contracts and credit card fees under Labor's plans to improve day-to-day financial literacy.
> 
> Prime Minister Julia Gillard will today announce that if her Government is re-elected, students from kindergarten to Year 10, will be taught more about managing their finances.


----------



## sails (18 August 2010)

How arrogant is this woman??? 

Abbott gave her the opportunity to debate the economy for half an hour last night.  She didn't turn up.  Now she is planning to gatecrash Abbott's time at the forum tonight to demand a debate.



> JULIA Gillard will try to gatecrash Tony Abbott as he faces undecided voters again in a second "people's forum", this time taking place in front of Kevin Rudd's home fans....
> 
> 
> ...Mr Abbott will face them for one hour from 6pm (AEST), then Ms Gillard will face them from 7:30pm.
> ...




http://www.news.com.au/features/fed...-town-hall-forum/story-fn5tas5k-1225906594356

How rude - hopefully this backfires on her...


----------



## Happy (18 August 2010)

sails said:


> How arrogant is this woman???
> 
> ....
> How rude - hopefully this backfires on her...





From what I heard, she wants to answer questions after him.
Suppose better chance to ridicule him without a chance for reply, might work in her favour, unfortunately.


----------



## sails (18 August 2010)

Happy said:


> From what I heard, she wants to answer questions after him.
> Suppose better chance to ridicule him without a chance for reply, might work in her favour, unfortunately.




As I understand, it was planned that Abbott would have one hour with undecided voters from 6pm.  Then Gillard would have an hour from 7:30pm.  

But now she wants to gatecrash Abbott's time at 6pm for a debate on the economy.  If so, that's getting pretty low, IMO.


----------



## trainspotter (18 August 2010)

So "NO" doesn't mean "NO" in Julias world? She was offered three debates from Tony Abbott but she insisted on one. No one said anything then about her being "chicken" or a Mr Rabbit or "running scared". Are we really that gullible as a nation of voters that we allow this to happen?

Her constant arm touching freaks me out a little bit as well.


----------



## Mofra (18 August 2010)

Dear Michael Pascoe,

You have once again hit the nail on the head.

Thank you

http://www.theage.com.au/business/the-big-tax-lie-is-coming-to-bite-us-20100818-128pi.html


----------



## Julia (18 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> I loved this headline in the Brisbane Courier-Mail this morning;
> 
> *Labor to Teach Financial Skills*



The Australian also carried the same report, but added that teachers would first receive appropriate education via ASIC.



sails said:


> How arrogant is this woman???
> 
> Abbott gave her the opportunity to debate the economy for half an hour last night.  She didn't turn up.  Now she is planning to gatecrash Abbott's time at the forum tonight to demand a debate.



If she actually does that, she will be very foolish imo.
They have both behaved very childishly about this.  It's quite incredible that the petty arguments about when to have what debates and/or forums have absorbed most of the air time for the last week!



trainspotter said:


> Her constant arm touching freaks me out a little bit as well.



Agree.  It's extremely patronising, almost insulting.


----------



## sails (18 August 2010)

Julia said:


> If she actually does that, she will be very foolish imo.
> They have both behaved very childishly about this.  It's quite incredible that the petty arguments about when to have what debates and/or forums have absorbed most of the air time for the last week!




I am  beginning to think she might be afraid of an economic debate with Abbott.  Is this possibly all bluff on her part?  

Abbott initially requested two more debates - Gillard refused.
Gillard changed her mind and said "anywhere, anytime".
Abbott offered her a half hour debate on ABC last night - she refused.

Now she wants to gatecrash on his forum time.  My guess is she knows he won't budge.  Starting to look like she really doesn't want to debate him on the economy at all.

Here is an article from the Business Spectator where Abbott clearly states he has set that time for questions from the people: http://www.businessspectator.com.au...tt-set-for-debate-showdown-8F648?OpenDocument



> I will be there at 6 o'clock tonight waiting to debate Mr Abbott on the economy," she told reporters.
> 
> Mr Abbott showed no signs of succumbing to the pressure.
> 
> ...




Just because she is PM surely doesn't give her the right to gatecrash a pre-planned event.


----------



## derty (18 August 2010)

The Secular Party seem about the most sensible of all at the moment: http://www.secular.org.au/
Might seriously consider voting for them in the Senate.


----------



## IFocus (18 August 2010)

Mofra said:


> Dear Michael Pascoe,
> 
> You have once again hit the nail on the head.
> 
> ...




Thanks Mofra missed that one Pascoe is certainly on the money.


----------



## Calliope (18 August 2010)

The people's forum tonight was a non-event. It was exceedingly boring. Abbott tried a bit harder than Gillard to answer the questions, but we learned nothing new. 

No questions really put them on the spot and those that tried received long boring non-answers. How the audience kept awake during Gillard's session is beyond me.  It was hard yakka watching it, but with the help of a few glasses I persevered.


----------



## noco (18 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> The people's forum tonight was a non-event. It was exceedingly boring. Abbott tried a bit harder than Gillard to answer the questions, but we learned nothing new.
> 
> No questions really put them on the spot and those that tried received long boring non-answers. How the audience kept awake during Gillard's session is beyond me.  It was hard yakka watching it, but with the help of a few glasses I persevered.




Out of 200 people in the audience, Gillard received 85  votes to Abbott 78. So the 40 are either Green voters and those who still hve not made up their minds.

Yes it all was a bit boring.


----------



## Calliope (18 August 2010)

noco said:


> Out of 200 people in the audience, Gillard received 85  votes to Abbott 78. So the 40 are either Green voters and those who still hve not made up their minds.




I don't think so. The Greens would have voted for Gillard.  I don't think there were any there who hadn't made up their minds previously. Abbott had no doubt that one nasty questioner was a Labor stooge.


----------



## Calliope (19 August 2010)

Nobody asked Gillard last night about how she would be rewarding Bill Shorten and Senator Arbib for their role in the coup that toppled Rudd, if she wins.

Now the question needs to be asked what job she would give Tim Mathieson. If she wins, his job in real estate would be very iffy, especially as his job is merely a front for Labor fund raising.



> Mr Mathieson, a former hairdresser and hair products salesman, was employed by Mr Dadon as a property consultant last year despite having no property experience.
> 
> The appointment also followed Ms Gillard and Mr Mathieson leading a delegation of Australian MPs to Israel as part of the first Australia-Israel Leadership Forum, founded by Mr Dadon. The appointment sparked controversy on two fronts: the possibility of special planning treatment for Mr Dadon's inner-city apartment projects by the Brumby government, and concern over Ms Gillard for perceived uncritical support of Israel.
> 
> ...




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/mathieson-job-on-the-line-20100818-12f4l.html


----------



## Mofra (19 August 2010)

noco said:


> Out of 200 people in the audience, Gillard received 85  votes to Abbott 78. So the 40 are either Green voters and those who still hve not made up their minds.
> 
> Yes it all was a bit boring.



People are just sick of both leaders playing it safe. Gillard offered nothing new, except for a focus on positives in the opening monolgue which is a little different to the way the campaign has been rolled out. Abbott keeps playing it safe (the "New Abbott") so his role as offical Liberal Headkicker of the past 15 years is kept out of public view.

I'd be interested to see a graph of the major parties' primary vote share over the past few decades. I'd expect to see a drop in support overall.


----------



## Mofra (19 August 2010)

noco said:


> Whether the Labor Party win or lose this election there will be turmoil amongst the unions and Labor Party factions with lots of 'blood left on the floor.
> Vhttp://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/labor-blood-will-flow-over-rudd-dumping-says-union-boss-20100818-12aw4.html



There always will be whilst complete headcases like Dean Mighell hold positions of power within militant unions. The guy makes Mark Latham look sensible and calm.


----------



## noco (19 August 2010)

Whether the Labor Party win or lose this election there will be turmoil between the unions and the various factions in the Labor Party. There will be 'lots of blood left on the floor'.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-elect...d-dumping-says-union-boss-20100818-12aw4.html


----------



## Calliope (19 August 2010)

I neglected to point out in my post (#692) on Tim Mathieson, that the SMH lifted the story from The Age and The Age is biased against the Israeli state. So they are not happy with Gillard cosying up to the Israelis. It is one point the major parties agree on.


----------



## drsmith (19 August 2010)

Did anyone from the media ask Julia at her National Press Club address today whether a price on carbon would be introduced during the next term of a Labor government.

Bob Brown was was adamant at his National Press Club address yesterday that it would.


----------



## sinner (19 August 2010)

I just got an email from GetUp asking me to join their Adopt-a-Booth campaign. The idea is that since 10% of voters make up their mind as they enter the booth, GetUp wants volunteers to stand around and inform voters of where all the major parties stand on 14 key issues. Here is the scorecard they want people to hand out:







But apparently from the FAQ the parties are changing their policy statements so rapidly now that:



> Policies from the major parties on our key election issues were changing right up to the final days, and we wanted to have the most accurate scorecards we can. As a result, the scorecards have just been finalised which unfortunately means there wasn't enough time to have them printed and delivered to all our volunteers, especially those in regional areas.




http://www.getup.org.au/community/gettogethers/series.php?id=30
http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/election2010&id=1344
https://www.getup.org.au/files/campaigns/electiondayvolunteerguidefinal.pdf

I make no partisan claim or basis for this scorecard, just thought I would post it for interests sake.


----------



## wayneL (19 August 2010)

sinner said:


> I just got an email from GetUp asking me to join their Adopt-a-Booth campaign. The idea is that since 10% of voters make up their mind as they enter the booth, GetUp wants volunteers to stand around and inform voters of where all the major parties stand on 14 key issues. Here is the scorecard they want people to hand out:




I oppose such simplistic/leading questioning.

For instance - "Stop our rising pollution within the next term of government". Does the questioner mean general pollution or do they mean co2 exclusively?

Disingenuous at best IMO.


----------



## drsmith (19 August 2010)

>



When did the Coalition change their policy on mandatory internet filtering ?


----------



## Calliope (19 August 2010)

The pathetic ugly duckling Wayne Swan has his knickers in a knot over the Coalition costings. I don't know why he is so concerned. Nobody understands them, not even Hockey.

Both claim they will get the budget back into surplus by 2012/2013.  Swan says that is three years early. Earlier than what?


----------



## noco (19 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> Did anyone from the media ask Julia at her National Press Club address today whether a price on carbon would be introduced during the next term of a Labor government.
> 
> Bob Brown was was adamant at his National Press Club address yesterday that it would.




I heard Wayne Swan on one of the recent interviews stating categorically there would be NO CPRS in the next term of parliament if the Labor Party were relected and yet Bob Brown says there will.


----------



## sails (19 August 2010)

Posted this in the Gillard thread but worth putting the info here as well with Swan waffling on about coatition costings.  
The article is a few days old, but I suspect nothing has changed.



> WAYNE Swan has admitted policies announced at Labor's official campaign launch on Monday will not be costed by Treasury, as he hammered the Coalition for refusing to have their prices checked.




full article:  http://www.news.com.au/features/fed...ampaign-costings/story-e6frfllr-1225904750492


----------



## drsmith (19 August 2010)

noco said:


> I heard Wayne Swan on one of the recent interviews stating categorically there would be NO CPRS in the next term of parliament if the Labor Party were relected and yet Bob Brown says there will.



Would that be this from Aug 12,

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2981491.htm

To cut a long story short,



> JOE HOCKEY: What was that? Was that yes or no? That was just... The fundamental question is, are you going to rule out a carbon tax in the next term of the Government - yes or no?
> 
> WAYNE SWAN: We have made our position very clear. *We have ruled it out*. We have to go back to the community and work out a way in which we can put a cap on carbon pollution.



A serious contradiction between the Greens and the ALP, or so it seems.

I would still like to hear it from Julia Gillard.


----------



## Julia (19 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> When did the Coalition change their policy on mandatory internet filtering ?



About two weeks ago they announced that they would not support the filter.
Prior to this they were sitting on the fence.  Didn't at any stage say they would support it.


----------



## noco (19 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> Would that be this from Aug 12,
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2981491.htm
> 
> ...




Thanks drsmith, yes that was the one. Swan says NO to any CPRS between 2010 and 2013 if they are re-elected. The Greens say there will be a CPRS if Labor wins the election.


----------



## trainspotter (19 August 2010)

OK OK OK OK ... time to put up or shut up ........ Liberals by 4 seats for me. NO HUNG PARLIAMENT. Bottle of Vintage Moet is the bet. Will send anywhere in Australia by Platinum Express. Any takers?

(not sure if this contravenes any ASF laws here so I  might get into trouble?)


----------



## drsmith (20 August 2010)

Julia said:


> About two weeks ago they announced that they would not support the filter.
> Prior to this they were sitting on the fence.  Didn't at any stage say they would support it.



My mistake.

I misread the GetUp table above.


----------



## drsmith (20 August 2010)

noco said:


> Thanks drsmith, yes that was the one. Swan says NO to any CPRS between 2010 and 2013 if they are re-elected. The Greens say there will be a CPRS if Labor wins the election.



Old Bobby-boy at the National Press Club said there would be a carbon tax full stop.


----------



## drsmith (20 August 2010)

And Julia is smoking the same bong as Bob although not quiet inhaling to the same extent.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983


----------



## wayneL (20 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> OK OK OK OK ... time to put up or shut up ........ Liberals by 4 seats for me. NO HUNG PARLIAMENT. Bottle of Vintage Moet is the bet. Will send anywhere in Australia by Platinum Express. Any takers?
> 
> (not sure if this contravenes any ASF laws here so I  might get into trouble?)




I'm not quite a fan of the unLiberals yet, but if that happened I'd crack a bottle of Moet. Then I'd fly back to Oz just to shove the empty bottle up the ~~~~ of the biased and vile Labor stooges that pass themselves off as political commentators the NZ disc jocks phone up for comment. 

Best comment by an NZ jock - "Gillard sounds like Kath and Kim on Valium".


----------



## drsmith (20 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> And Julia is smoking the same bong as Bob although not quiet inhaling to the same extent.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983



I suspect the deal between Labor and the Greens is to legislate a tax on carbon during the next term but such that the tax would not actually commence till after the start of the following term.

That would satisfy Bob Brown's demand for a carbon tax this term in that it would be legislated by the next election (expected 2013).


----------



## Calliope (20 August 2010)

The sweet Julia with the girlish laugh is starting to lose her cool. On ABC this morning she answered every question by Lyndal Curtis with a litany of lies about what we could expect from Abbott if we were stupid enough to elect him.

In reply to a bit of probing on why she was delaying her ETS program, she snapped back "what a load of nonsense." 

We are starting to see the real Julia. The facade is is wearing away.


----------



## gordon2007 (20 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> OK OK OK OK ... time to put up or shut up ........ Liberals by 4 seats for me. NO HUNG PARLIAMENT. Bottle of Vintage Moet is the bet. Will send anywhere in Australia by Platinum Express. Any takers? (not sure if this contravenes any ASF laws here so I  might get into trouble?)




I think you're spot on with this prediction.


----------



## Calliope (20 August 2010)

I know that politicians seeking election have to do some nauseating things, but I feel sorry for Julia having to kiss Wayne Swan on several occasions.


----------



## trainspotter (20 August 2010)

The other thing that PEEVES me to a point of distraction which seems to be escaping the puny grasp of the voters is that all of these promises will not be met until 2013/2014. Now I am no maths genius but don't we need another election between now and when these "promises" kick in? HUH ? Anybody.

What happened to the "Grocerywatch" website? 10 million and then nuffin
What happened to a laptop for every kid in school? EPIC FAIL
What happened to the 346 SUPER GP CLINICS promised? 3 delivered. Oh JOY !

I could list about another 200 or so "broken promises" but I don't want to be a thread hog.

So tell me again why are we voting Labor? Now the Libs are no better, 1 billion dollars a day on this particular election campaign Tony Abbott has thrown at the nation of voters. Guess what ? Most of it wont kick in until 2013/2014.

I can hardly wait.


----------



## Mofra (20 August 2010)

Too true trainspotter - regardless of result, we're going to end up with Abbott or Gillard


----------



## prawn_86 (20 August 2010)

Mofra said:


> Too true trainspotter - regardless of result, we're going to end up with Abbott or Gillard




http://senatoronline.org.au/ - i know they have no hope of getting up, but we can actually (hopefully) sit up and make the major parties realise people are (slowly) waking up to their cr@p


----------



## nioka (20 August 2010)

prawn_86 said:


> http://senatoronline.org.au/ - i know they have no hope of getting up, but we can actually (hopefully) sit up and make the major parties realise people are (slowly) waking up to their cr@p




The worst possible thing that can happen is to have a party in power that has to let the minority greens led by an (censored) have undue influence because of a backroom deal that was necessary for a power hungry indivudial to get that position of power. 

That is NOT democracy. Bob Brown is already stating what "WE" will do in government.

If all you want to do is have a protest vote then Mark Latham gave you an alternative.


----------



## prawn_86 (20 August 2010)

nioka said:


> The worst possible thing that can happen is to have a party in power that has to let the minority greens led by an (censored) have undue influence because of a backroom deal that was necessary for a power hungry indivudial to get that position of power.
> 
> That is NOT democracy. Bob Brown is already stating what "WE" will do in government.




What do they have to do with the Greens? As far as i can tell they are independent


----------



## Calliope (20 August 2010)

Can we trust the opinion polls?


----------



## Logique (20 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> OK OK ... time to put up or shut up ... Liberals by 4 seats for me. NO HUNG PARLIAMENT. Bottle of Vintage Moet is the bet. Any takers?..



Well, tomorrow's polling day, make or break. That bet's too rich for my blood TS, but if you're right I'll gladly contribute to a whip round to shout you a bottle of Moet. 

Hurts to say this, but my gut says it will be same outcome but the other way round, an ALP win. Either way, by tomorrow night I reckon the time will be = beer o'clock. Coopers Sparkling of course, at the good Doctor's recommendation.

There is still the Senate, will any lower house government be able to function effectively if there is a Greens balance of power. 

Fascinating with this monster thread, the poll percentages have barely changed from the beginning.

Thanks for your forbearance Joe Blow.


----------



## Calliope (20 August 2010)

This is a poll in the SMH today. The SMH is backing a Labor victory. I think all it indicates is that more conservatives read on-line newspapers than socialists.  It's a similar thing for ASF posters.



> *: Who gets your vote?
> Coalition
> 53%
> Labor
> ...


----------



## sails (20 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> This is a poll in the SMH today. The SMH is backing a Labor victory. I think all it indicates is that more conservatives read on-line newspapers than socialists.  It's a similar thing for ASF posters.




Yes, I have noticed online polls seem to strongly favor the coalition which has been in conflict with  other polls.  We will find out tomorrow which ones were the most accurate.

And I did enjoy the "Yes Minister" clip - I think it says it all...


----------



## Calliope (20 August 2010)

sails said:


> Yes, I have noticed online polls seem to strongly favor the coalition which has been in conflict with  other polls.  We will find out tomorrow which ones were the most accurate.
> 
> And I did enjoy the "Yes Minister" clip - I think it says it all...




Thanks sails. It is nice to get a bit of feedback.


----------



## nioka (20 August 2010)

prawn_86 said:


> What do they have to do with the Greens? As far as i can tell they are independent




What backroom deal have they made with Gillard so that she gets the green preferences?.


----------



## prawn_86 (20 August 2010)

nioka said:


> What backroom deal have they made with Gillard so that she gets the green preferences?.




If you actually clicked the link you would see im not talking about the Greens in the post you quoted.


----------



## IFocus (20 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> OK OK OK OK ... time to put up or shut up ........ Liberals by 4 seats for me. NO HUNG PARLIAMENT.




I agree this is quite likely and wouldn't bet against it.


----------



## IFocus (20 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> I suspect the deal between Labor and the Greens is to legislate a tax on carbon during the next term but such that the tax would not actually commence till after the start of the following term.
> 
> That would satisfy Bob Brown's demand for a carbon tax this term in that it would be legislated by the next election (expected 2013).




This is plausible but would still be surprised if it happened regards less of the comments that they are in bed with each other the gap between Greens and Labor is more than most realize politically.

Current Labor is closer to the Liberals than Greens


----------



## IFocus (20 August 2010)

So tomorrow Australia will likely elect Tony Abbott

A right wing social conservative 

1st job as PM will be to ring President of China, US maybe Japan nope he going to ring Nauru brilliant!

His vision for the future of Australia is.................


----------



## sails (20 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> His vision for the future of Australia is.................



Something a lot better than the last three years - of course IMO...

The specifics will follow - just would be a relief to have the country run by people with some experience in government.


----------



## doctorj (20 August 2010)

Thank god I don't have to vote in this election... Is politics really that devoid of talent that there's no one better to run for PM????  No vision, no foreign policy experience...  Next to these muppets, Rudd is in a different league


----------



## IFocus (20 August 2010)

sails said:


> Something a lot better than the last three years - of course IMO...
> 
> The specifics will follow - just would be a relief to have the country run by people with some experience in government.




This sums up my own view quite well from SMH

Why Labor under Gillard deserves a second chance 



> First, it did successfully get us through the global financial crisis; the nation is not suffering from the crippling economic malaise – the loss of confidence and jobs – still found in the United States and throughout Europe. It is true, some of the economic stimulus was wasted or went astray – but it has to be understood and judged as an emergency measure enacted and managed in haste. That does not excuse it, but it goes a long way to explain it.
> 
> Second, Labor does have a plan – properly costed – to reduce national debt and get the federal budget back in surplus; its economic policy settings seem about right.
> 
> ...





And my view of Abbott the politician



> And last – what is the alternative? For all his obvious leadership qualities, Tony Abbott has not yet articulated a cohesive and positive plan for the nation. He has been correct as Opposition Leader to highlight waste in some of the government's stimulus spending. He is also justified in asking whether federal and state Labor governments can deliver on big spending promises such as the Epping-to-Parramatta rail link. He has run a good campaign – one that, if the polls are correct, will bring him very close to a historic victory. He has shown a steadiness during the campaign that has not been obvious during his political career. Until the last few weeks, he was worryingly inconsistent in many policy areas. He needs to show the Australian people that in government he would not revert to policy flip-flops as the political wind changed. If he wins, then we wish him all the best. But it really isn't yet his turn.




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/edito...-deserves-a-second-chance-20100819-12s56.html

If Abbott gets up at least he will provide plenty of material to return service the shrill threads from the Liberal supporters 

Still after tomorrow our opinions count for nothing what will count is the democratic right to cast a vote and how lucky we are to be able to carry out this simple act?


----------



## sails (20 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> ...Still after tomorrow our opinions count for nothing what will count is the democratic right to cast a vote and how lucky we are to be able to carry out this simple act?




Yep, that is so true and something we can definitely agree on...


----------



## wayneL (20 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> Still after tomorrow our opinions count for nothing what will count is the democratic right to cast a vote and how lucky *we are to be able to carry out this simple act?*




Actually, you are *compelled* to carry out this act. You do not have the simple freedom to abstain.


----------



## drsmith (20 August 2010)

nioka said:


> What backroom deal have they made with Gillard so that she gets the green preferences?.



I suspect the legislation of a carbon tax/ETS during the next term of government with the tax to take effect the following term.


----------



## Julia (20 August 2010)

doctorj said:


> Thank god I don't have to vote in this election... Is politics really that devoid of talent that there's no one better to run for PM????  No vision, no foreign policy experience...  Next to these muppets, Rudd is in a different league



Well, we tried Mr Rudd and he turned out to be an arrogant, egotistical control freak, viz the opinion polls, and his assassination.
The trouble with Mr Rudd was that he was all big ideas, even 'vision' if you like, but no capacity to follow through.
It all started with the great song and dance about the apology to aboriginal people.  The nation wept with joy.  What actually changed for the aboriginal people?   Sweet nothing.
And so it all went downhill from there.

However, I don't think you'd find too many who'd disagree with your unhappiness regarding the two current candidates.  That we have to vote for the person we think will be the least incompetent is sad indeed.




IFocus said:


> till after tomorrow our opinions count for nothing what will count is the democratic right to cast a vote and how lucky we are to be able to carry out this simple act?



Good reminder, IFocus.  So easy to be critical of all that we take so much for granted.


----------



## trainspotter (20 August 2010)

Who cares ?? We will not be better off under either delusional party. For all the words we have typed have acheived NADA. People will vote with their hearts and not their heads. 

This is not to say that the party that wins government will be better than the other. This is merely pointing out we can rant in here and it makes no difference.

All of the promises do not kick in until 2013/14 ... ironic isn't it?


----------



## Logique (21 August 2010)

Lateline was again good viewing last night. 
Leigh Sales, again resisting any urge to partisanship, again incisive and professional. 

Michael Kroger and Paul Howes rattling away. Howes saying workchoices [porky pie] twice in one list, and again indignant at Kroger's "..Paul you're better than that.." 

Howes, a trade unionist. They don't even wait to be elected to parliament these days. 

Kroger said something I agree with: if Gillard wins, she'll be in the chair a maximum of two years before Bill Shorten deposes her. And so it goes with Labor under the NSW Right model, the factions and unions elect the leader. Voters, they say, thanks for your interest, but we make the decisions.

The contest is actually between Shorten and Abbott.


----------



## Calliope (21 August 2010)

Logique said:


> The contest is actually between Shorten and Abbott.




Gillard never would answer the question as to what cabinet posts she would reward Arbib and Shorten with for making her PM. Hopefully we will never find out.


----------



## Logique (21 August 2010)

Hi Calliope,
yes how would it be, with Rudd and those two roosters Shorten and Arbib hovering over you!

The stock market is going to be fascinating next week, however it turns out today.


----------



## noco (21 August 2010)

Logique said:


> Hi Calliope,
> yes how would it be, with Rudd and those two roosters Shorten and Arbib hovering over you!
> 
> The stock market is going to be fascinating next week, however it turns out today.




Yes the market will rise or fall depending on the election outcome and will certainly take away the doubt the miners have to invest or to withhold.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 August 2010)

I saw Tony Mooney ( Candidate for Herbert) standing all alone outside Pimlico High School at 7.10 am as I was returning to the Hotel in the Arnage after a night of debauchery.

If his own people can't be bothered getting out of bed to help him, it does not bode well for the ALP in Herbert.

I was going to stop to say g'day, but there was a copper on the other side of the road doing rbt of all bloody things, and I may have been over.

gg


----------



## Calliope (21 August 2010)

She should get the academy award for this one.


----------



## electronicmaster (21 August 2010)

I'm proud to say that I *VOIDED* my vote today.

Both Parties will destroy us all IMO.  So I can now say that whatever happens? I am not responsible for it.

*VOID*
*VOID*
*VOID*
*VOID*
*VOID*
*VOID*
*VOID*
*VOID*


----------



## prawn_86 (21 August 2010)

electronicmaster said:


> I'm proud to say that I *VOIDED* my vote today.
> 
> Both Parties will destroy us all IMO.  So I can now say that whatever happens? I am not responsible for it.




There are more than 2 parties...


----------



## electronicmaster (21 August 2010)

prawn_86 said:


> There are more than 2 parties...




The greens are Evil, and the others?  mmm  The Sex Party?

None follow the Australian Constitutional Law.

I am a Australian Citizen, not a member of the UN


----------



## prawn_86 (21 August 2010)

electronicmaster said:


> The greens are Evil, and the others?  mmm  The Sex Party?




Liberal Democrats, Independents, Senator Online etc etc

Me thinks someone is a bit too blinded by conspiracy theorists


----------



## So_Cynical (21 August 2010)

prawn_86 said:


> There are more than 2 parties...




2 party preferred = there's only 2 party's, upper house anyway.


----------



## sails (21 August 2010)

electronicmaster said:


> I'm proud to say that I *VOIDED* my vote today.
> 
> Both Parties will destroy us all IMO.  So I can now say that whatever happens? I am not responsible for it.




Fair enough, but please don't complain in the next three years if you don't like it as you haven't made your vote count somewhere.


----------



## jbocker (21 August 2010)

electronicmaster said:


> I'm proud to say that I *VOIDED* my vote today.
> 
> You are kidding right?
> 
> ...


----------



## electronicmaster (21 August 2010)

jbocker said:


> This is a lucky country, you can vote and get the person you voted for to work for you (your electorate not just the leader of the party).




Yes, true.  That is suppose to be possible.

Try to get them to do this:-

1. Reduce the Government size
2. Stop the government from controlling and/or acting as a corporation or business
3. Remove laws that are making it harder for investors to make money
4. Allow the media to give the people real news 
4. Stop Fighting any Wars (unless it is to protect our own land) 
5. Prevent GMO foods and animals been grown and sold in Australia
6. Stop the Internet Filter
7. Stop poisoning our water with sodium fluoride (and possibly lithium)
8. Stop the government from adopting any Bills that the USA passes
9. Stop increasing or adding any from of taxes (Income taxes still can be reduced more)
10. In relation to #6, stop inflation and deflation (AKA Introduce The Gold Standard)
11. Stop privatizing any Australian company or services     
12. Remove all "so called idealogical" Eugenics programs
13. let the free market live and prosper

And restore the Australian Constitution, if it some how manages to become replaced.

That is just the short list.  I doubt they can do it.  They are not really in control.


----------



## electronicmaster (21 August 2010)

electronicmaster said:


> 10. In relation to #6, stop inflation and deflation (AKA Introduce The Gold Standard)




Sorry, that was meant to be in relation to #9


----------



## Calliope (21 August 2010)

Bob Hawke finds that viagra doesn't work any more.


----------



## Julia (21 August 2010)

sails said:


> Fair enough, but please don't complain in the next three years if you don't like it as you haven't made your vote count somewhere.






jbocker said:


> electronicmaster said:
> 
> 
> > I'm proud to say that I *VOIDED* my vote today.
> ...



Whilst I can understand the disillusionment with politicians, I still really value that I can vote, even if it's for the least worst candidates.
Agree absolutely with Jbocker's view that we are way more fortunate than many countries, not just because we can vote, but because we are free to criticise our governments.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Bob Hawke finds that viagra doesn't work any more.




I think rather, that he has found its working, but doesn't know what to do with it anymore. 

gg


----------



## noco (21 August 2010)

electronicmaster said:


> I'm proud to say that I *VOIDED* my vote today.
> 
> Both Parties will destroy us all IMO.  So I can now say that whatever happens? I am not responsible for it.
> 
> ...




That is so good if you are normally a Labor voter.


----------



## wayneL (21 August 2010)

jbocker said:


> You are kidding right?
> 
> Go have a look at a few countries where people die to have the ability to vote. Would you be happier there?
> This is a lucky country, you can vote and get the person you voted for to work for you (your electorate not just the leader of the party).
> ...




In the last few years I've lived outside Oz, I've lived in UK and NZ. In both of these places citizens have the RIGHT to vote but are not COMPELLED to vote.

I appreciate the right to vote if I so desire and did so in UK. In 3 months I will be entitled to vote here in NZ and I will certainly be exercising that right. However I am *free* to not vote if I don't want to.

If I don't vote, I don't believe that in any way removes my right to criticize the government of the day. Not voting does not remove my right of free speech.

IMO compulsory voting is illiberal.


----------



## gordon2007 (21 August 2010)

electronicmaster said:


> Try to get them to do this:-
> 
> 8. Stop the government from adopting any Bills that the USA passes
> 
> And restore the Australian Constitution,



You seem to want it both ways? Many of the ideas in the australian constitution were based on america's, yet you don't want us to pass any that the americans do? Confusing to me. 

Blatantly anti american to assume every single bill they create is not good.


----------



## gordon2007 (21 August 2010)

Been watching the news on abc3 and they're saying exit polls showing .5 percent swing against labor, equaling 6 seats.


----------



## So_Cynical (21 August 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> Been watching the news on abc3 and they're saying exit polls showing .5 percent swing against labor, equaling 6 seats.




Labor still favourite with bookies...Betting agency Centrebet has Labor at $1.39 and the Coalition at $2.90.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/21/2989556.htm

Never bet against the smart money.


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2010)

Laurie Oaks has announced a .7% swing that will give 10 seats in QLD. Only 4 seats to go and no more Labor.


----------



## noco (21 August 2010)

I have just voted in my electorate. 

I first gave the name of my deceased friend and the electoral  officer was about  to cross his name off after asking me had I voted anywhere else.

I then informed her that the person she was about to cross off was deceased. She had been  quite prepared to give me the two ballot papers without further question.

I then gave  her my real name and address which she was about to cross off  after asking me again, had I voted anywhere else. I then asked her if she was sure it was me and her answer was "no", but she continued on and crossed my name off the roll, gave me the ballot papers and I went on my merry way.

So how easy is it to rort the system in this modern day life without any ID.

It would have been so easy to go to 10 different polling booths and vote for my deceased friend again and again. When the audit is carried out after 21st nobody and I mean nobody would be able to do anything to correct this rotten system of voting. An extra 10 votes to one candidate who did not deserve them. OMG.

So don't anyone tell me the dishonest party hacks don't take advantage of an outdated system in this country of ours. IMHO those hacks would no doubt follow the funeral notices for weeks before polling day.


----------



## So_Cynical (21 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Laurie Oaks has announced a .7% swing that will give 10 seats in QLD. Only 4 seats to go and no more Labor.




There supposed to pick up 3 seats in Victoria ..so 7 to go.


----------



## gordon2007 (21 August 2010)

I have a previous engagement and must attend a dinner tonight. I don't want to be rude and sit glued to my blackberry looking for news updates. Does anyone know if any of the news web sights are offering to send a txt to ones mobile with major updates or when a winner is declared?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 August 2010)

noco said:


> I have just voted in my electorate.
> 
> I first gave the name of my deceased friend and the electoral  officer was about  to cross his name off after asking me had I voted anywhere else.
> 
> ...




Quite correct noco.

Everyone's vote is important, alive or dead.

As Mayor Daley used say in Chicago, vote early and vote often.

This is how it should be.

gg


----------



## gordon2007 (21 August 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> I have a previous engagement and must attend a dinner tonight. I don't want to be rude and sit glued to my blackberry looking for news updates. Does anyone know if any of the news web sights are offering to send a txt to ones mobile with major updates or when a winner is declared?




Have just answered my own question.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/election/a/-/article/7770093/election-2010-sms-updates/


----------



## wayneL (21 August 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Quite correct noco.
> 
> Everyone's vote is important, alive or dead.
> 
> ...




Fantastic! I'm about to go out and get pissed and this post gave me a belly laugh... and in a great mood for the frivolities of the evening.


----------



## eyeballkid88 (21 August 2010)

Interesting


----------



## electronicmaster (21 August 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> You seem to want it both ways? Many of the ideas in the australian constitution were based on america's, yet you don't want us to pass any that the americans do? Confusing to me.
> 
> Blatantly anti american to assume every single bill they create is not good.




The constitution is the only thing that allows people freedom and protection from the current and future government.


----------



## So_Cynical (21 August 2010)

Very very close, looks like the Sandgropers may decide the election result...and the mining tax will hurt Labor there.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 August 2010)

It could be a hung parliament. Awaiting WA results.

gg


----------



## McCoy Pauley (21 August 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It could be a hung parliament. Awaiting WA results.
> 
> gg




Reckon that might be right, with the Lib/Nats having the most seats and courting the independents.

My initial prediction was the Lib/Nats getting home by two seats.  I don't see how the ALP will win enough seats to actually form a majority in its own right.


----------



## IFocus (21 August 2010)

Stole this from the Chartist

Seinfeld Election Puts Miracle Economy on Hold




> Here’s the plot: an unmarried, foreign-born, atheist woman whose partner is a male hairdresser wants to lead a major nation famous for manly men. Her opponent is the “Mad Monk” -- a Speedo-loving amateur boxer who once studied to be a priest.




http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ts-miracle-economy-on-hold-william-pesek.html


----------



## Whiskers (21 August 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It could be a hung parliament. Awaiting WA results.
> 
> gg




Probably what 'the country' deserved/needed to put a halt to the extreme right to extreme left knee jerking. Probably a couple of independents will face some anxious decision making in a new balance of power in both houses.



So_Cynical said:


> Very very close, looks like the Sandgropers may decide the election result...and the mining tax will hurt Labor there.




Yep sure will, but with the greens doing well, I think winning a lower house seat, and possibility of other independents supporting a mining tax of some sort, one may still eventuate.


Gillard and her backroom boys days must be numbered. What a monumental blunder to pull off a leadership coup and rush to an early election.


----------



## McCoy Pauley (21 August 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Probably what 'the country' deserved/needed to put a halt to the extreme right to extreme left knee jerking. Probably a couple of independents will face some anxious decision making in a new balance of power in both houses.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




"Rushing to an early election" might have been the wrong thing to do but the ALP would have been staring certain defeat had it not replaced Rudd.  He was seriously on the nose and the ALP could hardly have campaigned with any conviction if Rudd was still Prime Minister.  Kroger might be a slimeball but he's absolutely correct - the ALP wouldn't have had a prayer with Rudd in charge.  He'd lost the party and had lost the electorate, regardless of the beat-up from the Liberals during the campaign.

Plus the ALP strategy would be that Gillard couldn't string out the time to the election because there'd be increasingly deafening attacks on her illegitimacy for removing the sitting PM.

Given the result, can't wait to see the market sink like a stone on Monday.


----------



## electronicmaster (21 August 2010)

*HUNG*

Well for now.

What are the odds for that again?:whip


:whip:whip
:whip:whip


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2010)

Not over yet ... Libs could win still. But very slim chance of this happening. Minority Govt formed with independents is most likely outcome then this will happen ..... :fan


----------



## electronicmaster (21 August 2010)

Watch out for the media propaganda.  

I'm very suspect about the numbers.  I smell a rat  :couch


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2010)

I smell a countback, a COUNTBACK I tell you ! :bbat:


----------



## trainspotter (21 August 2010)

Our first ever aboriginal MP, our first ever Green MP, our youngest ever MP at 20 years of age PLUS 4 independents .... WOW .... strange days indeed.


----------



## Whiskers (21 August 2010)

McCoy Pauley said:


> "Rushing to an early election" might have been the wrong thing to do but the ALP would have been staring certain defeat had it not replaced Rudd.  He was seriously on the nose and the ALP could hardly have campaigned with any conviction if Rudd was still Prime Minister.  Kroger might be a slimeball but he's absolutely correct - the ALP wouldn't have had a prayer with Rudd in charge.  He'd lost the party and had lost the electorate, regardless of the beat-up from the Liberals during the campaign.
> 
> Plus the ALP strategy would be that Gillard couldn't string out the time to the election because there'd be increasingly deafening attacks on her illegitimacy for removing the sitting PM.
> 
> Given the result, can't wait to see the market sink like a stone on Monday.




Not sure it's that plain. No doubt Rudd was down in the polls, but if the government had gone full term as Rudd had insisted his and the ALP populatity may have improved as he worked out the mining tax in particular and better economic number started to come through.

The reason I say that is because Labor has a notorious history of branch stacking and backroom deals at all levels. I tend to think Bill Shorten was the instigator of this mess for the ALP.  He's a cunning 'Rat' tending to manipulate others to do his dirty work. I suspect Rudd's image/populatity was sabotarged to some extent by Shorten and his cohorts before he made the leadership coup. That's his style, to stack the deck before he plays his hand, usually a swift and brutal hand, because he's a moral-less  power hungry coward.

I'll wager a little bet that Shorten will make a play for the top job somewhere down the track.

The other thing we need to know more about is the role of Shorten and his core players including some from the union movement and public service in the overspending debacles. It seems that a relative few projects had double and triple normal costs accounted for most of the blowout. Thats typical of the sort of infiltration of the rank and file that Shorten has used over the years to stack branches... eg favor swaps and protection between unions, public servants and companies, especially in the building industry. 

You will recall Howard making laws to considerably shut down these sort of corrupt favors in the building industry. But there is still a major problem within the public service and particularly local government with corruption with builders and developers.

I suspect the only reason Shorten, via Guillard, ambushed Rudd to call an early election in the guise of getting some key problems resolved quickly and get a mandate, was shallow window dressing to try to justify going to an election early. 

I don't buy the arguement that the 'Rudd stigma' would have harmed the ALP had Gillard stayed the full term. On the contrary, if Rudd was truely on the 'public' nose as Shortern's collaberators would have us believe, the longer Gillard waited the stronger her support would have gained.

What you say here is a bit of a contradiction.

_the ALP (Shortern's) strategy would be that Gillard couldn't string out the time to the election because there'd be increasingly deafening attacks on her illegitimacy for removing the sitting PM.​_
But, that contradiction is true. 

I think history will reveal that Shortern needed the election to be brought on early before the truth about the back room deals became more public knowledge and Gillards 'honeymoon' was over. 

Ironically, it looks like Gillard has had one of the shortest honeymoons in Australian politics.

*I'm watching with interest to see the backlash within the ALP re the Shortern/Gillard led coup and similar activities in NSW and Qld and the likely demise of the ALP nationally again.*

BUT... as I said earlier... watch out for a popular uprising from Rudd again. 

From a public presentation perspective, ie marketing, Rudd is more photogenic and pleasing to the ear for more people than Gillard. He just might be the one person able to get those lost seats back in Qld in particular... bearing in mind that many Queenslanders look down on most of the Ã©stablishment politicans in Sydney and Melbourne and warmed to a Queenslander PM.

Yes, let the blood-letting, recounts and arge barge, wheeling and dealing begin. Fortunately, I think if Shortern sticks his nose into the independants and Green members he might just get it smacked in with the 'blood' spilt on the ALP as a brand (un)popularity for a long time.

So, I suppose we now need to largely forget about the major parties and learn a lot more about a handful of members and senators who likely effectively, control the country.


----------



## bellenuit (22 August 2010)

I give victory of the TV channels to Channel 9. By far the most entertaining.  I loved the part when Wayne Swan was interviewed and the Liberal guy (?) and Barnaby Joyce stuck into him. Rude, but entertaining. SBS was so boring. Someone on Nine's Twitter feed suggested that the 4 commentators on SBS had fallen asleep, so I switched to it and they were right. Unbelievably dull.

I found the projections interesting. ABC seemed to point to a Liberal win, Sky to Labor and Nine to a hung parliament.

Gillard was impressive in her speech. Sounded very natural, unlike her panic speeches of late. Tony was Tony.

Idiot of the night must go to Barnaby Joyce, who alienated one of the Independents (New England I think) when in a few days the Lib/Nats may be courting him for support.


----------



## trainspotter (22 August 2010)

Barnaby Joyce and Bob Katter have previous history ... they shared a padded cell in Ward 4 of Graylands Psychiatric Hospital. Tony Windsor was Nurse Ratched in a previous life. They will get along famously.

What happens if Windosr and Katter form a bloc and Bandt and Wilkie go the other way with the Labor Party? OH OH ! Some smooooth talking is gonna be needed to pour oil on this one.

Bandt has said he will not side with the Libs and will ONLY work with Julia. 
Wilkie is disgruntled as he got punched in the political ring one too many times by the Libs as well.


----------



## prawn_86 (22 August 2010)

I think this is a fantastic result.

It shows that both major parties have moved so close to the centre that no one can tell them apart, even with socialist style forced voting. People just cant differentiate between the 2, and those that can vote Green or Independent. Great result!


----------



## UBIQUITOUS (22 August 2010)

prawn_86 said:


> I think this is a fantastic result.
> 
> It shows that both major parties have moved so close to the centre that no one can tell them apart, even with socialist style forced voting. People just cant differentiate between the 2, and those that can vote Green or Independent. Great result!




Spot on Prawn. It's nothing new though. We don't have much of a choice with banks, supermarkets, cars, consumer goods and political parties. We'll just take what we are given.....again. Yes freedom to vote...but only provided you vote for one of the above. This is why I voted for this mob. They probably could never deliver, but that's not the point. At least they're not disguised as something else. Then again.

http://www.cpa.org.au/guardian/2010/1468/01-vote-for-real-change.html


----------



## Calliope (22 August 2010)

prawn_86 said:


> I think this is a fantastic result.




Well the Green supporters have certainly won gloating rights. But I despair for any rational governance  when special interests minorities are in control in both houses.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 August 2010)

UBIQUITOUS said:


> Spot on Prawn. It's nothing new though. We don't have much of a choice with banks, supermarkets, cars, consumer goods and political parties. We'll just take what we are given.....again. Yes freedom to vote...but only provided you vote for one of the above. This is why I voted for this mob. They probably could never deliver, but that's not the point. At least they're not disguised as something else. Then again.
> 
> http://www.cpa.org.au/guardian/2010/1468/01-vote-for-real-change.html




The only problem comrade, is, that the Communist Party prefer a ONE Party system. 

gg


----------



## nioka (22 August 2010)

prawn_86 said:


> I think this is a fantastic result.
> 
> It shows that both major parties have moved so close to the centre that no one can tell them apart, even with socialist style forced voting. People just cant differentiate between the 2, and those that can vote Green or Independent. Great result!




What result? There wasn't one. We'll be back voting again within 2 years. In the meantime there will be nothing much allowed to happen. The greens only got the protest vote, they didn't really get any mandate at all. There was no democrat option as a protest this time.

If there were any winners it was the independants, should be more of them. Even Pauline Hanson or Mark Latham would have ended up Senators this time had they stood.

It was only those that couldnt see any difference that DID vote green and add to those that were already watermelons.


----------



## Logique (22 August 2010)

Two words: sovereign risk.

For democracy = a win
For the bush = a win
For the Australian market = uncertainty = destabilizing

I don't see much political stability ahead, unlikely that the next parliament will run the full 3 year term.


----------



## prawn_86 (22 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Well the Green supporters have certainly won gloating rights. But I despair for any rational governance  when special interests minorities are in control in both houses.






nioka said:


> What result? There wasn't one. We'll be back voting again within 2 years. In the meantime there will be nothing much allowed to happen. The greens only got the protest vote, they didn't really get any mandate at all. There was no democrat option as a protest this time.
> 
> If there were any winners it was the independants, should be more of them. Even Pauline Hanson or Mark Latham would have ended up Senators this time had they stood.
> 
> It was only those that couldnt see any difference that DID vote green and add to those that were already watermelons.




For the record i didnt vote green. I voted for Senator Online and the Democratic Liberals.

The result i am reffering too is the fact that people are waking up and realising the 2 party system has made Aus stagnate for the last 10 - 15 years.


----------



## Calliope (22 August 2010)

I hope that Gillard can cobble together a government. They say that a country gets the government it deserves, and I think we deserve a government that lost the election on numbers of votes but depends for its legitimacy on the "progressive" Greens and maverick independents all with chips on their shoulders.

Bring it on I say.


----------



## drsmith (22 August 2010)

I hope the Coalition are able to get 73 seats and form a minority government with the 3 former NP independents. That will be unstable enough thank you very much.

Next best would be a minority ALP government (74 or 75 seats) with the Green representative and the ex-Green independent (assuming he wins in the final count.

An alliance that involved a major party, conservative based independents and green based independents would in my view, be a disaster.

It will be interesting to see how financial markets take all this in tomorrow.


----------



## electronicmaster (22 August 2010)

electronicmaster said:


> We need to make sure none of the major parties come to power.  We need a mixed bag of parties that is ruled only by a lesser party.
> 
> The goal behind this idea?   So we become in control of our own destiny.
> 
> That is?  If you value true freedom, free speech and a free economy ......





Well I suppose that is what has happened.  Everything is going according to plan :jump:

Next step is when the war starts in Iran.  Every one will see Gold, Silver, Oil and relevant resource/mines go up in price.

This will make our government go out of control while they are still looking for a leader.

I really smell a rat here people.    A Hung Australian Government at this time of Pearl?   
 .................................... :whip


*Former CIA Analyst David MacMichael: 8 Days Till Armageddon? * 

 [ http://www.aussiestockforums.com ]

It is evil I say


----------



## gordon2007 (22 August 2010)

electronicmaster said:


> Next step is when the war starts in Iran.




Yes, I agree with you there. Think it's only a matter of time before something big happens in regards to the middle east\persian gulf. I think that is a whole seperate thread though.


----------



## drsmith (22 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> I hope the Coalition are able to get 73 seats and form a minority government with the 3 former NP independents. That will be unstable enough thank you very much.
> 
> Next best would be a minority ALP government (74 or 75 seats) with the Green representative and the ex-Green independent (assuming he wins in the final count.



An updated count (ABC) shows the ex-Green independent not making it.

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/liveblog/

ABC now predicts 73 seats a piece for the major parties with Hasluck being the tightest of the three doubtfulls.


----------



## Calliope (22 August 2010)

He's not finished with Julia yet.

 The Daily Telegraph's Warren Brown


----------



## IFocus (22 August 2010)

The Independents will need to be careful history shows once Independents hook up with one side they are well no longer Independent and often voted out next election.

Really looking forward to watching Bob Katter in action I thought he had the best election ad and he is just great for politics.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/fed...-of-the-north-20100804-11cqg.html?autostart=1


----------



## Calliope (22 August 2010)

I watched the 7.30 Report special tonight. O'Brien interviewed the three original independents. It reinforced my view that Bob Katter is a loose cannon. I would put him on a par with Barnaby Joyce for intelligence. The Party that includes him is taking the risk that this maverick has the power to bring down the government. 

And neither Party can form government without him. Another election is looming.


----------



## trainspotter (22 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> It will be interesting to see how financial markets take all this in tomorrow.




London to a brick the AUD will cop a hammering, Mining stocks will follow the spiral. Banks will get caught up in the wailing  and gnashing of teeth.

Base metal stocks will have a little ray of sunshine thrust upon them through the storm clouds.

Any one else got any suggestions?


----------



## prawn_86 (22 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> London to a brick the AUD will cop a hammering,




Dead right there. This is the worst possible outcome for the AUD. Good for me though


----------



## Julia (22 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> I watched the 7.30 Report special tonight. O'Brien interviewed the three original independents. It reinforced my view that Bob Katter is a loose cannon. I would put him on a par with Barnaby Joyce for intelligence. The Party that includes him is taking the risk that this maverick has the power to bring down the government.
> 
> And neither Party can form government without him. Another election is looming.



I had the same impression.   Bob Katter is as full of malice toward his former Party as is Mark Latham, and this will mean he lacks the capacity for objectivity as an Independent.  The other two came across as reasonably intelligent and sensible.  I found myself thinking how refreshing it was to listen to politicians who seemed like real people rather than cardboard cutouts spouting the same taped spin.


----------



## trainspotter (22 August 2010)

prawn_86 said:


> Dead right there. This is the worst possible outcome for the AUD. Good for me though




Hahahhaha  good onya Prawn _86 !! Every cloud has a silver lining ! I bet you are looking forward to going to work tomorrow ! LOLOL


----------



## drsmith (22 August 2010)

Julia said:


> I had the same impression.   Bob Katter is as full of malice toward his former Party as is Mark Latham, and this will mean he lacks the capacity for objectivity as an Independent.  The other two came across as reasonably intelligent and sensible.  I found myself thinking how refreshing it was to listen to politicians who seemed like real people rather than cardboard cutouts spouting the same taped spin.



Bob Katter seems to have the same protectionalist ideas as Barnaby Joyce and comes across at least as loopy, if not more so.

The three independents may do well to have Andrew Wilkie as part of their group, should he get up. That way a Coalition minority government would have 77 seats should Hasluck fall the right way. It's then very much not in the interest of any one independent to go feral. 

The independents would also then be a diverse group who could over different perspectives to consider on issues, perhaps without the socialist radicalism of the Greens. Although originally of Green origin, Andrew Wilkie described himself on election night as more moderate than the Greens IIRC.


----------



## basilio (22 August 2010)

> > Originally Posted by Calliope  View Post
> > I watched the 7.30 Report special tonight. O'Brien interviewed the three original independents. It reinforced my view that Bob Katter is a loose cannon. I would put him on a par with Barnaby Joyce for intelligence. The Party that includes him is taking the risk that this maverick has the power to bring down the government.
> >
> > And neither Party can form government without him. Another election is looming.
> ...



Saw the 7.30 report as well. I actually feel really, really good about the possibilities of a new government.  I'm very impressed with the 2 bright independents. I can see some very constructive political processes evolving with those guys directing the show.

True Bob Katter is no genius but to his credit he's bright enough to know that he isn't the sharpest tool in the box and acknowledges that he will allow the other two independents to do the thinking.  I suspect he will defer to their input and essentially try to get some particular value for his area.

As I see it these guys can see a very special opportunity to constructively reform Australian politics and of course the only way that can happen is if they hold the balance of power. So they won't be in any hurry to go to a fresh election which could easily result in a narrow win by either major party.

I believe in the end we will see a Gillard government supported by the independents.

Why ?

1) The three independents just don't have any time or respect for the  nationals - and seemingly with good reason

2) The nationals were stupid enough to actually attack them and basically prove their social ineptness

3) From the sound of the conversations I thought the independents  showed very strong support for the National Broad Band network, tackling Global Warming and getting stuck into renewable energy. I just can't see the Libs stomaching those agendas

4) I think Gillard will be a more practical and adept negotiator. I understand that at least in the time of the Labour government they were treated with respect and will recognise that in their negotiations.


----------



## drsmith (22 August 2010)

The ALP with 72 seats could govern with the 3 independents above and Andrew Wilkie leaving Adam Bandt (Green) out in the cold. 

I can't imagine the above 3 independents being too keen (Bob Katter inparticular) on a carbon tax or fast trains between interstate capitals.


----------



## Logique (23 August 2010)

Have people heard the expression crazy like a fox? Don't underestimate these rural MPs just because they don't bother with the affectation of some big-city wine critic. That wouldn't play in the bush.  They know their people, and that's why I don't believe they would ever side with Labor, except on isolated policies (such as megabucks universal fibre optic broadband).

If the three ex-Nat indeps enter a coalition with Labor, they are effectively saying to their electorates '..I'm retiring at the next election..' Because they'd be turfed out and they know it. Tony Windsor is enjoying himself too much to risk that. 

Windsor is the member for rural New England and supports a mining tax. Rob Oakshot is the member for rural Coffs Harbour and supports an ETS. If you want to look for intellectual erraticism - I'd suggest you start there. 

(No I am not Barnaby Joyce).


----------



## brty (23 August 2010)

The 3 existing independents have done so well because they are independent. Each of them will lose a lot of support by siding with either party to form a government. I think they also know this intuitively.

Where this leads is anyone's guess. My take is that they have to go with whoever has the policies closest to their own as a group, but clearly state they will be voting against legislation that is against their policies and let the public know it. 

Doing this has to lead to some instability whoever forms a minority government and back to the polls we go within a year or so. These independents are men of conviction and they have been around the traps for a while, they will not be held hostage by anyone.

brty


----------



## sails (23 August 2010)

brty said:


> The 3 existing independents have done so well because they are independent. Each of them will lose a lot of support by siding with either party to form a government. I think they also know this intuitively.
> 
> Where this leads is anyone's guess. My take is that they have to go with whoever has the policies closest to their own as a group, but clearly state they will be voting against legislation that is against their policies and let the public know it.
> 
> ...




Brty, I agree that they will most likely support one side of their choosing to form government but it will be on the condition that they are not "owned" by that party.  After that, they will be free to cross the floor as they see fit.

However, votes are still being counted and, until that is completed, it's all speculation.  If the cards all fall one way or the other, independants may not be needed.  Unlikely, but not impossible either.


----------



## Calliope (23 August 2010)

brty said:


> These independents are men of conviction and they have been around the traps for a while, they will not be held hostage by anyone.




It's great to be parochial when you are an independent. When you are part of the government you have to be a team player or the government will fall. There has to be a limit to the size of the pork barrels they barter for.


----------



## gav (23 August 2010)

The best coverage of our election so far! 


What Taiwan thinks of our election:


----------



## trainspotter (23 August 2010)

Bob Katter, independent MP from up Townsville way and soon to be Australian king/queen-maker gives the following explanation of climate change:

"I mean, if you could imagine 20 or 30 crocodiles up there on the roof, and if all that roof was illumination, and saying that we wouldn't see anything in this room because of a few croco-roaches up there," he continued stating that "Are you telling me seriously that the world is going to warm because there's 400 parts per million of CO2 up there?"

And his election advert. Time to be afraid party peoples. Very afraid.


----------



## Mofra (23 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> The three independents may do well to have Andrew Wilkie as part of their group, should he get up. That way a Coalition minority government would have 77 seats should Hasluck fall the right way. It's then very much not in the interest of any one independent to go feral.



Wilkie is regarded as someone who sympathises with Labor, so it might be a hard sell to get him on side if he gets up. By the same token, it will be a hard sell for the other three independants to side with Labor given their past, and the electorates in which they serve. 

The other issue for the coalition is even if they do manage to form government, the Greens hold the balance of power in the senate so they wont be able to get too much of their agenda actioned anyway. 

Further complicating the matter is Quentin Bryce as GG may not be able to dissolve parliament if it becomes unworkable due to personal interest - her daughter is married to Bill Shorten, meaning she has reduced objectivity and realistically may have to step aside if the situation comes to that.


----------



## bellenuit (23 August 2010)

Mofra said:


> her daughter is married to Bill Shorten, meaning she has reduced objectivity and realistically may have to step aside if the situation comes to that.




Who gets to make the decision if she is not allowed to?


----------



## Mofra (23 August 2010)

bellenuit said:


> Who gets to make the decision if she is not allowed to?



Interestingly, one of the senior state govenors according to TDT:



> Constitutional law expert George Williams would not comment on the Bryce/Shorten relationship but said under law the Governor-General must be free of "any perception of bias". In the event of a Governor-General staying out of such a matter, it could then be handled "by one of the senior state governors".




http://www.news.com.au/features/fed...t-leslie-cannold/story-e6frfllr-1225908614941


----------



## Calliope (23 August 2010)

This could be the way to go;


----------



## Calliope (23 August 2010)

It has been suggested that if Gillard does get up she will punish Queensland by dropping Wayne Swan as Treasurer in order to look after Shorten who hails from the faithful Democratic Republic of Victoria.


----------



## Julia (23 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> It has been suggested that if Gillard does get up she will punish Queensland by dropping Wayne Swan as Treasurer in order to look after Shorten who hails from the faithful Democratic Republic of Victoria.



Wow, that would be blood-letting on a pretty grand scale.  She'd be justified in dumping Swan purely on the basis of his woeful performance in the campaign.

Great cartoon.  I particularly like the bit about hiring someone to kill Barnaby.  He was decidedly kept out of sight and sound during the campaign.


----------



## trainspotter (23 August 2010)

Whatever happened to this guy during the campaign? He kinda went from battman to invisible man during the 2010 election campaign. Used to be the "golden haired" boy of the Labor Party. Turns out he doesn't have any hair both literally and figuratively speaking.


----------



## wayneL (23 August 2010)

gav said:


> The best coverage of our election so far!
> 
> 
> What Taiwan thinks of our election:





Fantastic! I like their sense of humour.


----------



## Calliope (23 August 2010)

The biggest winner out of the demise ol Gillard will be Tim Mathieson. No Lodge for him, he will be able to escape the spotlight, slink back to Altona, keep his job and get a bit of whatever he fancies on the side while Julia is away in Canberra.


----------



## drsmith (23 August 2010)

4 seats now in play according to the ABC count. While the Coalition are in front with all 4, what are the odds one will fall on the ALP side of the ledger ?


----------



## Mofra (23 August 2010)

ALP 73 Coalition 72, with the last seat (Hasluck) undecided but Coalition leading according to Fairfax.

Bandt will support the ALP, giving them 74, and the 3 independants are more likely to favour the Coalition giving them first crack at forming a lame duck government (hard to see Abbott & Bob Brown agreeing on enough to pass any legislation in the senate). We'll be voting again well within 3 years IMO.


----------



## Calliope (23 August 2010)

On-Line poll in the SMH today;

Poll: Who would you prefer as Labor leader?

Julia Gillard
36%
Bill Shorten
9%
Chris Bowen
3%
Greg Combet
7%
Kevin Rudd
40%
Mark Arbib
4%
Total votes: 30806.


----------



## -Bevo- (23 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> On-Line poll in the SMH today;
> 
> Poll: Who would you prefer as Labor leader?
> 
> ...




No Wayne Swan to choose from, anyone see that video of Swan on election night lol best interview I seen LOL. 
_Wayne Swan gets owned_
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soaPhHKX2Oo


----------



## Calliope (23 August 2010)

Paul Sheehan tells you why Victoria loves Labor and Gillard.



> *The Yarra monster is killing us*
> 
> A great sucking force can be felt around Australia, siphoning resources southwards, down the hungry throat of Melbourne. Australia makes, Melbourne takes.
> 
> ...






> *When you add NSW and Victoria, and then add the resource boom states, WA and Queensland, the comparison gets ugly. Combined, WA and Queensland produced an expn.ort-import surplus of $74.7 billion in 2008-09. Combined, NSW and Victoria were the opposite, with an export-import deficit of $73.3 billio
> So almost the entire export surplus of the two resource-boom states is essentially being transferred to Melbourne and Sydney and their regional economies*.




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-yarra-monster-is-killing-us-20100822-13apt.html


----------



## Timmy (23 August 2010)

Getting more interesting, latest in The Australian (website):



> *A COUNTING error has thrown into doubt the Coalition win in the Victorian seat of Dunkley, ... The Australian Electoral Commission said today Dunkley, held by the Liberals since 1996, could now not yet be declared a win for Liberal MP Bruce Billson.*



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...t-election-count/story-fn59niix-1225908837857


----------



## namrog (23 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> The biggest winner out of the demise ol Gillard will be Tim Mathieson. No Lodge for him, he will be able to escape the spotlight, slink back to Altona, keep his job and get a bit of whatever he fancies on the side while Julia is away in Canberra.




So this thread has come down to this sort of childish trash..

Get a life Calliope, get off your @rse,  get away from the computer and go and do something.....!!


----------



## noco (23 August 2010)

I would like to see the Gillard Government take the reigns for another 12-18 months. Let her show the voters how she will handle the economy with a minority Government, the Greens in the senate and the split which will occur in the Labor ranks.

I say let her have all the headaches to the point where it must come down to an unworkable Government resulting in another election. Hopefully by that time, voters will have had enough of Labor and the Greens.


----------



## gav (23 August 2010)

Wayne Swan at his finest, giving his thoughts on the election...


----------



## IFocus (23 August 2010)

gav said:


> The best coverage of our election so far!
> 
> 
> What Taiwan thinks of our election:






Gav that's great funny as hell


----------



## So_Cynical (23 August 2010)

I would hate to see how you guys would carry on if you had actually won  3 losers having a go at Swan is hardly laughable..the best treasurer we ever had (that never had the numbers ) at least had the good sense not to look like a school yard twat like Bananas. 

_____________________

What i find interesting is that in the wash up of all this, what actually may have happened is that the inevitable Climate Change legislation that's to come, will certainly have to be acceptable to the Green controlled Senate...they will demand this of any Party that wants to govern.

The Coalition will only be able to govern as a lame duck government (because of climate denial), where as Labor will be pretty much forced into Greening up the CPRS as a requirement of being allowed to govern.

12 months ago the Coalition could of excepted the inevitable and done the right thing, excepted political reality and passed Rudd's light green CPRS, a scheme designed to be politicly palatable to the Liberals....but no that was just to realistic...and now as a direct result of that denial, this country will be faced with a true greenhouse reduction plan that will make the CPRS look like a great idea.

Oh how the wheels of inevitability turn.


----------



## drsmith (23 August 2010)

gav said:


> Wayne Swan at his finest, giving his thoughts on the election...




After watching that I'd like to see Wayne Swan and Michael Kroger have a, er, um, informal debate.


----------



## Julia (23 August 2010)

Mofra said:


> ALP 73 Coalition 72, with the last seat (Hasluck) undecided but Coalition leading according to Fairfax.
> 
> Bandt will support the ALP, giving them 74, and the 3 independants are more likely to favour the Coalition giving them first crack at forming a lame duck government



You'd certainly think so, given their rural origins, but after listening to both Tony Windsor and mad Bob Katter, their hatred for the National Party would appear to rule out agreeing with them.
Suspect we have at this stage little idea of the twists and turns still ahead.


> (hard to see Abbott & Bob Brown agreeing on enough to pass any legislation in the senate). We'll be voting again well within 3 years IMO.



If all the relevant parties can't come to an agreement this time round, and we go back to the polls within weeks, what assurance is there that the outcome would be different?


----------



## basilio (23 August 2010)

I think there is still a fair way to go on determining the final numbers in the parliament. We have already seen some twists and turns and I suspect at least one seat will do something against the trend. So instead of 73/73 with 1 green and 3 independents, it could easily end up 74/72 .

In the end I believe the Labour party has laid the groundwork in treating the Independents with respect in the last parliament and I think they will be more willing to negotiate some big picture ideas which are what Tony Windsor and co are looking for.

*And the independents certainly don't want a new election called and lose  this opportunity to have a real say in how Australia is governed for the next 3 years.*


----------



## wayneL (24 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> I would hate to see how you guys would carry on if you had actually won  3 losers having a go at Swan is hardly laughable..the best treasurer we ever had (that never had the numbers ) at least had the good sense not to look like a school yard twat like Bananas.




What a remarkable piece of denial LOL. The Labor Party came within an eyelash of losing government in its first term and the coalition are losers?.

Actually, have a look at the primary vote, Labor is only there because of Green preferences. The coalition did a sterling job to come from where they were to the possibility of nicking this election.

Without the liability of Barnaby Joyce, it would be in the bag IMO.


----------



## Calliope (24 August 2010)

It is not surprising that the dependent states Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania (see my post #826) came out so strongly for Labor. After all, Labor equals handouts.

Namrog throws a tantrum. I must have been on target.



> So this thread has come down to this sort of childish trash..
> 
> Get a life Calliope, get off your @rse, get away from the computer and go and do something....



.!


----------



## Logique (24 August 2010)

Bolt is saying this morning that Windsor and Oakeshot are leaning to Labor, speculating that Oakeshot could be interested in a Ministry.

Watching Oakeshot on the ABC last night, he seems very lefty to me. Labor might be preparing for him the space vacated by Cheryl Kernot.

In his electorate, Labor got 13.6% of the vote. If he was my MP, I'd be contacting his office and making certain political realities abundantly clear to him. And Tony Windsor too. Don't come Monday boys.


----------



## basilio (24 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> It is not surprising that the dependent states Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania (see my post #826) came out so strongly for Labor. After all, Labor equals handouts.
> 
> 
> > Namrog throws a tantrum. I must have been on target..!



No  Calliope he isn't throwing a tanty. He's just reflecting the view that says being gratuitously nasty and snide about people or politicians on this forum is a bad look. 

I agree.


----------



## ghotib (24 August 2010)

This is Pollie Junkie heaven!!! 

I didn't know till yesterday that Hansard is on the Web, and you can look up parliamentary speeches by individual members and get past the media filter a bit. I'm still figuring out how to use it: I got there first from Tony Windsor's website which links to search results for his speeches - oddly enough 

My impression is that most of the commentators don't really know much about the rural Independents and not much more about Andrew Wilkie, in spite of his history. 

The AEC has a virtual tally room up as well http://vtr.aec.gov.au/. It's behind the media though, presumably because they're getting information, directly or indirectly, from scrutineers.  

Did anyone catch Anthony Green on the ABC24 about 5.30 last night? By the 7.30 Report he'd scrubbed up and cooled down, but earlier he looked as hot and happy as a kid after a day at the beach. So much to watch, so many twists. 

Heaven!!!

Ghoti


----------



## Calliope (24 August 2010)

basilio said:


> No  Calliope he isn't throwing a tanty. He's just reflecting the view that says being gratuitously nasty and snide about people or politicians on this forum is a bad look. I agree.



That depends on which side of the political divide you are on. I am well aware that you and I are miles apart politically. Nothing either of us say can change that. Crude language from Namrog is no help. I am surprised you agree with it.


----------



## derty (24 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> That depends on which side of the political divide you are on. I am well aware that you and I are miles apart politically. Nothing either of us say can change that. Crude language from Namrog is no help. I am surprised you agree with it.



@rse is hardly a crudity these days. I believe Namrog's post  is far from a tantrum, more to the point it is an expression of frustration that 90% of what you post is petty inane drivel that does not promote the discussion and is quite frankly a waste of good 1's and 0's.


----------



## Bushman (24 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> It is not surprising that the dependent states Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania (see my post #826) came out so strongly for Labor. After all, Labor equals handouts.
> 
> Namrog throws a tantrum. I must have been on target.
> 
> .!




Lol, I bet you weren't saying this when the Federal government was bailing out Suncorp or when southern investors will be expected to pick up the tab for Bligh nationalising QR to balance your books.


----------



## Calliope (24 August 2010)

Well you are certainly coming out of the woodwork, I must have touched a nerve. I think it it too early to get your knickers in a knot. The bookies say you will win.



> @rse is hardly a crudity these days.




Certainly not from your side.


----------



## basilio (24 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> The biggest winner out of the demise ol Gillard will be Tim Mathieson. No Lodge for him, he will be able to escape the spotlight, slink back to Altona, keep his job and *get a bit of whatever he fancies on the side while Julia is away in Canberra*.



  (My bolds...)

Calliope we thought this was nasty and tasteless and it would have been equally so if you were talking about Tony Abbott, Bob Brown or any other politician.

Does the discussion of politics need to be mud slinging or is that just an easy way out of discussing policies and performance ?


----------



## Mofra (24 August 2010)

Julia said:


> You'd certainly think so, given their rural origins, but after listening to both Tony Windsor and mad Bob Katter, their hatred for the National Party would appear to rule out agreeing with them.
> Suspect we have at this stage little idea of the twists and turns still ahead.



They will also consider their constituency though, regardless of personal leanings (no politician is above "playing the game" if it helps personal circumstance). One wonders how their vote will be impacted in their electorate if they are seen to support Labor?



basilio said:


> *And the independents certainly don't want a new election called and lose  this opportunity to have a real say in how Australia is governed for the next 3 years.*



There's the rub - they'd rather support a party they hate than lose the moment to basically hold the lower house to ransom by forming a voting block.


As an aside, it was reported last night on the Drum that the proportion of Australians voting for the major parties has fallen from 95% in 1975 to 82% so far at this election. Surely mass-media can't be blamed for that level of disillusionment with mainstream politics in Australia.


----------



## Calliope (24 August 2010)

basilio said:


> (My bolds...)
> 
> Calliope we thought this was nasty and tasteless and it would have been equally so if you were talking about Tony Abbott, Bob Brown or any other politician.




Who's we?  The Gillard supporters?  Get a life.


----------



## trainspotter (24 August 2010)

If Gillard gets in I am assuming her new cabinet will look like this. The top shelf will be reserved for Karl Bitar (Labor Party campaign manager)


----------



## Calliope (24 August 2010)

Julia Gillardwill be telling the independents that she has a cosy relationship with the Greens and has more to give them than Abbott.  As Windsor and Oakeshott already lean to the left, I think it is all over Red Rover. These two guys may be in conservative seats but that counts for naught when you are on the make.



> JULIA Gillard will tell the three independents she needs to form government that Labor's ties with the Greens will make it easier to get laws through the Senate and maintain stability.




http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/el...greens-thumbs-up/story-fn5zmod2-1225909063846


----------



## sails (24 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Julia Gillardwill be telling the independents that she has a cosy relationship with the Greens and has more to give them than Abbott.  As Windsor and Oakeshott already lean to the left, I think it is all over Red Rover. These two guys may be in conservative seats but that counts for naught when you are on the make.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/el...greens-thumbs-up/story-fn5zmod2-1225909063846




I wouldn't like to say it's a done deal yet.  There are several seats which are only a few hundred votes apart with only about 80% counted, so that remains a wild card, IMO.  Seats supposedly "won" can easily pop back into the "doubtful" group again.  As some of those seats are favouring the coalition at this stage, a change to labor could mean they don't need the independants at all. 

The indepentants are experienced politicians.  This is an extremely tactical game for them and I think they will be all things to both sides until they announce their decision.  Pretty difficult to read much into their statements at this stage.  They seem to be enjoying the publicity and I doubt they will rush to make up their minds.


----------



## IFocus (24 August 2010)

Mofra said:


> They will also consider their constituency though, regardless of personal leanings (no politician is above "playing the game" if it helps personal circumstance). One wonders how their vote will be impacted in their electorate if they are seen to support Labor?
> 
> 
> There's the rub - they'd rather support a party they hate than lose the moment to basically hold the lower house to ransom by forming a voting block.




I cannot see them backing Labor as their electorate's are too conservative. But they do need a big dividend (fast Broad band etc)for jumping in with Abbott hence the talk of liking Labor in other words the negotiations have all ready started through the media from both sides.


----------



## Bintang (24 August 2010)

ghotib said:


> This is Pollie Junkie heaven!!!
> The AEC has a virtual tally room up as well http://vtr.aec.gov.au/. It's behind the media though, presumably because they're getting information, directly or indirectly, from scrutineers.




Ghoti, Thanks for the virtual tally room link. It doesn't seem that far behind the media. This evening ALP is back to 70, the coalition on 72. Of the 'too close to calls' Hasluck (WA) and Dunkley(VIC) might still go to LP and Corangamite (VIC) to ALP ..... mmm ... end result could be ALP 71, Coalition 74 plus 5 independents of which the coalition would only need the backing of 2. This could be very entertaining.


----------



## Calliope (24 August 2010)

sails said:


> The indepentants are experienced politicians.  This is an extremely tactical game for them and I think they will be all things to both sides until they announce their decision.  Pretty difficult to read much into their statements at this stage.  They seem to be enjoying the publicity and I doubt they will rush to make up their minds.




Sails, Tony Abbott cannot form government without the three independents and Tony Crook ( the National who knocked off Tuckey). All four have massive grudges against the Coalition.

If he gives in to the demands of these opportunists and forms a government on their terms it will have a very short life.

I would prefer the Coalition to stay in opposition and let Julia Gillard cope with these grandstanding buffoons. At least it would retain the moral high ground.


----------



## noco (24 August 2010)

Julia Gillard must be shaking in her boots ATM with more holes in her dear Lisah's bucket than she has fingers to plug them. Because the Labor Party are festering with so much hate for each other is probably the reason Mark Arbib was band from Q & A last night.

The public have only seen the tip of the iceberg and it is  reasonable to assume there are divisions much deeper within the Party. Gillard is doing all she can to suppress the problem untill after the declaration of the election outcome.

How can she possibly offer stable Government in the future.  

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...nts/labor_implodes_who_hates_who_in_this_zoo/


----------



## IFocus (24 August 2010)

Coalition in fighting...............not so stable as Abbott would have everyone belive



> It appears the Coalition will secure 73 seats, three short of a majority in its own right. The Australian has been told, however, that the Liberals and the Nationals spent close to $2 million fighting each other in seven electorates across the country.
> 
> In the NSW seat of Riverina, the Liberals spent nearly $400,000 trying to win the seat off the Nationals following the retirement of Kay Hull, including placing two full-page advertisements in the local paper the day before polling day.





http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...unds-effectively/story-fn59niix-1225909104091


----------



## So_Cynical (24 August 2010)

wayneL said:


> What a remarkable piece of denial LOL. The Labor Party came within an eyelash of losing government in its first term and the coalition are losers?.
> 
> Actually, have a look at the primary vote, Labor is only there because of Green preferences. The coalition did a sterling job to come from where they were to the possibility of nicking this election.
> 
> Without the liability of Barnaby Joyce, it would be in the bag IMO.




The informal vote had a bigger national swing than the coalition..


----------



## noco (24 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> Coalition in fighting...............not so stable as Abbott would have everyone belive
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes IF, but that is transparent and out in the open. What I am referring to is what we can't see behind the closed doors of the Labor Party and it is festering, make no mistake.


----------



## Julia (24 August 2010)

sails said:


> I wouldn't like to say it's a done deal yet.  There are several seats which are only a few hundred votes apart with only about 80% counted, so that remains a wild card, IMO.  Seats supposedly "won" can easily pop back into the "doubtful" group again.  As some of those seats are favouring the coalition at this stage, a change to labor could mean they don't need the independants at all.
> 
> The indepentants are experienced politicians.  This is an extremely tactical game for them and I think they will be all things to both sides until they announce their decision.  Pretty difficult to read much into their statements at this stage.  They seem to be enjoying the publicity and I doubt they will rush to make up their minds.



Agree, Sails.  Certainly the three Independents are hugely enjoying themselves, even getting quite silly with their ideas e.g. Oakshott today suggesting he might "get cheeky" and put up the idea that Cabinet should be mixed from all parties.  He seemed to think it might be just hunkey dory for an Abbott government to have Kevin Rudd as Foreign Minister, as just one example.

If this is an example of how their thinking is going to play, heaven help us all.

Initially, I thought the result might be a vote for a greater level of democracy, but now it seems more likely it will reflect the grandstanding and egoism of a few, with the nation the poorer.



So_Cynical said:


> The informal vote had a bigger national swing than the coalition..



That's quite true.  You have to wonder if these people had instead voted properly a number of the seats currently in doubt may have been clearly decided.  Hope these people will think more clearly next time.


----------



## Whiskers (24 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> The informal vote had a bigger national swing than the coalition..




That's what concerns me. 

I wonder if those people are kicking themselves now and I wonder if they would do the same again, given the high probability of another early election when someone has a go at minority government.


----------



## Whiskers (24 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> The informal vote had a bigger national swing than the coalition..




That's what concerns me. 

I wonder if those people are kicking themselves now and I wonder if they would do the same again, given the high probability of another early election when someone has a go at minority government.

PS:



Julia said:


> That's quite true.  You have to wonder if these people had instead voted properly a number of the seats currently in doubt may have been clearly decided.  Hope these people will think more clearly next time.




Yeah, and the possible knee jerk reaction of a lot wishing (in hindsight) they had voted for the loser this time, in the next election.


----------



## noco (24 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Agree, Sails.  Certainly the three Independents are hugely enjoying themselves, even getting quite silly with their ideas e.g. Oakshott today suggesting he might "get cheeky" and put up the idea that Cabinet should be mixed from all parties.  He seemed to think it might be just hunkey dory for an Abbott government to have Kevin Rudd as Foreign Minister, as just one example.
> 
> If this is an example of how their thinking is going to play, heaven help us all.
> 
> ...




They probably followed the Jesus Christ super star (aka Mark Latham) and posted a blank ballot paper.


----------



## sails (24 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Agree, Sails.  Certainly the three Independents are hugely enjoying themselves, even getting quite silly with their ideas e.g. Oakshott today suggesting he might "get cheeky" and put up the idea that Cabinet should be mixed from all parties.  He seemed to think it might be just hunkey dory for an Abbott government to have Kevin Rudd as Foreign Minister, as just one example.
> 
> If this is an example of how their thinking is going to play, heaven help us all.
> 
> Initially, I thought the result might be a vote for a greater level of democracy, but now it seems more likely it will reflect the grandstanding and egoism of a few, with the nation the poorer...




Julia, I agree the independents are becoming increasingly cheeky with their new celebrity status.  I  really thought they would have used their experience somewhat more astutely.   Oh well...

Maybe neither side of government will want them - but then that would certainly mean another election with JG droning on and on again...

If there is another election so soon, I wonder how many people would actually change their vote?


----------



## ghotib (24 August 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> The informal vote had a bigger national swing than the coalition..



Do you know how that's determined? The swings for Liberal, Liberal National of Qld, Nationals, and Country Liberals total +1.42, which is close enough to the informal +1.69 that it's not a major concern. Only I'm not sure if adding them together is the way to work out the swing? 

The other reason I'm not unduly concerned about the Informal vote is that it seems to vary greatly from seat to seat, and be markedly higher in very safe seats with no strong third choice. The NSW seat of Blaxland is an outstanding example: 14.2% Informal with a swing of +5.31%, which is higher than the swing against Labor. That suggests to me that it's a deliberate vote in favour of Anyone Else, which further suggests that Someone Else might well have a go next time and at least one of the major parties might actually pay some attention. Good tactical voting. 

I think this a fabulous result for the nation. The parties actually have no constitutional role at all, and it's long past time they were reminded that we own the Parliament by right of citizenship, not party membership. 

Ghoti (Antony Green is My Hero)


----------



## sails (24 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Sails, Tony Abbott cannot form government without the three independents and Tony Crook ( the National who knocked off Tuckey). All four have massive grudges against the Coalition.
> 
> If he gives in to the demands of these opportunists and forms a government on their terms it will have a very short life.
> 
> I would prefer the Coalition to stay in opposition and let Julia Gillard cope with these grandstanding buffoons. At least it would retain the moral high ground.




Calliope, I'm not sure either how the Coalition will go with the three independents.  I have mixed feelings on this.  Maybe it is better that the voting public have a taste of JG as leader.  She went to the polls in indecent haste, IMO without proving herself first.  

Fortunately, it's not up to me to decide...lol


----------



## noco (25 August 2010)

More evidence of turmoil in the Labor Party. They just can't help themselves from blaming each other for things going wrong.
How can they possibly offer a stable Government?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ng-bid-for-power/story-fn59niix-1225909632518


----------



## Mofra (25 August 2010)

noco said:


> More evidence of turmoil in the Labor Party. They just can't help themselves from blaming each other for things going wrong.
> How can they possibly offer a stable Government?
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ng-bid-for-power/story-fn59niix-1225909632518



Worrying signs - neither side can offer a stable govenrment if Labour can't, as the Coalition would be a lame duck government with the Greens holding the balance of power in the senate. We'd be back to the polls fairly shortly if that occurred.

This is the reason JG can talk about holding true to her principles - she knows any change to the mining tax or NBN would be voted down by the Greens anyway.


----------



## Logique (25 August 2010)

Hang on, three points here:

- The Greens won't have the Senate balance of power until July 2011. That's a long time in politics.

- The ALP as predicted, have already begun to tear themselves apart. There will be further fallout when NSW state Labor are shown the door in the March 2011 election. Surely the worst government ever in NSW.

- The conservative independents are playing a flaky shell game with the Australian public, and a dangerous one for themselves. 
Their electorate percentage of Labor voters are:
Windsor - 8% 
Oakeshot - 13%
Katter -20%

They will come to heel, after they've had their 15 minutes.


----------



## wayneL (25 August 2010)

Mofra said:


> Worrying signs - neither side can offer a stable govenrment if Labour can't, as the Coalition would be a lame duck government with the Greens holding the balance of power in the senate. We'd be back to the polls fairly shortly if that occurred.





There have been many governments with a hostile senate in the past.

Why do you think we have the complicated GST arrangements we have now? because of the Aust Dem comrades holding balance of power in the Senate.

It might not be comfortable for the Libs (if they cobble together a gu'mint), but it is a non-sequitur to suggest they would be unable to offer stable government because the Labor Marxist cannot.

Not saying they can or cannot, just that it does not necessarily follow.


----------



## Bushman (25 August 2010)

Logique said:


> Surely the worst government ever in NSW.




I would say the worst state government ever (in my life time, anyway). Maybe only Cain/Kirner come close in terms of ineptitude, Bourke in terms of the whiff of corruption. 

The problem for Gillard is that it has become fashionable for Qld/NSW state labour to blame the 'disease' of Labour party machinations to save their own careers. Snipers abound in that nest of factional vipers. 

The independents are most definitely enjoying their 15 minutes of fame at the moment. Labor would be strange bedfellows given rural Australia is a conservative constituency. My money is on Abbott if its stays 73-all. 

If Labor form government, then say good-bye to the surplus as they will need to fund big spending campaigns to keep the Greens/'agrarian socialists' happy. Factionalism will keep eroding party unity and it will all end in a Liberal landslide. Gillard is damned if she does, damned if she doesn't IMO and Abbott might be best served to give Labor the chance to destroy itself completely.


----------



## Bolle (25 August 2010)

Couldn't agree more.  Best thing for everyone is ALP 'wins' this round, in order to then sensationally and spectacularly lose the war.  Hopefully very quickly, which should be easy enough for them, they are barely holding together as it is.  They remind me of the Blues Brothers' car, at the end of the movie, holding together just long enough to get to the door, then spontaneously dismantling into a pile of scrap metal at the precise moment that their usefulness has been exhausted. 

Would be far more interesting all round if Labour would just split into its factions and form an alliance of two parties - at least then they could stop fighting and start negotiating, and we could see their true colours.  As it is, with gag orders everywhere, it's fairly hard to see whom is still talking to whom. 

I'm not Tony's biggest fan, so I my ideal outcome would be that JG forms an unstable govt, ploughs roughly along for a few months, stuffs up a few more times, watches Labour party implode... and meanwhile LIBS replace Tony with, say, Joe... and win by landslide later this year.

(And the Greens make enough trouble in that short time for people to recognise that they aren't any kind of saviours.)

my


----------



## Logique (25 August 2010)

Bushman said:


> Abbott might be best served to give Labor the chance to destroy itself completely.



I do not support this theory. We do not need a Labor government in power once the Greens senate balance of power kicks in next year, having a combined flakiness contest.

They will do too much damage in the meantime, starting with maxing out the national credit card in a desperate bid to shore up their support.

There are echoes of 1975 about all of this, I do think it will eventually break in a landslide to one side or another. But we must not allow Labor to pull the strings from government in the volatile times to come.


----------



## Mofra (25 August 2010)

wayneL said:


> There have been many governments with a hostile senate in the past.
> 
> Why do you think we have the complicated GST arrangements we have now? because of the Aust Dem comrades holding balance of power in the Senate.
> 
> ...



The difference in political idealogues between the Dems/Libs at the time does not reflect the gulf between the Greens and the current Liberal party.

On major policy issues such as Healthcare, Tax, Broadband, Water & the environment they are miles apart.

Not sure I can agree with anything less right wing than the libs being automatically labelled Marxist either, but each to their own.


----------



## Mofra (25 August 2010)

Logique said:


> - The Greens won't have the Senate balance of power until July 2011. That's a long time in politics.



True, but the actual number of sitting days in parliament is quite low in the meantime the Libs wont hold sway in the upper house either.


----------



## Happy (25 August 2010)

Being able to run deficit or being able to promise anything without scrutiny until next election does not look like good recipe for Government.

Unfortunately democracy in theory allows even Sex Party to run the Government should they secure majority.


----------



## drsmith (25 August 2010)

Listening to today's National Press Meeting with the 3 independents and Adam Bandt, 

Bob Katter was quiet emotional in relation to a carbon tax and a RSPT. I can't see him and Adan Bandt agreeing on too much.

Adan Bandt confirmed the Greens still support the original RSPT, however Tony windsor does not. Tony does support support a resources profit tax but in the context of reforming state royalties. Adan Bandt also confirmed a shoot first approach to introducing a carbon tax. 

Neither side I suspect will want Bob Katter (stability ?). This makes it akward for the Coalition with 73 seats. Labor could do it with 72 seats, Adan Bandt (Green), Andrew Wilkie and the two national independents. For the latter two though, it would be a massive risk as the bed they are in would include both Labor and the Greens.

I suspect we will be back to the polls soon if one of the major parties can't secure 74 seats.


----------



## Julia (25 August 2010)

Logique said:


> Hang on, three points here:
> 
> - The Greens won't have the Senate balance of power until July 2011. That's a long time in politics.



Sure is, and given the inevitable volatility with any of the possible permutations that can form government, there will be plenty of opportunity for disaster before the Greens have their longed for supremacy.



> - The conservative independents are playing a flaky shell game with the Australian public, and a dangerous one for themselves.
> Their electorate percentage of Labor voters are:
> Windsor - 8%
> Oakeshot - 13%
> ...



You're probably right.  But they're sure as hell milking the publicity for all they're worth at present.  The more I hear them, especially the loony Katter, the less faith I have in any sort of control they will exert.




Logique said:


> I do not support this theory. We do not need a Labor government in power once the Greens senate balance of power kicks in next year, having a combined flakiness contest.
> 
> They will do too much damage in the meantime, starting with maxing out the national credit card in a desperate bid to shore up their support.



Agree absolutely.  Labor need to go away and do their blood letting in private, not take their internal frustrations and anger out on the country.



drsmith said:


> Listening to today's National Press Meeting with the 3 independents and Adam Bandt,
> 
> Bob Katter was quiet emotional in relation to a carbon tax and a RSPT. I can't see him and Adan Bandt agreeing on too much.
> 
> ...



Good summary.  It's becoming increasingly more difficult to see any sort of stable alliance happening.


----------



## Julia (25 August 2010)

The following extract from an article by David Penberthy of "The Punch" seems right on the money.


> Both Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor are level-headed men, decent and competent politicians, and would do a better job inside Cabinet than many of the people either side could serve up.
> 
> But even so, should we risk sidelining or subjugating the interests of voters in 150 electorates to a trio of men representing just three electorates?
> 
> ...



http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles...nl&emcmp=Punch&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member


----------



## Mofra (25 August 2010)

Julia said:


> The following extract from an article by David Penberthy of "The Punch" seems right on the money.



Rather prescient article, especially in his portrayal of Katter - Katter spoke out against free trade in his NPC address today. Basically, it seemed like Katter read the article then set about to prove Penberthy correct on every point today.


----------



## Calliope (25 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> Neither side I suspect will want Bob Katter (stability ?). This makes it akward for the Coalition with 73 seats. Labor could do it with 72 seats, Adan Bandt (Green), Andrew Wilkie and the two national independents. For the latter two though, it would be a massive risk as the bed they are in would include both Labor and the Greens.




I think you are right on the money Doc. Oakeshott and Windsor would be a better fit with the Labor/Green coalition than with the conservatives, that's why Abbott is trying to position himself as a small  "l" liberal (caring etc). The problem for these two is that their electorates might force them in the opposite direction.

Katter of course fits nowhere. Maybe a nuthouse


----------



## wayneL (25 August 2010)

Mofra said:


> Not sure I can agree with anything less right wing than the libs being automatically labelled Marxist either, but each to their own.




The Labor Party is not overtly Marxist, but this is the Fabian way, the end game has always been the same.


----------



## drsmith (25 August 2010)

Andrew Wilkie described himself as a blank sheet in a press conference this afternoon, but if he throws his support behind one side, it's hard to imagine it being anything other than Labor.

http://www.andrewwilkie.org/content/index.php/site/issues/P0/


----------



## Calliope (25 August 2010)

Tony Crook the new Nat from the West has opted not to join the gang of four. He doesn't want to be in the Coalition either. I think he wants to be a loose cannon.


----------



## sails (25 August 2010)

If we were to have another election so quickly, I wonder who would actually change their votes?

Unless there is more information to change people's ideas, I wonder if the only winners out of another election at this stage might be more green votes.

No-one really knows how JG would go as leader as she hasn't even proved herself in opposition leadership.  She is now in care taking PM mode. Most of her short weeks as PM has been in a very vocal election campaign targeted at emotions (IMO) and very little of actually running the country.

There seem to be a lot of unknowns including just how much debt this country is in.  Perhaps the independents may extract enough information for the public to get a better grasp of what is really going on should we be required to head back to the polls.


----------



## gav (25 August 2010)

sails said:


> If we were to have another election so quickly, I wonder who would actually change their votes?




I wonder how many candidates would change who they give their preferences to, given the way things turned out (eg. DLP getting in the Senate in Vic! )


----------



## bellenuit (25 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Tony Crook the new Nat from the West has opted not to join the gang of four. He doesn't want to be in the Coalition either. I think he wants to be a loose cannon.




When the papers say that the Coalition will probably end up with 73, are they including Crook or not in that 73 number?


----------



## drsmith (25 August 2010)

bellenuit said:


> When the papers say that the Coalition will probably end up with 73, are they including Crook or not in that 73 number?



They are including Crook in the 73. He has already stated he does not support the new resources tax but for now at least, Julia is standing her ground on that one.

Who would have thought (before the election) we would see Wayne Swan bowing down to Bob Katter ?


----------



## IFocus (25 August 2010)

Now Coalition begins its own civil war 



> BACKBITING has begun in the NSW Liberal and National parties over the failure to transform the strong anti-Labor swing in the state into captured seats.




I can't understand how NSW didn't smash Labor given the state politics is so bad the state Liberals must be complete drop kicks.


----------



## noco (25 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> Now Coalition begins its own civil war
> 
> 
> 
> I can't understand how NSW didn't smash Labor given the state politics is so bad the state Liberals must be complete drop kicks.




Do you have a link for that "quote"?


----------



## Julia (25 August 2010)

sails said:


> If we were to have another election so quickly, I wonder who would actually change their votes?
> 
> Unless there is more information to change people's ideas, I wonder if the only winners out of another election at this stage might be more green votes.



I've been wondering the same thing.  You'd have to assume most people during the five week campaign gave reasonable thought to their choice.
The result was very close to what the polls indicated, so it's hard to see why anyone would be surprised and therefore want to change their vote.

Re the Green vote, there was a good article in (I think) "The Australian" today suggesting the media is well overdue to apply  the same level of scrutiny to the Greens policies as they have to the main parties.  This is a really valid point.

  I wonder how many of the protest votes that went to the Greens would do so again if they really understood what the Green agenda was all about and its economic ramifications.  Even if the latter were just to be expressed in terms of additional cost of living to households if the Greens get all they want, I reckon it would make a lot of those Greens voters have a second thought or two.




> Perhaps the independents may extract enough information for the public to get a better grasp of what is really going on should we be required to head back to the polls.



Yes, it's somewhat encouraging that they have asked for e.g. details of how the $42 billion for the NBN was arrived at.  Heavens, they may even go so far as to request something as out there as a cost-benefit analysis!!



drsmith said:


> Who would have thought (before the election) we would see Wayne Swan bowing down to Bob Katter ?



I can't begin to imagine how hard Swan would have had to grit his teeth in this situation.  Pretty funny, really.


----------



## Julia (25 August 2010)

Did anyone see Malcolm Fraser trotted out yet again on the 7.30 Report this evening?
He has already said more than once that he does not believe the Coalition is fit to govern.  This evening, he had to refer to his notes to make sure he answered the question as expected.

That the ABC put him up yet again, and very specifically asked him this question yet again, is strong verification of their own political bias, (if we needed any.)

Isn't it time for Malcolm Fraser to get the hell out of the public sphere and leave the air time to people who have some relevance?


----------



## noco (25 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Did anyone see Malcolm Fraser trotted out yet again on the 7.30 Report this evening?
> He has already said more than once that he does not believe the Coalition is fit to govern.  This evening, he had to refer to his notes to make sure he answered the question as expected.
> 
> That the ABC put him up yet again, and very specifically asked him this question yet again, is strong verification of their own political bias, (if we needed any.)
> ...




I think Malcolm is suffering from senile decay. They should put him out of his misery


----------



## basilio (26 August 2010)

Another real concern is that even if either party forms an effective government they will have the slimmest of margins.  A death, an illness, a scandal a mistake would be all it takes to topple a government.

 This would be particularly significant if the opposing party decided to keep maximum pressure on the government ie not allowing  pairs in voting.


----------



## drsmith (26 August 2010)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-political-blend/story-e6frg8zx-1225910121978

Interesting.


----------



## drsmith (26 August 2010)

According to Adam Bandt (Lateline), 3 of the 4 at Wednesday's National Press Club conference stated they wanted an immediate price on carbon.

This is what all 4 said (Annabel Crabb - ABC)



> Oakeshott: Scientists have done good work. The vast majority of them say there's an issue. Garnaut gave us a report. Let's use it.
> 
> Windsor: We have to change the way we live. We have a unique situation in this parliament to start and drive this thing forward.
> 
> ...



Bandt went further to explicitly call for an immediate carbon tax, but Oakeshott and Windsor didn't. What though have they agreed privately ?
It would be well worth the media asking Oakeshott and Windsor specifically where they stand on a carbon tax and whether they agree with Adam Band's Lateline comment above.

It's looking increasingly like Oakeshott and Windsor are leaning towards Labor.


----------



## drsmith (26 August 2010)

What Garnaut says,



> *Transition period:*
> The two or more years between scheme commencement (2010) and the end
> of the Kyoto period (end 2012) should be treated as a transition period to an
> unconstrained, fully market-based emissions trading scheme.
> ...



http://www.garnautreview.org.au/pdf/Garnaut_Chapter14.pdf

In short, it calls for an interim (transition) price on carbon. 

If that's what Windsor and Oakeshott want, they should come out and say it explicitly and not hide behind Garnaut or the Greens's Adam Bandt.


----------



## wayneL (26 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Did anyone see Malcolm Fraser trotted out yet again on the 7.30 Report this evening?
> He has already said more than once that he does not believe the Coalition is fit to govern.  This evening, he had to refer to his notes to make sure he answered the question as expected.
> 
> That the ABC put him up yet again, and very specifically asked him this question yet again, is strong verification of their own political bias, (if we needed any.)
> ...




Malcolm proved himself to be a socialist when he was PM, and even more so afterwards.

He was always in the wrong party.


----------



## son of baglimit (26 August 2010)

wayneL said:


> Malcolm proved himself to be a socialist when he was PM, and even more so afterwards.
> 
> He was always in the wrong party.




look at the era he was in politics - the ALP was considered very left, and still recovering from the communist links (real or perceived) from the 50's & 60's. the libs occupied the middle ground for many years and hence held govt.

malcolm was able to run a social agenda similiar in many respects to todays ALP, but miles away from howards.


----------



## Calliope (26 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> What Garnaut says,
> 
> 
> http://www.garnautreview.org.au/pdf/Garnaut_Chapter14.pdf
> ...




There is no doubt these guys are left-progressives. They could never work with the Coalition. Abbott would be a fool to try to win them over by bowing to their demands to gain the benches.

Gillard is welcome to these posturing clowns. She should be given enough rope to hang herself. The three Stooges would help this process.


----------



## noco (26 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> There is no doubt these guys are left-progressives. They could never work with the Coalition. Abbott would be a fool to try to win them over by bowing to their demands to gain the benches.
> 
> Gillard is welcome to these posturing clowns. She should be given enough rope to hang herself. The three Stooges would help this process.




Calliope, the three stooges as they are called, are in a catch 22 situation and I believe Abbott is reading it pretty well. Yesterday's poll in the three independants show 55 % want them to support the Coalition.

If they don't support the Coalition and go with Labor, they can kiss good bye to being  re-elected next time.


----------



## Mofra (26 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Did anyone see Malcolm Fraser trotted out yet again on the 7.30 Report this evening?
> He has already said more than once that he does not believe the Coalition is fit to govern.  This evening, he had to refer to his notes to make sure he answered the question as expected.
> 
> That the ABC put him up yet again, and very specifically asked him this question yet again, is strong verification of their own political bias, (if we needed any.)



Just to set the cat amongst the pigeons 



> *Media favours Coalition, study finds*
> 
> Newspapers are left wing, television is right wing, and
> the media as a whole tends to favour the Coalition.
> ...




(pdf only - people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/MediaSlant_media.pdf)


----------



## Calliope (26 August 2010)

Julia said:


> That the ABC put him up yet again, and very specifically asked him this question yet again, is strong verification of their own political bias, (if we needed any.)




Kerry O'Brien's second Freudian slip on election night leaves little doubt, that in his mind the ABC and the ALP are the same thing, viz, "the ABC are leading in..."


----------



## basilio (26 August 2010)

Tony Abbott has refused to allow the Federal treasury to cost his election proposals for the independents.

Makes really good sense if

1) You already feel the independents are not going to come on board OR you can't stomach what they want.

2) You're pretty sure your election promises may have some dodgy figures in them. In that context *there is no way you want to lose that much credibility* over an issue you already think is dead.

I'm trying to see how Labour is trashing the Westminster system by providing the independents with treasury costings of  their election promises and inviting the Libs to do the same. Hard to see isn't it ?


----------



## wayneL (26 August 2010)

Mofra said:


> Just to set the cat amongst the pigeons
> 
> 
> 
> (pdf only - people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/MediaSlant_media.pdf)




That's a pretty subjective cat however.


----------



## Calliope (26 August 2010)

Which group is more dangerous to "stable government"?


----------



## Mofra (26 August 2010)

wayneL said:


> That's a pretty subjective cat however.



Anything evidence-based to counter it?


----------



## wayneL (26 August 2010)

Mofra said:


> Anything evidence-based to counter it?




1/ I have not made claims about media bias.

2/ You seem to be under the misapprehension that the document is "evidential". It's not, it's subjective.

3/ Ergo, there is nothing substantive to counter.


----------



## Mofra (26 August 2010)

wayneL said:


> You seem to be under the misapprehension that the document is "evidential". It's not, it's subjective.



It's far less subjective than the post I was referring to, although that in itself is subjective :

This will derail the thread if continued so lets leave it be.


----------



## Julia (26 August 2010)

Mofra said:


> Just to set the cat amongst the pigeons
> 
> 
> 
> (pdf only - people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/MediaSlant_media.pdf)






Mofra said:


> It's far less subjective than the post I was referring to, although that in itself is subjective :



Of course my post was subjective, Mofra.  But it doesn't purport to be anything else, unlike the quoted 'study' which is apparently presented as a scientifically valid and methodologically sound piece of research.

Reading further through your link  shows criticism from Chris Berg, a research fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, who says "the study's findings are ridiculous".   "e.g. it classifies individuals like Phillip Adams and Germaine Greer as *right-wing intellectuals* and people like Keith Windschuttle as *left-wing intellectuals*"

Further he says "when you've got results like that you have to wonder whether the study has found anything at all of relevance or of interest."

And let's remember that during most of the period of the study the Coalition was in power, so fairly obviously as the government it's going to draw more mentions/comments than the Opposition.

Further,  just counting mentions of one side or the other as proof of bias hardly seems valid, does it?   Wouldn't these mentions have to be further categorised into positive and negative to be statistically significant?  And how would you classify a purely factual piece of reporting, e.g. "the government welcomes the appointment of the new American Ambassador" etc?


----------



## gordon2007 (26 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Of course my post was subjective, Mofra.  But it doesn't purport to be anything else, unlike the quoted 'study' which is apparently presented as a scientifically valid and methodologically sound piece of research.
> 
> Reading further through your link  shows criticism from Chris Berg, a research fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, who says "the study's findings are ridiculous".   "e.g. it classifies individuals like Phillip Adams and Germaine Greer as *right-wing intellectuals* and people like Keith Windschuttle as *left-wing intellectuals*"
> 
> ...




Can I just say Julia, your grammar is exquiste :bier:


----------



## ghotib (26 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Of course my post was subjective, Mofra.  But it doesn't purport to be anything else, unlike the quoted 'study' which is apparently presented as a scientifically valid and methodologically sound piece of research.
> 
> Reading further through your link  shows criticism from Chris Berg, a research fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, who says "the study's findings are ridiculous".   "e.g. it classifies individuals like Phillip Adams and Germaine Greer as *right-wing intellectuals* and people like Keith Windschuttle as *left-wing intellectuals*"
> 
> ...



Chris Berg must have been responding to questions rather than to the paper itself - always risky. Mofra's link includes a magazine article by the authors of the actual paper (which is also online if anyone really wants to get obsessive), where they explain the methods they used, including how Adams and Germs came out as right wing (that's a distortion of the paper BTW), and how they analysed media coverage. 

I don't have an opinion about this particular study, partly because I think the right-left distinction is about 40 years past its use-by date (the authors comment on that too). But I do wish we could all get over the habit of dismissing surprising or counter-intuitive findings on the basis of a quick reading of short summaries and an assumption that professionals can't apply common sense to their own fields. 

Ghoti (Not as cranky as this sounds)


----------



## Julia (26 August 2010)

ghotib said:


> Chris Berg must have been responding to questions rather than to the paper itself - always risky.



Was he?  Evidence for this?  And what difference does that make anyway?
How would that alter his quoted opinion about the study?


> Mofra's link includes a magazine article by the authors of the actual paper (which is also online if anyone really wants to get obsessive), where they explain the methods they used, including how Adams and Germs came out as right wing (that's a distortion of the paper BTW), and how they analysed media coverage.



Absolutely not interested in being as obsessive as you suggest, but by any measure it's pretty difficult to see either Adams or Germain Greer being classified as right wing.



> I don't have an opinion about this particular study, partly because I think the right-left distinction is about 40 years past its use-by date (the authors comment on that too). But I do wish we could all get over the habit of dismissing surprising or counter-intuitive findings on the basis of a quick reading of short summaries and an assumption that professionals can't apply common sense to their own fields.
> 
> Ghoti (Not as cranky as this sounds)



Well, ghoti, I'll continue to be dismissive of what seems simply a bit silly until you can provide clear evidence to the contrary.  The right/left distinction may well be outdated, but it's nonetheless still meaningful to a large chunk of the population.  How would you suggest it be replaced?


----------



## Calliope (26 August 2010)

Ghoti, is you name really Fish?



> Ghoti is a constructed example word used to illustrate irregularities in English spelling. It is pronounced /fɪʃ/, just like fish:
> 
> * gh, /f/ as in laugh, /l?f, l?ːf, laːf/;
> * o, /ɪ/ as in women, /ˈwɪmɪn, ˈwɪmən/; and
> ...


----------



## ghotib (26 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Ghoti, is you name really Fish?



Yep! Well spotted 

Ghoti (it's shorter than Galaxias truttaceus  http://www.nativefish.asn.au/galtrutt.html


----------



## trainspotter (26 August 2010)

ghotib said:


> Yep! Well spotted
> 
> Ghoti (it's shorter than Galaxias truttaceus  http://www.nativefish.asn.au/galtrutt.html




WOW .... that is frikkin' SUBLIMINAL !

<((>< equals flathead

<*((((>< equals Ghoti ?? f_i_s_h ...... rather?


----------



## drsmith (26 August 2010)

Some heat on the independents re ALP support.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/26/2994739.htm


----------



## ghotib (27 August 2010)

Hi Julia,

If Chris Berg had read the paper he would know why it classifies the "public intellectuals" as it does and he would know that dismissing the whole paper as ridiculous because of that classification is unreasonable. If he did read the paper before making the comments that Mofra quoted then either his comprehension is poor or he's deliberately distorting the paper. The authors don't claim that Germaine Greer is right wing. I don't think I can or need provide any more evidence of that - I've only read what was available to any of us. 

FWIW, I agree with Berg that the paper isn't very exciting and that shows such as 7.30 Report tend to be more anti-government than anything.

The right - left thing just strikes me as hopelessly inadequate to cover the range of issues and groupings that we have to deal with. It made a sort of sense when the world could be divided more or less meaningfully into Soviet or US led and the dominant problems of governments seemed to be economic and political, but it's no help to understanding, for example, independent members of parliament elected from rural Australia in 2010. Right or left, Coles or Woolworths, Red or Blue... none of them are prepared to accept a binary view of the parliament, let alone their electorates. Australian politics clearly needs at least three poles because we've nearly always had at least 3 blocs in the Senate and sometimes more. 

Sorry to rave on. I'm really enjoying the nitty-gritty of this election, and I'm really delighted that the electors have given the backrooms of the major parties such a clobbering. The nation is much more complicated and interesting than they've allowed us to be, and it will be a very good thing if the Parliament reflects that. 

Cheers, 

Ghoti


----------



## ghotib (27 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> <*((((>< equals Ghoti



Beautiful!!! May I steal it? Do you want a royalty payment... in mosquito larvae perhaps. 

Ghoti (Do you really expect a fish to stay on topic?)


----------



## wayneL (27 August 2010)

ghotib said:


> ....and an assumption that professionals can't apply common sense to their own fields.




I think there's a fair amount of evidence to substantiate that assumption. ::


----------



## Mofra (27 August 2010)

ghotib said:


> FWIW, I agree with Berg that the paper isn't very exciting and that shows such as 7.30 Report tend to be more anti-government than anything.
> 
> The right - left thing just strikes me as hopelessly inadequate to cover the range of issues and groupings that we have to deal with.



Agree with your post ghotib, but specifrically the two points raised here. For all the claims of bias, Kerry O'Brien tends to give both sides of politics a grilling when they appear on the 7:30 report which is absolutely the way it should be - someone needs to scrutinise the substance of government or opposition policy, and the mainstream media tend to focus their scrutiny on soundbites or the spin, not the substance.

Right-left is an interesting case in point - Katter is socially right wing, but his economic leanings are protectionist and I'd argue very left (FWIW I identify more to the opposite in both cases).


----------



## Calliope (27 August 2010)

Abbott must be realising now that the three independents are in fact closet Labor/Green stooges.

If he is smart he will walk away from the table now. Any chance of reaching the magic number of 76 lies only with Gillard.


----------



## sails (27 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Abbott must be realising now that the three independents are in fact closet Labor/Green stooges.
> 
> If he is smart he will walk away from the table now. Any chance of reaching the magic number of 76 lies only with Gillard.




I would think he will let them "walk away" to labor if that's what they want so the responsibility is on them to face their respective electorates. 

According to the 7.30 report last night Tony Windsor has done this before: 



> NICK GREINER, FORMER LIBERAL NSW PREMIER: I hate to sound trite but I think it was trust. I mean, in my case originally *Tony Windsor*, in fact, had the balance of power.




Full transcript: 
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2994692.htm


----------



## Mofra (27 August 2010)

sails said:


> According to the 7.30 report last night Tony Windsor has done this before:



I saw the show last night, and Steve Bracks mentioned that when he formed a minority government in his first term it took over a month for a government to be formed 

Family First Senator Fielding has also thrown a spanner in the works, threatening the ALP to block passage of bills through the senate until he loses his senate seat (if the ALP can form a government).


----------



## Julia (27 August 2010)

ghotib said:


> FWIW, I agree with Berg that the paper isn't very exciting and that shows such as 7.30 Report tend to be more anti-government than anything.



Hi Ghoti, perhaps more just holding both sides to account, or at least ideally that's how it should be, as Mofra suggests.   I guess we all interpret Kerry O'Brien's interviews through the filter of our own biases, however much we - like O'Brien - strive for objectivity.



> The right - left thing just strikes me as hopelessly inadequate to cover the range of issues and groupings that we have to deal with. It made a sort of sense when the world could be divided more or less meaningfully into Soviet or US led and the dominant problems of governments seemed to be economic and political, but it's no help to understanding, for example, independent members of parliament elected from rural Australia in 2010. Right or left, Coles or Woolworths, Red or Blue... none of them are prepared to accept a binary view of the parliament, let alone their electorates. Australian politics clearly needs at least three poles because we've nearly always had at least 3 blocs in the Senate and sometimes more.



Yep, I've been thinking about this a bit more, and acknowledge that personally I couldn't classify myself as right or left, but rather a bit of each on various subjects.   I think it would be hard, though, to stop people wanting to classify e.g. politicians.



> Sorry to rave on. I'm really enjoying the nitty-gritty of this election, and I'm really delighted that the electors have given the backrooms of the major parties such a clobbering. The nation is much more complicated and interesting than they've allowed us to be, and it will be a very good thing if the Parliament reflects that.



Rave away, I'm also enjoying it.  I don't remember a time since I've been living in Australia that the twists and turns of politics have been so fascinating.



Mofra said:


> Agree with your post ghotib, but specifrically the two points raised here. For all the claims of bias, Kerry O'Brien tends to give both sides of politics a grilling when they appear on the 7:30 report which is absolutely the way it should be - someone needs to scrutinise the substance of government or opposition policy, and the mainstream media tend to focus their scrutiny on soundbites or the spin, not the substance.
> 
> Right-left is an interesting case in point - Katter is socially right wing, but his economic leanings are protectionist and I'd argue very left (FWIW I identify more to the opposite in both cases).


----------



## sails (27 August 2010)

Mofra said:


> ...Family First Senator Fielding has also thrown a spanner in the works, threatening the ALP to block passage of bills through the senate until he loses his senate seat (if the ALP can form a government).




Here is Abbott's response as reported by the Courier Mail:  

Abbott won't support threat to block legislation in Senate if coalition returns to opposition


----------



## IFocus (27 August 2010)

"Abbott claims 'win' after costings backdown"

WTF oh that's right phony Tony



> Yesterday Mr Abbott said he would not submit his policies to Treasury for costing until a police investigation into a departmental leak was finalised.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/27/2995346.htm

AFP have said there is no  investigation



> But an AFP spokeswoman said there was no investigation and that police were ''still assessing'' the Coalition's complaint.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-elect...-like-gillard-20100826-13uam.html?autostart=1


----------



## drsmith (27 August 2010)

At face value, the Coalition's changing position on costings does not make a lot of sense.

One thing that Tony Abbott's initial reluctance over costings did draw out however, was direct public criticism from at least two of the three National independents. In terms of negotiation, this was poor form on their part, inparticular bearing in mind their constituencies.

Commentary from those three independents since last weekend suggests they think they are smarter than the brains behind both the major parties. If it was Tony's intent to get the National independents to show public favouritism towards the ALP and hence weaken them within their own electorates, he has won an important point.

It's a mistake in any competitive activity to underestimate your opponent. Those three independents would prefer to support the ALP. Intentional or not, Tony Abbott got Bob Katter and Tony Windsor to show it publically.


----------



## sails (27 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> "Abbott claims 'win' after costings backdown"
> 
> WTF oh that's right phony Tony
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/27/2995346.htm




If "backdown" and "negotiated a deal on his terms" mean the same thing, then we don't speak the same language. From what I can see, Abbott put his terms and conditions which were accepted. Only on that basis did he proceed.  Here is a part of the article you mention that you didn't quote:



> "What this means is that briefing of the independents by Treasury *can now go ahead without the risk of political interference* and that was a very, very real risk."
> 
> Mr Abbott said he was concerned about where the information might end up, but he was now *satisfied safeguards were in place*.







> AFP have said there is no  investigation
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-elect...-like-gillard-20100826-13uam.html?autostart=1




Again, you did not quote the full sentence which said: 


> "But an AFP spokeswoman said there was no investigation *and that police were ''still assessing'' the Coalition's complaint*.




The police confirmed a complaint had been made so there must have been some reason for concern.

While Abbott is not perfect (and obviously irritating to those who don't like him), he did have the fortitude to stand up for what he felt was right.  It was a tough call when the other camp were falling over themselves to give the independents anything and everything they asked.


----------



## sails (27 August 2010)

And here is an article from The Age which doesn't actually use the word "backdown"  and probably explains the process a little better:

Briefings deal 'significant win': Abbott



> Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has claimed a "significant win" for the Coalition after he reached agreement with Labor on the way the three independent MPs will be briefed about the policy costings of both sides....
> 
> and
> 
> ...


----------



## Calliope (28 August 2010)

Ther is little doubt that Rob Oakeshott is a Labor stooge. Since he entered Parliament in a bi-election in 2008 he has voted with the Coalition only 19 times on 84 items of legislation.


----------



## trainspotter (28 August 2010)

Getting a bit long in the tooth this election thingy. Anyone else consider it strange that the Treasury have trouble with their own figures let alone what phony Tony is up to?

NBN expenditure was 5 billion, nope 10 billion , no wait ... 43 billion.

RSPT income was 12 billion, nope 20 billion, no wait .... 8 billion.

So why is it when the Treasury models Labor costings and they blow out it is OK but when the Liberals costings increase they get a right royal, good old fashioned punch to the nose?

Who watches the costings of the Treasury? Is there even a watchdog for them? Or are they the pinnacle of financial bean counters?


----------



## Calliope (28 August 2010)

Green's Adam Bandt seems keen on the idea. He is not fooled by Katters disguise,and knows it would really be a same-sex marriage.


----------



## noco (28 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Ther is little doubt that Rob Oakeshott is a Labor stooge. Since he entered Parliament in a bi-election in 2008 he has voted with the Coalition only 19 times on 84 items of legislation.




Calliope, if Oakeshott goes with Labor after a poll showing over 50% would prefer him to go with the Coalition, he is a gone coon at the next election. This also applies to the other two amigos. Not sure which way Wilkie will go. I think he is a disgruntled Green.

I would be very surprised if all three ex Nationals did not follow Abbott.


----------



## Calliope (28 August 2010)

This is purely a grandstanding exercise by these three clowns. They sat in parliament during the last term and if they had any brains they should know which party should suit their electors best.

Abbott would be unwise to provide concessions to their electorates that other regional electorates don't have. It would create more tension between the sitting Nationals and the three deserters, if they come back on board.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 August 2010)

Jeez, La Gill is desperate, she's sacheting down the aisle with Wilkie now, she is a character really.

But not fit to lead this great nation.

Kevin must be on laughing gas 24/7 at this stage.

gg


----------



## trainspotter (28 August 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Jeez, La Gill is desperate, she's sacheting down the aisle with Wilkie now, she is a character really.
> 
> But not fit to lead this great nation.
> 
> ...




LOL .... sashaying is the correct spelling but funnily enough sacheting has a certain ring to it as well. Gillard certainly does remind me of a small disposable bag now that you mention it. 

Gillard does not deserve a second term. She took the electorate to the polls on the promise of "Let Australia decide to elect the Prime Minister" 

They have ... and she is not it. Primary vote counts ... hodge podge backroom deals with the Greens is not an option.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> LOL .... sashaying is the correct spelling but funnily enough sacheting has a certain ring to it as well. Gillard certainly does remind me of a small disposable bag now that you mention it.
> 
> Gillard does not deserve a second term. She took the electorate to the polls on the promise of "Let Australia decide to elect the Prime Minister"
> 
> They have ... and she is not it. Primary vote counts ... hodge podge backroom deals with the Greens is not an option.




Agree totally, she looks and sounds desperate, poor ole teabag.

I've always spelt it sachet, and must thank you for the correction. As a youth I had a goyle, French, who when I used walk in nekkid, used exclaim sachet, sachet. Now I'm not as impressed by her humour.

gg


----------



## noco (28 August 2010)

What ever the outcome of this election, Abbott is in a win-win situation. If Gillard does scrape in, there will be turmoil in the Labor camp as anyone can see now how they are tearing each other apart and come the next election with the Greens having  taken away their base, the Labor Party will be demolished. Also once the true identity of the Greens has been brought out in the open, their support will narrow dramatically. Many people have no concept as to what the Greens really stand for.

If Abbott wins the support of the independants, I believe he will strenghen his future as a leader who deserves the top job.

How he will handle the Greens after 01/07/2011 is anyone's guess.


----------



## Calliope (29 August 2010)

It is ironic that independent Rob Oakeshott doesn't think that Coalition members should be independent thinkers. He thinks Abbott should gag them. On Insiders this morning Windsor said he is not worried by this. 

Oakeshott is a bit too precious. He can't understand why everybody doesn't love him.

*



			Mr Oakeshott, the MP for Lyne, said he would present Mr Abbott with a statutory declaration containing evidence of the smear campaign being waged against him when he meets with him this week.

"One of the critical issues for me is whether Tony Abbott has control over his MPs," he said.
		
Click to expand...


*Read more: http://www.news.com.au/features/fed...tt/story-fn5tas5k-1225911345298#ixzz0xwz0V2NC


----------



## Some Dude (29 August 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Agree totally, she looks and sounds desperate, poor ole teabag.




That's pretty funny given the apologies Tony Abbott is making for the actions of past and current members of the coalition.


----------



## Calliope (29 August 2010)

Some Dude said:


> That's pretty funny given the apologies Tony Abbott is making for the actions of past and current members of the coalition.




I must have missed that. Let me in on the joke, Dude.


----------



## Logique (29 August 2010)

Abbott and the Coalition are in a terrific win-win scenario now. Whatever happens from here, the Coalition were the winners in the election.

The Gillard brand has been tarnished, perhaps fatally so, along with the Labor brand. 

I still believe it will break to a Coalition-Indeps government, but even if it doesn't - the Coalition will be the eventual winners, further down the line.

Abbott doesn't need to take any nonsense from the indeps.


----------



## IFocus (29 August 2010)

A surprising look from Glenn Milne  

"Adversarial and aggressive Abbott stumbles"



> The Opposition Leader's strident demands that the independents be barred from having access to the Treasury "Red Book" and his refusal to allow the Treasury to cost the Opposition's election promises is wrong on so many counts it's hard to know where to begin.




Couldn't agree more



> So, let's take stock on where all this belligerence leaves Abbott: Firstly he's seen as still being fuelled by campaign aggression when the political paradigm dealt by the election outcome requires calm. Second he's seen as shifty on the issue Coalition costings. And thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, he's fouled, in one fell swoop, his relationship with the independents.
> 
> The latter is not a good look for someone potentially relying on those same independents to support the Coalition's claim to government.
> 
> Last, but not least of all, the above has left Abbott looking like he's still an Opposition Leader, rather than a Prime Minister in waiting. All you need to know is that Abbott's behavior has left Labor "flabbergasted", the description of one ministerial adviser.




http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2994830.htm


----------



## drsmith (29 August 2010)

Independents Windsor and Oakshott want to support Labor/Greens, but need to justify it to their electorates. 

They both support the immediate introduction of a carbon tax.


----------



## Some Dude (29 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> I must have missed that. Let me in on the joke, Dude.




Which part is eluding you?


----------



## Calliope (29 August 2010)

Logique said:


> Abbott and the Coalition are in a terrific win-win scenario now. Whatever happens from here, the Coalition were the winners in the election.
> 
> The Gillard brand has been tarnished, perhaps fatally so, along with the Labor brand.
> 
> ...




I wish I could agree with you Logique, but I think the outlook is dismal. Any government depending on the support of politicians who have jumped ship once before is on very shaky grounds. It's in their genes.

Even Wilkie, the only independent who is not a turncoat, turned up for his meeting with Gillard with a long wish list.


----------



## noco (29 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> A surprising look from Glenn Milne
> 
> "Adversarial and aggressive Abbott stumbles"
> 
> ...




This was typical of the ABC biased attitude towards the Labor Party.

I watched ABC Insiders this morning with Barry Cassidy and two pro Labor journos and the discussion revolved around Abbott. They were intent on criticizing him throughout the whole program. Laura Tingle was more neutral.

Not a word about Labor's costings on the NBN, the CPRS and their relationship with the Greens. Does anyone know what the final cost of the NBN will be, whether it is viable and how much consumers will pay let alone what it will cost the tax payers to install? No, The Labor Party want to keep that 'hush hush' which makes one think it was done purely for political gain.


----------



## robusta (29 August 2010)

Don't think it matters anymore Labour or Lib/Nat all policies are almost exactly the same, the only differences (mining tax, broadband, ....) will be decided by independants.


----------



## sails (29 August 2010)

robusta said:


> Don't think it matters anymore Labour or Lib/Nat all policies are almost exactly the same, the only differences (mining tax, broadband, ....) will be decided by independants.




This is what the media keep bleating on about and seem to want the average voter to believe but are they really much the same?   I think you could also add boat smugglers policies to your list.  Fiscal managment has significant differences too, IMO.

The hung parliament and subsequent independents with balance of power are how Australia voted probably because the average voter believed what they were told and didn't bother to look into it.  No point banging the head now - it's too late.


----------



## wayneL (29 August 2010)

robusta said:


> Don't think it matters anymore Labour or Lib/Nat all policies are almost exactly the same, the only differences (mining tax, broadband, ....) will be decided by independants.




Yeah I remember when Brian Harradine was effectively the government.


----------



## wayneL (29 August 2010)

sails said:


> The hung parliament and subsequent independents with balance of power are how Australia voted probably because the average voter believed what they were told and didn't bother to look into it.  No point banging the head now - it's too late.




Bang on (pardon the pun)!


----------



## IFocus (29 August 2010)

noco said:


> > This was typical of the ABC biased attitude towards the Labor Party.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gav (29 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> If you're wondering what the $43 billion will actually be spent on, here's the breakdown:
> 
> Fibre to 90 per cent of premises: $26.6 billion
> 
> ...




And what are the chances of this little project being on budget? (considering Labor's fantastic fiscal management over the past few years)


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 August 2010)

gav said:


> And what are the chances of this little project being on budget? (considering Labor's fantastic fiscal management over the past few years)




LOL
Quote of the week mate, quote of the week.

gg


----------



## robusta (29 August 2010)

sails said:


> This is what the media keep bleating on about and seem to want the average voter to believe but are they really much the same?   I think you could also add boat smugglers policies to your list.  Fiscal managment has significant differences too, IMO.
> 
> The hung parliament and subsequent independents with balance of power are how Australia voted probably because the average voter believed what they were told and didn't bother to look into it.  No point banging the head now - it's too late.




C'mon it used to be Liberal for business and Labour for workers, now they have both moved into the centre and only care about votes and power.
Howard's battlers sound familiar?, Rudd the fiscal conservative? (at least until a little thing we like to call the GFC. 
Let us see if these independants can do better than the other choice, a poke in the left or right eye.


----------



## Julia (29 August 2010)

noco said:


> I watched ABC Insiders this morning with Barry Cassidy and two pro Labor journos and the discussion revolved around Abbott. They were intent on criticizing him throughout the whole program. Laura Tingle was more neutral.



Good to see Laura Tingle making an appearance.  She's worth ten of the regular journalists on "Insiders".



> Not a word about Labor's costings on the NBN, the CPRS and their relationship with the Greens. Does anyone know what the final cost of the NBN will be, whether it is viable and how much consumers will pay let alone what it will cost the tax payers to install? No, The Labor Party want to keep that 'hush hush' which makes one think it was done purely for political gain.



And when is some halfway decent journalist going to do some forensic enquiry into the Greens' policies and their costings?  If this had occurred prior to the election, I'd bet the Green vote would have been halved.




robusta said:


> Don't think it matters anymore Labour or Lib/Nat all policies are almost exactly the same, the only differences (mining tax, broadband, ....) will be decided by independants.



It may well be decided by the Independents, but I disagree that there is no difference between the two main parties.  Certainly, for political appeasement reasons, they have both moved to the centre, but there are still considerable philosophical and economic differences.  

My greatest disappointment in the Coalition is their willingness to engage in middle class welfare to the stupid degree that's exemplified by their parental leave scheme.  Whatever happened to their once great policy of encouraging people to be responsible for themselves?



IFocus said:


> Labor just gave Abbott access to the costings?



Are you asking a question here?  Access to whose costings?
Can you please clarify this statement/question.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Good to see Laura Tingle making an appearance.  She's worth ten of the regular journalists on "Insiders".
> 
> And when is some halfway decent journalist going to do some forensic enquiry into the Greens' policies and their costings?  If this had occurred prior to the election, I'd bet the Green vote would have been halved.
> 
> ...




Agree with all your points Julia, Tingle is good, very good.
The Coalition are better money managers as well as having quite different policies, Weather is one that comes to mind.
It will take another 40 years to wean the generations off all welfare, but slowly and surely it will happen. 

gg


----------



## IFocus (29 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Are you asking a question here?  Access to whose costings?
> Can you please clarify this statement/question.




Abbott has been given access to treasury costings on the NBN by Government


----------



## Logique (30 August 2010)

It's running hourly on ABC NSW radio: Rob Oakeshott is objecting to heavy-handed treatment from lobbyists, he raises suspicions it's coming from the Nats, suspicion of a smear campaign. Warren Truss has officially denied this.

Terrible thing to be a politician jointly holding a federal balance of power and be, horrors, lobbied. Mummy the big boys are picking on me. But don't worry Rob, the ABC will champion you, they have high hopes for your future. Perhaps a regular spot like Malcolm Fraser.

Listening, yes a great thing, starting with listening to your electorate, 52% of whom want you to go with the Coalition, compared to the 34% who say Labor.


----------



## noco (30 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> Abbott has been given access to treasury costings on the NBN by Government




IFocus you have only told part of the story. It was a conditional arrangement.

From an extract in the Weekend Australian.

Tony Abbott has agreed to submit the Coalition's election promises of for costing by Treasury on the condition they not be provded to Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan, as part of a deal to open the books of the Government and opposition to the three rural independantswho hold the key to power.

As part of the deal the Government has agreed to provide full Treasury costings of the minung tax and the National Broadband Network to the opposition and it will not provide the independants access to public service briefing papers already prepared for an incoming government. 

The rest of the story Sid Maher can be read on page 7.


----------



## noco (30 August 2010)

noco said:


> IFocus you have only told part of the story. It was a conditional arrangement.
> 
> From an extract in the Weekend Australian.
> 
> ...




Herewith link to the Austarlian relating to above story.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...down-on-costings/story-fn59niix-1225911097207


----------



## Timmy (30 August 2010)

Logique said:


> Mummy the big boys are picking on me.




And on his on his wife:


> He has already received an apology from an unnamed Liberal who called his family home claiming to be ''the Devil'' when his wife answered.



http://www.theage.com.au/federal-el...e-prank-calls-20100830-13xy5.html?autostart=1


----------



## Mofra (30 August 2010)

gav said:


> And what are the chances of this little project being on budget? (considering Labor's fantastic fiscal management over the past few years)



4%, the oft-quoted percentage of major projects worldwide that are delivered on time and on budget (doesn't matter which side of politics is in power).


----------



## Calliope (30 August 2010)

Mr Oakeshott is concerned that Abbott might not be able to control members of the Coalition. He doesn't like the Nationals talking like independents. He may favour Labor because they make their guys toe the Party line. 

He wants to be loved, not criticised, the poor pet.


----------



## Logique (30 August 2010)

Timmy said:


> And on his on his wife:
> http://www.theage.com.au/federal-el...e-prank-calls-20100830-13xy5.html?autostart=1



Midday news is saying it was Sen Bill Heffernan. Not sure if they are all friends..? But if not, then no argument, this was too abrupt for a call to their home, and Sen Heffernan was big enough to apologize.


----------



## basilio (30 August 2010)

How easy is it to jump to the wrong conclusions. Turns out at least one of the "abusive" phonecalls received by Rob Oakshott was a misunderstood bad joke from Senator Hefferman who has fessed up. 

And it sounds completely feasible!!

________________________________________

I can remember a very irreverent uncle of mine who manage to get a few people offside by exclaiming when he saw them that he thought they were dead! Went down real well..



> *Liberal identified as making 'Rambo-style' devil call*
> Phillip Coorey
> August 30, 2010 - 12:19PM
> 
> ...


----------



## Julia (30 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> Mr Oakeshott is concerned that Abbott might not be able to control members of the Coalition. He doesn't like the Nationals talking like independents. He may favour Labor because they make their guys toe the Party line.
> 
> He wants to be loved, not criticised, the poor pet.



I heard him interviewed on Radio National this morning and thought he was quite reasonable on this.   It's just stupid of any member of the Coalition (unless the Coalition does actually have a strategy of wanting to go to another election) to be making unpleasant phone calls to any of the independents.  One call was answered by Mrs Oakeshott, and when she asked who was calling, the caller said "It's the Devil".  Now that is simply childish and indescribably foolish.

Mr Oakeshott wasn't saying he couldn't deal with this sort of rubbish, but he was making the quite legitimate point that he was puzzled by this behaviour if the Coalition do want to a deal to get into government.  And if this is the sort of nonsense that's happening now, naturally he's going to be concerned that it would probably be worse in an actual government situation.


----------



## Calliope (30 August 2010)

Julia said:


> I heard him interviewed on Radio National this morning and thought he was quite reasonable on this.   It's just stupid of any member of the Coalition (unless the Coalition does actually have a strategy of wanting to go to another election) to be making unpleasant phone calls to any of the independents.  One call was answered by Mrs Oakeshott, and when she asked who was calling, the caller said "It's the Devil".  Now that is simply childish and indescribably foolish.




It's certainly not a Coalition strategy. It's a storm in a teacup. Oakeshott craves attention like a spoiled brat in the supermarket.


----------



## Bushman (30 August 2010)

Julia said:


> I heard him interviewed on Radio National this morning and thought he was quite reasonable on this.   It's just stupid of any member of the Coalition (unless the Coalition does actually have a strategy of wanting to go to another election) to be making unpleasant phone calls to any of the independents.  One call was answered by Mrs Oakeshott, and when she asked who was calling, the caller said "It's the Devil".  Now that is simply childish and indescribably foolish.
> 
> Mr Oakeshott wasn't saying he couldn't deal with this sort of rubbish, but he was making the quite legitimate point that he was puzzled by this behaviour if the Coalition do want to a deal to get into government.  And if this is the sort of nonsense that's happening now, naturally he's going to be concerned that it would probably be worse in an actual government situation.




Julia - the caller was Senator Bill Heffernan, a Libs senator who is 'a bit eccentric'.  

Apparently it is one of his long-standing pranks to start his calls with obscure statements like 'Its the devil' with this hillarity usually followed by peals of laughter from his pollie mates. Unfortunately he has made an error of judgement by calling Oakies private number direct, with his wife justifiably hanging up on a preceived crank before Bill could get in an explanation. 

Bizarre miscommunication rather than anything sinister. It is all getting a bit hysterical now IMO. Lets go back to the polls and prevent the lunatics from running the asylum (this includes Heffernan who is 'Tuckey'-esque in the obtuse conservative dribble that flows from his jowls).


----------



## basilio (30 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> It's certainly not a Coalition strategy. It's a storm in a teacup. *Oakeshott craves attention like a spoiled brat in the supermarket.*




What an absolute load of poisonous dribble. The phone call was simply a stupid mistake by Senator Hefferman which Rob Oakshott rightly questioned. 
Ridiculing him for standing up to a perceived abuse is uncalled for -  but not surprising. If enough liberal hacks (and their proxy blog supporters)  keep this ridicule and abuse up then the independents will decide to work with politicians who are constructive and respectful. Just makes sense doesn't it ?


----------



## Julia (30 August 2010)

Bushman said:


> Julia - the caller was Senator Bill Heffernan, a Libs senator who is 'a bit eccentric'.
> 
> Apparently it is one of his long-standing pranks to start his calls with obscure statements like 'Its the devil' with this hillarity usually followed by peals of laughter from his pollie mates. Unfortunately he has made an error of judgement by calling Oakies private number direct, with his wife justifiably hanging up on a preceived crank before Bill could get in an explanation.
> 
> Bizarre miscommunication rather than anything sinister. It is all getting a bit hysterical now IMO. Lets go back to the polls and prevent the lunatics from running the asylum (this includes Heffernan who is 'Tuckey'-esque in the obtuse conservative dribble that flows from his jowls).



Ah, Heffernan.  Thanks, Bushman.  Now I can see what happened.
Probably a bit over the top, then, for Mr Oakeshott to go to the media on this ?
However, in such a sensitive situation, you'd have imagined that Mr Heffernan might have refrained from such idiocy.  Tony Abbott must be less than thrilled.
Jeez, these are the people who run our country


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 August 2010)

The coalition are way ahead on the 2 party preferred poll.

La Gill is gone.

She argued legitimacy by claiming the ALP was ahead.

Karl and Marx are getting ready to replace her with the GG's son in law.

We are up for a CRISIS.

gg


----------



## roland (30 August 2010)

I don't know about you guys, but the more I see of the coverage of comments from the Independants, the more I find them all a little odd. One wonders which side is going to cater more for the oddball demands than the other.


----------



## roland (30 August 2010)

Julie Bishop is on Lateline right now - basically claiming victory. What is wrong with her face? Apart from blinking eyes and mouth movement she looks like an evil stone statue ....


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 August 2010)

roland said:


> Julie Bishop is on Lateline right now - basically claiming victory. What is wrong with her face? Apart from blinking eyes and mouth movement she looks like an evil stone statue ....




She is a Supergnome.

gg


----------



## drsmith (30 August 2010)

I have not seen Lateline yet, but judging by ongoing public criticism of the Coalition by the independents and Wilkie's list, I'd suggest they would prefer to support the ALP.

The two party preferred support as noted by The Australian does add another interesting twist however.


----------



## nioka (30 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> I have not seen Lateline yet, but judging by ongoing public criticism of the Coalition by the independents and Wilkie's list, I'd suggest they would prefer to support the ALP.
> QUOTE]
> 
> They are only playing hard to get so that they can squeeze out a few more goodies for their electorates. they are politicians after all.


----------



## drsmith (30 August 2010)

nioka said:


> They are only playing hard to get so that they can squeeze out a few more goodies for their electorates. they are politicians after all.



Wayne Swan's bend over posture to Bob Katter might be hard to top.


----------



## trainspotter (30 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> Wayne Swan's bend over posture to Bob Katter might be hard to top.




Double pike with a half twist I believe?


----------



## Logique (31 August 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The coalition are way ahead on the 2 party preferred poll. La Gill is gone. She argued legitimacy by claiming the ALP was ahead.Karl and Marx are getting ready to replace her with the GG's son in law. We are up for a CRISIS.gg



On this morning's press, the Coalition have:
- more two-party preferred votes, and pulling further ahead
- more primary votes
- more seats in their name (73 to 72)

The champagne glasses are trembling out at Yarralumla. Might be time for another reassuring visit to GG Bryce from son-in-law Bill Shorten.

I'd imagine Bill is also trembling, Prime Ministership via internal overthrow might be fading away. Might have to submit yourself to the will of the people Bill.


----------



## Calliope (31 August 2010)

basilio said:


> What an absolute load of poisonous dribble.




Any comments I have made about Oakeshott and the other two independents can't compare in nastiness with your unprovoked remarks about me.



> If enough liberal hacks (and their proxy blog supporters) keep this ridicule and abuse up then the independents will decide to work with politicians who are constructive and respectful




Like the Labor gang that turfed Rudd out?


----------



## noco (31 August 2010)

basilio said:


> [/B]
> What an absolute load of poisonous dribble. The phone call was simply a stupid mistake by Senator Hefferman which Rob Oakshott rightly questioned.
> Ridiculing him for standing up to a perceived abuse is uncalled for -  but not surprising. If enough liberal hacks (and their proxy blog supporters)  keep this ridicule and abuse up then the independents will decide to work with politicians who are constructive and respectful. Just makes sense doesn't it ?




It's all a big media beatup if you ask me to help cheer up the Labor party. The poor soles they  must be soooo depressed at ATM.


----------



## Mofra (31 August 2010)

noco said:


> It's all a big media beatup if you ask me to help cheer up the Labor party. The poor soles they  must be soooo depressed at ATM.



I don't it's a media beat up at all - in a normal workplace, calling another employee's home and telling someone's wife the devil is calling is cause for official action.

The change in 2 party preferred polling is a far bigger story in any case.


----------



## Calliope (31 August 2010)

Not to be outdone by the three stooges, Wilkie gave his wish list to Gillard.

*



			Replace the Royal Hobart Hospital, kill Gunns' Tamar River pulp mill, dramatically speed up the national broadband network rollout in Tasmania, free dental care, limit bets on all poker machines to $1, urgently introduce a carbon price, increase all pensions and allowances, allow a conscience vote on gay marriage . . . Yes, and another 15 modest ideas. Unaccountably, he forgot to mention a four-lane bridge from Tasmania to the mainland.

It seemed quite a wish-list for an MP who squeaked in to Parliament with a primary vote of about 21 per cent, thanks to preferences from Greens and Liberals that put him ahead of Labor, which got 38 per cent
		
Click to expand...


*.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...s-bass-strait-20100830-147d5.html?autostart=1


----------



## basilio (31 August 2010)

> Default Re: 2010 Federal Election
> Quote:
> 
> 
> ...






> Any comments I have made about Oakeshott and the other two independents can't compare in nastiness with your unprovoked remarks about me. Calliope




Calliope I was fed up with your unnecessary ridicule of Rob Oakshotts willingness to stand up for himself. 

In my view one of the worst aspects of politics recently has been personal attacks on politicians with the aim of destroying their credibility and undermining any respect  others might have for them. In that sense your cheap shot *about Oakshott craving  attention like a spoilt brat in a supermarket* was pretty ugly.

Congratulations 

One of the possible outcomes of this  situation with independents holding the balance of power is a more constructive  solution based politics with less aggro, head kicking and ridicule and more clear thinking. I support that idea so I'm willing to defend Rob and the other independents and point out *just how dumb it is to abuse  the people you need to get on side*. After all even the Liberal party have worked that one out havn't they ? And even Labour makes every effort to minimise the public loss of face that Kevin Rudd had in his replacement.

________________________________________________
_
So now you are calling the independents The Three Stooges. Classy work Calliope. You don't need anyone else pointing out your nasty side.  You do it quite well yourself_


----------



## Logique (31 August 2010)

basilio said:


> In my view one of the worst aspects of politics recently has been personal attacks on politicians with the aim of destroying their credibility and undermining any respect  others might have for them.



Quite right,
 perhaps the Unions and ALP factions (_'..Workchoices tomorrow..'; '..it's in his DNA..'; '..a vote against broadband..', etc etc_) or the Greens (_'..frightening that Tony Abbott could be Prime Minister..'; '..a vote against climate change..'_)....could lead this reform by example?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (31 August 2010)

basilio said:


> Calliope I was fed up with your unnecessary ridicule of Rob Oakshotts willingness to stand up for himself.
> 
> In my view one of the worst aspects of politics recently has been personal attacks on politicians with the aim of destroying their credibility and undermining any respect  others might have for them. In that sense your cheap shot *about Oakshott craving  attention like a spoilt brat in a supermarket* was pretty ugly.
> 
> ...



 Just heard a replay of the Oakshott guy on radio and I must say I am not impressed with his attitude and his style. 

Just on the election and afterworld I have been very unimpressed. Now we see what other countries go through that see insecure parties and governments changing and creating uncertainty for the people.


----------



## Calliope (31 August 2010)

basilio said:


> In that sense your cheap shot about Oakshott craving  attention like a spoilt brat in a supermarket was pretty ugly.




Rubbish. It was spot on. You are just looking for excuses to make unprovoked attacks on me, which are pretty ugly and intemperate.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (31 August 2010)

Julia said:


> I heard him interviewed on Radio National this morning and thought he was quite reasonable on this.   It's just stupid of any member of the Coalition (unless the Coalition does actually have a strategy of wanting to go to another election) to be making unpleasant phone calls to any of the independents.
> 
> Mr Oakeshott wasn't saying he couldn't deal with this sort of rubbish, but he was making the quite legitimate point that he was puzzled by this behaviour if the Coalition do want to a deal to get into government.  And if this is the sort of nonsense that's happening now, naturally he's going to be concerned that it would probably be worse in an actual government situation.



I agree that any of the parties should not be doing that. But it shouldn't be the topic of the day. There is more important stuff for the pollies to be doing.


----------



## Happy (31 August 2010)

Not certain but probably mentioned already, why Labor and Liberals don’t form stable Coalition Government for few years to come, if true that almost all First World countries are governed by Coalitions.

Sure, they historically didn’t even think about it, but we used to be sworn enemies with Japan for example and look how friendly we are now?

Politics are like that and above all, politicians look after their backside first (enough to have a look at their more than generous super arrangement).


----------



## trainspotter (31 August 2010)

Kum ba yah, my Lord, kum ba yah!
Kum ba yah, my Lord, kum ba yah!
Kum ba yah, my Lord, kum ba yah!
O Lord, kum ba yah!

"I want to renovate that Labor tradition, *to deliver lasting and durable improvements to our democracy*, improvements not just for this parliamentary term, but measures to permanently uplift our system of government as other reforms have done in generations past,'' she said.

(which actually means they will change the electoral boundaries again to ensure every seat is a safe Labor seat)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/sp...-the-high-ground/story-fn5ko0pw-1225912138824

Independents sh!tindepants I reckon. Get rid of them. Libs won fair and square on Primary votes. Take them outside and have them flogged to an inch of their lives.


----------



## Mofra (31 August 2010)

Interesting; I wonder if the people who donkey-voted/gave blank forms form the majority of these people?

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-el...e-differently-in-election-20100830-147eq.html



> MORE than one in 10 voters would have voted differently had they known Australia was headed towards a hung parliament, according to a new poll.




Any new election held could be as interesting as the current one.


----------



## drsmith (31 August 2010)

Interesting article regarding 2PP,

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...bor_still_has_2pp_lead_and_other_corrections/

and and Insiders segment (ABC) on the rise of the Greens.



> *Fielding out as Green tide rises*
> 
> The panel look at what transformations are required for the Greens to become a mainstream political entity and Steve Fielding losing his seat in the Senate.




http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/

It's the 2'nd last segment.


----------



## trainspotter (31 August 2010)

The "Wish List" from the Independent Wilkie cracked me up !

Tasmanian Independent MP Andrew Wilkie wants Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott to commit to an upgrade of inner port infrastructure at Hobart before guaranteeing his support to the next Australian government. 

http://www.lloydslistdcn.com.au/archive/2010/august/31-1/mp-seeks-hobart-port-upgrade

and a pony ..... don't forget the pony.


----------



## Bushman (31 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> The "Wish List" from the Independent Wilkie cracked me up !
> 
> Tasmanian Independent MP Andrew Wilkie wants Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott to commit to an upgrade of inner port infrastructure at Hobart before guaranteeing his support to the next Australian government.
> 
> ...




Yep, don't forget replacing the whole Hobart hospital with a brand spanking new building. 

The investment themes emerging are: 
1. short Telstra; 
2. long bananas; 
3. long renewable energy; 
4. long healthcare; 
5. short sanity; and
6. forget about a budget surplus ever again!!!!


----------



## Calliope (31 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Tasmanian Independent MP Andrew Wilkie wants Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott to commit to an upgrade of inner port infrastructure at Hobart before guaranteeing his support to the next Australian government.




This guy is Green. Abbott is wasting time talking to him. With him and the other Green, Gillard has 74. She only needs two more. Throw in Oakeshott and she only needs one.


----------



## noco (31 August 2010)

Mofra said:


> I don't it's a media beat up at all - in a normal workplace, calling another employee's home and telling someone's wife the devil is calling is cause for official action.
> 
> The change in 2 party preferred polling is a far bigger story in any case.




What a shame the devil  didn't phone Kevvie on 23 June to tell him there was a knife aimed at his back. 
What happened to the Labor Party wrongful dismissal laws?


----------



## IFocus (31 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> Wayne Swan's bend over posture to Bob Katter might be hard to top.




Email doing the rounds that its a mason's handshake


----------



## IFocus (31 August 2010)

What cracks me up is the jealousy from the Nats all now lining up with their own wish lists. 

Coalition of the unwilling I think rather than stability.

How much pork has to flow to the Nats from Abbott to keep the lot of them happy?

The behavior of the Coalition liberal and national red necks has been simply extraordinary.

Looking forward to the country being run by hill billy's


----------



## IFocus (31 August 2010)

nioka said:


> drsmith said:
> 
> 
> > They are only playing hard to get so that they can squeeze out a few more goodies for their electorates. they are politicians after all.
> ...


----------



## drsmith (31 August 2010)

Best debate of the election campaign.

http://www.sexparty.org.au/index.php/videos/782-sex-party-vs-family-first-real-debate-on-sunrise-

Only 12 minutes.


----------



## Some Dude (31 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> Wayne Swan's bend over posture to Bob Katter might be hard to top.




Did you see the video or just the cropped image?


----------



## basilio (31 August 2010)

Michael Pascoe from The Age suggests a 75-75 split in the House of Reps. Worth a read.



> *What happens next in Canberra: 75 all*
> Michael Pascoe
> August 31, 2010 - 4:08PM
> 
> ...




http://www.theage.com.au/business/w...nberra-75-all-20100831-14b1b.html?autostart=1


----------



## drsmith (31 August 2010)

If the independents split 75-75, then they will effectively be saying "Back to the polls folks".



Some Dude said:


> Did you see the video or just the cropped image?



Only the still image. There was a reference to it on the ABC's Insiders "Talking Pictures" segment.


----------



## So_Cynical (31 August 2010)

How come its only the deniers, boat sinkers and in general right wing alarmists that seem to be resentful of the independents.:dunno: what is it that lives in the Psyche of the hard right that makes them so afraid of some independent thinking.


----------



## robusta (1 September 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> How come its only the deniers, boat sinkers and in general right wing alarmists that seem to be resentful of the independents.:dunno: what is it that lives in the Psyche of the hard right that makes them so afraid of some independent thinking.




Couldnt agree more, maybe I am a crazy optomist but I can't wait to see how things work out with some ideas not put forward by focus groups.


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> How come its only the deniers, boat sinkers and in general right wing alarmists that seem to be resentful of the independents.:dunno: what is it that lives in the Psyche of the hard right that makes them so afraid of some independent thinking.




Not so long ago, I put forth an easily provable hypothesis that it is impossible for those of the left to think objectively.

The above post is a striking illustration of this.

Hyperbole is one thing, but gross inaccuracy is something entirely different... gross in fact.


----------



## Calliope (1 September 2010)

I doubt that the Independents have not already made up their minds which way they are going to jump, and they are only continuing their grandstanding because they enjoy the limelight, with the media reporting every word they utter.

Whichever way they go their indecision and vacillation almost guarantee that any government dependent on their votes will have a short life..


----------



## nioka (1 September 2010)

IFocus said:


> The behavior of the Coalition liberal and national red necks has been simply extraordinary.
> 
> Looking forward to the country being run by hill billy's




Get out into the bush sometime. Get some sun on the neck. It may be good for the soul and you may find some REAL intelligence, original thinking and genuine trustworthy people with the courage of their own convictions that are not corrupted by the herd mentality of their city cousins.


----------



## ghotib (1 September 2010)

I still think this is absolutely fascinating and that the outcome has a good chance of being very good for the parliament and the nation. 

Bob Katter commented on Monday that the Nationals had the balance of power for 11 years in the Howard government and didn't  do anything with it. He didn't say, but it seems obvious that this is the reason for WA National Tony Crook's contorted position as a Nat but not part of the coalition. I don't know the terms of the coalition agreement, but in principle it seems they could greatly enhance their influence on the Liberals by operating as a third - fourth - party as the Greens may be preparing to do. Probably can't be done for this parliament though?

The least you can say about this situation is that it's thrown light on the complexity of national interests. Surely it's appropriate for the parliament to have something like the same complexity. 

Ghoti (Political Junkie)


----------



## Mofra (1 September 2010)

noco said:


> What a shame the devil  didn't phone Kevvie on 23 June to tell him there was a knife aimed at his back.
> What happened to the Labor Party wrongful dismissal laws?



He was a coalition member - I dare say he didn't call Turnbull either.


----------



## Mofra (1 September 2010)

wayneL said:


> Not so long ago, I put forth an easily provable hypothesis that it is impossible for those of the left to think objectively.



Anyone who is blindly beholden to either side of politics cannot think objectively - I'd suggest this thread itself is an example.
At least most (on both sides) can speak politely here though.


----------



## trainspotter (1 September 2010)

Bob Katter hard at work in his electorate.

Do we really want this rodeo clown dictating the terms of Government?

*ie* Look after the QLD banana farmers and increase tariffs on imports

*Key independent MP Bob Katter says he did not bother to attend briefings on offer by prominent economists Ross Garnaut and Nicholas Stern because they are "lightweights".*

In outspoken comments on ABC Radio this morning, Mr Katter also branded *climate change scientists as "stupid" *and said he was within a "hair's breadth" of deciding which party to throw his support behind.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/01/2999212.htm?section=justin


----------



## nioka (1 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Bob Katter hard at work in his electorate.
> 
> Do we really want this rodeo clown dictating the terms of Government?




Interesting comparison. What are the characteristics of a rodeo clown?

!. Guts enough to stand up and defeat raging bulls.
2. Agility and quick thinking.
3. Respected by the Bulls, the bull riders and by most of the viewing public.

Sounds like excellent qualifications from the way I look at it.


----------



## ghotib (1 September 2010)

And a strong enough ego not to mind looking ridiculous 

Ackshully, no individual will dictate the terms of Government. 149 other individuals have to be involved. It's not a revolution folks. It's representative democracy as we know it.


----------



## drsmith (1 September 2010)

Like Windsor and Oakshott, I suspect that Katter would prefer to side with the ALP, but is coming to the realisation that idiological differences between himself and an ALP/Greens alliance are too great. Julia Gillard has also rejected Bob Katter's call for tariffs. Of the three National independents, he's looking more on the outer.

To me, the most likely outcome is an ALP/Green government (who actually voted for that ?) of ALP/Bandt/Wilkie/Windsor/Oakshott (76).

Coalition/Windsor/Oakshott/Katter (76) is also possible, but this is reliant on the erratic Katter.


----------



## Calliope (1 September 2010)

ghotib said:


> Ackshully, no individual will dictate the terms of Government. 149 other individuals have to be involved. It's not a revolution folks. It's representative democracy as we know it.




Wrong. It will take only one maverick to bring the Government down. In a vote of "no confidence" Labor members vote as a solid bloc.



> To me, the most likely outcome is an ALP/Green government (who actually voted for that ?) of ALP/Bandt/Wilkie/Windsor/Oakshott (76)




I think this is they way they will go Doc. I think Katter has made up his mind.


----------



## noco (1 September 2010)

Mofra said:


> He was a coalition member - I dare say he didn't call Turnbull either.




Turnbull was democratically deposed by his party.

Rudd was assassinated by the faceless backroom boys. The Labor cabinet knew nothing untill it was revealed by  the media.

No comparison ole boy.


----------



## drsmith (1 September 2010)

Calliope said:


> I think this is they way they will go Doc. I think Katter has made up his mind.



The stability of a Coalition government with Katter must also be on the minds of Windsor/Oakshott.


----------



## ghotib (1 September 2010)

Calliope said:


> Wrong. It will take only one maverick to bring the Government down. In a vote of "no confidence" Labor members vote as a solid bloc.



Right. Bringing down the government is not the same thing as dictating the terms of the  Government. Bringing down the government would mean either a new government or an election. And coalition members would also be expected to vote in a bloc on a "no confidence" motion. 

Incidentally, if  Labor members vote as a bloc in this new parliament and the coalition continues to allow crossing the floor, wouldn't that mean Labor was more likely to be a stable government?


----------



## ghotib (1 September 2010)

noco said:


> Turnbull was democratically deposed by his party.
> 
> Rudd was assassinated by the faceless backroom boys. The Labor cabinet knew nothing untill it was revealed by  the media.
> 
> No comparison ole boy.



I know you're using language that's all over the media, but I do dislike this "assassination" and "execution" talk. Rudd lost his job, not his life. 

Ghoti


----------



## nioka (1 September 2010)

drsmith said:


> but this is reliant on the erratic Katter.




I see nothing erratic about Katter. Agree with him or not but he maintains a consistant attitude. It is that same attitude that had him become an independant.


----------



## drsmith (1 September 2010)

nioka said:


> I see nothing erratic about Katter. Agree with him or not but he maintains a consistant attitude. It is that same attitude that had him become an independant.



I'll put it another way then.

He will find it hard to be a team player regardless of which side he backs and this will obviously impact the stability of any government where his vote is critical.


----------



## Logique (1 September 2010)

The main consideration is the slimness of the margin. Just takes one or two indeps to have a hissy fit and everything changes. It's inherently unstable, however these indeps align themselves.

This is why I think the indeps demand for a full three-year term, come what may - is excessive and unrealistic. So having thought about this, I think the response of the two-party leaderships should be a firm no, and if the indeps insist - end of negotiation.

And on the erraticism rankings for the indeps: Katter doesn't even make the grand final. It requires an understanding of how things go in the bush, and what it takes to gain and hold a seat in a far-flung rural outpost.


----------



## drsmith (1 September 2010)

The Greens and ALP have formally agreed to introduce a carbon tax despite Wayne Swan saying one would not be introduced this term if Labor was re-elected.



> That Australia must tackle climate change and that reducing carbon pollution by 2020 will require a price on carbon. Therefore the Parties agree to form a well resourced Climate Change Committee which encompasses experts and representative ALP, Greens, independent and Coalition parliamentarians who are committed to tackling climate change and who acknowledge that reducing carbon pollution by 2020 will require a carbon price. The Committee will be resourced like a Cabinet Committee. The Parties will, by the end of September 2010, finalise the structure, membership and work plan of the Committee.




http://resources.news.com.au/files/2010/09/01/1225912/745814-greens-alp-deal.pdf


----------



## noco (1 September 2010)

ghotib said:


> I know you're using language that's all over the media, but I do dislike this "assassination" and "execution" talk. Rudd lost his job, not his life.
> 
> Ghoti




Correction : Polictially assassinated. That is more to the point don't you agree?


----------



## nioka (1 September 2010)

drsmith said:


> I'll put it another way then.
> 
> He will find it hard to be a team player regardless of which side he backs and this will obviously impact the stability of any government where his vote is critical.




So all that means that a government may not get ALL the legislation that it wants. No big deal and certainly not instability. I may also mean that Katters electorate may get to have a taste from the pork barrel. Thatis no different to our electorate reasting on pork to keep our ALP member in  by Gillard. After all he is in there for the benefit of his electorate. politics would never be perfect. Perfection would be a benevolent dictator.


----------



## trainspotter (1 September 2010)

Don't forget the pony as part of the grab bag. Wilkie has rolled over and farted in bed. Julia liked the smell so much she gave him a hospital to buy him across. 

Katter wants increased tariffs and banana farmers to be protected.

Oakshott is calling for everyone to hold hands and play the guitar around the campfire.

GIMME A BREAK HERE ! Enough pandering to these escaped loonies.

How about this for an idea? Royalties for Regions? Very similar to the model that Brendon Grylls negotiated with Colin Barnett to obtain Government. On a Federal scale it is a win win for everyone !!

Nup? Time to pack the bags and head to the airport me thinks.


----------



## basilio (1 September 2010)

> Quote:
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted by drsmith View Post
> ...




Question of balance isn't it ?  When the Country party held the balance of power in Victoria for 30 odd years they were ruthless with gaining the best advantage they could for rural Victoria.  There has to be some balance as to where limited funds are spent and the national priorities of a Federal goverenment.

That was why I was initially pleased with the Independents claiming they had a national focus and wern't just looking to bolster their own electorates.  ( I don't think Bob Katter  shares that view and of course a week is  along time in politics..)


----------



## sails (1 September 2010)

Here is the full text of the Labor / Greens deal which has just been done:
http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/webfm_send/448

I would imagine that those who voted greens as a protest aganst both major parties won't be too happy.


----------



## nioka (1 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Katter wants increased tariffs .




And so he should. For example; Why should our pork producers go out of business because they have to compete with overseas operators that have the advantage of subsidised production?. A tarrif on those types of imports would be a better form of income for the government than an increased GST.


----------



## Mofra (1 September 2010)

noco said:


> Turnbull was democratically deposed by his party.
> 
> Rudd was assassinated by the faceless backroom boys. The Labor cabinet knew nothing untill it was revealed by  the media.
> 
> No comparison ole boy.



Abbott scraped in by one vote (with an abstinance I might add) whilst Gillard had huge numbers and would have won any ballot. Rudd pulled the pin before the party ballot knowing he would have suffered a crushing loss.

Gillard and Abott are the leaders of their respective parties, revisionist history wont change that. If only Costello had the guts Gillard did - we certainly wouldn't have a hung parliament now, that's for sure.


----------



## sails (1 September 2010)

nioka said:


> And so he should. For example; Why should our pork producers go out of business because they have to compete with overseas operators that have the advantage of subsidised production?. A tarrif on those types of imports would be a better form of income for the government than an increased GST.




On face value, I agree that tarrifs on overseas produce that compete with our own must be a good thing.

I get annoyed at having to check every label these days to make sure we are not consuming imported rubbish from countries who do not have comply to the same quality standards as our Aussie producers.


----------



## trainspotter (1 September 2010)

ANNIE GUEST: Mr Katter also holds strong views on protectionism.

He says deregulation cruelled the banana and dairy industries and didn't always make prices cheaper. 

On the campaign trail, he told PM he wants a return to tariffs.

BOB KATTER: Every four days a farmer in this country commits suicide, because we've got no hope of competing. There should be a *15 per cent charge on everything* coming into the country. 

ANNIE GUEST: But Mr Katter's views have been *rejected *by the National Farmers Federation.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2993407.htm

This is the same nutjob that wants to turn rivers inland and secede FNQ ?


----------



## trainspotter (1 September 2010)

Canegrowers Association CEO Ian Ballantyne has dealt with Mr Katter, who served as a state MP in Bjelke-Petersen government, for 20 years.

"Bob is really honest and an emotional advocate for the people he represents," Mr Ballantyne said.

"[His failing] would be that he's not a details man. He will often get only part of a story and respond and react to that.

*"I've never seen Bob willing to listen at all.* 

"He'll listen to the bits he wants to and then he'll form a view. It's very hard, very difficult [to get him] to move on from that point."

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-election/you-dont-debate-with-bob-katter-20100824-13q87.html


----------



## Calliope (1 September 2010)

The unholy alliance. Would you trust the future of your country to this new coalition?


----------



## Logique (1 September 2010)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...s-assembly-alive/story-fn59niix-1225912872913

*Results: Greens deal*
Thanks for voting!

Does Labor's deal with the Greens give it a better chance of forming government?
• Yes - 26.32% (164 votes) 
•  No -  73.68% (459 votes) 

Total votes: 623
So far, not so good for ALP-Greens. 
And let me get in first, its just the _News_ press.


----------



## noco (1 September 2010)

Mofra said:


> Abbott scraped in by one vote (with an abstinance I might add) whilst Gillard had huge numbers and would have won any ballot. Rudd pulled the pin before the party ballot knowing he would have suffered a crushing loss.
> 
> Gillard and Abott are the leaders of their respective parties, revisionist history wont change that. If only Costello had the guts Gillard did - we certainly wouldn't have a hung parliament now, that's for sure.




Yes Gillard had the backing of the unelected faceless men; the Arbibs, the Howes and Shortens. Rudd pulled the pin with the knife at his back. Come what may, it all back fired on Labor.

Why wern't the voters given the chance to judge Rudd who was the elected Prime Minister in 2007? Who knows Rudd may have done better than Gillard.
Too much spin and B##l S##t from both of them.


----------



## trainspotter (1 September 2010)

Who is she? I am assuming she has something to do with the Greens? Everytime there is an interview she has this same look of contrition on her face. She is guilty of something I am sure? Either that or she has gas.


----------



## Some Dude (1 September 2010)

drsmith said:


> Only the still image. There was a reference to it on the ABC's Insiders "Talking Pictures" segment.




The 47 second mark on the video. The broadband link is is the clearer of the two video links.


----------



## noco (1 September 2010)

Logique said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...s-assembly-alive/story-fn59niix-1225912872913
> 
> *Results: Greens deal*
> Thanks for voting!
> ...




Well, it's happened sooner than I expected. A Green Labor Party alliance or coalition; what is the difference? We now have two coalitions.

No one will convince me this deal was not stitched up before the election. Today they just made it formal.

If voters had known this before the election, Labor and the Greens would have been decimated and we would not have a hung parliament we have today. For those who voted Green just as a protest vote,I guess they must now be regretting their actions.

Let's have another election!!!


----------



## chrisalex (1 September 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> How come its only the deniers, boat sinkers and in general right wing alarmists that seem to be resentful of the independents.:dunno: what is it that lives in the Psyche of the hard right that makes them so afraid of some independent thinking.




   For the the 'right wing alarmists' part of the problem is the holy grail that the ALP is chasing. That wonderful fairyland, the utopia called Socialism.
   It's been said before, the mining tax is a sly attempt to nationalise the industry, then the Banks, then any industry that makes a profit. Read the ALP constitution, it's all there in black and white.
    [ I wish I knew how to work this stuff]


----------



## Some Dude (1 September 2010)

noco said:


> Well, it's happened sooner than I expected. A Green Labor Party alliance or coalition; what is the difference? We now have two coalitions.
> 
> No one will convince me this deal was not stitched up before the election. Today they just made it formal.
> 
> If voters had known this before the election, Labor and the Greens would have been decimated and we would not have a hung parliament we have today. For those who voted Green just as a protest vote,I guess they must now be regretting their actions.




I assume that by decimation, you don't mean 1 in 10 voters? What percentage of voters who voted Green, weren't going to preference ALP, and didn't think there was at least an informal or ideological coalition, do you think would have changed their vote?


----------



## IFocus (1 September 2010)

Mofra said:


> Abbott scraped in by one vote (with an abstinance I might add) whilst Gillard had huge numbers and would have won any ballot. Rudd pulled the pin before the party ballot knowing he would have suffered a crushing loss.
> 
> Gillard and Abott are the leaders of their respective parties, revisionist history wont change that. If only Costello had the guts Gillard did - we certainly wouldn't have a hung parliament now, that's for sure.




Australia elects the political party and the party elects the leader, the system is not presidential as some seem to think and the media portray.


----------



## IFocus (1 September 2010)

Below is good reason why Abbott couldn't debate  Labor for the way they have handled the economy 



> Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus – he's migrated from the North Pole to enjoy the good life in Australia, working in construction, investing in the mining industry, buying enough stuff to be running down inventories, growing fatter on the biggest rise in national income since 1973 and all this before capital investment really hits its stride this financial year.








> The Doomsday brigade that's been so busily talking down the Australian economy should be feeling sheepish




http://www.smh.com.au/business/miracle-economy-defies-the-doomsayers-20100901-14msq.html


----------



## Macquack (1 September 2010)

noco said:


> Yes Gillard had the backing of the *unelected* faceless men; the *Arbibs*, the Howes and *Shortens*.




The faceless men now have names and faces?

Mark Arbib and Bill Shorten are *elected* representatives of the Labor Party, so what are you going on about Noco?


----------



## noco (1 September 2010)

Some Dude said:


> I assume that by decimation, you don't mean 1 in 10 voters? What percentage of voters who voted Green, weren't going to preference ALP, and didn't think there was at least an informal or ideological coalition, do you think would have changed their vote?




The Oxford dictionary defines DECIMATE 'to kill tenth or larger proportion of'.

So yes, 1/10 or more would have made a difference to the outcome of the election.

IMHO, the Labor Party and the Greens have shown their true colours too soon, particularly if we are forced to another election. It also may sway the three or four amigos in their thinking as well. Another tactical blunder by Gillard.


----------



## noco (1 September 2010)

Macquack said:


> The faceless men now have names and faces?
> 
> Mark Arbib and Bill Shorten are *elected* representatives of the Labor Party, so what are you going on about Noco?




You don't mention Howes and perhaps other outsiders. The Labor Party Caucas and cabinet knew nothing about it untill it came out in the media. You know that only too well Macquack.


----------



## Some Dude (1 September 2010)

noco said:


> The Oxford dictionary defines DECIMATE 'to kill tenth or larger proportion of'.
> 
> So yes, 1/10 or more would have made a difference to the outcome of the election.
> 
> IMHO, the Labor Party and the Greens have shown their true colours too soon, particularly if we are forced to another election. It also may sway the three or four amigos in their thinking as well. Another tactical blunder by Gillard.




Ok, so that means they would have lost how many seats in the house of representatives? How many senate seats?

As to the 3 current independents, we shall see.


----------



## noco (1 September 2010)

Some Dude said:


> Ok, so that means they would have lost how many seats in the house of representatives? How many senate seats?
> 
> As to the 3 current independents, we shall see.




That is hypothetical question you will have to ask the AEC.

I'm going to build a new house shortly so can you tell me how many nails and screws I will require.


----------



## Some Dude (1 September 2010)

noco said:


> That is hypothetical question you will have to ask the AEC.
> 
> I'm going to build a new house shortly so can you tell me how many nails and screws I will require.




And yet you were convinced enough earlier to state that we would not have had a hung parliament.

As for your nail question, sure thing. Tell me how many planks, beams, trusses, etc you will be using and I can give you an estimate. Mathematics and estimation is not that difficult. Although it is harder than making confident sounding emotional statements without needing to think them through.

I sometimes wonder if this is how people make their investment decisions.


----------



## noco (1 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Who is she? I am assuming she has something to do with the Greens? Everytime there is an interview she has this same look of contrition on her face. She is guilty of something I am sure? Either that or she has gas.




She is guilty of having made the deal before the election as I said on a previous post 'she just made it formal today'.


----------



## noco (1 September 2010)

Some Dude said:


> And yet you were convinced enough earlier to state that we would not have had a hung parliament.
> 
> As for your nail question, sure thing. Tell me how many planks, beams, trusses, etc you will be using and I can give you an estimate. Mathematics and estimation is not that difficult. Although it is harder than making confident sounding emotional statements without needing to think them through.
> 
> I sometimes wonder if this is how people make their investment decisions.




Yeah but not down to the last nail and screw. You don't seem to get the point!!!!

Mate, I had four business over 18 years and managed one fo 28 years and had been suceesful in all of them. It is a pity some of our so called politicians particularly the hacks that have come through the union movement did not have some business experience. They would go broke if they ran their busness like they try to run our Government.


----------



## trainspotter (1 September 2010)

Some Dude said:


> And yet you were convinced enough earlier to state that we would not have had a hung parliament.
> 
> I sometimes wonder if this is how people make their investment decisions.




I offered a bottle of Vintage Moet to the unwashed masses on exactly this thesis. I predicted a Liberal victory by 4 seats ... NO TAKERS ??

 I flip a coin ... you ?


----------



## trainspotter (1 September 2010)

noco said:


> She is guilty of having made the deal before the election as I said on a previous post 'she just made it formal today'.




Thanks noco .... but who or what is the woman in the dress that I pointed the arrow at? I wanna know? She is a "bonehead" ... interview Bob Brown and she is right behind him with that silly grin !! You can almost see the yellow feathers.


----------



## Some Dude (1 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> I offered a bottle of Vintage Moet to the unwashed masses on exactly this thesis. I predicted a Liberal victory by 4 seats ... NO TAKERS ??
> 
> I flip a coin ... you ?




I figured the result was to problematic for me to predict so I decided to spread the risk and "invested"  some money on the outcome of 24 seats.

At this stage, I'm with you as to the outcome. All hail the inanimate coin!


----------



## Some Dude (1 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Thanks noco .... but who or what is the woman in the dress that I pointed the arrow at? I wanna know? She is a "bonehead" ... interview Bob Brown and she is right behind him with that silly grin !! You can almost see the yellow feathers.




She was also in the group of 4 Greens last week (I think) who before the interview started walked across a garden. Quite ironic, that and the "Penalties Apply" painted on the walkway they were stepping over.

It's Sarah Hanson-Young.


----------



## noco (1 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Who is she? I am assuming she has something to do with the Greens? Everytime there is an interview she has this same look of contrition on her face. She is guilty of something I am sure? Either that or she has gas.




That is Sarah Hanson-Young, one of Browns right hand men, I mean woman.
I tkink she is Brown's enviromental spokes person.


----------



## trainspotter (1 September 2010)

Some Dude said:


> She was also in the group of 4 Greens last week (I think) who before the interview started walked across a garden. Quite ironic, that and the "Penalties Apply" painted on the walkway they were stepping over. One of those classic photos if you don't like them.
> 
> It's Sarah Hanson-Young.




Thanks Some Dude ..... Will do some research now that I have a name to work with. Rummage through her garbage, read her emails, check out her ex-boyfriends, see what kind of car she drives. The normal shake down.

The coin is still in the air BTW ..... 

Thanks noco .... see above ...... she is too naive to not have a skeleton in her closet for my liking.


----------



## Whiskers (1 September 2010)

IFocus said:


> Australia elects the political party and the party elects the leader, the system is not presidential as some seem to think and the media portray.




I was just mentioning that this afternoon in conversation about how our system has got 'mongrelised' and the likely result a similar mongrel.


----------



## Julia (1 September 2010)

sails said:


> On face value, I agree that tarrifs on overseas produce that compete with our own must be a good thing.
> 
> I get annoyed at having to check every label these days to make sure we are not consuming imported rubbish from countries who do not have comply to the same quality standards as our Aussie producers.



Free trade agreements have to go both ways.  If Australia were to re-introduce tariffs, we should expect our trading partners to do likewise, restricting our capacity to trade freely.
Mr Katter is talking nonsense.



trainspotter said:


> ANNIE GUEST: Mr Katter also holds strong views on protectionism.
> 
> He says deregulation cruelled the banana and dairy industries and didn't always make prices cheaper.
> 
> ...



Perhaps someone could explain to Mr Katter that suicide also occurs in the big cities.  Every time this bloke opens his mouth, I think again how disastrous he would be in any alliance with the Coalition.  He and Barnaby Joyce (with a bit of Warren Truss thrown in) would be at each other perpetually, much to the delight of the media.  The Coalition would quickly lose credibility.




noco said:


> Yes Gillard had the backing of the unelected faceless men; the Arbibs, the Howes and Shortens. Rudd pulled the pin with the knife at his back. Come what may, it all back fired on Labor.
> 
> Why wern't the voters given the chance to judge Rudd who was the elected Prime Minister in 2007? Who knows Rudd may have done better than Gillard.
> Too much spin and B##l S##t from both of them.



Um, not quite right, noco.  We, the voters, did not vote for Rudd as Prime Minister.  He was chosen by the Labor caucus.  Therefore they have the right to dispense with him.  As they did.  Obviously.




trainspotter said:


> Who is she? I am assuming she has something to do with the Greens? Everytime there is an interview she has this same look of contrition on her face. She is guilty of something I am sure? Either that or she has gas.



Ah, the most self righteous Sarah Hansen-Young.  She has appeared on Q & A and other TV programs.  She epitomises the idealistic young Greens politician - all ideals and rhetoric, coupled with zilch reality.
They have several clones of her.


Back to the agreement of today:  I can't help thinking that if any of the independents were vacillating about which party to associate with, this agreement could well tip them toward Labor, purely on the basis of likely stability.  Gillard & Co have demonstrated that they will do whatever it takes to remain in power, hence the complete about face on the carbon price, wiping of the community forum etc.
Bob Brown, on the 7.30 Report this evening, was unable to contain his jubilation.
There is little more scary than a zealot who is actually finding his demands met.


----------



## nioka (1 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Katter wants increased tariffs and banana farmers to be protected..



by 
Paul Toohey
Those delegates from Labor and the Coalition who are hoping to win over Bob Katter ought to make sure they enter his personal space equipped not just with mouthguard and groin protection but a powerful sense of the past. 

Katter talks of two photographs that hang in the Civic Club in his hometown of Charters Towers, in the Queensland hinterland. “One is of the mine managers in 1899 in Charters Towers,” he says. “They’re all there in their hats and three-piece suits and gold fob pocket watches. Those bastards drove us down in the mines and one in 31 of us never came back up again.” Us. 

In 1999, Katter organised for another photo to be taken which could hang next to the historical shot. It is of the modern breed mine managers from the Charters Towers area. It shows that we have become, for the most part, a country of equals. “They just look like the workers in their work boots and khaki shirts. That’s what we’ve achieved in this country.
Says Katter: “My son in law has a t-shirt which says: ‘You say redneck as if it was bad.’”

People would like to know what role Katter is playing. Is he the Gimp, or is he Bruce Willis to the rescue?

Katter lives in a part of Australia which he considers the major parties have forgotten. His personal crusade in Kennedy, which takes in the huge geographical heart of Queensland, from Normanton and Mt Isa and Innisfail and Atherton, is to do better for miners and farmers.

When he sees a small town dying, he sees a failure by Australia to honour the pioneers who opened up the north. Katter mentions the names of two boys in his classroom at Cloncurry whose fathers died of what they then called “the miner’s titus”. The gravest sin he could commit would be to forget the contribution of men like these.

It is personal to Katter because his great-grandfather Richard Arida was a wealthy north Queensland draper of Lebanese heritage who had a strong hatred of the mistreatment of workers.

According to the Australian Dictionary of Biography, two brothers, Joseph and Richard Arida (originally Yusef and Rachid Lahoud), were from a prominent Maronite-Catholic family which left Lebanon (then Syria) and found their way to north Queensland, where they became successful drapers and bootmakers. From their base in Charters Towers they became very wealthy.

Says the dictionary: “The Aridas were deeply committed to the labour movement and Richard was a trustee of a branch of the Australian Workers’ Union. They saw no contradiction between their status as wealthy businessmen and their support for a movement which they regarded as fundamentally humanitarian and consistent with their involvement in the Catholic Church.”

Katter says a person’s power and wealth need not separate him or her from the workers. “I’m not working class, far from it,” he says. “My great-granddad (Richard Arida) put 3000 pounds behind the miner’s strike. He went into bat for the union movement and the Labor Party. In terms of today’s money that was about a million dollars. He supported workers’ rights.” 

Why is it that Katter hates the Nationals for deregulating sugar and dairy, but not John Howard’s Liberals who, as the stronger Coalition force, had the deciding hand? That is Katter all over. He didn’t agree with the Liberals, but he respected their conviction. What he hated was what he saw as the weak-kneed acquiescence of his Nationals.

Katter will be using this moment not just to get a better deal for his electorate, but will also have an eye to how history will remember him at this moment 100 years from now. It should be taken as read that there are limits to how much personal compromise Katter can stand in the coming days. 

The three-man independent bloc is just a temporary force, designed to get some explanatory notes on the thoughts of the two main parties. If Katter stayed with the bloc, or gave his seat to Labor, I would be very surprised. His electorate very clearly wants him to support the Coalition (the LNP came second in Kennedy, with Labor dragging their knuckles into a distant third place).    
Katter’s not yet saying which way he’ll go - he’s enjoying this too much to bring it to a premature end. Presuming his allegiance is still needed after the final counts are in, it is Abbott who will most likely win Katter over. And he will need to give Katter something very substantial to pull out of his big hat and show to the people of Kennedy. 

Katter’s heroes are those who tried to help farmers in times of depression or advocated high tarrifs on imports. They are long-gone men like Country Party leader Black Jack McEwen; Queensland premier and federal Labor treasurer, Ted Theodore; Louisiana politician Huey Long; and Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen, under whom he served at state level and whom he thinks is grossly misunderstood.    

He says Long, who advocated strongly for farmers throughout his career, did “everything humanly possible to promote himself as a country hick and a buffoon. And same for Bjelke-Peterson. I don’t know whether he cultivated it, but he certainly looked like a hick. He was very unlike (Katter pauses, and introduces a sneer to his voice) the cosmopolitan and erudite Gough Whitlam, who called Bjelke-Petersen a troglodyte. 

“Which, by the way, is a term I don’t mind for myself.”

He gets upset – actually upset – at the way Australian soldiers were sent underequipped to World War II. “They sent up us to stop the Japanese with .303 rifles and one Bren gun to stop the greatest military machine the world had ever seen. And we did. Just ordinary blokes who went up there, not rich or powerful.”

Katter judges everything by what has gone before. Of the value of the current war in Afghanistan, he says: “You would know that Alexander the Great said, ‘No I’m not going up there, I’m going home.’ Genghis Khan said, ‘No, I think I’ll take Europe instead.’ The British sent up a 55,000-man army and in every sense of the word none of them came back. The Russian communist empire collapsed in Afghanistan. I mean, just leave the Afghans alone to kill each other.”

You expect he’s about to advocate a withdrawal from Afghanistan. But Katter pulls up short. “But we don’t want to be trifling with the American alliance. If anyone has a go at us all we can do is throw rocks at them. We have no defence force. We have no ability to defend the nation whatsoever.”

This shows that Katter does permit himself an element of compromise, even in the face of history’s argument that Afghanistan cannot be won.

He’s proud of the great uncle who died at Gallipoli and Bert Henley, on his mother’s side, who died soon after returning from Changi. His dad, a Queensland state and then federal politician with the Country Party, died in office at the age of 72. 

Katter Sr held Kennedy which, for a brief intermission after his death was held by the ALP. Katter Jr reclaimed it in the family name.  

He says his dad was “easily the most brilliant man that Queensland will ever see”. Early on, Katter Sr was a Cloncurry councillor who taught his son about the grassroots. He used council money to build old people homes and says he got everyone in town, rich or poor, a fridge.

“So whilst all our cousins in Brisbane still had ice boxes, we had refrigerators in Cloncurry. You repaid the loan when you paid your rates. It was quite brilliant. When he went into federal politics he was in the same process of delivering an air-conditioner under the same scheme to every house. Now, maybe he didn’t do as much in federal parliament but he had leaders like Jack McEwen and Doug Anthony. There wasn’t as much to do.” 

Katter adds with disgust: “I had the likes of John Anderson.”

Much has been made of the Mad Katter. Paul Sheehan said it well in a report for Fairfax on Monday: “It is widely reported that Katter is mad. He is mad, but there is method to his madness, and he is mad only by the sensibilities of inner urban Australia. In his own element, Katter is the Prime Minister of the Gulf country. He is what all politicians would like to be, unassailable and unmistakable.”

Katter demands of himself an absolute adherence to conviction, which is admirable, but he knows that he is not the prime minister or even the leader of a party. He’s just an independent. 

I talked with some Innisfail cane farmers who support Katter for his courage and integrity. But they have thought things through carefully. As Katter enjoys a brief window of real power, it has perversely reminded them how his isolation in the federal parliament has not returned great benefits to them.

They point out that the Bruce Highway – part of National Highway No.1 – is still just a one-lane road. They desperately want better roads. They desperately believe their role is to grow food for Australia, without being undermined by cheap foreign imports.

Influential Innisfail cane farmer Joe Marano says that Katter has only been able to do so much: “We’ve just missed out on things having an independent. Neither leader came to Kennedy during the campaign, but they went to Leichhardt (the seat north of Cairns which was recaptured the Liberals’ Warren Entsch).”

And that is why the independents don’t want another election. People might love them on a personal level, but election 2010 has, in a bizarre way, despite the deadlock, no matter the Green vote, reinforced the relevance of the two fattest pigs guzzling from the trough.

Katter has written as as-yet unpublished history of Australia. It will no doubt be a searing, screaming, passionate account seen through the eyes of men who fought for the bush. Tony Abbott could do worse than ask Bob Katter if he could read the manuscript, and launch the book.


----------



## trainspotter (1 September 2010)

Julia said:


> Back to the agreement of today:  I can't help thinking that if any of the independents were vacillating about which party to associate with, this agreement could well tip them toward Labor, purely on the basis of likely stability.  Gillard & Co have demonstrated that they will do whatever it takes to remain in power, hence the complete about face on the carbon price, *wiping of the community forum* etc.
> Bob Brown, on the 7.30 Report this evening, was unable to contain his jubilation.
> There is little more scary than a zealot who is actually finding his demands met.




Wasn't there supposed to be 150 random Australian people to talk about this and advise Guvmint? Nope ...... all gone. Deal is done. Goodbye .. you are the weakest link.


----------



## trainspotter (1 September 2010)

OH SERIOUSLY nioka .... we are not down a mine with a pit pony anymore !

Drag your headspace into the 21st century for crying out loud. 

Honour the pioneers of the FNQ ........ frikkinghell ! Honour the pioneers of the North West of WA instead. How about Charlie Court? What about G.A. Greenwood who discovered uranium in 1910 in SA ?? Get a grip.

"Katter’s not yet saying which way he’ll go - *he’s enjoying this too much to bring it to a premature end.* Presuming his allegiance is still needed after the final counts are in, it is Abbott who will most likely win Katter over. And he will *need to give *Katter something very substantial to pull out of his big hat and show to the people of Kennedy."

Yeppers ...... that is good for the nation.


----------



## overhang (1 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> I offered a bottle of Vintage Moet to the unwashed masses on exactly this thesis. I predicted a Liberal victory by 4 seats ... NO TAKERS ??
> 
> I flip a coin ... you ?




I really thought you were making a pretty -ev bet there so kudos to you for calling it, hope you stung the bookies for a bit who offered a bit better than 2-1.

Why is the inevitable being prolonged, just call the election already while its still fresh in the public's head.  Let the public finish the job they began which was clearly a change in government.  If these clowns demands were met would there be any money left for the rest of the budget? 

 If labor do form government will the resource stocks fall again? and if so why as didn't the market already factor this in.


----------



## trainspotter (1 September 2010)

overhang said:


> If labor do form government will the resource stocks fall again? and if so why as didn't the market already factor this in.




Exact opposite ..... market has factored in a Labor win already. Market went up today. GDP and all that.  Libs will drive down with restricitve practices. Too late. IMO


----------



## Adrian. (1 September 2010)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/01/3000068.htm

I think it might be over for the coalition. No wonder he wanted to keep the costings to himself. This is a terrible act of contempt for the electrote IMO. Unforgivable.


----------



## Logique (2 September 2010)

nioka said:


> by
> Paul Toohey
> ...Katter lives in a part of Australia which he considers the major parties have forgotten. His personal crusade in Kennedy, which takes in the huge geographical heart of Queensland, from Normanton and Mt Isa and Innisfail and Atherton, is to do better for miners and farmers.
> 
> ...



Not my local MP, but he's alright by me Nioka. What was that old line..those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. One of the best summations of the Afghanistan campagn I've seen. 

I'm well aware of the economic purity of international competitiveness by dropping tariff barriers, and support it. But I mean, how many farmer suicides, how many small towns de-populated, how much productive and well-watered country ignored - will it take to make the city ivory tower economists and Greens happy? Sure Katter is clutching at straws on tariff re-introduction, but I understand why, it's a bleak situation for farmers.

When I go into the supermarket and see frozen prawns from god-knows-where, and optimistically named fish from god-knows-where, it turns my stomach. That's just one example across a range of products. Why? Because it's cheaper. Where do we draw the line?


----------



## Logique (2 September 2010)

*Telcos warn independents: Labor’s broadband plan is worse*
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Wednesday, September 01, 10 (01:38 pm)

Seven telcos, including AAPT, have advice for the independent MPs now weighing the promises of the two big parties, especially their broadband plans. 

Gentlemen, something like the *Coalition’s $6.2 billion package* to deliver a mix of satellite, wireless and fibre technologies is a safer bet than *Labor’s $43 billion* one to deliver fibre: 

*We believe that a well-informed Independent member of parliament might wisely favour an NBNv3 public/private model on a mix of technologies, with deliverables within a term, over a more costly and more risky 8+ year NBN 2.0 rollout.*

UPDATE 
More: 
An alliance of telcos has lobbed a last-minute grenade into talks around who will form the next government by proposing *a new broadband plan that appears more aligned with the Coalition’s policy than Labor’s national broadband network. *
The Alliance for Affordable Broadband - comprising telcos including Allegro Networks, PIPE Networks, BigAir, Vocus Communications, AAPT, Polyfone and EFTEL - proposes government-subsidised fibre backhaul but recommends connecting the country with *a fourth-generation (4G) national wireless broadband network.* 

Whereas Labor’s government-funded plan will connect 93 per cent of homes with fibre-optic cables, the alternative plan, similar to the Coalition’s, will connect homes via a new wireless broadband network. *The 4G network would connect 98 per cent of Australians and offer speeds of up to 100Mbps*… 

(The alliance) believes that a 4G wireless network could be built for $3 billion with a large part of this delivered by private investment as opposed to public funds.


----------



## Calliope (2 September 2010)

Windsor and Oakeshott  have now found the excuse they have been looking for,  to switch to the Green/Labor camp... a hole in the Coalition costings.


----------



## sails (2 September 2010)

This is the same treasury that had problems adding up the mining tax - this article was posted a few weeks ago displaying treasury's unbelievable grasp of reality during discussions with the big three miners: 

Full article:  *Treasury tarnished by turn of events over mining super tax*

couple of excerpts:



> In the end the miners were not provided with Treasury's modelling until last Wednesday. These were the numbers that, according one insider, had come from *"planet Mars"*…






> …”They had made it up and had no idea how to back it up. It was like sitting university professors down to lecture primary school students," one of the miners' advisers claimed yesterday…




If treasury couldn't get that right, why should these latest accusations be believed?  

And labor have unashamedly wasted billions and yet have the audacity to point the finger over a comparatively smaller amount that may or may not be costed correctly.


----------



## noco (2 September 2010)

Calliope said:


> Windsor and Oakeshott  have now found the excuse they have been looking for,  to switch to the Green/Labor camp... a hole in the Coalition costings.




If these two do support Labor, they can kiss goodnight to being re-elected in light of the fact that the majority of their constituents are anti Labor.


----------



## Calliope (2 September 2010)

noco said:


> If these two do support Labor, they can kiss goodnight to being re-elected in light of the fact that the majority of their constituents are anti Labor.




That is why they have taken so long to show their true colours. They needed a plausible reason to take to their electorates, for why they would switch  to the socialist camp. Don't forget these guys have a history of jumping ship.

They will now have the Labor/Green spin doctors at their disposal to help sell it to their electorates.

I may be wrong. I hope so.


----------



## noco (2 September 2010)

sails said:


> This is the same treasury that had problems adding up the mining tax - this article was posted a few weeks ago displaying treasury's unbelievable grasp of reality during discussions with the big three miners:
> 
> Full article:  *Treasury tarnished by turn of events over mining super tax*
> 
> ...




Yes, Labor and Treasury were all over the place with figures on the revamped SPT to the MRT so how can anyone trust their costings of the Coalitions budget?

Treasury could finish up with 'egg on face'.


----------



## Logique (2 September 2010)

Calliope said:


> Windsor and Oakeshott  have now found the excuse they have been looking for,  to switch to the Green/Labor camp... a hole in the Coalition costings.



Prominent Astrologer Milton Black was on my local radio station this morning. He says it will be a Labor govt, with Labor getting three indeps, and the Coalition just one.

Windsor's vote when in the NSW parliament got fixed 4-year terms across the line here. Most NSW residents are now saying of this Labor govt  'the pain..make it stop..just make it stop..''


----------



## sails (2 September 2010)

noco said:


> ...Treasury could finish up with 'egg on face'.




Maybe treasury have been told to do "what ever it takes"...


----------



## Calliope (2 September 2010)

Not exactly a same sex marriage, but it will do until one comes along.



> *JULIA Gillard and Bob Brown wed in a simple civil union ceremony at Parliament House yesterday. And in keeping with this modern political marriage, the flame-haired bride wore the pants.
> 
> A delighted wedding party, including the groom, Brown, the best man, Wayne Swan, a clutch of Greens senators and a newly minted MP, Adam Bandt, wore sprigs of golden wattle.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/united-until-they-do-part/story-e6frg6zo-1225913012908


----------



## noco (2 September 2010)

sails said:


> Maybe treasury have been told to do "what ever it takes"...




Spot on.


----------



## overhang (2 September 2010)

Logique said:


> *Telcos warn independents: Labor’s broadband plan is worse*
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
> Wednesday, September 01, 10 (01:38 pm)
> 
> ...




This looks great at first glance but has cracks all through it (as the other NBN proposals do).  For a start the 3 billion is just for the 4G wireless network, this does not include the fibre back-hall which is the most expensive component.  Now they claim this can be done in 3 years but the spectrum for 4g wont be available until 2014 so realistically this will not be completed until 2017 as opposed to 2018.  Its sketchy but from what I can see is they are proposing to build the fibre network but use wireless for the last mile.  So they want tax payers to fund their new 4g wireless network when we already have 3 existing wireless networks competing and expanding in regional Australia.


----------



## nioka (2 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> OH SERIOUSLY nioka .... we are not down a mine with a pit pony anymore !
> 
> Drag your headspace into the 21st century for crying out loud.
> .




I'm ALLWAYS prepared to hear BOTH sides to any argument or debate and to think outside the square.


----------



## Mofra (2 September 2010)

sails said:


> If treasury couldn't get that right, why should these latest accusations be believed?



I'd suggest that if the Coalition managed to get their costings in order prior to submission to treasury, posters would be hailing Abbott as an economic oracle.
The holes were flagged weeks ago due to the issues the coalition had with their modelling and assumptions not matching the accepted Treasury standards, and reported in the few sectors of the media not focussing on the one liners of each repsective leader.

If the economy is the biggest factor, and Treasury and the coalition have such an acidic relationship as some claim, should that not cause concern? Personally I don't think the relationship is that bad - although Abbott's long term policy of "attack the source if the news is bad" will give that appearance.


----------



## Calliope (2 September 2010)

*Wilkie Chooses Gillard. Surprise! Surprise!*

Too late for yesterday's nuptials, but maybe he will get a separate ceremony.


----------



## noco (2 September 2010)

Calliope said:


> *Wilkie Chooses Gillard. Surprise! Surprise!*
> 
> Too late for yesterday's nuptials, but maybe he will get a separate ceremony.




As an ex Green, he was always destined to favor Labor. No surprise Calliope.


----------



## trainspotter (2 September 2010)

Calliope said:


> *Wilkie Chooses Gillard. Surprise! Surprise!*
> 
> Too late for yesterday's nuptials, but maybe he will get a separate ceremony.




I wonder if he will get his pony? 1 down and 3 to go.


----------



## sails (2 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> I wonder if he will get his pony? 1 down and 3 to go.




Would be a bit surprised if Katter sided with labor, but not so sure about the other two.  They seem to be using the costings as a big excuse to rock with labor.  Is it a set up?  Only time will tell.

If they do go to labor, the next election will be interesting to see what their electorates think of them.  Maybe they don't care.

Interesting to see if Wilke will be a long term MP as he only got 21% of the primary vote so far.  If it was liberal preferences that got him over the line they won't be happy campers.

WILKIE, Andrew  	Independent  	13,724  	21.28% 	
JACKSON, Jonathan 	Australian Labor Party 	23,111 	35.84% 	
SIMPKINS, Cameron John 	Liberal 	14,601 	22.64%	
COUSER, Geoffrey Alan 	Australian Greens 	12,199 	18.92% 	

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-15508-194.htm


----------



## noco (2 September 2010)

If Katter and Windsor go with the Coalition and Oakeshott backs Labor, 75 all and back to the polls.

Tony Abbott should pray Windsor goes Labor.

Will be a good one to lose for the Coalition. Let Labor strangle itself. Trouble is we will all suffer in the meantime.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 September 2010)

noco said:


> If Katter and Windsor go with the Coalition and Oakeshott backs Labor, 75 all and back to the polls.
> 
> Tony Abbott should pray Windsor goes Labor.
> 
> Will be a good one to lose for the Coalition. Let Labor strangle itself. Trouble is we will all suffer in the meantime.




I agree La Gill has lost all credibility. Abbott seems like a more natural PM at the moment.

Anything may happen though.

And then there's the GG with Bill shorten on the phone to her from a Vietnamese restaurant.

The show ain't over til the fat lady sings.

gg


----------



## noco (2 September 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I agree La Gill has lost all credibility. Abbott seems like a more natural PM at the moment.
> 
> Anything may happen though.
> 
> ...




The GG ain't fat. Not sure whether she can sing either.


----------



## basilio (2 September 2010)

Saw Wilkie on the 7.30 report tonight.  A couple of points were very telling

1) He wasn't impressed with Abbott trying to throw $1b at him for a Hobart hospital.  He thought it was too much, looked like a blatant bribe and  didn't fit into any budget framework.  On the other hand the Labour offer was more modest, was part of an overall hospital program which covered the whole country and was made part of the whole budget process. It wasn't a blatant pork barrel. It was well thought out. 

2)  He was very, very keen on attempting to get some control over the amount of money people get stripped via pokies and he thought the Labour proposal might just do it.

I'm really impressed with this priority. I think pokies are a scourge which just rips off the poor and dumb for the benefit of the smart, conscience free and callous. (and that includes most politicians)

Good luck to him.

 _________________________________________________

_I'm a politician. *Don't* tell me what to do.* Make *me xxxxing do it._


----------



## IFocus (2 September 2010)

Mofra said:


> I'd suggest that if the Coalition managed to get their costings in order prior to submission to treasury, posters would be hailing Abbott as an economic oracle.
> The holes were flagged weeks ago due to the issues the coalition had with their modelling and assumptions not matching the accepted Treasury standards, and reported in the few sectors of the media not focussing on the one liners of each repsective leader.
> 
> If the economy is the biggest factor, and Treasury and the coalition have such an acidic relationship as some claim, should that not cause concern? Personally I don't think the relationship is that bad - although Abbott's long term policy of "attack the source if the news is bad" will give that appearance.




I think its OK for oppositions to get the numbers wrong as they don't have the same resources as governments. 

This should be addressed so oppositions have access to treasury to help form policy 

Abbotts problem is the continued call that they are better than Labor. Along with the sneaky reasons for delaying the costings by treasury Abbott has kill off any credibility he ever had on the subject especially when he continues to defend the indefensible.

The claims of treasury bias ignores the fact that the bureaucracy actually runs the country not politicians.


----------



## Julia (2 September 2010)

basilio said:


> Saw Wilkie on the 7.30 report tonight.  A couple of points were very telling
> 
> 1) He wasn't impressed with Abbott trying to throw $1b at him for a Hobart hospital.  He thought it was too much, looked like a blatant bribe and  didn't fit into any budget framework.  On the other hand the Labour offer was more modest, was part of an overall hospital program which covered the whole country and was made part of the whole budget process. It wasn't a blatant pork barrel. It was well thought out.
> 
> ...



I saw this interview and found it notable mostly for the number of times Mr Wilkie found it necessary to assure Kerry O'Brien that he (Wilkie) had in fact offered Ms Gillard something very valuable today, despite admitting he was in reality giving Labor no more than he would give the Coalition if it turned out to be they who formed government!  Mr Wilkie has not agreed to support any/all of Labor's policies, he has simply offered to Ms Gillard that she may count him on her side if she needs the numbers to make up the magic 76!

If Mr Abbott is able to form government with the assistance of the other independents, Mr Wilkie's deal with Ms Gillard is null and void!!!

What a joke.


----------



## wayneL (3 September 2010)

Julia said:


> What a joke.




I am getting more and more convinced that forming a government with the aid of these pompous gits will be sipping from the poison'd chalice.


----------



## Logique (3 September 2010)

Wilkie will be a one-termer. 

Nice work by Wilkie - pry into Coalition costings, receive an offer for $1Bill for a new Hobart hospital - turn it down for a far lesser offer from Labor (about two-thirds less) - blab about everything to the media, and Wayne Swan..

..and only then announce what everybody already knew, he's going to Labor.  Naive or tricky, it doesn't really matter, he emerges with a tarnished reputation. 

Every indication is that Oakeshott is desperate to go to Labor. Katter I believe will stick with the Coalition.

Guess what = Windsor as the sole king maker. Now that's brinkmanship. But he will go to Labor, making a great show of self-sacrificing nobility, it's '..just for the sake of stable government..' he'll say.

I agree with others that the $1Bill offer was over the top, I don't think the Libs had a good read on  Wilkie at all.


----------



## Calliope (3 September 2010)

Logique said:


> Nice work by Wilkie - pry into Coalition costings, receive an offer for $1Bill for a new Hobart hospital - turn it down for a far lesser offer from Labor (about two-thirds less) - blab about everything to the media, and Wayne Swan..
> 
> ..and only then announce what everybody already knew, he's going to Labor.  Naive or tricky, it doesn't really matter, he emerges with a tarnished reputation.




And this is the guy that harps about ethics and morality.



> I agree with others that the $1Bill offer was over the top, I don't think the Libs had a good read on  Wilkie at all.




You are right.  He pulled a massive con job on them. He tried to convince them that Hobart needed a world class teaching hospital and the billion dollars was his figure. This mendacious man has found his right niche in the home of the spin doctors and liars.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...tal-offer-of-1bn/story-fn59niix-1225913517932



> INDEPENDENT Andrew Wilkie has angered senior Coalition powerbrokers, who feel betrayed after he rejected an offer from Tony Abbott that will see the Tasmanian MP's local hospital receive $1 billion.
> 
> Coalition frontbenchers were last night furious that they had been snookered by Mr Wilkie, who labelled the Opposition Leader's offer as over the top and irresponsible - after he had originally demanded a replacement hospital and rejected the offer once it was given.
> 
> Opposition finance spokesman Andrew Robb said last night the hospital would remain a priority if the Coalition formed government, despite Mr Wilkie's rejection of the Coalition's


----------



## trainspotter (3 September 2010)

The world has gone mad or more to the point the Australian political landscape has strapped on the straightjacket of lunacy.

Wilkie got his wish and it now appears that to play a pokie machine you will have to be registered and a limit of no more than $200 to apply to ATM's to curb the rampant problem gamblers.

Soooo that means I will not play the pokies anymore and I will go back to the TAB on the internet and use my AMEX to bet unlimited dollars and unrestrained and unregistered.

This is what you get with Labor. "Freedom of choice" by Devo springs to mind.


----------



## Mofra (3 September 2010)

IFocus said:


> I think its OK for oppositions to get the numbers wrong as they don't have the same resources as governments.
> 
> This should be addressed so oppositions have access to treasury to help form policy
> 
> ...



All good points, and I have to wonder if Abbott's natural inclination to go on the attack to every man, woman, child, rock, tree and government department that disagrees with him will hinder his chances of forming stable enough relationships with the departments and committees whose help he will need to run an effective government. 

I still think Abbott will get over the line witht he three remaining independants and would prefer a softer approach when talking about the beaurocrats he will be relying upon for the next 3 years.


----------



## basilio (3 September 2010)

> > Quote:
> > I agree with others that the $1Bill offer was over the top, I don't think the Libs had a good read on Wilkie at all.
> 
> 
> ...




And perhaps the Libs were just too dumb and too desperate in agreeing to the $1b hospital in the first place? 

I think (like most observers) the Libs just showed how poorly equipped they were for handling the complex ongoing negotiations that will inevitably be required to keep a minority government functioning. I believe that is the message Andrew Wilkie is sending out and what the other independents will be chewing over.


----------



## Bushman (3 September 2010)

wayneL said:


> I am getting more and more convinced that forming a government with the aid of these pompous gits will be sipping from the poison'd chalice.




I was pooh poohed earlier but if I was the Libs, i would flame these clowns into hopping into bed with the Labour/Green coalition, await the carnage and then win in a landslide next election. 

My tip is a Labour/Green/Agrarian socialist minority government will not see out three years and the Libs would canter it in a double dissolution with a two-term mandate. 

Abbott is upping the rhetoric and we could be seeing the revival of the National Party playing out before our eyes. 

PS: some of Katter's ripper policies: 

devalue the AUD
embargoes on foreign goods 
'break up' Coles/Woolies 

Holy ****e - this guy can only be described as anti-capitalism so maybe he is better off with the Greens (even though he had an anti-green platform). 

Pass me the popcorn...


----------



## Timmy (3 September 2010)

Calliope said:


> I'm in the same situation as you except that my guy is a Liberal and is completely useless. He is the guy who was photographed in Parliament asleep not long ago. Members in safe seats get very lazy. There should be a time limit on them.
> 
> He was approached  by the party to stand aside for Mal Brough. He declined of course.




This your chap, Calliope?




Was on the front page of the SMH & Age yesterday, story about him being approached to be the Speaker.

Apparently replied he wanted to sleep on it.


----------



## basilio (3 September 2010)

Bushman said:


> I was pooh poohed earlier but if I was the Libs, i would flame these clowns into hopping into bed with the Labour/Green coalition, await the carnage and then win in a landslide next election.




I think your right. I can't see the Coalition having the finesse to be an effective minority government with a hostile Senate and a bunch of  independent minded independents. 

They will be far better off reverting to form and becoming a head kicking totally obstructionist opposition until they can find or create some way to bring down the government. After all it will only take 1 maybe 2 Labour MHRs to "fall under a bus" to trigger a new election... (_Or was there some talk of a kindler, gentler politcs emerging from this election ?_


----------



## Bushman (3 September 2010)

basilio said:


> (_Or was there some talk of a kindler, gentler politcs emerging from this election ?_




Lol, a leopard does not change its spots....kind/gentle will be shelved as quickly as you can say 'Kennedy'. 

I am not sure if I would be comfortable with a parliamentary system that operates on a collaboritive basis? You need rigorous debate to ensure that the process remains dynamic.

I am very much looking forward to the end of focus polling! 

I'm with you as i cannot see the Libs selling out to a bunch of disenfranchised Nats. Also Gillard has to deliver a result to save her career so she needs to have a punt on a schizophrenic coalition. 

Libs hold the cards here no matter Gillard's posturing, albeit that she might remain PM for now. 

Then again, a month is a long-time in politics and Gillard might still turn this around.


----------



## Calliope (3 September 2010)

Oakeshott is probably in the Green/Labor camp already, and under the influence of their spin doctors.  He has been asked by the Nationals to back up the slur he made recently about an incident in which it was alleged that a National member told a group, at a party in 1996, that he despaired for the future of the party now "blacks" were joining the ranks.



> *NSW Independent MP Rob Oakeshott is refusing to be drawn into a public debate with the National Party over an alleged racist comment.
> 
> Mr Oakeshott yesterday maintained his silence despite National Party efforts to flush out further details of the incident 14 years ago.
> 
> Victorian Nationals MP Darren Chester challenged the former NSW National Party MP turned federal independent to verify an incident at a 1996 party when an older Nationals stalwart is claimed to have made a racist remark, possibly directed at Mr Oakeshott's then girlfriend, now his wife.*






> *Mr Oakeshott's wife, Sara-Jane, is of Aboriginal and Pacific Islander heritage.
> Ms Oakeshott said she had not heard the offending remark at the time but "heard it a long time after".*




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ott-racism-claim/story-fn59niix-1225913521304


----------



## derty (3 September 2010)

Well there we go, breaking news - Gillard has got it after a cliffhanger ~
http://parramatta-advertiser.wherei...d-wins-leadership-after-cliffhanger-election/


----------



## wayneL (3 September 2010)

basilio said:


> They will be far better off reverting to form and becoming a head kicking totally obstructionist opposition until they can find or create some way to bring down the government. After all it will only take 1 maybe 2 Labour MHRs to "fall under a bus" to trigger a new election... (_Or was there some talk of a kindler, gentler politcs emerging from this election ?_




ROTFL!

Socialists never fail to amuse with their raging bias and hypocrisy.

...all fantastic evidence for the "The impossibility of objectivity in social democrats" thesis.

Keep it up, I'll have my PhD sewn up in no time.


----------



## sails (3 September 2010)

derty said:


> Well there we go, breaking news - Gillard has got it after a cliffhanger ~
> http://parramatta-advertiser.wherei...d-wins-leadership-after-cliffhanger-election/




Haha - different Gillard...


----------



## derty (3 September 2010)

sails said:


> Haha - different Gillard...



 and a different Abbot too.


----------



## basilio (3 September 2010)

> > basilio
> > They will be far better off reverting to form and becoming a head kicking totally obstructionist opposition until they can find or create some way to bring down the government. After all it will only take 1 maybe 2 Labour MHRs to "fall under a bus" to trigger a new election... (Or was there some talk of a kindler, gentler politics emerging from this election ?






wayneL said:


> ROTFL!
> 
> Socialists never fail to amuse with their raging bias and hypocrisy.
> 
> ...




*Pot. Kettle. Black*.


----------



## Calliope (3 September 2010)

Now that the Greens and Labor are in coalition, when will the Treasury release the costings of the Green's policies.


----------



## Bushman (3 September 2010)

Calliope said:


> Now that the Greens and Labor are in coalition, when will the Treasury release the costings of the Green's policies.




Best call of this whole election campaign!! 

Even better, cost to the nation of the independents lunacy?


----------



## basilio (3 September 2010)

Good story on Andrew Wilkie in The Age.  It's worth remembering he was originally a member of  the Liberal party and his close friend is John Valder former president of the Liberals.

Basic nuts of the story is that he will be a very prickly "supporter" of Julia Gillard. He is very principled person. Consider his refusal to allow John Howard to go to war with Iraq on spurious grounds.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...-centre-stage-20100902-14ro0.html?autostart=1



> Andrew Wilkie surprised his friend John Valder when he signed up yesterday with Julia Gillard. Valder, the former Liberal Party president who bonded with Wilkie over their mutual discomfort with John Howard, thought he would remain more rigorously independent, like the South Australian Nick Xenophon.
> 
> Valder predicts Wilkie will be, in practice, a ''prickly'' supporter of Gillard and the ALP. This is, of course, a compliment from a Liberal-turned-rebel. ''Andrew is genuine, he stands up for what he believes in. I would regard him as a fine character,'' he told The Age last night. ''I can see stoushes over all sorts of things.''


----------



## Knobby22 (3 September 2010)

Bushman said:


> Best call of this whole election campaign!!
> 
> Even better, cost to the nation of the independents lunacy?




I thought with your name you would be a friend of the independants.

They seem like good country politicians to me who have a good case to argue and have a lot more honesty, ability and wiilingness to do what is best for the country than the city bred Labor and Liberal hacks we have had to get used to.


----------



## wayneL (3 September 2010)

basilio said:


> *Pot. Kettle. Black*.




Easy to say, hard to prove. 

NB Your tacit admission of my observation noted.


----------



## Calliope (3 September 2010)

basilio said:


> Basic nuts of the story is that he will be a very prickly "supporter" of Julia Gillard. He is very principled person. Consider his refusal to allow John Howard to go to war with Iraq on spurious grounds.




I think this quote from the article best sums up Wilkie;

''at the very best, unreliable; at worst he is flaky and irrational''.


----------



## Bushman (3 September 2010)

Knobby22 said:


> I thought with your name you would be a friend of the independants.
> 
> They seem like good country politicians to me who have a good case to argue and have a lot more honesty, ability and wiilingness to do what is best for the country than the city bred Labor and Liberal hacks we have had to get used to.




My nickname is due to my South African background. Nothing to do with rural independents.  

Lunacy is  policies like devalue the Aussie dollar, break-up Coles/Woolies, protect inefficent rural industries etc. Well intentioned but come on.  

Nothing against the indepedents as human beings. Seem like a decent and sincere bunch of grass roots politicians.


----------



## basilio (3 September 2010)

Calliope said:


> I think this quote from the article best sums up Wilkie;
> 
> ''at the very best, unreliable; at worst he is flaky and irrational''.




If anyone else actually reads the story they would discover that this comment about Andrew Wilkie was made by Liberal party politicians when they were trying to destroy him because of his stand against John Howards decision to war with Irag becasue of the threat of weapons of mass desctruction.

The full comment and context of the above quote reads as follows.



> The mercurial Wilkie was first soldier, then analyst, then whistleblower. In 2003 he publicly stood up to Howard over claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. *For his pains he faced considerable retribution, shunned by the dominant political class, subjected to a whispering campaign in the capital.* His marriage was ending; he was unstable, went the ''background'' to political reporters after he quit his post at the Office of National Assessments - one Liberal senator even made the claim publicly. *Wilkie was ''at the very best, unreliable; at worst he is flaky and irrational''.*




Of course the actual reality was that Andrew Wilkie was totally accurate in his analysis of Iraqs non existent weapons of mass destruction. It was Howard who was trying to protect a dishonest position by attempting to destroy the whistle blower Andrew Wilkie.


----------



## basilio (3 September 2010)

wayneL said:


> Easy to say, hard to prove.
> 
> NB Your tacit admission of my observation noted.




No not accepted . Just not worth arguing with you Wayne.


----------



## Calliope (3 September 2010)

basilio said:


> If anyone else actually reads the story they would discover that this comment about Andrew Wilkie was made by Liberal party politicians




It was made by one politician and it was spot on. Nothing he has done since has proved the assessment wrong.

When you get older and less naive you may realise that your leftist progressive idols have feel of clay.


----------



## Macquack (3 September 2010)

Calliope said:


> It was made by one politician and it was *spot on*. Nothing he has done since has proved the assessment wrong.
> 
> When you get older and less naive you may realise that your leftist progressive idols have feel of clay.




Basilio was spot on the money. 

Calliope, you are just waffling and showing your usual bias.

Basilio 1
Calliope 0


----------



## trainspotter (3 September 2010)

Anyone considered the outcome of all of this? HUH?

I don't really give a flying fox who wins or loses. What good of it if the country is in a mexican standoff? It doesn't matter. If either party wins the country is deadlocked. Labor wins it is blocked. Liberal wins it is constipated.

None of this on a political scale is palatable. IMO


----------



## trainspotter (3 September 2010)

basilio said:


> Of course the actual reality was that Andrew Wilkie was totally accurate in his analysis of Iraqs non existent weapons of mass destruction. It was Howard who was trying to protect a dishonest position by attempting to destroy the whistle blower Andrew Wilkie.




*YAWN* .... *STRETCH* .... wahhhhhh ??? So it wasn't the Liberal preferences that got him across the line?? He is there on the off chance of pure luck. Not because he stood up for what is right or wrong.

Labor won the primary vote, dear heart, in his electorate. May he well remember that !


----------



## IFocus (3 September 2010)

It looks to me that on the surface Labor has been far more adept at the negotiations and discussions with the independents.

Labor hasn't conducted any negative discussion in public and over all looks far more able to govern with a minority much in the same way Steve Bracks did successfully in Victoria with the support of rural independents sound familiar.

Bracks won a second term with a land slide victory.

The federal coalition on the other hand currently sound desperate and critical  of all concerned along with outlandish pork barreling a sign of their lack of commitment to the core principles required to govern. 

Abbotts partisan, aggressive, bust though behavior in opposition has had outstanding results for the coalition but just wont cut it in government.

In Government you actually have to work with everyone Rudd is a great example of  what happens when you don't.

After reading up on Katter I wont be surprised if he joins Labor as his forebears were very much Labor people of high moral principles. When Katter talks he talks straight from the heart, I like the 
man.


----------



## trainspotter (3 September 2010)

IFocus said:


> It looks to me that on the surface Labor has been far more adept at the negotiations and discussions with the independents.
> 
> Labor hasn't conducted any negative discussion in public and over all looks far more able to govern with a minority much in the same way Steve Bracks did successfully in Victoria with the support of rural independents sound familiar.
> 
> ...




Agree with IFocus right up until the Katter statement. Only this part ...... _When Katter talks he talks straight from the heart, I like the man"_


----------



## IFocus (3 September 2010)

Bushman said:


> My nickname is due to my South African background. Nothing to do with rural independents.
> 
> Lunacy is  policies like devalue the Aussie dollar, break-up Coles/Woolies, protect inefficent rural industries etc. Well intentioned but come on.
> 
> Nothing against the indepedents as human beings. Seem like a decent and sincere bunch of grass roots politicians.




Have friends still in farming beef sheep wheat etc here in WA.

The problem we face longer term is that through the current policies we will lose our food bowl on being able to feed the country and become a net importer. That in MHO is a national security issue +.

The Coles / Woolies issue isn't about inefficient rural industries its about control and market dominance. This is some thing both do with ruthless efficiency as they stamp out other possible food supply chains to kill competition. 

How this is tackled I don't know only that Katter is the only polly to really understand the numbers and talk about it unlike the Nats who have long ago betrayed the rural sector.


----------



## Julia (3 September 2010)

Bushman said:


> My nickname is due to my South African background. Nothing to do with rural independents.
> 
> Lunacy is  policies like devalue the Aussie dollar, break-up Coles/Woolies, protect inefficent rural industries etc. Well intentioned but come on.



Tonight on ABC Radio's "PM" Saul Eslake was asked to evaluate Mr Katter's wishlist.  He very politely made it clear it was almost entirely nonsensical.

N







> othing against the indepedents as human beings. Seem like a decent and sincere bunch of grass roots politicians.



Perhaps so, but still three blokes who are clearly thoroughly enjoying their burst of fame, something they'd normally never have envisaged.
  The delight of all of them is palpable.




basilio said:


> Of course the actual reality was that Andrew Wilkie was totally accurate in his analysis of Iraqs non existent weapons of mass destruction. It was Howard who was trying to protect a dishonest position by attempting to destroy the whistle blower Andrew Wilkie.



Absolutely correct.   For this Andrew Wilkie is to be admired.  
But his standards seem to have slipped somewhat if his purely political grandstanding with the Coalition re the Hobart Hospital is any indication.
He was obviously going to go with Labor from the start, and it's a pity Abbott and Co. took his request for $1 billion for the hospital as a serious proposition.
It was clearly designed to allow him to make his subsequent comment about the Coalition being reckless and irresponsible.
The AMA disagrees, btw, given that Tasmania does not have a decent teaching hospital, and they are less than delighted with Mr Wilkie.





trainspotter said:


> Anyone considered the outcome of all of this? HUH?
> 
> I don't really give a flying fox who wins or loses. What good of it if the country is in a mexican standoff? It doesn't matter. If either party wins the country is deadlocked. Labor wins it is blocked. Liberal wins it is constipated.
> 
> None of this on a political scale is palatable. IMO



Yep, I feel the same.  It will make little difference to me personally who wins.
I don't have any sense of confidence in any of the possible permutations of minority government. And even a return to the polls wouldn't really solve anything much either, as we continue to be stuck with the woeful quality of the current batch of politicians all round.
Had Costello, Mal Brough, Lindsay Tanner still been available, I'd probably take a different view.




trainspotter said:


> *YAWN* .... *STRETCH* .... wahhhhhh ??? So it wasn't the Liberal preferences that got him across the line?? He is there on the off chance of pure luck. Not because he stood up for what is right or wrong.
> 
> Labor won the primary vote, dear heart, in his electorate. May he well remember that !



Mr Wilkie is choosing to ignore this, of course, preferring to bathe in the hubris of his new found power.




IFocus said:


> It looks to me that on the surface Labor has been far more adept at the negotiations and discussions with the independents.
> 
> Labor hasn't conducted any negative discussion in public and over all looks far more able to govern with a minority much in the same way Steve Bracks did successfully in Victoria with the support of rural independents sound familiar.
> 
> ...



I agree with you on this.   If I were one of the independents, I'd have more respect for the party who stood ready to answer questions honestly (?impossible?), without making aggressive approaches.  For the Libs to be getting aggressive at this stage is somewhat insulting to the independents, a bit like the way both parties treated voters during the interminable election campaign.



> After reading up on Katter I wont be surprised if he joins Labor as his forebears were very much Labor people of high moral principles. When Katter talks he talks straight from the heart, I like the
> man.



Do you equally like his protectionist policies?   It's fine to think you'd like the bloke, but that isn't what this is about.


----------



## IFocus (3 September 2010)

Julia said:


> Do you equally like his protectionist policies?   It's fine to think you'd like the bloke, but that isn't what this is about.




No I don't but that doesn't change the fact that there are issues that need addressing and Katter is really the only one willing to talk about them.


----------



## So_Cynical (3 September 2010)

What's this!...the ASF right and other deniers accepting the inevitable defeat? at the hands of the superior political operators...there seems to be an acceptance coming over this thread that the coalition hierarchy simply hasn't got the political will to actually govern.

LOL its just like Costello and Howard all over again....the failure to accept political reality seems to be the coalitions Achilles heel, the obvious seems easy to do but the reality of actually bending to accommodate the 3 amigos is just to much to bear.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 September 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> What's this!...the ASF right and other deniers accepting the inevitable defeat? at the hands of the superior political operators...there seems to be an acceptance coming over this thread that the coalition hierarchy simply hasn't got the political will to actually govern.
> 
> LOL its just like Costello and Howard all over again....the failure to accept political reality seems to be the coalitions Achilles heel, the obvious seems easy to do but the reality of actually bending to accommodate the 3 amigos is just to much to bear.




The Show ain't over until the Northern Leb sings.

gg


----------



## Julia (3 September 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> What's this!...the ASF right and other deniers accepting the inevitable defeat?



Deniers of what?
I just detest that expression.
It has been so inappropriately applied to anyone who questioned the zealots and fanatics about anthropogenic climate change.

Let's for heaven's sake leave it out of the current political discussion.

There are some of us who are genuine swinging voters, devotees of neither side, reluctant voters of whom we see to be the 'least worst'.
Unlike you with your slavish devotion to Labor regardless of their breathtaking incompetence.

Maybe have a read of some of IFocus's posts.  He/she is also clearly a Labor voter, but nonetheless still capable of some objectivity and rationality.


----------



## noco (3 September 2010)

Just maybe Tony Abbott is smarter than he appears. IMHO it would better for him to lose and not get bogged down with the turmoil that is about to begin.

He might even be encourageing two of the there amigos to go with Joolya and Katter to come on board with the Coalition giving the Green Labor coalition a majority of one.

So let Joolya have the worry. With a double dip recession expected next year, where will she get more money for a new stimulas package?

Higher interest rates, higher unemployement, higher cost of living and another election in 12 -18 months.

The alternative is one amigo to Joolya and the other two to Abbott. 75 all and another election.


----------



## trainspotter (3 September 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> What's this!...the ASF right and other deniers accepting the inevitable defeat? at the hands of the superior political operators...there seems to be an acceptance coming over this thread that the coalition hierarchy simply hasn't got the political will to actually govern.
> 
> LOL its just like Costello and Howard all over again....the failure to accept political reality seems to be the coalitions Achilles heel, the obvious seems easy to do but the reality of actually bending to accommodate the 3 amigos is just to much to bear.




LOLOLL ..... *BULLSEYE !*

Clearly you of all people can see what is unfolding before you. It is not over yet. The corpulent contessa is merely gargling at the moment.

Still laughing at _"superior political operators"_ comment ... I have worked with many people that are completely incompetent but yet they believe they are quite capable of doing the job in earnest. THEY DO NOT KNOW ANY BETTER.


----------



## So_Cynical (3 September 2010)

Julia said:


> Deniers of what?
> I just detest that expression.




Deniers of political reality.

While to there credit, some of the ASF right have expressed there concerns about the continual lack of political credibility displayed by the coalition...others (gang of 4) have not, i think its fair to say that the vast majority of the ASF right fall into the deniers category because they support the coalition in there denials....for example.

Little Johnny had to go, the tide had turned and his use by date had well and truly passed...and yet the required tap on the shoulder simply didn't come, and thus Costello's political potential was never exercised....denial of political reality.

Choosing '1 vote Tony' over Turnbull was political stupidity...choosing to oppose everything (because that's what oppositions do) simply for the sake of it was very dumb and a denial of political reality.

Alienating the 3 amigos and playing tough guy politics when you have everything to lose = very dumb and a clear denial of political reality.

And yet 'the deniers' here still seem to think that somehow the coalition deserve to be in government and could do a better job than the party leading the way in negotiation and consolidation. 



trainspotter said:


> Still laughing at _"superior political operators"_ comment ...




I put that in just for you Tranny.


----------



## trainspotter (3 September 2010)

Hahhahahhaaaa So_Cyclical you are hilarious !!

Deniers of political reality belong far in the Left zone. Only a coupla months ago you had the most popular Prime Minister EVER and the Labor Party had an unassailable lead in the primary vote. ... now what have you got? A hopeless collection of Unionists promoting a vox pop red head into the position who denied her right as the Dear Leader kicking and screaming every step of the way.

I am still waiting for her to line up at full forward for the Doggies BTW !!

John has gone and so has Costello ... get over it. We have. Move forward ... afterall that is the slogo of the "workers".

Tony Abbott has given your mob a fair dinkum run for their money. You should have stuck with Ming Pong Kluddy. You had half a chance at winning without the blood nut on the watch. Abbott has displayed that it does not take much to shake the Labor movement to the very foundations. Imagine what a skillful politician would do to the rabble that hides behing the CFMEU !!

SCREW the Independents. Go back to the polls in 6 months and see how you fair then. My money would be a landslide away from the Labor machine and the dirty back stabbing politics you mob carry on with and call it "democracy" Pffffffffttttttt ! 

The coalition has already proven they are more adept at running the country into surplus rather than debt like the Labor Party. The problem with socialism is that the government soon runs out of *other peoples* money.

_"I put that in just for you Tranny." _...... why thank you very muuuuuuuchh ... I am still giggling.


----------



## springhill (4 September 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> What's this!...the ASF right and other deniers accepting the inevitable defeat? at the hands of the superior political operators...there seems to be an acceptance coming over this thread that the coalition hierarchy simply hasn't got the political will to actually govern.
> 
> LOL its just like Costello and Howard all over again....the failure to accept political reality seems to be the coalitions Achilles heel, the obvious seems easy to do but the reality of actually bending to accommodate the 3 amigos is just to much to bear.




SC, this is a situation that will lead to another election in another 3 months, TOPS. The ALP looks to be achieving a one seat majority, which is doomed to fail. No Govt is workable in this situation, all is takes is one defector.
The Greens will be decimated in the Senate in the next (soon!) election for being a bunch of twats and tea-baggers.... not least of all for wanting to reintroduce death duty, plus mining taxes and carbon tax, which as sure as i am drunk ATM will cripple Aus mining. This is an irrefutible comment. They will pay in the long run, their power makes the public feel good ATM because it's PC to lick ass of the flavour of the month. Mark my words they will be decimated soon enough when voters realiose they have gone too far (do the Democrats ring a bell?). Life is a pendulum SC, we swing too far one way, then too far the other. As sure as eggs, the Greens will face political armaggedon soon enough. And i, for one, will be laughing my head off when Gillard falls.
Hell, what would i know? I'm just a W.A. voter who is sick of propping up the septic tank economies of Vic And NSW, no wonder you guys are the sronghold of federal ALP voters, easy to take GST money ripped out of WA.
Disc: this post was based purely on alcohol, and stands to be ripped apart, i have no qualms with this


----------



## So_Cynical (4 September 2010)

springhill said:


> SC, this is a situation that will lead to another election in another 3 months, TOPS. The ALP looks to be achieving a one seat majority, which is doomed to fail. No Govt is workable in this situation, all is takes is one defector.
> The Greens will be decimated in the Senate in the next (soon!) election for being a bunch of twats and tea-baggers




I see it this way...Labor has on the one hand the Greens to pull them to the extreme left and on the other (with luck) the 3 amigos voting as a block to pull them to the centre right (balance that the coaition dosent have)...a 2 seat majority? and control of the senate, the trick will then be to simply make sure no legislation comes up that will be a deal breaker.

Do a health deal, a pokies deal, gay marriages, parliamentary reform...and leave the potential climate deal breaker for last...thing is that its Labor that's sticking its neck out and taking the political chance's that the coalition wont....and they will reap the political rewards if they can pull it off.


----------



## springhill (4 September 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> I see it this way...Labor has on the one hand the Greens to pull them to the extreme left and on the other (with luck) the 3 amigos voting as a block to pull them to the centre right (balance that the coaition dosent have)...a 2 seat majority? and control of the senate, the trick will then be to simply make sure no legislation comes up that will be a deal breaker.
> 
> Do a health deal, a pokies deal, gay marriages, parliamentary reform...and leave the potential climate deal breaker for last...thing is that its Labor that's sticking its neck out and taking the political chance's that the coalition wont....and they will reap the political rewards if they can pull it off.




There was major talk in the west on talkback radio of the 3 amigos, not voting as a block.

ALP have the Greens and Wilkie. All they need is 2 of the independants to form Govt, which as reported on radio today, 2 of them may be leang that way.
As Katter said in the press today 'Good luck forming governent with only one vote up your sleeve' or comments thereabout. If he heads the Libs way, which looks likely judging from that statement, like  i said look forward to another election.
My opinion only.


----------



## nulla nulla (4 September 2010)

springhill said:


> SC, this is a situation that will lead to another election in another 3 months, TOPS. The ALP looks to be achieving a one seat majority, which is doomed to fail. No Govt is workable in this situation, all is takes is one defector.
> The Greens will be decimated in the Senate in the next (soon!) election for being a bunch of twats and tea-baggers.... not least of all for wanting to reintroduce death duty, plus mining taxes and carbon tax, which as sure as i am drunk ATM will cripple Aus mining. This is an irrefutible comment. They will pay in the long run, their power makes the public feel good ATM because it's PC to lick ass of the flavour of the month. Mark my words they will be decimated soon enough when voters realiose they have gone too far (do the Democrats ring a bell?). Life is a pendulum SC, we swing too far one way, then too far the other. As sure as eggs, the Greens will face political armaggedon soon enough. And i, for one, will be laughing my head off when Gillard falls.
> Hell, what would i know? I'm just a W.A. voter who is sick of propping up the septic tank economies of Vic And NSW, no wonder you guys are the sronghold of federal ALP voters, easy to take GST money ripped out of WA.
> Disc: this post was based purely on alcohol, and stands to be ripped apart, i have no qualms with this




No offense but I believe your post would be more appropriate in the drunken rant thread. 
As for WA propping up the Eastern states with their G.S.T, it would be more accurate that g.s.t collected from NSW & Victoria (with their higher population and consumption) have been the highest contributors of G.S.T which has then been disproportionaly apportioned to the other states such as W.A and Qld.
IMO, bring on the tax on mining super profits. The contribution from W.A major mining  super profitable ventures will help reimburse the rest of Australia for stumping up the initial capital for infrastructure that enable W.A to be developed in the first place.


----------



## Calliope (4 September 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Little Johnny had to go,




The way you keep sneering about "little Johnny", indicates that you are in "denial" of your Short Man Syndrome.



> Calliope, you are just waffling and showing your usual bias.




And as for you *Macquack*, yes I am biased. I am biased against hypocrites and bottom feeders.


----------



## Logique (4 September 2010)

'Denier' is offensive, it evokes an earlier usage: holocaust deniers, a truly extremist right wing element. This is toxic leftist propaganda of the worst kind, and especially insensitive to Jewish people. 



> From Springhill:
> Hell, what would i know? I'm just a W.A. voter who is sick of propping up the septic tank economies of Vic And NSW, no wonder you guys are the sronghold of federal ALP voters, easy to take GST money ripped out of WA.



Sounds good to me, rave away Springhill. Thankfully, next March, the tragic NSW Labor govt will be shown the door. 

The Greens won't be budged as easily as the Democrats. They might seem flaky, but politically they are rat cunning. To me the issue is more - will the party outlive Bob Brown? They are frantically auditioning clones of Brown all over the place. 

They're in the schools brainwashing our kids, courtesy of the left-leaning teacher unions. This is a huge sleeper issue. There was a story this week in Sydney, a teacher told the primary school kids not to sing 'gay' in the song, i.e. they had to sing '..*Kookaburra 'fun' your life must be*..' Parents were outraged.


----------



## trainspotter (4 September 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> No offense but I believe your post would be more appropriate in the drunken rant thread.
> As for WA propping up the Eastern states with their G.S.T, it would be more accurate that g.s.t collected from NSW & Victoria (with their higher population and consumption) have been the highest contributors of G.S.T which has then been disproportionaly apportioned to the other states such as W.A and Qld.
> IMO, bring on the tax on mining super profits. The contribution from W.A major mining  super profitable ventures will help reimburse the rest of Australia for stumping up the initial capital for infrastructure that enable W.A to be developed in the first place.




Whoooooaaaa there Big Boy. Not quite accurate. 

Treasure Island: 130 k's off the north western Australian coast, the largest single resource project in Australia's history is now underway. From the seabed surrounding Barrow Island, 40 trillion cubic feet of gas, equivalent to 6.7 billion barrels of oil will be extracted and processed, most of it already pre-sold for export as liquid natural gas. The goldmine of Gorgon alone will bolster Australia's GDP by around $64 billion. (GST is applicable to all of this BTW as well as the PRRT)

*NEW West Australian Nationals MP Tony Crook has met Tony Abbott to demand a "fairer" carve-up of GST funding for his state. *

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...up-from-liberals/story-fn59niix-1225912526910

http://www.ato.gov.au/budget/2009-10/content/faq.htm#5 .... Try here for some facts.

and here .... http://www.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/bp3/html/bp3_general_revenue.htm

Did you know ... Western Australia 's overseas exports accounted for 60% of the nations total exports. WHICH ARE TAXED on a state and Federal level which gets shared to the rest of Australia. 

Ummmmmmm ..... Charlie Court used State money to develop the North West.

_As minister for industrial development in the Brand government in the 1960s, Court was the architect of a number of important development initiatives in the Western Australian iron-ore industry, paving the way for the subsequent Western Australian mining boom. He was integral in transforming the state from one which as recently as the 1930s had required special assistance from the Commonwealth Grants Commission, to one which was able to generate substantial income_

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Court


----------



## Logique (4 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Whoooooaaaa there....Not quite accurate....Did you know....Western Australia 's overseas exports accounted for 60% of the nations total exports. WHICH ARE TAXED on a state and Federal level which gets shared to the rest of Australia. ....



Yes the record needed to be corrected. No coincidence that the Royalties to the Regions concept genesis was in WA. 

And WA needs a fairer deal on GST returned. Perhaps some GST subsidization can be taken off Tassie's bottom line, revealing the true consequences of that state's rusted on Labor and Green leanings.


----------



## Surly (4 September 2010)

Thanks for saving me the research and response TS.

I assume this is a common misconception and probably the one that leads to people suggesting WA secede every so often.

cheers
Surly


----------



## Calliope (4 September 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> The contribution from W.A major mining  super profitable ventures will help reimburse the rest of Australia for stumping up the initial capital for infrastructure that enable W.A to be developed in the first place.




Victoria. South Australia and Tasmania are the dependent states and rely on WA and Qld. to keep them solvent. They are the handout states, and that is why they came out so solidly for the Labor/Greens knowing they will heavily tax the miners to keep the handouts coming.


----------



## Calliope (4 September 2010)

It looks pretty certain we are going to get a Green/Labor government. The first bit of legislation will be to legalise same-sex marriage. If that's what they want, let them have it. The gays I know say it is not all it's cracked up to be. Some like to play the field.

As long as they don't make it compulsory. Although their numbers are dwindling there are still a lot of heterosexuals who believe in good old fashioned marriage between men and women.


----------



## sails (4 September 2010)

Calliope said:


> It looks pretty certain we are going to get a Green/Labor government. The first bit of legislation will be to legalise same-sex marriage....




I doubt that Fielding will let that one through the senate so it will probably depend on how other conservative senators vote.  They might have to wait another ten months...


----------



## springhill (4 September 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> No offense but I believe your post would be more appropriate in the drunken rant thread.




None taken nulla, it belongs in both threads IMO. It still had valid points.



Logique said:


> Sounds good to me, rave away Springhill. Thankfully, next March, the tragic NSW Labor govt will be shown the door.
> 
> The Greens won't be budged as easily as the Democrats. They might seem flaky, but politically they are rat cunning. To me the issue is more - will the party outlive Bob Brown? They are frantically auditioning clones of Brown all over the place.




I shall continue to do so , look for more next friday.
You do have a point on the Greens being cunning, but sooner or later they will get too smart for their own good.



trainspotter said:


> Whoooooaaaa there Big Boy. Not quite accurate.
> 
> Treasure Island: 130 k's off the north western Australian coast, the largest single resource project in Australia's history is now underway. From the seabed surrounding Barrow Island, 40 trillion cubic feet of gas, equivalent to 6.7 billion barrels of oil will be extracted and processed, most of it already pre-sold for export as liquid natural gas. The goldmine of Gorgon alone will bolster Australia's GDP by around $64 billion. (GST is applicable to all of this BTW as well as the PRRT)
> 
> NEW West Australian Nationals MP Tony Crook has met Tony Abbott to demand a "fairer" carve-up of GST funding for his state.




Nice work there TS, spot on!



Calliope said:


> Victoria. South Australia and Tasmania are the dependent states and rely on WA and Qld. to keep them solvent. They are the handout states, and that is why they came out so solidly for the Labor/Greens knowing they will heavily tax the miners to keep the handouts coming.




If you were a dinosaur mate, you'd be a Correctosaurus


----------



## robusta (4 September 2010)

Calliope said:


> Victoria. South Australia and Tasmania are the dependent states and rely on WA and Qld. to keep them solvent. They are the handout states, and that is why they came out so solidly for the Labor/Greens knowing they will heavily tax the miners to keep the handouts coming.




Here we get back to the 2 speed economy. How will all of the non mining sectors go if the projected mining boom causes the Reserve Bank to jack up interest rates to keep a lid on inflation? 
I think this is a issue for NSW, Vic, Tas and Sa. 
Just not sure we want to put mining industry to sleep - maybe a valium or nice cup of herbal tea would do the trick.


----------



## Julia (4 September 2010)

noco said:


> So let Joolya have the worry. With a double dip recession expected next year, where will she get more money for a new stimulas package?



You can't seriously be wondering about this, noco?  They'd just borrow more, of course.  No worries.  Toss it around, do anything as long as it saves their political skin in terms of unemployment numbers.



Logique said:


> 'Denier' is offensive, it evokes an earlier usage: holocaust deniers, a truly extremist right wing element. This is toxic leftist propaganda of the worst kind, and especially insensitive to Jewish people.



Exactly right, and why it was so utterly offensive when applied to people who were doubtful about what eventually has turned out to be dodgy science in the climate change debate.  It holds a clear inference that anyone holding a different view from the person commenting is stupid.  



> The Greens won't be budged as easily as the Democrats. They might seem flaky, but politically they are rat cunning.



Agree,  The Democrats always retained some objectivity, the capacity to see a different points of view.  Not so the crazy Greens.  Their dominance will do immeasurable harm.  We can only hope the government (assuming Labor is returned) and the opposition will vote together where it matters, and render the damn Greens irrelevant.
Ms Gillard has probably not thought through all the potential ramifications of her deal with these nuts in her desperation for her personal political survival.



So_Cynical said:


> Deniers of political reality.
> 
> While to there credit, some of the ASF right have expressed there concerns about the continual lack of political credibility displayed by the coalition...others (gang of 4) have not, i think its fair to say that the vast majority of the ASF right fall into the deniers category because they support the coalition in there denials....for example.
> 
> Little Johnny had to go, the tide had turned and his use by date had well and truly passed...and yet the required tap on the shoulder simply didn't come, and thus Costello's political potential was never exercised....denial of political reality.



I'd bet my last dollar that if you gave the population the option of going back and repeating their 2007 vote, they'd now vote to have John Howard still running the country.   Minus workchoices.
Labor has been a gigantic mistake.

Sadly, the current line-up on the opposition benches are not up to much either.


----------



## explod (4 September 2010)

The discussions on this thread has scant to do with the election, its all about miserable views on political philosophies of the good old days.  Well those days have gone folks, we need to deal with a totally new paradigm.   

You are way off topic.

"Commorn" as Hewit would say and give me the numbers *on the election.*


And who says global warming science is dodgey.  Even if it is a little bit we need to deal with the fact that it may not be and that is the concern now of a lot of people, misguided or not, its the reality of the now.  *ouch off topic*


----------



## wayneL (4 September 2010)

explod said:


> The discussions on this thread has scant to do with the election, its all about miserable views on political philosophies of the good old days.  Well those days have gone folks, we need to deal with a totally new paradigm.




Yes, a paradigm of hidden Marxists and naive deceived muppets voting for them.





> And who says global warming science is dodgey.




_In toto_, the science says IPCC/Gorist/Hansonist alarmism is dodgy. Their cherrypicked and compromised data should not be considered as science.


----------



## explod (4 September 2010)

wayneL said:


> Yes, a paradigm of hidden Marxists and naive deceived muppets voting for them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You should check out Marx and Engels writings waynel, your obvious bias would get in the way of understanding though.  China making so many widgets now they are running out of customers.  Like massive US dollars, nobody wants em anymore.   Marx; *spot on*.

Dodgy the climate stuff maybe pal but this is where we are at with the sentiment.

And both way off topic too ole pal, give me the numbers.


----------



## wayneL (4 September 2010)

explod said:


> You should check out Marx and Engels writings waynel, your obvious bias would get in the way of understanding though.




Explod, re bias: 

Every human is biased, however only some understand that they themselves are biased. The unintelligent don't realize this, all the while accusing others of the same. In so doing, they delude themselves that they have delivered some sort of intellectual uppercut.

However, they appear fools as their own hypocrisy escapes their notice.

In your post I'm not sure of your point due to lack of clarity.

Are you:

1/ Denying that the Greens are in fact Marxists, or

2/ Admitting they are Marxists but accuse me of not understanding their virtue?

Next question - Are you biased?


----------



## noco (4 September 2010)

Julia said:


> You can't seriously be wondering about this, noco?  They'd just borrow more, of course.  No worries.  Toss it around, do anything as long as it saves their political skin in terms of unemployment numbers.
> 
> 
> Well Julia, I look at like this- Joolya may only get one over the line because I believe Katter will go Coalition, so it would be 76-74 in her favor.
> ...


----------



## explod (4 September 2010)

wayneL said:


> Explod, re bias:
> 
> Every human is biased, however only some understand that they themselves are biased. The unintelligent don't realize this, all the while accusing others of the same. In so doing, they delude themselves that they have delivered some sort of intellectual uppercut.
> 
> ...




Yes waynel, I am biased.

We all want this election to go towards meeting our individual hopes, needs and desires for a better future.

However *our question * is beyond and off topic in this thread.  Any answer, if it can be found, that can be settled between and to the satisfaction of the different parties/perspectives involved is probably improbable.

Because such a question ought to be tackled and resolved within each individual context, or if you like, within its intrinsic seperate human layers, then the defining of sentiment, judgement, control and bias as it may effect investing or trading, then perhaps we should meet in a more appropriate thread for that purpose.  

As my superior on this forum wayneL, I seek your lead.


----------



## noco (4 September 2010)

noco said:


> Julia said:
> 
> 
> > You can't seriously be wondering about this, noco?  They'd just borrow more, of course.  No worries.  Toss it around, do anything as long as it saves their political skin in terms of unemployment numbers.
> ...


----------



## Julia (4 September 2010)

noco said:


> Although she says she will go the full term of 3 years, IMHO, parliament will become so disfunctional that they will have no alternative but to go to the GG for another election and if that happens, the Green Labor coalition will be decimated.



As I understand what I've been reading on this, she has guaranteed not to even leave open the option of a double dissolution election in her commitment to go the full three years.   If the results of a Green/Labor/Independent parliament are as we anticipate, this could be horrible beyond belief.

The following is a letter to "The Age" on the subject:


> An interesting exploration of the implications. On the matter of a fixed term being given legislative backing, it's unlikely such legislation would be constitutional if it impinged on the constitutional provision for a double dissolution.





Regarding this being a good time for the Opposition not to become government, I think there are some deeper layers involved , viz a lack of belief by the independents, and likely the wider population after the costings debacle, that the opposition is simply not up to managing government. It's possible this impression will remain in the minds of voters up to the next election.

  I just can't help picturing an ongoing situation where Heffernan, Barnaby Joyce et al just can't help themselves taking frequent swipes at the Independents, so put out will they be at what they perceive as the usurping of power that should rightly belong to them.  This will further cement in the view of the electorate that an Abbott-led government would be poorly disciplined.




explod said:


> However *our question * is beyond and off topic in this thread.  Any answer, if it can be found, that can be settled between and to the satisfaction of the different parties/perspectives involved is probably improbable.



What?   Could you provide a translation please, explod?  The above would be a candidate for inclusion in Don Watson's treatise "Weasel Words".



> Because such a question ought to be tackled and resolved within each individual context, or if you like, within its intrinsic seperate human layers, then the defining of sentiment, judgement, control and bias as it may effect investing or trading, then perhaps we should meet in a more appropriate thread for that purpose.



Where did you go for your holiday, explod?  Did you perhaps suck on some mind altering substances?


----------



## Calliope (4 September 2010)

explod said:


> Because such a question ought to be tackled and resolved within each individual context, or if you like, within its intrinsic seperate human layers, then the defining of sentiment, judgement, control and bias as it may effect investing or trading, then perhaps we should meet in a more appropriate thread for that purpose.




Talk about gobbledygook!!! :silly::silly::dimbulb::dimbulb:


----------



## Calliope (5 September 2010)

Getting even or getting revenge is a strong motivating force for politicians. Wilkie has nurtured his hatred of the Liberal party for years, and you could read it in his face, when he showed his true colours, that revenge is sweet. 

Tomorrow is the turn for the three Independents. An opportunity to get even with their old National enemies is too good an opportunity to be missed. They will defect as a group to Green/Labor.

It will be interesting to hear their justification for the decision. They will be most anxious to see that the government lasts three years otherwise their leverage is lost. A four seat majority give this a better chance of happening.

Rudd's turn will come later.


----------



## robusta (5 September 2010)

Calliope said:


> Getting even or getting revenge is a strong motivating force for politicians. Wilkie has nurtured his hatred of the Liberal party for years, and you could read it in his face, when he showed his true colours, that revenge is sweet.
> 
> Tomorrow is the turn for the three Independents. An opportunity to get even with their old National enemies is too good an opportunity to be missed. They will defect as a group to Green/Labor.
> 
> ...




Wish I got onto Centre Bet 2 weeks ago with this scenario. I think you have hit the nail on the head Calliope


----------



## gav (5 September 2010)

I was doing a bit of research on Comrade Gillard, and came across this document.  It claims that Gillard was charged with treason in 2007, but it was suppressed by the Supreme Court of Victoria.  It even contains a photocopy of the charge.  Apparently if you are charged with treason you are ineligible to sit as senator or a member of the house of reps.

The document is quite long - 57 pages - but this is due to the massive font used.  It would probably only be about 10 pages long if a decent font size was used.

http://larryhannigan.com/articles/The_Constitution_and_The_Law_of_Treason.pdf

Does anyone know if there is any truth behind this?  Or does this belong in the "Conspiracy Theory" thread?


----------



## basilio (5 September 2010)

gav said:


> I was doing a bit of research on Comrade Gillard, and came across this document.  It claims that Gillard was charged with treason in 2007, but it was suppressed by the Supreme Court of Victoria.  It even contains a photocopy of the charge.  Apparently if you are charged with treason you are ineligible to sit as senator or a member of the house of reps.
> 
> The document is quite long - 57 pages - but this is due to the massive font used.  It would probably only be about 10 pages long if a decent font size was used.
> 
> ...




Very, very good work Comrade Gav. Vith dis excellent brief Ve should be able to send Comrade Gillard to Ziberia az quickly  as  Comrades Noco, wayne, calliope et al put ze pen to ze paper. 

Vell done. It is truly hiumbling to see how de great minds of our time can create zuch a beautiful piece of legal vork..


----------



## Julia (5 September 2010)

Entitled "Aussie democracy, a tale of Perversion", this from David Penberthy in today's "Sunday Mail" is pretty funny.  He's suggested readers can choose their own ending.



> Ending One:   On Monday September 6, Julia Gillard announces the formation of a Labor Green minority government with the support of Independents Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor.
> 
> Gillard dispatches Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese to Tasmania to turn the sod on the construction phase for the very fast train linking Hobart, Tamworth and that little town outside Port Macquarie where they sell tasty mangoes in boxes.  At his first weekly fireside meeting with Ms Gillard, deputy prime minister Bob Brown wins approval to turn Kirribilli House into a safe injection room for heroin users.
> 
> ...


----------



## Calliope (5 September 2010)

basilio said:


> Very, very good work Comrade Gav. Vith dis excellent brief Ve should be able to send Comrade Gillard to Ziberia az quickly  as  Comrades Noco, wayne, calliope et al put ze pen to ze paper.
> 
> Vell done. It is truly hiumbling to see how de great minds of our time can create zuch a beautiful piece of legal vork..




Pathetic :silly::silly::silly:


----------



## noco (5 September 2010)

Julia said:


> As I understand what I've been reading on this, she has guaranteed not to even leave open the option of a double dissolution election in her commitment to go the full three years.   If the results of a Green/Labor/Independent parliament are as we anticipate, this could be horrible beyond belief.
> 
> With such a close result and outcome of this election, I doubt Ms. Gillard would be game to go to  a double dissolution during her term if she is successful in her quest for power.
> 
> ...


----------



## bellenuit (5 September 2010)

noco said:


> Julia said:
> 
> 
> > Then when Gillard renegotiated the Miners Rent Tax (28%) to some 300 miners and not some 2500, they stated there would only be a reduction of $1.5 billion in income. When challenged on this point, treasury stated they made a mistake and the original figure of the MSPT was $24 billion.
> ...


----------



## basilio (5 September 2010)

> > Entitled "Aussie democracy, a tale of Perversion", this from David Penberthy in today's "Sunday Mail" is pretty funny. He's suggested readers can choose their own ending.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Just brilliant!! Well spotted.


----------



## IFocus (5 September 2010)

Opposition leader is the hardest job in town bar none if Abbott loses Malcolm will be looking closely at the numbers the smell of power will drive him crazy (quote from a article cant remember which) 

If Gillard loses  leader ship-wise suspect the NSW right will get a real kicking but Gillard will still have the numbers I would'nt expect a change. Forget Rudd in opposition for leader ship and Shorten is way to inexperience the numbers people wouldn't consider him.

If either side get up expect 3 years the independents will not force an early election and encumbered  will not go early.

As for the independents they are far more reliable / smarter (including Katter) than 75% of the MPs from either side. They know what the jungle is really like they don't have a party machine behind them but yet get elected.


----------



## Julia (5 September 2010)

bellenuit said:


> I don't recall Treasury saying they made a mistake. From what I recall, they said that the forecast price of iron ore used in calculating the tax revenue had been revised upwards between the initial calculation used for the original super profits tax and the subsequent calculation used for the newer agreement.



Yes, that's exactly as I recall their explanation also.

Christopher Pyne was questioned on TV today about their dodgy costings.
An example given by the interviewer was:  "How can you claim the dollar asset of the sale of Medibank Private, and at the same time include the income from this organisation?"  Mr Pyne was briefly flustered and then quickly moved to change the subject.


Pretty fair question if that's actually what the Libs did.
I find it hard to believe they would be so stupid as to do this in the first place.


----------



## Calliope (5 September 2010)

Julia said:


> Pretty fair question if that's actually what the Libs did.
> I find it hard to believe they would be so stupid as to do this in the first place.




Don't underestimate their ineptness. I can think of quite a few stupid things they have done. Probably the worst was not to realise that they had no chance of swinging the Independents.

Even blind Freddy could see it was a lost cause  Agreeing to their demands has now put them in a weaker position in opposition, and ensures Parliament runs its full term.

Gillard has outwitted Abbott at every turn.


----------



## wayneL (6 September 2010)

IFocus said:


> If either side get up expect 3 years the independents will not force an early election and *encumbered * will not go early.




Interesting malapropism there Ifocus. 

I think you mean _incumbent_.


----------



## sails (6 September 2010)

Not sure if this article has been posted previously, but it doesn't give much confidence for Treasury's maths skills:


If the big miners are right on mining tax revenue, Labor has dug itself into a financial hole



> THERE is a huge gap between what Labor expects its minerals resource rent tax to raise and what the big three miners expect to pay.
> 
> The new mining tax, according to Treasury, will raise $10.5 billion in its first two years of operation.   ...BHP, Rio Tinto and Xstrata.... don't believe it will cost them more than a few hundred million dollars extra each year.
> 
> That only adds up to around $1bn a year in total from them in contrast to the $5bn-$6bn a year extra predicted by Treasury and promised by Labor.




But then what's a few billion if labor is out on it's costings.  If the Coalition had made the same mistakes with their calculations as labor, they would have been hung and quartered. And this isn't the first time labor has got this mining tax muddled.


----------



## Logique (6 September 2010)

Speaks for itself. Neat summary of where they are at today.



> http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TopStories/2010/09/06/Oakeshott_prepared_to_compromise_509577.html
> Monday, September 06, 2010  » 08:47am
> 
> Independent MP Rob Oakeshott says he is prepared to compromise on which party to back if there is a tie....
> ...


----------



## noco (6 September 2010)

sails said:


> Not sure if this article has been posted previously, but it doesn't give much confidence for Treasury's maths skills:
> 
> 
> If the big miners are right on mining tax revenue, Labor has dug itself into a financial hole
> ...




Thanks for this post sails and the link on the mining tax.

This reinforces my previous post whereby treasury can't be trusted to be honest and acurate. Treasury was obviously instructed to discredit the coalitons economic credentials as much as possible to give Labor something to glout about the reported $11 billion black hole in the coalitions costing.
It was deliberately done to sway the independants.


----------



## Calliope (6 September 2010)

> The three men had a 'full spread' of political and policy views but were willing to put them aside in the nation's interest, Mr Oakeshott said.



Logique, 
These are three wise and unselfish men who are willing to put the interests of the nation ahead of what may be in their best interests. 

So when they plump for Labor it may be with heavy heart, but they don't mind being martyrs for a great cause, steering Australia toward a progressive society, where everybody cares for everybody else.


----------



## chrisalex (6 September 2010)

NOCOS' words "this will be a good election for Abbott to lose." Spot on
With the power brokers of the ALP, The Greens, The Independents, all this lot with their own agenda. I can see poor old Julia going grey rapidly. Cannot see this lasting 3 years, too many Captains.


----------



## Mofra (6 September 2010)

noco said:


> With the history of Wayne Swan and Treasury, it would not surprise me in the least if Treasury were instructed to discredit the coalitions costings if it were possible. There is some 'IFS and BUTS' about how or what model Treasury used to determine the outcome.



If the tin-foil brigade are correct (which I doubt) then surely this means Abbott should never govern this country whilst he is so unpopular with Treasury? 

How on Earth could such a toxic relationship be in the national interest?


----------



## Calliope (6 September 2010)

chrisalex said:


> NOCOS' words "this will be a good election for Abbott to lose." Spot on
> With the power brokers of the ALP, The Greens, The Independents, all this lot with their own agenda. I can see poor old Julia going grey rapidly. Cannot see this lasting 3 years, too many Captains.




The three independents are doing everything in their power to ensure it does last three years. Another election and their power base would disappear. That's why they keep harping about stability, and trying to change the rules to entrench Labor.

If Abbott signs up to Oakeshott's parliamentary reforms it would confirm my belief that he is not up to the job, and never will be.


----------



## Julia (6 September 2010)

sails said:


> But then what's a few billion if labor is out on it's costings.  If the Coalition had made the same mistakes with their calculations as labor, they would have been hung and quartered. And this isn't the first time labor has got this mining tax muddled.



And it isn't by any means the first time Treasury's projections have been hopelessly wrong.  viz the constant adjustments to surplus/deficit forecasts.



Calliope said:


> The three independents are doing everything in their power to ensure it does last three years. Another election and their power base would disappear. That's why they keep harping about stability, and trying to change the rules to entrench Labor.
> 
> .



The Independents are smart enough to realise any alliance with the coalition will mean the Nationals are out to discredit and dislodge them, on the basis that the Nats feel the Independents have taken seats which rightfully belong to the Nats.  The Independents are no different from any other politicians, and will have primarily in mind their own political well being.


----------



## noco (6 September 2010)

chrisalex said:


> NOCOS' words "this will be a good election for Abbott to lose." Spot on
> With the power brokers of the ALP, The Greens, The Independents, all this lot with their own agenda. I can see poor old Julia going grey rapidly. Cannot see this lasting 3 years, too many Captains.




With grey hair, that would be the new look Joolya ACT 3. Sure would be a change from the RED. Although the the RED depicts her political beliefs with her Green comrades.


----------



## noco (6 September 2010)

chrisalex said:


> NOCOS' words "this will be a good election for Abbott to lose." Spot on
> With the power brokers of the ALP, The Greens, The Independents, all this lot with their own agenda. I can see poor old Julia going grey rapidly. Cannot see this lasting 3 years, too many Captains.




chrisalex, I believe another 12 -18 months of Labor pains is worth the sacrifice of pleasure for the next 20 years.


----------



## IFocus (6 September 2010)

wayneL said:


> Interesting malapropism there Ifocus.
> 
> I think you mean _incumbent_.




Thanks Wayne thanks for helping out with my illiteracy


----------



## noco (6 September 2010)

Mofra said:


> If the tin-foil brigade are correct (which I doubt) then surely this means Abbott should never govern this country whilst he is so unpopular with Treasury?
> 
> How on Earth could such a toxic relationship be in the national interest?




No Mofra, you've got it wrong. Treasury and Ken Henry are very biased towards Labor and you will never convince me otherwise. It's wheels within wheels.


----------



## noco (6 September 2010)

Julia said:


> And it isn't by any means the first time Treasury's projections have been hopelessly wrong.  viz the constant adjustments to surplus/deficit forecasts.
> 
> 
> The Independents are smart enough to realise any alliance with the coalition will mean the Nationals are out to discredit and dislodge them, on the basis that the Nats feel the Independents have taken seats which rightfully belong to the Nats.  The Independents are no different from any other politicians, and will have primarily in mind their own political well being.




Julia, all three have a National back ground with a predominately National Party support. However, if they do support Labor, Katter and Windsor won't be too worried as I believe both will retire before the next election as both are  in their mid sixties. As for Oakeshott, I am not so sure. 

I may get shot down in flames for suggesting it, but it would not surprise me if Abbott has stitched up a deal for two to back Labor and one to back the Coalition, giving Gillard a one seat majority. He may be desirous of giving  Gillard enough 'rope to hang herself' whereby the Government will become disfunctional half way through it's term.

Who would want to govern under these circumstances?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 September 2010)

It looks to me as if Bob Katter needs a bex and a lie down.

The silly bugger looks just about done in, and he has a whole 3 years of this mullarkey ahead of him.

gg


----------



## gordon2007 (6 September 2010)

After watch Q&A tonight I'd have to seriously question the intelligence of anyone who voted for katter. We're in trouble.


----------



## sails (7 September 2010)

A new article from the Australian on Julia's black hole in the mining tax.  



> Independent mining experts last night agreed with the report, saying it backed their analysis that the MRRT faced a massive shortfall after Julia Gillard's decision to scrap the more onerous resource super-profits tax in July. The potential $8bn revenue shortfall over two years is bigger in annualised terms than the $11 billion "black hole" in Tony Abbott's costings over four years that was revealed last week. A spokesman for Wayne Swan said the government stood by its forecasts, which had been confirmed by Treasury.




Full article: *Julia Gillard mine tax 'to deliver $8bn less than forecast'*


----------



## Calliope (7 September 2010)

The gang of three has been holding the country to ransom for two weeks. For all their high sounding talk, they have only one objective. and that is to stop us from going back to the polls and making *our* decision.


----------



## sails (7 September 2010)

Interesting that the indies needed to know whether Tony Crook from WA Nats would support the Coalition to govern.

If they were planning to go with labor, I don't think Crook's decision would matter because labor have 74 seats (with Wilke and Bambi) so only takes two more.

Crook has made it clear he can't support labor/green alliance due to the mining tax, so at worst he could refuse to support either party.

So, if the indies are planning to support Coalition, they need to know Crook will also be there to make up 76.

Interesting thought - have I missed something?

Or maybe they are just being "seen" to cover all contingencies...


----------



## noco (7 September 2010)

sails said:


> A new article from the Australian on Julia's black hole in the mining tax.
> 
> 
> 
> Full article: *Julia Gillard mine tax 'to deliver $8bn less than forecast'*




Craig Emerson on AM Agenda (Sky News) this morning was asked the question on this blunder and he tried to cover it up by talking about the Coalitions costings. Thought David Spears was waek in not nailing Emerson to the wall.

Swan also stated he and Treasury were right and the miners were wrong. These Labor people are absolute hypocrites.


----------



## Agentm (7 September 2010)

libs have never been in it..

the inordinate amount of time its taken for the clowns to present a return to the gillard party is unreasonable

certainly been a strategic election with zero activity in the safe seats and with the swinging seats undecided, these catter & clowns now have a voice..

after seeing Q&A and seeing some scary catter rants, and seeing catter not interested in using the time last night to make a decision but to adore the lime light, its obvious where catter will go.. 

one things for sure, the house of reps will be a whole new interesting place from now on..

so long family first and on with the scatter catter show..


----------



## Mofra (7 September 2010)

noco said:


> No Mofra, you've got it wrong. Treasury and Ken Henry are very biased towards Labor and you will never convince me otherwise. It's wheels within wheels.



That's your opinion - and if correct, how can Abbott ever govern with such a toxic relationship?


----------



## Logique (7 September 2010)

I don't agree with all of Bob Katter's positions. But I have great sympathy for his philosophy of supporting rural Australians. 

What a breath of fresh air on ABC tv last night, most entertaining Q&A ever.

I think that the 5% tariff protection on agricultural produce (one of his 20 requests), deserves consideration. Yes it goes against classic economic theory, I know all that. But our trading partners have tariffs. And there's a lot of mystery food, containing god-knows-what in our supermarkets.

In comparison, tell me how these things conform to classsical economic theory:

- cancelling new coal-fired power stations, without a baseload alternative yet in place, such as nuclear (nice one NSW govt)

- a giant CPRS/ETS - so-called make the polluters pay = load of b/s - they'll just pass the cost on to consumers 

- super profits tax on miners (and the banks are next) - knobbling our best earners


----------



## noco (7 September 2010)

Mofra said:


> That's your opinion - and if correct, how can Abbott ever govern with such a toxic relationship?




Treasury are generally biased to the incumbents, so I guess if the coalition win government, Treasury will change their colours and appease the coalition.


----------



## Calliope (7 September 2010)

Logique said:


> I don't agree with all of Bob Katter's positions. But I have great sympathy for his philosophy of supporting rural Australians.




Unlike Labor and the Greens, he hates fruit bats. This may influence his vote and gain the applause of rural Australia.


----------



## Calliope (7 September 2010)

Being in government would pay better but I think being in opposition would be more fun.



> There is no misty-eyed rainbow coalition in the making here but one weakened bloc relying on a bunch of misfits, oddballs, rebels, megalomaniacs and ideologues to cling to power. Take your pick which is which.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ue-fence-jumpers/story-e6frg6zo-1225914993241


----------



## basilio (7 September 2010)

Calliope said:


> Being in government would pay better but I think being in opposition would be more fun.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ue-fence-jumpers/story-e6frg6zo-1225914993241





Very good cartoon!! Captures the moment perfectly.


----------



## gordon2007 (7 September 2010)

Logique said:


> I don't agree with all of Bob Katter's positions. But I have great sympathy for his philosophy of supporting rural Australians.




I can understand being passionate about a cause, but he went well and truely beyond that. His agression was disgusting. He had no reason to treat the audience members the way he did, pointing his fingers in a very aggressive threatening way. He reeks of 'my way or the highway'.


----------



## BrightGreenGlow (7 September 2010)

Interesting TLS was up 3c in early morning now down 4c. A big 7c swing towards a Liberal win.... Just the market moving around? Or, bit of insider knowledge? Or, the market gambling the Libs will win?


----------



## trainspotter (7 September 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> I can understand being passionate about a cause, but he went well and truely beyond that. His agression was disgusting. He had no reason to treat the audience members the way he did, pointing his fingers in a very aggressive threatening way. He reeks of 'my way or the highway'.




Frightening stuff .... and to think he is going to have the balance of power.

Time to renew the passport and head to the airport me thinks.


----------



## gordon2007 (7 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Time to renew the passport and head to the airport me thinks.




Not until after I send you an email later today.


----------



## BrightGreenGlow (7 September 2010)

Katter is backing the libs and the news suggests the other 2 will go with the ALP..... 

This will be the worst government term ever. Nothing will get done but at least it will be all blamed on the gimmick that is known as the ALP.


----------



## Calliope (7 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Frightening stuff .... and to think he is going to have the balance of power.




Not any more. He has opted for the Coalition.


----------



## trainspotter (7 September 2010)

Just heard the news. Read all about it here.

http://www.news.com.au/features/fed...ny-abbott-for-pm/story-fn5tas5k-1225915307458

Family in QLD advised me that if Katter went to the dark side he was told by his electorate not to come back home.

Leaves 45 minutes to go before the dynamic duo advise us mug punters if they are with us or agin us.


----------



## Julia (7 September 2010)

sails said:


> Interesting that the indies needed to know whether Tony Crook from WA Nats would support the Coalition to govern.
> 
> If they were planning to go with labor, I don't think Crook's decision would matter because labor have 74 seats (with Wilke and Bambi) so only takes two more.
> 
> ...



I was a bit puzzled about this too, Sails.   If they were genuinely making up their minds on policy and principles, then what Mr Crook is going to do shouldn't matter.   So if it does, then it seems they're making a unity stand a higher priority than their genuine belief about which policies are better for Australia.

Dunno.  I'm getting pretty sick of the whole nonsensical carry-on.  When the decision is finally made, the three independents will probably suffer from 'irrelevance syndrome' and need counselling.


----------



## sails (7 September 2010)

Julia said:


> I was a bit puzzled about this too, Sails.   If they were genuinely making up their minds on policy and principles, then what Mr Crook is going to do shouldn't matter.   So if it does, then it seems they're making a unity stand a higher priority than their genuine belief about which policies are better for Australia.
> 
> Dunno.  I'm getting pretty sick of the whole nonsensical carry-on.  When the decision is finally made, the three independents will probably suffer from 'irrelevance syndrome' and need counselling.




Yes, it has become very tiring.  Although I doubt the independents will suffer from 'irrelevance syndrome' as every whim will probably have to be courted to ensure they stick with the side they have chosen.

No matter who wins here, they certainly don't have a mandate.  It's how Australia voted but doubtful this situation was intended.

The ABC election page states Wilke has a press conference at 4pm. http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/.  One wonders what surprises he has in store or perhaps he doesn't want to be out performed by the other three...lol


----------



## trainspotter (7 September 2010)

If Katter has split from the Three Amigos pact and not going to have a joint press conference does anyone read into this that Oakeshott and Windsor are going to the RED camp ----------------> Or is it just my cynical mind working overtime??


----------



## Bushman (7 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> If Katter has split from the Three Amigos pact and not going to have a joint press conference does anyone read into this that Oakeshott and Windsor are going to the RED camp ----------------> Or is it just my cynical mind working overtime??




Windsor has gone to Labour. Presumbaly Oakenshot too. 

Gillard looks like she is the top negotiator.


----------



## Mofra (7 September 2010)

It's all in the scrawlings on the manila folder

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-el...led-on-folder-20100907-14ywr.html?autostart=1


----------



## trainspotter (7 September 2010)

Oakeshott :- Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, *National Broadband Network,* Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, *Aboriginal reconcilliation*, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, *Climate Change Issue,* Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, *Non equity between city and country,* Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, *Education*, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, *Stability and Outcomes, *Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, 

*LABOUR IS THE WINNER*


----------



## trainspotter (7 September 2010)

Rightio all you pinko commo bleeding heats and artists ... get on the bandwagon and gloat for all it is worth !

Well done to you !! Congratulations to the Red corner on a well fought out victory. I dips me lid to youse all.


----------



## wayneL (7 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Oakeshott :- Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, *National Broadband Network,* Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, *Aboriginal reconcilliation*, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, *Climate Change Issue,* Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, *Non equity between city and country,* Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, *Education*, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, *Stability and Outcomes, *Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble, Dribble,




The Kiwis on the radio couldn't believe the waffle... said thank Christ there is a time limit in parliament. LOL


----------



## Some Dude (7 September 2010)

wayneL said:


> The Kiwis on the radio couldn't believe the waffle... said thank Christ there is a time limit in parliament. LOL




Ha! My irony meter exploded!  Brilliant observation.


----------



## Knobby22 (7 September 2010)

Parliament just got interesting.

Looking forward to some new thinking.


----------



## Calliope (7 September 2010)

I wonder what job Gillard offered Oakeshott? He said he had to discuss it with his wife and kids.


----------



## moXJO (7 September 2010)

Roll on gravy train:bananasmi


----------



## sails (7 September 2010)

Listening to them live, I think it was Windsor who said that one of the reasons for selecting labor is because they were more likely to avoid another election for three years.  When asked why he thought the Coalition wouldn't last three years, he explained they would probably look for an excuse for another election before three years and most likely win it.

So technically, these two have backed the weakest side and the one potentially less preferred by Aussie voters.  Of course their choice gives the indies longer with some power. 

I doubt it will be an easy ride for any minority government with these two making waves.  Interesting times ahead...


----------



## wayneL (7 September 2010)

Does Sir John Kerr have a son?

If so, we need him.


----------



## trainspotter (7 September 2010)

wayneL said:


> Does Sir John Kerr have a son?
> 
> If so, we need him.




His name is Wayne. No offence intended. 

Funny how Oakeshott asked his 4 & 6 year old kids what he shoud do? Maybe we should elect them instead ??


----------



## wayneL (7 September 2010)

trainspotter said:


> His name is Wayne. No offence intended.
> 
> Funny how Oakeshott asked his 4 & 6 year old kids what he shoud do? Maybe we should elect them instead ??




Hah!

As long as he fronts up when the time is right... and it will save Labor having to think up witty pejoratives. :


----------



## trainspotter (7 September 2010)

wayneL said:


> Hah!
> 
> As long as he fronts up when the time is right... and it will save Labor having to think up witty pejoritives. :




LOL .. I think his brother Joe has a better chance at GG. At least the name would be more appropriate. 

Long live Queen Julia and all who place their snouts firmly in her troughs. I am off to get my Guvmint handouts. :

Missed an "a" in the spelling of pejoratives. Picky picky picky I know !!


----------



## Calliope (7 September 2010)

I wonder if Windsor and Oakeshott will get the same photo op courtesy Julia extended to Bob Brown to do one with her standing up.


----------



## MACCA350 (7 September 2010)

words not fit for public display....the whole thing is a farce, being held to ransom and by 4 people, wake me up in 3 years


----------



## noco (7 September 2010)

What a great outcome for election 2010. 

Sit back folks and watch the games begin.


----------



## IFocus (7 September 2010)

Finally a result, Gillard will be a fine Prime Minister


----------



## Duckman#72 (7 September 2010)

IFocus said:


> Gillard will be a fine Prime Minister




Hopefully she will perform much better as Prime Minister this time than she was last time.

She certainly speaks more spin than Rudd - but she has met her match in Oakshott.

Duckman


----------



## noco (7 September 2010)

MACCA350 said:


> words not fit for public display....the whole thing is a farce, being held to ransom and by 4 people, wake me up in 3 years




How about 12 months Macca? Tony Abbott should thank his lucky stars that Joolya got the job.


----------



## moXJO (7 September 2010)

Does this mean Gillard still has not been voted in by the Australian people?

Will be interesting to see this govt in action


----------



## sails (7 September 2010)

MACCA350 said:


> words not fit for public display....the whole thing is a farce, being held to ransom and by 4 people, wake me up in 3 years




Don't worry Macca, hopefully you might not have to sleep that long. Will be interesting to see how the bits and pieces forming the government will work and how many weeks / months it will last.

I still think it is pretty bad that one of the main reasons they backed labor is because they have the most to lose with an early election and so the more likely to keep their fragile hotch potch together until such time that they have to go to an election.  They call this "stability".



> TONY Abbott would be more likely to win if another election was held soon, one of the key Independents has said.




Excerpt above from an article from news.com.au:
Coalition would win new election, says Tony Windsor


----------



## explod (7 September 2010)

IFocus said:


> Finally a result, Gillard will be a fine Prime Minister




Agree, and she is.    Was impeccable tonight on the 7.30 report.  Inclusive after the style of Nelson Mandella IMHV. 

The dawning today of a new, refreshing period of more representative and fairer politics.  How she expresses it says it all.

Lets hope it is maintained.


----------



## Julia (7 September 2010)

Calliope said:


> I wonder what job Gillard offered Oakeshott? He said he had to discuss it with his wife and kids.



I gather something along the lines of "Minister for Regional Development".
Given Mr Oakeshott's verbosity, he's going to have some difficulty sticking to his own guidelines for brevity in the House.



sails said:


> So technically, these two have backed the weakest side and the one potentially less preferred by Aussie voters.



Yes, and that's the ultimate irony, isn't it.  i.e.that the Coalition won both the primary and 2PP vote.



> Of course their choice gives the indies longer with some power.



Exactly so, and can anyone doubt that this was the basis for their decision, along with the pork they managed to get promised for their electorate barrels.



Calliope said:


> I wonder if Windsor and Oakeshott will get the same photo op courtesy Julia extended to Bob Brown to do one with her standing up.



You bet they will.  Along with anything else their hearts may desire.



IFocus said:


> Finally a result, Gillard will be a fine Prime Minister



Well, IFocus, let's genuinely hope she has learned from the past mistakes.
She's smart, no question, and is a top negotiator.  Whether she can depart from her obsessive spin and replace it with a genuine desire to work in Australia's best interests is another story.  We will see.

I'd give her every bit as much chance as I'd have given Tony Abbott.
The circumstances all round are against either of them being successful.



explod said:


> Agree, and she is.    Was impeccable tonight on the 7.30 report.  Inclusive after the style of Nelson Mandella IMHV.



You're comparing her to Nelson Mandala???  Get a grip, Explod!  You can't possibly be serious.


----------



## -Bevo- (7 September 2010)

Well looks like we will see a price on carbon at some stage going by the interviews with no impact on climate just another tax to help drive living costs up, what happens with boats cant see any solution there either, budget in surplus by 2013 no don't think so, this will probably turn into a bigger circus at some stage, Tony Windsor I can put up with Rob Oakeshott the biggest tosser I seen don't get me started on the Greens totally scary what ideas they will throw around especially come middle of next year and to think Wayne Swan a man with a IQ in single digits stays as Treasurer for another 3 years is a complete joke.


----------



## basilio (7 September 2010)

I think one of the great results of this election could be excellent reforms of the parliament. A truly independent speaker ; real questions and real answers in question time ; parliamentary committees that attempt to construct good legislation. These are worthwhile advances on what has been a bastardised political process.

The fly in the ointment is that by and large neither Labour nor the Coalition really want such reforms. And I suspect the  Coalition will be doing all in it's power to destroy this government before it gets a chance to make any sort of positive impact and gains public support.  *And before these reforms actually get a chance to improve the quality of government.*

In the event of  a fresh election it will be interesting to see which parties  continue to support the reforms - and if they eventually do.

_______________________________________________________
_
I'm a politician. Don't tell me what to do. Make me do it !_


----------



## pixel (8 September 2010)

to finish this topic off, I've come up with a - predictable, some say - limerick:

Our new Prime Minister, Ms Julia,
Implored indies "Please let me rule ya!
I'll swear by your lives,
There won't be no knives
Allowed in our Chambers to cool ya!"


----------



## Logique (8 September 2010)

Well the white Lab-Coat-of-Victory came out, and we are to be the guinea pigs in the great national experiment.

17 days for the independents to dawdle to a decision. Which for all the open-mindedness and depth of analysis displayed, might have been reached over a coffee on day 2.  'Laurel and Hardy', the artists formerly known as the 'Two Amigos', finally appeared, and we endured a meandering and discursive 2000 words to make a simple two paragraph announcement. A sign of things to come in this parliament.

Katter at least retains my respect, if not total concurrence on policy. 

So it's to be 3 more years of wealth re-distribution more than it's creation, of the public sector more than the private. And electricity prices on potential breakout alert. The golden children of middle-class welfare, upon whom government handouts will continue rain like confetti, will of course be cocooned from the slightest inconvenience.

So congratulations to the Gillard govt, now get on with governing. Especially let's see dental services added to Medicare, or the Greens 'Denticare'. Something at least that might be salvaged.

Thanks to all posters on this thread, we didn't always agree, but it's been great fun. And again Joe Blow, thanks for your forbearance.


----------



## explod (8 September 2010)

> You're comparing her to Nelson Mandala??? Get a grip, Explod! You can't possibly be serious.




Have you studied the backgrounds of Mandella and Gillard Julia ?

The latter has modelled her whole approach on the "consensus of the group" principal as developed by Mandella from his early years.

And what should I get a grip of?       Sometimes I do not like the way you express things.   Have always been considerate towards you Julia.

Had a huge tree fall over our place and crushed our car with other associated damage over the weekend so have been a bit preoccupied.  As time permits I intend to start a thread called "Gobbledegook" so that we may disseminate discussions from a few days back.


----------



## nulla nulla (8 September 2010)

Move along, nothing to see here. Over and dusted. The coalition of Labour, Green and Independants outnumbered the coalition of Liberal and National Party. Game over 76 to 74. 
Time to start training for the next game?


----------



## sails (8 September 2010)

moXJO said:


> Does this mean Gillard still has not been voted in by the Australian people?
> 
> Will be interesting to see this govt in action




IMO definitely not voted in by the Australian people- she is ony there by the votes of three independents and one green.

And with the deciding two  independents intentionally backing the weakest side who are afraid of an early election doesn't inspire confidence.


----------



## Julia (8 September 2010)

explod said:


> Have you studied the backgrounds of Mandella and Gillard Julia ?



Can't think of two people whose backgrounds have been much more dissimilar, really.



> And what should I get a grip of?       Sometimes I do not like the way you express things.   Have always been considerate towards you Julia.



Fair enough, explod.  Sorry.  I should have contained my exasperation.
It just seemed a fairly ridiculous comparison to me, but I don't see Ms Gillard in the same rosy light that you do.  You're quite entitled to think she is wonderful if you wish.  In fact, I hope for the sake of the nation you're at least a bit correct.



> Had a huge tree fall over our place and crushed our car with other associated damage over the weekend so have been a bit preoccupied.



I'm really sorry to hear that, explod.  Very upsetting.  Hope the insurance company is being helpful, the car replaced, and the other damage repaired rapidly.


----------



## gordon2007 (8 September 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Move along, nothing to see here. Over and dusted. The coalition of Labour, Green and Independants outnumbered the coalition of Liberal and National Party. Game over 76 to 74.
> Time to start training for the next game?




My sentiments exactly. Move on, what's done is done.


----------



## explod (8 September 2010)

Julia said:


> Can't think of two people whose backgrounds have been much more dissimilar, really.
> 
> 
> Fair enough, explod.  Sorry.  I should have contained my exasperation.
> It just seemed a fairly ridiculous comparison to me, but I don't see Ms Gillard in the same rosy light that you do.  You're quite entitled to think she is wonderful if you wish.  In fact, I hope for the sake of the nation you're at least a bit correct.




On the contrary, I was a bit harsh on you too in retrospect.  We are all visiting very uncertain times at the moment and on edge.  Gillard grew up as a girl in may area of the Western Suburbs of Melbourne.  I do by some associations have a very good idea of her backgound and where she is coming from.  I also realise that its hard to get blinkers off when so much has occurred in such a short time.

I am not a full Gillard fan by the way, I am a Green.  However I can attest that Gillard is very honest, forthright and keeps her word and that my firends is one of the reasons she had to put her hand up (when approached and pressed by her peers in the ALP) to take on Krudd.

However only time will tell on all counts.


----------



## gordon2007 (8 September 2010)

explod said:


> Gillard grew up as a girl in may area of the Western Suburbs of Melbourne.  I do by some associations have a very good idea of her backgound and where she is coming from.




HUH 

I'm under the impression she was born in wales and migrated to south australia. Went to mitcham school then unley high school. Started uni in adelaided then went finished in melbourne?


----------



## Mofra (8 September 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> I'm under the impression she was born in wales and migrated to south australia. Went to mitcham school then unley high school. Started uni in adelaided then went finished in melbourne?



That sounds right _and_ explains the accent.


----------



## Mofra (8 September 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> She certainly speaks more spin than Rudd - but she has met her match in Oakshott.



She speaks in about as much spin as the majority of them do - sadly, I think Oakshott's legacy will be his 16 minute speech which isn't a true reflection of him.

Normally, he is actually one of the fewer straight talking politicians - a position shared almost solely by those not beholden to either of the major parties.


----------



## Julia (8 September 2010)

moXJO said:


> Does this mean Gillard still has not been voted in by the Australian people?



Effectively, yes.  The Coalition received the highest primary vote and the highest 2PP, so it's pretty hard to see anyone able to claim the wishes of the people have been respected.



-Bevo- said:


> Well looks like we will see a price on carbon at some stage going by the interviews with no impact on climate just another tax to help drive living costs up, what happens with boats cant see any solution there either, budget in surplus by 2013 no don't think so, this will probably turn into a bigger circus at some stage, Tony Windsor I can put up with Rob Oakeshott the biggest tosser I seen don't get me started on the Greens totally scary what ideas they will throw around especially come middle of next year and to think Wayne Swan a man with a IQ in single digits stays as Treasurer for another 3 years is a complete joke.



Agree in particular about Wayne Swan, though the comment about his IQ might be a bit of an exaggeration.  I have no idea how he can remain as Deputy PM or Treasurer.  Every time he's interviewed, his responses are quasi hysterical, repetitive spin, giving little heed to the actual question asked.
I'd prefer to see Chris Bowen as Treasurer.  He has credibility.
Would there be any support for Swan to be demoted and even Kevin Rudd replacing him?




Logique said:


> 17 days for the independents to dawdle to a decision. Which for all the open-mindedness and depth of analysis displayed, might have been reached over a coffee on day 2.



I agree.  I don't believe they didn't have their minds made up at the outset, but felt they had to go through the motions of appearing to consider both sides, plus, of course, the negotiation process has allowed them to ramp up what they get for their own electorates.  I suspect their sense of triumph may be short lived.



> So it's to be 3 more years of wealth re-distribution more than it's creation, of the public sector more than the private. And electricity prices on potential breakout alert. The golden children of middle-class welfare, upon whom government handouts will continue rain like confetti, will of course be cocooned from the slightest inconvenience.



That's about right, too.


----------



## namrog (8 September 2010)

Julia said:


> Effectively, yes.  The Coalition received the highest primary vote and the highest 2PP, so it's pretty hard to see anyone able to claim the wishes of the people have been respected.




Such was the closeness of the election result, that had the independents gone the other way, it could also be argued that the wishes of the people had not been respected...but this is the system we've got, maybe it needs to be changed...

This other thing about 2PP is a bit of a grey area for mine, because it isn't really between 2 partys, its between labor and a coalition of 2 seperate parties, libs and nationals.... 

So in reality labor received the highest primary vote, and the highest 3PP............yeah I know.......!!


----------



## Timmy (8 September 2010)

Julia said:


> The Coalition received the ... highest 2PP,




I have queried this assertion of yours on another thread too Julia.

The 2PP calculation is not yet complete, until it is we will not know which side received the highest 2PP.

The latest update on the AEC website is (my bolding to highlight the info relevant to the 2PP):


> *  Across Australia 14,088,260 electors enrolled to vote.
> * Currently 92.90% of the primary vote has been counted.
> * *The two party preferred count is 88.27% complete.*
> * The election results on this website were last updated at 8/09/2010 2:12:43 PM.
> ...




http://vtr.aec.gov.au/Default.htm


----------



## Knobby22 (8 September 2010)

Everyone is taliking about Labor being number one for middle class welfare.

Tony Abbotts child support plan where the more you earn the more you get doesn't qualify as middle class welfare?? 
And Howard imtroduced heaps of middle class welfare. They took it with one hand and gave it out as election sweeteners.


----------



## explod (8 September 2010)

Timmy said:


> I have queried this assertion of yours on another thread too Julia.
> 
> The 2PP calculation is not yet complete, until it is we will not know which side received the highest 2PP.
> 
> ...




And aside from that, the Labor Government is now in a coalition.  Gillard's position is as legitimate as Howard's was when he was part of a coalition with the Nationals.

We can all adjust our speak and sentences to suit our wishes but the reality is, the Libs and Nats have lost this one as at this time.  Next week or in a month it could be a different story, when parliament gets cracking again it is going to be chaos and we may have to revamp this thread for another count down; IMVHO


----------



## -Bevo- (8 September 2010)

Julia said:


> Would there be any support for Swan to be demoted and even Kevin Rudd replacing him?




Bit like replacing one Lemon with another, after the election when in fighting began, I remember reading that alot of Labor insiders are about as happy with Swan as they were with Rudd, trouble is wouldn't look good if Labors shadow men went and knifed both PM and his Deputy.


----------



## wayneL (8 September 2010)

Knobby22 said:


> Everyone is taliking about Labor being number one for middle class welfare.
> 
> Tony Abbotts child support plan where the more you earn the more you get doesn't qualify as middle class welfare??
> And Howard imtroduced heaps of middle class welfare. They took it with one hand and gave it out as election sweeteners.




Agree, if you remember, wayneL was most irritated with the Howard gu'mint on this point (excuse  the third person self reference). This type of electoral bribery must be eradicated from politics _summum bonum_ IMO.


----------



## wayneL (8 September 2010)

explod said:


> And aside from that, the Labor Government is now in a coalition.  Gillard's position is as legitimate as Howard's was when he was part of a coalition with the Nationals.




Is this an official "coalition" though? In effect it is, but there is no binding ideology which might stay the distance like the Lib/Nat coalition.

This is coalition by pork barrel (i.e. bribery).


----------



## nulla nulla (8 September 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> HUH
> 
> I'm under the impression she was born in wales and migrated to south australia. Went to mitcham school then unley high school. Started uni in adelaided then went finished in melbourne?




Has she taken Australian Citizenship yet or does she travel on a United Kingdom Passport?


----------



## nioka (8 September 2010)

nulla nulla said:


> Has she taken Australian Citizenship yet or does she travel on a United Kingdom Passport?




During a previous election campaign I remember a candidate was disqualified because they were not an Australian citizen. She was British and had lived here most of her life. So I guess the answer is yes. Abbott would not have missed something like that.


----------



## Julia (8 September 2010)

namrog said:


> Such was the closeness of the election result, that had the independents gone the other way, it could also be argued that the wishes of the people had not been respected...but this is the system we've got, maybe it needs to be changed...



I'd prefer to see a simple first past the post system.



Timmy said:


> I have queried this assertion of yours on another thread too Julia.
> 
> The 2PP calculation is not yet complete, until it is we will not know which side received the highest 2PP.
> 
> ...



OK, Timmy.  Whatever you say.  I was going by unchallenged comments by all involved politicians today, plus the most recent comments by Antony Green, the ABC's political analyst which were that it was most unlikely Labor would come out on top in the 2PP.

If Labor thought there was still some doubt about the outcome of the 2PP, why wouldn't they have challenged this amongst the multiple references to it by the Coalition today?

Still, obviously if the vote is not completely counted, you are justified in chastising me for inaccuracy.  


Do you consider the final result reflects the 'will of the people'?
Do you believe the independents acted in the best interests of the nation, or in primarily self interest?
Because that's essentially what we're discussing.


Knobby22 said:


> Everyone is taliking about Labor being number one for middle class welfare.
> 
> Tony Abbotts child support plan where the more you earn the more you get doesn't qualify as middle class welfare??
> And Howard imtroduced heaps of middle class welfare. They took it with one hand and gave it out as election sweeteners.



Not to mention the extraordinary parental leave scheme proposed in this campaign, for which business was to be levied.


----------



## trainspotter (8 September 2010)

40.99 per cent LABOR
50.01 COALITION

(numbers are recognised as accurate by mainstream media) Not neccesarily by the AEC who have given up in disgust at the end of the day. LOL

Hmmmmmmmmmmm .... first past the post indeed !


----------



## Timmy (8 September 2010)

Julia said:


> Still, obviously if the vote is not completely counted, you are justified in chastising me for inaccuracy.




No chastising, just the facts.  Like you say this particular distortion of the facts has gone unchallenged and you would not be alone in believing it.  I was lucky I stumbled across a discussion of it today and subsequently did the investigation myself, otherwise I might have just accepted it too.

I find it heartening that misinformation like this can be corrected on ASF.


----------



## trainspotter (8 September 2010)

I am currently watching "Carnivale" on Foxtel and the bearded lady said "Sometimes you just don't have to believe in management" .. sounded strange coming from a "beard" LOLOL


----------



## Timmy (8 September 2010)

Julia said:


> comments by Antony Green, the ABC's political analyst which were that it was most unlikely Labor would come out on top in the 2PP.




Here is an interesting tidbit from Antony Green:



> *In 1998 the Howard Coalition government was re-elected in majority with only 49.0% of the 2-party preferred vote. *



Source: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/08/who-won-the-national-2-party-preferred-vote.html  (I urge anyone with an unbiased interest in the 2PP to read this whole article from Antony Green.  You might find something to post to offset my carefully selected quote).


----------



## namrog (8 September 2010)

On the 2PP issue.

In the 1998 election , Beazleys labor ended up with 50.98 % of the votes on a 2pp basis, while Howards coalition achieved 49.02%. 

Despite this , the coalition won with many seats to spare, can't remember exactly, around 7 or 8 maybe more..  what this shows is that the two party preffered percentages don't really matter that much...

Just got in before me, we must be thinking alike Timmy


----------



## Whiskers (9 September 2010)

namrog said:


> On the 2PP issue.
> 
> In the 1998 election , Beazleys labor ended up with 50.98 % of the votes on a 2pp basis, while Howards coalition achieved 49.02%.
> 
> ...




I think the two party preferred percentage did matter to Howard, it's just that he and Robb threw more resources at winable seats and issues, or rather didn't waste too much time and resources on unwinable seats and issues... except for the last one, that he got badly wrong.

Things like the Baby Bonus and starting off the Tax Cuts adgenda gave Howard an edge. Whereas I think Abbott, while beating the Economic Management  drum quite effectively, didn't effectively counter the Labor fear of the return to WorkChoices. Because that issue trancends and adversely affected such a wide cross section of the voting public, he really needed to counter the ALP fear, probably by spelling out early in the campaign exactly what changes he was considering, rather than leaving people guessing how little ot lots he was considering. That may well have been the differance for enough swinging voters to cost him government.


----------



## sails (9 September 2010)

namrog said:


> ....
> Despite this , *the coalition won with many seats to spare,* can't remember exactly, around 7 or 8 maybe more..  what this shows is that the two party preffered percentages don't really matter that much...




I think the fact that the coalition won with seats to spare is where the difference lies.

In this current situation when there was no clear seat majority on either side, of course people are going to look at which party had the highest number of votes.

Very different to Howard's win with a low 2PP.


----------



## explod (9 September 2010)

wayneL said:


> Is this an official "coalition" though? In effect it is, but there is no binding ideology which might stay the distance like the Lib/Nat coalition.
> 
> This is coalition by pork barrel (i.e. bribery).




A new order has to start somewhere.   "Bribery" to some, negotiation to others;

or readjustment.   

Still tip fresh election soon.


----------



## sails (9 September 2010)

According to this article it looks like Windsor doesn't use a computer so it begs the question how much he really understands the NBN and it's dubious costings:

Full Article: *Broadband champion Tony Windsor admits he can't use a personal computer*


----------



## todster (9 September 2010)

sails said:


> According to this article it looks like Windsor doesn't use a computer so it begs the question how much he really understands the NBN and it's dubious costings:
> 
> Full Article: *Broadband champion Tony Windsor admits he can't use a personal computer*




If he sided with Abbott he still wouldn't be able to use one.


----------



## Mofra (9 September 2010)

todster said:


> If he sided with Abbott he still wouldn't be able to use one.



Swish! 

In fairness to Windsor, it's not like a medical degree is a prerequisite for Health Minister.


----------



## IFocus (9 September 2010)

Interesting the election was close

Labor and the coalition had the same opportunity to form Government with endorsement from the three independents.

Not just any three independents but men who have been in the system for some time. 

So why couldn't they trust Tony?


----------



## sails (9 September 2010)

IFocus said:


> Interesting the election was close
> 
> Labor and the coalition had the same opportunity to form Government with endorsement from the three independents.
> 
> ...




Didn't you read the news, IFocus? It appears that one of the main reasons they chose labor because they are less likely to want another election soon.  When Windsor was asked by the press why that was so, he explained that the Coalition were more likely to win another election in their own right. The journo's were quite stunned that they had chosen the side they thought would be least wanted by voters.

 I did post the article link somewhere at ASF in the last couple of days and heard it for myself on the televised press conference.

It didn't appear to be an issue of trust with Tony.  In fact, both Windsor and Oakeshott commented that they found both leaders had been very good with them.


----------



## noco (9 September 2010)

IFocus said:


> Interesting the election was close
> 
> Labor and the coalition had the same opportunity to form Government with endorsement from the three independents.
> 
> ...




Who said they could not trust Tony?

How do you know Tony did not conspire with the indies to give Gillard a Government which is bound to become disfunctional? I think you will find Tony has outsmarted Joolya in the long run.

A comment was made recently, whoever won the 2010 election will not win the next whenever.


----------



## trainspotter (9 September 2010)

I went to a BULL SALE in Gin Gin once. This big heap of long legged bull came out for all to see. Massive horns and BIG testicles. The bidding went wild. About $270 a kilo this bull went for. This thing weighed about 500 kilos BTW.

Buyer was happy with his purchase. Walked the bull into the float. Damn thing tripped over and broke it's leg. Very expensive steak we have just bought.

Sound familiar??? Anybody ???


----------



## IFocus (18 September 2010)

Labor wins the two party preferred vote 50.1 to 49.9

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...wins_the_two_party_preferred_vote_501_to_499/


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 September 2010)

IFocus said:


> Labor wins the two party preferred vote 50.1 to 49.9
> 
> http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...wins_the_two_party_preferred_vote_501_to_499/




Its all about democracy.

Labor won. Good on them.

They are welcome to lead this rabble of a parliament. 

That guy Oakeshott is a complete tosser. He wouldn't last 5 minutes in the Ross Island Hotel in Townsville.

gg


----------



## So_Cynical (18 September 2010)

IFocus said:


> Labor wins the two party preferred vote 50.1 to 49.9
> 
> http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...wins_the_two_party_preferred_vote_501_to_499/






Garpal Gumnut said:


> My contacts in the ALP Right in NSW tell me that the Federal Election is lost for them, and that Tony Abbott will be Prime Minister in two days time.
> 
> gg




Came oh so close GG...but as i said all along "the smart money was always on Labor " as was always reflected in the betting markets....and we all know, or at least should know that the market is never wrong.


----------



## sails (18 September 2010)

No surprises here...

from the SMH: *All bets are off, says PM*



> KEY government promises made before the election no longer necessarily apply because of the ''new environment'' created by the hung parliament, Julia Gillard says


----------

