# Federal Labor Party discussion



## Joe Blow (20 February 2013)

In an attempt to stop endless new threads being started about various single issues relating to Australia's political parties, I have decided to start a few threads that are intended for the general discussion of each party. There will also be a thread started for the discussion of all minor political parties.

Please note that all previous threads will be retained and may be used for discussion if you feel that they are more appropriate. However, any new threads in which the topic is about an issue relating to one of Australia's political parties will probably be merged into one of these new threads.

If you feel that a topic about a particular political party is deserving of its own thread then please PM me and present your case. 

All peripheral political issues, such as elections, inquiries, reports or anything else that does not relate specifically to one political party, may have a new thread started about it. 

I will be copying this introduction into the first post of each of the new threads so it can be used as a point of reference. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

This thread is for the discussion of the Federal Australian Labor Party (ALP).


----------



## sptrawler (20 February 2013)

*Labor must be on the nose*

The warning signs must be really flashing, Ross Gittins isn't talking up Labor, obviously the editor has told him to pull his head in.lol

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...d-from-rising-crime-costs-20130219-2epdq.html

This on top of an unussual amount of articles critical of the government, of late. 
Shows a major step change in reporting.IMO


----------



## drsmith (27 February 2013)

*Re: Labor must be on the nose*

Another monument to the pre-GFC resources boom and to Labor waste, this time in South Australia.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...a-very-high-road/story-e6frgczx-1226585441751


----------



## medicowallet (27 February 2013)

*Re: Labor must be on the nose*

Even this thread shows more signs of life than the labor party... what, with a couple of posts per week

MW


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 March 2013)

*ALP Legislates on Farting*

I have often wondered how ridiculous the green movement could stoop, but the ALP have outvented them in quids.

From the Australian.



> AUSTRALIA'S 8500 dairy farmers may soon be receiving cheques from the government for making their cows burp and fart less.
> 
> Under the $700 million-plus national Carbon Farming Initiative, farmers will be encouraged to feed fats and oils such as canola meal and brewers' grain waste to their 1.7 million milking cows for three months to supplement summer grass, reducing the amount of methane gas each cow emits by 20 per cent.
> 
> Digestive emissions from livestock cause more than two-thirds (68 per cent) of the total greenhouse gases created by agriculture, which overall contributes 20 per cent of Australia's harmful emissions.




The Gumnut clan occasionally remonstrate about farting uncles and cousins, perhaps the ALP could set up a Fart Transfer Compensation Scheme for humans.

I would be happy to set up a brokerage, for a fee, to transfer Fart Credits between the Government and the Guilty.

gg


----------



## drsmith (20 March 2013)

*Re: ALP Legislates on Farting*

Can we, the humble taxpayer, get some of that largess for eating where the burgers are better ?

EDIT: I don't think the mods are too keen on new political threads.


----------



## fatmango (20 March 2013)

*Re: ALP Legislates on Farting*

Can't complain about trying to reduce methane emissions, but I concerned about how such emissions are measured. Campbell Newman would not allow it, unless they were NP members of Parliament, but do we have bureaucrats visiting farms with methane measuring devices. Are public servants sitting behind our bovine friends waiting for farts to measure?


----------



## drsmith (20 March 2013)

*Re: ALP Legislates on Farting*



fatmango said:


> Can't complain about trying to reduce methane emissions, but I concerned about how such emissions are measured.



Send all the cows to Tasmania.

If Bob Brown can still breathe, it's a success.


----------



## drsmith (28 June 2013)

Alannah MacTiernan's second try at federal politics.



> Former State Government Minister Alannah MacTiernan has emerged as the frontrunner to replace Stephen Smith as Labor's candidate for the federal seat of Perth.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-...-for-federal-seat-of-perth/4788722?section=wa

She would add some quality to federal Labor's ranks.


----------



## bellenuit (28 June 2013)

drsmith said:


> Alannah MacTiernan's second try at federal politics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




She is a good performer for sure. One of the few Labor politicians I hold any respect for.


----------



## MrBurns (28 June 2013)

Had a good old laugh when Rudd said he wouldn't tolerate any criticism of Julia Gillard.

Please will someone do something I think I'm going mad


----------



## sptrawler (29 June 2013)

*Rudd Mk2 Government*

Uncle psycho, is back, talking up a storm as usual. How long before people tire of the pizz and wind?
Even the Chinese were sick of him last time and he spoke their language.

My guess two weeks.

Captain FW is back in charge.lol


----------



## sptrawler (30 June 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*

Apparently he is having trouble filling the cabinet with ministers.lol

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/combet-to-exit-federal-politics-20130629-2p3ps.html

Team Rudd it just gets better.


----------



## noco (30 June 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*

Yahoo7 poll has a slight increase for Rudd.

"DO YOU BELIEVE RUDD HAS CHANGED"?

NO.........61%...........YES.........39%


----------



## springhill (30 June 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*



sptrawler said:


> Apparently he is having trouble filling the cabinet with ministers.lol
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/combet-to-exit-federal-politics-20130629-2p3ps.html
> 
> Team Rudd it just gets better.




You would think that if Combet was *SOOOOO* convinced and passionate about 'climate change' that he would be able to put petty differences aside in the name of the righteous fight.
If he truly believed he would walk through hellfire and across broken glass to ensure action on 'climate change'. What better place to do that from than Minister?

I love this quote from Combet.
‘‘My reasons are personal and are not attributable to the change in the leadership of the Labor Party this week, although this has provided a catalyst for my decision,” he said.

Mixed messages anyone? They still have trouble with honesty even right at the bitter end.


----------



## noco (30 June 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*

I cannot see Rudd having a united party while the hatred of the left will be back biting with revenge.

The remnants of the Gillard supporters in caucas and cabinet will set out to embarrass Rudd where ever they can by leaking information just as Rudd did to Gillard.

IMHO it will not be a happy Labor Party camp for many years to come.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-alp-powerbroker/story-fn59niix-1226670487645


----------



## sptrawler (30 June 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*



noco said:


> I cannot see Rudd having a united party while the hatred of the left will be back biting with revenge.
> 
> The remnants of the Gillard supporters in caucas and cabinet will set out to embarrass Rudd where ever they can by leaking information just as Rudd did to Gillard.
> 
> ...




Yes it won't be long before the unions try to wrest back control. One would think the Rudd/ Gillard show, will become the Rudd/ Shorten show, very quickly.


----------



## db94 (30 June 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*



noco said:


> I cannot see Rudd having a united party while the hatred of the left will be back biting with revenge.
> 
> The remnants of the Gillard supporters in caucas and cabinet will *set out to embarrass Rudd where ever they can by leaking information just as Rudd did to Gillard*.
> 
> ...




Ill give a week or two before info leaks about Rudd come out. Get ready for the polls to come crumbling down again in a few weeks


----------



## noco (30 June 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*



db94 said:


> Ill give a week or two before info leaks about Rudd come out. Get ready for the polls to come crumbling down again in a few weeks





I believe you are spot on as this link provides futher disunity in this already fractured Labor Party.

The labor Party are still very brittle at the moment and will be for some years to come.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-alp-powerbroker/story-fn59niix-1226670487645


----------



## Calliope (30 June 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*





Now we know why Rudd acts like a juvenile. I wouldn't be too worried about that poll. They are rusted on Labor seats. Actually Rudd has no real friends...to get to know him is to get to hate him. The more mature you get the more you wake up to him, as this poll shows.




> On the hustings in the Blue Mountains, Mr Rudd told Fairfax Media he liked young people. ''Most of the people who roll inside our house are under 25 and I'm very, very comfortable with all those folks. Most of my friends are younger folk.* Apart from my wife, my three kids are my best friends,''* he said.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...th-kevin-20-20130629-2p3xp.html#ixzz2XeVe6CjY


----------



## dutchie (30 June 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*



Calliope said:


> ...to get to know him is to get to hate him.




Michael Costa, who has dealt with Rudd, agrees wholeheartedly with you.


----------



## Calliope (30 June 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*

This is his peak...I hope:shake:




Galaxy poll


----------



## Miss Hale (30 June 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*

For quite some time wasn't Gillard preferred PM compared to Abbott and yet the 2PP vote was in favour of the coalition?  I'm not sure 'preferred PM' is necessarily a good indicator.


----------



## Judd (30 June 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*

I've not met Mr Rudd so my comments are from observation, reading and listening only.

I don't think I have come across a more poisonous individual.  A person so obsessed with himself that his policies, such as they are, are designed to show how great he is but seemingly lacks the ability to implement them.


----------



## Calliope (30 June 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*

A much more reliable indicator.

Sportsbet; Coalition $1.20 - ALP $4.20

Miss Hale.


> For quite some time wasn't Gillard preferred PM compared to Abbott and yet the 2PP vote was in favour of the coalition? I'm not sure 'preferred PM' is necessarily a good indicator.




Yes, very odd, on the figures in the above Galaxy poll you could assume that the 15% uncommitted were coalition voters.


----------



## Knobby22 (30 June 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*

Stop sweating on it guys. The Libs will win.
You are making me laugh.


----------



## Calliope (30 June 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*



Knobby22 said:


> You are making me laugh.




Through gritted teeth.


----------



## noco (30 June 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*



noco said:


> Yahoo7 poll has a slight increase for Rudd.
> 
> "DO YOU BELIEVE RUDD HAS CHANGED"?
> 
> NO.........61%...........YES.........39%




Yahoo 7 poll at 5 pm.

NO.........63%...........YES.........37%


----------



## noco (30 June 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*

Strange as it may seem, Labors primary vote a week ago was down to 29% and the Labor manual instructed their deciples to say "we don't take any notice of the polls, the the only one to worry about is the poll on election day".

Their attitude has been a bit different over the weekend since the the Galaxy poll was taken in four safe Labor held seats to bring Labor up to 48% TPP.

The deciples have all of a sudden become '**** of the hoop'.


----------



## noco (30 June 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*

I think our Kevvie, 'what ever they call him now', is in for a torried time over the next fwe weeks.

I think there is a certain red head with a long nose, set to spoil his his progress.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...e-political-mess/story-fni0ffxg-1226670415392


----------



## Calliope (1 July 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*

On the night of Kevin Rudd's resurrection and the Origin win last Wednesday the "Courier-Mail" was crowing *Queensland Wins*
The idea that having Rudd as PM was a win for Queensland is just nauseating parochialism.  

*It will be interesting to see what they will be trumpteting now that there is no Queenslander in his new cabinet.*

The reason for this of course is that all Qld Labor MPs hate the clown.


----------



## dutchie (1 July 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*

Krudd would be smirking behind his nauseating grin all the time. He has played the Labor Party Puppets to perfection from the day he was knifed by Gillard and Shorten. Revenge is sweet for Krudd.

The Labor Party needs to take a real hard look at themselves as they have been conned again.


----------



## sptrawler (1 July 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*

I heard a beauty this morning on the ABC. Rudd was announcing his new cabinet when he said Penny Wong, minister for finance, because we need someone who can say "No we can't afford it"

I nearly choked laughing, why hasn't she been saying it in the past?

The spin and BS is coming thick and fast.lol

Saying no to spending and the Labor Party seem to be mutually exclusive.


----------



## noco (1 July 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*



sptrawler said:


> I heard a beauty this morning on the ABC. Rudd was announcing his new cabinet when he said Penny Wong, minister for finance, because we need someone who can say "No we can't afford it"
> 
> I nearly choked laughing, why hasn't she been saying it in the past?
> 
> ...




+ 1. Same old Rudd. He has not changed one bit.

The latest Yahoo7 poll..............."SHOULD KEVIN RUDD PUSH BACK THE ELECTION DATE"?

NO.....69%.............YES.........31%


----------



## Baldric (1 July 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*

Crean to resign. Labor are losing some very solid members in this latest purge. It will be hard to replace their experience.


----------



## sptrawler (1 July 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*



Baldric said:


> Crean to resign. Labor are losing some very solid members in this latest purge. It will be hard to replace their experience.





It gives more room for young unionists to get in, you know, in the mould of Graig Thomson. lol

Good old Labor back to serving itself.


----------



## Calliope (1 July 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*

Don't you just love the prissy little mouth trying hard not to cry. That was the moment he started plotting revenge.


----------



## noco (1 July 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*

Rudd might fool some of the people half the time, half the people some of the time but all the people all the time.

It is not Kevin 07 or Kevin 747, he is JAKE THE FAKE.


----------



## springhill (1 July 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*

What a disgrace, this clown has created a new Ministry for International Development.

It aim, as reported in the news, to encourage as much spenditure on foreign aid as possible.

We are $270B in the hole and Rudd wants to create a whole new level of bureaucracy and send even more of our dollars off shore. Dollars that could be paying down our national debt.

Where are the extra foreign aid dollars going to come from?

Makes him look good in the eyes of the UN doesn't it? Which is still his end goal.

He has been quoted as saying his financial mantra is now 'economic responsibility'

He hasn't changed and hasn't learnt a thing.


----------



## noco (1 July 2013)

Four days on the job and he has already made a fool of himself and there will be more to come.

He should get his brain into gear before opening his mouth as Andrew Bolt has exhibited.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...a-on-boat-people/story-fni0ffxg-1226672188409


----------



## sptrawler (1 July 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*



springhill said:


> What a disgrace, this clown has created a new Ministry for International Development.
> 
> It aim, as reported in the news, to encourage as much spenditure on foreign aid as possible.
> 
> ...




Give it a couple of weeks, people will get sick of his nonsense. 
At the moment they think he's a magician, pulling rabbits out of the hat.
Two weeks time, they will see him as the clown.IMO


----------



## Purple XS2 (1 July 2013)

With Parliament in recess - and _probably_ won't be recalled during the remainder of Rudd II, that leaves executive/ministerial decision making under existing legislation as the theatre of operations for the PM.

Abbott & the lib-nats would really want to have their heads screwed on here: Rudd will do anything to get himself noticed as the man-in-charge, and the caucus, having stuffed his carcass on the horse a la El Cid, are now utterly incapable of reining him in.

So Rudd will therefore bait the libs with a few minor theatrics, to lure them into a nay-saying, carping posture, and then Rudd will do something utterly stupid and flamboyant: further criticism from the lib-nats will fall on tired ears in the electorate.

Abbott would be well advised to skip over minor provocations, and stick to character assassination: not just of Rudd: he's too obvious a target, but rather of the rest of the parliamentary ALP, whose (re-)appointment of Rudd is as irresponsible a collective decision as I've seen any bunch of pollies come up with.

It's grotesque. I'm not a coalition voter but the end of this sad, debased government can't come soon enough.


----------



## Calliope (1 July 2013)

Rudd made a big show of putting a record number of women in his ministry. But I am sure that the Rudd that we know of old will completely ignore them when it comes to important decisions. If he consults with anyone it will be the dominant males...Albanese, Bowen, Bourke, Butler, Shorten and Alpha female Wong, maybe.

If they complain he will throw a tantrum, and accuse them of trying to ratf**k him.


----------



## sptrawler (1 July 2013)

Is there anybody in the Labor Party who hasn't been a minister.lol

Will they will all qualify for an increased pension, due to their stint as a minister?  Even if it's only from now untill the election.


----------



## noco (2 July 2013)

*Re: Rudd Mk2 Government*



noco said:


> + 1. Same old Rudd. He has not changed one bit.
> 
> The latest Yahoo7 poll..............."SHOULD KEVIN RUDD PUSH BACK THE ELECTION DATE"?
> 
> NO.....69%.............YES.........31%




The latest Yahoo7 poll as at 8am est Tuesday.

NO.........83%...........YES........17%

I hope Rudd is getting the message. The longer he leaves it, the more people will get pi$$ed off with him.


----------



## noco (2 July 2013)

So Rudd calls himself an economic conserative, Well, that was back in 2007!!!!!!!!! "The reckless spending must stop", but it didn't, it became worse. Borrow plenty and spend up big. I would like to ask him what is his plan to pay back the money he and the Labor Party have borrowed

Come 2013. Ha big spender, spend a little time with the people of Australia and not overseas trying to impress the UN and other nations.

Judith Sloan sums up Rudd in a nut shell. He hasn't a clue on economics.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...omics-do-not-mix/story-fnbkvnk7-1226672791264


----------



## noco (2 July 2013)

So now we have a Muslim Labor MP with a Ministry.

I wonder how long it will take him to move a private members bill to introduce Sharia law?



http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/17833161/facebook-trolls-attack-mp-ed-husic/


----------



## Country Lad (2 July 2013)

noco said:


> So now we have a Muslim Labor MP with a Ministry.
> 
> I wonder how long it will take him to move a private members bill to introduce Sharia law?




So what is the evidence that he is an Islamist with extreme views rather than a person with a different religion to the majority?

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## bellenuit (2 July 2013)

Country Lad said:


> So what is the evidence that he is an Islamist with extreme views rather than a person with a different religion to the majority?
> 
> Cheers
> Country Lad




I agree. I haven't heard him speak on any issues yet, but he has as much right to be in a ministry as any other Australian. 

I don't agree with swearing in using the Quran though. Not because it's the Quron, I have the same issue with the Bible. We are a secular state so the "regalia" surrounding swearing in ceremonies should be of a secular nature. If people want to link their religion to a secular occasion, let them do it with friends and family at a private function after the event.


----------



## Julia (2 July 2013)

When we go to vote in all elections, are we even aware of any religious affiliation of the candidates?
Do we really care?  I wouldn't have any idea about the religious beliefs of a single person I've voted for.

Agree the swearing in should be done without reference to any religious tome.


----------



## basilio (2 July 2013)

Rudd's back in the sights  of the anti-Labour media propagandists.  The latest story is a spread on all the high value real estate he owns which are "clearly at odds with the workers he is supposed to represent".  Not surprisingly the story is being run with News Ltd papers. BRW  and anyone else who wants to parrot a propaganda line.

Funny.  Absolutely no mention of Therese Rein in the articles who almost certainly put up the lions share of the bickies for the properties via her $100million plus business. 

But hey who gives a rats rectum if we can trash Labours new great white hope ?

PS.  And did anyone notice how much the media made of Julia Gilliards very modest suburban home Altona when she was in the hot seat? Nah far easier to trash her with some other lie.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=np&source=hp


----------



## wayneL (2 July 2013)

basilio said:


> Rudd's back in the sights  of the anti-Labour media propagandists.  The latest story is a spread on all the high value real estate he owns which are "clearly at odds with the workers he is supposed to represent".  Not surprisingly the story is being run with News Ltd papers. BRW  and anyone else who wants to parrot a propaganda line.
> 
> Funny.  Absolutely no mention of Therese Rein in the articles who almost certainly put up the lions share of the bickies for the properties via her $100million plus business.
> 
> ...




Coming from one the most prodigious proliferaters of preposterous, pious, putrid and perfidious propaganda on ASF basilio, that's a bit rich... even from you ma'am.


----------



## basilio (2 July 2013)

wayneL said:


> Coming from one the most prodigious proliferaters of preposterous, pious, putrid and perfidious propaganda on ASF basilio, that's a bit rich... even from you ma'am.




Go xxxx yourself Wayne. I was pointing out how suddenly all the partisan media was singing in chorus about Kevins property .  

No need to get personal. Stay nice.(if you can...):


----------



## wayneL (2 July 2013)

In your rude abuse, do I detect a hypocrisy of the greatest magnitude? Why yes, I think I do.

Noice! :


----------



## basilio (2 July 2013)

wayneL said:


> In your rude abuse, do I detect a hypocrisy of the greatest magnitude? Why yes, I think I do.
> 
> Noice! :




Ney .. I'm just not going to put up with personal abuse. You serve it up and you'll get it back in spades. 
Lets respect the ethos of this wonderful  online community, stick to the topics and not get nasty


----------



## wayneL (2 July 2013)

basilio said:


> Ney .. I'm just not going to put up with personal abuse. You serve it up and you'll get it back in spades.
> Lets respect the ethos of this wonderful  online community, stick to the topics and not get nasty




Nasty? _J'accuse_! who told who to xxxx them self basilio after being busted for toxic cognitive bias?


----------



## basilio (2 July 2013)

wayneL said:


> Nasty? _J'accuse_! who told who to xxxx them self basilio after being busted for toxic cognitive bias?




I had it with your crap Wayne.  Why not for once in your (very narrow) life stick to discussing a topic rather than bashing the  person? Too much to ask ? Then I repeat - xxxx off.
 _______________________________________________________________________________

Where are the mods when you need them on this Forum. ?  These last  half dozen exchanges have been of no value and have just reduced the quality of discussion to a nasty bitch fight.


----------



## moXJO (2 July 2013)

basilio said:


> I had it with your crap Wayne.  Why not for once in your (very narrow) life stick to discussing a topic rather than bashing the  person? Too much to ask ? Then I repeat - xxxx off.
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Where are the mods when you need them on this Forum. ?  These last  half dozen exchanges have been of no value and have just reduced the quality of discussion to a nasty bitch fight.




Bas it takes two to tango, just hit the ignore button and its conversation over.


----------



## wayneL (2 July 2013)

basilio said:


> I had it with your crap Wayne.  Why not for once in your (very narrow) life stick to discussing a topic rather than bashing the  person? Too much to ask ? Then I repeat - xxxx off.
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Where are the mods when you need them on this Forum. ?  These last  half dozen exchanges have been of no value and have just reduced the quality of discussion to a nasty bitch fight.




Ma'am, my intitial post to you was on topic, even if obtusely so; pointing out that the accusation of anti-Rudd propaganda was laughable... on topic.

An analysis of the Rudd lifestyle is as pertinent as were the accusations of Abbott's purported misogyny (which was proven to be nothing more than McTernan dirty pool). If we are being asked to consider another Labor term with Rudd at the helm, we are entitled to examine his credos, via News, Scmoos, or whoever.

So no, I will not xxxx off, I will participate in the topic of the discussion whether you like it or not, whether that involves an expose' of your logic and/or bias or not.


----------



## explod (2 July 2013)

The press are looking pale and frustrated;

Abbott is stutterring Blah Blah Blah;

ASF high counters are frustrated and xxx ing each other;

So what has happenned;  Krudd has arrived back on the scene cause Jules ran out of support/steam/etc;

The electorate have been so fed up with the lead up, cant keep up to the mortgage, sick of boat people talk and of course the Blah B xxx b lah blah.

And kruddy Kev is smiling, the press love the change, people are talking in the streets again, not sure what is happening but at least it is a bit like a Santa thype of thing.  I'll vote for that.

And as I said last week, ALP at  forthcoming election 55%, Libs 45%,

And like me ole mate Sir Les Patterson often says,  "No  xxxx  xing worries pal"


----------



## drsmith (2 July 2013)

explod said:


> ALP at  forthcoming election 55%, Libs 45%,



That, but the other way around.


----------



## sptrawler (2 July 2013)

explod said:


> The press are looking pale and frustrated;
> 
> Abbott is stutterring Blah Blah Blah;
> 
> ...




I hope your right, at least it will bring house prices down.

Nothing like a good reccession to bring some poverty and pain, or the other good Labor elixir, rampant inflation.lol


----------



## So_Cynical (2 July 2013)

In the first national poll since Kevin Rudd returned as Prime Minister, results show he has taken a significant lead as the country's preferred leader...yep i know about the Honeymoon thing.


 Rudd 51%
 Abbott 34%

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-...show-rudd-is-preferred-prime-minister/4789860

So im wondering if anyone has an example of when a potential PM has not won the job with a rating of over 50% ?

Or the other way around, has an Opposition leader ever won with a preferred PM rating under 35% ?

I cant think of a time when this has ever happened before. :dunno:


----------



## drsmith (2 July 2013)

Kevin Rudd is not the Messiah for Labor.

He's the disaster that's found the same place to happen twice.


----------



## So_Cynical (2 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> Kevin Rudd is not the Messiah for Labor.
> 
> He's the disaster that's found the same place to happen twice.




Don't tell me, The absolute worst Prime Minister we have ever had? the new worst after just 1 week. 

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

Care to comment on my previous post?


----------



## sptrawler (2 July 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> In the first national poll since Kevin Rudd returned as Prime Minister, results show he has taken a significant lead as the country's preferred leader...yep i know about the Honeymoon thing.
> 
> 
> Rudd 51%
> ...




It wasn't that long ago you were talking up Gillard.

How did that go for you?

Now you're backing a two times loser of his own party, you are so rusted on, we could call you 'red lead'.lol


----------



## moXJO (2 July 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> So im wondering if anyone has an example of when a potential PM has not won the job with a rating of over 50% ?
> 
> Or the other way around, has an Opposition leader ever won with a preferred PM rating under 35% ?
> 
> I cant think of a time when this has ever happened before. :dunno:




That's an interesting question.
I think he has a pretty good chance at wining it. God only knows what people see in him after his first run as PM though.


----------



## sptrawler (2 July 2013)

I think Labor are still in deep manure, selective polling might be great for newsprint.

But the silent majority have had a gutfull of Labor.IMO

Time will tell.


----------



## So_Cynical (2 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> It wasn't that long ago you were talking up Gillard.
> 
> How did that go for you?
> 
> Now you're backing a two times loser of his own party, you are so rusted on, we could call you 'red lead'.lol




Gillard was ok, for what ever reason she just didn't appeal to the masses, i can understand why they rolled Rudd in the first place (still think it was wrong though) but clearly understand that Julia's use by date had come around...no room for sentamentality in politics...not in the Labor party anyway.

The Liberals is another matter of course, Labor unlike The Liberals, can and do actually make the hard decisions..unlike the Gutless Howard and Costello show, what a sad joke that was, a political use by date that was totally ignored, a quality politician destroyed before he really had a chance.


----------



## springhill (3 July 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> Gillard was ok, for what ever reason she just didn't appeal to the masses, i can understand why they rolled Rudd in the first place (still think it was wrong though) but clearly understand that Julia's use by date had come around...no room for sentamentality in politics...not in the Labor party anyway.
> 
> The Liberals is another matter of course, *Labor unlike The Liberals, can and do actually make the hard decisions*..*unlike the Gutless Howard and Costello show*, what a sad joke that was, a political use by date that was totally ignored, a quality politician destroyed before he really had a chance.




SC, your postings are quickly becoming amongst the worst on the forum. I mean your political posts, I actually do enjoy reading your postings on individual stocks and market related matters.

Once again you make generalised, sweeping statements with no detail to back them up. I have challenged you on more than one occasion within the last week to provide detail to back up your claims and you have failed to do so.

Let's try this again.

1. What 'hard decisions' did Labor make during the terms of Gillard or Rudd being Prime Minister and please explain how they were of benefit to the country?

2. Please explain why Howard and Costello were 'a sad joke' and which policies that were implemented by them that were not of benefit to the country?

3. Can you please explain why rolling Kevin Rudd in the first place was wrong?

4. Who was the quality politician destroyed 'before he had a chance'? Do you mean Costello? If so, as much as I am an admirer of Peter Costello there was one thing he did lack, backbone. He never had the intestinal fortitude to challenge Howard and in doing so condemned himself to his own fate.

If you are unable to provide anything from Gillard or Rudd and need to go back to Hawke or Keating to find 'hard decisions' that were of benefit to Australia, then you are going back to a different era of Australian politics. One where the Labor values were incomparable to what Labor's are today.

One difference between Howard and Gillard which no one can deny, is that he had the guts to take the GST to an election campaign, unlike the Labor party with their Carbon Tax.

If you wish to know why Gillard didn't appeal to the masses, it was because she was seen as a liar, untrustworthy and deceitful. A PM who cried in Parliament over the grandeur NDIS and the struggle she had to endure to get it up, yet in 2010 as deputy PM railed against a measly $30 increase in the pension. It seems as long as she was throwing the buckets of money around and accepting the accolades then that expenditure was fine. A person who acted in one way for a period of her political life and term of Prime Minister, yet then unveiled the 'Real Julia' in one of the biggest character blunders of all time. 

Yet you can't see why she didn't appeal to the masses? Even a rusted on Labor supporter like yourself must see this, surely?

The point I am making here is back up what you are posting with detail.
If you are unable to front up on this one, then I would say the largest 'sad joke' in the political threads is not Howard or Costello, it is you.


----------



## drsmith (3 July 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> Don't tell me, The absolute worst Prime Minister we have ever had? the new worst after just 1 week.



What would you like me to do ?

Repeat the words of his own party colleagues ??



So_Cynical said:


> Care to comment on my previous post?



While Tony Abbott is unpopular with the electorate, the Labor party itself is toxic with the electorate.

This is why Labor can't get ahead on 2PP in any sustained way regardless of who the electorate rates as better PM.


----------



## Calliope (3 July 2013)

Can Rudd change? I don't think it is possible to change a narcissistic complex.



> The second thing that Rudd can't change is temperament. It would be unfair to deeply analyse this in the media, however you be the judge of how many of six common signs of narcissistic leadership could apply to our Prime Minister:
> •     Prone to grandiose visions and to over-estimating their own capabilities (remember "the greatest moral challenge of our time").
> •     Hyper-sensitive to criticism and liable to fly into anger (be careful when serving him on a plane).
> •     Pursue power at all costs leading to infighting and suspicion which ultimately brings them down (enough said).
> ...



 (My Bolds)


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/rudd-...p-of-honour-20130702-2p9so.html#ixzz2XxBgJxxr


----------



## Calliope (3 July 2013)

It didn't take the Egyptians long to wake up to Dr Mursi, the Egyptian version of Mr Rudd.  They want him out!


----------



## sptrawler (3 July 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> The Liberals is another matter of course, Labor unlike The Liberals, can and do actually make the hard decisions..unlike the Gutless Howard and Costello show, what a sad joke that was, a political use by date that was totally ignored, a quality politician destroyed before he really had a chance.




Actually, I don't think Costello would have won that election, people had it too good and were bored.
They wanted change and brought it about.
Howard faced an electorate that felt like a change, so Labor parachuted in a high profile t.v personality, to give them a shallow reason. 
It doesn't mean that Howard was past his use by date, just that Labor play shallow politics at the expense of their true members. This has been highlighted yet again in the Northern territory decission.

It's a repulsive way to run a political party and generaly denigrates the political process. Yet some of the "true believers" as yourself, seem to embrace 'the ends justifies the means' mantra. 

As for Costello, many politicians have been slapped in the face, yet stood by the strengh of their convictions.
Costello jumped out, rather than test the electorates belief in his leadership, his choice.


----------



## Julia (3 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Actually, I don't think Costello would have won that election, people had it too good and were bored.
> They wanted change and brought it about.
> Howard faced an electorate that felt like a change, so Labor parachuted in a high profile t.v personality, to give them a shallow reason.



That's a really valid point.  And it's in addition to the fact that - according to all reliable sources - Costello just never had the numbers to challenge Howard.
I blame John Howard who himself became too 'relaxed and comfortable' to recognise that the time factor was his enemy.  He should have honoured his promise to Costello and passed the baton.  

Even if that election had been lost, Costello would have been a hugely more competent Opposition Leader than the options that exist now.

Eventually Tony Abbott is going to have to front up to a debate with Rudd.  I hope the result is better than current indications would suggest.


----------



## MrBurns (3 July 2013)

Country Lad said:


> So what is the evidence that he is an Islamist with extreme views rather than a person with a different religion to the majority?
> 
> Cheers
> Country Lad




Just looks like the thin edge of the wedge.


----------



## sptrawler (3 July 2013)

Is this a clever push by Canberra for a Republic, or just a clever push by Canberra to take over direct control of education and health.
Which by default, doesn't leave much for the States to be responsible for, so why have them.lol


Premier Colin Barnett says his warnings that WA's declining GST share will eventually impact on services have become a reality, flagging hits to health and education in next month's Budget

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/17854306/cuts-to-gst-share-hit-health-education/


One would also have to ask if the direct funding of Local Councils, doesn't have the same result.

Is it a Republic by stealth? 
President Rudd, President Gillard. Sounds like a better pension to me.


----------



## McLovin (3 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Is this a clever push by Canberra for a Republic, or just a clever push by Canberra to take over direct control of education and health.
> Which by default, doesn't leave much for the States to be responsible for, so why have them.lol
> 
> 
> ...




I don't see the connection between this and the republic debate?


----------



## sptrawler (3 July 2013)

McLovin said:


> I don't see the connection between this and the republic debate?




If Australia was a Republic, what part would the State Governments play?

Put another way, if Federal look after health education and local government, what does State Government do?


----------



## banco (3 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> If Australia was a Republic, what part would the State Governments play?




Hmmm I'm struggling to think of a country that's a republic and has a federal structure.


----------



## McLovin (3 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> If Australia was a Republic, what part would the State Governments play?




Umm...the same, just like they do in every other federal republic. Unless I'm missing something.


----------



## sptrawler (3 July 2013)

banco said:


> Hmmm I'm struggling to think of a country that's a republic and has a federal structure.




Yes but you don't have to look far, to find Republics where centralised power, results in centralised wealth. Irrespective of where in the republic the wealth comes from.


----------



## banco (3 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Yes but you don't have to look far, to find Republics where centralised power, results in centralised wealth. Irrespective of where in the republic the wealth comes from.




If you're a monarchist fair enough but this argument against a republic is one of the dumbest I've heard.  You can just as easily find monarchies that have relatively centralised Government (ie most of the European monarchies) as you can find republics with centralised Government.


----------



## McLovin (3 July 2013)

banco said:


> If you're a monarchist fair enough but this argument against a republic is one of the dumbest I've heard.  You can just as easily find monarchies that have relatively centralised Government (ie most of the European monarchies) as you can find republics with centralised Government.




I agree. It makes no sense. There's nothing in the republican model that changes how the states interact with the Commonwealth.


----------



## sptrawler (3 July 2013)

banco said:


> If you're a monarchist fair enough but this argument against a republic is one of the dumbest I've heard.  You can just as easily find monarchies that have relatively centralised Government (ie most of the European monarchies) as you can find republics with centralised Government.




Fair enough, but I haven't seen many political systems stand the test of time, over the Westminster system.

Also you don't have many European countries trying to administer fair government, over a land mass the size of Australia.

The initial Gonski funding is a point in case, ludicruos biased funding with no regard to logistics. 

Centralised government at its worst, then they came back with "we'll triple it", obscene government at its worst.

Yes, like you would want to give these sort of people carte blanche, give me a break.

When they can show they can govern maturely, I'll give them my vote. 
At the moment they are rable.


----------



## McLovin (3 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Fair enough, but I haven't seen many political systems stand the test of time, over the Westminster system.




There are Westminster republics too. A monarch is not an essential feature of the Westminster system.



			
				sptrawler said:
			
		

> Also you don't have many European countries trying to administer fair government, over a land mass the size of Australia.




Canada has a far more powerful centralised government than Australia (they have an unelected senate that does not give equal representation to the provinces) and seems to do OK. We don't have the division between states that somewhere like the US or Germany does. IMO, that is a much more important factor in determining how legitimate a centralised government can be than how large the land mass is.


----------



## sptrawler (3 July 2013)

McLovin said:


> Canada has a far more powerful centralised government than Australia (they have an unelected senate that does not give equal representation to the provinces) and seems to do OK..



We can obviously learn a lot from Canada. Which is also based on the Westminster system.



McLovin said:


> We don't have the division between states that somewhere like the US or Germany does. IMO, that is a much more important factor in determining how legitimate a centralised government can be than how large the land mass is.




That is fine, as long as the the areas as dilineated by the states are treated equally. 
In Canada they may well be treated in a fair and equitable way, unfortunately in Australia it would biased toward the political outcome required.
Obviously politics in Canada is an honourable calling, it would appear here, it is a means to an ends.IMO


----------



## McLovin (3 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> In Canada they may well be treated in a fair and equitable way, unfortunately in Australia it would biased toward the political outcome required.




Government spending is always directed to achieving political outcomes. That is the nature of government.

I guess your definition and my definition of equitable differ somewhat.


----------



## sptrawler (3 July 2013)

McLovin said:


> Government spending is always directed to achieving political outcomes. That is the nature of government.
> 
> I guess your definition and my definition of equitable differ somewhat.





I don't know what your definition of equitable is and wouldn't presume to guess.

But you seem to know what mine is. Maybe you could enlighten me.


----------



## McLovin (3 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Maybe you could enlighten me.




It's the WA state sport...



			
				sptrawler said:
			
		

> Premier Colin Barnett says his warnings that WA's declining GST share will eventually impact on services have become a reality, flagging hits to health and education in next month's Budget




Of course I'd love the West Australian mentality across the tax system. You get back what you put in. I wouldn't be subsidising things I don't use like the dole, disability pensions, government hospitals...and on and on.


----------



## sptrawler (4 July 2013)

McLovin said:


> It's the WA state sport....




Can't follow your train of thought on that comment, but probably has merit.




McLovin said:


> Of course I'd love the West Australian mentality across the tax system. You get back what you put in. I wouldn't be subsidising things I don't use like the dole, disability pensions, government hospitals...and on and on.




I don't think that is the issue, I think the issue is trying to support exponential growth and increased demand for infrastructure.
Being met by a reduction of money to supply it.
Your take will obviously be different, so be it.

But then again, you have probably proven my statement by denigrating Western Australians, just shows it's hard to be fair.


----------



## noco (4 July 2013)

noco said:


> So now we have a Muslim Labor MP with a Ministry.
> 
> I wonder how long it will take him to move a private members bill to introduce Sharia law?
> 
> ...




This Ed Husic Muslim could be a sleeping log.



Can anyone explain this a little better for me to understand. Has this even been advertised to the voters here?



 Please, note this from a friend who is well informed in the political area.





It is critical that all people oppose (vote NO) to the proposed change to recognise local govt in the constitution at the referendum at the Sept election.  By local govt areas being recognised then Sharia law can be demanded in the local area based on the % of Muslim people in that local area.  This is exactly how the Muslims obtained sharia law recognised in UK.


----------



## noco (4 July 2013)

So Rudd finally admits to his mistake with border protection.

It is a pity he does not admit to all his other stuff ups. A list as long as your arm which everyone well knows.

And he has stuffed up within the first 24 hours of his recycled reign when he accused Abbott of a possible naval conflict with Indonesia if the boats are turned back. I would like to be a fly on the wall when he meets the Indonesian President  tomorrow.



http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-...r-slow-to-act-on-asylum-seeker-boats-in-past/


----------



## Calliope (4 July 2013)

Julia should be worried. Victoria next?



> "The changes the Prime Minister will demand in the NSW ALP will be strong new anti-corruption measures and a blanket ban on property developers standing as Labor Party candidates in NSW," Labor sources said.
> 
> *The new rules would also ensure any party member subject to investigation for improper conduct could be immediately suspended from the ALP if they bring the party into disrepute*.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...s-to-be-expelled/story-fn59niix-1226673994074


----------



## Country Lad (4 July 2013)

noco said:


> Please, note this from a friend who is well informed in the political area.
> 
> 
> It is critical that all people oppose (vote NO) to the proposed change to recognise local govt in the constitution at the referendum at the Sept election.  By local govt areas being recognised then Sharia law can be demanded in the local area based on the % of Muslim people in that local area.  This is exactly how the Muslims obtained sharia law recognised in UK.




I would suggest your friend is not well informed at all.  Do some proper research yourself instead of just accepting one of those emails doing the rounds and you will find that is not possible here.   

I will be voting no but not because of this nonsense.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## dutchie (4 July 2013)

C'mon Rudd, show us some ticker, give us an election date!


----------



## noco (4 July 2013)

Country Lad said:


> I would suggest your friend is not well informed at all.  Do some proper research yourself instead of just accepting one of those emails doing the rounds and you will find that is not possible here.
> 
> I will be voting no but not because of this nonsense.
> 
> ...




Can you suggest a link my boy?


----------



## Country Lad (4 July 2013)

noco said:


> Can you suggest a link my boy?






Country Lad said:


> Do some proper research yourself..........
> 
> Cheers
> Country Lad




I didn't say I would do the research for you.  Start with the States' constitution regarding laws and then the relevant legislation.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## Julia (4 July 2013)

noco said:


> This Ed Husic Muslim could be a sleeping log.
> 
> Can anyone explain this a little better for me to understand. Has this even been advertised to the voters here?
> 
> ...



You and Bunyip appear to have the same 'well informed friend'.  Bunyip put up the same post a couple of days ago on another thread.
Remember the other stuff that did the rounds, noco, saying that asylum seekers received many times as much welfare than did our revered age pensioners?  Complete nonsense, of course, but that didn't stop people gullibly accepting it as fact.

I will also be voting no, absolutely nothing to do with this silly stuff.


----------



## McLovin (4 July 2013)

Country Lad said:


> I would suggest your friend is not well informed at all.  Do some proper research yourself instead of just accepting one of those emails doing the rounds and you will find that is not possible here.
> 
> I will be voting no but not because of this nonsense.
> 
> ...




It's also not possible in the UK for local councils to create their own legal systems.


----------



## noco (4 July 2013)

Country Lad said:


> I didn't say I would do the research for you.  Start with the States' constitution regarding laws and then the relevant legislation.
> 
> Cheers
> Country Lad




I guess you are admitting you don't really know do you? You made the statement you did not believe what was revealed regarding Sharia law being allowed if the referendum was supported so now either back it up or eat your words.

To the best of my knowledge this piece of legislation is not a state issue.

But apart from the point and knowing how one is always suspicious with this Green/Labor left wing socialist government, they will have a hidden agenda which they don't want to reveal to voters.

I ask the question, why are they allowing 10 times the amount of money to promote the 'YES' case over the 'NO' case?


----------



## Country Lad (4 July 2013)

noco said:


> I guess you are admitting you don't really know do you?





No, it is not me who doesn't know, that is why I suggested you do some research.  I have told you where to start.  You are the one who posted stuff without any evidence, just "from a friend".


----------



## drsmith (4 July 2013)

If genuine (which I doubt), the party might reform a Kevin Rudd prime-ministership for a second time before Kevin Rudd reforms the party.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ervention-in-nsw/story-fn59niix-1226674177989

Labor needs a long stint in opposition to go through this process.


----------



## McLovin (4 July 2013)

noco said:


> I guess you are admitting you don't really know do you? You made the statement you did not believe what was revealed regarding Sharia law being allowed if the referendum was supported so now either back it up or eat your words.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge this piece of legislation is not a state issue.




Of course it's a state issue. One of the main objectives of the Constitution is to define the interaction between the states and the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth's powers to legislate are enumerated in s51 of the Constitution. Everything else is left to the states. The states are sovereign entities that have the exclusive power to legislate within their territory on all matters not listed in s51. If that email was true, then it would be essentially removing the sovereignty of the states. Do you think they would just be sitting there?

Not surprisingly, the email is also wrong about the UK.


----------



## sptrawler (4 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> If genuine (which I doubt), the party might reform a Kevin Rudd prime-ministership for a second time before Kevin Rudd reforms the party.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ervention-in-nsw/story-fn59niix-1226674177989
> .




The unions will be fuming. 
That is unless it is a ploy to try and stop a Royal Commission being called, when the coalition take office.


----------



## Julia (4 July 2013)

Kev is a busy little bee, isn't he.  He must have spent his time on the back bench planning how he's going to overturn the country.

His goading of Tony Abbott re not having 'the ticker' to front up to a debate is wearing thin already.
For him to announce that he has booked the Press Club for next Thursday and expects Mr Abbott to turn up is absurd and gives the lie to his earnest avowal that he has changed.


----------



## explod (4 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Kev is a busy little bee, isn't he.  He must have spent his time on the back bench planning how he's going to overturn the country.
> 
> His goading of Tony Abbott re not having 'the ticker' to front up to a debate is wearing thin already.
> For him to announce that he has booked the Press Club for next Thursday and expects Mr Abbott to turn up is absurd and gives the lie to his earnest avowal that he has changed.




With respect, certainly not absurd.   The request is reasonable but the task for Abbott too much.  And deep down this is the fear of those on his side of the fence.

Sitting on the fence at this time is revealing indeed.

Still hold to my prediction at the coming election for lower house,  ALP 55% to Lib 45% two party preferred.

This weekends polls results should be Rudd's signal to call election in 30 days before Libs wake up and put Turnbull in.


----------



## MrBurns (4 July 2013)

explod said:


> With respect, certainly not absurd.   The request is reasonable but the task for Abbott too much.  And deep down this is the fear of those on his side of the fence.
> 
> Sitting on the fence at this time is revealing indeed.
> 
> ...




I think it is absurd he is ordering Abbott around in an attempt to look tough, it wont work.


----------



## explod (4 July 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I think it is absurd he is ordering Abbott around in an attempt to look tough, it wont work.




Not sure we could say ordering.  He is certainly laying out some challenges.  If Abbott is not up to this then is he Prime Minister material.

And it is looking like Rudd is tough, perhaps that is what the electorate is looking for after the last year or so.


----------



## MrBurns (4 July 2013)

explod said:


> Not sure we could say ordering.  He is certainly laying out some challenges.  If Abbott is not up to this then is he Prime Minister material.
> 
> And it is looking like Rudd is tough, perhaps that is what the electorate is looking for after the last year or so.




Rudd hasn't even set the election date yet is hiring venues for debates, he's a manipulator and unworthy of anyone's vote.


----------



## db94 (4 July 2013)

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/coroner8217s-findings-over-home-insulation-deaths-a-blow-to-kevin-rudd/story-fnihsrf2-1226674378071
"It also notes the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet did not respond to warnings issued by the Queensland Building Services Authority about the program."
trustworthy Kev hey. The past has come back to haunt him


----------



## springhill (4 July 2013)

Any debate should take place under official election campaign conditions, or loopholes are left for both sides of the debate to backflip.

As Abbott said there are 2 appropriate places to debate at this point. In parliament or in an election campaign.

On radio today it was said that no federal election debates had ever taken place outside of official election campaign, can anyone very or otherwise?

Rudd is being a showman. We all know he is capable of this, but is he capable of governing? He has shown nothing in his second bite of the cherry so far to prove he can.

To this point it is the same old recycled fluff from Rudd. People grew sick of it last time, how long does he think putting on a show with no real substance will last until it wears thin? Until October at least by the looks of it.

IMO his arrogance or temper will be his undoing. He needs to tread very carefully. If the public get one whiff that KRudd Mk2 is in fact KRudd MK1 with a paint job it is going to get very ugly.

The question that stays with me throughout all this is how long into Rudd's term, if he wins office, until the unions leak information against Rudd in order to destabilise him and install their own man, Shorten, or another?

I don't expect Rudd to see out a full term and this is something the public should be aware of when voting Labor.
If I was the Libs it would be one of my key election advertisements.


----------



## drsmith (4 July 2013)

springhill said:


> If I was the Libs it would be one of my key election advertisements.



I think it will be.


----------



## Zedd (4 July 2013)

springhill said:


> If the public get one whiff that KRudd Mk2 is in fact KRudd MK1 with a paint job it is going to get very ugly.




I'd say the same goes for Abbott. We haven't seen the old Tony for a while now, but if anyone can coax him out of his PR crafted image it'd be Rudd in a one-on-one.



springhill said:


> I don't expect Rudd to see out a full term and this is something the public should be aware of when voting Labor.




I can see Abbott seeing out multiple terms and this is something the public should be aware of when voting Liberal.

Rock < :1zhelp: >Hard Place while the man who could and should be running the country is left in a minor portfolio, arguing trivial matters.


----------



## So_Cynical (4 July 2013)

I always though that Tony's thin veneer of credibility was vulnerable, already the cracks are appearing...i reckon Tony's political career may have almost reached its use by date. 

Tony lost the last election vote and then lost it again in the negotiations with the independents, a 2 time loser...Kevin is a winner, look at the determination and tenacity required to come back like he did and i think lots of people can connect with him on a human level, the tears of the back stab, the roller coaster of the comeback and the final 18 month plan culminating in his return.

Tony has nothing in comparison, nothing that makes him humanly appealing.

Labor has a real chance of winning IMO.


----------



## sptrawler (4 July 2013)

explod said:


> Not sure we could say ordering.  He is certainly laying out some challenges.  If Abbott is not up to this then is he Prime Minister material.
> 
> And it is looking like Rudd is tough, perhaps that is what the electorate is looking for after the last year or so.




If Rudd had any balls, he would state an election date, then let the game commence.
He is just a sad little man.IMO

- - - Updated - - -



So_Cynical said:


> I always though that Tony's thin veneer of credibility was vulnerable, already the cracks are appearing...i reckon Tony's political career may have almost reached its use by date.
> 
> Tony lost the last election vote and then lost it again in the negotiations with the independents, a 2 time loser...Kevin is a winner, look at the determination and tenacity required to come back like he did and i think lots of people can connect with him on a human level, the tears of the back stab, the roller coaster of the comeback and the final 18 month plan culminating in his return.
> 
> ...




Eventually the law of averages will prove you right So_Cyclical, I don't think it will be this time.

The milky bar kid, won't cut it.lol


----------



## Julia (4 July 2013)

db94 said:


> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/coroner8217s-findings-over-home-insulation-deaths-a-blow-to-kevin-rudd/story-fnihsrf2-1226674378071
> "It also notes the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet did not respond to warnings issued by the Queensland Building Services Authority about the program."
> trustworthy Kev hey. The past has come back to haunt him



There was an interview on 7.30 with the parents of one of the young men who was electrocuted amongst the installation of the pink batts, following the coroner's damning findings today.
Leigh Sales asked them who they blamed for their son's death.  Mr Fuller said "Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan".  
When asked if there was anything else she would like to say to Mr Rudd, Mrs Fuller said "I'd just like for him to completely disappear!"

They have received no apology from any of the above political leaders.




So_Cynical said:


> I always though that Tony's thin veneer of credibility was vulnerable, already the cracks are appearing...i reckon Tony's political career may have almost reached its use by date.
> 
> Tony lost the last election vote



Not correct.  If that had been true, there would have been no need for Labor to seek the support of the Independents to form a minority government.  Try to at least get your facts right.


> abor and the Coalition each won 72 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives,[1] four short of the requirement for majority government, resulting in the first hung parliament since the 1940 election.[2][3][4] Six crossbenchers held the balance of power.[5][6] Greens MP Adam Bandt and independent MPs Andrew Wilkie, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor declared their support for Labor on confidence and supply.[7][8] Independent MP Bob Katter and National Party of Western Australia MP Tony Crook declared their support for the Coalition on confidence and supply.[9][10] The resulting 76–74 margin entitled Labor to form a minority government.





SC, if Labor came out with a policy of everyone being required to turn cartwheels in the street, you would find a way of endorsing it.


----------



## drsmith (4 July 2013)

Labor is the master of cartwheels.


----------



## Julia (4 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> Labor is the master of cartwheels.


----------



## sptrawler (4 July 2013)

Rudd is talking up diversity and job creation in manufacturing.

Hang on, isn't that the sector they've torn the throat out of, over the last six years? What a dick.


----------



## noco (4 July 2013)

It is pretty evident from this link that if this referendum were to be successful, it would turn democracy on its head and local governments would have no say in what took place in their councils.

I still say this Green/Labor Government have a hidden agenda and it could turn out to be very dangerous in deed.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...eferendum_no_to_canberra_control_of_councils/


----------



## sptrawler (4 July 2013)

noco said:


> It is pretty evident from this link that if this referendum were to be successful, it would turn democracy on its head and local governments would have no say in what took place in their councils.
> 
> I still say this Green/Labor Government have a hidden agenda and it could turn out to be very dangerous in deed.
> 
> ...




Don't worry the government are spending heaps to get it up.
Therefore everyone who doesn't trust the government will vote against it.
The result is obvious.lol


----------



## springhill (4 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> I'd say the same goes for Abbott. We haven't seen the old Tony for a while now, but if anyone can coax him out of his PR crafted image it'd be Rudd in a one-on-one.




Can you explain who the 'old Tony' was and what exactly do you think Rudd can coax out of him? I have noticed no detectable change in Abbott over the years and may I point our that may not necessarily be a good thing!



Zedd said:


> I can see Abbott seeing out multiple terms and this is something the public should be aware of when voting Liberal.
> 
> < :1zhelp: >Hard Place while the man who could and should be running the country is left in a minor portfolio, arguing trivial matters.




This makes absolutely no sense. 

You can see Abbott possibly serving multiple terms, yet you frame this as a bad thing when a leader survives in his role. Maybe the Left is not used to seeing this and as such see it as something abnormal. 
To serve multiple terms he would not only have to be doing a good job, (better than Labor is doing in opposition during that same period), not just in the eyes of the public, but also of his own party.

Beware public! Abbott is doing such a bad job that not only his own party kept him as leader, but you actually re-elected him!!! 

If you want to see a bad job done over consecutive terms, check out the leader-go-round of the last 6 years.

One term without a leadership change would be a breath of fresh air for a public weary of internal Labor b!tch!ng.


----------



## sptrawler (4 July 2013)

I love the way, Rudd is sitting back saying " Hang on a minute, we've got a mess, we need to sort out and I have the answers"
Well all of us are saying you caused the problems, how come now you have the answers? what a dick.


----------



## Zedd (4 July 2013)

springhill said:


> Can you explain who the 'old Tony' was and what exactly do you think Rudd can coax out of him? I have noticed no detectable change in Abbott over the years and may I point our that may not necessarily be a good thing!



Really? I think he's become far less aggressive, less confrontational, more moderate and has made a concerted effort to be statesman-like (this is based on my limited exposure through online news only, as UK TV doesn't give  about Aussie politics). With Julia, he could pretty much just hold back and let her hang herself. Rudd I think is an excellent speaker and will walk all over Abbott if he tries to maintain his current demeanour. It'll be a case of look weak, indecisive, and clueless, or return to the old Abbott of aggressive and confrontational.



springhill said:


> This makes absolutely no sense.




Au contraire, I think the Coalition (as a party) will do a great job of running the country, and as such will continue to do so for multiple terms. But, if Abbott goes in as leader, he'll stay as leader as I can't see the Liberals going through the same leadership spills Labour has.

My tongue-in-cheek comment was, perhaps some would rather Rudd for another term, or at least half-of, than have Abbott as our leader and global figurehead for the next 8 - 12 years. Personally I would. When I voted Rudd in, I remember saying at the time that the Coalition had lost touch, and that a decent bout on the sideline before returning under Turnbull was what was needed. I think the initial Rudd term was good for the Coalition, but the 2nd Labour term has seen the worst in the Liberals come out. As much as I'd like the Libs back in charge, I'd consider putting Rudd back in for another, versus have the Abbott-Bishop team run the country for what is going to be a hell of a decade.


----------



## sptrawler (4 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> Really? I think he's become far less aggressive, less confrontational, more moderate and has made a concerted effort to be statesman-like (this is based on my limited exposure through online news only, as UK TV doesn't give  about Aussie politics). With Julia, he could pretty much just hold back and let her hang herself. Rudd I think is an excellent speaker and will walk all over Abbott if he tries to maintain his current demeanour. It'll be a case of look weak, indecisive, and clueless, or return to the old Abbott of aggressive and confrontational.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You would think that, living in the U.K, get Labor in trash the dollar. Make hay on the exchange rate when you come home.


----------



## So_Cynical (4 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Try to at least get your facts right.




Please Julia, if Tony won the vote he would be PM, he didn't so in a 2 horse race he didn't win therefore lost, failed as a negotiator thus lost = 2 time loser.

That's the facts.


----------



## noco (5 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> I love the way, Rudd is sitting back saying " Hang on a minute, we've got a mess, we need to sort out and I have the answers"
> Well all of us are saying you caused the problems, how come now you have the answers? what a dick.




It is the same old Rudd. He has not changed. Still full of spin, rhetoric and BS as he was before.

He is a circus show pony at its best. He is an opportunist in every photo shoot he can get.

The latest enquiry into the roof insuation enquiry is a typical mess he created. He did not heed the notice by authorities to be a dangerous project. He could not come face to face with the families of the four men electrocuted due to his negligence. He makes an apology from Indonesia. 

And the niave are saying what a good fellow he is.


----------



## Calliope (5 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> Rudd I think is an excellent speaker




:screwy:


----------



## Calliope (5 July 2013)

Christine Fuller who lost her son as a direct result of a hasty ill-considered Rudd decision, has provided a perfect answer to those who think that he is the Messiah.



> "The then prime minister (Mr Rudd) couldn't remember our names and has never apologised to our face," Mr Fuller told the ABC's 7.30.
> 
> "The program wasted four lives ... numerous people were seriously injured or nearly killed, there were too many fires in houses and a lot of people were scared of their homes, simply because of the foil insulation in the home."
> 
> Asked what she wanted from the Prime Minister, *Mrs Fuller said: “I'd like for him to disappear".*




If he has any moral backbone that is what he should do. Making an apology is easy. Accepting the blame is something Rudd is incapable of doing


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...lus-before-lives/story-fn9qr68y-1226674565580


----------



## Some Dude (5 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> If he has any moral backbone that is what he should do. Making an apology is easy. Accepting the blame is something Rudd is incapable of doing




It may be worth your while reading the report. This circumstance isn't like the Coalition's ideological blindness with worker safety in 2005 where they ignored both unions and the Australian Industry Group (Section 3.39) about safety issues resulting in an increase in construction worker deaths. Kevin et al very definitely made mistakes in that program but the mistakes were made up and down the line and in that way that disasters happen when everyone thinks someone else is taking care of it.

I hope that people don't try to utilise the deaths of these people for political purposes but I know they will so I hope everyone remembers the concern about worker safety in the next parliament. There are organisations, many of them vehemently opposed to by posters here at ASF, whom have been genuinely fighting for better worker safety for decades. If you really care about the death of these people, show some support to those organisations who have been fighting all governments and for decades for better and actual enforced regulation on these issues.

Sometimes the red tape is there for a reason. This situation highlights one of them and what can happen when people think cutting corners is ok.


----------



## Calliope (5 July 2013)

Of course you push the union barrow. But the Pink Bats debacle started with Rudd and led to all sorts of shonky  opportunists coming out of the woodwork to make a quick buck. It was open slather. Hardly a day went past when one wasn't knocking on my door.


----------



## Some Dude (5 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Of course you push the union barrow.




Thank you for noticing that I worded it in such a way to include non union organisations as well such as professional associations, employer groups, and insurance related organisations. Worker safety is something that we as a society have made greats strides in over the last hundred years and it's something that I hope continues, even if it annoys a few anti red tape types.


----------



## springhill (5 July 2013)

Kevin Rudd's first real test of his Prime Ministerial term, and his future term, arrives with him being in the hotspot of the region.

Asylum seeker boat issues distress call, saying they are taking on water only 80km from Java.

Our sea craft respond to attend the scene.

The asylum seeker vessel is obviously in danger of sinking, yet Indonesia do not respond.

Rudd should be demanding an explanation from Indonesia's President. Or he will show himself to be a spineless cretin, who does not have the interests of peoples' lives at interest. He is there, deal with the situation now.

Indonesia say they do not have the sea craft to fulfill rescue duties.

I wonder if a bunch of our warships intruded into Indonesian territorial waters, how quickly they could scramble to engage?

This situation is utter crap, whether you agree with asylum seekers arriving by boat or not, there were human lives at risk on a leaking boat.

I know where I am placing my bets on Rudd's actions.


----------



## drsmith (5 July 2013)

springhill said:


> The asylum seeker vessel is obviously in danger of sinking, yet Indonesia do not respond.



Indonesia has responded, at least in another sense.

They've accepted the cheque from Kevin Rudd on behalf of the Australian taxpayer while the people smuggling trade goes on unabated and we taxi them here from 80km off of Java while Indonesia do nothing.



> Mr Rudd and Mr Yudhoyono also flagged the establishment of a multi-million dollar red meat forum to help Indonesia expand its cattle industry.
> 
> Cattle producers in Australia's north have been struggling ever since Indonesia slashed quotas in a big to make its own herd self-sufficient.
> 
> Mr Yudhoyono welcomed the investment and said it will benefit both countries.




The cheque obviously isn't big enough for them to actively deal with transits through their own country beyond another talkfest and perhaps at best only represents part penalty for the live cattle export ban under Julia Gillard's government.

SBY might also be thinking he'll only get one KR in a lifetime and therefore likes him right where he is.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-05/annual-indonesia-australia-leaders27-meeting/4802680


----------



## sptrawler (5 July 2013)

You just have to look at the photo, to see what the caustic little sod, is up to.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...orpedoes-abbott-boat-plan-20130705-2ph5t.html

This is going to turn pear shaped, for Rudd. The man is a goose, if he thinks Australians can't see he is a player.

It will take about 10 more days before the pendulum, starts to swing back. The reporters will start and remember what a wally he is.IMO

Some people are just sad, nasty people. Funny how they congregate.

In my honest opinion, Bowen will be the only one that rises from the ashes.


----------



## drsmith (5 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> You just have to look at the photo, to see what the caustic little sod, is up to.



That is a rather sour expression on his face.

He's obviously not happy about something.


----------



## sptrawler (5 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> That is a rather sour expression on his face.
> 
> He's obviously not happy about something.




No, he's giving his 'this is serious' dumb @rse look.

Absolute dick.


----------



## Calliope (5 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> They've accepted the cheque from Kevin Rudd on behalf of the Australian taxpayer while the people smuggling trade goes on unabated and we taxi them here from 80km off of Java while Indonesia do nothing.




In a country where the bureaucracy operates on graft, we are obviously not bribing the right people...and Rudd is supposed to be an expert on Foreign Affairs.

This is an Indonesian boat in Indonesian waters only 42 nautical miles from Java for Christs sake, and they say "you rescue them" we can't be bothered, as we set a low priority on lives or responsibility. And the gutless Rudd will take this lying down.


----------



## sptrawler (5 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> In a country where the bureaucracy operates on graft, we are obviously not bribing the right people...and Rudd is supposed to be an expert on Foreign Affairs.
> 
> This is an Indonesian boat in Indonesian waters only 42 nautical miles from Java for Christs sake, and they say "you rescue them" we can't be bothered, as we set a low priority on lives or responsibility. And the gutless Rudd will take this lying down.





Yudhoyono is in a win,win situation. Rudd gives him money for bagging Abbott. 
He also charges the asylum seekers for a transit visa.
What a winner he gets paid by our government, to encourage more to transit and charges the ones in transit.lol
What a scam, sounds like a Labor plan.IMO


----------



## Julia (5 July 2013)

springhill said:


> Kevin Rudd's first real test of his Prime Ministerial term, and his future term, arrives with him being in the hotspot of the region.
> 
> Asylum seeker boat issues distress call, saying they are taking on water only 80km from Java.
> 
> ...



Dream on, springhill.  Rudd and Yudhoyono, as I heard it on "PM" this evening, are engaged in a mutual love-in where they each praise the virtues of the other.
And why not, as far as Indonesia is concerned?  They get bucketloads of money from Australia, have their denials of police corruption accepted without question, and persuade Rudd that a regional talkfest is a really, really worthwhile event.
What  rubbish all round.


----------



## noco (5 July 2013)

noco said:


> This Ed Husic Muslim could be a sleeping log.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What an amazing revelation. There are 85 Sharia Courts in England.

So who says it can't happen in Australia?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html

And this from an ABC DOUMENTARY


In the UK there are a large and ever increasing number of local government areas which have adopted Sharia Law (Dark ages vintage, Moslem Law).  
As each local government area’s population becomes majority Muslim they can vote to use Sharia as their local law system.
They can do this because local government is a recognised entity of government in the UK constitution.

Presently in Australia, the State and Federal laws are our common law.  
Local Government By-laws can, and often are, overruled by the State or Federal law makers.

Australians need to think carefully about their response to this looming referendum.
A NO to recognising local government in the constitution preserves our common law system as it is with two authorities regulating our common legal relations.
A YES adds much smaller government entities to the constitutional mix of authorities.  The smaller the entity the easier it is to implement social agenda’s.

This change , if adopted, will accelerate the cultural changes that are coming to our Australian polity. 
Our population is rapidly becoming majority Asian in background and majority Moslem in heritage.
Within two decades this will definitely challenge our States and within three our Commonwealth.
With this proposed change to our constitution enacted, such changes at local government level could occur within this decade!

Please think carefully... before you vote for or against this change.

Change is coming, like it or not.
The issue here, is do we want to risk rapid change at a local level that would,
- promote sectarian divides, 
- create community disharmony and 
- destroy any COMMONwealth-ness in this great Nation of ours?


----------



## McLovin (5 July 2013)

noco said:


> What an amazing revelation. There are 85 Sharia Courts in England.
> 
> So who says it can't happen in Australia?
> 
> ...




And what does that have to do with local councils? The UK has permitted Jewish law for over 100 years as well.

It's hardly a revelation.


----------



## sptrawler (5 July 2013)

McLovin said:


> And what does that have to do with local councils?




Who knows? But you seem touchy on the subject.

- - - Updated - - -



Julia said:


> Dream on, springhill.  Rudd and Yudhoyono, as I heard it on "PM" this evening, are engaged in a mutual love-in where they each praise the virtues of the other.
> And why not, as far as Indonesia is concerned?  They get bucketloads of money from Australia, have their denials of police corruption accepted without question, and persuade Rudd that a regional talkfest is a really, really worthwhile event.
> What  rubbish all round.




Absolutely, looked like a case of you scatch my back, I'll scratch yours. 
Funny how Rudd didn't ask why if these people are refugees, Indonesia is charging them for a transit visa. duh


----------



## sptrawler (6 July 2013)

What an absolute nutter, there is only one person who is a risk to national security.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...bbotts-turnbackboats-plan-20130705-2phlj.html

Does the ends justify the means? loony tunes, Captain FW. IMO


----------



## Calliope (6 July 2013)

> Indonesian authorities yesterday morning approved HMAS Larrakia entering the zone to rescue the asylum-seekers and the vessel was expected to rendezvous about 8pm (AEST)




How jolly decent of them to allow us to rescue people off an Indonesian boat in Indonesian waters. Perhaps if we beg them they will allow us to take the rescued people to Christmas Island instead of following the normal procedure of taking them to the nearest port.


----------



## sptrawler (6 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> How jolly decent of them to allow us to rescue people off an Indonesian boat in Indonesian waters. Perhaps if we beg them they will allow us to take the rescued people to Christmas Island instead of following the normal procedure of taking them to the nearest port.




Rudd will take them anywhere, as long as Indonesia joins his election campaign. Nauseating stuff.


----------



## db94 (6 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> What an absolute nutter, there is only one person who is a risk to national security.
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...bbotts-turnbackboats-plan-20130705-2phlj.html
> 
> Does the ends justify the means? loony tunes, Captain FW. IMO




this is a disgrace. Rudd really is a maniac. He is risking safer borders just to get elected again


----------



## MrBurns (6 July 2013)

Rudds doing what Gillard would have done, tried to white ant Abbott before he takes over.
The despicable little rodent needs to be shown the door quickly.


----------



## sptrawler (6 July 2013)

Another example of kowtowing to Indonesia, Rudd is giving them $60m to help develop their cattle industry.lol

That's after Labor stuffed our cattle export industry and Indonesia sourced theirs from elsewhere. What a dick.

During his visit, Mr Rudd also announced plans to spend $60 million over years to help develop Indonesia's cattle industry and encourage Australian investment in the sector.  ABC News


----------



## Calliope (6 July 2013)

> PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd has again sought to goad Opposition Leader Tony Abbott into debating him in Canberra next week.
> 
> Mr Rudd, campaigning in his electorate in Brisbane, said Mr Abbott seemed to be saying he wouldn't participate in a debate because the election hadn't been called yet.
> 
> "I just think it's time for Mr Abbott to man up a bit," he told reporters




Rudd is fond of quaint outdated Australian sayings. Abbott should tell him to go and "root his boot" or "plait his sh*t" or both.


----------



## MrBurns (6 July 2013)

> "I just think it's time for Mr Abbott to man up a bit," he told reporters




What a laugh..........Rudd would go running to his mummy if Abbott fronted him


----------



## dutchie (6 July 2013)

Saw Tony Burke interviewed this afternoon  (Abbott Abbott Abbott).  Had not heard so much tripe since Gillard's misogyny speech.


----------



## sails (6 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Rudd is fond of quaint outdated Australian sayings. Abbott should tell him to go and "root his boot" or "plait his sh*t" or both.




Lol (but it still hurts to laugh as I just found out!)

I don't know what's worse - the Gillard drone and misogyny screeches or these silly Rudd stunts!  Is this the best labor have for a leader?


----------



## Calliope (6 July 2013)

sails said:


> Lol (but it still hurts to laugh as I just found out!)
> 
> I don't know what's worse - the Gillard drone and misogyny screeches or these silly Rudd stunts!  Is this the best labor have for a leader?




G'day sails. Welcome back to add your wisdom to the opposition to the forces of evil. I look forward to the day when we can say "sanity prevails".


----------



## drsmith (6 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Rudd is fond of quaint outdated Australian sayings. Abbott should tell him to go and "root his boot" or "plait his sh*t" or both.



They'd want to be good boots. 

The stitching wouldn't be able to stand it if he gave it the same treatment he's given border protection.


----------



## So_Cynical (6 July 2013)

By the amount of interest shown by the ASF right in this thread lately..one could come to the conclusion that you guys are getting a little worried. :dunno:


----------



## sails (6 July 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> By the amount of interest shown by the ASF right in this thread lately..one could come to the conclusion that you guys are getting a little worried. :dunno:





Not at all.  Don't forget the recycled leader was previously unceremoniously dumped for being incompetent...

And he's giving the people time before the election to remember...

- - - Updated - - -



Calliope said:


> G'day sails. Welcome back to add your wisdom to the opposition to the forces of evil. I look forward to the day when we can say "sanity prevails".





Thanks Calliope - that will be the day when we can say "sanity prevails" once again!  Not sure how much wisdom I add - I just don't like seeing my country in the hands of people who don't seem to know what they are doing.


----------



## Julia (6 July 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> By the amount of interest shown by the ASF right in this thread lately..one could come to the conclusion that you guys are getting a little worried. :dunno:



Yep, I'm quite prepared to admit to some concern that the Ruddster could pull the wool over everyone's eyes once again.


----------



## sptrawler (6 July 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> By the amount of interest shown by the ASF right in this thread lately..one could come to the conclusion that you guys are getting a little worried. :dunno:




Like I said before, you were talking up Gillard not long back. How did that go for you. lol

You are obviously going to get more intrest, when Battman returns, it's a shame Robbing left for the back bench.

- - - Updated - - -



Julia said:


> Yep, I'm quite prepared to admit to some concern that the Ruddster could pull the wool over everyone's eyes once again.




You just have to believe, most people aren't stupid.


----------



## bellenuit (7 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Yep, I'm quite prepared to admit to some concern that the Ruddster could pull the wool over everyone's eyes once again.




Yes, my fear too. 

I see he has given control over Australia's borders to a consensus agreement between Australia, Iran, Afghanistan and Indonesia. Australia deciding unilaterally what is best for us is apparently not desirable.


----------



## Calliope (7 July 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> By the amount of interest shown by the ASF right in this thread lately..one could come to the conclusion that you guys are getting a little worried. :dunno:




Yes, I am worried, Not that common sense will prevail, but that this narcissistic idiot will do irreparable damage to this country before he calls an election.


----------



## MrBurns (7 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Yes, I am worried, Not that common sense will prevail, but that this narcissistic idiot will do irreparable damage to this country before he calls an election.




Agree 100%


----------



## noco (7 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Yep, I'm quite prepared to admit to some concern that the Ruddster could pull the wool over everyone's eyes once again.




Julia, Rudd may pull pull the wool over your eyes but he certainly not over mine along with 65% of the Australian voters.

He is an expert psycho who knows how play on the minds of the naive.


----------



## sptrawler (7 July 2013)

I see Kev is desperate for a debate, asking Abbott questions is the only way he can get any policy ideas.

We've seen the result of Labor policies over the last six years, bring on the election.


----------



## explod (7 July 2013)

bellenuit said:


> Yes, my fear too.
> 
> I see he has given control over Australia's borders to a consensus agreement between Australia, Iran, Afghanistan and Indonesia. Australia deciding unilaterally what is best for us is apparently not desirable.




What for goodness sake is wrong with doing the best we can in consultation.  Against the teeming millions just steping stones away the notion of going alone on things is well past the useby date.

Most of you here are living in a past dreamland. 

Coming soon, ALP 55%, Lib/Nat 45%


----------



## sptrawler (7 July 2013)

explod said:


> Coming soon, ALP 55%, Lib/Nat 45%




Closely followed by $500b deficit and 100,000 asylum seekers with a coresponding increase in homeless ,as the refugees are put into all available public housing . lol


----------



## Julia (7 July 2013)

noco said:


> Julia, Rudd may pull pull the wool over your eyes



Hardly!
Fairly obviously I was referring to his astonishing public popularity.


----------



## noco (7 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Hardly!
> Fairly obviously I was referring to his astonishing public popularity.




I am sorry if I misunderstood your statement but you did say Rudd was pulling the wool over everyone's eyes.


----------



## noco (7 July 2013)

Andrew Bolt firming sums up Kevin Rudds 2007 statements to his latest rhetoric of 2013.

Lies, spin and back flips.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt


----------



## Calliope (7 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> I see Kev is desperate for a debate, asking Abbott questions is the only way he can get any policy ideas.
> 
> We've seen the result of Labor policies over the last six years, bring on the election.




Yes, Bolt is right. Rudd is acting like he is in Opposition  It is usually the Opposition Leader who is calling for a debate. It is very strange that he wants to debate Abbott's policies. He is obviously just grandstanding because so far he doesn't have any policies to debate.


----------



## Some Dude (7 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> It is very strange that he wants to debate Abbott's policies.




I would hope that we all think it would be a good thing for both of them to be debating each others policies often, and not just before the election.


----------



## Calliope (7 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> I would hope that we all think it would be a good thing for both of them to be debating each others policies often, and not just before the election.




I guess the Phoenix needs all the publicity he can get. However I am more inclined to agree with Christine Fuller;

"I'd like for him to disappear" and return to his ashes.


----------



## Some Dude (7 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> "I'd like for him to disappear" and return to his ashes.




That maybe but why adopt an attitude analogous to the picture of those monkeys you posted recently with regard to making all parties discuss and debate their intended policies?


----------



## Julia (7 July 2013)

noco said:


> I am sorry if I misunderstood your statement but you did say Rudd was pulling the wool over everyone's eyes.



So I did.  I'll have to be more careful about how I express myself if I don't want all the vociferous criticism I've expressed about Mr Rudd to be assumed non-existent.


----------



## Calliope (7 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> That maybe but why adopt an attitude analogous to the picture of those monkeys you posted recently with regard to making all parties discuss and debate their intended policies?




I guess you look at Rudd through rose-coloured glasses, whereas i see him as evil. Perhaps Rudd should debate this issue with Latham.



> *KEVIN Rudd says he won't be responding to criticism by former Labor leader Mark Latham.*
> Mr Latham told the ABC's Q&A program on Monday that Mr Rudd was engaged in a ``jihad of revenge'' against Julia Gillard, who ousted him in June 2010.
> ``You're getting into the realm of evil here with Rudd . . . with someone who has gone well beyond normal practices in politics,'' Mr Latham said.


----------



## bellenuit (7 July 2013)

explod said:


> What for goodness sake is wrong with doing the best we can in consultation.  Against the teeming millions just steping stones away the notion of going alone on things is well past the useby date.




It's not the consultation that is the issue, but the commitment to not take any unilateral action. Do Indonesia or Iran, for instance, make border security decisions unilaterally, without getting the OK from us? Of course they do. It's border security. Did Indonesia consult with us and await the OK from us when it decided to let these immigrants in to their country when they knew that their ultimate destination was Australia? Absolutely not. You get as much cooperation as you can, but ultimately you must do what's best for Australia. Indonesia could stop the flow of illegal migrants through its country at the drop of a hat, if it so wished, so this agreement is nothing more than them looking for ways to screw more money from Australia to get them to do what they should already be doing if they were good neighbours. They saw what ridiculous agreements Labor were willing to sign with Malaysia and decided that they may be able to strike a similar lucrative deal as they know Labor has its back to the wall.


----------



## Some Dude (7 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> I guess you look at Rudd through rose-coloured glasses, whereas i see him as evil. Perhaps Rudd should debate this issue with Latham.




An alternative perspective would be to say that I don't view either in the context of good and evil and that they are both valid recipients of criticism and encouragement as our philosophical inclinations inform us.


----------



## Calliope (7 July 2013)

bellenuit said:


> It's not the consultation that is the issue, but the commitment to not take any unilateral action. Do Indonesia or Iran, for instance, make border security decisions unilaterally, without getting the OK from us? Of course they do. It's border security. Did Indonesia consult with us and await the OK from us when it decided to let these immigrants in to their country when they knew that their ultimate destination was Australia? Absolutely not. You get as much cooperation as you can, but ultimately you must do what's best for Australia. Indonesia could stop the flow of illegal migrants through its country at the drop of a hat, if it so wished, so this agreement is nothing more than them looking for ways to screw more money from Australia to get them to do what they should already be doing if they were good neighbours. They saw what ridiculous agreements Labor were willing to sign with Malaysia and decided that they may be able to strike a similar lucrative deal as they know Labor has its back to the wall.




+1 I agree with your argument whole-heartedly, but I'm afraid it is wasted on Mr Plod who after all is a Greenie, and they want no restrictions on illegal entry at all.


----------



## Julia (7 July 2013)

bellenuit said:


> It's not the consultation that is the issue, but the commitment to not take any unilateral action. Do Indonesia or Iran, for instance, make border security decisions unilaterally, without getting the OK from us? Of course they do. It's border security. Did Indonesia consult with us and await the OK from us when it decided to let these immigrants in to their country when they knew that their ultimate destination was Australia? Absolutely not. You get as much cooperation as you can, but ultimately you must do what's best for Australia. Indonesia could stop the flow of illegal migrants through its country at the drop of a hat, if it so wished, so this agreement is nothing more than them looking for ways to screw more money from Australia to get them to do what they should already be doing if they were good neighbours. They saw what ridiculous agreements Labor were willing to sign with Malaysia and decided that they may be able to strike a similar lucrative deal as they know Labor has its back to the wall.



+2.
It's about time some Australian government ceased treating Indonesia as some sort of royalty of the realm.


----------



## medicowallet (7 July 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXfP2763gYo


(and +1 to the above post)


----------



## sptrawler (7 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> I would hope that we all think it would be a good thing for both of them to be debating each others policies often, and not just before the election.




The governments policies are in place and are failing.
The only policy the coalition has sugested, is to not allow processing of asylum seekers without papers.
Now the Rudd government is talking about adopting similar policy.
Why would the opposition partake in any discussion, with a party desperate for policy? That would be dumb.
If the government had coherent policy, it wouldn't be in the situation it finds itself.

They are desperately looking for answers, while at the same time tryng to distance themselves, from their poor policies. 
Sad really, they should have pondered the consequencies before making rash decissions, for personal gain.


----------



## sptrawler (7 July 2013)

I must admit, it is nice to see a lot of the reporters chirping up and stopping the tears, since Rudd has returned.lol

It was getting a bit sad readng Barrie Cassidy, Gittens, Carlton etc. Getting all morbid and depressed.

Not worry they will be all back there soon.lol


----------



## Calliope (8 July 2013)

The Therese Rein multimilliondollar firm Ingeus is losing its shine in Britain. Don't you just love trailing commissions?



> Joanna Long, a member of the lobby group Boycott Workfare, told The Australian that the unemployed had no real alternative but to work for free with no job at the end of the period.
> 
> *"It is deeply concerning someone so closely connected to the Australian Labor Party is helping to erode labour rights in the UK," Ms Long said.*
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ams-work-efforts/story-fn59niix-1226675641227


----------



## Calliope (8 July 2013)

Why did I put the last post on this thread?



> Rudd may feel Rein's divestment of her Australian government contracts during his first term as prime minister put sufficient distance between him and his spouse's business dealings. But conflicts of interest have a moral dimension and no more so than when Rudd denounces "Cameronite" policies while his spouse seeks to profit from them.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...n-from-uk-tories/story-e6frgd0x-1226675618288


----------



## drsmith (8 July 2013)

The latest essential media poll has the Coalition at 52% 2PP. This is the same as the previous weekly sample taken after the Kevin Rudd's resurrection to the Labor leadership.

Sportsbet has the Coalition at $1.22 and Labor $4.00, but interestingly, that assumes an election no later than the last weekend in September.

http://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/politics/australian-federal-politics

An interesting sub-poll on Essential Media this week is the Leader attribute comparisons between Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott.

http://essentialvision.com.au/leader-attributes-comparisons-3

With Kevin Rudd currently at messiah status amongst those polled, it can only be downhill for Labor from here.


----------



## Zedd (8 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Why would the opposition partake in any discussion, with a party desperate for policy? That would be dumb.




Dumb to put forward ideas that would help the nation, irrespective of who implements them? I'd call that selfish and short-sighted myself. Guaranteed there would be some policies that Labour would try and spin to be there own if the Coalition comes out with something special that is of moderate political nation, but the majority of policies will play to party core ideals, so they'd never be implemented by the opposing party.


----------



## MrBurns (8 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> Dumb to put forward ideas that would help the nation, irrespective of who implements them? I'd call that selfish and short-sighted myself. Guaranteed there would be some policies that Labour would try and spin to be there own if the Coalition comes out with something special that is of moderate political nation, but the majority of policies will play to party core ideals, so they'd never be implemented by the opposing party.




Plenty of time to announce policy, the right time is when Rudd announces an election date.


----------



## Zedd (8 July 2013)

springhill said:


> I don't expect Rudd to see out a full term and this is something the public should be aware of when voting Labor.




Interesting development: 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...eader-kevin-rudd/story-fn59niix-1226676110640

One would assume that this would give more confidence for Rudd supporters, but I think it'll be interesting to see exactly what public opinion is because I think this could be seen in a number of lights.


----------



## nulla nulla (8 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> The latest essential media poll has the Coalition at 52% 2PP. This is the same as the previous weekly sample taken after the Kevin Rudd's resurrection to the Labor leadership.
> 
> Sportsbet has the Coalition at $1.22 and Labor $4.00, but interestingly, that assumes an election no later than the last weekend in September.
> 
> ...




Messiah...."He's not the messiah, he's just a naughty little boy".


----------



## springhill (8 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> Interesting development:
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...eader-kevin-rudd/story-fn59niix-1226676110640
> 
> One would assume that this would give more confidence for Rudd supporters, but I think it'll be interesting to see exactly what public opinion is because I think this could be seen in a number of lights.




Trying to protect his position would be one of them  , but to be fair giving the rank and file a voice is another.

I wonder, though, if he truly has the party and the ordinary members interests at heart that these measures weren't suggested by Rudd when Gillard was still in charge.

He is as transparent as glass.


----------



## Tink (8 July 2013)

Agree Springhill.

He must be getting worried. We have been told how hard he is to work with, and everyone that remembers has deserted the ship.


----------



## Calliope (8 July 2013)

John Howard Lite.


----------



## wayneL (8 July 2013)

Just want to say... Springhill for PM!

Really enjoying the commentary mate


----------



## sptrawler (8 July 2013)

springhill said:


> Trying to protect his position would be one of them  , but to be fair giving the rank and file a voice is another.
> 
> I wonder, though, if he truly has the party and the ordinary members interests at heart that these measures weren't suggested by Rudd when Gillard was still in charge.
> 
> He is as transparent as glass.




He knows as soon as the election is over, the unions will push to roll him and put Shorten in.


----------



## Julia (8 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> Guaranteed there would be some policies that Labour would try and spin to be there (sic) own if the Coalition comes out with something special that is of moderate political nation,



Could you clarify the meaning of "that is of moderate political nation"?  I have no idea what you mean.


> but the majority of policies will play to party core ideals, so they'd never be implemented by the opposing party.



That hardly seems apparent in the way the Labor Party are adopting, piece by piece, the Coalition's successful border protection policy, despite the way they denigrated everything about it in the past.



Zedd said:


> Interesting development:
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...eader-kevin-rudd/story-fn59niix-1226676110640
> 
> One would assume that this would give more confidence for Rudd supporters, but I think it'll be interesting to see exactly what public opinion is because I think this could be seen in a number of lights.



The only realistic light in which to see it is our Kev protecting his position should he win government.
He couldn't give a stuff about the rights of ordinary members of the Labor Party, or those of his colleagues.
He just wants to avoid the almost inevitable repeat of being rolled again should the electorate be gullible enough to fall for his spin, whilst his colleagues find his arrogance and egocentricity just as unbearable the second time around.


----------



## db94 (8 July 2013)

The Labor party are about to be put in to a pile of deep deep doo doo

http://www.theage.com.au/world/snowden-reveals-australias-links-to-us-spy-web-20130708-2plyg.html

Aaaaaannnd the honeymoon period is over... 

EDIT: I knew this was happening as Australia follows the USA but will the average joe have suspected it?


----------



## Zedd (8 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Could you clarify the meaning of "that is of moderate political nation"?  I have no idea what you mean.




Oops. Typo. I meant moderate political opinion/views. ie. Not left, not right, not Labour, Liberal or any other flavour.



Julia said:


> That hardly seems apparent in the way the Labor Party are adopting, piece by piece, the Coalition's successful border protection policy, despite the way they denigrated everything about it in the past.




I think border policies are difficult. I don't think either party are sticking to their core ideals in the policies they've tried or suggested. What other pieces of Coalition policies do you think they've adopted? 



Julia said:


> The only realistic light in which to see it is our Kev protecting his position should he win government.
> He couldn't give a stuff about the rights of ordinary members of the Labor Party, or those of his colleagues.
> He just wants to avoid the almost inevitable repeat of being rolled again should the electorate be gullible enough to fall for his spin, whilst his colleagues find his arrogance and egocentricity just as unbearable the second time around.




Valid opinion. I disagree it's the only valid one.

I'm sure he is shoring up his position for if he gets in, but I don't think he should have been rolled in the first place, to then have his successor stay in power for the remainder of the full term. So although there may be multiple motivations for the reform, I honestly don't know which I think is the strongest motivator - future security, or correction of past wrongs (which is different again to revenge). 

Nor would I go so far as to say "he doesn't give a stuff" about the members of the party or his colleagues. Again, multiple interests but I think there's a genuine attempt to reform a party that has become far less than it's party members expect it to be. 

As to his colleagues and their criticism, my recall of the situation when he got rolled was of great public distrust for Gillard for her actions, so how else were her colleagues meant to justify it other than to publicly vent as much vitriol as possible. I personally feel some of it was exaggerated for Gillard's benefit.

All in all, with what I've seen and read so far of Rudd, I think he's putting on a great show to try and win the election, but from his actions so far I actually think he's trying to leave a legacy other than the PM who got stabbed in the back by his own party for pursuing policies that were initially supported by the public and his party.

- - - Updated - - -



db94 said:


> The Labor party are about to be put in to a pile of deep deep doo doo
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/world/snowden-reveals-australias-links-to-us-spy-web-20130708-2plyg.html
> 
> ...




I don't know if that's honeymoon over. It doesn't have a timeframe on when it was instigated, but I imagine it was agreed on between Howard and Bush, rather than Rudd/Gillard and Obama.


----------



## Knobby22 (9 July 2013)

Zedd said:


> All in all, with what I've seen and read so far of Rudd, I think he's putting on a great show to try and win the election, but from his actions so far I actually think he's trying to leave a legacy other than the PM who got stabbed in the back by his own party for pursuing policies that were initially supported by the public and his party.
> 
> .




If he can achieve change within the Labor Party, to reduce the power of the big Unions and factions and achieve greater democracy then his legacy will be greatly enhanced. At the last big Labor pow wow, Bracks, Faulkner and Carr tried to achieve change with a range of proposals and everything they proposed got knocked back. It won't be easy.


----------



## Calliope (9 July 2013)

At last we know why Rudd is so attractive to juvenile and immature minds. If he wins the election these are the people who will tip the balance. It's a bit scary.


----------



## Some Dude (9 July 2013)

Julia said:


> That hardly seems apparent in the way the Labor Party are adopting, piece by piece, the Coalition's successful border protection policy, despite the way they denigrated everything about it in the past.




It would be no different to the Coalition  becoming the best friend that Medicare ever had. All parties adjust to the political realities.


----------



## MrBurns (9 July 2013)

Rudd has closed the gap nicely, now watch all the power hungry sewer rats rally behind him like he's their best friend, they can smell a chance here.

We could have them back in if we aren't careful


----------



## Country Lad (9 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> ............and achieve greater democracy then his legacy will be greatly enhanced..............




I notice all the spin from Labor about Rudd's changes being more democratic.

After thinking about the process I can not understand how anybody can consider it more democratic than what we have now.

Let's consider what happens now.  

Whether it is Labor, Liberal, National or any other party, the voters elect someone to represent them in parliament.  That's democratic.

Those representatives of the voters, and on behalf of the voters (in the winning party) have elected their leader who is then the Prime Minister. That's democratic.

If those representatives of the voters decide that the leader should change then as representatives of the voters, they do so.  That's democratic.

Rudd now wants to introduce outside people who are not representatives of the voters to have a say in who will be the country's Prime Minister.  That's not democratic.

Not only are these outside people not representatives of the voters, they are not even a representative sample of the voters or of the adult population.  They are members of a comparatively small group (Labor party) being influenced by an even smaller group (unions) who, as only 18% of the workforce are even less representative of the voting population.  That's not democratic.

Regardless of whether it is the Labor, Liberals, Nationals or any other party, doing this it this way by introducing people outside the electoral system, is not democratic.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## Logique (9 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> John Howard Lite.
> View attachment 53225



Channelling John Howard. Yes Kevin, we really are that gullible. A vote for Rudd = a vote for Shorten and the vice-like Union stranglehold. 

As any remaining (outside of Surry Hills coffee shops) True Believers might say of Rudd:


> Cole Sear:  I was thinking... you're nice, but you can't help me.
> 
> _The Sixth Sense (1999)_


----------



## Purple XS2 (9 July 2013)

P.M. Rudd's ranting about changing the ALP rules on parliamentary leadership spills is a succinct demonstration of 2 things:

short of biting the head off a live chicken on camera, there is nothing Rudd could say or do that the caucus wouldn't sheepishly follow. Between now and the next election (weeks, months) Rudd is invulnerable as leader of the ALP caucus. They simply couldn't bring themselves to confront or question him, no matter what he does or proposes.
Mr Rudd has absolutely no concept of what a Prime Minister is actually supposed to do, namely lead a party or bloc in a Westminster system. Westminster government is the cabinet guided but not controlled by the PM. It's the difference between CEO (USA presidential style) and a Chairman of the board. Rudd is no chairman: he's a control freak and not a very good one. He _actually_ thinks that the public voted for him, personally, loyally and lovingly in 2007, as President of Australia. (The public did not of course vote for Gillard personally, - any of a dozen excuses why that isn't so will do). Accordingly, Rudd sees caucus acceptance of his leadership as a vote-once and shut-up event. Caucus is merely an electorate, not a collegiate. 
I wrote a while ago that the ALP parliamentary caucus would have to be certifiably insane to return to Rudd. Now that it's happened, I'm more convinced than ever.

P


----------



## noco (9 July 2013)

It is my own personal opinion that there is still a lot of bitterness and hatered in the Labor Party and there are still plenty of Gillard supporters in cabinet and caucas who will stop at nothing to get revenge on Rudd and will start white anting Rudd whenever they see an opportunity to do so.

I believe we will see a lot of this leading up to an election. There will be leaks from the Gillard supporters like Jenny Macklin who was one of her strong deciples and now in the Rudd cabinet. I also believe we will see Shortens true colours coming to the fore.


----------



## MrBurns (9 July 2013)

noco said:


> It is my own personal opinion that there is still a lot of bitterness and hatered in the Labor Party and there are still plenty of Gillard supporters in cabinet and caucas who will stop at nothing to get revenge on Rudd and will start white anting Rudd whenever they see an opportunity to do so.
> 
> I believe we will see a lot of this leading up to an election. There will be leaks from the Gillard supporters like Jenny Macklin who was one of her strong deciples and now in the Rudd cabinet. I also believe we will see Shortens true colours coming to the fore.




I think all that will start after the election, before that they will all rally behind him as that's their best chance.


----------



## sptrawler (10 July 2013)

Back in March we said Labor had an internal battle going on, between the unions and the moderates.

Well it looks like the moderates are going for the kill, this could blow up into a public fight.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-reforms-under-microscope-20130709-2poe9.html


----------



## noco (10 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Back in March we said Labor had an internal battle going on, between the unions and the moderates.
> 
> Well it looks like the moderates are going for the kill, this could blow up into a public fight.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-reforms-under-microscope-20130709-2poe9.html




And the party games will continue while there is dissension.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-gillard-ousting/story-fnihsr9v-1226676083652


----------



## sptrawler (10 July 2013)

noco said:


> And the party games will continue while there is dissension.
> 
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-gillard-ousting/story-fnihsr9v-1226676083652




My guess is, the unions will try to roll Rudd asap after the election and get Shorten into the P.M's chair. 
Therefore, they will be pushing for Rudd to call the election, before he can enact any anti union changes to the Labor Party constitution.

Rudd must be causing massive internal pressures in Labor. 

He is causing as much angst for Labor as he is for Liberal, saying he would overturn the 'captains pick', then ordaining it. The faceless men must be pulling their hair out.lol

You have to give Kev his due, he is a 'showman'.


----------



## drsmith (10 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> You have to give Kev his due, he is a 'showman'.



Kevin Rudd clearly thinks he can win the next election and wants to cement his position as party leader while the ALP are in office.

With the efforts to secure his position within Labor, the party must now realise that in resurrecting Rudd that they have created a monster, both internally and externally.


----------



## sptrawler (10 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> Kevin Rudd clearly thinks he can win the next election and wants to cement his position as party leader while the ALP are in office.
> 
> With the efforts to secure his position within Labor, the party must now realise that in resurrecting Rudd that they have created a monster, both internally and externally.




Absolutely, but is 'average' mainstream Australia buying it? I think not.


http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/kevin-lifts-polls-not-confidence-20130710-2ppii.html


----------



## noco (10 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Back in March we said Labor had an internal battle going on, between the unions and the moderates.
> 
> Well it looks like the moderates are going for the kill, this could blow up into a public fight.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-reforms-under-microscope-20130709-2poe9.html




Let the party games begin.

Some more information on Shorten and Howes.



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-gillard-ousting/story-fnihsr9v-1226676083652


----------



## drsmith (11 July 2013)

Kevin Rudd might jump to the polls in august,

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-party-on-election-alert-20130710-2pqt2.html


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> Kevin Rudd might jump to the polls in august,
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-party-on-election-alert-20130710-2pqt2.html




The unions will be pushing hard for as early as possible.


----------



## MrBurns (11 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> Kevin Rudd might jump to the polls in august,
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-party-on-election-alert-20130710-2pqt2.html




He wants to get all his overseas jaunts in first so he can weasel his way into the UN, that's much easier to line up while he's PM..........so the election will have to wait until it suits Rudd.

Wong looks entirely out of place next to Rudd and she looks very uncomfortable


----------



## drsmith (11 July 2013)

MrBurns said:


> He wants to get all his overseas jaunts in first so he can weasel his way into the UN, that's much easier to line up while he's PM..........so the election will have to wait until it suits Rudd.
> 
> Wong looks entirely out of place next to Rudd and she looks very uncomfortable



I suspect it's more about his current job and to that end, the polls will be his guide.

For Penny, the taste of Julia Gillard's political blood would still be lingering in her mouth as she walks side by side with the man whom she helped to assassinate the sisterhood's Prime-minister.


----------



## MrBurns (11 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> I suspect it's more about his current job and to that end, the polls will be his guide.
> 
> For Penny, the taste of Julia Gillard's political blood would still be lingering in her mouth as she walks side by side with the man whom she helped to assassinate Gillard's Prime-ministership.




If he had any nous he would go now, it wont get any better for him than it is right now.

I can hardly wait for the Libs campaign ads, they have so much to work with it will be brutal for Labor.


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Wong looks entirely out of place next to Rudd and she looks very uncomfortable




It is probable, she has been promised Deputy leadership, under Shorten, that would be the only concievable reason, for her knifing Gillard publicly.

Standing next to Rudd must be galling her, the whole alpha male thing, in the blue tie.

The whole nasty mess must be festering, something chronic.


----------



## Knobby22 (11 July 2013)

Saw a funny cartoon in yesterdays Age.
It showed a Labor politician saying, I present this unfair dismissal  law ... for Prime Ministers.


----------



## drsmith (11 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Standing next to Rudd must be galling her, the whole alpha male thing, in the blue tie.



I didn't initially notice the blue tie. 

It wouldn't have gone unnoticed by poor Pen. He's really rubbing the Labor sisterhood's noses in it with that.


----------



## db94 (11 July 2013)

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/nsw-act/prime-minister-kevin-rudd-is-under-fire-after-he-was-filmed-patting-the-head-of-a-disabled-woman-on-730-report/story-fnii5s3x-1226677298993

Rudd in his condescending ways as usual. 

Also Rudd will appear at the national press club on his own tonight to talk. This could either make or break him, it'll be interesting to see what happens. If he pulls it off, Abbott will be in some serious strife.

EDIT: I think its crazy that Rudd is gonna show up on his own and try and debate issues when he hasnt called the election date! Its a smart move by Abbott not to go as it will be in conditions in favour of Rudd. Abbott could even go and call out Rudd by playing us all and get to state an election date, could be a good move by him.


----------



## Some Dude (11 July 2013)

db94 said:


> Also Rudd will appear at the national press club on his own tonight to talk. This could either make or break him, it'll be interesting to see what happens. If he pulls it off, Abbott will be in some serious strife.




I guess "Stop Debate's!" doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "Stop the Boats!" does it.


----------



## Calliope (11 July 2013)

db94 said:


> Also Rudd will appear at the national press club on his own tonight to talk. This could either make or break him, it'll be interesting to see what happens. If he pulls it off, Abbott will be in some serious strife.




He will have a friendly and supportive audience. The Canberra Press Gallery loves him. If Abbott fronted up he would face a hostile environment in which he doesn't perform very well.


----------



## chode84 (11 July 2013)

Sometime's I have to remind myself that this isn't an LNP supporters forum (well not officially anyway). 

Meanwhile the odds for Labor keep shortening. They were at $4.50 after the first Rudd led polls were released. Now under 3.00 for the first time in a long while to 2.90.


----------



## Some Dude (11 July 2013)

chode84 said:


> Sometime's I have to remind myself that this isn't an LNP supporters forum (well not officially anyway).




Some of us try to inject a differing perspective..



> The story book's been read
> And every line believed
> Curriculum's been set
> Logic is a threat
> Reason searched and seized


----------



## drsmith (11 July 2013)

chode84 said:


> Now under 3.00 for the first time in a long while to 2.90.



In a two horse race, that's still a long way behind.


----------



## db94 (11 July 2013)

could someone please tell what positive economic policies are? Rudd keeps going on about it and it makes no sense at all!

Its a terrible way to classify policies.

All polices possess positives and negatives for different people, groups etc


----------



## MrBurns (11 July 2013)

If the comments over on the Drum are anything to go by Rudd has already worn out his welcome.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-11/young-disabilitycare-pat-on-the-head/4813114


----------



## Some Dude (11 July 2013)

db94 said:


> Rudd keeps going on about it and it makes no sense at all!




It makes sense from the perspective that Tony Abbott has invested significant political energy positioning himself as the "Not Julia Gillard" option. By being able to leverage Julia Gillard's lack of popularity as indicated in the polls, he has been able to adopt the small target strategy that John Howard did in 1996. Kevin is seeking to take advantage of that strategy now that a different "Not Julia Gillard" has been selected, one for which people likewise invested a lot of political and emotional energy into labelling as illegitimate or Macbeth like. As such, the very narrative that the Coalition successfully leveraged against Julia Gillard is going to play against them as the emotional sense of "justice restored" unfolds for a while and in that context, Kevin Rudd will be able to leverage the situation to utilise the narrative that being "not something" is not sufficient. i.e. a country does not survive on "stopping the boats" alone. The longer Tony Abbott avoids engaging this front, the more he will look like he is avoiding it.

Disagree with them or not, but there is a reason that politicians get a bump in the polls when they stand and fight in some manner. Kevin is attempting to make it harder for Tony when he does stand and fight by framing the rules and making him appear to start from scratch.


----------



## Calliope (11 July 2013)

MrBurns said:


> If the comments over on the Drum are anything to go by Rudd has already worn out his welcome.




This comment on Kev's speech  in SMH says it all. I notice that Kevvy has taken over  Julia's repetitive "Abbott Negativity"  slogans with gusto.



> 1145 a.m. post - partial quote from Kevvy: "... the hard work that is needed to develop, argue and implement policies that will change Australia for the better."
> So Kev - what policy development, argument and implementation have you acheived so far in your second stint? This is separate to you mouthing off irreponsibly about Indonesia having a war with Australia; renaming Gonski without changing anything; continuing Jools' repeated characterisations of Abbott as negative; a brief junket to Indonesia, during which SBY made the major announcements; planning for another junket, this time to Moscow for the G20; and entrenching yourself as ALP leader so that you don't get knifed again?
> How about announcing an election date so we the voters can make the decision as to who we want to lead this country -
> not the ALP cacus and ALP members?





Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...uly-11-2013-20130711-2prgx.html#ixzz2Yhh2gFQm


----------



## Tink (11 July 2013)

*Unions won't let Rudd change party rules *

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ange-party-rules/story-e6frgd0x-1226677324304


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2013)

db94 said:


> could someone please tell what positive economic policies are? Rudd keeps going on about it and it makes no sense at all!
> 
> Its a terrible way to classify policies.
> 
> All polices possess positives and negatives for different people, groups etc




Well Kev's positive his economic policies, are sending up unemployment, hes got the numbers to prove it.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/17956013/jobless-rate-up-but-wa-defies-trend/


----------



## Bushman (11 July 2013)

He tweeted an 'Uncle Arthur' photo of himself after he had cut himself shaving. 

Maybe he will become 'Kevin 24/7' and send us constant updates of himself. Sort of like, Kevin does the Truman Show. 

He is audacious this man. 

Meanwhile Tony has donned the lab coats again to visit a factory. He does like his dress-ups does Tony. Meanwhile, Kevin 24/7 is filling every media channel there is. 

@ the press club, Kev even had the audacity to talk about productivity in the one breadth and labour's IR policies in the other. Apparently, big business is just not using Labour's IR policies as they should. 

Lol, this guy is champagne comedy! 

My favourite is reforming the ALP after he has stitched up Gillard (and before her, Kimbo).


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2013)

Like someone has already said, there will be enough historical footage of past BS, to bury him.
He will soon get up everyones nose with his constant media barrage of garbage. Trying to distance himself from the current situation, ala asylum seekers.
He is so busy trying to con everyone, he will allienate himself, yet again.

Trying to hold off calling the election, while goading Abbott into exposing policy, will backfire.
His own party will get sick of him, yet again.lol


----------



## Some Dude (11 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Like someone has already said, there will be enough historical footage of past BS, to bury him.




How do you think perception politics works in this context? All sides have plenty of historical statements and footage to paint an opponent in any light they wish. It's the traction that matters i.e. what is the audience sensitive to at that time.


----------



## springhill (11 July 2013)

Talk about starting his speech off with mixed messages!

Mr Rudd started by criticising Tony Abbott's continual negativity when talking about our economy, and then proceeded to talk down the economy. He made at least 3 references to the China's economy slowing and the mining boom coming off the boil.

While it may be a fact, he did the exact opposite of what he has set his agenda as.... being positive. He in fact started with 2 negatives.

He made himself look rather childish by the over emphasis on Abbott not being there. We all knew, the press knew & he knew so why carry on like a fool. Some statesmanship, dignity and a simple reference to Abbott's absence would have served his purpose better.

While he is a great orator and I admire his skills in that area, the content left me feeling a little empty.

If you build an occasion up like he has done in this manner, you better bring the bling. 

Unfortunately for him, he hosted a party and only supplied lemonade. Ho hum.


----------



## drsmith (11 July 2013)

springhill said:


> Unfortunately for him, he hosted a party and only supplied lemonade. Ho hum.



Not only that, the lemonade was flat.

No fizz at all on specific policies such as the carbon tax and border protection.


----------



## qldfrog (11 July 2013)

to add a different opinion:
watch a bit of Rudd speech at lunch time: Tony is left behind a big way and we have Kevin as next PM if nothing change liberal side:
TA banging with carbon tax and fair works/etc  related matters is so 50's

Anyone who can add up and want to be informed (not the case i agree of a lot of the retirees behind the lnp)
knows that these are not the real problems 
what is the % of the population working under a workplace agreement? minute  vs the population
what is the real cost of the carbon tax in your power bill?
Next Tony will follow up the media CA style blaming the electricity bill on solar on the roof....
No real motivating aim, blue sky to reach, positive spin however rubbish it might be ultimately.
You need to motivate a nation, and that is definitively something Tony will not do
I have a small business and what i see is:
no decent  infrastructure
endless flow of foreign workers imported to compete against me but who do not have either the same taxes nor the same cost of living I have: how can i ever be competitive when my council rates /insurance/you name it increase by 10% p a, my plumber charges over $100 an hour and we get an endless stream of illegals piling up on the already enormous number of p[eople on welfare (various style including pensions, yes...)
that is what Tony has to fight on with a chance.
What about super which every one knows is a rort but seems to be accepted as both side have their own lobbies

anyway, as long as TA is there, I 'sll have to live with a socialist government and pay the cost....


----------



## drsmith (11 July 2013)

qldfrog said:


> Next Tony will follow up the media CA style blaming the electricity bill on solar on the roof....



The reality is that they have had an impact on electricity prices as a consequence of the subsidies offered.


----------



## Calliope (11 July 2013)

qldfrog said:


> to add a different opinion...
> 
> ...anyway, as long as TA is there, I 'sll have to live with a socialist government and pay the cost....




That's a very strange opinion...blaming  Tony Abbott because we have a rotten socialist government. Unfortunately he can't do anything about it until Rudd has an election.


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2013)

qldfrog said:


> to add a different opinion:
> watch a bit of Rudd speech at lunch time: Tony is left behind a big way and we have Kevin as next PM if nothing change liberal side:
> TA banging with carbon tax and fair works/etc  related matters is so 50's
> 
> ...




My guess is you need another three years of Labor.


----------



## qldfrog (11 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> My guess is you need another three years of Labor.



got already 3y too much thanks to Tony and inept opposition, there is no joy in seeing this country ruined and heading the way Europe went


----------



## qldfrog (11 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> The reality is that they have had an impact on electricity prices as a consequence of the subsidies offered.



without them you would be paying a couple of billions a pop for new power plants
6 billions I believe for NSW but it might have been for the whole of australia. if really looking, you can find the figures
I so  pay 3k upfront for a system,may get a subsidies of what 25%? but the capex is paid from my pocket
 you as my neighbour slowly pay part of the asset scheduled repayment, the difference is that the money goes to me, not energex or whoever...
And I do not mention the fact here in queensland we avoided a couple of wild cut during air cond surges.
You are too bright to swallow the propaganda...


----------



## Calliope (11 July 2013)

AS opposed to qldfrog, NT dog gives it's opinion of Mr Rudd's policies.





Kevin Rudd with Yirrkala indigenous leaders for the 50th anniversary of the Yirrkala Bark Petitions. Source: News Limited


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2013)

qldfrog said:


> without them you would be paying a couple of billions a pop for new power plants
> 6 billions I believe for NSW but it might have been for the whole of australia. if really looking, you can find the figures
> I so  pay 3k upfront for a system,may get a subsidies of what 25%? but the capex is paid from my pocket
> you as my neighbour slowly pay part of the asset scheduled repayment, the difference is that the money goes to me, not energex or whoever...
> ...




Bit of a side issue frog, I read that it is going to be a requirement that all a/c and hws will be fitted with a frequency switch. This is to enable the power system control to turn them off remotely in periods of high load.

You are right about load growth, it is reducing. This is due to a multitude of reasons, solar, wind, more efficient appliances & lights etc. Also a drop in manufacturing, small business etc.


----------



## drsmith (11 July 2013)

qldfrog said:


> without them you would be paying a couple of billions a pop for new power plants
> 6 billions I believe for NSW but it might have been for the whole of australia. if really looking, you can find the figures
> I so  pay 3k upfront for a system,may get a subsidies of what 25%? but the capex is paid from my pocket
> you as my neighbour slowly pay part of the asset scheduled repayment, the difference is that the money goes to me, not energex or whoever...
> ...



Perhaps new power plants would have generated cheaper electricity.

Why otherwise did solar require such generous government subsidies ?


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2013)

WOW, even the ABC is realises he is taking the pi$$.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4814094.html


Why call on Abbott to supply policy, when Rudd can't supply answers to the problems he caused.


----------



## Julia (11 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> The reality is that they have had an impact on electricity prices as a consequence of the subsidies offered.



Exactly right.  To suggest this is unrealistic is not valid, qldfrog.


----------



## sails (11 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> AS opposed to qldfrog, NT dog gives it's opinion of Mr Rudd's policies.
> 
> View attachment 53301
> 
> ...





anyone notice how disinterested the people are...


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2013)

Someones being getting tips.lol



I was going to put in a different clip, but it was a bit close to the bone.lol


----------



## No Trust (12 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> AS opposed to qldfrog, NT dog gives it's opinion of Mr Rudd's policies.
> 
> View attachment 53301
> 
> ...




That dog could be a bad omen for Rudd as its ananalgous of what Australia thinks of him and his Bullsh#t...

Talk talk talk and the boats just keep on coming...


----------



## noco (12 July 2013)

No Trust said:


> That dog could be a bad omen for Rudd as its ananalgous of what Australia thinks of him and his Bullsh#t...
> 
> Talk talk talk and the boats just keep on coming...




And Singapore calls him the showman from down under.


----------



## Calliope (12 July 2013)

sails said:


> anyone notice how disinterested the people are...




Or how precarious his platform looks. Another omen?


----------



## MrBurns (12 July 2013)

No Trust said:


> That dog could be a bad omen for Rudd as its ananalgous of what Australia thinks of him and his Bullsh#t...
> 
> Talk talk talk and the boats just keep on coming...




Good subject for this thread...........

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24559&page=8

I have to run so I'll let someone else post it.........


----------



## Calliope (12 July 2013)

*The world waits in line on a cold Canberra day to pay homage to King Kev.*


----------



## No Trust (12 July 2013)

Rudd's honeymoon will be over within weeks...

He can talk all he wants but the boats just keep on coming in... Australian people are not stupid, even labour voters are sick of this country being taken over by people smugglers and asylum seekers. These people do not assimilate into this country and laugh at how stupid this government is... Things have to change and the man who destroyed our border protection is not the answer. 

RUDD IS THE SAME DUDD...

- - - Updated - - -



Calliope said:


> Or how precarious his platform looks. Another omen?




He looks like he is falling into a sink hole... Another bad omen...


----------



## noco (12 July 2013)

Even RICHO belives Rudd's Labor reform is a dream only.

Just 'PIE IN THE SkY' and it will never happen.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...him-hes-dreaming/story-fnfenwor-1226677873722


----------



## db94 (12 July 2013)

The whole situation is being well played by Abbott. He is letting Rudd straw-man himself. Rudd talking about how he is going to revolutionise Australia with all these policies, and in turn he is building something up that he cannot be, too perfect of an image. People then reflect on all this talk and as humans do, look at the negatives and and realise what it was like when he last in, complete crap and all he did was show pony. This will result in people turning against him. People only liked him for getting rid of Gillard but after that becomes old what does he have?

Rudd is running into this election as if he is opposition leader (basically the same to how he did against howard). He already has the power to do all these miracles, why doesnt he do it now and show us that he is a capable pm?

The one thing that Rudd is doing, will be the thing that will destroy him. All the while Abbott sits back and lets Rudd do it


----------



## bunyip (12 July 2013)

db94 said:


> The whole situation is being well played by Abbott. He is letting Rudd straw-man himself. Rudd talking about how he is going to revolutionise Australia with all these policies, and in turn he is building something up that he cannot be, too perfect of an image. People then reflect on all this talk and as humans do, look at the negatives and and realise what it was like when he last in, complete crap and all he did was show pony. This will result in people turning against him. People only liked him for getting rid of Gillard but after that becomes old what does he have?




Well I sure hope you’re right.
But will they wake up to him before the election, or after it once they’ve stupidly put him back into power for another term?
There are some pretty thick people out there who are easily swayed by words. Like the bloke on TV the other night who said_ ‘Rudd seems to be more genuine this time around – I think he’s worthy of another chance’._

Anybody with any intelligence or common sense at all can see that Rudd is the same slimy, hollow bastard he was last time - big on words and ideas but small on common sense and practical ability. I just hope enough people can see it to prevent him pulling off an election win. To be stuck with this slimy incompetent clown for another term of government would be almost too much to bear.


----------



## drsmith (12 July 2013)

bunyip said:


> Well I sure hope you’re right.



This is what I think too.

Tony Abbott is just watching the smoke from Kevin Rudd spinning the wheels at full throttle and waiting for the engine to blow up. When it does let go (which I think will be before the election), the recriminations from within alone will make what has gone previous look like a church picnic.


----------



## explod (12 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> Tony Abbott is just watching the smoke from Kevin Rudd spinning the wheels at full throttle and waiting for the engine to blow up.




Tony Abbott does not seem to even know where Rudd went let alone observe the smoke.  

ALP 55%, 

others (whoever they may be)  45%


----------



## drsmith (12 July 2013)

Kevin Rudd's trying to hide himself with all the smoke. In doing that, the engine can only last so long. When it finally goes like a Russian N1 rocket, we'll know exactly how far he's gone.

It will be little pieces in every direction and a big crater underneath.


----------



## Julia (12 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> Tony Abbott is just watching the smoke from Kevin Rudd spinning the wheels at full throttle and waiting for the engine to blow up. When it does let go (which I think will be before the election), the recriminations from within alone will make what has gone previous look like a church picnic.






drsmith said:


> Kevin Rudd's trying to hide himself with all the smoke. In doing that, the engine can only last so long. When it finally goes like a Russian N1 rocket, we'll know exactly how far he's gone.
> 
> It will be little pieces in every direction and a big crater underneath.



I don't share your confidence.  In fact I think during his extended time on the back bench, Kevin Rudd has given very careful thought to exactly what he will do should he get this additional chance.

It doesn't make him changed in the least, or any more sincere, just smarter and more able to hide his dysfunctional ways.  His colleagues are so desperate to keep their seats (with the noble exceptions of those who were principled enough to resign) and will do whatever Kev says, having already mortgaged their souls to him.

We need to remember that much of the electorate doesn't take the day to day interest in politics that some of us here do, and are easily manipulated by someone who is zipping round the country, at least looking as though he has some plans for the future (never mind that they will be ill thought out and unfunded), whilst Mr Abbott largely sits impotently wondering what to do.


----------



## No Trust (12 July 2013)

Abbott is playing this out very smartly by not engaging in Rudd's stunts...  Why should he, let him grandstand for a few weeks and people will see how much hot air Rudd is full of. Just like the insulation and Mining Tax debacles he created he will come unstuck shortly... He's campaigning more against his own party than Tony Abbott.  Abbott is smart to step aside whilst this egotistical vortex of bullsh#t goes on. It's already running out of puff and the longer he holds off holding an election the more the sham will be exposed. Instead of nicking his face will the razor he may actually cut an artery... 




Julia said:


> I don't share your confidence.  In fact I think during his extended time on the back bench, Kevin Rudd has given very careful thought to exactly what he will do should he get this additional chance.
> 
> It doesn't make him changed in the least, or any more sincere, just smarter and more able to hide his dysfunctional ways.  His colleagues are so desperate to keep their seats (with the noble exceptions of those who were principled enough to resign) and will do whatever Kev says, having already mortgaged their souls to him.
> 
> We need to remember that much of the electorate doesn't take the day to day interest in politics that some of us here do, and are easily manipulated by someone who is zipping round the country, at least looking as though he has some plans for the future (never mind that they will be ill thought out and unfunded), whilst Mr Abbott largely sits impotently wondering what to do.


----------



## sptrawler (13 July 2013)

RED ALERT, saw Captain FW in an advert 5 minutes ago, full on election campaign add. lol

Was probably a bit of premature eleculation, or scamming.


----------



## sptrawler (13 July 2013)

Maybe an early election, Laurie Oakes reckons the coalition are rolling out the ads.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...im-at-kevin-rudd/story-fni0fha6-1226678690340


----------



## sptrawler (13 July 2013)

So what has the last six years of labor been about. Apparently they are scrapping the carbon tax, give me a break.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ke...ng-of-carbon-tax/story-fnii5s3y-1226678990206

What is going on!!!!!!

Explod give me some inside info on the capitulation.

or is it just another in the long list of failed policies.lol,lol,lol


----------



## Tink (14 July 2013)

Agree, No Trust, the femanazi are all screaming, that he is putting Gillard down, all part of his revenge.

The business owners are screaming, tell him he is dreaming, bring on the election.

Change of leaders with no change in policies.


----------



## sails (14 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> So what has the last six years of labor been about. Apparently they are scrapping the carbon tax, give me a break.
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ke...ng-of-carbon-tax/story-fnii5s3y-1226678990206
> 
> ...




No he's not scrapping pricing carbon - wants to call it an ETS after July 14. How many will be fooled?  That might lower the price but only until ETS prices rise again. 

And what's to say he won't keep any promises if they get in?

More fluff and no substance?


----------



## MrBurns (14 July 2013)

No this is fair enough, they stuffed up the carbon tax now they at least need the chance to stuff up removing it.


----------



## Julia (14 July 2013)

Rudd wanted an ETS in the first place so he can reasonably say he is being consistent on this.

It will make Tony Abbott's promise of removing 'that big bad tax' seem much less relevant, which of course is Rudd's intention.


----------



## MrBurns (14 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Rudd wanted an ETS in the first place so he can reasonably say he is being consistent on this.
> 
> It will make Tony Abbott's promise of removing 'that big bad tax' seem much less relevant, which of course is Rudd's intention.




Yes but it also shows they were wrong in the first place.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 July 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Yes but it also shows they were wrong in the first place.




What it really shows is that Rudd will do anything to get re-elected. It neutralises one more negative. Rudd can also say he never introduced it. A very wily politician.


----------



## Some Dude (14 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> What it really shows is that Rudd will do anything to get re-elected. It neutralises one more negative. Rudd can also say he never introduced it. A very wily politician.




Link.



> The Opposition again interrupted Question Time to accuse the Prime Minister of lying over the carbon tax and asking her to apologise to the Australian people.
> 
> But Mr Windsor said Mr Abbott would have been willing to introduce a carbon tax in order to win the support of independent MPs after the last election.
> 
> ...


----------



## drsmith (14 July 2013)

How is Labor going to get any reduction in its carbon price through the Senate ?

This is the kitchen sink. It's dependent on the Coalition losing the election and electing Malcolm Turnbull as the new Opposition Leader.


----------



## springhill (14 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Link.




I would believe Windsor about as far as I could spit him. 

He betrayed his conservative electorate for few shekels and the focus of the spotlight on himself for one term.

Then doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to face his electorate again. 

A loss in the next election would have proven his current term of office was fraudulent in the eyes of his constituents and a clear rejection of the position he took.

He wishes to write his own legacy.

A cretin and a man condemned.


----------



## Julia (14 July 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Yes but it also shows they were wrong in the first place.



I'm not sure what you mean here.  If Rudd said originally that he believed there should be an ETS (rather than a carbon tax), got rolled on it, and now that he's back, is continuing with what he originally said, who/what is wrong?

Good point, drsmith, on the passage of this through the Senate.  Hard to see the Greens going for it.


----------



## chode84 (14 July 2013)

Tony Windsor was twice the man Tony Abbott ever will be. Also, the polls had him beating Barnaby Joyce at the next election so I'm not sure what you're on about. 

"A poll by the resources industry in the past fortnight shows Mr Windsor would win 49 per cent of the primary vote compared with 38 per cent for Senator Joyce." - Fin Review.

It's hard to believe Windsor was just making **** up. Especially when you see clips of Abbott saying the exact same thing. 



I'm hearing a lot of reasons why the government are wrong when it comes to anything they attempt to do with reducing emissions so I'm interested to hear what you guys would do? Serious question.


----------



## Some Dude (14 July 2013)

springhill said:


> He betrayed his conservative electorate for few shekels and the focus of the spotlight on himself for one term.




Setting aside the very public fallout between the Coalition/Nationals and the two NSW independent's, have you ever looked at Tony Windsor's and Rob Oakeshott's voting records before the 2010 election?


----------



## So_Cynical (14 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> What it really shows is that* Rudd will do anything to get re-elected*. It neutralises one more negative. Rudd can also say he never introduced it. A very wily politician.




And that's in stark contrast to the Noalition who think that they don't need to do anything to get elected.

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



drsmith said:


> How is Labor going to get any reduction in its carbon price through the Senate ?




They don't need to, its already legislated, they just drop the tax 1 year early and move to an ETS.


----------



## drsmith (14 July 2013)

chode84 said:


> It's hard to believe Windsor was just making **** up. Especially when you see clips of Abbott saying the exact same thing.



I note that in the linked video, Tony Abbott qualifies this view with,



> If the simple challenge is to put a price on carbon.......




The reality is that the challenge is far greater than that. For a start it needs to be global, or at least include a vast majority of the world's economy which it currently does not. This feeds into the broad area of not economically overpricing our own carbon dioxide emissions in a global context which our current carbon tax does. That just disadvantages our economy relative to the rest of the world. 

While neither political side can cover themselves in glory on their past commentary on this matter, we now have a carbon price that is acknowledged as having serious deficiencies from both the major political parties with Labor's latest acknowledgement of that being an announcement today to bring forward the ETS start up date to reduce the price. 

This is the same carbon pricing scheme to which Tony Windsor, the other Labor aligned independents and the Greens agreed and what we've finished up with is a dogs breakfast.

The biggest sin out of all this is that Labor lied and this has set the discussion in Australia back immensely.

In broad discussion relation to managing carbon dioxide emissions, last Monday's Q&A is interesting.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3783606.htm


----------



## Some Dude (14 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> The biggest sin out of all this is that Labor lied and this has set the discussion in Australia back immensely.




Except that as we have already discussed, it wasn't a lie. We can discuss our opinions about it being good, bad, etc. but unless you are specifically referring to the consultative assembly, I have already demonstrated to you that Julia Gillard did say she wanted to introduce a carbon price before the election and Tony Abbott understood the difference.


----------



## drsmith (14 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Except that as we have already discussed, it wasn't a lie.




I not going over that again. As you said yourself, there's very little room for ambiguity. 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...21961&page=117&p=782384&viewfull=1#post782384

Others should they wish can re-read that discussion and form whatever conclusions they wish.


----------



## springhill (14 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Setting aside the very public fallout between the Coalition/Nationals and the two NSW independent's, have you ever looked at Tony Windsor's and Rob Oakeshott's voting records before the 2010 election?




That has very little, if nothing, to do with current voter opinion. Voter opinions can change in a week, let alone 3 years.


----------



## Some Dude (14 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> I not going over that again. As you said yourself, there's very little room for ambiguity.
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...21961&page=117&p=782384&viewfull=1#post782384
> 
> Others should they wish can re-read that discussion and form whatever conclusions they wish.




Indeed. That post demonstrated that the reporter left little room for ambiguity when stating that Julia Gillard stated a date for a different topic in that interview, yet for the one we were discussing there was ambiguity which if one accepted your interpretation would conflict with her exact quoted words. I would ask you not to misrepresent what I wrote.

For anyone who wants to follow what was actually said, start from this post here.


----------



## springhill (14 July 2013)

chode84 said:


> Tony Windsor was twice the man Tony Abbott ever will be.




Do you have some official scale to measure that on, or are you posting your personal opinion as a factual, numerical statistic?



chode84 said:


> Also, the polls had him beating Barnaby Joyce at the next election so I'm not sure what you're on about.
> "A poll by the resources industry in the past fortnight shows Mr Windsor would win 49 per cent of the primary vote compared with 38 per cent for Senator Joyce." - Fin Review.




The sad this is Mr Windsor hasn't the intestinal fortitude to test his support in the community.

As we all know politicians don't pay attention to polls.


----------



## Some Dude (14 July 2013)

springhill said:


> That has very little, if nothing, to do with current voter opinion. Voter opinions can change in a week, let alone 3 years.




But it does speak to your opinion about betrayal as you put it. Anyone who took notice would know that allusions about "betrayal" do not comport with their voting record and are more likely reflective of people's disappointment with them not doing what they wanted them to do.


----------



## chode84 (14 July 2013)

> ...or are you posting your personal opinion as a factual, numerical statistic?




errrr... no, it's just an opinion. Obviously.


----------



## drsmith (14 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Indeed. That post demonstrated that the reporter left little room for ambiguity when stating that Julia Gillard stated a date for a different topic in that interview, yet for the one we were discussing there was ambiguity which if one accepted your interpretation would conflict with her exact quoted words. I would ask you not to misrepresent what I wrote.
> 
> For anyone who wants to follow what was actually said, start from this post here.



If I was to offer some personal advice, it would be to try and get over losing an argument a little quicker than you have in this instance.

It's not the end of the world. Over time I've lost plenty and in some instances hopefully ended up a little wiser for the experience.


----------



## Some Dude (14 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> If I was to offer some personal advice, it would be to try and get over losing an argument a little quicker than you have in this instance.




Thanks, free advice is always appreciated.

Some of my own advice for you. Understand that there is a difference between claiming something and demonstrating it. If you care about whether what you believe and tell others is true, it does make a difference.

You are welcome to continue the conversation that you chose to cease if you wish. If not, I would still ask you not the misrepresent what I wrote.


----------



## drsmith (14 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Thanks, free advice is always appreciated.
> 
> Some of my own advice for you. Understand that there is a difference between claiming something and demonstrating it. If you care about whether what you believe and tell others is true, it does make a difference.
> 
> You are welcome to continue the conversation that you chose to cease if you wish. If not, I would still ask you not the misrepresent what I wrote.



Apart from the time involved, I don't wish to continue that conversation as you were seeking to introduce other points of argument into that discussion as a means of remediation from losing the primary point of argument.


----------



## Some Dude (14 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> Apart from the time involved, I don't wish to continue that conversation as you were seeking to introduce other points of argument into that discussion as a means of remediation from losing the primary point of argument.




Such as?

Again, in the context of claiming versus demonstrating, it was taking a long time trying to help you understand earlier factual points that you were struggling incorporate into your opinion on the matter.

But we eventually got there on at least one of them which is when you chose to drop the topic like a hot potato.



Some Dude said:


> Again, the carbon tax is not a carbon pricing scheme. Technically the ETS was down but I also accept your point here such that this is where my point 3 comes into play and I have acknowledged that that is a slam dunk. The consultation process did not occur despite Julia Gillard stating before the election that she wanted to implement a carbon pricing mechanism.
> 
> Are you able to revisit my points because they are pertinent to this discussion as I hope you can now see.






drsmith said:


> There are many potential avenues for discussion on the points that have been raised and in that sense, one can easily spend more time in front of the small screen debating these issues than perhaps one should.
> 
> While I've enjoyed the discussion, I feel a little that way about the amount of time I've spent on this today.


----------



## drsmith (14 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Such as?



I'm simply not interested.

As far as I'm concerned, that particular conversation ended with your eventual acknowledgement about the timing of any ETS from Labor. That's what I was trying to say, politely, at the time.


----------



## Some Dude (14 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> I'm simply not interested.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, that particular conversation ended with your eventual acknowledgement about the timing of any ETS from Labor.




As I said, only matters if you care about the truth. In future, do not misrepresent what I write.


----------



## drsmith (14 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> As I said, only matters if you care about the truth. In future, do not misrepresent what I write.



Well, you can jump up and down all you like. 

I'm afraid the bottom line is that there's no misrepresentation in the truth that Labor lied both about how and when it would price carbon.


----------



## Some Dude (14 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> Well, I'm afraid the bottom line is that there's no misrepresentation in the truth that Labor lied both about how and when it would price carbon.




I assume then that you wish to continue the discussion. Let's pick up where we left off.



Some Dude said:


> Are we able to agree on any of the following or can something factual be provided to negate the following as facts on this topic?
> 
> 1. A carbon tax is different to a carbon pricing scheme. Tony Abbott knows the difference.
> 
> ...




Are you able to agree with those statements? If not then please be concise with supporting information in stating why not.


----------



## sails (14 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> Well, you can jump up and down all you like.
> 
> I'm afraid the bottom line is that there's no misrepresentation in the truth that Labor lied both about how and when it would price carbon.




The ignore function works particularly well here at ASF in situations like this...


----------



## Some Dude (14 July 2013)

sails said:


> The ignore function works particularly well here at ASF in situations like this...




Nah, I don't mind discussing it with people. They won't open their minds to other possibilities if I place them on ignore 

It's going to be interesting once people finally realise what labelling it a "carbon tax" has actually done. Someone is going to implement a publicity stunt (ALP or Coalition) to remove the "carbon tax" and lo and behold, nothing will really change.

But ignore me


----------



## Calliope (14 July 2013)

Plibersek says that Coalition ads dumping on Rudd are "negativity". But that's only because it's hard to find  anything positive about Rudd or his policies or his past history.
But it is good to know that Labor will not be putting out any negative ads about Abbott.



> But Labor frontbencher Tanya Plibersek said the advertisement would probably be more damaging for the opposition than for Mr Rudd because voters were sick of negativity.
> 
> "It's the same old negativity from Tony Abbott," she told reporters in Sydney.
> 
> ...




http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ets-rudds-record/story-fni0xqi3-1226679108993


----------



## MrBurns (14 July 2013)

Julia said:


> I'm not sure what you mean here.  If Rudd said originally that he believed there should be an ETS (rather than a carbon tax), got rolled on it, and now that he's back, is continuing with what he originally said, who/what is wrong?
> 
> Good point, drsmith, on the passage of this through the Senate.  Hard to see the Greens going for it.




It shows Labor was wrong, doesn't matter what Rudd would or wouldn't have done ........Labor, the party, was wrong.

- - - Updated - - -



> But Labor frontbencher Tanya Plibersek said the advertisement would probably be more damaging for the opposition than for Mr Rudd because voters were sick of negativity.




The voters are sick of the Labor party and everyone associated with it, is a more correct statement.


----------



## noco (14 July 2013)

This is so so true !!!!!



Would The Real Australia Please Stand Up

      Allan Essery for Menzies House - 9 July 2013



I have been a fan of Professor Thomas Sowell for quite some time and believe that his observations convey messages that need to be conveyed.  There is much truth in his claim that, ''Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good.'' 



Since the mid to late 60's we have seen our once vibrant manufacturing industry slowly fade away until it is but a shadow of its former self and we have become reliant on sub-standard goods manufactured in foreign factories.



We have seen our home grown product labels sold off to foreign interests, our education system take several backward steps from common sense.  We have witnessed a welfare system that was supposed to be a safety net develop into an entitlements regime where those that have contributed absolutely nothing believe that it is their right to be supported by those that do 



Back in the 60's Australia boasted an innovative and progressive iron and steel industry that provided employment at Port Kembla alone for thousands of workers.  In addition there were those employed by the many off-shoots and support industries and an apprenticeship scheme that provided tradesmen of all kinds for the future.  



There were some 14 vehicle manufacturers with around 28 manufacturing and assembly plants around Australia.  Again there was a specialist network of supporting industries.  Today we see Ford signalling its closure in Australia and Holden hanging on by the skin of its teeth and most of those supporting industries have long gone.



Clothing and shoe manufacture virtually does not exist in Australia today.  This is in stark contrast to that which existed immediately following WWII.  In Australia there was an influx of migrants from war torn Europe.  The males were absorbed into iron and steel industries at Port Kembla, Newcastle, Whyalla and other avenues of employment.  Industries sprang up taking advantage of a huge pool of  migrant women and  absorded this plethora of available and willing female workers.



In the Wollongong region alone there were 13 shoe and clothing manufacturers with multiple factories from Bellambi to Dapto.  They no longer exist and again their supporting industries went with them and we haven't even considered the rest of the country.



What happened?  Well, if we take into account the voting intelligence of a large portion of Australian voters we would find that they will, almost without fail, elect governments that promise the earth and provide little.  They will vote in a government on little more than a few pre-elections short term sweeteners and promises laced with lies and deceipt that produce little more than broken promises and failed policies.  They will accept the word of politicians who have an understanding of finances and economy that would be on par with the expertise of Donald Duck.



Robin P, who inspried this article said, ''I have seen our social secutiry system, which is great in principle, abused right left and centre by those it is meant to protect. What should be a safety net has become an albatross around our necks.  Come hell or high water that system has to be returned to the ''Safety Net'' that it was supposed to be.''  



What we need to do is to dump all of the procrastinators and wafflers.  Get rid of the self professed ''experts'', the failed economists, consultants, psychologists, over paid bureaucrats, get rich quick lawyers, big government and vote buying talentless politicians and get back to the principle of production, value adding and the reignition of our national pride.  What a change that would be from the do nothing, produce nothing and add nothing mentality that exists today.



Then there is the government sponsored lottery in which you don't even have to buy a ticket.  Baby bonuses, carbon tax offsets, GFC handouts, never ending unemployment benefits for dole bludgers and immigrants who are still unemployed after five years in Australia.  This is the way in which politicians seek to stay in office while they assure you they know what they are doing and that they are really looking after you.



Nothing will change, except to worsen, if Australians don't wake up and if they continue to elect into government talentless would be politicians who have nothing more to offer than a gigantic ego and the ability to yap while they reap from the politicians grab bag remuneration the worth of which far exceeds their contribution.

MY PERSONAL NOTE:

After reading the above, one has to think where will Australia be in 20 years time?

Our down fall started back in the 50's and 60's thanks to the Socialist Labor Party which have been dictated to by the Communist dominated Trade Unions demands for higher pay, longer annual leave (from 2 to 4 weeks), 17.5% leave loading, shorter and shorter working weeks, penalty rates, Labor Party regualtions of RED and GREEN tape applied to all business whether it be Manufacturing, Mining or Agriculture.

Somebody has to pay for these greedy union demands and it is you and me.

Other ASF members might like to add to the impositions applied to our manufacturing sector in recent times.

Is it any wonder we can't compete with overseas manufactured goods?

Is it any wonder we now find ourselves in this postion of being noncompetitive?

Has anyone noticed the unions coming to the party to help companies going out of business or do they scream for more subsidies from the ruling Governments of the day?


----------



## moXJO (14 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> I assume then that you wish to continue the discussion. Let's pick up where we left off.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you able to agree with those statements? If not then please be concise with supporting information in stating why not.





I am almost certain of video of swan saying there would not be any tax in any form. The reporter was clear in asking that it would not be hidden under another name and swan was adamant that the labor party would not.


----------



## springhill (14 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> But it does speak to your opinion about betrayal as you put it. Anyone who took notice would know that allusions about "betrayal" do not comport with their voting record and are more likely reflective of people's disappointment with them not doing what they wanted them to do.




That is your interpretation

You are splitting hairs and attempting to change the scope of the conversation. 

Debating 'betrayal' and 'disappointment' and/or differences between.

Others may allow you to do this, I won't.

I am not interested in pre 2010 nor in technical nuances of specific wording. 

I am interested in Windsor's conduct during his current term, voter reaction during it and his reluctance to test his conduct during the minority Government term.


----------



## Some Dude (14 July 2013)

moXJO said:


> I am almost certain of video of swan saying there would not be any tax in any form. The reporter was clear in asking that it would not be hidden under another name and swan was adamant that the labor party would not.




Already discussed but feel free to continue. Perhaps you can do what only one other person has had the honesty to acknowledge.

Again, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind's about the ALP, Julia Gillard, their dislike of "any" cost associated with carbon, etc. It's just fundamentally dishonest (and irony given the topic) to say that what was implemented "is a tax" and that Julia Gillard did not indicate that she wanted to implement a pricing scheme. It's there from both Julia Gillard stating it to Tony Abbott discussing the differences between a tax and a property right i.e. trading mechanism.

That the result was a significant part of Julia Gillard's downfall, the compromise did involve dropping the consultative assembly, the fixed period acts "like a tax", it should have been announced earlier, Wayne Swan was being evasive, etc. These are not the issue I am banging on about. But words have meanings and when we start reading about "removing the carbon tax", all that has happened is that the people who insisted on the "carbon tax lie" have simply facilitated someone else (Rudd or Abbott) to play a shell game.


----------



## sptrawler (14 July 2013)

springhill said:


> That is your interpretation
> 
> You are splitting hairs and attempting to change the scope of the conversation.
> 
> ...




To put it simply, if Windsor and Oakeshot, thought they had any chance of retaining their seats, they would still be in the game.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 July 2013)

noco said:


> Since the mid to late 60's we have seen our once vibrant manufacturing industry slowly fade away until it is but a shadow of its former self and we have become reliant on sub-standard goods manufactured in foreign factories.
> 
> .....
> 
> Is it any wonder we can't compete with overseas manufactured goods?



Trying to compete against wages close to zero, no safety standards and minimal environmental standards is the real problem in the first place.

Australia isn't going to be competitive at manufacturing unless we're prepared to go back to considering deaths on the job as "just a consequence of progress", foam rolling up the beaches and multi-coloured water in the sea and acid mist falling from the sky rusting everything in sight. Those under 35 - 40 or thereabouts probably don't realise just how common such things were in the past, indeed you could find all of that and more not by travelling around the country but in the same town. 

If we want to have safety, environment etc protections then we're never going to compete against those that don't. Like it or not, at some point the "western" nations will end up going back to tariffs or import quotas, the only question being which country does it first.


----------



## drsmith (14 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Julia Gillard's downfall




You drown in your own words,



Some Dude said:


> I am not defending Julia Gillard here because I believe that her government deserved to lose because of how issues like this were handled.


----------



## dutchie (15 July 2013)

Henry Ergas sums up Rudd:



Super Kevin is the I of the storm

    by: Henry Ergas
    From: The Australian
    July 01, 2013 12:00AM 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...e-i-of-the-storm/story-fn7078da-1226672214485

THE trouble with Kevin is that he's unfit to govern. On that his former colleagues are right. And when no less an authority than Stephen Conroy thinks you're certifiable, the home for the bewildered surely beckons.

Yet he's back. Why is clear enough. Virtually everywhere, democratic politics is more competitive than it has ever been. With social class and ideology weakening as determinants of voting patterns, fewer and fewer voters are rusted on to particular parties. The mistakes parties make are therefore punished more quickly and harshly, with electoral wipe-outs becoming common in the advanced democracies.

But it was not only the threat of decimation that unnerved federal Labor: it was the prospect of having to rebuild, for the first time in living memory, without control over any major state or a strong union movement to cushion the fall.

Yes, changing leader might not prevent Labor losing the election. It would, however, avoid Coalition control of the Senate, giving an obstructionist opposition a chance to condemn an Abbott government to a short, unhappy life.

Dumping Julia Gillard was therefore rational. But the difficulty is that Rudd has form. This is the man who converted a stunning victory in 2007 into virtual defeat three years later. Incapable of setting priorities, reckless when caution was called for and paralysed when decisiveness was required, his administration was a lesson in disaster.

Instead of a consistent approach to asylum-seekers, he flip-flopped between compassion and harshness. Instead of pursuing his emissions trading scheme, he panicked, shifting to a poorly judged blitz at hospital funding. Instead of tax reform, he sat on the Henry report and then tried to ram through its most questionable recommendation.

And instead of prudent economic management, he presided over an unprecedented increase in spending for no measureable improvement in outcomes, while unleashing a stimulus package that was disproportionate, inflexible and riddled with poor quality programs.

All that is unsurprising. For unlike successful prime ministers, Rudd lacks any coherent view of the world. Cast in terms of excruciating difficulty, his replies to questions wrap the vacuous in the impenetrable. As for his essays, which have never risen above irritable mental scratchings masquerading as insights, they make reading the logically structured telephone directory a relief.

That is not to suggest ideas are the grappling hooks of politics; but without a disciplined intellectual framework, no prime minister can steer through the whirlwind of events. It was not because Rudd disdained proper process that his policies made no sense; he disdained proper process because he invariably championed policies any sensible process would rule out.

But these seem mere symptoms of Rudd's underlying persona, whatever that may be. Gillard never succeeded in achieving sincerity, much less authenticity, in her presentation of self; but with Rudd, it has always been uncertain whether there really is a self there.

Rather, lurching between incomprehensible jargon and theatrical ockerisms, he is reminiscent of Nietzsche's description of a man who is just a succession of masks, doomed to an "irreconcilable antithesis between an interior which corresponds to no exterior and an exterior to which no interior corresponds".

And Nietzschean too is his "will to power" with its passion for vengeance and hunger for crises, as only "dancing beside abysses" allows the Ubermensch to transcend the "mechanistic stupidity" of everyday necessity.

Little wonder then that, pressed by Tony Abbott to apologise for the deaths caused by the pink batts program, he refused: as Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov said, it is beneath the Napoleons of this world to admit regret for their deeds. The furthest they can go is to express collective remorse for the sins of the fathers, thereby highlighting their own moral superiority.

And little wonder too that Rudd shows no sign of having changed. On the contrary, in merely four days, he has been as erratic as ever: one moment he recognises that the end of the resources boom makes competitiveness paramount; the next, he imposes punitive restrictions on 457 visas. Back also is the uncontrollable exaggeration, claiming a policy he once advocated would trigger war with our largest neighbour. And so is the utter disregard for the facts, justifying the National Broadband Network on the basis that "a bunch of Chinese students in Brissy said to me 'what is it about your local broadband speeds Kevin?' ", despite Brisbane's broadband speeds being multiples of those in China.

Yet whatever honeymoon Rudd enjoys in the polls cannot disguise the circumstances he faces. The constraints are obvious: a dangerously volatile world economy; slowing domestic growth; a precarious fiscal position; and promissory notes issued to a slew of programs funded to barely half their costs.

The longer he postpones an election, the more those constraints will close in on him. And to navigate them, he will have to swim through waters he has poisoned. The predators he will meet there are hardly insubstantial; rather, they include his party's most senior members. True, his proven reputation for payback may slow their pace; sooner or later, however, they will do to him what he did to them.

But in Rudd's internal visions, that is not what lies ahead. Instead, he sees himself as the reincarnation of Andrew Fisher, the great Labor prime minister who led three governments (1908-09, 1910-1913, 1914-15) and whose gold pen he owns. His triumph over Gillard will only strengthen his conviction that he is ordained to replicate Fisher's glory.

But the unassuming Fisher, meticulous about fact and process, is as removed from Rudd as the Australia of a century ago is from today's. Nor can any amount of messianic delusion bridge that gap. Always the I of the storm, the future of the Nambour Overman promises to be no less troubled than his past.


----------



## Some Dude (15 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> You drown in your own words,




Your point being? Sometimes, more words are needed.


----------



## Knobby22 (15 July 2013)

That article is an obscurest attempt at hurling abuse while attempting to sound intellectual.
Didn't deserve to be published.


----------



## sptrawler (15 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> That article is an obscurest attempt at hurling abuse while attempting to sound intellectual.
> Didn't deserve to be published.




Well, that just shows how everyone sees the same thing differently, I thought it was a terrific discription of Rudd. Also a great summation of his policy development, but as I said that is only my opinion.

It would be great if the author could do a similar article on Abbott.


----------



## noco (15 July 2013)

Dutchie, That article you posted about Kevin Rudd by Henry Ergas describes Rudd in detail. 

As I have said before, Rudd is a real circus show pony.


----------



## dutchie (15 July 2013)

noco said:


> Dutchie, That article you posted about Kevin Rudd by Henry Ergas describes Rudd in detail.
> 
> As I have said before, Rudd is a real circus show pony.




We can see that but how does he fool so many other Australians?


----------



## explod (15 July 2013)

noco said:


> As I have said before, Rudd is a real circus show pony.




Yes and very a big show it is too.

On the news tonight we see our Chief shaking the hands of the Indonesian President and also the leaders of New Guinea.  This is the sort of fluff that the sheeple love to see, it makes them feel good and secure.  Subconsciously people fear the teeming millions just across our northern borders, so to see the leaders from these lands shaking hands with Krudd and smiles all round we do indeed have a positive circus.

Getting closer by the day now to ALP 55% Lib/nat 45%

Election will be called sooner because the Libs are losing the plot.  Even the negative advert on TV about Rudd shows a good photo of him, which is of course the main imprint on minds.  So the Libs cannot even pull off a paid add against him.   Prolley some of your money down the tubes there noco.

Ruddies change on carbon may now see Green vote increase.   This is another area underestimated by the right wing.

And if anyone wants to see a real loser they only have to glance at the large photo of a worried looking man on front page of todays Age.


----------



## drsmith (15 July 2013)

Labor's poll rise post Kevin Rudd's 2nd coming has levelled off short of stable orbit on the latest Essential Media poll. 2PP still 52% in favour of the Coalition.

Also of note, the Greens voter base has already become a victim of political gravity and smashed when compared to the last election.

http://essentialvision.com.au/federal-politics-–-voting-intention-172


----------



## drsmith (16 July 2013)

While I'm of the view that tax minimisation for vehicle usage from salary income should not be allowed, I also note the usual collateral damage from another not-so-precise knee jerk by Labor. 

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20130716/pdf/42h2clph915tzz.pdf


----------



## sptrawler (16 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> While I'm of the view that tax minimisation for vehicle usage from salary income should not be allowed, I also note the usual collateral damage from another not-so-precise knee jerk by Labor.
> 
> http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20130716/pdf/42h2clph915tzz.pdf




It is ironic, that companies are hammered, while Labor try to fix up something they introduced.

Just have to add these companies to the list of companies, that went under when the tax was introduced.

Yep, this is the way to run a country, let's all gather round for a chorus of kum by yah, Kevs back.:1zhelp:


----------



## Julia (16 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> While I'm of the view that tax minimisation for vehicle usage from salary income should not be allowed, I also note the usual collateral damage from another not-so-precise knee jerk by Labor.
> 
> http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20130716/pdf/42h2clph915tzz.pdf



That's a very realistic precaution.   
I might be misunderstanding the change, but can't companies still provide the same car benefits to employees, eg sales people, but just require them to actually document the use, in contrast to up to now being able to just arbitrarily claim 20% deduction?

Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

Whatever, it seems a vast overreaction for Ray Hadley to claim that "this is the end of the new car industry".


----------



## Knobby22 (16 July 2013)

It will hurt people such as a person I know who is on a huge salary and gets a new car every 2 years. He doesn't need it for work so how will he be able to claim it anymore?


----------



## drsmith (16 July 2013)

Julia said:


> That's a very realistic precaution.
> I might be misunderstanding the change, but can't companies still provide the same car benefits to employees, eg sales people, but just require them to actually document the use, in contrast to up to now being able to just arbitrarily claim 20% deduction?
> 
> Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.
> ...



I haven't looked at the detail, but the question that comes to my mind is that given the political context, to what extent is this a well thought out policy in the context of broader tax reform ?


----------



## db94 (16 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> I haven't looked at the detail, but the question that comes to my mind is that given the political context, to what extent is this a well thought out policy in the context of broader tax reform ?




it appears that it has just been made up to make up for the loss in revenue now that the carbon tax is gone. Hes just trying to balance the books. Rudd is also trying to please everyone, something which cant be done


----------



## noco (16 July 2013)

dutchie said:


> We can see that but how does he fool so many other Australians?




It is because they are so naive and have short memories.

The show pony tells them what they want to hear. He is a real psycho and plays on peoples minds with little intent to carry out what he says.


----------



## sptrawler (16 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> It will hurt people such as a person I know who is on a huge salary and gets a new car every 2 years. He doesn't need it for work so how will he be able to claim it anymore?




I don't think doc is alluding to the individual who leases a car, more about the companies and their employees who operate leasing businesses.

Somewhat like the person who has a couple of cows on a hobby farm, wasn't affected by the cattle export embargo.

Hope that helps.


----------



## sptrawler (17 July 2013)

I have to make a post, otherwise it will slip off the front page.

I guess everyone is just gobsmacked, at the way Rudd can do a reversal on everything enacted over the last six years.
Then say " well that's sorted, what's next". Very Monty Python IMO.

Rudd seems to want to run politics like an episode of 'home and away'. It may impress some, don't think it helps Australia in any way.
Just another scam, is he from the Gold Coast? lol


----------



## sptrawler (17 July 2013)

I see Wayne is still talking up garbage.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-17/wayne-swan-says-housing--sector-can-drive-economy/4826674

As the mining, manufacturing, farming and retail sectors fail. We are going to sell services and build houses to lift ourselves into the new economy. Worlds greatest what?

"Our success in the Asian Century cannot rely on unfettered growth in China to support our mining sector - it's about how we diversify our economy by making the most of the enormous structural shifts occurring in our region."

How do they get away with saying that sort of rubbish.


----------



## sydboy007 (18 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> I see Wayne is still talking up garbage.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-17/wayne-swan-says-housing--sector-can-drive-economy/4826674
> 
> ...




Best we use our comparative advantages as best we can, along with the remaining competitive advantage we have in small niches.

Do you want to try and flog some of the dead manufacturing horses?

I'd like to know what is rubbish with his statement?  China already consumes huge amounts of hard commodities.  If they kept growing as they have over the last 5 years they'd end up consuming 100% of everything.

Things are changing dramatically within the Asian region.  For the past few decades it's been all about exporting to the rich countries with little of their production consumed within the region.  That's starting to change.  The growing middle class there is now a market for an increasing amount of what's produced in the region.

We're a high wage economy.  We can't hope to compete in making $10 electric kettles and toasters or 10 cent pens.  We can compete quite successfully at the higher end for manufacturing, or small run production that the Asian mass producers aren't interested in.

For an example of our manufacturing abilities - A few months ago Hofmann Engineering in Perth sent the world’s largest gear to China – a 13.2 metre diameter, 73.5 tonne King Kong monster of a gear.  It's a great example of the German Mittelstand.  I wish we could foster more of these companies here.

We're also pretty sophisticated in the financial services, though at present that sector is still heavily protected by most Asian countries, but you can see the likes of ANZ, AMP, Macquarie making headway in the region.

I disagree with the use of the world fail.  The soft and hard commodity sectors wont fail, they may slow down - thermal coal certainly seems in terminal decline while iron ore is back up to $130 a ton, yet coking coal is still in decline so not sure what that means.  Farming will remain at the mercy of the seasons, but Aussie farmers are some of the most productive in the world.  IF we could get Asian rice farmers up to the same yields as in Australia well we'd not have to worry about such a basic food crop being in short supply.

Compared to the below eloquence of Tony at least Swan said soemthing that conveyed something

_We'll give people what we believe are realistic timetables.

Now there are some things we'll do in year one, there are other things we'll do in year two, there are further things we'll do in year three, and there are things that we'll be doing in years four and five."_

I feel so enlightened by the words of Tony and all the "things" he's going to achieve if elected


----------



## sptrawler (18 July 2013)

Well Syd, Labors idea of "Big Australia' and a population of 50million, may be the answer for the housing sector. Also as China is buying up our arable land, that won't give us much scope for fiscal growth, through that avenue.

I guess we have to hope they want more gears.
I dont see how, the fact our banks are moving into Asian markets, is going to help working Australians. That is of course unless the banks use FIFO bank workers, but I doubt that.

It leaves tourism, which even Greece and Italy are finding doesn't support a welfare state.

So in a nutshell, the only person who has come up with anything new is Abbott, with the suggestion of developing the North. 
All Labor has come up with is introducing taxes, to accelerate the demise of manufacturing and increase spending on welfare. This to incourage the mass migration to our shores, which we are witnessing.


----------



## sptrawler (18 July 2013)

So in summary, in the last three weeks.

Labor have backflipped on, the carbon tax, the asylum seeker policy and getting the budget in surplus.


----------



## Tink (19 July 2013)

Agree sptrawler.

Rudds popularity has waned, now that the gloss has come off and people get down to business. He needs to admit that he has created these problems rather than blaming Gillard and co. 

The last 6 years have been disastorous for Australia, businesses are over regulated, no business, no jobs. Most economists are shaking their heads at what we are doing and trying to do.

Abbott should have probably said more, but seems he has done the right thing letting this buffoon take centre stage for a while, talking alot, taking lots of pictures, but doing nothing else for the country.
Now that all his problems have hit him in the face, he is stumped.
The longer he holds out the election, the more chance he has of losing.

I still think the Coalition will win, will be close, but I think they will get through.

I am hoping the public wouldnt be so stupid to put Rudd back in, and even more so if he tries to change the rules to give himself more power where he cant be moved because of his insecurities.  

This government is slowly but surely destroying this wonderful country.
From the lucky country, we are becoming the stupid country.


----------



## dutchie (19 July 2013)

Tink said:


> From the lucky country, we are becoming the stupid country.




Looking at the polls since Rudd's return it would seem we are already there (i.e. stupid country).


----------



## sydboy007 (19 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Well Syd, Labors idea of "Big Australia' and a population of 50million, may be the answer for the housing sector. Also as China is buying up our arable land, that won't give us much scope for fiscal growth, through that avenue.
> 
> I guess we have to hope they want more gears.
> I dont see how, the fact our banks are moving into Asian markets, is going to help working Australians. That is of course unless the banks use FIFO bank workers, but I doubt that.
> ...




Can you show me the policy document that shows the ALP is for a 50M Australian population?

So you are against foreign investment in the Agricultural sector, or all foreign investment in Australia?

Why would China's investment in arable land have a negative impact for fiscal growth?  What do u mean by fiscal growth - the term fiscal include Government spending and taxation.  As long as a foreign company continues to grow food at globally competitive yields and is not allowed to sell their produce at below international market rates, what is the problem whether the manager is Australian or foreign?  It's not like we're not using Australians to still work the farms.  The last few years seems to indicate foreigners value our arable land more than we do.  Is that the Governments fault?

Inbound tourism has been growing over the last few years, though the high dollar has meant outbound tourism has been growing stronger. Do you think that a falling AUD is going to have a negative impact on inbound tourism?  Do you think less foreign students will want to study in Australia now that it's at least 15% cheaper to study here that a year ago, and likely to get cheaper in the future as the AUD goes back to a more fair value level?  The near slave labour these students provides also keeps the cost of your takeaway cheap.

My understand in Tony has pretty much put the go north 100 dams policy into the thought bubble box and there is no current policy to do anything.  I'd also like to know where the money will come from since you don't want any foreigners investing in arable land in Australia, and all Government debt is bad so that would only leave the private sector able to do the investments?

What welfare increases has the ALP introduced?  The only one I can think of is paid parental leave, but then that partly replaced the baby bonus.  Lest we forget Abbott has a similar policy that is 5 times more expensive and will cost business more than the fixed priced carbon trading scheme.  Abbott said he's not increasing taxes, since it will be a levy, not a tax (can you explain why a levy isn't a tax because Tony wont) yet most large companies in Australia will face a higher levy bill than under the carbon trading scheme.


----------



## sptrawler (19 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Can you show me the policy document that shows the ALP is for a 50M Australian population?
> 
> So you are against foreign investment in the Agricultural sector, or all foreign investment in Australia?.



Rudd is on record saying a rapid population growth to 50million is a desirable target.
I am against direct foreign ownership of our land, we are one of the only countries in the Asia region that promote direct foriegn ownership of land.



sydboy007 said:


> Why would China's investment in arable land have a negative impact for fiscal growth?  What do u mean by fiscal growth - the term fiscal include Government spending and taxation.  As long as a foreign company continues to grow food at globally competitive yields and is not allowed to sell their produce at below international market rates, what is the problem whether the manager is Australian or foreign?  It's not like we're not using Australians to still work the farms.  The last few years seems to indicate foreigners value our arable land more than we do.  Is that the Governments fault?.



Most foriegn owned businesses have some sort of parent company tax minimisation scheme happening. The ATO is currently spending a fortune trying to unravel it as we speak. It has been reported in the Media



sydboy007 said:


> Inbound tourism has been growing over the last few years, though the high dollar has meant outbound tourism has been growing stronger. Do you think that a falling AUD is going to have a negative impact on inbound tourism?  Do you think less foreign students will want to study in Australia now that it's at least 15% cheaper to study here that a year ago, and likely to get cheaper in the future as the AUD goes back to a more fair value level?  The near slave labour these students provides also keeps the cost of your takeaway cheap..



Tourism in Australia is a cottage industry, compared to European countries, such as Greece and Italy. They can't support a physically small and well serviced country with the income from it. Venice alone gets 21million tourists/annum. How you think it will save us is hard to follow
The number of overseas students, will fall inline with the standard of our education ratings on a world ranking.  



sydboy007 said:


> My understand in Tony has pretty much put the go north 100 dams policy into the thought bubble box and there is no current policy to do anything.  I'd also like to know where the money will come from since you don't want any foreigners investing in arable land in Australia, and all Government debt is bad so that would only leave the private sector able to do the investments?.



The Asians need more food especially as their living standards and food requirements become more westernised. They will require more meat and dairy products, we don't have to sell them the land to provide the food. The whole issue of foriegn investment requires overhauling, with a view to long term sustainable industry, local jobs and sovereignty.



sydboy007 said:


> What welfare increases has the ALP introduced?  The only one I can think of is paid parental leave, but then that partly replaced the baby bonus.  Lest we forget Abbott has a similar policy that is 5 times more expensive and will cost business more than the fixed priced carbon trading scheme.  Abbott said he's not increasing taxes, since it will be a levy, not a tax (can you explain why a levy isn't a tax because Tony wont) yet most large companies in Australia will face a higher levy bill than under the carbon trading scheme.




The welfare increase I see, is the billions of dollars that are being used to support illegal economic migration, through government inaction.
That money could be spent developing some of these projects.


----------



## sydboy007 (19 July 2013)

Seems a vote for labor is a vote for the safest workplaces in history

Since 2007-08, according to data from Safe Work Australia, the incidences of compensated workplace fatalities have fallen by one-third, rapidly accelerating a slow downward trend since the turn of the century

The fall has partly been driven by a safer construction industry, which in 2010-11 was on-track for a record low incidence of fatalities of below four per 100,000 employees compared to over 10 in 2003-04. As a large employer of over 1,000,000 workers, safety in construction has a major influence on overall workplace fatality rates. The transport sector, which employs around 600,000 people, has also seen significant falls in fatalities: the Rudd government inherited a  rate of 16.9 deaths per 100,000 employees; that was 9.9 in 2009-10 and 8.5 in 2010-11.

One way or another, Australian workplaces, on the most recent data, are significantly safer than six years ago, except in agriculture, which remains a stain on our workplace safety record.

Damn those pesky unions and safety regulations.  Murdoch must be livid with this kind of positive information leaking out.


----------



## sydboy007 (19 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Rudd is on record saying a rapid population growth to 50million is a desirable target.
> I am against direct foreign ownership of our land, we are one of the only countries in the Asia region that promote direct foriegn ownership of land.
> 
> 
> ...




We don't need a magic bullet.  Increases in the earnings from all types of services exports are good for the country.

The transfer pricing you are talking about is mainly be companies that own little to nothing in Australia.  It's generally IP that allows them to do this.  Google uses Singapore to sell online adds in Australia and ebay from memory uses Ireland to run it's Aussie business.

I'd argue transfer pricing on commodities is next to impossible since the market price is pretty much widely available, so selling wheat or what ever crop they can actually get to grow up north shouldn't be too much an issue.

I don't see you mentioning what kind of crops will be grown, nor how they will go without the use of high level of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers since the soils up north are pretty crapola. Then there's the high freight costs for getting the food to market.  From what I read there's few viable damn sites up north, and with evaporation of around 2M a year  the dams will have top be pretty deep to hold much useful water.

As for Australia's population, I've yet to hear that the coalition is going to curb immigration to any extent, so it would seem the "big" Australia is going to happen regardless of who's in power??


----------



## sptrawler (19 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> The transfer pricing you are talking about is mainly be companies that own little to nothing in Australia.  It's generally IP that allows them to do this.  Google uses Singapore to sell online adds in Australia and ebay from memory uses Ireland to run it's Aussie business.




Well a quick google came up with a big exposure in Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/car-profits-driven-overseas-20121007-27787.html


----------



## Aussiejeff (19 July 2013)

Meanwhile, back on the good ship S.S. "Laborious" Capt. KRudd irate: it seems has charged all boat refugees with mutiny on the high seas. They will hitherto all have to walk the plank to PNG or sink to Davy Jones' locker.:1zhelp: Argghh! 

Sacre bleu.. talk about sending a broadside over the bows of S.S. "Greens-peace"!! Aye, there'll be three cheers for Mon Kapitan! Hip hip....


----------



## sptrawler (20 July 2013)

One thing that is really interesting, all the normal pro Labor posters have become conspicuous by their absence.

Would this be due to the fact, all the issues they hated Abbott for, Rudd has now adopted.

They must be having trouble reconciling, the team they blindly barracked for, has deserted them.lol

Just shows four weeks is a long time in politics.

Now you can vote for the right wing coalition, or the really right wing Labor.lol,lol


----------



## sails (20 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> One thing that is really interesting, all the normal pro Labor posters have become conspicuous by their absence.
> 
> Would this be due to the fact, all the issues they hated Abbott for, Rudd has now adopted.
> 
> ...





I would be furious if the LNP did a massive lurch to the left weeks before an election to get votes - even if their intent was to change it once they got in.

If Howard had backflipped on work choices just before the election - would voters have believed him?  I doubt it and hopefully voters will not trust Rudd.  

It seems he only stands for power and little for labor policies.


----------



## Julia (20 July 2013)

Agree that it would be interesting to hear the opinions of ASF's Left on Mr Rudd's asylum seeker policy.
So Cynical?  IFocus?  Sydboy?  Orr?  Others whose names I can't right now bring to mind.

The Greens, amongst their disgust, will be salivating at the numbers of once Labor voters who will now swing to them.


----------



## sydboy007 (20 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Agree that it would be interesting to hear the opinions of ASF's Left on Mr Rudd's asylum seeker policy.
> So Cynical?  IFocus?  Sydboy?  Orr?  Others whose names I can't right now bring to mind.
> 
> The Greens, amongst their disgust, will be salivating at the numbers of once Labor voters who will now swing to them.




As I've said many MANY times I've a centrist.  Sometimes my views would be centre left and sometimes they are centre right.

I support the refugee plan Rudd is proposing.  It kills of any incentive to get on a boat and try to make it here.

I know all the ASF right support Tony's nanny state gold plated paid parental leave, and fully support his direction action policies too.  If we have to agree 100% with everything the major parties are proposing then I'd dare say no one would vote for either of them.

What do the ASF right think about Rudd cutting off the car perks for those too lazy to keep a log book?  In this day and age of smart phones there's an app to do all the hard work for you.  Yet Tony is standing up for the vested interests yet again.  Rudds making some tough decisions and wearing the outcry.  When was the last time Tony did that eh?


----------



## johenmo (21 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> What do the ASF right think about Rudd cutting off the car perks for those too lazy to keep a log book?  In this day and age of smart phones there's an app to do all the hard work for you.  Yet Tony is standing up for the vested interests yet again.  Rudds making some tough decisions and wearing the outcry.  When was the last time Tony did that eh?




Agree with this even thought Labour deserves the opposition. If you can't be bothered completing a book, miss out.  Log books take 20 seconds to complete - big deal!  Anything else is an excuse, not a reason.

As for perks, when is the post-politics perk gravy train going to stop?  Very few things annoy me now but when I read about the money spent on free airfares, offices, cars, staff for ex-MPs who has left politics...Grrr  Is there a way that this could be stopped? Short of an Egyptian-style uprising? Or am I the only one who sees this as unaffordable etc.?


----------



## Calliope (21 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> As I've said many MANY times I've a centrist.  Sometimes my views would be centre left and sometimes they are centre right.




Pull the other leg.



> I know all the ASF right support Tony's nanny state gold plated paid parental leave, and fully support his direction action policies too.




Do you really? Name one.


----------



## sydboy007 (21 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Pull the other leg.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really? Name one.




Oh Calliope, sometimes you just can't see the sarcasm eh.  Ligthen up mate 

The point I'm trying to make is that the majority on this forum - because lets face it most of the people posting in the threads are very supportive of the right - also have quite a few issues with some of Tony's policies.  These issues tend to be glossed over.  Bad policy is well, bad policy whoever is proposing it.

So I just found it funny that it was like "oh I wonder what all those left wing tree huggers will think about Rudds new refugee policy".

At least at times I can be supportive of some of the policies of the right, but can you give me one policy from Tony that's worth supporting?  I'm not talking thought bubbles, but something that has detail on how it's going to be designed and implemented?  I wont hold my breath to get much of an answer from you.

I'm sure if Tony had suggested the changes Rudd made for cars and FBT, and Rudd was doing an Abbott protest over them, the ASF right would be complaining loudly over it.  Do you support Abbotts stance on the changes?  Why or why not?

It's this belief that ideas have to be from the right or left that causes democracies so much trouble.

So does me being supportive of the refugee changes make me a dope smoking leftie, or am I pitiless cold hearted right wing fascist??  I can see the good and bad of it, but see it will do more good than bad so support it.  If Tony had come up with the idea I'd feel the same.  It certainly has a far better chance of stopping the boats AND we don't piss the Indonesians off either.  Tony's been outplayed on this one.  Suck it up 

Anyways, what does it matter how someone votes?  What does it matter if they are from the left or right?  A lot of Howards policies  seemed to come from the far left.  All that middle class welfare he dished out.


----------



## Calliope (21 July 2013)

Oh Sydboy, you said;



> "*I know all the ASF right support Tony's nanny state gold plated paid parental leave*, and fully support his direction action policies too."




In what way can this be dismissed as "sarcasm"? Please name "all the ASF right" supporters of the above policies, or admit you are just trolling, and to use your words "suck it up".


----------



## sydboy007 (21 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Oh Sydboy, you said;
> 
> 
> 
> In what way can this be dismissed as "sarcasm"? Please name "all the ASF right" supporters of the above policies, or admit you are just trolling, and to use your words "suck it up".




Well, i suppose when i see someone say something that is known to be wrong, and I've seen them post before, then i generally can tell if what they say is said sarcasticaly.

I'm sorry to have confused you.  In future I will put a <sarcasm> after anything I say a bit tongue in cheek so you will not misinterpret my sarcasm for trolling.

Would you do the courtesy to answer teh questons I asked you in the post you have slectively quoted from?

Just so you wont have trouble understanding what I am referrign to I've put the 2 questions down below for you.

_At least at times I can be supportive of some of the policies of the right, but can you give me one policy from Tony that's worth supporting? I'm not talking thought bubbles, but something that has detail on how it's going to be designed and implemented? I wont hold my breath to get much of an answer from you._

_I'm sure if Tony had suggested the changes Rudd made for cars and FBT, and Rudd was doing an Abbott protest over them, the ASF right would be complaining loudly over it. Do you support Abbotts stance on the changes? Why or why not?_


----------



## Calliope (21 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> At least at times I can be supportive of some of the policies of the right, but can you give me one policy from Tony that's worth supporting? I'm not talking thought bubbles, but something that has detail on how it's going to be designed and implemented? I wont hold my breath to get much of an answer from you.




Defeating the Rudd government, by exposing what an imposter he is.



> I'm sure if Tony had suggested the changes Rudd made for cars and FBT, and Rudd was doing an Abbott protest over them, the ASF right would be complaining loudly over it. Do you support Abbotts stance on the changes? Why or why not.




Yes. Because;



> Earlier today the Coalition said it had yet to finalise its position on the proposed changes, although it would not support anything that led to job losses.
> 
> Later, citing consultation with the industry, it declared it would not proceed with the changes, which it said would cost 320,000 Australians an average of $1400 a year.
> 
> “It's clear that this is a serious blow to an industry under pressure. This greedy grab from the government is costing sales today. It's costing jobs today,” Tony Abbott said.


----------



## sydboy007 (21 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Defeating the Rudd government, by exposing what an imposter he is.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Because;




So you can't name a policy from the coalition that you support, but you don't support Abbotts paid parental leave?  One has to question why you would vote for him then.

So you think people should be able to claim a tax break without showing proof they are entitled to it?  This is why the country is being bankrupted 

Did you know you can install an app on a smart phone now and it will track all your daily movements and pretty much makes it a simple matter to log what trips are work related and which ones are personal.

I think the reason Tony is so against the changes being proposed is that he has had so much trouble in the past distinguishing between work travel and travel used to promote his book <sarcasm>.


----------



## drsmith (21 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So you think people should be able to claim a tax break without showing proof they are entitled to it?  This is why the country is being bankrupted
> 
> Did you know you can install an app on a smart phone now and it will track all your daily movements and pretty much makes it a simple matter to log what trips are work related and which ones are personal.



An argument that has some merit at least in isolation.

What also needs to be considered is the implications beyond such a narrow perspective. This has been the problem with many of Labor's rushed policies and why they have failed in that broader context.


----------



## Calliope (21 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So you can't name a policy from the coalition that you support, but you don't support Abbotts paid parental leave?  One has to question why you would vote for him then.




Because the alternative is so scary.


----------



## sptrawler (21 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Because the alternative is so scary.




Don't think you are Robinson Crusoe, I am sure a majority of the population are scared to death of another term of Labor.
Howard was voted out because voters became complacent, Rudd will get voted out because voters are scared.imo


----------



## explod (21 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Because the alternative is so scary.




Your answer contains absolutely no content.  

In effect you cannot even tell us why you vote Abbott or detail a policy, nor do you justify your answer here as to why the alternative is scary.


----------



## explod (21 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Don't think you are Robinson Crusoe, I am sure a majority of the population are scared to death of another term of Labor.
> Howard was voted out because voters became complacent, Rudd will get voted out because voters are scared.imo




Howard was voted out because he lost touch, if he ever had it anyway.  I can remember in the meetings and demonstrations against the Iraq war, many Liberals I knew attended and marched against his support for Bush.

Voters are scared at losing jobs, falling house prices, increases in prices of essentials, trying to meet the mortgage and educate their children at the basic levels.  Thoughout our history Labor Governments are elected in in such hard times as being currently felt out there now.  Rudd is shining a big torch and Abbott contiunues to stammer, as in effect many of you here do too.

ALP 55%, lib/Nat 45%, election probably late August.


----------



## sydboy007 (21 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Because the alternative is so scary.






Seriously, you can't string a few sentences together explaining a policy from Abbott that you can support?

WOW

I can only shake me head at the absurdity.

At least i can name a few policies from the ALP I support.


----------



## sptrawler (21 July 2013)

explod said:


> Howard was voted out because he lost touch, if he every had it anyway.  I can remember in the meetings and demonstrations against the Iraq war, many Liberals I knew attended and marched against his support for Bush.
> 
> Voters are scared at losing jobs, falling house prices, increases in prices of essentials, trying to meet the mortgage and educate thier children at the basic levels.  Thoughout our history Labor Governments are elected in in such hard times as being currently felt out there now.  Rudd is shining a big torch and Abbott contiunues to stammer, as in effect many of you here do too.
> 
> ALP 55%, lib/Nat 45%, election probably late August.




I hope you are right about the election timing, the sooner the better. Everyone is over waiting.


----------



## FlyingFox (21 July 2013)

explod said:


> Your answer contains absolutely no content.
> 
> In effect you cannot even tell us why you vote Abbott or detail a policy, nor do you justify your answer here as to why the alternative is scary.




 + 1


----------



## sydboy007 (21 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> An argument that has some merit at least in isolation.
> 
> What also needs to be considered is the implications beyond such a narrow perspective. This has been the problem with many of Labor's rushed policies and why they have failed in that broader context.




So for this particular policy, what implications do you see as against the proposed changes?


----------



## Calliope (21 July 2013)

explod said:


> Your answer contains absolutely no content.
> 
> In effect you cannot even tell us why you vote Abbott or detail a policy, nor do you justify your answer here as to why the alternative is scary.




Well Plod, I don't give repetitive silly questions any credibility by taking them seriously. I think Syd's problem is too much headbanging.


----------



## banco (21 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> Well Plod, I don't give repetitive silly questions any credibility by taking them seriously. I think Syd's problem is too much headbanging.




More like once it gets beyond one sentence slogans you are in deep water and have to swim back to shore.


----------



## drsmith (21 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So for this particular policy, what implications do you see as against the proposed changes?



In asking such a question, you've missed the broader context of what I'm saying.

A negative would be job losses. That's not to say that the fundamental principal is wrong, but it needs to be seen in a broader tax reform context than it has by Labor, and there also needs to be consultation. There is then a better prospect of getting the detail right.

As it is, it's just another knee jerk by Labor to help manage another problem of its own creation (carbon tax) in the light of an upcoming election campaign.


----------



## Calliope (21 July 2013)

banco said:


> More like once it gets beyond one sentence slogans you are in deep water and have to swim back to shore.




:topic


----------



## wayneL (21 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Seriously, you can't string a few sentences together explaining a policy from Abbott that you can support?
> 
> WOW
> 
> ...



Policy is fleeting.

Ideology is everlasting.

Policy bribes.

Ideology shapes a country.

Social Democracy sux.

Conservatism sux, but sux less than SD.

Basic platforms are the place to look.

(By way of disclosure, I am classical liberal with grudging and pragmatic concessions to social liberalism)


----------



## Julia (21 July 2013)

explod said:


> Your answer contains absolutely no content.
> 
> In effect you cannot even tell us why you vote Abbott or detail a policy, nor do you justify your answer here as to why the alternative is scary.



Why the alternative is 'scary' is made plain by their history of failing to implement properly even the most well intentioned plans.  This is in contrast to the Howard years when policy was clearly thought out, including all its ramifications, before being implemented.  Certainly Work Choices was unpopular in the broad context, but it was still arguably best for the overall economic health of the nation.

Under Labor the other extreme has occurred, as they dance to the tune of the unions, and disadvantage business which is the essential life blood of the country.

Where John Howard lost much of the population was in his decision to support the USA in going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq.  Most of us were completely against this decision, but he apparently saw it as an obligation to honour our relationship with the US.  Personally I think it was taking loyalty too far.

Tony Abbott may have been one of John Howard's ministers, but the public never warmed to him, and they still don't.  Where John Howard was clearly a conviction politician, even in the face of public opposition, he was always able to clearly present his policies to the electorate and to remain calm under the most intensive questioning.

I suspect many people who voted the Howard government out have since had more than adequate reason to regret that decision, given the disarray and infighting in the Labor Party, not to mention their proven inadequacy in terms of actually putting a policy into effect.  Everything they have touched has gone wrong in some way.  There is no reason to imagine the PNG deal will be any different.




drsmith said:


> In asking such a question, you've missed the broader context of what I'm saying.
> 
> A negative would be job losses. That's not to say that the fundamental principal is wrong, but it needs to be seen in a broader tax reform context than it has by Labor, and there also needs to be consultation. There is then a better prospect of getting the detail right.
> 
> As it is, it's just another knee jerk by Labor to help manage another problem of its own creation (carbon tax) in the light of an upcoming election campaign.



Agree.  Already the ramifications of the policy, which seems entirely reasonable of itself, are coming to light and suggest tax losses to the government in terms of vehicles purchased etc far greater than what will be saved by the removal of the statutory benefit.

PS for anyone looking for reasons why Malcolm Turnbull should take over the Coalition leadership, there's an excellent long form interview with him by Ellen Fanning on SBS, 8.30 pm.  Sorry, can't post a link as it's not yet up on their website.
I've been opposed to Mr Turnbull resuming the leadership because of his politically inept handling of it in the Godwin Grech affair, but his responses now suggest he has learned a lot.  His fluency and apparently natural approach is in huge contrast to Tony Abbott.

PPS  The above comments are in no way designed as a proxy answer to the question by Calliope.


----------



## sydboy007 (21 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> In asking such a question, you've missed the broader context of what I'm saying.
> 
> A negative would be job losses. That's not to say that the fundamental principal is wrong, but it needs to be seen in a broader tax reform context than it has by Labor, and there also needs to be consultation. There is then a better prospect of getting the detail right.
> 
> As it is, it's just another knee jerk by Labor to help manage another problem of its own creation (carbon tax) in the light of an upcoming election campaign.




So basically you're saying to not make any changes to the tax system untill a totally comprehensive overhaul of the entire system can be done?

If a lot of jobs are lost over this change, then one has to question if the whole industry was built upon a tax break that was not actually supporting businesses?


----------



## Calliope (21 July 2013)

Julia said:


> PPS  The above comments are in no way designed as a proxy answer to the question by Calliope.




My only question to sydboy was to to name the posters referred to in his nonsense accusation;



> "I know all the ASF right support Tony's nanny state gold plated paid parental leave, and fully support his direction action policies too."



All I got was bluster and a rude camp suggestion to "suck it up".


----------



## sydboy007 (21 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Certainly Work Choices was unpopular in the broad context, but it was still arguably best for the overall economic health of the nation.
> 
> Agree.  Already the ramifications of the policy, which seems entirely reasonable of itself, are coming to light and suggest tax losses to the government in terms of vehicles purchased etc far greater than what will be saved by the removal of the statutory benefit.




Under workchoices - productivity declined AND work place deaths increased.  How was was that good for the country?  These inconvenient facts are always ignored by the right.

Under changes by Labor work place deaths have declined 33% since taking office!

So your argument is to continue allowing a tax break to be abused because to stop the abuse may cost the budget more?  Not sure what revenue the Fed Govt will lose out on if car sales decline?

For all the claims of things being a shamzole we've had:

* uninterupted economic growth
* low inflation
* historically low interest rates
* low unemployment
* household savings rate back to the long term average of around 10% _(it was pretty much continual decline under Howard, getting into negative territory just before he was voted out.)_

all while battling against an overvalued AUD.

What is to complain about that????


----------



## sptrawler (21 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So basically you're saying to not make any changes to the tax system untill a totally comprehensive overhaul of the entire system can be done?
> 
> If a lot of jobs are lost over this change, then one has to question if the whole industry was built upon a tax break that was not actually supporting businesses?




Does that also apply to the rationale, of the impost of a $23/ton carbon tax, that has directly resulted in job losses being inflicted.
Now being overturned, for a tax of $6, the jobs won't return.

One has to question was the whole tax about revenue, or about making change, that hasn't happened.


----------



## sydboy007 (21 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Does that also apply to the rationale, of the impost of a $23/ton carbon tax, that has directly resulted in job losses being inflicted.
> Now being overturned, for a tax of $6, the jobs won't return.
> 
> One has to question was the whole tax about revenue, or about making change, that hasn't happened.




Not exactly sure what you mean by "making change, that hasn't happened"

If you mean that there hasn't been a reduction in the carbon intensity of the Australian economy, then that is false.


----------



## Julia (21 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Under workchoices - productivity declined AND work place deaths increased.  How was was that good for the country?  These inconvenient facts are always ignored by the right.



FYI I have voted Labor more often than I have voted Liberal, so kindly don't slot me into your predetermined categories.



> Under changes by Labor work place deaths have declined 33% since taking office!



If that is so, it would be because the government and the unions have together put so many regulations onto work places people almost have to ask permission before breathing.




> So your argument is to continue allowing a tax break to be abused because to stop the abuse may cost the budget more?  Not sure what revenue the Fed Govt will lose out on if car sales decline?



I've about had enough of your twisting of people's responses, sydboy.  I did not at any stage say I think the FBT proposals should not be applied.  I have simply passed on the views of people more in touch with the potential ramifications than I, and note that it would be typical of Labor to slam in a new 'policy' without thinking through all the possible outcomes.

You continually challenge pretty much every observation made against Labor, fail to ever acknowledge any of their massive stuff ups, and refuse to acknowledge any achievements or even basic party unitywith respect to
 the Coalition.  

Yes, this is a forum, and yes we should all be able to defend any comments we make, but you are just being as negative and non-constructive as you and your ilk accuse Tony Abbott of being.

I'd have thought better of you/


----------



## sydboy007 (21 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> My only question to sydboy was to to name the posters referred to in his nonsense accusation;
> 
> 
> All I got was bluster and a rude camp suggestion to "suck it up".




Did you understand when I told you that comment was made sarcastically?

And with all your posts, all you've done to confirm is that you *DO NOT* agree with Abbotts paid parental leave scheme, and you *DO NOT* agree with his direct action plan, yet you WILL vote for him but can't link to a policy document as a reason for giving him your vote.

I wish I could have such blind faith in a politican.

- - - Updated - - -



wayneL said:


> Policy is fleeting.
> 
> Ideology is everlasting.
> 
> ...




So what was Howards middle class welfare splurge?  Most of it didn't help to improve the economics of the country.  it was spent to increase productivity, it didn't seem to make the tax system any simpler or reduce compliance costs for business.

I don't remember their being a CBA for child care rebates or leaving part of FTB non means tested.

His halving of the CGT on assets over 12 months lead to skyrocketing house prices where the IP sector in aggregate hasn't made a $ profit in 13 years!  How has that benefited the country?


----------



## sptrawler (21 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Not exactly sure what you mean by "making change, that hasn't happened"
> 
> If you mean that there hasn't been a reduction in the carbon intensity of the Australian economy, then that is false.




No not saying there hasn't been a reduction in the carbon intensity, but the BIG DIRTY BROWN COAL OGRES, are still spewing.
The solar and wind generation was happening anyway, the justification for the carbon tax was the big polluters.
However no doubt you will come up with some warm, soft centred, feel good explanation for a complete stuff up,
that has left mayhem and being reversed. But that's just you and I respect that.


----------



## sydboy007 (21 July 2013)

Julia said:


> FYI I have voted Labor more often than I have voted Liberal, so kindly don't slot me into your predetermined categories.
> 
> 
> If that is so, it would be because the government and the unions have together put so many regulations onto work places people almost have to ask permission before breathing.
> ...




i appolgies if i appear to be harsh.  As you are tired of being slotted into a predetermined category, I think you can see that's what is done to most people who don't take a right view on this forum.  I've had people say I must be drunk or mentally challenged to say anything supportive about labor.

At least when someone asks me a direct question I answer them.

It seems when something good happens under labor there is still a negative reason for that good.

The views on FBT that have been passed to you seem to be incorect, at least at a Federal level.  A reduction in car purchases would affect the states due to lower GST revenue, but the impact at a federal level would be if job losses cause unemployment benefits paid to be higher.  Still, the claims it will cost working people money I find hard to believe.  Anyone doing a lot of driving for work is going to have a smart phone and can instal a simple app to monitor their driving so as to easily log what are work / personal trips.  Allowing people to just claim 20% without proving it just opens it to abuse.

Plenty of people on this forum talk about Labors stuff ups, and when they are factually correct I've never challenged them.  I've always felt labor shouldn't have had the second splurge of spending during the GFC, but then that is more from hindsight.

I just find it hard to fathom why people can't really explain why they'll vote for Tony.


----------



## wayneL (22 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So what was Howards middle class welfare splurge?




Bribery




> Most of it didn't help to improve the economics of the country.  it was spent to increase productivity, it didn't seem to make the tax system any simpler or reduce compliance costs for business.
> 
> I don't remember their being a CBA for child care rebates or leaving part of FTB non means tested.
> 
> His halving of the CGT on assets over 12 months lead to skyrocketing house prices where the IP sector in aggregate hasn't made a $ profit in 13 years!  How has that benefited the country?




I wouldn't call halving of CGT middle class welfare. But there was plenty of it however and I strongly agree with most of your point... and I spoke out against it at the time.


----------



## cynic (22 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I just find it hard to fathom why people can't really explain why they'll vote for Tony.




I find it hard to fathom how anyone could find it hard to fathom that people aren't necessarily casting a vote for Tony, but are actually casting a vote against the incumbent government due to dissatisfaction with their recent performance! Is that so terribly difficult to grasp?


----------



## Tink (22 July 2013)

Exactly cynic.

Agree with your post Julia, well said, regarding the Labor government failing to implement plans properly, the wastage, the unions and destruction of business.  
The carbon tax which has affected overall.
These are the big factors.

I am also a swinging voter, but after seeing this performance, the backflips, the lies of saying one thing and doing another and still he doesnt admit he was wrong, the infighting, no way I would take that risk on our economy.

Abbott may not be popular, but I have more faith with the Coalition party, as Malcolm has said on alot of his interviews, if you like me, know I am in the party and a part of the leadership. 
I look at Labors line up and no way I would feel comfortable, they need a term out to re- establish themselves.

We have no idea what they stand for, they are all over the shop saying yes to everything, on the run policies, and we have seen Rudd in action already, he was not a man of his word.


----------



## Calliope (22 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I just find it hard to fathom why people can't really explain why they'll vote for Tony.




I guess it is too hard for a rusted on leftie to fathom, so I will tell you again;

*The alternative is too scary*.


----------



## sydboy007 (22 July 2013)

cynic said:


> I find it hard to fathom how anyone could find it hard to fathom that people aren't necessarily casting a vote for Tony, but are actually casting a vote against the incumbent government due to dissatisfaction with their recent performance! Is that so terribly difficult to grasp?






Calliope said:


> I guess it is too hard for a rusted on leftie to fathom, so I will tell you again;
> 
> *The alternative is too scary*.




So basically people seem to be arguing Labor is really bad, the Coalition is just bad so therefore better to vote for them?

Calliope

why do you feel it is OK to make snide remarks?  What evidence do you have than I'm a "rusted on leftie"?  Could you limit yourself to just to the factual information rather than personal attacks?

Can I just use a few quotes from you to highlight what you've done (they can be found in the gay marriage thread)

* Your posts are all unfounded presumptions # 499

* Making unfounded accusations and abusing people who don't think like you, is the worst form of bigotry. #499

* I suppose you colluded to put me down. The attack was out of the blue. What is your motive? Just spite? Why? #522

* The last thing I expected was the nastiness my comments attracted. #526

- - - Updated - - -



wayneL said:


> Bribery
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Has Abbott done anything to make you think he will attack middle class welfare?  So far he's taken the populist route at every turn.  I'm not trying to defend Labor, just that I fear people are jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

This is what halving of the CGT did to house price inflation and budget


----------



## FlyingFox (22 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So basically people seem to be arguing Labor is really bad, the Coalition is just bad so therefore better to vote for them?
> 
> Calliope
> 
> ...




No point fighting the good fight. All you will get is snide remarks and attacks ... no discussion of substance. Calliope is just going to take the Pierre de Fermet route, "I have all the answers but there isn't enough space on this forum to write it.( i.e I can't be bothered articulating them)". Easiest way to win an argument, isn't it.  

And any comment that seems remotely leftish will see you being labelled a hipie, weeding smoking, tree hugging leftie.

Unlike what some of the posters in this forum believe, the world is not black and white, nor is it shades of gray ...


----------



## sails (22 July 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> No point fighting the good fight. All you will get is snide remarks and attacks ... no discussion of substance. Calliope is just going to take the Pierre de Fermet route, "I have all the answers but there isn't enough space on this forum to write it.( i.e I can't be bothered articulating them)". Easiest way to win an argument, isn't it.
> 
> And any comment that seems remotely leftish will see you being labelled a hipie, weeding smoking, tree hugging leftie.
> 
> Unlike what some of the posters in this forum believe, the world is not black and white, nor is it shades of gray ...




So all you have left is to denigrate other posters who don't share your viewpoint?

I think history will judge the labor government of the last six years as the worst ever. We pay for these people to represent us - instead we now have billions in debt and little to show for it. Their history of management is dismal at best.  They legislated a carbon tax against the will of he people as shown by opinion polls. They allowed over 45,000 arrivals who, by their own admission, are not genuine refugees fleeing persecution at massive cost to taxpayers.

This government is nothing like the labor party of Hawke and Keating. In fact, what do they actually stand for any more except desperation to be in power?


----------



## Julia (22 July 2013)

sails said:


> So all you have left is to denigrate other posters who don't share your viewpoint?
> 
> I think history will judge the labor government of the last six years as the worst ever. We pay for these people to represent us - instead we now have billions in debt and little to show for it. Their history of management is dismal at best.  They legislated a carbon tax against the will of he people as shown by opinion polls. They allowed over 45,000 arrivals who, by their own admission, are not genuine refugees fleeing persecution at massive cost to taxpayers.
> 
> This government is nothing like the labor party of Hawke and Keating. In fact, what do they actually stand for any more except desperation to be in power?



And that says it all when you're looking for why people will vote for the alternative, sydboy.

For me it's also the total lack of integrity amongst the Labor Party itself:  their backstabbing and disloyalty so absolutely demonstrates that they as individuals will do anything at all, even compromise their most deeply held principles, to hold on to their own seats, and as a party, to hold on to power.

The notion that the purpose of their existence should be the welfare of all Australians and the protection of our way of life seems not even a secondary consideration.  Repugnant.


----------



## sydboy007 (22 July 2013)

Julia said:


> And that says it all when you're looking for why people will vote for the alternative, sydboy.
> 
> For me it's also the total lack of integrity amongst the Labor Party itself:  their backstabbing and disloyalty so absolutely demonstrates that they as individuals will do anything at all, even compromise their most deeply held principles, to hold on to their own seats, and as a party, to hold on to power.
> 
> The notion that the purpose of their existence should be the welfare of all Australians and the protection of our way of life seems not even a secondary consideration.  Repugnant.




Pretty much agree with you there

But once again, what evidence is there that Abbott is any better.  If the independents are to be believed he was pretty much willing to make any kind of deal to become PM?

Abbott had a golden run for at least 18 months.  Over that time he could have been detailing policies that would help improve the country, but didn't.  He seems to take the populist route most of the time.  If he does that when in opposition and miles in front of the polls, what is he going to be like if elected and facing a competent opposition?

As I've said before, at present neither Labor nor Coalition are worthy of my vote.


----------



## Julia (22 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> The views on FBT that have been passed to you seem to be incorect, at least at a Federal level.  A reduction in car purchases would affect the states due to lower GST revenue, but the impact at a federal level would be if job losses cause unemployment benefits paid to be higher.  Still, the claims it will cost working people money I find hard to believe.



It doesn't matter what 'level it's at".  Read a bit more widely than you obviously have and you'll find predictions of much that has clearly not been considered by the government in their rush to find some easy money to bolster the budget.  I don't have time right now to find it online but there's a pretty clear account in "The Weekend Australian" by Robert Gottliebsen titled "How we can fix the FBT farce".

And from another article on the same subject we have this:


> We had the ludicrous spectacle of Industry Minister Kim Carr conceding that the government might have to increase financial support to the local car manufacturing industry, to offset the damage done by the FBT change".




This is precisely the sort of trademark Labor lack of thinking something through before rushing ahead with it.

For the record, I'm not at all opposed to tax perks being withdrawn.  They all keep taxes higher for everyone to the benefit of fewer.


----------



## FlyingFox (22 July 2013)

sails said:


> So all you have left is to denigrate other posters who don't share your viewpoint?




Please follow the posts carefully to see who is denigrating who. I have been down this path once before and will not be drawn into it. 



sails said:


> I think history will judge the labor government of the last six years as the worst ever. We pay for these people to represent us - instead we now have billions in debt and little to show for it. Their history of management is dismal at best.  They legislated a carbon tax against the will of he people as shown by opinion polls. They allowed over 45,000 arrivals who, by their own admission, are not genuine refugees fleeing persecution at massive cost to taxpayers.
> 
> This government is nothing like the labor party of Hawke and Keating. In fact, what do they actually stand for any more except desperation to be in power?




If you carefully read sydboys and my posts, we have never and I repeat *NEVER* said that the past labour government was a good one. They had some good policies but lacked implementation and they had some horrible policies. 

Do you want to know what the biggest issues with the government was. There is only 3.

1) They were a minority government...
2) They tried to please everyone because they had to (see above)...
3) They (like the coalition) believes the good times will never end but it just did ...

What peeves us is the the alternative is meant to be some sort of salvation. Seriously? Tony abbot has said he will get rid of 12,000 public servants yet he is screaming at the top of his lungs re the FBT changes that will affect maybe 10% as many people directly but more likely 1%.

Anyways the will of the people is moulded by what they see in the media... Mining Tax V1 got Rudd kicked out only because the miners ran a better PR campaign (and they always will because they had too much to loose). Where are the mining ads now? 

The carbon tax? The biggest reason for price hikes in electricity was the privatisation of assets. I am unfamiliar with the history of the privatisation and who started it but it has continued unabated under all governments. The Carbon tax was a convenient guise for businesses to charge even more ala brumbies  bakery. If a airline charges me $2 to offset my carbon but 7.70 to pay by credit card, the tax is not the biggest issue now is it? Just to be clear, I don't agree with the carbon pricing as it was implemented. 

The problem is that everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too. Here's some great quotes to end my rant...

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill 

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." - AF Tytler


----------



## Calliope (22 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> why do you feel it is OK to make snide remarks?  What evidence do you have than I'm a "rusted on leftie"?  Could you limit yourself to just to the factual information rather than personal attacks?




Snide remarks??? Personal attacks??? It is just an obvious conclusion. What makes you think I should respond to your interrogation?  If you want "factual " information do your own research. You are just upset because I prefer Abbott to Rudd. Why I do is of course none of your business, but blind Freddie could work it out.  To use your words you will just "have to suck it up".



> Can I just use a few quotes from you to highlight what you've done (they can be found in the gay marriage thread)
> 
> * Your posts are all unfounded presumptions # 499
> 
> ...




This is, of course, off topic. The thread is not about me. If you put as much time into researching Rudd as you do me you might have second thoughts on inflicting him and his union dominated caucus on us for another three years.

Your mate FF thinks;



> No point fighting the good fight. All you will get is snide remarks and attacks ... no discussion of substance. Calliope is just going to take the Pierre de Fermet route, "I have all the answers but there isn't enough space on this forum to write it.( i.e I can't be bothered articulating them)". Easiest way to win an argument, isn't it.




More off topic nonsense!!! I was not aware that I had entered into an argument or discussion on this thread.:shake: But I have been subjected to continual and repetitive nagging from sydboy. I can only give you and syd the same reply Abbott gave to repetitive nagging questioning. .."calm down".


----------



## sails (22 July 2013)

Julia said:


> It doesn't matter what 'level it's at".  Read a bit more widely than you obviously have and you'll find predictions of much that has clearly not been considered by the government in their rush to find some easy money to bolster the budget.  I don't have time right now to find it online but there's a pretty clear account in "The Weekend Australian" by Robert Gottliebsen titled "How we can fix the FBT farce".
> 
> And from another article on the same subject we have this:
> 
> ...




As I see it there are several industries reliant on government tax relief or handouts. Clearly the car industry is one and by changing the tax rules has severely hurt the industry.  Child care is another industry which would collapse if government support were to be suddenly pulled. I understand that Therese Rein (Rudd's wife) has built her business on government handouts - what would have happened to her cash cow if those handouts had been scrapped?

Labor's spin that people just need to keep a log book isn't going to pick car sales back up. So now labor are either going to have to pay more money to the industry to keep them afloat or pay for more unemployed people. Real clever...not!


----------



## sails (22 July 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> Please follow the posts carefully to see who is denigrating who. I have been down this path once before and will not be drawn into it. ...




Then why put out the bait???

Oh and don't give me the minority sob story - labor had effectively had control of BOTH houses for the last two years. Goodness knows how much unwanted legislation has been pushed through!


----------



## sydboy007 (22 July 2013)

Julia said:


> It doesn't matter what 'level it's at".  Read a bit more widely than you obviously have and you'll find predictions of much that has clearly not been considered by the government in their rush to find some easy money to bolster the budget.  I don't have time right now to find it online but there's a pretty clear account in "The Weekend Australian" by Robert Gottliebsen titled "How we can fix the FBT farce".
> 
> And from another article on the same subject we have this:
> 
> ...




from Tristan Edis in Business spectator today

What has the government done? It has removed the ability for people to use the leasing of a car as an income tax deduction (and also avoiding GST on petrol) by default (known as the ‘statutory method’), without providing any evidence that the car is used for work purposes. Instead people will have to provide evidence via a log book that demonstrates that the car is a genuine working expense.

The statutory method of calculating fringe benefits tax on cars was originally introduced as an alternative to the administrative pain of keeping a log book. Instead of producing a log book, the tax department would assume a certain proportion of work use for a car based on how many kilometres the car travelled in a year. 

Leasing and salary packaging companies sprung up to exploit the loop hole, as did fuel card companies.

The end of year cross country trip to clock up the kilometres on the car over key statutory method thresholds became something of folklore in offices offering salary packaging to employees. One would also regularly hear the anecdote of people lending their car to friends and families to do a return trip from Melbourne to Sydney. And then there was the March scramble to get the kilometres up to the threshold you’d nominated to the tax department before the FBT year ended. 

We could then leave it up to these nurses and not-for-profit employees whether they want to use the extra cash to pay for a new car and petrol if that’s what they’d like. But no doubt many would prefer to spend this money on something else which would make them happier. And we’d free them and their employer from the administrative hassle and cost of dealing with salary packaging.

In addition people who are very well paid will pay a fairer share of their tax obligations.

Yes some people will lose jobs in salary packaging and leasing finance companies and in car dealerships. No doubt many of them are lovely people whose employment we should be concerned about. But the economy will be undoubtedly better off with these people employed in other careers providing services that people would prefer to a new leased car.

What about the Australian car manufacturing industry I hear you say. If you think they need more subsidies, then wouldn’t you want taxpayers’ money targeted at these locally made cars rather than dispersed across BMWs, Mercedes and Hondas as well?

- - - Updated - - -



sails said:


> As I see it there are several industries reliant on government tax relief or handouts. Clearly the car industry is one and by changing the tax rules has severely hurt the industry.  Child care is another industry which would collapse if government support were to be suddenly pulled. I understand that Therese Rein (Rudd's wife) has built her business on government handouts - what would have happened to her cash cow if those handouts had been scrapped?
> 
> Labor's spin that people just need to keep a log book isn't going to pick car sales back up. So now labor are either going to have to pay more money to the industry to keep them afloat or pay for more unemployed people. Real clever...not!




IIRC it was Howard who introduced the Child care rebates?  personally i see them as providing a very poor return on the money spent.

Federal Govts of all stripes have propped up the car industry for decades.  Why we need to provide further assistance to them I don't know.  We'd be better off taking foreign subsidised cars and letting overseas tax payers help buy us a new car.

Why is the Government now responsible for the level of car sales??

It's a bit like saying cutting back on middle class welfare will cause retail sales to be lower and higher unemployment, so we can't cut them.


----------



## Calliope (22 July 2013)

Amanda Vanstone knows what is so scary about Rudd. However as is normal on these threads we have people who deny being Rudd supporters but go to great lengths to denigrate Abbott, the Coalition and former PM Howard and then squeal that calling them "Left" is a personal attack.



> So, for the guy who was PM of the government that trashed our border controls to now be talking about fixing the problem is extraordinary. He shows no embarrassment at all. Not a scintilla of pink enters his endlessly cheery face.
> 
> He seems to me to be like the guy that pours petrol through your house, strikes a match at the back door, takes a quick walk around the block and then shows up on your front lawn manning the fire hose and assuring bystanders that he has the fire under control. *If you watched it in a psycho thriller movie it would be unsettlingly spooky. There is something very sinister about the pyromaniac turned fireman*.


----------



## Knobby22 (22 July 2013)

You could argue that he is doing it to neuter Abbott and in the modern world of cynical politics, this is a just tactic.
Vanstone knows that, The liberal party is acting like a dog whose food bowl has been taken away. 

What Rudd cannot argue is that he has repeated the same mistake as Gillard and stated he will achieve a surplus in 3 years. Ross Gittens in the Age is scathing about it. Also stating "Can the mere replacement of an unpopular woman with a popular man make a world of difference? Does it transform Labor's six-year record in government from disastrous to fair enough?" Fair question. I don't think so.


----------



## drsmith (22 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So basically you're saying to not make any changes to the tax system untill a totally comprehensive overhaul of the entire system can be done?
> 
> If a lot of jobs are lost over this change, then one has to question if the whole industry was built upon a tax break that was not actually supporting businesses?




A broader tax reform context and more consultation is not necessarily limited to a totally comprehensive overhaul of the entire system, but your reference to that is interesting in that it's exactly what a Rudd government initiated in its first term (Henry review). 

With regard to job losses, any change is generally going to have winners and losers. The key to managing such change is to maximise the winners relative to the losers and this is where consultation and transition comes in.

As a matter of general principal, I'm against negative gearing of salary income, but I also realise that policy change in this area would also need to be transitional. Do you remember how Paul Keating discovered that the rug couldn't be pulled from that in one go ?


----------



## Calliope (22 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> You could argue that he is doing it to neuter Abbott and in the modern world of cynical politics, this is a just tactic.




You could also argue that Rudd is trying to do it by telling a deliberate lie that will outrank Gillard's big lie.



> *From now on, any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as refugees.* Asylum seekers taken to Christmas Island will be sent to Manus and elsewhere in Papua New Guinea for assessment of their refugee status.




From the document; 



> "Commencing on the day of announcement any unauthorised maritime arrival entering Australian waters *will be liable for transfer* to Papua New Guinea".




PMG PM said;



> *We will take as much as we can on the capacities that we have on the ground*… You can’t just simply estimate a number



.

It will take better spinmeisters  than we have on this thread to reconcile these three statements. Pick which is the big lie.


----------



## Knobby22 (22 July 2013)

That's just nit picking. There is a lot of fear in the Murdoch press.
The boats will stop coming once they know they are going to New Guinea. The rest is just a beat-up.

The fact Rudd isn't announcing an election today makes me wonder what his next rabbit is that he is going to pull out of his hat. I really am impressed with his political skills but fear him as a Prime Minister.


----------



## drsmith (22 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> The boats will stop coming once they know they are going to New Guinea.



The biggest question of all is to what extent is Labor's heart in it, in particular after the election.

The people smugglers might themselves choose to ease the pace till then, depending on their knowledge of domestic Australian politics.


----------



## Calliope (22 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> That's just nit picking. There is a lot of fear in the Murdoch press.




You certainly are a trusting soul. Rudd/Gillard/Rudd have a history of talking big and achieving little. This scheme will unravel before the election, even if it is held early.


----------



## Knobby22 (22 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> You certainly are a trusting soul. Rudd/Gillard/Rudd have a history of talking big and achieving little. This scheme will unravel before the election, even if it is held early.




Gillard and the previous immigration meeting were incompetent. Rudd has already done it as foreign affairs is his forte. I am more worried about his domestic competence.


----------



## bunyip (22 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> The boats will stop coming once they know they are going to New Guinea.




Will they?? I hope you’re right, because if you’re not it will be Australia footing the enormous cost of processing them in PNG. 

An Afghan man who is legally settled in Australia was interviewed on TV a few nights back. He was asked _“If the present government policy of taking no boat people at all, but sending them to PNG instead, was in place when you were considering coming here by boat, would you have still come’?_

His answer was _‘Yes, because in my homeland my life was in grave danger every single day, and it was difficult finding enough food to eat. At least in PNG I’d be well fed and I’d be in a safe environment’._

Will his sentiments be shared by many thousands of people who are planning to jump on a boat and head our way? I don’t know – I guess we’ll find out soon enough.



Knobby22 said:


> The fact Rudd isn't announcing an election today makes me wonder what his next rabbit is that he is going to pull out of his hat. I really am impressed with his political skills but fear him as a Prime Minister.



I share your concerns about once again having Rudd as our PM. He was bloody hopeless last time with his economic mismanagement, his disgraceful performance on border protection, and his numerous ill-considered policies that turned to dust after first wasting billions of dollars. He had grandiose plans but little practical ability in terms of thinking things through and considering all the pros and cons. Now he’s shaping up pretty much the same way as last time. The man was incompetent and he still is.
Just as a business owner wouldn’t even consider renewing the contract of a manager who had proven himself grossly incompetent in running the business, nor should we, the Australian voters, consider renewing the grossly incompetent Kevin Rudd’s contract. 
I say to people...._’If you can't bring yourself to vote for Abbot, then vote informal, but don’t betray your country by putting back into power a man like Rudd who was incompetent and completely out of his depth as leader of our country'._


----------



## Knobby22 (22 July 2013)

I don't dislike Abbott. But I do find him a bit limited and am unsure how good he will be as Prime Minister.


----------



## Calliope (22 July 2013)

bunyip said:


> I share your concerns about once again having Rudd as our PM. He was bloody hopeless last time with his economic mismanagement, his disgraceful performance on border protection, and his numerous ill-considered policies that turned to dust after first wasting billions of dollars.




You can add this PNG scheme to uncosted monetary disasters like the NBN, pink bats, BER etc.



> Australia and PNG agreed on Friday that asylum seekers travelling to Australia by boat will be turned away, processed and potentially resettled in PNG.
> *In exchange, Australia has a agreed to a raft of infrastructure programs in the university, roads, health and law and order sector.
> "The costings for the Ramu-Madang highway has not been done, design and costings for of course Lae hospital has not been done. So it costs into millions of Kina," *Mr O'Neill told journalists in Port Moresby upon his return from Brisbane on Monday.




Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ed/story-e6frfkui-1226683208284#ixzz2ZkvGbIgw


----------



## sydboy007 (22 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> A broader tax reform context and more consultation is not necessarily limited to a totally comprehensive overhaul of the entire system, but your reference to that is interesting in that it's exactly what a Rudd government initiated in its first term (Henry review).
> 
> With regard to job losses, any change is generally going to have winners and losers. The key to managing such change is to maximise the winners relative to the losers and this is where consultation and transition comes in.
> 
> As a matter of general principal, I'm against negative gearing of salary income, but I also realise that policy change in this area would also need to be transitional. Do you remember how Paul Keating discovered that the rug couldn't be pulled from that in one go ?




Sometimes when you are planning to remove a tax break that is being abused you can't let the public know otherwise there's a mad rush to take advantage of it before its closed down.

This happened pre GST for house purchases

I do find it sad that Govts of all stripes love to set up a commission and then cherry pick a few of the easiest options presented.  It would have been good if the Henry review could have been mostly implemented, but how easy that would have been during a minority Govt I'm not sure.

I suppose in a few weeks we'll start to get the Coalition policies thrown at us.  It will be interesting to see what they are proposing cmpared to Labor.  I wonder if  they will predict a surplus in the near future?  With low inflation, low interest rates, share market not performing that great, unemployment slowly rising it's going to be hard to find the nerve to cut back on spending that has little benefit.  The MSM loves a good beat up story.

- - - Updated - - -



bunyip said:


> . He had grandiose plans but little practical ability in terms of thinking things through and considering all the pros and cons. Now he’s shaping up pretty much the same way as last time. The man was incompetent and he still is.[/I]




One could apply this to Abbott as well.  His 100 dams go north "policy" thought bubble shows that.  It makes good politics because it gives the nationals a carrot to dangle to their electorates, but if they try to go ahead with it there'll be billions of dollars wasted.


----------



## sptrawler (22 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> One could apply this to Abbott as well.  His 100 dams go north "policy" thought bubble shows that.  It makes good politics because it gives the nationals a carrot to dangle to their electorates, but if they try to go ahead with it there'll be billions of dollars wasted.




I for the life of me can't understand why you keep rolling out this rubbish endlessly.
Like I have said on numerous occassions IMO we have a brighter long term future as a food bowl. Than we will as a manufacturing, mining or technology based economy.
We can't compete with China, Europe or the U.S in manufacturing or technology, to think we can is childish. We may score the occassional breakthrough, but we will never be the world leader, or even close.
Mining is finite and our children may also reap some benefit from it, hower it is finite.
The worlds population is increasing and becoming more affluent, they will need more food and it will be an exponential increase.
Australia is fortunate in having one of the best climates and biggest area of undeveloped arrable land in the world. It is ridiculous, to not exploit it.
Have a read of this article, it isn't rocket science.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-22/mining-fuelled-agriculture/4640406

To keep laughing it down without logical basis, makes no sense, but that is becoming the norm. lol


----------



## drsmith (22 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Sometimes when you are planning to remove a tax break that is being abused you can't let the public know otherwise there's a mad rush to take advantage of it before its closed down.



Labor had not been planning this one for very long at all and that's the problem.


----------



## sptrawler (22 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> Labor had not been planning this one for very long at all and that's the problem.




Doc, Labor don't put much thought into anything, as has been proven by their record over the last six years.

The really sad aspect is, Labor supporters don't judge their party, by the same criteria, they critique Abbott with.


----------



## drsmith (22 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Doc, Labor don't put much thought into anything, as has been proven by their rcord over the last six years.
> 
> The really sad aspect is, Labor supporters don't judge their party, by the same criteria, they critique Abbott with.



On another policy front, the Manus Island detention currently has 145 out of a capacity of 300 and there have been another 128 arrivals since the commencement of the new PNG arrangement.

An upgrade to the facility to a capacity of 600 is not expected to be completed until into Jan 2014, so there won't be many going there in a hurry regardless of how many boats continue to come.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

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

No Essential Media poll out today, but Sportsbet has the Coalition at $1.33 to win the upcoming election against Labor at $3.25.


----------



## sptrawler (22 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> On another policy front, the Manus Island detention currently has 145 out of a capacity of 300 and there have been another 128 arrivals since the commencement of the new PNG arrangement.
> 
> An upgrade to the facility to a capacity of 600 is not expected to be completed until into Jan 2014, so there won't be many going there in a hurry regardless of how many boats continue to come.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/




Yes, now all Rudd has to rely on, is the press don't print the fiasco unfolding. I'm suprised he hasn't called the election.


----------



## drsmith (22 July 2013)

The election I feel will be called inside a week.

The last piece of the puzzle is tonight's Newspoll.


----------



## sptrawler (22 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> The election I feel will be called inside a week.
> 
> The last piece of the puzzle is tonight's Newspoll.




The idiot is relying on the fast food "would you like fries with that" politics.

He is toast, you can't rely on reactive policy to run a soveriegn country. 

Running around begging someone to sort out the problem, and trying to bribe them, shows we really are the 'white trash' of Asia.IMO

We enact policy, that blows up in our faces.

What do we do about it? Bribe a third world country to bail us out.

How we can see that as a fair and reasonable outcome, is beyond me.

I would say it just shows what a self centered, capitalist, arrogant country we are.

That is the problem with Chardoney socialism, it's great untill you run out of money.lol

Then what do you do? Become everyones 'bitch' (sorry) backflip on everything. Sad, very sad, what was it all about?
Losers, just losers.IMO


Wish I could say what I really felt, but I'm the quiet type.


----------



## Julia (22 July 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> I don't dislike Abbott. But I do find him a bit limited and am unsure how good he will be as Prime Minister.



I think a lot of people feel similarly.  Personally I find what I know of him encouraging in the sense of his long term contributions on a voluntary basis to so many causes in the community.  He has done this without fanfare.  Just imagine if Mr Rudd did just one aspect of voluntary activity:  there would be every press camera in Australia pre-advised to be there filming it!

I also don't know how he would be as PM, but I'm certainly going to give him my vote.  I'd like to know what proportion of votes in any election come down to voting for what is seen by the voter as the least worst alternative.
I would tear up my voting paper before voting for Labor because of their dreadful history in the last six years and the reality that there is absolutely no indication that any greater level of moral fibre has penetrated their DNA.  Rudd's latest 'policies' (read campaign promises) are politically based.  Even he could not deny this, given his multiple utterances in the past about not 'lurching to the Right' on asylum seekers, climate change being 'the greatest moral challenge of our time' etc.  

Keating and Howard were both politicians of confidence and conviction.  You knew what you were voting for if you voted for them.
Kevin Rudd couldn't be further away from this level of conviction.  He will do anything at all to win votes, in the process completely foregoing any pretence at believing in anything.  Moral bankruptcy at its essence imo.

I detest the Greens, but I'd vote for them before I'd vote for Labor because they continue to stand up for what they believe in.



sydboy007 said:


> Sometimes when you are planning to remove a tax break that is being abused you can't let the public know otherwise there's a mad rush to take advantage of it before its closed down.



Oh my goodness.  You will manage to find an excuse for Labor somehow.



> Yould apply this to Abbott as well.  His 100 dams go north "policy" thought bubble shows that.  It makes good politics because it gives the nationals a carrot to dangle to their electorates, but if they try to go ahead with it there'll be billions of dollars wasted.



Could you explain in detail the basis for the above assumption of billions of dollars wasted?



drsmith said:


> On another policy front, the Manus Island detention currently has 145 out of a capacity of 300 and there have been another 128 arrivals since the commencement of the new PNG arrangement.
> 
> An upgrade to the facility to a capacity of 600 is not expected to be completed until into Jan 2014, so there won't be many going there in a hurry regardless of how many boats continue to come.



One of the responsible PNG Ministers was interviewed on 7.30 this evening.  He assured Chris Urhlman that they could have quite adequate temporary accommodation in the form of tents and dongas up in "a couple of days".  He estimated about two years for the permanent facility to house 3000 to be built.
No reason not to go with his suggested temporary facilities in order to make the point that the government is serious imo.


----------



## sptrawler (22 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Pretty much agree with you there
> 
> But once again, what evidence is there that Abbott is any better.  If the independents are to be believed he was pretty much willing to make any kind of deal to become PM?
> 
> Abbott had a golden run for at least 18 months.  Over that time he could have been detailing policies that would help improve the country, but didn't.  He seems to take the populist route




Well how does that differ from what Rudd is doing at the moment?


----------



## sptrawler (22 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> One could apply this to Abbott as well.  His 100 dams go north "policy" thought bubble shows that.  It makes good politics because it gives the nationals a carrot to dangle to their electorates, but if they try to go ahead with it there'll be billions of dollars wasted.




I absolutely despise this train of thought, it ifuriates me. 
Please don't make statements about, developing the North is a waste of money, with nothing but dumb ar$ed Labor rhetoric.
It wasn't long ago that offshore processing was dumb by Labor reasoning.
It wasn't long ago, that a carbon tax was required to shut down, dirty brown coal power stations.

I'm sick of hearing Labors rhetoric, on what needs to be done, only to find out a year later it needs to be undone.:1zhelp:


----------



## drsmith (22 July 2013)

The great Rudd resurrection for Labor has stalled.



> Despite a sudden narrowing of the gap between Labor and the Coalition on handling illegal boat arrivals after Mr Rudd's bold announcement on asylum seekers being sent to Papua New Guinea the Coalition has gone back to an election-winning lead on a two-party preferred basis 52 to 48 per cent.
> 
> After a storming recovery in Mr Rudd's personal support, compared to Ms Gillard and Tony Abbott, dramatically lifted Labor's primary vote from 29 to 38 per cent in just three weeks and took the Government to a competitive 50-50 on second preferences the rate of increase has levelled.
> 
> ...




The question for Labor now is do they jump with 2PP at 48% in the hope of at least saving the furniture. If their PNG asylum solution unravels before the election itself, I suspect Labor's polling would quickly track back towards Julia Gillard territory. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-latest-newspoll/story-fnc6vkbc-1226683424636


----------



## sptrawler (22 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> The great Rudd resurrection for Labor has stalled.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm bloody sure it will, the used car sales pitch will wear thin real quick.

Jeez bring on an election, everyone is over the bloody circus.

Just because Captain Chaos, pulls his undies on, over the outside doesn't mean he has more credibility. He's still a dick, it just makes it more obvious.


----------



## sydboy007 (23 July 2013)

Julia said:


> _Originally Posted by sydboy007
> Sometimes when you are planning to remove a tax break that is being abused you can't let the public know otherwise there's a mad rush to take advantage of it before its closed down.
> _
> Oh my goodness.  You will manage to find an excuse for Labor somehow.
> ...




I think past experience has shown that when a Government lets the public know a a tax break is going to be removed a lot of people try to take advantage of the tax break before it's closed down

examples:

* The private health care rebate - from what I've read a lot of people prepaid a year in advance so they could take advantage of the 30$ rebate level compared to their new 20% or 10% level

* Rush for housing pre GST to avoid paying it once it was introduced.

Do you think that if the Govt said from Sept 1 2013 we will no longer allow the statutory method for claiming car expenses there wouldn't be a mad rush to get into leasing agreements earlier?

As for Abbott and his go north policy major issues with it are

* poor soils in the area
* very short period when rain falls - dry and hot most of the time
* few good areas for building dams
* high evaporation - ~ 2M a year so dams would have to be relatively deep to provide long term storage
* limited infrastructure in the area - who will pay for it as the Govt wont borrow to build it and the private sector wont build it without wanting to make monopoly profilt.  The nationals wont allow foreign investment.
* high freight costs
* past experience in the area has generally been a failure.
* crops grown have required high levels of insecticides, fertlizer and at times herbicides.  
* what would actually be grown there?

So if the Govt is going to spend billions on the infrastructure to make this a reality, how about they spent it on

* straightening the rail line between Brisbane - Sydney - Melbourne so that trains can compete agains freigh trucks

* Providing financial support for public transport in the capital cities

* Building publicly funded toll roads that take advantage of the Govts ability to borrow long term at low interest rates, let the private sector run the road once built.  Tolls can then be set at a level to pay the debt off over the 50+ year lifespan of the asset + maintenance costs rather than at a rate to generate 20%+ returns as the private sector requires.  This would be an ideal policy to employ workers loosing their jobs as the resource construction boom fals off a cliff over th enext few years.

I find it sad that the labor thread has all the activity.  No one seems to really have a reason to vote for Abbott, except they hate Labor.  I see Abbott will be bad as George Bush junior.

What is worse

A politican that changes policy when they realise the one they have isn't working?

or the poltician that sees a policy failing and will not budge one bit due to principal or whatever term you like to use?


----------



## Tink (23 July 2013)

Agree, Julia.

Abbott just did the Melbourne run on the weekend for Autism, and I think its good seeing politicians getting involved in these charities with the locals. It something he enjoys doing and has been doing for a long time.

_When I met with the parents at the centre as part of my visit, they told me that a number of them were participating in Run Melbourne to raise awareness and funds for the Little Learners Autism Program. They asked me if I would join them for the run and I was only too happy to oblige. These parents are an inspirational group and will do everything they can to support their children and raise awareness of autism. I’m honoured to be joining them for the 10 kilometre run in Melbourne on 21 July. _

 I am also glad to see the public have realised this lurch to the right from Rudd is for power.


----------



## sptrawler (23 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> IAs for Abbott and his go north policy major issues with it are
> 
> * poor soils in the area
> * very short period when rain falls - dry and hot most of the time
> ...



You obviously Know nothing about the North, as I assumed.

*The soil is extremely fertile, and as long as water can be kept upto it, gives high yeild, i.e 
Carnarvon fruit and vegetabls, Gerldton vegetables, Wiluna Oranges. Like I posted Rio are growing grain in the Pilbara.

*Very short period when rain falls, dry,hot and sunny is perfect, all you need is water i.e dams, artesian bores.

*Few good areas to dam, I dont know where you get that from? the Kimberly and Pilbara have plenty+ pipeline.

*High evaperation rates, doesn't affect lake Argyle, have you seen it? It is 70k's long. Get out a bit.

*Limited infrastructure- who will pay for it. It was going to cost$12B to pipe from Argyle to Perth? We can find $45B to upgrade the bloody phone system.lol

*High freight cost? most o the produce would be exported. If you hadn't noticed we have a lot of ports in the NW.Like I said get out from behind the computer.

*Past experience in the area? Like I said Carnarvon is and has been a rich agricultural area for years. You've probably been eating their bananas for years. I think you are referal to the Ord programme, which is still running and expanding.

However if you get your Atlas out we are refering to the area between Geralton and south of Broome, which is a between 1 and 2 thousand k's away .
Have you ever lived there, or indeed even been there?


----------



## Surly (23 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Do you think that if the Govt said from Sept 1 2013 we will no longer allow the statutory method for claiming car expenses there wouldn't be a mad rush to get into leasing agreements earlier?




Do you think the leasing arrangement entitles you to an ongoing FBT tax break?

I almost bought a new car on a novated lease last month. Very glad I didn't now.

cheers
Surly

EDIT Further research says you could of got in prior to the change and kept the stat method for the term of the contract of the lease.


----------



## chiff (23 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> You obviously Know nothing about the North, as I assumed.
> 
> *The soil is extremely fertile, and as long as water can be kept upto it, gives high yeild, i.e
> Carnarvon fruit and vegetabls, Gerldton vegetables, Wiluna Oranges. Like I posted Rio are growing grain in the Pilbara.
> ...




Bill Heffernan has been exploring agricultural possibilities in the north for quite a time.I wish that he had better news to report,as the idea does capture the imagination.If there was great success there may be a partial solution to the refugee problem,something like the Snowy Mountain Schemes.If that would be legal now ,who knows.
(billheffernan.com.au-farming in the north/hit or myth)


----------



## sydboy007 (23 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> I for the life of me can't understand why you keep rolling out this rubbish endlessly.
> Like I have said on numerous occassions IMO we have a brighter long term future as a food bowl. Than we will as a manufacturing, mining or technology based economy.
> We can't compete with China, Europe or the U.S in manufacturing or technology, to think we can is childish. We may score the occassional breakthrough, but we will never be the world leader, or even close.
> Mining is finite and our children may also reap some benefit from it, hower it is finite.
> ...




* Where will the dams be built? - I'm not againast building dams, just want to see if you can find any suitable areas to dam and will leave the political difficulty of building one aside.
* What will be grown>
* Who will pay for the infrastructure?


----------



## sydboy007 (23 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> * Where will the dams be built? - I'm not againast building dams, just want to see if you can find any suitable areas to dam and will leave the political difficulty of building one aside.
> * What will be grown>
> * Who will pay for the infrastructure?




my previous post should have been

* What will be grown?
* Who will pay for the infrastructure?  New roads will have to be build, water irrigation systems installed.  Govt debt is bad and you wont allow foreign investment in the agricultural sector.  Will those using the infrastructure have to pay for the total cost, or will there be a build in subsidy from the rest of us?

Maybe they'll be growing guar?  Not a food crop per se, but quite useful in the hydraulic fracking industry.  Oh wait, we don't allow that in this country eh.

From the Northern Australia Land and Water Science Review full report

The ‘farmable’ subset of suitable soils is likely to be a fraction of the 18 million hectare total, and its extent and location and particular deficiencies are not known. This makes it impossible to clearly identify a development trajectory for irrigated agriculture, based on the soil resource.

If all of northern Australia’s 200,000 GL annual average streamflow (5) were made available for irrigation, it could support ca 13.3 million hectares of fully irrigated agriculture (assuming an annual irrigation requirement of 15 ML/ha) or ca 20 million ha of less productive irrigated agriculture (assuming a 10 ML/ha requirement, with crops receiving less than their full water requirement, or land being rested for longer periods).

How many rivers is society prepared to alter? By how much is it prepared to alter them? How much money is it prepared to spend on infrastructure to enable water capture and transmission to support irrigated agriculture? Without answers to these questions, it is not possible to objectively identify a development trajectory for irrigated agriculture, based on the surface water resource.

Hydrologically sustainable groundwater‐based irrigation in northern Australia (i.e. that which doesn’t permanently deplete the groundwater resource, and thereby ‘cut its own throat’; but which doesn’t take account of other uses) requires a recharge area that is “several orders of magnitude greater than the irrigated area” (44). This occurs because, in much of northern Australia, aquifer recharge rates are low and the recharge areas required to support concentrated extraction are often of an intermediate to regional scale.

If we take a bold approach, assume that several orders of magnitude means “three”, and ignore the distribution of that water and its other uses, then this provides for a maximum of 120,000 ha of irrigated land (i.e. 1/1000th of the ca 120 million ha study area).
The soil mapping produced by Wilson et al. (this report) shows that this would not provide for irrigation of all the class 1+2 soil potentially suitable for production of irrigated annual crops (16.8 million ha), forestry (32.4 million ha), improved pasture (16.8 million ha), perennial crops (6.0 million ha) or rice (3.6 million ha). For all crops, therefore, using a recharge‐area assessment and a 3rd order of magnitude relationship between recharge and extraction, water rather than soil is the factor limiting crop production.

A more precautionary approach would use a 4th order of magnitude multiplier (1/10,000th of the study area) and determine that groundwater could support 12,000 ha of irrigated agriculture (ignoring other uses). Under this assumption, the availability of water would pose a far greater limit to crop production than the availability of suitable soil. And that doesn’t take into account competition for groundwater from other uses.

Using the prospectivity method, we estimate that the area of potentially groundwater‐irrigable land in northern Australia to be around 40,000‐60,000 ha. This constitutes around 0.4% of northern Australia’s potentially class 1+2 annual cropping soils, and approximately 1%, 2%, 0.2% and 0.4% of the class 1+2 soils for perennial crops, rice, forestry and improved pasture, respectively.
Crop production in northern Australia is limited by water, not soil.

The current total surface water storage capacity in northern Australia is ca 11,170 GL (Figure 12, Cresswell et al., this report). If we exclude the Ord River Dam, which is already accounted for in irrigated agriculture (and for which there are limited opportunities for similar storages in the north), the volume drops to ca 1,170. Assuming that all this water was available for agriculture (and it isn’t – much is lost via evaporation and is used for other purposes, such as domestic supply), it could support ca 80,000 – 120,000 ha of irrigated agriculture. As outlined above, this is sufficient to irrigate only a very small proportion of the potentially suitable agricultural soils. Irrigated agriculture in the north is likely to be water rather than soil limited.

I may not get up north, but I do read what others have found and studied up there.

If you're such a firm believer then

* How many hectares do you see being able to grow crops?
* How much would this increase current crop production for Australia?


----------



## sptrawler (23 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> * Where will the dams be built? - I'm not againast building dams, just want to see if you can find any suitable areas to dam and will leave the political difficulty of building one aside.
> * What will be grown>
> * Who will pay for the infrastructure?




The dam at Lake Argyle currently supports an irrigation area of approx 100sq/klm which is being increased to 400sq/klm.
It also provides power for the Argyle diamond mine and Kunanurra from a 36MW hyro electric power station.

The Camballin township was initially established to support Northern Developments Pty. Ltd., a company incorporated in Sydney in 1951 to establish small scale rice production in 1952. Demonstration that rice production was feasible, a 17-mile dam was constructed on the Uralla creek in 1957, trebling the water storage.
The project was abandoned due to flooding.
Yes that's right too much water.  The Fitzroy requires a huge dam. 

The Fitzroy River was diverted in the 1950s as part of the failed Camballin Irrigation Scheme to store the water to irrigate crops of cotton, sorghum and other feed crops.

There have been other proposals over time to dam the river at Dimond Gorge.

In April 2007, the then state opposition leader Colin Barnett announced plans to dam the river, should he become elected, in order to provide a water source for a new irrigation venture to replace the Murray-Darling Basin which has experienced significant water shortages as a result of the drought. His 20 year plan also included piping the water further south as an additional source for the Perth Integrated Water Supply Scheme. However, these ventures were not pursued when in government.

Who is going to pay for the infrastructure? One would assume it would be the government, like I said we can find 40 - 50billion for phone upgrade.
12 billion to pipe water all the way down the West coast and irrigate on the way, doesn't sound that bad. Think of the farming land available from a 3000km water supply line.

Further south you have the Ashburton river, the Fortesque, the De Grey to name a few.

The further south you get the crops grown would change of course.


----------



## sptrawler (23 July 2013)

Well Sydboy, I see you at least read something to make some basis to an argument rather than just regurgitating, Labor anti Abbott rhetoric.
I, unlike yourself am not knowledgable enough in the subject to be able to answer the question of how much land, or indeed how much increase in production.
However, with the draughts we are having in the South of the country and the drying of the Murray, Darling. 
It is a feasable direction to build an increased agricultural industry, which is a sustainable, renewing and growing market place.

Read what Du Pont said with regards its future.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/...-exit-from-paints-business-to-focus-on-farms/

It really doesn't bother me, I've run my race. But I can see the only world growth market, that we have the inside running on is agriculture.

We have a very flat topography that lends itself to irrigation.
We have over 300 days of sunshine/annum up north, which lends itself to crop growth.
We have a lot of per capita money at the moment, that should be spent wisely.
We have a massive growing food shortage, just to the north of us and they are sick of rice.
If we develop farming techniques to provide, livestock and feed for them.
Also we don't need green houses to grow lots of vegies, I think it is only limited by lack of vission and leadership.

Better still Syd, if you think what I'm saying is full of you know what.
You tell me what is going to maintain our kids living standards, going forward?
You tell me what we are going to do better than the major blocks, U.S, Europe,China, Japan etc. In enough quantity to support our top 10 lifestyles?

I tell you what we have got, that China, Japan, Europe and the U.S hasn't got, a lot of land and a small population. Also most of our land mass, falls in a favourable climatic belt.


----------



## sptrawler (24 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> For all crops, therefore, using a recharge‐area assessment and a 3rd order of magnitude relationship between recharge and extraction, *water rather than soil is the factor limiting crop production.*
> A more precautionary approach would use a 4th order of magnitude multiplier (1/10,000th of the study area) and determine that groundwater could support 12,000 ha of irrigated agriculture (ignoring other uses). Under this assumption, *the availability of water would pose a far greater limit to crop production than the availability of suitable soil.* And that doesn’t take into account competition for groundwater from other uses.
> 
> Using the prospectivity method, we estimate that the area of potentially groundwater‐irrigable land in northern Australia to be around 40,000‐60,000 ha. This constitutes around 0.4% of northern Australia’s potentially class 1+2 annual cropping soils, and approximately 1%, 2%, 0.2% and 0.4% of the class 1+2 soils for perennial crops, rice, forestry and improved pasture, respectively.
> ...




I just notice in you post, it does seem to contradict your post earlier of the day, that poor soil was the main problem.

Also seems to support my argument, that it is a lack of reliable water, that is the problem.

Also if you believe the climate experts, the north is going to get wetter and the south is going to get dryer. But that wouldn't fit with the argument would it.lol

Also lol, where you say you may not get up north but you read. 
It seems you read between your first post at 1.10 and second at 4.20


----------



## sydboy007 (24 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Well Sydboy, I see you at least read something to make some basis to an argument rather than just regurgitating, Labor anti Abbott rhetoric.
> I, unlike yourself am not knowledgable enough in the subject to be able to answer the question of how much land, or indeed how much increase in production.
> However, with the draughts we are having in the South of the country and the drying of the Murray, Darling.
> It is a feasable direction to build an increased agricultural industry, which is a sustainable, renewing and growing market place.
> ...




I'm not saying we can't increase crop production up north.

My whole argument is will Tony waste the money like Howard did with the Adelaide Darwin rail line?  i can see the Nationals salivating at the prospect of billions of dollars in spending in their electorates, with little to no cost beneft analysis being done.  I'd also argue that with the lack of infrastructure building over the last couple of decades that the ROI on infrastructure where the majority of us live will pay a higher dividend than up north.

It will take years to properly research what areas are suitable for what crops, and then ther's the issue that for every hectare of savanah you turn into pasture releases something like 140-220 tones of carbon into the atmosphere.  From what I've read you would have to allow GM crops to be grown up North, otherwise yields would be too low from diseases and pests, or the use of pesticies would be so high as to make the crops uneconomic.

Pretty much everything I've read on this topic indicates it's is very unlikley we could double food production by increasing agriculture up north.  If you can show me any research that does, I'll happily read it.  I don't generally talk about something if I don't have at least a modest level of understanding, or I'm quite upfront in saying i don't really know.

I also get a feeling we're talking about 2 different "go north" policies.  You seem to be focusing on the coastal area, where as Abbotts policy seems to focus on a lot of the the inland areas.

Rainfall still occurs near the coast, where it is flat. This makes building dams a challenge. CSIRO’s 2009 analysis did find that 600 gigalitres of ground water is available and could irrigate 40-60,000 hectares. Let’s put this into perspective: Cubbie Station alone has about 460 gigalitres of water licences and about 96,000 hectares of irrigated and dry land at its disposal.

As David Adamson has written:

_In the north, Stage 2 of the Ord irrigation scheme has cost $300 million and adds over 13,000 hectares to irrigation. The entire stage 2 has been leased by the Chinese company Shanghai Zhongfu for the next 50 years. They initially proposed a $700 m investment to develop a sugar industry. They now propose planting sorghum to produce ethanol: a sugar monoculture was likely to attract pests that would undermine profits. But changing the crop won’t make a difference: planned profits from cotton in the 1960s quickly evaporated in rising costs from pesticides needed to control an influx of pests. Sugar was no different and nor will sorghum be.

As a country we have just allocated over $10 billion to fix the mess created in the Murray-Darling Basin. Why would we want to create a similar mess in the north? The north is not suitable for intensive food production, it never has been, nor will it ever be. I simply go back to Bruce Davidson’s fundamental question: why would we open the public purse and spend billions on low or negative returns when there better returns from the expenditure elsewhere?_

I can see there is probably some potential to make better use of the water that flows out to see from some of the Norther rives and to be piped down to Perth.  If you're interested in that then this video may interest you as it's feasible to pipe water from Tasmania to Victoria using a gravity fed system - Labor and Liberal have both IGNORED this posibility- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADVB3DqEYK0

You seem to focus on "making things" as the only way to prosperity.  The Germans do it well, but I'd argue it's the IP embeded in their manufactures that is the real secret to their wealth.  We can do it - Resemd / CSL / Cochlear / Codan show what we can achieve.  Pitty no government in Australia is able to foster more of this kind of intelectual devlopment.  Gogle generates billions in profits every quarter, yet what does it produce?  It has a secret recepie to deliver useful search results better than the competion - I flirt with yahoo and bing every so often but google always gives me better results so they get my business.

You seem very interested in this topic so can I suggest you have a read of the below to help better inform your reasoning

http://www.csiro.au/en/Organisation...rthern-Australia-Sustainable-Development.aspx

http://www.lrm.nt.gov.au/__data/ass...g-term_Sustainable_Food_Production_Stage1.pdf

http://nalwt.gov.au/files/NLAW.pdf

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/northern/2008/11/22/the-northern-myth-chapter-1/


----------



## sptrawler (24 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> You seem to focus on "making things" as the only way to prosperity.  The Germans do it well, but I'd argue it's the IP embeded in their manufactures that is the real secret to their wealth.  We can do it - Resemd / CSL / Cochlear / Codan show what we can achieve.  Pitty no government in Australia is able to foster more of this kind of intelectual devlopment.  Gogle generates billions in profits every quarter, yet what does it produce?  It has a secret recepie to deliver useful search results better than the competion - I flirt with yahoo and bing every so often but google always gives me better results so they get my business.
> ]




Funny you mention CSL and Cochlear, then in the same breath suggest Australian Governments don't foster it.
Both those companies, were spun out of CSIRO from memory.
The other problem with a small country trying to make money out of this sort of industry, is it gets bought up by overseas and moves offshore.
Which has happened with both those companies, their manufacturing and major markets are overseas. Also if they are successful their major shareholders are overseas.


----------



## sydboy007 (24 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Funny you mention CSL and Cochlear, then in the same breath suggest Australian Governments don't foster it.
> Both those companies, were spun out of CSIRO from memory.
> The other problem with a small country trying to make money out of this sort of industry, is it gets bought up by overseas and moves offshore.
> Which has happened with both those companies, their manufacturing and major markets are overseas.




I'd argue what the Govt old off back in the 90s, and what they've become are not particularly related.

The sad fact is Australina Governments have ignored building up companies that generate wealth from knowledge.

A barbie doll sells for $20 but China gets 35 cents a doll, yet they do most / all of the manufacturing work.

We can compete in some niche manufacturing, but I'd argue we'll have more chance of success if we build up the IP produced in this country and then colect the royalities on its use.  The CSIRO is receiving over $500M in royalities for its WiFi patents.  An iPhone is physicaly worth $200-250 yet sells for $800.  Apple gets a large chunk of that profit margin.


----------



## sptrawler (24 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'd argue what the Govt old off back in the 90s, and what they've become are not particularly related.
> 
> The sad fact is Australina Governments have ignored building up companies that generate wealth from knowledge.
> 
> ...




Yes and CSIRO had to drag American multinationals through the courts for years, to get those royalties.

Like I said, if you think we are going to make enough break throughs in technology, ahead of the U.S, Europe and Asia, to support our lifestyle. Your dreaming.
If it's any good the U.S will buy it, or China will. 
I remember when the L.A olympics were on, the statement was made that L.A's turnover was the same as Australias GDP.
IMO we are living on borrowed time.


----------



## noco (24 July 2013)

Do we have the new Rudd or the old Rudd?

Not only has Janet Albrechtsen summed up Rudd but the people smugglers are well aware of Rudd's modus operandi and they don't need to be told so by Tony Abboott or Scott Morrison.

This PNG debacle is a TRFU along with his past on pink batts and the education revolution.What a laughing stock around the world Australia must be.

What next Mr. Rudd?????????????

Please resign and join Juliar. You make a good pair to be known as TGRFU. 


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...rudd-rises-again/story-e6frg7bo-1226683973693


----------



## moXJO (24 July 2013)

We already have guys growing in the desert using different tech. I think rio tinto was also using waste water to grow hundreds of thousands of hectares of crops. Another mob were using sea water down in SA. Becoming a food bowl is a good idea.


----------



## bunyip (24 July 2013)

Tony Abbot’s vision for northern Australian agriculture is not as far-fetched as some people seem to think. Certainly he’s kidding himself with his comment about 100 dams. But they wouldn’t be needed anyway if the right area was targeted for agriculture. 
One of the northern areas with enormous agricultural potential is the Gulf country hinterland in QLD. I know that country reasonably well, having travelled extensively in that region, bought cattle out of there, and at one time I inspected a number of properties there with a view to buying a grazing enterprise. 
The region contains tens of millions of acres of flat to gently undulating fertile black soil country that could grow a wide variety of agricultural crops with the help of irrigation. Much of this land is sparsely timbered, meaning minimal clearing required to establish cropping land. It has a warm climate and little rainfall for seven or eight months of the year, making it perfect for farming if water can be added to the equation. There are a number of big and reliable rivers that would lend themselves to water harvesting via off-stream ring tanks similar to what are used in the cotton growing areas of Queensland’s Darling Downs region, and further west in the St George area.
The area is much closer to Asian markets than most of the established agricultural areas of Australia. There’s an established port at Townsville to the east, and it’s only a short distance to potential ports in the Gulf.

One of the biggest bugbears with northern agriculture is the wildlife....pigs, roos, birds. The rice growing experiment at Humpty Doo south of Darwin in the 1950’s was brought undone largely due to millions of magpie geese destroying the crop.
But the biggest issue with agriculture is always the price of the commodity produced – farmers just can’t function unless their crops are worth more than the cost of production.


----------



## sails (24 July 2013)

*Labor expecting public anger over budgetary cuts to pay for asylum seeker proposal*




> LABOR MPs are bracing for a voter backlash over Budget cuts that will have to soon be announced to cover the cost of Kevin Rudd's asylum seeker crackdown.
> 
> Treasurer Chris Bowen is preparing to release an economic statement within days that will contain significant new spending cuts and pose a challenge to Labor's political momentum.
> 
> ...




Read more:  http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-seeker-proposal/story-fnihsrf2-1226683980782


----------



## Calliope (24 July 2013)

sails said:


> *Labor expecting public anger over budgetary cuts to pay for asylum seeker proposal*
> 
> Read more:  http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-seeker-proposal/story-fnihsrf2-1226683980782




Whether it's Boats, Budgets or Rudd Bluster the news on all fronts this morning spells disaster for Labor and a nightmare for the next government. I think Rudd is following Gillard's scorched earth policy.



> There’s a stream of bad news this morning for the Australian federal government budget balance.
> There are reports of a scramble for yet more savings programs, revenue shortfalls including Rio Tinto not being liable for resources tax, and a potential NBN cost blowout.
> *The AFR reports that ministers will be looking another $6 billion in savings that has been lost since the budget was delivered just over two months ago.*
> *With the government already having announced a $3.9 billion change to fringe benefits tax to fund its just-announced border protection policy change involving sending boat arrivals to PNG, and billions in cuts already made in recent years under Wayne Swan, the talks on more savings are said to be “stressful”.*
> ...




http://au.businessinsider.com/where...news-for-australias-budget-bottom-line-2013-7


----------



## sails (24 July 2013)

From the SMH...labor caught lying...again...

*Porky pies fly thick and fast as pollies log in for broadband boost*



> The most deceptive Labor claim, according to Mr Brown and opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull, was that its NBN was "free" while the Coalition's would cost $5000.
> 
> "It's outrageous," Mr Turnbull said. "It's very, very, very dishonest ... and the worst part about it is it's being done with taxpayers' money".
> 
> ...





Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ies-log-in-for-broadband-boost-20130723-2qhj5.


----------



## db94 (24 July 2013)

It seems that Rudd knew the budget was gonna blow out. Expect this video to be played every ad break on tv till the election http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYcgM5H-uH4 

The fact is that he spent too much money when not needed and the party has devised some pretty poor policies (nbn could cost $60 bn!!)


----------



## noco (24 July 2013)

You can’t argue with fact…This says it all really…





I DON’T THINK THE AUTHOR OF THIS CRITIQUE
WILL BE VOTING LABOR !!! NO ONE SHOULD, AFTER READING THIS.











You hear that Australia? You know what that is??  It’s the sound of laughter.  Thats right.......laughter.  The entire Labor party is laughing at us.......because they actually think we are THAT stupid.   I cannot begin to explain how totally embarrassed I am as an Australian right now.



Thank you Labor for proving once again that you have absolutely no respect for the role of Prime Minister in this country, and that our highest office is nothing more than your political play thing.  What a way to tell the world that we are a complete and utter joke !!   No, it wasn't enough that you have subjected us to this three ring circus of a government.  It wasn't enough that you completely drained our finances, but now, you have gone and completely embarrassed this nation on the international stage - again!    No, you didn't do it for any greater good, no, you didn't do it in the best interests of our people, no, you did it for your own personal and political agenda.  Nothing more.  You are supposed to be representing the people of this country, not yourselves, but apparently, that is a concept that is completely lost on you.  



At this exact moment, I can barely express into words how fundamentally you disgust me!!!   Three years ago YOU, as a party, stood before the world and told us that you had to change the leader of OUR country because a ‘good government had gone bad’, and it had gone bad because of Rudd.  That was your statement, not ours, and, by the way, whilst we're on the subject,  that’s OUR job to do, not yours, you bunch of arrogant self serving hypocrites and scumbags!  

If you don't like who's PM, call a general election!



So what now Labor ?  Has Rudd suddenly come good?   What, has he found some spare time during his time on the back-bench and on his world tour to go to leadership school?  Learned how to deal with his 2 year old type tantrums?   So since then, you've been telling us and everybody with a microphone what a fantastic leader Julia was, and how she was the best person to run this country.  I swear I remember hearing that many times.  So once again Labor, was that just all more self serving lies and deceit ? Apparently so.



Do you want to know how I know, with absolute certainty?  You blokes are just a bunch of self centred, self preserving, arrogant, egotistically ENTRENCHED LIARS?  Because you just fired that 'supposed great leader’ you for three years espoused, and replaced her with the very bloke you previously told the entire world, was INCAPABLE at being a leader.  Are you kidding?  Wow!  How fundamentally bad do you need to be as a leader for that to occur?  In fact, how is that even allowed?  We have a bloke as PM that even one of your own MPs is on record as calling a ‘psychopath’. “Rudd is a ‘psychopath with a giant ego.  His chaotic and deeply offensive style of leadership, etc".  Great choice fella’s.  That’s the way to let the cream rise to the top!



No, I'll tell you what you've done.  All you have proved over the past few years is that, as a party, you really don't give a DAMN about this country, and that you are only really in this gig for yourselves - period! The number of members who have jumped ship with this change, is disgusting and indicates exactly how you feel about this country, and only goes to further re-inforce how self indulgent and totally selfish you really are.



If Labor retains even one seat at the next federal election as a result of this desperate, demeaning, and totally self-centred stunt, all it will prove to the world is just how gullible and stupid the Australian voting public is, and how easily manipulated its members can be.  Let’s never forget that this perception is a simple re-hash of  the feelings of that great ALP patriarch, Paul Keating, who, in 1993, said “Never under-estimate the stupidity of the Australian voting public”.



Shame on you Labor movement.  Shame on you, and shame on every one of your self-centred, incompetent, arrogant, and inept federal politicians!  I am sure none of you could lie straight in bed, even if your life depended upon it!!


BTW, Rudd will be on the Bolt report at 10 am on channel 10 on Sunday. 

Just can't wait to see the fire works.


----------



## dutchie (24 July 2013)

noco said:


> Paul Keating, who, in 1993, said “Never under-estimate the stupidity of the Australian voting public”.




The best statement Paul Keating ever made.

Still very current.

"Shame on you Labor movement. Shame on you, and shame on every one of your self-centred, incompetent, arrogant, and inept federal politicians! I am sure none of you could lie straight in bed, even if your life depended upon it!!"

True, but more shame on voting public if they vote this lot in again.


----------



## sptrawler (24 July 2013)

Rud has caused such a huge, step shift in Labors policy and position, even on our forum it has caused a vacuum.

The robust debate and ribbing, has all but disappeared, I think Kev has managed the 'shock and awe'.

Can't wait to see the next phase.

It is funny how, stopping asylum seekers and getting rid of the carbon tax. 
Has gone from negativity, to policy.

Guess it just depends who says it.


----------



## bunyip (25 July 2013)

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...efugees_propaganda_lauding_rudd_and_the_gree/


----------



## noco (25 July 2013)

I think Rudd has bitten off more than he can chew with his PNG asylum seeker solution.

I also really don't think Peter O'Neill knows what he has let himself in for either. 

Only time will tell.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...solution-sinking/story-fn9hm1gu-1226684649444


----------



## springhill (25 July 2013)

Kevin Rudd's commented this morning when being interviewed by Lisa Wilkinson that Australia's asylum seeker policy was 'not chipped in stone' and 'constantly had to be readjusted' since 2009-10. It was pointed out by Lisa that it was indeed the case since Mr Rudd dismantled the Pacific Solution. Somehow he even managed to blame the Syrian conflict, not sure how many Syrians have made it to Australia's shore through Indonesia. Not many I would suggest.

What do the 2 phrases 'not chipped in stone' and 'constantly having to be adjusted' say to the observation viewer?

Mr Rudd will be using these phrases far more frequently in the lead up to the election even more so again if Labor win.

It is a clear sign that he will be flip flopping, knee jerking, 'lurching to the right' and then back to the left again depending on what the polling that week indicates.

In essence, Mr Rudd has a 'policy' at this particular point in time but reserves the right to change it as he sees fit.

I found his demeanor to be quite rude in this segment too, constantly talking over Lisa and rephrasing her questions and once or twice even ignoring them. 

What a misogynist.

I am not a big fan of either of them, so felt that I wasn't biased towards one or the other.

In all honesty, since his return as PM, this was his first poor speaking performance that I have seen.


----------



## Calliope (25 July 2013)

NOT AGAIN!!!



> KEVIN Rudd has pledged to revive his 2008 pledge to halve homelessness by 2020, a promise that has been undermined by an increase in the number of people without a home.




He will look after them as soon as he has accommodated all the asylum seekers.


----------



## Calliope (25 July 2013)

The laying on of hands by St Kevin. If a teacher did this he would be sacked.


----------



## Bushman (25 July 2013)

One for the KRudd apologists. From today's MMS announcement .... not that the 'Laborites' care, but the MMS share price has opened @ $7.00. 

'As the industry stakeholders were not consulted on the proposed FBT changes, they have taken MMS by surprise. MMS, its employees, shareholders, customer base of not for profit charities and the public/private sector find themselves in an uncertain business, investment and service announcement.' 

Typically uncle psycho style; no consultation with anyone, no common sense, no thought at all. Policy on the run with the thinking being that if you run fast enough, no-one will have time to smell the manure. 

The best part of this is that with one 'fowl' swish of his presidential hands, KRudd has destroyed an industry and had a knock on effect on countless shareholders, suppliers, customers etc. 

If we have three more years of these cretins, then business will stop investing. This will destroy even more jobs in the teeth of the waning mining boom. 

The best thing is that this will be used to fund Krudd's 'gulag archipelago' (yes, I have deliberately quoted Solzhenitsyn) as he uses foreign aid in the region to dump refugees on our neighbours. It will cost tens of billions and, even more importantly for me, countless more human lives. He can add that to the 'pink batt' death toll of which he was the hasty architect and then let Peter Garrett take the blame. 

It is Malcolm Turnbull or the donkey vote for me. I will not be a part of the destruction of the Australian economy any further. How the rusted on ALP voters can claim that this reckless yahoo even represents ALP values is beyond me. Desperate times. We need an election now  ...


----------



## Calliope (25 July 2013)

+I Bushman. Manus = Gulag Archipelago. PNG is now Rudd's Siberia. How long before he will be extending the policy to political enemies?


----------



## sails (25 July 2013)

Bushman- don't forget that Turnbull is likely keep carbon pricing (whether under the banner of carbon tax or the EU controlled ETS).

If carbon tax had never been introduced, then this latest stuff-up would not have been necessary.  The problem is that government have had to spend so much in compensating people for higher cost of living.  

Carbon pricing under any label is clearly better avoided, IMO.  For that reason I would not like to see Turnbull as leader again. His approval rating was around 14% before he was replaced with Abbott and that was largely due to carbon pricing.

And what's the point of voting because of a leader when their own party can dump them?


----------



## Calliope (25 July 2013)

You never know what stunt Rudd will pull next.


----------



## sptrawler (25 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Funny you mention CSL and Cochlear, then in the same breath suggest Australian Governments don't foster it.
> Both those companies, were spun out of CSIRO from memory.
> The other problem with a small country trying to make money out of this sort of industry, is it gets bought up by overseas and moves offshore.
> Which has happened with both those companies, their manufacturing and major markets are overseas. Also if they are successful their major shareholders are overseas.




Just to highlight what I was saying Sydboy, here is another high tech IT company, being bought up and heading overseas.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/wa/18140696/iss-founder-rues-foreign-sale/

If we don't start and fill the hole in the economy, that the demise of minerals will cause  in 50- 100 years. 
We will end up a third world nation. IMO

I haven't heard or seen any vission from Labor, at least the coalitions foodbowl plan is something.

All I've seen from Labor is waste and a pseudo mass immigration policy of low skill workers.

Meanwhile thinking we are going to compete on cutting edge technology on a regular basis, is pipedream.
Have a read on what Europe is spending its R&D money.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/science...or_concludes_three-year_run.html?cid=34990734

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Business/?id=1.0.2471028188

All Labor are doing is blowing money to feather their own nest.
Sorry I forgot, they are also spending mega bucks upgrading the phone system. 
So people can get even better quality T.V pictures. yeh


----------



## db94 (25 July 2013)

Bushman said:


> One for the KRudd apologists. From today's MMS announcement .... not that the 'Laborites' care, but the *MMS share price has opened @ $7.00. *
> 
> 'As the industry stakeholders were not consulted on the proposed FBT changes, they have taken MMS by surprise. MMS, its employees, shareholders, customer base of not for profit charities and the public/private sector find themselves in an uncertain business, investment and service announcement.'
> 
> ...




ths was the scariest for me! Rudd is a tornado going around destroying everything. Every shareholder will now not vote for Rudd as their stocks are now worth half of what they were, with no warning! . Cant wait to see the end of Rudd


----------



## sptrawler (25 July 2013)

Sounds like we are going to see a back flip, with two full twists, degree of difficulty 9 out of 10. Captain Chaos back at the helm, Uncle Psycho in charge.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...for-his-promises/story-fni0cx12-1226685067511


----------



## noco (25 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Sounds like we are going to see a back flip, with two full twists, degree of difficulty 9 out of 10. Captain Chaos back at the helm, Uncle Psycho in charge.
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...for-his-promises/story-fni0cx12-1226685067511




I would say Rudd has $h>t in his own nest and it is starting to smell to high heaven. It sure did not take long for the voters wake up to him.

What ever he touches turns to chaos.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...oneymoon-is-over/story-fnh4jt61-1226685006671


----------



## Macquack (25 July 2013)

So you are a keen "Twitter" follower, Noco?

Can you please explain what "Topsy Sentiment Score" is?


----------



## Julia (25 July 2013)

noco said:


> I would say Rudd has $h>t in his own nest and it is starting to smell to high heaven. It sure did not take long for the voters wake up to him.
> 
> What ever he touches turns to chaos.
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...oneymoon-is-over/story-fnh4jt61-1226685006671



I'd like to see the methodology employed to produce those results.
In many of these online polls anyone can vote a thousand times if they wish.
Not saying that is what happened here, but I wouldn't put much credence on it without knowing more about the design and implementation.


----------



## sptrawler (25 July 2013)

Julia said:


> I'd like to see the methodology employed to produce those results.
> In many of these online polls anyone can vote a thousand times if they wish.
> Not saying that is what happened here, but I wouldn't put much credence on it without knowing more about the design and implementation.




+1 
I think it will be interesting to see what happens with the car leasing suggestion. If there's a flip, internal polling still shows problems.IMO


----------



## noco (25 July 2013)

Macquack said:


> So you are a keen "Twitter" follower, Noco?
> 
> Can you please explain what "Topsy Sentiment Score" is?





A keen "TWITTER" follower? No Macquack. I have never ever gone into Twitter.

Here is the link you can folow on "Topsy Sentiment Score". 

I guess we can all be a little naive at times.

Hope it helps to educate you. 

http://topsylabs.com/election/

http://about.topsy.com/company/pres...s-worlds-most-powerful-social-analytics-tool/


----------



## noco (26 July 2013)

According to Andrew Bolt, Rudds PNG solution is already in tatters with the armada of boats still continues to come unabatted.

The peolpe smugglers will flood PNG to overflowing and place the whole solution in crisis within weeks.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...heraldsun/comments/rudds_pbg_deal_collapsing/


----------



## bunyip (26 July 2013)

noco said:


> I think Rudd has bitten off more than he can chew with his PNG asylum seeker solution.
> 
> I also really don't think Peter O'Neill knows what he has let himself in for either.
> 
> ...





That's for sure. O'Neil will end up as hated in PNG as Gillard and Rudd have become in Australia. The poor bastard clearly has little understanding of just what a mess he's creating for his country by agreeing to Rudd's deal. 
Already his countrymen are saying they don't want the asylum seekers with their different mentality, culture and religion. 
I wonder if O'Neil is aware that most of them who are granted asylum in PNG are likely to spend their lives on social welfare, as they do in Australia. I wonder is he's factored this into the future cost of running his country.
In fact an even higher percentage of them are likely to become welfare-dependent in PNG, due to that country lacking the same level of language teaching facilities, skills training programs and job opportunities that Australia has.

O'Neil has clearly been seduced by Rudd's promise to foot the bill for the asylum seekers, and no doubt give PNG a power of additional aid money as well. But he'll soon find that the cost to his own country is far in excess of what he's estimated.
Once it becomes obvious to O'Neil that the advantages to PNG will be far outweighed by the disadvantages, I expect to see him or the next PNG government running for the hills on this deal, pulling out of it or at least insisting on drastic changes.

As for Rudd, his u bute solution to the asylum seeker problem is typical of the hastily contrived, ill-considered and inaccurately costed policies that have been the hallmark of this pathetic Labor government.
Another multi-billion dollar stuff up by the most inept government in Australian history.


----------



## sptrawler (26 July 2013)

I wonder how long it would take for the demographics of PNG to change, with the influx of asylum seekers?
Port Moresby has a population of around 300,000, so if the immigrants don't intergrate and gravitate toward the capitol, which would be expected.
It wouldn't take very long before they became made an impact, be that good or bad.
Maybe PNG could do with the injection of population to promote growth, I have not read much on PNG Industrial, manufacturing or social frameworks.
They do have minerals, so it actually may be beneficial to have a supply of immigrants.


----------



## sydboy007 (26 July 2013)

sails said:


> Bushman- don't forget that Turnbull is likely keep carbon pricing (whether under the banner of carbon tax or the EU controlled ETS).
> 
> If carbon tax had never been introduced, then this latest stuff-up would not have been necessary.  The problem is that government have had to spend so much in compensating people for higher cost of living.
> 
> ...




The latest CPI figures show differently.  CPI is currently right in the middle of the RBA comfort zone.  The 1 off increase in prices from the carbon levy (lets call it a levy since Abbotts paid parental leave scheme is a levy and not a tax) will exit the next CPI figures.

Depending on the way the AUD and oil prices go, we have a good chance to see CPI on the way down again, both of which are pretty much outside the control of the Australian Govt - unless you'd like to go back to a fixed exchange rate (Howard wasn't supportive of the move to a floating exchange rate so wouldn't surprise me if some ASF members would like to go back to the good old days)

I know most people don't place much on polls, but seems the majority in Australia don't see the carbon pricing as too big a deal these days, so I do wonder if Turnbull is on the right side of the attitudinal tide now?


----------



## Julia (26 July 2013)

bunyip said:


> That's for sure. O'Neil will end up as hated in PNG as Gillard and Rudd have become in Australia. The poor bastard clearly has little understanding of just what a mess he's creating for his country by agreeing to Rudd's deal.
> Already his countrymen are saying they don't want the asylum seekers with their different mentality, culture and religion.



The gloss of the 'arrangement' seems to be wearing off already with Mr O'Neill allegedly now accusing Australia of using PNG as a dumping ground.

The other holder of hurt feelings seems to be the President of Indonesia who is upset that Mr Rudd didn't conult with him before announcing the deal with PNG.




> I wonder if O'Neil is aware that most of them who are granted asylum in PNG are likely to spend their lives on social welfare, as they do in Australia. I wonder is he's factored this into the future cost of running his country.



Not his concern, Bunyip.  Australia picks up all the bills - into infinity it seems.

What Mr O'Neil might like to give some serious consideration to, however, is the social unrest which would seem inevitable with thousands of Muslims all on what to native PNG people is generous welfare, when they themselves are struggling at a subsistence level.  Also how a strongly Christian population is going to take to demands for halal food, tolerance of their religious demands etc.



> O'Neil has clearly been seduced by Rudd's promise to foot the bill for the asylum seekers, and no doubt give PNG a power of additional aid money as well. But he'll soon find that the cost to his own country is far in excess of what he's estimated.
> Once it becomes obvious to O'Neil that the advantages to PNG will be far outweighed by the disadvantages, I expect to see him or the next PNG government running for the hills on this deal, pulling out of it or at least insisting on drastic changes.



This appears to already be happening.  Mr O'Neil seems to be running into some resistance amongst his fellow members of parliament.


----------



## bunyip (26 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Not his concern, Bunyip.  Australia picks up all the bills - into infinity it seems.



Yes Julia, it’s a joke isn’t it– and not a very funny one at that. If they’re not granted asylum in PNG, and they’re unwanted by another country, then they’ll be kept indefinitely in detention in PNG at Australia’s expense– Tony Bourke confirmed this himself in a TV interview just a few days ago. Just imagine the cost blowout potential of this aspect alone of Rudd’s ‘solution’. 
But I wonder what the arrangement is between Australia and PNG if they’re granted asylum but are welfare dependent because they can’t or are not interested in finding work in PNG. Surely not even someone as incompetent as Rudd could be fool enough to agree to foot the bill in that situation!!



Julia said:


> What Mr O'Neil might like to give some serious consideration to, however, is the social unrest which would seem inevitable with thousands of Muslims all on what to native PNG people is generous welfare, when they themselves are struggling at a subsistence level.  Also how a strongly Christian population is going to take to demands for halal food, tolerance of their religious demands etc.



This is one of the things I was referring to in saying that the cost to PNG will end up being far in excess of what O’Neil has allowed for. Not only will there be social unrest when thousands of Muslims are dumped into a small Christian population, but the social unrest will have a considerable price tag attached to it, as countries like Spain and France and England and The Netherlands are finding out.
There are just so many aspects of this deal that will negatively impact PNG, and Julian O’Neil appears to have been blissfully ignorant of them when he signed up. He’s in for a very rude awakening.


----------



## qldfrog (26 July 2013)

not to defend Kevin but if we really send "refugees to PNG" it will not take long to see that the flow will stop really fast; and the ads the government is now funding  should not be on national tv but broadcastred by BBC internationals


----------



## sptrawler (26 July 2013)

qldfrog said:


> not to defend Kevin but if we really send "refugees to PNG" it will not take long to see that the flow will stop really fast; and the ads the government is now funding  should not be on national tv but broadcastred by BBC internationals




Why are you so sure of that, PNG on Australian welfare, may be a reasonable outcome for many.


----------



## sails (26 July 2013)

qldfrog said:


> not to defend Kevin but if we really send "refugees to PNG" it will not take long to see that the flow will stop really fast; and the ads the government is now funding  should not be on national tv but broadcastred by BBC internationals




Manus can take 600 (now that those that were there have been flown to Australia.

Over 700 have arrived since the announcement took effect.  So there are 100 too many already.  It seems the boats are not stopping...


----------



## drsmith (26 July 2013)

Kevin Rudd will hope to slow the flow of boats prior to the election, but if re-elected, Labor would largely walk away from its current PNG solution due to the ideological discomfort it creates and the enormous cost.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...he-rush-of-boats/story-fn9hm1gu-1226685294089


----------



## Zedd (26 July 2013)

noco said:


> According to Andrew Bolt...



... Labour's first mistake was registering as a party.


----------



## Julia (26 July 2013)

qldfrog said:


> not to defend Kevin but if we really send "refugees to PNG" it will not take long to see that the flow will stop really fast; and the ads the government is now funding  should not be on national tv but broadcastred by BBC internationals



Well, the signs so far are less than encouraging to this end.  The flow of boats has actually increased.
It's my bet that the people smugglers and the asylum seekers are, not unreasonably, banking on the Rudd government failing to follow through, and are believing they will achieve entry to Australia.
Can't blame them for that, given the last several years.


----------



## bunyip (26 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Why are you so sure of that, PNG on Australian welfare, may be a reasonable outcome for many.





Indeed - it's quite likely that many of them will see PNG as a far better option than staying in their home countries where they and their families suffer constant persecution and are living in fear for their lives.
And having been granted asylum in PNG, presumably they would then be eligible to apply for citizenship which, if granted, would open up the possibility of moving a little further south to Australia.

At least, that's how many of these asylum seekers are likely to be thinking. In which case the boats will keep coming.

Whichever way it goes, Rudd is clearly going to add many more billions of dollars to the ten or twelve billion he's already cost us by stupidly dumping (he calls it 'adjusting'!) Howard's Pacific Solution that was doing a very efficient job of keeping the boats out.


----------



## bunyip (26 July 2013)

bunyip said:


> There are just so many aspects of this deal that will negatively impact PNG, and Julian O’Neil appears to have been blissfully ignorant of them when he signed up. He’s in for a very rude awakening.




'Julian' O'Neill??? I was thinking of that bad boy footballer Julian O'Neill, the talented sportsman who was engaged to swim star Samantha Reilly, a bloke who had the world at his feet before he started boozing and misbehaving until both rugby league and then rugbby union got sick of him and told him to get lost.

In referring to the PNG Prime Minister, I did of course mean to say *Peter* O'Neill.


----------



## sydboy007 (27 July 2013)

So Albanese reckons we'll have first dirt turned on a second airport for Sydney in 3 and a bit years.

Pull the other one.

I doubt we'll ever have a second airport built closer than Newcastle or Canberra.

Neither Labor nor the Coalition have the balls to pick a site.

I really don't know why politicians bother telling these porkies when no one is going to believe them.


----------



## bunyip (27 July 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So Albanese reckons we'll have first dirt turned on a second airport for Sydney in 3 and a bit years.
> 
> Pull the other one.
> 
> ...



Oh there will be people who believe him alright, just as there are fools who believe the constant stream of rubbish from spruikers like Rudd and Gillard and Shorten and Wong.
Labor voters have always been a very gullible lot.


----------



## noco (27 July 2013)

An election in the 31st August!!!!!!!!!! I don't think so.

Mr. Kevin Chaos has told world leaders he will meet them at the G20 meeting in September.

I am sure the world leaders just can't wait to meet him. 


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...at-g20-in-russia/story-fnihslxi-1226686542308


----------



## drsmith (27 July 2013)

noco said:


> An election in the 31st August!!!!!!!!!! I don't think so.
> 
> Mr. Kevin Chaos has told world leaders he will meet them at the G20 meeting in September.
> 
> ...



This week's Newspoll wasn't good enough.

September 21 is now the next possibility.


----------



## sptrawler (27 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> This week's Newspoll wasn't good enough.
> 
> September 21 is now the next possibility.




The further he pushes out the election the better, everyone is already getting sick of the sight of him. He really does love to see himself on t.v, what a anker.


----------



## drsmith (27 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> The further he pushes out the election the better, everyone is already getting sick of the sight of him. He really does love to see himself on t.v, what a anker.



Kev want's to be careful how long he delays the election.

He could end up leading Labor to an even bigger annihilation than Julia Gillard.


----------



## noco (27 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> This week's Newspoll wasn't good enough.
> 
> September 21 is now the next possibility.




Yes Doc, I think you are spot on with the election date for Rudd won't want to miss the G20 meeting Septmeber 5 and 6. He will want to glory in mixing with the world leaders. I hope he leaves his clown suit at home.

Perhaps Rudd might believe he can get some election mileage out of this important meeting before he goes to the polls.

Also he may not have to recall parliament if he chooses September 21

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/..._think_rudd_will_run_the_second_he_thinks_he/


----------



## drsmith (27 July 2013)

noco said:


> Also he may not have to recall parliament if he chooses September 21



I did read in the media that with this date, he could avoid the next sittings.



> Labor can still have an election as late as September 21 and avoid recalling parliament by announcing the election on the weekend of August 17-18.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...day-of-reckoning/story-e6frg75f-1226685225530


----------



## noco (30 July 2013)

Gary Johns sums up our spend and tax Prime Minister Rudd extremely well.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...nother-wish-list/story-fn8v83qk-1226687761447


----------



## bunyip (30 July 2013)

The media have come up with a new nickname for Kevin 07, referring to him as Kevin 747 in reference to his prodigious talent for jumping on jets and heading off around the globe at our expense. Since becoming PM just over a month ago, the supposedly changed man Kevin Rudd is reported to have flown 55,000 km, and racked up a bill of more than half a million dollars. 

This bloke’s talent for wasting money isn’t limited to air travel either, as he’s demonstrated many times and continues to do so. The PNG town of Leahy is getting an upgrade to their hospital, costing somewhere between 300 and 600 million dollars, half of which will be funded by Australia. I daresay this will be only one of many sweetheart deals that will continue to drain the finances of our already cash strapped government, as PNG’s reward for accepting our boat arrivals. As usual, funding will be provided by cuts to our own already grossly inadequate services and infrastructure.
I shudder to think what Rudd’s ill-considered deal with PNG will end up costing us. Understandably, nobody in the government has been forthcoming with any figures – they simply don’t have any idea what the cost will be.


----------



## sptrawler (30 July 2013)

Here we go, the first blow up in their face backflip. They go on about Abbott and three word slogans, what about the government policy making, three ring circus.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...ease-fbt-car-hit/story-fni0xqrb-1226687859119

So now to try and back fill the hole on the car leasing fiasco, they are talking about giving government employees a $3000 rebate.
Wow that sound fair and reasonable to the rest of the community.lol
So non government workers pay full whack, and also help pay for a government employees $3000 cash back.

Captain chaos at the wheel, do you want batts with that.


----------



## noco (30 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Here we go, the first blow up in their face backflip. They go on about Abbott and three word slogans, what about the government policy making, three ring circus.
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...ease-fbt-car-hit/story-fni0xqrb-1226687859119
> 
> ...




More policy on the run. Does the Labor Party really know what they are doing?


----------



## noco (31 July 2013)

Does Treasury really know what they are doing or are they being manipulated by the Treasurer Chris Bowen.

From all accounts it would appear their $18 billion deficit will blown out by another $10 billion.

Not much when you say it quickly.

And to top it off Labor have no idea what this PNG deal is going to cost. OMG what a bunch of idiots we have running the country.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/the-numbers-dont-add-up/story-e6frg6z6-1226688347537


----------



## boofhead (31 July 2013)

I have yet to find someone that does a better job consistantly over a long period of time than treasury. If we could predict the future well enough we probably wouldn't be here discussing it - we would be very wealthy on easy street. Treasury didn't receive as much criticism when it worked in favour during the Howard years.


----------



## sptrawler (31 July 2013)

I see Rudd has imported some 457 spin doctors from the U.S. I would have thought he conjures up enough spin on his own.
Anyway, there seems to be a propensity for the Scotish heritage, first McTernan now McGregor. You never know Billie Connolly might get a gig, at least then you would get a laugh out of Labor.

Obviosly Labor are not confident, no election date, and Burke starting the 'me too' rhetoric.


----------



## Country Lad (31 July 2013)

sptrawler said:


> I see Rudd has imported some 457 spin doctors from the U.S. I would have thought he conjures up enough spin on his own.




Don't discount the contribution these guys will have in the campaign.  They will concentrate on the social media side to attract the younger generation who are already increasingly going with Rudd.

They will make the social media their strength vs the Coalition's (except for Turnbull) weakness.

Labor winning the social media war may just give them the election.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## noco (31 July 2013)

boofhead said:


> I have yet to find someone that does a better job consistantly over a long period of time than treasury. If we could predict the future well enough we probably wouldn't be here discussing it - we would be very wealthy on easy street. Treasury didn't receive as much criticism when it worked in favour during the Howard years.




The public servants in Treasury are supposed to be experts in their profession as economists.

It is appalling that these so called experts can be so far out with their performance.

If they can't be more accurate, then they should be replaced. My gawd if they worked for private enterprise, they would have been sacked a long time ago. Perhaps that is why they are public servants because they probably would not be able to hold down a job in private enterprise.


----------



## boofhead (31 July 2013)

noco said:


> The public servants in Treasury are supposed to be experts in their profession as economists.
> 
> It is appalling that these so called experts can be so far out with their performance.
> 
> If they can't be more accurate, then they should be replaced. My gawd if they worked for private enterprise, they would have been sacked a long time ago. Perhaps that is why they are public servants because they probably would not be able to hold down a job in private enterprise.




You didn't answer the question and provided no better alternative. It highlights why many think of economics as an art and not a science.


----------



## Calliope (31 July 2013)

I don't think Rudd need worry much about the NSW branch corruption affecting the vote for the Federal ALP. The usual Labor voters will ask what the fuss is all about. After all corruption is endemic in the Labor party.



> KEVIN Rudd has sought to distance federal Labor from corruption findings against former NSW Labor figures, amid fears today's ICAC report could further damage the party's election chances in Sydney.
> 
> The Prime Minister said today he was “disgusted” with the revelations to have emerged in the ICAC, which today recommended criminal charges against former NSW Labor mining minister Ian Macdonald, Labor Right powerbroker Eddie Obeid and his son Moses.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...icac-revelations/story-fn59niix-1226688664133


----------



## Julia (31 July 2013)

boofhead said:


> You didn't answer the question and provided no better alternative. It highlights why many think of economics as an art and not a science.



What was the question?  I must have missed it.


----------



## noco (31 July 2013)

boofhead said:


> You didn't answer the question and provided no better alternative. It highlights why many think of economics as an art and not a science.




Yes, what was the question? I seemed to have missed it.


The link below proves my point so no need to ask any questions.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ple_who_keep_getting_budget_numbers_so_wrong/


----------



## boofhead (31 July 2013)

It was vague. What is the alternative? Professionals - even those outside treasury are no better.


----------



## Julia (31 July 2013)

boofhead said:


> It was vague.



There wasn't any question posed.



> What is the alternative? Professionals - even those outside treasury are no better.



Many would disagree.  People like Chris Richardson usually are pretty much on the money.

Most of them could hardly do as poorly.  Give us six examples of treasury's figures actually turning out to be correct.


----------



## sptrawler (31 July 2013)

boofhead said:


> It was vague. What is the alternative? Professionals - even those outside treasury are no better.



When a companies results, don't come within market estimates, they get hammered. 
It seems that the goverments lack of hitting the side of a barn is o.k, and treasury just say, oh well we're wrong again.
On a side issue, I just wish, reporters from all sides, could just report rather than giving their opinions.lol
The newspapers are becoming, reporters blogs, it won't be long before the newspapers charge the reporters to post.IMO
Then we may get some decent reporting.


----------



## dutchie (1 August 2013)

Good to see Rudd target smokers to pay for Labor's blunders.

Smokers cost taxpayers heaps in health costs so it's about time they paid. Hopefully make them extinct by the sheer cost of smoking.

Then lets move similarly onto alcohol, an even bigger burden, in so many ways, on society.


----------



## boofhead (1 August 2013)

Julia said:


> There wasn't any question posed.
> 
> 
> Many would disagree.  People like Chris Richardson usually are pretty much on the money.
> ...




At no point did I say Treasury got it consistantly correct. Earlier I said economics is an art and not a science. I also said many didn't seem so interested in mistakes that they underestimated revenues during much of the Howard years. When the error seems positive people are less interested than negative even if over time they near balanced out. "Something is wrong, we must fix it" - what is the fix?

How many are accurately predicing figures that come from China? There is often a degree of scepticism about the accuracy of reported figures from China. It does impact on a number of commodity prices. There seems to be some attempts of massaging iron ore prices by China and when that failed complaints about iron ore producers.

How many predicted the droughts in Russia which impacted on world wheat prices? Strong influence on the pricing there.

How well do the predict what Bernanke will say and how markets will react? Earlier in the year he said something that a few read as an earlier winding down of the stimulus - markets reacted. Later he makes statements stimulus will be continuing for a while and markets pick back up.

How many know how the Japanese attempt of stimulus will play out?

How about the recovery in USA? What about the drag of Europe's woes?

How well will exchange rates be predicted? At times the change can be quick.

How well are people predicting the mood of the market and people? Did they predict the return of Rudd when it happend? Or how about Rudd's little spending spree then quick fixes to try and pay for them?

Treasury and others have various predictions for the short and longer terms. Why even a number of pundits get the RBA interest rate changes a bit wrong at times.

Now factor in politics.

It's a case of using the past to predict the future. Experienced investors warn against blidly following that for good reason.

Review of Treasury Macroeconomic and Revenue Forecasting if you want to dig deep in to the subject. It's an art that can easily go wrong.

On to another thing about the Labor party - Rudd sees himself as the Messiah. We know that is evidently not true. Rudd is a reasonable salesperson so he will be used to do a lot of PR. Problem is he wants to have a finger in everything and seems to want to be seen as so. Looks like he is the same as before - has issues delegating. For someone relatively politically smart he fails to properly learn from past mistakes.


----------



## bunyip (1 August 2013)

dutchie said:


> Good to see Rudd target smokers to pay for Labor's blunders.
> 
> Smokers cost taxpayers heaps in health costs so it's about time they paid. Hopefully make them extinct by the sheer cost of smoking.
> 
> Then lets move similarly onto alcohol, an even bigger burden, in so many ways, on society.




I agree – hitting smokers yet again is a good idea. It’s a filthy habit that kills people, and it even affects non-smokers like myself. I’m heartily sick of seeing people throw cigarette butts down on the footpath, many of which end up in our storm drains and hence our river systems and oceans. I’m sick of the mugs who I frequently see tossing glowing cigarette butts out of car windows during bushfire season. I’m sick of having to walk through clouds of cigarette smoke to get into shopping centers.

I don’t find many reasons to applaud Labor governments, but I applaud Labor for making a serious effort to reduce the number of people who smoke, by putting in place their ‘plain packaging’ regulations (which to my surprise have actually had some effect), and now by making fags more expensive, which will definitely have some effect in making some people quit smoking, and deterring others from starting.

I’ll take a guess that more smokers vote Labor than LNP, so hopefully we’ll have the added benefit of some of these people being so annoyed with Rudd that they’ll switch their vote to the Libs.

Let’s not forget though, that Labor will be using the additional revenue raised to help patch up a huge black hole in their budget, rather than spending the money on much needed essential services and infrastructure like roads which are in a woeful state.
If Rudd and Gillard and their cronies hadn’t wasted so much money with reckless abandon, they wouldn't have these huge holes in their budget. Additional money raised from an increased smoking levy could then have been put to much better use where it’s really needed, rather than using it to make Labor’s numbers look more respectable.


----------



## sptrawler (1 August 2013)

dutchie said:


> Good to see Rudd target smokers to pay for Labor's blunders.
> 
> Smokers cost taxpayers heaps in health costs so it's about time they paid. Hopefully make them extinct by the sheer cost of smoking.
> 
> Then lets move similarly onto alcohol, an even bigger burden, in so many ways, on society.




+1 It has been common knowledge, for a long time, that smoking is the root cause of many illnesses. 
About time they applied more pressure on people to apply a cost base analysis to their habit.

As Bunyip said, it is a shame the tax is designed to fill a budget hole.


----------



## Calliope (1 August 2013)

sptrawler said:


> +1 It has been common knowledge, for a long time, that smoking is the root cause of many illnesses.
> About time they applied more pressure on people to apply a cost base analysis to their habit.
> 
> As Bunyip said, it is a shame the tax is designed to fill a budget hole.




Yes, it is a good idea. The heaviest users are those in the lower socioeconomic levels. This is the very group to which we direct most of our welfare payments, so in effect we are subsidising their habit. If the tax works as it was originally intended i.e. to discourage smoking, then well and good.

On the other hand, it probably won't reduce the level of smoking, so we will continue to claw back some of our welfare payments in a tax on the disadvantaged.


----------



## sails (1 August 2013)

More money grabbing when labor could have been more responsible in the first place and cut their spending:

*Bank deposits ‘taxed’ for bailout fund*



> The federal government will prop up the budget bottom line with a new levy on banks that will be badged as providing insurance in case future bailouts are needed.




Read more:http://www.afr.com/p/national/bank_deposits_taxed_for_bailout_AKvDLh8Z36mmzu3VQ2lhVJ


----------



## Calliope (1 August 2013)

sails said:


> More money grabbing when labor could have been more responsible in the first place and cut their spending:
> 
> *Bank deposits ‘taxed’ for bailout fund*
> 
> ...






> One big bank has warned the levy would be passed on in the form of reduced interest payments on deposits



.

Between rate cuts, taxes and inflation, depositors are in for a lean time.:bad:


----------



## Knobby22 (1 August 2013)

sails said:


> More money grabbing when labor could have been more responsible in the first place and cut their spending:
> 
> *Bank deposits ‘taxed’ for bailout fund*
> 
> ...




its a tax, pure and simple.


----------



## sptrawler (1 August 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> its a tax, pure and simple.




So what's new?

I don't think Labor have reduced taxes, in the last 3 years. Something has to pay for the splash of cash, wish it was spent wisely.

I wonder where the levy money would be kept, for safe keeping, incase it's needed to bail out a bank.lol

The government must think everyone is stupid, not just me.


----------



## Julia (1 August 2013)

Hopefully there will be sufficient voter backlash over this to lose them the election.
Spend billions on arsonists and tax the saver to pay for it.


----------



## Knobby22 (1 August 2013)

sptrawler said:


> So what's new?
> 
> I wonder where the levy money would be kept, for safe keeping, incase it's needed to bail out a bank.lol
> 
> The government must think everyone is stupid, not just me.




It goes into general revenue so if it was needed it wouldn't be there. Its a tax not a levy.


----------



## basilio (1 August 2013)

The Government has already decided to offer a guarantee on bank deposits up to $250k so it has a potential  immense liability on its books in the event of a crash.

A Tax/levy could be put aside as an insurance against such an event but in fact if there was a bank crash I suspect the cost would be far higher than the proposed income.

Another way to do this might be to add an extra 1% tax bite to the profits of banks which is then placed in the Future Fund.

To be fair the banks were getting an exceptionally good run with the government guarantee at no cost enabling them to access lower cost funds. And they are doing so well..


----------



## noco (1 August 2013)

Three new tax in one week and whose pocket will it finally come out of? 

You whistle and I'll point.

And here we have Mr Chaos running around the globe with an open cheque book with one trip paid for by one of  the big tobacco companies.




http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...s_labor_runs_out_of_money_again/#commentsmore


----------



## noco (1 August 2013)

Maybe we might see some more dirty linen come out of the wash as Obeid seeks vengence.



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


----------



## johenmo (1 August 2013)

Rather reminiscent of John Howard - complete with tracksuit.  The things people will do - have they no self-respect?


----------



## sptrawler (1 August 2013)

basilio said:


> The Government has already decided to offer a guarantee on bank deposits up to $250k so it has a potential  immense liability on its books in the event of a crash.
> 
> A Tax/levy could be put aside as an insurance against such an event but in fact if there was a bank crash I suspect the cost would be far higher than the proposed income.
> 
> ...




I certainly hope it is a levy on deposits, then everyone who gets their pay, welfare payment, disability payment, pension, dividends or any other payment, paid into the bank, pays it. 
Magic.
It is another tax no one can avoid, just as good as putting up the gst, without doing it.

It is a shame Labor isn't as clever spending the money, as they are finding new ways to raise it.lol

Yes Kev is on TV telling us that the economy is in great shape, while the RBA is dropping interest rates to stop us going into recession.
I don't think the public believe Kev.


----------



## Julia (1 August 2013)

basilio said:


> To be fair the banks were getting an exceptionally good run with the government guarantee at no cost enabling them to access lower cost funds. And they are doing so well..



Could you please provide evidence that the government guarantee was provided at no cost?
That is entirely contrary to all the publicity at the time which made clear the banks were paying a fee to the government for the privilege of the guarantee.

This tax is a joke.  The banks' capacity to balance their books is far and away superior to that of the government.
How ironic that this incompetent government is slapping a tax on the banks!  
About as truthful as any suggestion that the tobacco tax is all about health.  What rubbish.  It's all about filling the budget hole.  If it were actually about health, and the government actually believed the additional cost would inspire people to stop smoking, then they wouldn't receive the damn additional revenue, would they, because the sales would not be there!!!



sptrawler said:


> Yes Kev is on TV telling us that the economy is in great shape, while the RBA is dropping interest rates to stop us going into recession.



Exactly.



> I don't think the public believe Kev.



Well, about half of them apparently do, sptrawler, however incredible that might be.  Short memories for damn sure.


----------



## sptrawler (1 August 2013)

Julia said:


> Well, about half of them apparently do, sptrawler, however incredible that might be.  Short memories for damn sure.




Yes its amazing how much traction Kev is getting from reactionary policy, trying to move back to where he was before he took office in 2007.

His current policies, are are a direct reflection of their policy failures.
There is nothing they can hold up as a shining example of six years in office.
That is why he is going back to 'Howard lite' it worked last time.


----------



## stewiejp (2 August 2013)

Great new taxes, and yes I am being sarcastic - 

1 - Tobacco. Kev's getting serious about cancer is he? Good on him - has anybody told him he is not the first politician to raise taxes on smokes? 12.5% increase in the "levy" per year for 4 years IIRC. Pretty big hike, glad he's not just trying to feed the ALP's addiction to spending money right? Those saying, "It's about time smokers paid...." - surely you're not serious are you? Let's not pretend smokers haven't been paying taxes on their filthy (yet profitable for tax) habit these past 20 odd years.... 

2 - Bank tax to fund the guarantee. As Julia stated, I'm pretty sure I've heard of them already paying for this in some way when it was introduced, though I could be wrong. In any case, being a bank shareholder I'm confident these taxes/levies will be passed on to the consumer so my investments aren't affected. Got to be a good thing. So long as* I* can continue with *my* fee free banking I'll be happy. Anyone who thinks the banks will pay some of their profits (ala the mining tax) - 1% was mentioned earlier, as an extra tax/levy is dreaming.  Much easier for the banks to pass on their costs (+ a healthy profit margin for themselves) than the mining companies.. 

3 - I am sure I read there was another one... Has anyone been charged with Industrial Manslaughter yet for the pink bats debarkle... still makes me angry that one... 

As stated, hopefully these new dips into the peoples' pockets will swing voters the other way..


----------



## basilio (2 August 2013)

Regarding the suggested insurance levy on deposits.



> , bank depositors will face additional costs with the banks certain to pass on a 0.05 per cent insurance levy on deposits up to $250,000.
> 
> The government believes the levy will cut the return on a $10,000 deposit by ''less than 50 ¢ per month''.
> 
> ...




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-car-makers-20130801-2r2af.html#ixzz2al3yPZUL





> The Australian Government supported the funding of the banking system during the GFC with the introduction in October 2008 of the Guarantee Scheme for Large Deposits and Wholesale Funding.
> 
> *These guarantees provided the banks continued access to funds on competitive terms during the turmoil. They were critical in supporting the continued flow of credit.*
> 
> The Guarantee Scheme for Large Deposits and Wholesale Funding was removed with effect from 31 March 2010




http://www.treasury.gov.au/Publicat...-the-post-global-financial-crisis-environment

I believe the Banks were very appreciative of this blanket support for them and the whole financial system. From memory this was the time when overseas banks were experiencing runs the fear of similar events in Australia was very real.


----------



## Knobby22 (2 August 2013)

Thanks Basilio.
I was misinformed. The amount collected will be quarantined.
I think the market has overreacted, should be a surge in bank shares today.


----------



## noco (2 August 2013)

Good old Mr Chaos 07 ready to hit our pockets yet again.

Good onya Kevvie this should bring you some votes. Cant wait for next weeks poll. 


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...llion-for-budget/story-fnihsrf2-1226689834813


----------



## MrBurns (2 August 2013)

Rudd is showing the same lack of judgement as Gillard, hate to think what he'd dream/stuff up if he won.


----------



## sptrawler (2 August 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> Thanks Basilio.
> I was misinformed. The amount collected will be quarantined.




I wonder how well it is quarantined, if it is classed as revenue.


----------



## Julia (2 August 2013)

basilio said:


> I believe the Banks were very appreciative of this blanket support for them and the whole financial system. From memory this was the time when overseas banks were experiencing runs the fear of similar events in Australia was very real.



Rubbish.   There was no genuine fear of bank runs in Australia.


> These guarantees provided the banks continued access to funds on competitive terms during the turmoil.



Note "on competitive terms":  translation = they paid a fee for the guarantee as I have said earlier.



Knobby22 said:


> Thanks Basilio.
> I was misinformed. The amount collected will be quarantined.
> I think the market has overreacted, should be a surge in bank shares today.






sptrawler said:


> I wonder how well it is quarantined, if it is classed as revenue.



Exactly.  How is classified as revenue, helping to fill Labor's budget black hole, if it's quarantined, Knobby?
An economist this morning (didn't catch his name) said the 'insurance levy' would take 44 years to just amount to enough to potentially bail out a second tier bank.  

The whole idea is as genuine as imagining the additional tax on tobacco is all about health.


----------



## Knobby22 (2 August 2013)

Julia said:


> Exactly.  How is classified as revenue, helping to fill Labor's budget black hole, if it's quarantined, Knobby?
> :




Its treated the same way as the future fund. Adds to the government figures though presumably won't be accessible. But we all know about politicians and a pot of money.
I agree it is unnecessary and we don't need more taxes. I used to hate the FID tax.

I was right about the market over reacting yesterday. Lovely rise today.


----------



## db94 (2 August 2013)

not so good for Labor http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/budget-takes-33-billion-revenue-020949855.html

I wonder what excuses Labor will use this time, oh I reckon they will be saying we'll return the budget to surplus the next. This has been going on for years now  Not thats theres anything wrong with a deficit but dont keep lying and digging yourself in a bigger hole!


----------



## basilio (2 August 2013)

> Quote Originally Posted by basilio View Post
> 
> I believe the Banks were very appreciative of this blanket support for them and the whole financial system. From memory this was the time when overseas banks were experiencing runs the fear of similar events in Australia was very real.
> 
> Rubbish. There was no genuine fear of bank runs in Australia. Julia




Julia I don't believe you are correct on the situation in Australia in September 2008. 

It was a time of real financial terror. Banks were falling over left right and centre as well as major Australian corporations with large property liabilities (and obviously exposure to banks).

If you would like to refresh your memory check out this analysis of the period. I have quoted only one section but the whole document is worth reading.



> Despite the funding challenges faced by the banks and the volatility in Australian fixed income and equity markets, it was not until September 2008 that alarm spread outside financial markets. As governments around the world began guaranteeing bank depositors, Australians began to realise that their own deposits were not guaranteed. This led to fears that Australian financial institutions, particularly regional banks and credit unions, could experience a run by depositors, something that none could withstand regardless of the underlying strength of their balance sheets. Fearing the catastrophic effect this could have on the Australian economy, the Federal Government swiftly moved from plans to guarantee sums of up to $20,000 to announcing on 12 October 2008 a comprehensive guarantee of all retail deposits for three years. At the same time, they announced a guarantee scheme for bank wholesale borrowing to ensure Australian banks could compete for funding against other Government-guaranteed banks around the world




http://www.stubbornmule.net/2008/10/australia-and-the-gfc/


----------



## Julia (2 August 2013)

I've never heard of "The Stubborn Mule" which seems to be your source here.
If there was any fear of our banks falling over, it would have been a contagion of fear, not a realistic assessment that our well regulated, profitable banks were actually going to collapse.

To prevent such an unnecessary concern spreading, the government came up with the guarantee as a way of saying 'stop worrying, folks, we're the government and we're here to help'. 

Then they charged the banks for this.

Given the status of our big four banks as some of the most stable and profitable in the world, if they were to collapse we might as well all fold our tents.


----------



## sails (2 August 2013)

sptrawler said:


> I wonder how well it is quarantined, if it is classed as revenue.




Smoke and mirrors, IMO. It seems they quarantine it but add it into receipts to help hide deficit in the budget.


----------



## chiff (2 August 2013)

As to the banks falling over-only from my experience and not political.When the GFC was on I was going to withdraw my hard earned on the Monday,but was saved when the government guaranteed deposits on the Sunday.
A rush or panic on bank withdrawals  can lead to any bank being decimated,especially if they haven't got the readies to satisfy the rush.
Is my view valid?


----------



## qldfrog (2 August 2013)

Julia said:


> I've never heard of "The Stubborn Mule" which seems to be your source here.
> If there was any fear of our banks falling over, it would have been a contagion of fear, not a realistic assessment that our well regulated, profitable banks were actually going to collapse.
> 
> To prevent such an unnecessary concern spreading, the government came up with the guarantee as a way of saying 'stop worrying, folks, we're the government and we're here to help'.
> ...



Julia, do you remember the dozen of billions USD given as emergency loans by the american federal bank to keep wetpac and Nab(I believe) upfloat?
if you do not remember just ask and I will dig out the exact figures and references(ie facts)


----------



## MrBurns (2 August 2013)

Well this economic statement only confirm what we all know, these fools have no clue.:frown:


----------



## sptrawler (2 August 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Well this economic statement only confirm what we all know, these fools have no clue.:frown:




I'm suprised they haven't asked all the people, who got the gift cheque in the mail, to repay the money.

I see Bowen has picked up Swans book of fairy tales, " Budget surpluses and other myths" by the Labor Party.

Apparently Bowen is saying it isn't a crisis, it's a transition, yeh from bad to worse.lol


----------



## sptrawler (2 August 2013)

Another example of the government short term vision,IMO
They have given the go ahead for offshore processing of the Browse Basin. Short term thinking again, dig it up get rid of it mentality.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/18311233/gray-paves-way-for-browse-flng/


----------



## moXJO (2 August 2013)

qldfrog said:


> Julia, do you remember the dozen of billions USD given as emergency loans by the american federal bank to keep wetpac and Nab(I believe) upfloat?
> if you do not remember just ask and I will dig out the exact figures and references(ie facts)




From memory that had nothing to do with the banks falling over, but simply a grab at cheap cash


----------



## sptrawler (2 August 2013)

moXJO said:


> From memory that had nothing to do with the banks falling over, but simply a grab at cheap cash




I'm with you on that, just not as confident on my memory. The U.S was throwing around cheap cash to mitigate their sub prime CDO's, that were based on toxic U.S sub prime loans.


----------



## Julia (2 August 2013)

qldfrog said:


> Julia, do you remember the dozen of billions USD given as emergency loans by the american federal bank to keep wetpac and Nab(I believe) upfloat?
> if you do not remember just ask and I will dig out the exact figures and references(ie facts)



Yes, I do remember it, but not that it was an 'emergency loan'.   Neither was it 'dozens of billions as you suggest.
National Australia Bank borrowed USD$4.5 billion over 2008 and 2009 and Westpac Banking Corp USD$1.09 billion in January of 2008. 

 That was at the height of the credit squeeze and banks were taking money from wherever they could source it.  Didn't mean either Westpac or Nab was going to fall over.  All the institutions were caught up in the reluctance to engage in inter-bank borrowing/lending  for fear the loans would turn bad such as had happened with banks in the US.  No one was sure how far the contagion had spread.

I remember the period well because it enabled me to walk into a bank, say I have $X to invest, what are you prepared to give me?   They agreed to 8% on the spot, despite this not being advertised.


----------



## Tink (3 August 2013)

Economists shocked and disappointed.



> Economists say an increase in the federal government's budget deficit is shocking and disappointing.
> AMP chief economist Shane Oliver said he was surprised that the budget deficit is now expected to be $30.1 billion in 2013/14, rather than the $18 billion estimated in the May budget.
> "It's a bit disappointing to see the deficit is so much worse," Dr Oliver said.
> "I'm shocked by how much it's deteriorated.
> ...






> THE Federal Government's budget update is "muddled" and raises concerns about its ability to ever deliver a surplus as it lacks any clear effort to bring wasteful spending under control, senior business leaders said.
> The reality check saw the deficit almost double from $18 billion to $30.1 billion for 2013-14 as a result of the government's inability to rein in spending as revenues took a massive hit from the slowing economy.
> Business Council of Australia chief executive Jennifer Westacott said the government's fiscal strategy has put the nation's future prosperity at risk.




How to spend $10 billion in 10 weeks, they will be lucky to last until October.
Disgraceful.


----------



## noco (3 August 2013)

Tink said:


> Economists shocked and disappointed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Just another bungle by this inept Labor Governemnt. No wonder they are desperate to tax everyone to high hell .

Are they still the working man's party or have they forgotten?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...oyment-will-rise/story-fnihsrf2-1226690435538


----------



## bunyip (3 August 2013)

noco said:


> Just another bungle by this inept Labor Governemnt. No wonder they are desperate to tax everyone to high hell .
> 
> Are they still the working man's party or have they forgotten?
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...oyment-will-rise/story-fnihsrf2-1226690435538




Only fools believe that Labor is the party that looks after workers. In the lead up to the last election the workers themselves fully understood that ‘their’ party wasn’t acting in their or anyone else’s best interests – that’s why the polls showed Rudd was headed for a landslide defeat. Then he was ousted by the red-haired liar, and some of the workers foolishly decided to give Labor another chance. Predictably, JuLIAR turned out to be a disaster, and once again the workers realised that Labor was no longer the party that respresented their best interests. Hence Gillard was headed for a landslide defeat. 
But then Rudd made a comback, Gillard got what she deserved, and once again the gullible workers were willing to give Labor another chance. 

Now we await the election....will the workers remain gullible by voting Rudd back in, or will they open their eyes and realise that their lives will be negatively affected by Rudd’s new taxes, by his continued inability to find a reasonable solution to the illegal immigrant problem *that he caused*, by the funding cuts he’s had to make as a result of him running the coffers dry through years of reckless spending, and by the job losses resulting from Rudd making our main industries less competetive through his various taxes/imposts/charges. 
As I’ve said before, Labor voters tend to be a very gullible lot – let’s just hope they open their eyes and start thinking clearly before they put the incompetent Rudd back in for another term. It will be a nightmare for Australia is Rudd is given another three year term to carry on like he’s done in the past, particularly the last three or four weeks.


----------



## Zedd (3 August 2013)

bunyip said:


> Only fools believe that Labor is the party that looks after workers.



Only in the same way that only "fools" believe any party is looking after their interests. Like it or not there will always be a place for unions, collective bargaining, and protectionist policies and in general, those interests are represented by the Labour party. 



bunyip said:


> As I’ve said before, Labor voters tend to be a very gullible lot ...



Pot, kettle ... The number of Labour voters who blindly march to their party's tune are easily matched by the number of Liberals doing the same.

Just because we had some good years under Howard, does not mean they are the default party to lead. This attitude of all intelligent, hard-working Australians voting by default for the Liberals, is arrogant, elitist, offensive and a major failing of the Liberal party and dare I suggest it a reason why Howard lost his last election.

An election is not a question of swinging enough "gullible fools" to join all of the intelligent, hard-working Australians in voting for the Liberals. It's a question of convincing a significant portion of the population who choose freely, between parties, rather than vote along party lines, both of which have shown they can shine, but have also failed miserably at times.

 You want people to be open-minded and free thinking when they vote? Try starting at home.


----------



## noco (4 August 2013)

Here are some true facts why under Rudd's big spending and high taxing policies we will be paying for his stupid mistakes for years to come.

Yes and during that time those rusted on Labor supporters will be complaining about the lack of infrastructure and high unemployement should the Coalition win government. It will then be the coaltition's fault.

You can bet your boots if and when the coaltition get the economy back to a surplus and debt frree, it will be a time for a change of government and history will repeat itself all over again.

I just trust the inititive of the public will have long memories of the choas that a Labor government can offer. 


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ste-and-spending/story-fn59niix-1226690463570


----------



## Calliope (4 August 2013)

Now that Rudd has announced 7 September as the election date, I guess the Labor Government is now in caretaker mode. This should stop from further destructive raids on the economy. He knows he can't win the election and massive spending decisions over the past few weeks are only to bequeath a sh!theap of problems to Abbott.

However, to look on the bright side...only 5 more weeks of Labor.


----------



## noco (4 August 2013)

Rudd is raving on about the millionaires who are backing Abbott.

What a hypocrite he is when he and his wife are multi millionares.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/september_7_election/


----------



## dutchie (4 August 2013)

noco said:


> Rudd is raving on about the millionaires who are backing Abbott.
> 
> What a hypocrite he is when he and his wife are multi millionares.
> 
> ...





Didn't you know that their businesses are backing the coalition because they know the coalition is better for business and therefore more jobs and a better economy.


----------



## Julia (4 August 2013)

Had to laugh catching Rudd in a TV commercial this evening saying how Labor would forge necessary links with business to make Australia successful.

Terrific, Kev.  You've been so good at this so far, haven't you!

Ditto claiming success on the economy.  Didn't we just hear about a $30 billion deficit?


----------



## bunyip (9 August 2013)

Zedd said:


> Only in the same way that only "fools" believe any party is looking after their interests. Like it or not there will always be a place for unions, collective bargaining, and protectionist policies and in general, those interests are represented by the Labour party.




Yes, we’ll always have unions, but whether they look after the best interests of workers is debatable. Significant falls in union membership suggest that workers are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the unions that supposedly represent them.
This disillusionment with unions has quite understandably translated into disillusionment with union-dominated ALP governments. Hence the landslide defeats for the ALP governments in NSW and QLD. Hence the landslide defeat that was certain for the last Rudd government if Rudd hadn’t been deposed as leader. Hence the certain landslide defeat for the Gillard government in September if the red-haired wrecker hadn’t been booted out by her own party.





Zedd said:


> Just because we had some good years under Howard, does not mean they are the default party to lead. This attitude of all intelligent, hard-working Australians voting by default for the Liberals, is arrogant, elitist, offensive and a major failing of the Liberal party and dare I suggest it a reason why Howard lost his last election.



ALP governments have a history of being poor economic managers. The general pattern is that when Labor comes to office they inherit low or no debt and healthy budget surpluses, and they quickly turn them into substantial debts and big deficits. 
Then along comes a Lib government that fixes the situation, followed by the next Labor government that repeats the same old ALP pattern.

I see it as common sense, not arrogant and elitist, to suggest that only people who are gullible and foolish will believe Rudds’ spin and put him back into office after his woeful track record last time around.
In typical Labor fashion, Rudd inherited a strong economy with no debt and a healthy budget surplus, and quickly turned it into a substantial debt and a big budget deficit. He splashed money around with reckless abandon, wasting scores of billions on ill-considered schemes like pink batts and mostly unneeded and grossly overpriced school halls. 
He inherited a proven effective border control policy, and immediately turned it into a debacle that has caused us to be flooded with illegal immigrants that are costing us tens of billions of dollars. 
His pitiful economic incompetence and wild spending have seen him desperately searching for ways to bring in more revenue to counteract the money pouring out – hence a range of new taxes such as the mining and carbon taxes that have killed some projects and forced quite a few business owners out of business.  And now to top it all off the bastard has the audacity to start raiding our bank accounts as well!!!!
Labor made promise after promise to bring the budget back to surplus, but of course it never happened. How the hell _*could*_ it happen when the fools kept spending money like there was no tomorrow. 
Rudd of course blames the GFC and falling revenue for the position the government now finds itself in. But what he doesn’t mention is that there’s been a mining boom for most of the last six years, nor does he mention that he and Gillard could have produced a budget surplus for every one of the last six years if they hadn’t spent money so recklessly, and if they hasn’t been so incompetent and irresponsible on border control. 

I don’t know about you, but I’m not stupid enough to vote for the renewal of the contract of a proven incompetent like Kevin Rudd. 
If I or anyone else owned a business that was being run into the ground by an incompetent manager, we’d terminate his employment and replace him with somebody else. 
Kevin Rudd and the ALP have been running our country down for too long – it’s just common sense for us to say _‘Kevin ol’ mate, enough is enough, out you go!’_


----------



## Zedd (9 August 2013)

bunyip said:


> Significant falls in union membership suggest that workers are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the unions that supposedly represent them.



 Part disillusion, part worker satisfaction I think has led to a decrease in members. When the balance of power swings to the employers and too many people start to get taken advantage of the unions will be there to help. 



bunyip said:


> This disillusionment with unions has quite understandably translated into disillusionment with union-dominated ALP governments.



 Interesting thought. While I think the unions support the ALP, I don't think disappointment in the unions translates to the ALP also. I think the ALP's performance has more to do with its ratings in the polls than the unions.



bunyip said:


> I see it as common sense, not arrogant and elitist, to suggest that only people who are gullible and foolish will believe Rudds’ spin and put him back into office after his woeful track record last time around.




Anyone who gets taken in by ANY politician's spin is gullible. Having to sort through the BS and identify who you believe to be more credible, as well as who's policies you agree with more, is a sad fact in our democracy. This election will see many people vote for Abbott, not because they support his policies, or because they believe his spin, but simply because he's not Rudd. In the same manner I have spoken to a number of people who will be voting Rudd because he's not Abbott, rather than the fact they've been taken in by spin.  



bunyip said:


> If I or anyone else owned a business that was being run into the ground by an incompetent manager, we’d terminate his employment and replace him with somebody else.



 Agree, but in a critical position you can't leave it vacant until a good candidate presents themselves. So you're left with the choice of terminating the incumbent, and immediately replacing them with one of the available candidates, or leave the incumbent where they are while actively advertised for suitable candidates.

Seeing Beattie come back yesterday brought back to mind the QLD state election where Flegg ran against him. There was huge momentum against Beattie, and the election was the Coalition's to lose. They should have won on a "Vote No to Beattie" alone, let alone any supporters of their policies. All they needed to do was to put up a candidate for Premier that was just-good-enough. They ran Springborg/Flegg and Beattie won. QLD kept ticking, life didn't end, and Beattie, and then Bligh went on to achieve some good things for QLD, but at the same time left the health system to fail and destroyed out economic credentials. It was always on the cards, it was clear to all I spoke to at the time, and yet I couldn't bring myself to vote against Beattie in the election, as there was not a viable alternative.

I understand how you've formed the opinions you have on a number of Rudd's and the ALP's actions. I disagree with the generalization that in the last 6 years, Labor has either not followed through with its promises/policies or when it has they have failed miserably. There have been plenty of successes under the last two governments, but I agree that some of their failures absolutely beggar belief that they could have occurred in the first place. Given a viable choice I would have voted against them in the last election, as well as the coming one. 

Rudd has made some mistakes, and the government's performance, even in the best light, has been sub-par. But just like someone could always do better, someone could always do worse. 

This election is still Abbott's to lose, and he has huge momentum with the anger at Labor's poor performance. I want to vote "No to ALP" but am yet to be convinced that under his leadership the Coalition is a viable alternative.


----------



## drsmith (9 August 2013)

Zedd said:


> This election is still Abbott's to lose, and he has huge momentum with the anger at Labor's poor performance. I want to vote "No to ALP" but am yet to be convinced that under his leadership the Coalition is a viable alternative.



The question is whether it's a better alternative than Labor.


----------



## dutchie (10 August 2013)

You can't always pick winners..

Kevin Rudd's star Victorian recruit Geoff Lake's abuse of wheelchair-bound woman revealed

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-new...ed/story-fnho52ip-1226694514695#ixzz2bVm3YNsN


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2013)

dutchie said:


> You can't always pick winners..
> 
> Kevin Rudd's star Victorian recruit Geoff Lake's abuse of wheelchair-bound woman revealed
> 
> Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-new...ed/story-fnho52ip-1226694514695#ixzz2bVm3YNsN




Sounds like he will fit right in.


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2013)

dutchie said:


> You can't always pick winners..
> 
> Kevin Rudd's star Victorian recruit Geoff Lake's abuse of wheelchair-bound woman revealed
> 
> Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-new...ed/story-fnho52ip-1226694514695#ixzz2bVm3YNsN




OOOPs it looks like Gillard's misogyny speach has come back to bite them.lol

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...usive-candidates/story-fnho52jp-1226694708678

Dumb politics by Gillard, wedges Rudd.lol


----------



## dutchie (10 August 2013)

Liberal ad







Maybe Beattie could have said this now.....

"For me, Rudd's lack of political judgement was demonstrated when he picked me to run for the seat of Forde........."


----------



## chiff (11 August 2013)

dutchie said:


> You can't always pick winners..
> 
> Kevin Rudd's star Victorian recruit Geoff Lake's abuse of wheelchair-bound woman revealed
> 
> Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-new...ed/story-fnho52ip-1226694514695#ixzz2bVm3YNsN




Why is it that we/I try to second guess others'motives?.Perhaps the labor party cannot attack TA on his past bad behaviour when involved in the student uni movement if they have their own baggage.Hence this candidate had to go -for a long past indiscretion.


----------



## dutchie (11 August 2013)

chiff said:


> Why is it that we/I try to second guess others'motives?.Perhaps the labor party cannot attack TA on his past bad behaviour when involved in the student uni movement if they have their own baggage.Hence this candidate had to go -for a long past indiscretion.




Credit to Krudd for dumping him (and Robertson).


----------



## dutchie (11 August 2013)

I can see a call up of Gough and Latham by Rudd to replace those two candidates.


----------



## sptrawler (11 August 2013)

dutchie said:


> I can see a call up of Gough and Latham by Rudd to replace those two candidates.




Maybe a captains pick of his two sons.

Then change the ACT to the kingdom of Ruddum.


----------



## sails (11 August 2013)

Here is an interesting link to a 2gb radio interview with Steve Kates, senior lecturer at RMIT University, who discusses how imported Obama strategists are employing American tactics to influence Australian politics.  

Team Obama and the ALP infect Australian politics - audio player

I have questions about Vote Compass if it is actually as independent as it suggests or is it part of the Obama team gathering information.  Time will tell.

Here is the link to Steve Kates' article in the Quadrant:  Packaging putrescence,Obama-style


----------



## Country Lad (11 August 2013)

According to  this, Labor does have a plan to work towards a surplus.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## sptrawler (11 August 2013)

Country Lad said:


> According to  this, Labor does have a plan to work towards a surplus.
> 
> Cheers
> Country Lad




Great post, Country Lad.

Hope we are still smiling after the debate,. Rudd is an excellent speaker, never caught speachless. 
Abbott will have to be really on his toes or he will be made a fool of IMO.


----------



## db94 (11 August 2013)

Country Lad said:


> According to  this, Labor does have a plan to work towards a surplus.
> 
> Cheers
> Country Lad




hahahaha brilliant! at first I thought my computer was f'ed but then i realised


----------



## noco (12 August 2013)

We are into election mode and the Labor Party are still fighting amongst themselves internally.

I used to believe  Labor and the unions motto was "UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...didate-in-hotham/story-fn9qr68y-1226695194983


----------



## noco (15 August 2013)

noco said:


> We are into election mode and the Labor Party are still fighting amongst themselves internally.
> 
> I used to believe  Labor and the unions motto was "UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL".
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...didate-in-hotham/story-fn9qr68y-1226695194983





Once again we are seeing disunity in the Labor ranks with senior Labor Ministers disagreeing with Rudd over the Greens.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...rudd-woos-greens/story-fnii5s41-1226697415884


----------



## drsmith (15 August 2013)

Perpetual Tony Abbott bagger Mark Kenny (Fairfax) finally throws in the towel on Labor.



> In the narrowly focused context of the formal contest, they reasoned, Rudd would rise against a Liberal leader weighed down by his low popularity, half-baked policies on climate change and broadband and his reputation for old-world attitudes to women and same-sex marriage. *But with the halfway point of this pantomime not far away, it is clear to the cooler heads in both camps that this race is already decided.*
> 
> Tony Abbott's 52-48 per cent lead in last weekend's Fairfax-Nielsen poll is not unbridgeable for Labor but it is, in all likelihood, structural.




He's finally come to the realisation that the great launch of Rudd II will end more like the Russian N1 than the US's Saturn V.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ust-a-sugar-hit-after-all-20130814-2rwr1.html


----------



## noco (15 August 2013)

dutchie said:


> Liberal ad
> 
> View attachment 53770
> 
> ...




To top it all off now, this Beattie grub is blaming Anna Bligh for the financial mess Campbell Newman inherited.

I can't see this statement buying him many votes in Forde.


----------



## dutchie (15 August 2013)

Now here's a good idea. Let's develop the north of Australia and give them special tax concessions.


Kevvie your a legend for being so smart.


----------



## drsmith (15 August 2013)

noco said:


> To top it all off now, this Beattie grub is blaming Anna Bligh for the financial mess Campbell Newman inherited.
> 
> I can't see this statement buying him many votes in Forde.



If the're starting to spill their own blood before the election, just imagine the internal slaughter that will take place after Labor lose.

The shanty Kevin Rudd has built from the rubble of Julia Gillard's leadership will quickly become as red as that wall behind Peter Beattie.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ligh-for-economy/story-fnihsrf2-1226697639834


----------



## sails (15 August 2013)

Another proven lie of labor's.  From  PolitiFact:



> Tony Abbott neither “took $1 billion out of hospital funding for the states” nor presided over a cut.
> 
> The charge is serious and personal.
> 
> ...




and



> It was an increase, not a cut. Under the new agreement, states were offered “up to an additional $10 billion to help run public hospitals,” but instead of being offered up to $43 billion as had been foreshadowed they were offered up to $42 billion.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/fact-checker/did-abbott-rip-1b-out-of-hospitals-20130815-2ry8t.html#ixzz2c22QcFff


----------



## Julia (15 August 2013)

dutchie said:


> Now here's a good idea. Let's develop the north of Australia and give them special tax concessions.



Didn't the Coalition bring out a White Paper largely based on this a few months ago which was widely ridiculed by Labor at the time?

Why the Northern Territory?  I thought their economy was reasonably healthy.
Why would such a policy not result in companies notionally basing their operations up there for the tax concessions and continuing to operate in other parts of Australia as they do now?  
Effectively it would be to advertise the NT as Australia's own tax haven.

If any part of Australia needs preferential treatment it would seem to be Tasmania.


----------



## sptrawler (15 August 2013)

Julia said:


> Didn't the Coalition bring out a White Paper largely based on this a few months ago which was widely ridiculed by Labor at the time?
> 
> Why the Northern Territory?  I thought their economy was reasonably healthy.
> Why would such a policy not result in companies notionally basing their operations up there for the tax concessions and continuing to operate in other parts of Australia as they do now?
> ...




It is just showing Rudd is a policy leach.
He is starting to look like a very shallow politician.IMO


----------



## noco (15 August 2013)

sptrawler said:


> It is just showing Rudd is a policy leach.
> He is starting to look like a very shallow politician.IMO




Rudd is the old "ME TOO" Kevin 07...... Nothing has changed.........This is why Abbott is wise not to release too much Liberal policy too soon before the election..

His assistant Treasurer ( David Bradbury ) was highly critical of Abbott when he first mooted the idea of the  Northern Australia developemnet idea and now Kevin 747 wants to get into the act of a great.


----------



## noco (15 August 2013)

AFR statistician Kaighin McColl is predicting a Labor loss by 22 seats. 


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ldsun/comments/punters_coalition_by_22_seats/


----------



## So_Cynical (15 August 2013)

What? how amazing, no discussion at all of Tony handing the seat of Melbourne to Labor.

This time around, *the Liberals will preference Labor* above the Greens in every Lower House seat. 

Liberal preferences running to Labor, they are that cocky and confident that they can afford to give away seats, and yet the silence is deafening on this thread.


----------



## sptrawler (15 August 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> What? how amazing, no discussion at all of Tony handing the seat of Melbourne to Labor.
> 
> This time around, *the Liberals will preference Labor* above the Greens in every Lower House seat.
> 
> Liberal preferences running to Labor, they are that cocky and confident that they can afford to give away seats, and yet the silence is deafening on this thread.




Yes and Wilkie is $hitting himself.lol

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-...dension-parties-over-preference-deals/4889904

Seems like everyone who sided with Labor and the Greens, are toxic to Labor and the Greens.lol 
What a bunch of losers.


----------



## moXJO (16 August 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> What? how amazing, no discussion at all of Tony handing the seat of Melbourne to Labor.
> 
> This time around, *the Liberals will preference Labor* above the Greens in every Lower House seat.
> 
> Liberal preferences running to Labor, they are that cocky and confident that they can afford to give away seats, and yet the silence is deafening on this thread.




Keeping the greens out is a good move after the last 3 years. You would have thought labor would jump at the chance to do the same since the greens are eating into their votes. 
Gotta say Rudds energy of 6 years ago and Rudd now are chalk and cheese. He just looks flat and worn out, with his muppet front bench doing him no favours.


----------



## stewiejp (16 August 2013)

If the ALP and Libs have any integrity at all they should send preferences to each other. Even though they are arch rivals, they are closer to each other (in terms of policy etc) than either of them are to the Greens.


----------



## Tink (16 August 2013)

Agree stewie, and thats exactly what Abbott said the other day which I posted in another thread, that Rudd should show his leadership and put the country first.
I dont think he will as he is more concerned about winning.

In Melbourne, we have Adam Brandt which will probably give them a Labor seat if he loses. The massive cuts to universities by Labor will be the test for that seat.


----------



## noco (16 August 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> What? how amazing, no discussion at all of Tony handing the seat of Melbourne to Labor.
> 
> This time around, *the Liberals will preference Labor* above the Greens in every Lower House seat.
> 
> Liberal preferences running to Labor, they are that cocky and confident that they can afford to give away seats, and yet the silence is deafening on this thread.





Labor is the lesser of two evils.


----------



## noco (16 August 2013)

noco said:


> Rudd is the old "ME TOO" Kevin 07...... Nothing has changed.........This is why Abbott is wise not to release too much Liberal policy too soon before the election..
> 
> His assistant Treasurer ( David Bradbury ) was highly critical of Abbott when he first mooted the idea of the  Northern Australia developemnet idea and now Kevin 747 wants to get into the act of a great.




Well Rudd certainly botched his NT 'ME TOO" yakka yakka.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...negative-mr-rudd/story-e6frg75f-1226698047235


----------



## bunyip (16 August 2013)

sails said:


> Another proven lie of labor's.  From  PolitiFact:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And another Rudd lie has been exposed in his claim that of the boat people sent to Manus Island and Nauru under Howard’s Pacific Solution, 70% of them ended up in Australia.
He’s made this claim numerous times including in the debate the other night. Abbot corrected him by stating that the figure was 40%. Turns out that Abbot was pretty close to the money – the true figure is 43%.

The public has had just about enough of Labor’s lies over the last six years – Rudd shows poor judgment and a lack of common sense to keep the lies coming. But poor judgment and a lack of common sense have been the hallmarks of this inept man ever since he came on the political scene.

No wonder he's heading for an election defeat - Australians have had a bellyful of Rudd and Labor.


----------



## noco (16 August 2013)

bunyip said:


> And another Rudd lie has been exposed in his claim that of the boat people sent to Manus Island and Nauru under Howard’s Pacific Solution, 70% of them ended up in Australia.
> He’s made this claim numerous times including in the debate the other night. Abbot corrected him by stating that the figure was 40%. Turns out that Abbot was pretty close to the money – the true figure is 43%.
> 
> The public has had just about enough of Labor’s lies over the last six years – Rudd shows poor judgment and a lack of common sense to keep the lies coming. But poor judgment and a lack of common sense have been the hallmarks of this inept man ever since he came on the political scene.
> ...




To be a good liar, you have to have a good memeory!!!!!!!

That is why Ruidd likes to carry notes with him when debating.

So he not only a liar but a cheat as well.


----------



## drsmith (16 August 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Yes and Wilkie is $hitting himself.lol
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-...dension-parties-over-preference-deals/4889904
> 
> ...



Poor Andrew Wilkie.

He's discovered that his only role in bed with Labor and the Greens was as the hot water bottle and I don't think the Libs are going to have much use for a discarded hot water bottle that's gone cold.

He's simply too dim to realise his time is up as Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor have.


----------



## drsmith (16 August 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> What? how amazing, no discussion at all of Tony handing the seat of Melbourne to Labor.
> 
> This time around, *the Liberals will preference Labor* above the Greens in every Lower House seat.
> 
> Liberal preferences running to Labor, they are that cocky and confident that they can afford to give away seats, and yet the silence is deafening on this thread.



I now wonder how much of the furniture Kevin Rudd is going to save in comparison to Julia Gillard.

I've just heard on ABC radio that Bill Shorten has advised publically that he was not aware of Kevin Rudd's plan for a reduced company tax rate in the NT. 

The Kevin Rudd II paint job is under pressure and it's starting to crack.


----------



## dutchie (16 August 2013)

Labors three big mistakes.

1. Making Rudd PM
2. Making Gillard PM
3. Making Rudd PM


----------



## noco (16 August 2013)

Ex Quennsland Premier Beattie is for a thumping to nothing. I hope he has not sold his luxurious unit in New York!!!!!!

It would appear Beattie is another Rudd stuff up and it could not have happenend to a nicer pair of clowns.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/sp...-of-the-campaign/story-fnho52jj-1226698151691


----------



## moXJO (16 August 2013)

drsmith said:


> The Kevin Rudd II paint job is under pressure and it's starting to crack.




I think I heard the faint sound of Rudd imploding last week.


----------



## dutchie (16 August 2013)

moXJO said:


> I think I heard the faint sound of Rudd imploding last week.




I think he has already lost it. In the last interview/press stop I watched he was shouting.


----------



## So_Cynical (16 August 2013)

bunyip said:


> And another Rudd lie has been exposed in his claim that of the boat people sent to Manus Island and Nauru under Howard’s Pacific Solution, 70% of them ended up in Australia.
> 
> He’s made this claim numerous times including in the debate the other night. Abbot corrected him by stating that the figure was 40%. Turns out that Abbot was pretty close to the money – the true figure is 43%.




Not actually true as about 20% of them went to NZ and as we all know NZ is pretty much a de-facto Australian state, so close to 65% ended up in Australia considering that 100% of the ones that went to NZ are now in Oz.



dutchie said:


> Labors three big mistakes.
> 
> 1. Making Rudd PM
> 2. Making Gillard PM
> 3. Making Rudd PM




Mistakes hey mmm...now lets consider the facts.

1. Making Rudd PM = Won the election
2. Making Gillard PM = Won the election
3. Making Rudd PM = ?


----------



## drsmith (16 August 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> Not actually true as about 20% of them went to NZ and as we all know NZ is pretty much a de-facto Australian state, so close to 65% ended up in Australia considering that 100% of the ones that went to NZ are now in Oz.



Was that in Kevvies notes ?



So_Cynical said:


> 1. Making Rudd PM = Won the election
> 2. Making Gillard PM = Won the election
> 3. Making Rudd PM = ?



?

Electoral wipe out with 2PP for Labor 45% or less and political oblivion for at least the next three terms.

It will be a success, much like NSW Labor's time in office was for them.


----------



## sptrawler (16 August 2013)

Interesting, the media polls are saying Abbott is more popular than Rudd, not that you can believe them. 
However, just shows flipping Abbott for Turnbull, maybe wasn't required.lol


----------



## noco (16 August 2013)

noco said:


> Ex Quennsland Premier Beattie is for a thumping to nothing. I hope he has not sold his luxurious unit in New York!!!!!!
> 
> It would appear Beattie is another Rudd stuff up and it could not have happenend to a nicer pair of clowns.
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/sp...-of-the-campaign/story-fnho52jj-1226698151691




Here is more news on Beattie. I would suggest to Beattie not to unpack his bags since arriving back from New York because he will be heading back on the 8th.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...g_in_forde_which_means_rudd_will_get_one_too/


----------



## Julia (16 August 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> Not actually true as about 20% of them went to NZ and as we all know NZ is pretty much a de-facto Australian state,



New Zealand is absolutely not anything like a de facto Australian state.
As a country, it's light years away from Australia in too many aspects to count.


> so close to 65% ended up in Australia considering that 100% of the ones that went to NZ are now in Oz.



Really????  Let's see some evidence of that.  Link, please.


----------



## sails (16 August 2013)

Julia said:


> New Zealand is absolutely not anything like a de facto Australian state.
> As a country, it's light years away from Australia in too many aspects to count.
> 
> Really????  Let's see some evidence of that.  Link, please.




Julia, not sure you will get a reply as I think SC has most of us on ignore!  But I suspect these figures are as much of a thought bubble as Rudd's  bubbles...


----------



## bunyip (17 August 2013)

The *REAL* Kevin Rudd.
Perish the thought of this creep leading our country for another three years!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5RgFe9OX4&feature=player_embedded


----------



## bunyip (17 August 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> Not actually true as about 20% of them went to NZ and as we all know NZ is pretty much a de-facto Australian state, so close to 65% ended up in Australia considering that 100% of the ones that went to NZ are now in Oz.



LOL.....Still as delusional as ever, eh Cynical, trying to distort the facts in support of your favorite bunch of losers!
Next thing you’ll be repeating the ridiculous claim you made about four years ago when Rudd was well and truly on the nose, stuffing up just about everything he touched. Even Rudd himself at the time admitted his poor performance by stating ‘_We’re taking a whacking in the polls, and frankly we deserve a whacking’._
But you, my deluded friend, came out and declared that Rudd was ‘basically doing a good job’. 



So_Cynical said:


> Mistakes hey mmm...now lets consider the facts.
> 1. Making Rudd PM = Won the election



Yes indeed, let's consider the facts.......Sure they won the election by putting Rudd in as leader of their party. And the ALP very quickly realized what a mistake that was, as Rudd proved to be an egotistical control freak who was impossible to work with, an incompetent economic manager who inherited no debt and a big budget surplus and quickly turned them into a big debt and a bit deficit, a man who showed he was almost completely devoid of common sense by dismantling an excellent border protection policy and replacing it with a debacle that has seen tens of thousands of boat people flood us and drain our finances to the tune of twelve thousand million dollars, a man who burdened business with investment-stifling taxes and continues to do so, a man who wasted money like an irresponsible fool.

If you can’t see that Rudd was a mistake for the Labor Party and a mistake for Australia, then you need to open your eyes and start looking past the end of your nose.



So_Cynical said:


> 2. Making Gillard PM = Won the election



Wrong – Gillard didn’t win the election, she lost it. Her party won less seats than the opposition. She was put into power because of couple of independent mongrels called Oakshott and Windsor overruled the vote of the Australian people.



So_Cynical said:


> 3. Making Rudd PM = ?



If Rudd wins the election it will prove to be just as big a mistake for the ALP and for Australia as it proved to be last time he won.
Hopefully Australian voters won’t be so stupid and gullible and irresponsible as to repeat the mistake they made last time they voted Rudd into power.


----------



## dutchie (17 August 2013)

bunyip said:


> The *REAL* Kevin Rudd.
> Perish the thought of this creep leading our country for another three years!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5RgFe9OX4&feature=player_embedded




Australia is sometimes referred to as the lucky country and the clever country.

It will be interesting to see what percentage of the population come under the "clever" type.

If anyone votes for this incompetent moron then they certainly are not in the "clever" group.

Hopefully more than 50% are in the "clever" group. Then we might go back to being the lucky country (after a six year hiatus).


I have seen the baseball bat sales jump markedly recently so I have great faith that we are indeed the clever country.


----------



## noco (19 August 2013)

Can somebody tell me how this could be possible?

Another Labor Party bungle.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-meltdown-ending/story-fnho52jo-1226699506591


----------



## bunyip (20 August 2013)

noco said:


> Can somebody tell me how this could be possible?
> 
> Another Labor Party bungle.
> 
> ...





Sure...it’s possible because the ALP government of the last six years has been and still is the most pathetic, dumb, incompetent government in the history of this country. 

That’s why I keep making the point that if any of us employed a manager to run a business for us, and he/she displayed a similar level of incompetence to what this Labor government has displayed, we’d sack him immediately and replace him with somebody else.
And that’s exactly what any self-respecting Australian who is loyal to his or her country will do to the Rudd government at the September election.


----------



## noco (20 August 2013)

bunyip said:


> Sure...it’s possible because the ALP government of the last six years has been and still is the most pathetic, dumb, incompetent government in the history of this country.
> 
> That’s why I keep making the point that if any of us employed a manager to run a business for us, and he/she displayed a similar level of incompetence to what this Labor government has displayed, we’d sack him immediately and replace him with somebody else.
> And that’s exactly what any self-respecting Australian who is loyal to his or her country will do to the Rudd government at the September election.




Unfortunately, these same incompetent politicians can make all the mistakes spending and wasting our money and then retire for life on fat pensions at tax payers expense.


----------



## noco (21 August 2013)

Rudd has over acted and when you see him mixing with school kids, that is about his level.

If he were treat people in a mature way he may have just reached out to them and attained better results.

He is very mixed up at the moment and while he satisfied his own ego with revenge on Gillard, he now does not know what to do with himself. It has all gone to his big fat head and the brain inside is all so twisted with poison from the past.

I am starting to think Rudd is going insane. He is going off his rocker.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...the-halfway-mark/story-fnihsr9v-1226700946895


----------



## bunyip (21 August 2013)

noco said:


> Rudd has over acted and when you see him mixing with school kids, that is about his level.
> 
> If he were treat people in a mature way he may have just reached out to them and attained better results.
> 
> ...




I loved the photo of Kevvie and his wife in that photo....gone are the confident smiles of a couple of weeks ago, and in their place are looks of defeat and dispair.
It’s wonderful to watch the wheels falling off Rudd’s wagon! 
If he gets a hammering in tonight’s debate it should just about kill off any chance of him winning the election.

People are just not buying his campaign slogan of ‘A NEW WAY’. And why would they, when every day Rudd demonstrates that present day Kevin is just a carbon copy of the Kevin of old.
When Gillard became PM she had the opportunity of fixing Labor’s mistakes and steering the party back on track to responsible government. She completely and utterly failed to utilize that opportunity.
Now Rudd has the same opportunity that Gillard had to fix up their mistakes and steer Labor towards responsible government. But just like Gillard, he’s showing little inclination to utilize that opportunity.
He could start by killing the carbon and mining taxes – both are an unnecessary burden on business and investment at a time when he should be making it easier, not harder, for businesses to expand and employ people. Unemployment is rising, and whey wouldn’t it rise when Rudd insists on keeping taxes that hit business profitability. 
And he could stop lying – Aussie voters are still fuming about all Labor’s lies of the past six years...the last thing they want to hear is Rudd adding to the pool by telling even more lies.
Instead of trying to pull the wool over our eyes by claiming he’s getting rid of the carbon tax to lighten the burden on average Australians, he should just shut up about it. Nobody is so stupid (except perhaps a hardcore of Labor voters) that they can’t see Rudd’s ulterior motive in replacing the carbon tax with just a renewed version of it under a different name so that a few years down the track it brings in even more money as the price of carbon invariably rises.

And the asylum seeker issue,  yet another example of how Rudd’s ‘new way’ is not a new way at all, but just more of the same old incompetence that lets the boats keep coming.
A report on ABC news this morning said that three thousand boat people have arrived in the three weeks since Rudd announced his PNG ‘solution’.
Rudd has promised Indonesia that he won’t tow the boats back to Indonesia. But that’s exactly what he should be doing, just as Alexander Downer did as Foreign Affairs minister in the Howard government. They didn’t have to tow back many, only half a dozen or so were enough to let the people smugglers and the illegal immigrants know that if you jump in a boat and head for Australian, you’ll quickly find yourself back where you started. Downer didn’t seek permission from Indonesia, and Rudd wouldn't need to either. Just show a bit of leadership and do it, and to hell with whether it offends Indonesia. They sure don’t care about offending us by allowing Indonesia boats with Indonesian crews to bring people illegally to Australia.

Rudd needs to show a bit of backbone by taking decisive action to fix the numerous problems that six years of Labor government has created. But the bloke is too wishy washy to do it. He looks like a powder puff and he behaves like one.
Australians don’t want powder puffs in government – they want strong men and women who are prepared to take the hard and responsible decisions necessary to utilize the great potential of our country. 
That’s why Abbot and his team are pulling ahead in the election race, while Rudd and his incompetent mob are falling behind.


----------



## sptrawler (21 August 2013)

Another stuff up for Australia, Federal and State Labor support offshore processing of the LNG, they are a disgrace.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/18584308/ive-failed-on-gas-hub-barnett/
.
So much for a 'new start', it is more like a new start up the same creek while still missing the paddle.


----------



## drsmith (21 August 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Another stuff up for Australia, Federal and State Labor support offshore processing of the LNG, they are a disgrace.
> 
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/18584308/ive-failed-on-gas-hub-barnett/
> .
> So much for a 'new start', it is more like a new start up the same creek while still missing the paddle.



Colin Barnett appears to have gone from denial to grief. 

One can't blame Woodside for walking. The state government couldn't even get the environmental approval process right.

The emperor has had his wings well and truly clipped on a number of issues over the past few weeks and hopefully as a politician and as a leader he can grow from this. I was impressed in how he presented himself on Q&A last year and one thing he does have on his side is time.

I haven't directly followed the economic merits of onshore vs offshore processing for gas so can't comment directly there.

Colin Barnett will be on ABC 720 after the 9am news. That will be interesting to listen to.


----------



## Ijustnewit (21 August 2013)

See Guys , Labour is creating jobs just like they claim to be.

http://www.seek.com.au/job/25074825

http://www.seek.com.au/job/25074838


----------



## Calliope (21 August 2013)

In 2010, Labor MP Steve Gibbons called Rudd a psychopath. I think it would be impossible for his family not to know this.



> To many, the label is better suited to Hannibal Lecter types. Except that experts tell us there are plenty of psychopaths in the workplace. Often highly successful, highly functioning people, they ooze ersatz charisma to those who don't know them while causing enormous damage to an organisation. So common are these psychopaths, experts have written books distinguishing leadership traits from psychopathic traits.
> 
> A leader is charismatic, self-confident, able to influence, persuasive, visionary, able to take risks, action oriented and able to take hard decisions.* A psychopath relies on superficial charm, makes great first impressions, is glib and grandiose, callous and manipulative, adept at conning people, refuses to accept responsibility for mistakes, is armed with an impressive supply of excuses, hates monotony preferring constant stimulation, and - most critically - has no empathy.
> *
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...to-the-real-rudd/story-e6frg7bo-1226700864858


----------



## Logique (21 August 2013)

Dratted paywalls.

I hear J.Albrechtsen used a quote from Hamlet? However it's Richard III who might provide the clearer prototype, in Henry VI, Act III:  



> Shakespeare, Henry VI, Act III:
> 
> "..Why, I can smile, and murder whiles I smile, / And cry 'Content!' to that which grieves my heart, / And wet my cheeks with artificial fears, / And frame my face to all occasions.... / I can add colours to the chameleon / Change shapes with Proteus for advantages, / And set the murderous Machiavel to school. / Can I do this, and cannot get a crown?.."


----------



## dutchie (22 August 2013)

Penny Wong - Liar Liar Pants on Fire.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...tiabbott-website-stack-up-20130822-2scwt.html



Penny, your just pathetic.


----------



## noco (22 August 2013)

dutchie said:


> Penny Wong - Liar Liar Pants on Fire.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...tiabbott-website-stack-up-20130822-2scwt.html
> 
> ...




+1 It is just typical of these low down Labor Party cohorts to lie, cheat and be deceitful. They must think the average person is stupid and I hope they pay a heavy price for their mischievous actions.

But we all know their history and nothing has changed.


----------



## Country Lad (22 August 2013)

Logique said:


> Dratted paywalls.
> 
> I hear J.Albrechtsen used a quote from Hamlet?




Yes she did. 

_That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain_
Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## Calliope (22 August 2013)

Country Lad said:


> Yes she did.
> 
> _That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain_
> Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5
> ...




It also applies to Penny Wong;





*What? Me lie!!! No this is one smiling face you can trust.*:alien2:


----------



## bunyip (23 August 2013)

dutchie said:


> Penny Wong - Liar Liar Pants on Fire.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...tiabbott-website-stack-up-20130822-2scwt.html
> 
> ...





This election campaign has truly revealed what most of us already knew – that the Labor Party are little more than serial liars and hypocrites. These vermin will stoop to the lowest levels to try and hold on to government.
Take Rudd’s latest tactics of constantly chanting ‘CUT CUT CUT’, in reference to what he would like us to believe Abbot will do in government.
Yet Rudd and Gillard in government have been classic examples of CUT CUT CUT. Here’s a few examples that spring immediately to mind....

Defense spending....CUT under Labor.
University funding...CUT under Labor.
State health budgets...CUT under Labor.
Toowoomba Range crossing....CUT under Labor. (Just a little more info on this one for those of you who don’t live in the Brisbane and western corridor area....The Warrego Highway west of Brisbane is the main east/west highway in Queensland, running from Brisbane on the coast right out to the far west of QLD. This highway services the rapidly expanding Surat Basin area a few hours west of Brisbane – hub of the burgeoning coal mining and coal seam gas industries that produce enormous export revenue for our country.)
The Warrego Highway in in a disgraceful state, with many dangerous sections that have seen many fatalities due to the appalling road conditions. One of the most dangerous sections of all is the Toowoomba range crossing – steep, narrow, winding, and carrying tens of thousands of trucks every day.)
The Howard government earmarked 700 million dollars to build a new Toowoomba range crossing, should they be re-elected. Guess what happened when Rudd got in......CUT – the damn fool immediately scrapped the funding for this vitally important project, and blew the money instead on pink batts, overpriced school halls, and illegal boat people.)

I could list other examples of the CUT CUT CUT record of this Labor government, but I think we all get the idea. Rudd and his henchmen are hypocritical in the extreme by passing judgment in advance on what cuts Abbot would supposedly make in government.

As for lies, Rudd, Gillard and their cronies are without equal in the history of Australian politics. It makes my blood boil to see these unprincipled people publicly telling blatant lies about Tony Abbot, such as saying he cut a billion dollars from health funding.
I just hope Australian voters aren’t dumb enough to believe Labor’s lies. The last six years have shown us how untrustworthy Labor is – they can’t be trusted with our finances, they can’t be trusted with our borders, and they can’t be trusted in what they say about their political opponents. They can’t be trusted with anything. *The ALP just cannot be trusted.*
They’re a bunch of low class, incompetent,  lying, cheating, hypocritical vermin of weak character and poor moral fiber. For the good of Australia, we *must* toss this Labor rabble out of office on September 7.


----------



## Aussiejeff (7 September 2013)

*Labor Opposition Leader*

Shorten?
Wong?
Albanese?

Who will survive the cull and post-poll bloodlust to become Labor Opposition leader? Anyone?

Anyone..._worthwhile_ that is? :1zhelp:


----------



## Julia (7 September 2013)

Between Albanese and Shorten, the latter having an edge.  Just guessing, of course.
Absolutely not Wong.


----------



## sptrawler (7 September 2013)

Let's wait and see what happens in the Labor Party after the election.
The Union heavies will be in there sorting out Rudd and the moderates. 
Hell there is no way, the union bosses will let Rudd get between them and a fairytale pension.lol


----------



## chiff (8 September 2013)

In victory revenge-in defeat malice.


----------



## sptrawler (9 September 2013)

Bowen has stepped away from picking up the poison chalice.
My guess Wayne Swan, absolute dick, perfect for the position.


----------



## wayneL (10 September 2013)

Mark Latham had some interesting comment on Pravda yesterday http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-...k-dreyfus-would-be-ideal-labor-leader/4945964

He reckons the only guy capable of sorting out the party won't be considered for the leadership - Mark Dreyfus.



> "If you took that logical, objective criteria, there's only one person who could possibly match it, and that's Mark Dreyfus, the outgoing attorney-general," he said.
> 
> Mr Latham, who lost the 2004 election to John Howard, says Labor at Caucus level has become dysfunctional.
> 
> ...


----------



## Calliope (10 September 2013)

It is rumoured that Rudd still has aspirations to be Secretary-General of the United Nations, and with the aid of Bruce Hawker will now start a destabilising campaign against Ban Ki-moon.


----------



## noco (11 September 2013)

I was watching Richo interviewing Stephen Conroy tonight and from all accounts the Labpr party are in chaos.

 There is no leader to tell its members to shut up and they are all going off on their own tangents.

The Labor Party may not have a leader or a shadow cabinet for about 4 weeks.

But of course that is typical of the Labor Party, they can't govern themselves and they did not know how to govern the counrty.


----------



## noco (11 September 2013)

Calliope said:


> It is rumoured that Rudd still has aspirations to be Secretary-General of the United Nations, and with the aid of Bruce Hawker will now start a destabilising campaign against Ban Ki-moon.




Calliope, I am not sure if he will succeed as he is the laughing stock of the world.

I just cannot see world leaders voting for him unless of course no one else wants the job.

Ki-Moon is due to retire in December 2017. It is a 5 year term. So Rudd has a fair wait on his habds.


----------



## Whiskers (11 September 2013)

noco said:


> I was watching Richo interviewing Stephen Conroy tonight and from all accounts the Labpr party are in chaos.
> 
> There is no leader to tell its members to shut up and they are all going off on their own tangents.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I see this too... but is it a question of lack of leadership, Rudd and Gillard were both pretty tough leaders, or is it more a reflection of the faction power and preselection processes in politics, particularly bad in Labor recently.

If the party grass roots had more say as Rudds new rule advocates, the membership would probably endorse some different candidates and those candidates would be looking behind their backs for how party membership as opposed to faction bosses see their behaviour. 

Personally I see it like a company board under hostile takeover. You have factional interest groups hell bent on using the vehicle for their own agenda rather than representing the interests of their stakeholders. While the process stays the same there will continue to be disharmony regardless of the quality of the leader. You just have to look to NSW and the revolving door of leaders promoted by the faction power brokers who later said they had no idea of certain key controversial issues that later developed in the back room deals behind their back.

While on the issue... If Shorton is nominated unopposed to circumvent membership participation, I expect Labor to be out of government for longer and a less effective opposition.

If the current faction bosses collude to recind one of the few good things Rudd did, I would expect the party faithfull and the swinging voter (the only one that counts) to give Labor, the self professed custodian of social justice, a wide berth for quite a long time.


----------



## noco (13 September 2013)

I think we will have to rename Kevin Rudd....."RUDD THE WRECKER".

He has absolutely thrown the Labor party into chaos like they have never seen before.

Maybe if he is now on the Liberal Party payroll he is worth a lot more.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...s-set-to-explode/story-fnfenwor-1226718011557


----------



## Julia (13 September 2013)

Thanks for the link, noco.  Richo doesn't spare his erstwhile colleagues!   You'd have to think, given all he correctly points out, they would be completely mad to have this ballot.  The obvious solution would be for Albanese to not run.  Entirely possible that Shorten worked this out smartly and was so quick to declare his intention.  Always has an eye to the main chance, does Mr Shorten.


----------



## Whiskers (13 September 2013)

Julia said:


> Thanks for the link, noco.  Richo doesn't spare his erstwhile colleagues!   You'd have to think, given all he correctly points out, they would be completely mad to have this ballot.  The obvious solution would be for Albanese to not run.  Entirely possible that Shorten worked this out smartly and was so quick to declare his intention.  Always has an eye to the main chance, does Mr Shorten.




Julia, I'm curious why you think party membership participation in the appointment of a candidate and especially leader is not a good thing. Even the USA for all their short-comings involve party membership in preselection much more openly than we do.

Also, given the history of Richardson as one of their arguably most brutal back room power brokers and Conroy's association with fraudster Mike Kaiser, they are hardly role models for democracy and accountability are they?

Further, Conroy (and Richardson) preaching about what's best (by definition a democratic process) for the party has to be a hypocrite doesn't he...such as, advocating (failed) media public interest and censorship laws that he wanted to pass as a bundle without discussion let alone negotiation.

Aren't they just amplifying the point I made earlier that the faction fighting bosses are putting their self-interest  ahead of the party and democratic accountability for their preselection and leader selection?

Would they dare come out and criticise a leader appointed by the membership like they have past leaders? I think not. They have no way of influencing, intimidating or corrupting the membership like they do each other in jostling for positions.


----------



## Julia (13 September 2013)

Whiskers said:


> Julia, I'm curious why you think party membership participation in the appointment of a candidate and especially leader is not a good thing.



I make no judgement about whether it's good for the Labor Party or not, Whiskers.  And care less, to be honest.
I was simply reflecting on the reality that a month, or maybe quite a bit longer, for the Labor Party to (a) be without a leader, and (b) to be campaigning within themselves for another extended period, represents political disaster. 
In the meantime, the new government are happily able to capitalise on Labor's ongoing disarray.
No wonder the Coalition are so happy!

The other point is that this new rule would never have occurred to Labor, had it not been for our Kevin's attempt to institute it to shore up his own situation, i.e. preventing a repeat of him again being shafted by his own colleagues because they so detest him.  Because they were desperate to view Kevin Rudd as the only person who could save them from the most ignominious defeat ever under Julia Gillard, they enthusiastically embraced whatever Kevin made a condition of his return.

So now Kevin has lost the election and is nonetheless determined to sit malevolently on the back bench, where the media will continue to offer him disproportionate attention, no doubt asking him repeatedly during this contest between Shorten and Albanese which one he favours etc, so that essentially the focus will once again switch to Kevin.

Even if that were not to happen, do you really think it's a good look for Labor, after all the blood letting they have been through, to now have two of their few remaining senior members vying off against each other for the leadership?



> Also, given the history of Richardson as one of their arguably most brutal back room power brokers and Conroy's association with fraudster Mike Kaiser, they are hardly role models for democracy and accountability are they?



Indeed not, but they are Labor insiders and their opinions are worth expressing imo.



> Would they dare come out and criticise a leader appointed by the membership like they have past leaders? I think not.



You'd think not, wouldn't you.  But such are the machinations, the backroom deals, and the intense personal hatreds within the Labor Party, anything is possible.


----------



## Logique (14 September 2013)

Labor have seriously jumped the shark with this presidential style, Opposition Leader pre-selection fiasco.

Just when they need to unify as a party, they go out and foster even more internal division. 

Labor Party - call in the administrators.


----------



## noco (14 September 2013)

Julia said:


> Thanks for the link, noco.  Richo doesn't spare his erstwhile colleagues!   You'd have to think, given all he correctly points out, they would be completely mad to have this ballot.  The obvious solution would be for Albanese to not run.  Entirely possible that Shorten worked this out smartly and was so quick to declare his intention.  Always has an eye to the main chance, does Mr Shorten.




One of the problems I see facing Shorten is the conflict of interest with Governor General Bryce.

He is married to the GG's daughter.


----------



## Calliope (14 September 2013)

*Anthony Albanese a Kevin Rudd man - always*




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-rudd-man-always/story-fn59niix-1226718925818


----------



## Julia (14 September 2013)

noco said:


> One of the problems I see facing Shorten is the conflict of interest with Governor General Bryce.
> 
> He is married to the GG's daughter.



How is that actually a conflict of interest?


----------



## wayneL (14 September 2013)

I reckon the whole Labor party is a conflict of our interests.


----------



## bunyip (14 September 2013)

Julia Gillard has lashed out at Rudd’s new leadership rules, calling them ‘_a clumsy attempt for bad leaders to hold on to power’._

I knew Gillard wouldn’t be able to stay silent for long.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-14/julia-gillard-slams-labors-leadership-rules/4957886


----------



## Whiskers (14 September 2013)

Julia said:


> How is that actually a conflict of interest?




The brief legal definition of Conflict of interest is: A situation where a person has a personal interest in a matter the subject of a decision or duty of the person... and a situation where a legal practioner's duty to a client conflicts with his or her duty to another or former client.

The GG would be forced to resign if Shorton were to become Labor leader and subsequently PM, if not sooner.

It certainly is not a good look for Labor to have a faction leader with a history of toppling former leaders for his own benefit, aspiring to be PM with a current conflict of interest (even if only perceived) with the only person who has power to refuse legislation, appointments and or dismiss the government under certain circumstances (Kerr, Whitlam 1975).

While we have the current Constitution, Shorton does has the audacity to exploit his contacts and allegiances all the way to the top to gain and maintain power. That's the sort of disrespect for the people and open accountability and good government that leads to dictatorship and a country to civil war. Below is summary of GG powers and responsibilities.  



Reserve powers of GG outlined fairly simply here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Australia


----------



## Julia (14 September 2013)

Hmm, I still don't see that there would be necessarily a conflict of interest to the point where Quentin Bryce would have to resign if her son in law were made leader.

Surely if that were so, some legal or constitutional expert would have remarked on it by now?

I just googled the question and Mr Shorten's own view is:



> The member for Maribyrnong said that he had no concerns about a conflict of interest should he be elected Labor leader, given that his mother-in-law is Governor-General Quentin Bryce.


----------



## McLovin (14 September 2013)

Julia said:


> Hmm, I still don't see that there would be necessarily a conflict of interest to the point where Quentin Bryce would have to resign if her son in law were made leader.
> 
> Surely if that were so, some legal or constitutional expert would have remarked on it by now?
> 
> I just googled the question and Mr Shorten's own view is:




I think it might be the perceived conflict of interest. Imagine if in 1975 Fraser had been the son-in-law of Kerr. In a constitutional crisis in order for the system to work, and to maintain its legitimacy, it's essential that the GG be considered absolutely impartial by both sides and the wider Australian population. Having the GG related to the leader of one side cannot guarantee that.


----------



## Whiskers (14 September 2013)

bunyip said:


> Julia Gillard has lashed out at Rudd’s new leadership rules, calling them ‘_a clumsy attempt for bad leaders to hold on to power’._
> 
> I knew Gillard wouldn’t be able to stay silent for long.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-14/julia-gillard-slams-labors-leadership-rules/4957886




Well she would say that, especially using the power of faction bosses rather than an election to gain power.

_"These rules literally mean that a person could hang on as Labor leader and as prime minister *even if every member of cabinet, the body that should be the most powerful and collegiate in the country*, has decided that person was no longer capable of functioning as prime minister," she writes.

"A person could hang on even if well over half of their parliamentary colleagues thought the same._​
Funny that... most people especially the membership and electorate call that *cronyism*. 

She still doesn't get the often lauded and so called founding principles of Labor party and democracy... to represent the interests of the common man and woman, not faction bosses and other self interests.


----------



## Tink (16 September 2013)

Dont worry, even though Gillard was quiet after she was thrown out, she was still working behind the scenes pushing her union friends through the empty seats, thanks to Shorten, even though there were other pre-selections.


----------



## noco (16 September 2013)

Julia said:


> Hmm, I still don't see that there would be necessarily a conflict of interest to the point where Quentin Bryce would have to resign if her son in law were made leader.
> 
> Surely if that were so, some legal or constitutional expert would have remarked on it by now?
> 
> I just googled the question and Mr Shorten's own view is:




Julia, I don't think it is of great importance at this stage as the GG, has, I think another 12 months to run and if Shorten does become leader of the Labor Party it will be quite irrelevant being the GG's son-in-law.

IMHO the only conflict of interest that could take place is if Shorten tried to block supply to the incoming government and I doubt that would take place given the numbers in the house of reps......he would also have to have a very good reason to do so.


----------



## noco (16 September 2013)

These two wankers (Shorten and Albanese) must have rocks in thiere heads by standing firm on the carbon tax.

They are even saying now that if Abbott is successful in in scrapping the carbon tax they will go to the next election to bring it back.

They must be planning to stay in opposition for a very long time.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/carbon-copies-tax-our-belief/story-fni0ffxg-1226719594408


----------



## MrBurns (16 September 2013)

ABC Poll - 

Current Poll



Bill Shorten and Anthony Albanese appear to be the frontrunners for the Labor leadership. Who do you prefer?

Anthony Albanese 79%  

Bill Shorten 21%  


3741 votes counted


----------



## MrBurns (22 September 2013)

> Labor leadership candidates Anthony Albanese and Bill Shorten regret cuts to sole parent payments
> 
> Both contenders for the federal Labor leadership have indicated it was a mistake for the party to cut the level of welfare support for single parents




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-22/albanese-shorten-regret-cuts-to-sole-parent-payment/4973540

Bit late now you morons


----------



## drsmith (22 September 2013)

It won't be long and offshore processing of boat arrivals will be back on their black list as well.


----------



## MrBurns (22 September 2013)

drsmith said:


> It won't be long and offshore processing of boat arrivals will be back on their black list as well.




The only ones listening are the ABC, everyone else is fed up to the back teeth with them and that wont change for quite a while.


----------



## 13ugs13unny (23 September 2013)

MrBurns said:


> ABC Poll -
> 
> Current Poll
> 
> ...




Is there a third option?


----------



## MrBurns (23 September 2013)

13ugs13unny said:


> Is there a third option?




Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard


----------



## wayneL (23 September 2013)

Shorten was on Pravda today.

These Fabian clowns just can't shake themselves from being total neg-heads. He could do nothing but slag off Abbott on trifles and insignificancies. Bowen has been doing nothing but the same, whining aboutAbbott.

It just makes the party seem a bunch whingeing tossers and douchebags.....

....which I suppose they have largely shown to be over the last few years. 

Such a shame.


----------



## moXJO (23 September 2013)

wayneL said:


> Shorten was on Pravda today.
> 
> These Fabian clowns just can't shake themselves from being total neg-heads. He could do nothing but slag off Abbott on trifles and insignificancies. Bowen has been doing nothing but the same, whining aboutAbbott.
> 
> ...




You think after two PM's being thrown out using this tactic that they might have changed strategy. Not our labor party, got to keep the circus rolling.


----------



## sptrawler (27 September 2013)

Just have to post this to keep the thread on the front page.
So Labor followers can keep us abreast of their policies, now they are in opposition.

What is Labors view on Abbott turning back a boat?
Come on there must be a response, you were all critical of the policy, pre election.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 September 2013)

MrBurns said:


> The only ones listening are the ABC, everyone else is fed up to the back teeth with them and that wont change for quite a while.




And the amazing thing is that they don't realise this.

Their traditional base is gone.

Unions are either ineffective, run by thugs or no longer trust the ALP.

And they have 40,000 new iTune members with a vote on the leader who are muppets conned by Rudd to join up.

The Shearers must be spinning in their graves.

gg


----------



## sptrawler (27 September 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> And the amazing thing is that they don't realise this.
> 
> Their traditional base is gone.
> 
> ...




Indeed, they are architects of their own demise.

They have lost there way and were shown to represent nothing, other than their own ends.

Labor will find it hard to build credibility, after this display of inept government.IMO


----------



## Aussiejeff (29 September 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> And the amazing thing is that they don't realise this.
> 
> *Their traditional base is gone.*
> 
> ...




The Demise and Fall of Labor since the heady days of Gough can indeed be in no small way attributed to the demise of the common term "labourer".

Who in today's swarms of young talent wants to be referred to as a "labourer"?

Yet, the struggles of workers PROUD to be known as "labourers" was the entire reason for the painful birth of the "Labor" Party in the first instance. Now it seems many young/middle aged voters with more experience of labour rather than labour are supporting Labor's corpse - while even larger masses of others who knew more about labour than labour are deserting the sinking stateless ship. Thanks to JuLiar, that dynamic has turned from a relative tidal wave into a Tsunami of ex-Laborers.. 

If one of the core tenets for the party's existence has been thrown out the door (the word "labour" and its meaning in the traditional sense), is it any wonder that membership of this dying political entity is plummeting? The one thing the pathetic ragtag mob of survivors has to do to try and survive a few more years is....*change the name*.

LABO(U)R just wont cut it anymore...:horse:


----------



## sydboy007 (2 October 2013)

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...ments-breached-radio-code-20131002-2us19.html

_In a broadcast that aired on June 25, 2012, Hadley claimed that children visiting Canberra's Parliament House would no longer be offered fruit snacks and bottles of water due to budget cuts. Hadley based his assertions on a story in that morning's Daily Telegraph.

However, before Hadley went to air with his claims, Mr Swan had issued a statement to all media outlets saying the story was “completely wrong” and that not a “single dollar” was being cut from the schools hospitality program.

Hadley ridiculed Mr Swan's statement, telling listeners: “It appears Mr Swan has not read what he needs to read in relation to all of this."

Rather than taking Mr Swan's word that the story was inaccurate, Hadley described the then federal treasurer as one of the “most dishonest politicians ever to govern this country”.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority judged that Hadley failed to make “reasonable efforts” to broadcast factual material.

The ACMA also found that, in later broadcasts, Hadley failed to properly correct the record and did not clearly acknowledge that his original statements were wrong._

I doubt any of the ASF Labor haters will feel that Hadley did anything wrong though.  At least Brandis and Joyce have been criticised for something they actually did.


----------



## sptrawler (2 October 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...ments-breached-radio-code-20131002-2us19.html
> 
> _In a broadcast that aired on June 25, 2012, Hadley claimed that children visiting Canberra's Parliament House would no longer be offered fruit snacks and bottles of water due to budget cuts. Hadley based his assertions on a story in that morning's Daily Telegraph.
> 
> ...




I think you are getting 'Labor Haters' confused with 'Inept Government Haters'.

I for one, will and have had no problem voting for Labor, when I felt they were the best option.

The goon show was given two terms of office, I was not enarmoured with or by their performance.
Obviously you were, and I hope the current government performs well enough to change your mind and prove my choice was warranted.

However if they perform badly, I will have no hesitation voting against them.
So let's just give it 6 months and see how it pans out.


----------



## drsmith (2 October 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...ments-breached-radio-code-20131002-2us19.html
> 
> _In a broadcast that aired on June 25, 2012, Hadley claimed that children visiting Canberra's Parliament House would no longer be offered fruit snacks and bottles of water due to budget cuts. Hadley based his assertions on a story in that morning's Daily Telegraph.
> 
> ...



It's fortunate it's so easy to copy and paste.

Otherwise you will find Labor's generation in opposition very painful indeed.


----------



## Calliope (2 October 2013)

drsmith said:


> It's fortunate it's so easy to copy and paste.
> 
> Otherwise you will find Labor's generation in opposition very painful indeed.




It's Syd's stated aim to ensure that the Abbott government and especially Malcolm Turnbull fulfill their promises, and that will require a lot of burning the midnight oil. It's a pity he wasn't so diligent during the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd era. However I am sure he looks up to Bill Shorten who never breaks promises or betrays those who trust him.


----------



## noco (2 October 2013)

Calliope said:


> It's Syd's stated aim to ensure that the Abbott government and especially Malcolm Turnbull fulfill their promises, and that will require a lot of burning the midnight oil. It's a pity he wasn't so diligent during the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd era. However I am sure he looks up to Bill Shorten who never breaks promises or betrays those who trust him.




Please read my link and comments posted on the thread "IS  SHORTEN P M MATERIAL".

Well worth the read.


----------



## sydboy007 (2 October 2013)

sptrawler said:


> I think you are getting 'Labor Haters' confused with 'Inept Government Haters'.




So you were unhappy about the factual reporting of Brandis and Joyce, yet don't feel it warrants condemning when someone in the media seemingly goes out of their way to make false statements about the Government?

The current Govt has already gone back on (at least) 2 pre election promises, but once again not important eh.



drsmith said:


> It's fortunate it's so easy to copy and paste.
> 
> Otherwise you will find Labor's generation in opposition very painful indeed.




Your point?  Do you want media personalities to get away with making factually incorrect statements purely for political purposes?



Calliope said:


> It's Syd's stated aim to ensure that the Abbott government and especially Malcolm Turnbull fulfill their promises, and that will require a lot of burning the midnight oil. It's a pity he wasn't so diligent during the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd era. However I am sure he looks up to Bill Shorten who never breaks promises or betrays those who trust him.




You do well enough crticising the ALP that there's really not much left for me to highlight Calliope.  Keep up the good fight


----------



## sptrawler (3 October 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> So you were unhappy about the factual reporting of Brandis and Joyce, yet don't feel it warrants condemning when someone in the media seemingly goes out of their way to make false statements about the Government?




How you arrived at that, from my post, is beyond me.


----------



## sydboy007 (3 October 2013)

sptrawler said:


> How you arrived at that, from my post, is beyond me.




Because my post was about Hadley making false statements about the previous Labor Govt and the only thing you commented on was the previous Labor Govt.

So the only time you complained about the media reporting was when it was against the Coalition, even though it was factually correct.  Hadley went out of his way to lie, and you don't seem to think it was wrong, possibly because it was about Labor?

3 responses to my posting, not one saying if they agree or disagree with what Hadley did.

Seems media bias is only bias if it's about the Coalition, otherwise say what you want.


----------



## sptrawler (3 October 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Because my post was about Hadley making false statements about the previous Labor Govt and the only thing you commented on was the previous Labor Govt.
> 
> So the only time you complained about the media reporting was when it was against the Coalition, even though it was factually correct.  Hadley went out of his way to lie, and you don't seem to think it was wrong, possibly because it was about Labor?
> 
> ...




I don't agree with dishonesty, corruption or poor behaviour by any politician. However, as politicians come under such close scrutiny, I seldom comment on what is reported untill the matter has run its course.

If there is a misdemenour or an illegal act, it comes out eventually as per Craig Thomson.
When the story first hits the media, it is sensationalised and is seldom based on fact.IMO

Having said that, I must admit I have been very busy and haven't been keeping up with current affairs recently.

I just read up on the Hadley article.
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...ments-breached-radio-code-20131002-2us19.html

Just another big mouth, shoot from the hip radio 'jock' by the sounds of it. 
No different to Allan Jones and Howard Sattler, they all seem to get an over inflated opinion of their own importance. I can't be bothered listening to them, the days of accurate informative news are long gone. 
Also it has nothing to do with which party is coping the brunt of it, radio and t.v presenters in Australia are appalling.IMO
It doesn't matter whether they are commenting on politics, sport or most other things, they still think their opinion is what matters, it's a disgrace.


----------



## drsmith (3 October 2013)

Labor still can't effectively run themselves.



> The Australian Labor Party has extended the deadline for rank and file members to vote on its federal leadership.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-03/labor-extends-deadline-for-rank-and-file-ballot/4997324


----------



## dutchie (17 October 2013)

The Australian Labor Party has been the biggest joke for over six years now.

But they are not finished yet!

They keep giving more and more laughs every day.

Electing Shorten as their leader,  Lol Lol Lol

Go Roxon - tell it as it is (by the way where is that Gillard file again?)

Kevin, come on, you have more to give, especially your wisdom, guidance and people skills.


Thanks ALP, I have not needed to go and pay to see a comedy act for ages.


----------



## drsmith (17 October 2013)

dutchie said:


> Kevin, come on, you have more to give, especially your wisdom, guidance and people skills.



Seniors within the party are still jumping to his defense,



> But senior frontbencher Chris Bowen, who served as treasurer under Mr Rudd, says all former leaders are "deserving of respect".




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-...-issue-with-roxon-attack-on-former-pm/5028256


----------



## noco (17 October 2013)

Why does the Labor Party persist in telling lies about the CARBON DIOXIDE TAX and the  ETS. The trading schemes operating in other countries are never elaborated on by Labor and when you read into what is going on around the world Australia is the most disadvantged.

The Asian Pacific region are delighted to learn that Abbott is about to repeal the Carbon tax.

I will post this link on the ABC IS pOLITCAL also.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-climate-fiction/story-e6frg76f-1226741257158


----------



## Julia (17 October 2013)

Noco, perhaps if you're referring to items in The Australian, you could copy and paste the article.
It's no longer possible to get around their paywall.


----------



## drsmith (17 October 2013)

Julia said:


> Noco, perhaps if you're referring to items in The Australian, you could copy and paste the article.
> It's no longer possible to get around their paywall.



it's more difficult now but the pay wall can be partially bypassed by deleting cookies (Internet Explorer). This effectively resets the accessible article count back to 5. This though doesn't provide access to some editorial articles such as the one above. 

Third party News sites such as Andrew Bolt's blog often posts part of the contents of the editorials from The Australian.


----------



## Logique (18 October 2013)

Released today by new Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, possibly the worst Opposition front bench in the history of the Australian Parliament. 

Why isn't Anthony Albanese the Deputy PM.

It's a national embarrassment.


----------



## IFocus (19 October 2013)

Logique said:


> Released today by new Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, possibly the worst Opposition front bench in the history of the Australian Parliament.
> 
> Why isn't Anthony Albanese the Deputy PM.
> 
> It's a national embarrassment.





I thought the front bench looked OK except for Conroy. 

All of the members can at least perform in public without being muzzled as is the case with the Abbott government and here in WA with the Barnet government.

The inner cabinet will be very strong.

Over all they all deserve to be there based on merit.

In contrast  I thing Abbott will have problems down the road with the Coalition front bench as a large number are not the party's shining lights or have been selected on merit Kelly O'Dwyers omission a case in point.

Oddly enough its the factions and infighting in the Liberal party thats caused that situation where as Labor have managed that aspect far better.......except for Conroy.


----------



## noco (19 October 2013)

IFocus said:


> I thought the front bench looked OK except for Conroy.
> 
> All of the members can at least perform in public without being muzzled as is the case with the Abbott government and here in WA with the Barnet government.
> 
> ...




The Labor faithfuls are like your icon....they are given their lines daily and repeat them like parrots.

What Liberal Party in-fighting are you referring to .....do you have a link or is it just supposition on your part.


----------



## MrBurns (29 October 2013)

Oh dear how kind of Labor people to assist the Libs next campaign strategy.



> ALP boss slams 'gothic horror' Labor government
> 
> ALP boss George Wright has likened the former government to a gothic horror story, and called on Labor MPs to address the culture of infighting in caucus and "get on with it".
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-29/alp-boss-delivers-scathing-post-election-analysis/5052720


----------



## Knobby22 (29 October 2013)

Colourful turn of phrase, "gothic horror". 
It rings true.


----------



## drsmith (29 October 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Oh dear how kind of Labor people to assist the Libs next campaign strategy.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-29/alp-boss-delivers-scathing-post-election-analysis/5052720



On the gothic theme, is that the smell of the charred corpse of a former Labor PM being burned at the stake by the party for a second time ?



> LABOR'S 11th-hour leadership switch to Kevin Rudd saved the party up to 25 seats, leaving it in a competitive position to fight the next election, says ALP national secretary George Wright.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ef-george-wright/story-fn59niix-1226749045565


----------



## noco (31 October 2013)

drsmith said:


> On the gothic theme, is that the smell of the charred corpse of a former Labor PM being burned at the stake by the party for a second time ?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ef-george-wright/story-fn59niix-1226749045565




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ruth-about-labor/story-fnahw9xv-1226749992468

Tha Labor Party are obviuosly a rabble of political misfits.


Niki Savva 
Voters deserve to know truth about Labor by: Niki Savva |From: The Australian |October 31, 2013 12:00AM 0
THERE have been several substantial critiques from significant participants in the previous Labor government detailing how, what, where, when and why they thought it all went wrong. 
We should welcome them all.

Nicola Roxon says it fell apart because Kevin Rudd was a bastard. Bob Carr reckons it was because everyone except him was politically dumb.

The party's national secretary, George Wright, skipped across the minefields of disunity and policy failings to land on the positive: namely, that it could have been worse because, under Julia Gillard, Labor was destined to win only 30 seats in the House of Representatives whereas under Rudd it won 55.

Next week, the relentlessly cheery Bruce Hawker will release his version with the publication of The Rudd Rebellion: The Campaign to Save Labor. The first part of the title alludes to the Rum Rebellion and removal of the volatile governor William Bligh in 1808. The second part fits with Wright's narrative, which has it that under Rudd, flaws and all, Labor lives to fight another day.

Those intimately involved should be encouraged to talk about what happened, notwithstanding the Newspoll showing a dip in Labor's support post-election. That was always bound to happen.

It's a good thing to discuss openly what should be done to repair the damage. Partly, it's therapeutic. Venting and sharing always make you feel better, at least for a time, and sometimes longer, if you are smart enough to show you have learned from your mistakes. Mainly it's good because the Labor Party, as well as the rest of us, deserve to know what happened and why. Who better to tell us about it than those responsible, even if some of the observations are self-serving, self-justifying or even self-pitying.

According to some people, Roxon also could be a bit of a B - no, not Bambi - to deal with. She was a tough cookie who dished it out brutally to those she thought were crossing her, even reportedly calling one professional a "f . . king medical researcher" to his face and dressing down a patient-support group for remonstrating from the gallery when she got an answer wrong in parliament. They had expected Roxon to apologise for her slip-up. Silly them.

Nevertheless, her advice to keep yourself nice, even if she didn't always follow it herself, was right, as was her emphasis on the need to observe proper cabinet processes, keep focused on the big ideas and avoid getting captivated by minutiae.

Present administration take note. All the stuff about how mean Kevin was to everyone and how hard he made them work, we knew already.

Demonstrating his political canniness, Carr threw red meat to the crocodiles as he announced a resignation he had sworn repeatedly would not happen. Rather than simply allow journalists to chew on him for lying to them and the voters, he offered his views of where everybody else went wrong.

Carr was so moved by a cabinet agenda listing coal-seam gas for discussion that he failed to attend, even though as senior senator in the states' house he could have proffered a NSW perspective on a difficult issue. His no-show at that meeting in early March meant he missed the disastrous surprise package on media reform, which he claimed convinced him it was time to switch from Gillard to Rudd, something else that he swore hadn't happened.

Carr's advice to those he left behind, on the vexed question of carbon pricing, was to wait for the climate to change. Seriously. In a voice as mellifluous as Nellie Melba's, with matching penchant for farewells, he counselled "drift" because, if drought struck again, Australians could again warm to Labor's option.

Alternatively, Wright argues that it would dishonour the blood already shed if Labor abandoned carbon pricing.

On that basis, you would continue the war in Afghanistan when really the time to bring the troops home has long passed.

Wright argued Labor was on the right side of history, the right side of science and the right side of economic arguments. What he neglected to say was that Labor was on the right side of the political argument.

Just a thought, but who would believe Bill Shorten if he went to the next election promising there would be no carbon tax under a government he led, after having voted against the repeal? Or if, having voted for the repeal, he went to the election promising to introduce a new version of it, who would vote for him?

Wright nominated the removal of a first-term prime minister as the root cause of Labor's problems. On that, he and Hawker agree. Hawker rejects the description of himself as a Ruddophile, saying he simply believed Rudd was "easily" the best leader Labor had in 2007 and this year.

"His removal was the most ill-advised and damaging event in the party's history since the (1955) split," Hawker tells me.

"Rudd is, like all of us, a flawed person and those flaws, as I point out in the book, were part of the reason for the move against him. However, those flaws did not justify the action to remove him."

Hawker also cautions against getting too hung up on the Bligh parallels, saying it is an "imperfect historical allusion". "It's really a story of a tempestuous period and the ramifications," he says.

In his inimitable way, Tony Abbott gave his own critique of Labor's time in government, describing it to The Washington Post as wacko, incompetent and untrustworthy. Suggestions that this would inhibit his relations with US President Barack Obama were also a bit wacko. The Prime Minister was critical of Australian politicians - not Australia, and not America or Americans - unlike former treasurer Wayne Swan, who used far-right Republicans to tar Abbott.

Last March, only a few months before her dumping by Labor, Gillard also did an interview with The Washington Post. She answered questions about the instability besetting her government and along the way offered this view of one of her mentors: "One of our most celebrated Labor prime ministers, Bob Hawke - a well-known and self-confessed man with a hard-drinking, hard-living, womanising reputation - that was just accepted as Bob."

Like Abbott, she was not telling the Americans anything they didn't know, or that wasn't true. Hopefully, she will be even more forthcoming in her book.



FlagShare1LikeReply
james 5ptsFeatured
1 hour agoHi Niki, Brilliant article. Love that bit on Carr. Pity is not everybody in ALP is smart like him deserting the sinking ship like a cunning rat.

FlagShare3LikeReply
Pat. 5ptsFeatured
1 hour agoNothing changes. rather than jobs for the boys, that's been renamed, jobs for the girls in the labor party. The only reason being that Shorten can skite he has yet another female senator. Just love the statement that O'Neill fended off 2 opponents for the position vacated by Bob Carr. What rot. That position had O'Neill's name on it even before Carr retired - again. It could only happen in politics. A person is sacked, then reinstated almost immediately, having been voted out democratically. The constant boast by labor lovers that Rudd saved them seats is so much BS. Many seats supposedly saved, were due to preferences, NOT Rudd. Rudd was fortunate (depending on your view) to be re-elected. Would not have been without preferences. Same goes for Swan and several others. As for Roxon's speech, it was on a par with Gillard's misogyny speech - disgraceful. If those speeches are what's to be expected from the much exalted female content of the Labor government,  that makes me appreciate the lack of them in Abbott's government. Don't think many female voters are imopressed by cattiness. It's childish and unparliamentary.

FlagShare3LikeReply
Lawrence 5ptsFeatured
1 hour agoSo long as Labor excuses itself and blames it's failures on poor communication or the foibles of their leaders it will continue to drift into oblivion. Labor only represents union and political operatives plus academic misfits who consider themselves superior and as such doomed to remain irrelevant. When Labor admit they need to draw their representatives from a broader section of society and accept that most Australians are quite capable of looking after themselves they may have a future. 

Not your best effort, Nikki.


FlagShare1LikeReply
Peter 5ptsFeatured
1 hour agoCan't tell whether your comments are sarcastic or not Niki. Introspection and personal analysis rarely provide any insights. The observer and the analyst being the same leads to self justification rather than critical, constructive, resolution. The reality is that Labour has lost touch with it's roots, managed by an elite and served by union power brokers, there is little improvement likely in the near future. 

FlagShare2LikeReply
Les 5ptsFeatured
1 hour agoUnfortunetly Niki, this article has no bearing on the real truth about labours (sic) real demise only the realisation some journos, like yourself and labour, (sic) and as Jack Nickelson also so aptly put it,

"" CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH !!!! ""

FlagShareLikeReply
fred 5ptsFeatured
2 hours agolove the feathers flying among labor {cat among the pigeons)  blame any one except the culprit,s  what a sookey lot they are already  very deflated after  a very short term in opposition powerbill coming across as wimpy and sneaky  i so look forward to question time  i feel abbott will graciously chew him up and spit him out??

There are a lot more comments on the link.


----------



## drsmith (4 November 2013)

Some more aftershocks for Labor,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-...ing-on-labor-leader-bruce-hawker-says/5066798


----------



## noco (4 November 2013)

drsmith said:


> Some more aftershocks for Labor,
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-...ing-on-labor-leader-bruce-hawker-says/5066798





And the Australian has added more for Labor's problem in the next year.

Can't wait to see what is Carr's diary.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-of-planet-kevin/story-fnbcok0h-1226752332305


----------



## noco (22 November 2013)

Bill Shorten and his Shadow Ministers appear to be at odds with each other on how to handle the Indonesian spy claim.
Bill is trying to express bi-partisan support with the Government on one hand and then critizising Abbott on the other hand for not apologising like Obama did to Angela Merkel.
Bill Shorten should perhaps do his own apologising on behalf of the Labor Party who were in power in 2009 when the spying was alledged to have taken place instead of expecting  Abbott to carry the $**t can for him.
I think Shorten is in a catch 22 situation at the moment.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ssages-on-crisis/story-fn59nm2j-1226765661199


----------



## bellenuit (22 November 2013)

noco said:


> Bill Shorten and his Shadow Ministers appear to be at odds with each other on how to handle the Indonesian spy claim.
> Bill is trying to express bi-partisan support with the Government on one hand and then critizising Abbott on the other hand for not apologising like Obama did to Angela Merkel.
> Bill Shorten should perhaps do his own apologising on behalf of the Labor Party who were in power in 2009 when the spying was alledged to have taken place instead of expecting  Abbott to carry the $**t can for him.
> I think Shorten is in a catch 22 situation at the moment.
> ...




From what I have read over the last few days, Obama did not apologise to Merkel, at least publicly. I believe he only stated that the US are not currently tapping her phone and will not do so in the future.

Gillard saying that Abbott should apologise (as did Carr) is tacit admission that the allegations are true, something that apparently by convention no PM (or ex PM) is supposed to concede. The standard line is no comment on the allegations but some unrelated statement acknowledging the embarrassment caused, which is what Abbott has done.

I agree with you. If any apology is to be made, it should be by Rudd and the apology should be to Abbott for the diplomatic mess they have dumped on his government, as the alleged activities which they are tacitly admitting to happened under his watch.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 November 2013)

The ALP need to pull Brendan O'Connor's head in.

This member of the factional left, is not only abandoning bi-partisanship on the SBY affair between parties, but establishing a beach-head to pull his party further left towards the Green stance on foreign affairs.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/brendan-oconnor-attack-undermines-labor-stance-on-indonesia-spying-affair-20131126-2y6wz.html



> Labor MP Brendan O'Connor has undermined the opposition's claim that it is taking a “team Australia” bipartisan approach to the Indonesian spying crisis with the sharpest criticisms yet of the government's handling of the affair.
> 
> On Tuesday, Mr O'Connor contradicted Opposition Leader Bill Shorten's promise that Labor would resist playing politics and support Prime Minister Tony Abbott in his handling of the fallout of a spying scandal that happened under the watch of former prime minister Kevin Rudd in 2009.
> 
> ...




gg


----------



## drsmith (27 November 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The ALP need to pull Brendan O'Connor's head in.
> 
> This member of the factional left, is not only abandoning bi-partisanship on the SBY affair between parties, but establishing a beach-head to pull his party further left towards the Green stance on foreign affairs.
> 
> ...



It's just politics GG. The leader pretends to hold hands while he sends out the snipers to do the dirty work. 

Meanwhile, the government gets on with governing and is not too worried about the noise outside.


----------



## noco (29 November 2013)

What a low down hypocrite Shorten is......He criticized the Abbott Government for their going to the election to cut 12,000 public servants when in fact he was going to cut 14,500 himself. 


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...o-axe-14500-jobs/story-fn59nsif-1226762895135


----------



## noco (29 November 2013)

Looks like our Bill lets his b**** control his brains and Rudd knew about some time ago.

The thing I cannot understand is why the girl has taken so long to lay a complaint.  

Now let's see how the ABC handle this one...if it had been Abbott they and the AGE would have been all over it in a flash.   The silence from the ABC will be deafening.

And the Labor Party will quickly come to the defencw of  Shorten " INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY".


http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com...l-in-1986-victorian-police-are-investigating/


----------



## noco (19 February 2014)

Alcoa was propped up by Gillard to the tune of $40,000,000 in 2012 and they are still going to close their smelter.
Half of that prop up was used to pay higher wages....Now the well is dry, they are going to pull up stumps.

Under the life of that EBA, the entry-level wage for a continuous seven-day shift worker was hiked from $82,106 annually to $91,571 by 2015. The wage for an experienced continuous seven-day shift worker went from $119,334 annually to $133,092 in 2015. 

By sheer coincidence, $40 million is what Alcoa had said the year before was what the carbon tax would cost its Victorian plants: 





Vhttp://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_labor_blew_40_million_on_its_favorite_union/


----------



## sptrawler (4 March 2014)

Funny how Martin Ferguson, now he has left parliament, says wages and conditions are out of control.lol

Funny how when he was in the ACTU and the ALP, wages had to go up and up, no matter what damage it did to business.

It really is a shame he is being ostracized by his party, for telling the truth.

If he had any @alls he would have stayed the distance, he bailed out the same as Peter Costello.

They both had the brains and Australia at heart, but they both took the easy road.


----------



## noco (5 March 2014)

I cannot believe the Labor Party and their rag time unions will let Quantas go in a similiar fashion to Ansett.

Do they really have the workers and the National interest at heart of are they just playing politics.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-downward-spiral/story-e6frg7bo-1226845177579


----------



## McLovin (5 March 2014)

noco said:


> I cannot believe the Labor Party and their rag time unions will let Quantas go in a similiar fashion to Ansett.
> 
> Do they really have the workers and the National interest at heart of are they just playing politics.
> 
> ...




What a fun read that was! Give management a free pass, it's all the unions fault. Interesting re-telling of the Ansett collapse too. I dare say if Virgin had bought it, Virgin would have sunk too. I think anytime you watch anything produced by Fox, you can thank Ansett.


----------



## Calliope (5 March 2014)

McLovin said:


> What a fun read that was! Give management a free pass, it's all the unions fault. Interesting re-telling of the Ansett collapse too. I dare say if Virgin had bought it, Virgin would have sunk too. I think anytime you watch anything produced by Fox, you can thank Ansett.




Another fun read for you McLovin...this time about thuggery in the Building Construction industry.



> December GDP figures released on Wednesday showed new building construction had fallen 2.3 per cent for the quarter.
> 
> "The best I think we can do for building sites around the nation is ensure that some of the thuggery that has been part and parcel of disputes, whether in the middle of Melbourne or anywhere else, is removed from the industrial scene," Mr Hockey said in Canberra.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...on-growth-hockey/story-fn3dxiwe-1226845975623


----------



## McLovin (5 March 2014)

Calliope said:


> Another fun read for you McLovin...this time about thuggery in the Building Construction industry.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...on-growth-hockey/story-fn3dxiwe-1226845975623




Thanks, I'm not sure what it has to do with Qantas or Ansett though.


----------



## noco (6 March 2014)

Another Labor Party debacle.......Another unionized industry subsidized by the tax payers......Incompetence at the highest level in ordering inferior Chinese piping.........we make piping in Australia.....why did Labor send jobs off shore.....Labor just do not know how to manage our money and further more they are so hypocritical.....They have been harping on in Parliament all this week about Qantas jobs going off shore....OMG 

Is it any wonder we now have such high debt and deficit.



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/n...-1226847274212


----------



## rumpole (6 March 2014)

noco said:


> Another Labor Party debacle.......Another unionized industry subsidized by the tax payers......Incompetence at the highest level in ordering inferior Chinese piping.........we make piping in Australia.....why did Labor send jobs off shore.....Labor just do not know how to manage our money and further more they are so hypocritical.....They have been harping on in Parliament all this week about Qantas jobs going off shore....OMG
> 
> Is it any wonder we now have such high debt and deficit.
> 
> ...


----------



## sptrawler (6 March 2014)

rumpole said:


>




Actually I tend to think you and noco, have a lot in common, just different ends of the spectrum.
You both seem passionate about your beliefs, which is great.

Anyway getting back on track, listening to Shorten, he is giving the Government a lot of ammunition.

"We will pump money into Qantas".
"We will pump money into Holden".
"We will pump money into Toyota".
"We will pump money into Coca Cola".
To save jobs.lol
We will use tax payers money to support these companies.

Then we will tax them heavily, they will pass this tax increase on, as price increases.lol
Then workers go for pay rises, due to price rises.
As if that's going to work long term.

The Labor Party really has to reinvent itself, the general public is much more informed these days.
They are trying to convince todays public, with yesterdays hyperbole, no one believes it.IMO
The goon show continues.


----------



## rumpole (6 March 2014)

> We will use tax payers money to support these companies.




I wouldn't mind that, but if they are going to do it, then get a share of the company like any other investor.

Get the company to issue Preference shares and the government injects capital for a return, don't just GIVE any company money.


----------



## sptrawler (6 March 2014)

rumpole said:


> I wouldn't mind that, but if they are going to do it, then get a share of the company like any other investor.
> 
> Get the company to issue Preference shares and the government injects capital for a return, don't just GIVE any company money.




Agree completely, but I don't think the handouts have had that rider on them, to this point. We are talking $30billion to the car industry, in recent years.

Christ, we could have bought one of the companies out, and given all Australians a 'free' car


----------



## rumpole (7 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Agree completely, but I don't think the handouts have had that rider on them, to this point. We are talking $30billion to the car industry, in recent years.
> 
> Christ, we could have bought one of the companies out, and given all Australians a 'free' car




I'm not a member of the ALP so I don't have to justify everything  they do.

 I think the ALP was dumb to give handouts to the car companies without security, but I also think it's dumb for the LNP to let these industries disappear over short term adversities like the exchange rate.


----------



## sptrawler (7 March 2014)

rumpole said:


> I'm not a member of the ALP so I don't have to justify everything  they do.
> 
> I think the ALP was dumb to give handouts to the car companies without security, but I also think it's dumb for the LNP to let these industries disappear over short term adversities like the exchange rate.




It's not the exchange rate, it's that nobody is buying their product.

Holden and Ford have never been serious about developing a viable car industry in Australia.

It took the Labor Party and John Button to bring them kicking and screaming into the 20th century. Prior to the Button plan, they were protected by a 57% import tarrif and produced a crap product.

Since then, they haven't tried to improve economies of scale and develop a viable export market. They prefered to open factories in Asia and run the Australian factories on taxpayer funded profits.

I'm suprised that you think we should tax workers, to pay the wages of other workers.
Don't you think workers have enough to pay for?


----------



## rumpole (7 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> It's not the exchange rate, it's that nobody is buying their product.
> 
> Holden and Ford have never been serious about developing a viable car industry in Australia.
> 
> ...




All that is true. US car makers are the automotive equivalent of bogans. Having a locally owned industry that is responsive to the needs of local buyers would improve the product and sales. 



> I'm suprised that you think we should tax workers, to pay the wages of other workers.
> Don't you think workers have enough to pay for?




A shortsighted approach. What about all the private companies supplying parts to the car industry ? Those will now go elsewhere and we will lose the tax revenue from them and increase the social security bill by paying their ex workers unemployment benefits.

As well as all that, we need manufacturing capability in the national interest so we don't have to rely on other countries to supply our goods. We are at the **** end of the world here, don't have a large market, and to car and other manufacturers, our needs lag far behind those of larger marketsso we always get the dregs and pay higher prices than those in US or Europe.


----------



## sptrawler (7 March 2014)

rumpole said:


> A shortsighted approach. What about all the private companies supplying parts to the car industry ? Those will now go elsewhere and we will lose the tax revenue from them and increase the social security bill by paying their ex workers unemployment benefits..



Are you trying to say that the workers will end up on the dole for the rest of their lives?
Also that jobs growth in Australia, will remain at current levels ad infinitum?

IMO, there is a greater chance of having higher unemployment, in the long term, by having these companies running and sucking funds from the economy.
While these companies are being subsidised by the tax system, it means viable companies have to pay nore tax. This in turn reduces their capacity to grow the business. 





rumpole said:


> As well as all that, we need manufacturing capability in the national interest so we don't have to rely on other countries to supply our goods. We are at the **** end of the world here, don't have a large market, and to car and other manufacturers, our needs lag far behind those of larger marketsso we always get the dregs and pay higher prices than those in US or Europe.




As for having a manufacturing industry, we had one, it has been in decline for years.
The same as the U.K, our costs are high, which in turn makes our product expensive.
This necessitates, higher wages to afford higher prices, which in turn pushes up the price of product to cover the wages. 
Which means welfare payments have to rise, so the poor can afford the higher prices, which leads to higher taxing, which means wages and prices have to go up to cover the cost of the extra taxes.
To compound the problem we have a small market, therefore economies of scale aren't there, which drives up the unit cost.
Unless we remove a lot of our taxes and costs, we will become a 'banana republic', where we only survive by paying each other and taxing each other. 
A bit like Greece and Spain, it's just not going to work any more with a floating currency and a global economy.IMO


----------



## rumpole (7 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Are you trying to say that the workers will end up on the dole for the rest of their lives?
> Also that jobs growth in Australia, will remain at current levels ad infinitum?
> 
> IMO, there is a greater chance of having higher unemployment, in the long term, by having these companies running and sucking funds from the economy.
> While these companies are being subsidised by the tax system, it means viable companies have to pay nore tax. This in turn reduces their capacity to grow the business.




I don't think there is any doubt that a lot of older workers will find it difficult to get another job. This is an admitted problem in our economy.

"These companies being subsidised"

That assumes that none of these companies will ever turn a profit. Properly managed and supported by local consumer and government customers they can make a profit and are therefore no longer subsidised.



> As for having a manufacturing industry, we had one, it has been in decline for years.




Due to tariff reductions aimed at making us competitive with the Third World. It was never going to happen,but dumbell politicians on both sides cling to the free market fantasy.


When workers in the Third World can afford the products they produce, I'll start to believe that progress is being made in the great global community, but not before.


----------



## sptrawler (7 March 2014)

rumpole said:


> I don't think there is any doubt that a lot of older workers will find it difficult to get another job. This is an admitted problem in our economy.
> 
> "These companies being subsidised"
> 
> ...




Times are changing, that doesn't mean it's for the better, but change will happen regardless.


----------



## rumpole (7 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Times are changing, that doesn't mean it's for the better, but change will happen regardless.




I would say that we pay politicians to make sure change* is* for the better.


----------



## Calliope (7 March 2014)

rumpole said:


> We are at the **** end of the world here, don't have a large market, and to car and other manufacturers, our needs lag far behind those of larger marketsso we always get the dregs and pay higher prices than those in US or Europe.




Could you name some of these dregs you are paying a high price for? All the electronic and electrical gear in my house and my car are imported.They are all of high quality and were reasonably priced...especially when the dollar was higher.


----------



## rumpole (7 March 2014)

Calliope said:


> Could you name some of these dregs you are paying a high price for? All the electronic and electrical gear in my house and my car are imported.They are all of high quality and were reasonably priced...especially when the dollar was higher.




One example

Subaru WRX STi 2014

UK 29,000 * 1.84 = 53,360 AUD

AUS price              66,308 AUD

That's about 20% higher in Aus

Plus, you must have heard the hoohaa some time ago regarding software and DVD/CD pricing in Aus compared to the US ?


----------



## trainspotter (7 March 2014)

Meanwhile back at the coal face the Labor Party power mongers will be wringing their hands and furrowing their brows over this one:-

*Tasmania headed for Liberal govt: poll*



> A FIRST Tasmanian Liberal government in 16 years is looking more likely with a new poll suggesting the party will record a thumping election victory next week.
> A ReachTEL survey shows the opposition still well ahead of Labor and Liberal leader Will Hodgman almost twice as popular as Premier Lara Giddings.
> Support for the Liberal remained steady at 47 per cent, while the ALP dropped a point to 23.6.
> Mr Hodgman is the preferred premier with 54.6 per cent support from the 2600 Tasmanians polled.
> ...




http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...-win-in-tasmania/story-e6frfku9-1226848077553


----------



## wayneL (7 March 2014)

rumpole said:


> One example
> 
> Subaru WRX STi 2014
> 
> ...




Just the premium you pay for living in the best country in the world (cough).


----------



## noco (7 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Are you trying to say that the workers will end up on the dole for the rest of their lives?
> Also that jobs growth in Australia, will remain at current levels ad infinitum?
> 
> IMO, there is a greater chance of having higher unemployment, in the long term, by having these companies running and sucking funds from the economy.
> ...




A "BANANA REPUBLIC" is just what the remnants of the communist world strives for...to ruin the economy of a country is just as you described it above. Higher wages.....higher taxes.....higher costs = high unemployment.... a certain recipe for disaster....make the people become discontent  by preaching the rich get richer and the poor get poorer......push to become a republic and then a dictatorship and that is when the rich are no longer rich and the poor become poorer.

Now I shall eagerly await the comments from the socialist left wings and the b*m>


----------



## noco (7 March 2014)

Her is some more for the Labor Party to chew on....who would want to swap shoes with Joe Hockey.

The financial mess left by the Labor Party will take a generation to fix.

It is unbelievable to learn how the Labor Party were prepared to borrow billions of dollars to give to other countries in the form of Foreign aid.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...n-plans-treasury/story-fn59nsif-1226847526798


----------



## sptrawler (11 March 2014)

Well today, I have tried to find something to post for the Labor Party.
I thought it was appropriate, so they don't fall to page two. 
Alas it was all for naught.


----------



## rumpole (12 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Well today, I have tried to find something to post for the Labor Party.
> I thought it was appropriate, so they don't fall to page two.
> Alas it was all for naught.




The Libs were virtually invisible during the Rudd/Gillard years untill around election time. I expect Labor have got their heads down figuring out what went wrong and planning their tactics for the next election.


----------



## sptrawler (12 March 2014)

rumpole said:


> The Libs were virtually invisible during the Rudd/Gillard years untill around election time. I expect Labor have got their heads down figuring out what went wrong and planning their tactics for the next election.




Quite possible, it will be interesting to see how Labor, refocus and regain some of the middle ground.

I saw a bit of Christine Milne on the news, she appeared a bit like a ship without a rudder also.

My quess is they are going to have to wait untill Abbott makes a stuff up, or public sentiment turns against him. The elections in Tasmania and W.A, may give some indication.


----------



## boofhead (12 March 2014)

I don't think the Tasmanian election will be much of an indicator. 16 years of Labor which is along time for a party to be in power. The Greens have left a bit of a bad smell. Lots of localised issues.


----------



## trainspotter (12 March 2014)

Labor is done for in Tasmania due to the length of tenure. Change is as good as a holiday they say. The litmus test will be in W.A. ... Abbott has broken off a bit more GST revenue and thrown it our way and belting out that they are going to scrap the mining tax works wonders on the voting proletariat.


----------



## rumpole (12 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Quite possible, it will be interesting to see how Labor, refocus and regain some of the middle ground.
> 
> I saw a bit of Christine Milne on the news, she appeared a bit like a ship without a rudder also.
> 
> My quess is they are going to have to wait untill Abbott makes a stuff up, or public sentiment turns against him. The elections in Tasmania and W.A, may give some indication.




Abbott has them over a barrell with the Carbon tax, they either have to stick with their principles and support an unpopular tax or back down and look silly. They will need some fancy footwork to come out of this issue looking good.


----------



## sptrawler (12 March 2014)

rumpole said:


> Abbott has them over a barrell with the Carbon tax, they either have to stick with their principles and support an unpopular tax or back down and look silly. They will need some fancy footwork to come out of this issue looking good.




As you said earlier, maybe a change of leadership.
That could could go hand in hand with a change of direction, they are currently lucky the greens are on the nose, or they would be in real trouble.
Hopefully it is sorted by election time, it is important that we have a robust and effective opposition, wether you agree with them or not.


----------



## dutchie (12 March 2014)

Another well run Federal Labor program.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-housing-scheme/story-fn59niix-1226851501036#


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 March 2014)

Given that your average ALP voter is now a public servant poking about on entitlement, earning $70,000 - $400,000 a year and driving a Camry or Prius, my guess would be that the Greens will steal a large number of votes from the ALP at the next election.

gg


----------



## Calliope (12 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Quite possible, it will be interesting to see how Labor, refocus and regain some of the middle ground.
> 
> I saw a bit of Christine Milne on the news, she appeared a bit like a ship without a rudder also.
> 
> My quess is they are going to have to wait untill Abbott makes a stuff up, or public sentiment turns against him. The elections in Tasmania and W.A, may give some indication.




Christine Milne should be over the moon. The destruction of Australian industries as espoused by the Greens, i.e. the Tasmaniasation of Australia is on target.

Peter Costello says;



> THERE’S one group of people who should be cheering the closure of Ford, Toyota, and Alcoa’s Port Henry aluminium smelter.
> 
> Heavy industries like those use a lot of electricity. That electricity comes from burning coal, mostly brown coal, which throws off enormous amounts of carbon dioxide — the stuff the previous government used to call “carbon pollution”.
> 
> ...




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/we-cant-afford-greens-success/story-fni0ffsx-1226850776187


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 March 2014)

If every Liberal stopped campaigning today, Tasmania would still overwhelmingly reject the Greens and ALP.

It is a done deal. The ALP and the Greens have comprehensively stuffed Tasmania.

Roll on an enlightened adult government in Tasmania.

gg


----------



## sptrawler (12 March 2014)

Poor ole Bill Shorten, is calling for the release of the commission of audit.

I fail to see how it can reflect well on Labor.

The coalition has only been in office for six months, it hasn't brought down a budget.

It reminds me of the 'Black Night' skit in the Monty Python movie.

Mortally wounded, failing to acknowledge it, yet demanding they bring on the mortal blow.

Weird.IMO

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-11/shorten-calls-for-the-budget-bad-news-to-be/5314072?section=wa


----------



## rumpole (12 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Poor ole Bill Shorten, is calling for the release of the commission of audit.
> 
> I fail to see how it can reflect well on Labor.
> 
> ...




The C.O.A. contains recommendations for the cuts the Liberals want to make. The Libs obviously want to hide it until after the State elections. If it's such a bad document for Labor, the Libs would have it all over the media.


----------



## sptrawler (12 March 2014)

rumpole said:


> The C.O.A. contains recommendations for the cuts the Liberals want to make. The Libs obviously want to hide it until after the State elections. If it's such a bad document for Labor, the Libs would have it all over the media.




Not really, any bad news is a result of the fiscal situation left by the previous government.

However, most want to kill the messenger.

No point in giving out bad news, when the only one they can punish is you.

That's why Julia waited untill after the election before doing the double backflip with a triple twist, degree of difficulty 10.
Result, well that's history.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 March 2014)

Tasmania - I'd certainly agree that the Greens have "de-industrialised" the state to a substantial extent and have done so via a well thought out, calculated campaign over a prolonged period.

Eg stop hydro development = stop the growth of energy supply which then necessarily stops the development of industry generally. Then preventing the modernisation of the paper industry in the late 1980's guaranteed its' eventual demise some years later. And so on.

But on one point I call absolute bull **** in regard to Peter Costello's comments "Since hydro works off water, which has to be collected in dams (another Green no-no) there isn’t that much of it and it’s pretty expensive."

Sorry Peter, but I think you'll find that the expensive power isn't here. Despite the best efforts of the Greens, Liberals and others to screw things up, Tasmanian electricity is still the cheapest in the country especially for industry. 

2012-13 average spot price:

Tas = $48.30
NSW = $55.10
Vic = $57.44
Qld = $67.02
SA = $69.75

So an economics failure there from Peter Costello it would seem. 

Back to politics generally, I don't doubt for a minute that Labor-Green has screwed things up in Tas. But then Liberal-Green gave us 13% unemployment in the late 1990's, and Liberal majority government almost sent the state bankrupt in the 1980's so the Liberal track record is nothing to be proud of.

More pragmatically, the Liberal's stated financial policies are virtually identical to Labor's. So however bad / well Labor-Green has done, the Liberals are actually promising to do the same within about 1% with the only differences being what the money is spent on. By promising to spend around 107% of the state's income, both are effectively promising either increased debt, a running down of assets, or both.

None of the politicians we have down here are much good to be honest. It's either go broke, go broke or go broke and that's just based on their official promises. A key issue is that ending of the carbon tax will, in itself, further deteriorate Tasmania's financial position.

As for specific issues, the Tas election will (in my opinion at least) be decided largely over local issues with state finances and the economy generally as key points. Notable points of broader significance are Labor trying to gain some leverage from the NBN issue, and a state Liberal policy that depends on continuation of the Renewable Energy Target or alternatively a carbon tax.


----------



## sptrawler (12 March 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> Tasmania - I'd certainly agree that the Greens have "de-industrialised" the state to a substantial extent and have done so via a well thought out, calculated campaign over a prolonged period.
> 
> Eg stop hydro development = stop the growth of energy supply which then necessarily stops the development of industry generally. Then preventing the modernisation of the paper industry in the late 1980's guaranteed its' eventual demise some years later. And so on.
> 
> ...




Forgive me, but I thought Tasmania, was already broke.
Their contribution to the National purse, is far out weighed by their funding requirements?

Also Costello may have been refering to the cost of putting in additional dams, to expand existing hydro? 
Maybe he worded it incorrectly? I don't believe he doesn't know hydro, once installed, is cheap to run.
Blind Freddy knows that.lol It's pretty basic knowledge.
If Costello doesn't know it, he is getting paid too much.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Forgive me, but I thought Tasmania, was already broke.



I've read some serious analysis by those with a good understanding of it and in short:

The state is spending somewhere around 104 to 107% of its' current income. Based on announced policies, this is likely to continue under either a Labor, Liberal or Green government (or any combination thereof). That is, from a "big picture" perspective they all have essentially the same approach to finances.

This is despite the state receiving a disproportionate share of GST revenue on a per capita basis.

This is also despite current power industry dividends etc accounting for over 5% of Tas government revenue.

Now, it seems unlikely that Tasmania's GST revenue would increase anytime soon, indeed if anything were to change then it would more likely be a cut. It is also publicly announced, though not acknowledged by any of the political parties, that Hydro will be paying significantly lower dividends after 30 June 2014 for the foreseeable future.

So realistically, that 104 - 107% figure is likely to push toward 110% I'd expect. So Tas isn't broke, but it's very clearly heading in that direction in the absence of drastic change. And none of the major parties, Labor, Liberal or Green, is publicly proposing such a change.

This is what happens when the industry base is slowly but surely destroyed. You lose a lot of taxation revenue, and end up with a population disproportionately dependent on government services. End result = state goes broke. Politically, Liberal, Labor and Green have all contributed to the situation over the years.


----------



## sptrawler (14 March 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> I've read some serious analysis by those with a good understanding of it and in short:
> 
> The state is spending somewhere around 104 to 107% of its' current income. Based on announced policies, this is likely to continue under either a Labor, Liberal or Green government (or any combination thereof). That is, from a "big picture" perspective they all have essentially the same approach to finances.
> 
> ...




The only upside is, it's a lovely place to sit and watch the sunset, when it all implodes.

My wife and I rode a BMW R1100RS around Tassie in 1998, what a magic place.

We will probably tow the van around there next time, knee replacements preclude the bike, unfortunately.lol


----------



## sptrawler (18 March 2014)

I see today in the papers, they are saying Rudd appointed two public servants to cost the roll out of the home insulation debacle.

However he did give them a weekend to do it.

Maybe all us nay sayers, weren't wrong, when we said Labor Governnment was economic policy on the run.

As time goes by more will unfold.IMO


----------



## Bintang (18 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> However he did give them a weekend to do it.
> 
> .IMO




I wonder if they got paid penalty rates.


----------



## Julia (18 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> I see today in the papers, they are saying Rudd appointed two public servants to cost the roll out of the home insulation debacle.
> 
> However he did give them a weekend to do it.



Perhaps more importantly, they were also expected within that time to fully assess any risks involved.  The woman involved said she recommended a roll-out time twice that on which the government decided.


----------



## noco (18 March 2014)

Julia said:


> Perhaps more importantly, they were also expected within that time to fully assess any risks involved.  The woman involved said she recommended a roll-out time twice that on which the government decided.




Actually it was 2.5 times....5 years instead of 2 years.

It was more policy on the run.


----------



## Julia (18 March 2014)

Thank you for the correction, noco.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 March 2014)

So far the ALP have not put the knife in to the Greens.

The Liberals have unequivocally declared them last in every election.

Until the ALP grow a pair and go for the Greens they will be also rans on 29-33% of the Primary vote, beholden to the Greensa and other nutters for Government on preferences.

gg


----------



## sptrawler (18 March 2014)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> So far the ALP have not put the knife in to the Greens.
> 
> The Liberals have unequivocally declared them last in every election.
> 
> ...




The ALP won't grow a pair, they will sit as parasites on the side lines. 
IMO they actually don't care what is happening, as long as they get a seat and a tax payer funded pension.

Unless Bowen takes over, they are in deep poo, at least he appeared genuine.


----------



## drsmith (18 March 2014)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> So far the ALP have not put the knife in to the Greens.



That now would be like cutting off their left leg.

They can't successfully run for office without it.


----------



## noco (24 March 2014)

Paul Howes resigns as the AWU national secretary.......SURPRISE SURPRISE.

Another union hack ready to jump into politics...I would not be surprised, that we will hear very soon, one Labor senator will retire to make way for Paul Howes to jump in ahla Bob Carr.

At least Howes does have a bit more intelligence than Shorten and may just be the one to sort out a new direction for the Labor Party 


http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...rding-to-reports/story-fnkjjewe-1226862928580


----------



## rumpole (24 March 2014)

noco said:


> Paul Howes resigns as the AWU national secretary.......SURPRISE SURPRISE.
> 
> Another union hack ready to jump into politics...I would not be surprised, that we will hear very soon, one Labor senator will retire to make way for Paul Howes to jump in ahla Bob Carr.
> 
> ...




I heard he was looking to a job in the private sector so he could have some business cred when it comes time to run for politics.

He might even run for the Liberal party


----------



## noco (24 March 2014)

rumpole said:


> I heard he was looking to a job in the private sector so he could have some business cred when it comes time to run for politics.
> 
> He might even run for the Liberal party





Yes you are correct but the position he has gained in some large corporate organisation is just a charade and it will be short lived.......he will parachuted into the senate as soon as there is a vacancy....I still maintain someone will being retiring soon or will pushed out to make way for him.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 May 2014)

Good article in today's Age (and SMH) by Ross Gittens attacking the complete loss of moral compass of the Labor party with regard to the Coalition budget. 

One line I particularly liked (it made me smile):
(paraphrasing)
...Labor is not a big spending, big taxing party, in truth Labor is a big spending, low taxing party which can never understand why it has so much trouble balancing budgets.


----------



## noco (12 May 2014)

I think if I were Mr. Shorten I would be starting to press the panic button for it looks like he will be caught up in his own web.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/shortens_web_of_money/


----------



## sptrawler (17 May 2014)

I think the Gillard staff member, that instigated the riot against Abbott last year, has started the ball rolling with this outrageous student behaviour.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/23595780/students-assaulted-foreign-minister-pyne/

When high ranking government officials see it as reasonable behaviour, what hope do a lot of hot headed you people have.
Talk about lead by example.


----------



## noco (18 May 2014)

Here is the truth about Bill Shorten.....he has no interest in the welfare of the nation.....it is all about his selfish point scoring in an attempt to shame and discredit Abbott and Hockey.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...scally-dangerous/story-e6freon6-1226920233772


----------



## IFocus (18 May 2014)

noco said:


> Here is the truth about Bill Shorten.....he has no interest in the welfare of the nation.....it is all about his selfish point scoring in an attempt to shame and discredit Abbott and Hockey.
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...scally-dangerous/story-e6freon6-1226920233772





Wonder who taught him how to do that

I sort of get this feeling Noco of you sitting in this big empty room talking to yourself............


----------



## noco (18 May 2014)

IFocus said:


> Wonder who taught him how to do that
> 
> I sort of get this feeling Noco of you sitting in this big empty room talking to yourself............




So you don't like the link?????????....Did even read it?

The only response is for you to get personal again.

Well my friend I would sooner be in a room talking to myself than be a Galah like your icon in a small cage who can only say "Cocky wants a cracker" and repeat it over and over again like the parrots in the Labor Party or have their daily lines written for them. Abbott broke his promise....Abbott broke his promise......Abbott broke his promise....Abbott broke his promise.....cocky wants a cracker.


----------



## noco (19 May 2014)

It looks like Bull $hitin has his problems also.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...state-conference/story-fnihsrf2-1226922037591


----------



## SirRumpole (19 May 2014)

noco said:


> It looks like Bull $hitin has his problems also.
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...state-conference/story-fnihsrf2-1226922037591






> The biggest surprise is Mr Shorten’s lead as better prime minister by 44 to 34 per cent. This is the first time he has been ahead on that measure since he won the Labor leadership.
> 
> A fortnight ago Mr Abbott was ahead 40-38. Mr Abbott’s satisfaction rating fell five points to 30 per cent, the lowest level since January last year.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...f-pain-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1226922100493#


----------



## sptrawler (19 May 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...f-pain-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1226922100493#




Wow he is unpopular, after that budget JC would be unpopular.


----------



## noco (19 May 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...f-pain-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1226922100493#




Rumpy, enjoy Shortens  popularity while it lasts......my guess is, it will be short lived.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 May 2014)

noco said:


> Rumpy, enjoy Shortens  popularity while it lasts......my guess is, it will be short lived.




Do you think Abbott will last out this term ?

I reckon it's almost certain he'll be dumped for Turnbull. Hockey carries too much baggage as well. Trouble is they don't have a lot of talent on the Coalition front bench.


----------



## noco (19 May 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you think Abbott will last out this term ?
> 
> I reckon it's almost certain he'll be dumped for Turnbull. Hockey carries too much baggage as well. Trouble is they don't have a lot of talent on the Coalition front bench.




Wishful thinking old boy....Abbott is as solid as a rock.


----------



## IFocus (19 May 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you think Abbott will last out this term ?
> 
> I reckon it's almost certain he'll be dumped for Turnbull. Hockey carries too much baggage as well. Trouble is they don't have a lot of talent on the Coalition front bench.




12 to 18 months out from next election will be interesting as the extreme right Liberal tea party run out of political capital  I think Hockey will be counting the numbers not so sure about Turnbull unless he can build support in the party.


----------



## noco (19 May 2014)

IFocus said:


> 12 to 18 months out from next election will be interesting as the extreme right Liberal tea party run out of political capital  I think Hockey will be counting the numbers not so sure about Turnbull unless he can build support in the party.




Turnbull is a Labor Party plant.......I am sure the Labor Party would like to see him as leader of the Coalition.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 May 2014)

noco said:


> Turnbull is a Labor Party plant.......I am sure the Labor Party would like to see him as leader of the Coalition.




I'm sure they wouldn't. The far Right won't vote for him, but most of the population are not far Right. He's much more politically palatable than Abbott.


----------



## noco (19 May 2014)

noco said:


> It looks like Bull $hitin has his problems also.
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...state-conference/story-fnihsrf2-1226922037591




And more from the Australian.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...l-shorten-reform/story-fn59niix-1226922103443


----------



## dutchie (22 May 2014)

Wink Wink , say no more

[video=youtube_share;BSfRP-zifnw]http://youtu.be/BSfRP-zifnw[/video]


----------



## noco (23 May 2014)

Shorten might be enjoying the limelight for now but sooner or later his chickens will come home to roost.

Make sure you read this link.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ding-raging-bill/story-e6frgd0x-1226927432864


----------



## Tisme (27 July 2015)

I note that within a  week from today it will be the 50th anniversary of Labor's decision to flip on the White Australia policy. Whitlam effectively pushing the old guardian Calwell towards the door.


----------



## Tisme (12 October 2015)

Peter Reith getting his 4r5e handed to him


----------



## noco (30 October 2015)

Good news to hand.

Albo says Shorten will lead the Labor at the next election.

Turnbull won't mind that in the least......Shorten be his best asset.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> Peter Reith getting his 4r5e handed to him





Amazing how Keating ran rings around his opponents and he never got past high school.


----------



## noco (30 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Amazing how Keating ran rings around his opponents and he never got past high school.





A little "BULL" goes a long way.


----------



## IFocus (30 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> Peter Reith getting his 4r5e handed to him






Thanks Tisme..............god I miss Keating you wont hear some one who has their head around the numbers / issues in to-days political world and present such a rational argument.


----------



## Tisme (30 October 2015)

IFocus said:


> Thanks Tisme..............god I miss Keating you wont hear some one who has their head around the numbers / issues in to-days political world and present such a rational argument.




You see Kerry O'Brian has joined the chorus for someone like him to step up and take back parliament from the beige people? Kerry has mastered a doco on Paul.

Meanwhile you can relive Paul's years on the facebook site https://www.facebook.com/groups/28819960090/


----------



## SirRumpole (31 October 2015)

Good idea or not ?

Personally I don't think so. 

Bill Shorten calls for voting age to be lowered to 16

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-31/shorten-calls-for-voting-age-to-be-lowered-to-16/6901464


----------



## SirRumpole (28 January 2016)

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten commits to full Gonski education funding

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-...-policy-fully-fund-gonski-final-years/7120502

Looks like the election campaign has started.


----------



## noco (29 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Opposition Leader Bill Shorten commits to full Gonski education funding
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-...-policy-fully-fund-gonski-final-years/7120502
> 
> Looks like the election campaign has started.





Yeah..Yeah.....$37 billion over 10 years......no worries Bill...just borrow more and get us deeper into debt.

Poor old barnacle Bill is desperate...He will do and say anything to con the naive.:horse:


----------



## noco (29 January 2016)

Perhaps barnacle Bill should take some notice of David Uren in today's Australian.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...g/news-story/b8529d139949de44d65139c21c8315ed

*Labor is in denial over the state of the budget. For the past two years, it has argued the problem with the budget is not the level of spending but the weakness of revenue.

Accordingly, it has announced a number of revenue-raising measures including increasing tobacco taxes, superannuation taxes and company taxes. It has now gone out and spent the lot.

Labor is hardly alone in finding it impossible to resist the itch to spend. The childcare package announced in last year’s budget is funded by savings measures intended to help reduce the deficit.

But Labor has blocked dozens of savings measures proposed by the government and made no meaningful contribution to controlling the growth of spending.

The Gonski school funding, like the National Disability Insurance Scheme, was announced with a fanfare in Wayne Swan’s last budget in 2013-14. Savings announced as deficit-reduction measures were repurposed as school and disability funding measures. You cannot both spend and save the same money.

That budget promised to get the government’s finances back to surplus by 2015-16. But the reality was it delivered yet another mega-deficit. There have been more since and, with further deterioration in the outlook since last month’s budget update, there is no end in sight to the run of deficits.

The simple point is that when the budget is in deficit, all new spending is financed by an increase in debt. Cuts to one program might slow the growth in spending and the rate at which the debt increases, but they do not make the cost of new programs disappear. When you are in a hole, stop digging.

Australia is still a relatively low- debt country, but that is changing rapidly. This is a problem. It is a burden on the young households that will eventually have to pay for it. It is wasteful, exposes the nation to interest rate increases, and puts its future at the mercy of fickle global financial markets.*


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2016)

> Perhaps barnacle Bill should take some notice of David Uren in today's Australian.




Why should he, they are class enemies.


----------



## noco (29 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Why should he, they are class enemies.




Bill will never learn and that is why he has such low ratings with voters.....They are well and truly awake to barnacle Bill....His initials BS are well suited to him.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2016)

noco said:


> Bill will never learn and that is why he has such low ratings with voters.....They are well and truly awake to barnacle Bill....His initials BS are well suited to him.




It seems all you can do is play the hate card, why not discuss policy sometime ?


----------



## noco (29 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It seems all you can do is play the hate card, why not discuss policy sometime ?




What policy?......Labor has no policies to discuss......Bill's year of ideas in 2015 has long past.....nothing happened.....Anybody can be a big spender like the Gonski education scheme so long as the money is there....

Perhaps Bill is in dream land with that money tree down behind parliament house.


----------



## Tisme (29 January 2016)

noco said:


> What policy?......





http://www.alp.org.au/what_we_re_for




noco said:


> Labor has no policies to discuss......Bill's year of ideas in 2015 has long past.....nothing happened.....Anybody can be a big spender like the Gonski education scheme so long as the money is there....
> 
> Perhaps Bill is in dream land with that money tree down behind parliament house.




The LNP changed its similarly stupid policies the day Turnbull took over, so policies don't seem to locked into any particular time constraint. Now we have homosexuality front and centre as the preferred orientation and all men are being vilified as potential wife beaters ... fantastic policies


----------



## noco (29 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> http://www.alp.org.au/what_we_re_for




Yes plenty of rhetoric from barnacle Bill without substance...Talk is cheap but he does not state how it will all be paid for and this is where the naive fall into his trap....Typical of Labor.


----------



## drsmith (6 February 2016)

I can only assume Kevin advised Bill that he had more important things to do.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q_llQJcM7I

IIRC, Julia Gillard was good at attracting food on school visits.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 February 2016)

I heard Laurie Oakes say on CH9 that Labor was going to abolish negative gearing on existing properties from 2017.

About time someone did.


----------



## wayneL (12 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I heard Laurie Oakes say on CH9 that Labor was going to abolish negative gearing on existing properties from 2017.
> 
> About time someone did.




That will be a bit difficult for them when they won't be in government in 2017


----------



## bellenuit (12 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I heard Laurie Oakes say on CH9 that Labor was going to abolish negative gearing on existing properties from 2017.
> 
> About time someone did.




I couldn't hear it clearly as I was in a noisy area, but I thought he said it would be abolished for new properties not existing ones.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 February 2016)

bellenuit said:


> I couldn't hear it clearly as I was in a noisy area, but I thought he said it would be abolished for new properties not existing ones.




I think the idea is to encourage building new homes, so it's a waste of money having NG on existing properties.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-13/bill-shorten-negative-gearing-capital-gains-tax-plans/7165462


----------



## drsmith (13 February 2016)

While I'll reserve my judgement until I see more detail on what Labor actually proposes on CGT and negative gearing but I think it's good they're now substantively entering the economic debate.

Critical I think will be how their proposed changes fit with the principal of broader base/lower rate for taxes in general and in this specific case, the broader constituency of income tax payers impacted by the changes. The additional revenue raised from these sorts of measures should in my view principally target reducing the top two marginal tax rates as that goes hand in hand with the base broadening.


----------



## bellenuit (13 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I think the idea is to encourage building new homes, so it's a waste of money having NG on existing properties.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-13/bill-shorten-negative-gearing-capital-gains-tax-plans/7165462




I stand corrected. What is interesting and expected is that _all existing investments under the scheme would be fully "grandfathered" and protected against the changes_ according to your link.

I think the reforms are sensible, but it will be interesting to see the effect this will have on existing properties. There might be an increase in price (compared to what they would have been) as the deadline comes closer as investors try to acquire existing properties as they will still have the NG entitlement after the deadline (for those holding them at the deadline). After the deadline, existing properties will be less attractive to investors looking to purchase an investment property as NG will no longer be an entitlement on those properties. This will drop demand for existing IPs in the long run. On the other hand, after the deadline investors will be reluctant to sell existing investment properties to perhaps upgrade their investment to a newer established investment as they would loose there NG advantage. This will drop supply of existing properties to the market.


----------



## drsmith (13 February 2016)

bellenuit said:


> After the deadline, existing properties will be less attractive to investors looking to purchase an investment property as NG will no longer be an entitlement on those properties. This will drop demand for existing IPs in the long run. On the other hand, after the deadline investors will be reluctant to sell existing investment properties to perhaps upgrade their investment to a newer established investment as they would loose there NG advantage. This will drop supply of existing properties to the market.



This will be compounded by the proposed CGT changes.



> The key measures included:
> •Negative gearing to be restricted to "newly constructed homes"
> •Capital gains tax discount reduced from 50 per cent to 25 per cent
> •Both measures would come into force from July 2017
> •All existing investments under the scheme would be fully "grandfathered" and protected against the changes.




The first thing I can see is the obvious distortion this will create in broader investment markets in the lead up to July 2017.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-13/bill-shorten-pledges-negative-gearing-changes/7165854


----------



## drsmith (13 February 2016)

A quick note on Labor's proposed halving of the CGT discount.

At present, the top two rates of income tax (including the deficit levy on the top rate and Medicare) are 49% and 39% respectively. With the present 50% CGT discount, these reduce to 24.5% and 19.5% respectively. If this discount is reduced to 25%, the above CGT post rates post discount are 36.75% and 29.25% respectively.

For those on the top marginal rate, this results in a tax rate that is higher than the present 30% corporate rate. There will therefore be an obvious incentive for high income investors to undertake capital investment through a corporate structure rather than as an individual taxpayer. I wonder if the modelling of the additional revenue this is expected to raise takes that into account.


----------



## Logique (13 February 2016)

bellenuit said:


> I stand corrected. What is interesting and expected is that _all existing investments under the scheme would be fully "grandfathered" and protected against the changes_ according to your link.
> 
> I think the reforms are sensible, but it will be interesting to see the effect this will have on existing properties. There might be an increase in price (compared to what they would have been) as the deadline comes closer as investors try to acquire existing properties as they will still have the NG entitlement after the deadline (for those holding them at the deadline). After the deadline, existing properties will be less attractive to investors looking to purchase an investment property as NG will no longer be an entitlement on those properties. This will drop demand for existing IPs in the long run. On the other hand, after the deadline investors will be reluctant to sell existing investment properties to perhaps upgrade their investment to a newer established investment as they would loose there NG advantage. This will drop supply of existing properties to the market.



I'm broadly in favour of Labor's proposal. Fair enough to retain neg gearing on new properties, as it builds housing stock. I think it's worth a try. 

My hope is that with existing invest properties, once attracting lesser CGT discount, and nil neg gearing tax deductions, they would subsequently end up in the hands of residential owners, i.e. increasing avail housing stock. 

Don't know about your reluctance to sell/upgrade statement, I think the temptation would be too great for many.


----------



## drsmith (14 February 2016)

In the following article, there's a little more detail on Labor's proposed NG changes.

Chris Bowen,


> He said investors could still negatively gear new properties, defined as one that's been built in the last 12 months and where the taker out of the loan is the first owner of the property after the developer, and this was not any riskier than buying established properties.
> 
> "That's not in any sense any more risky than buying an existing property. There's an element of risk to any investment. So some people think property never goes down, sometimes it does, but that applies to existing properties as well as new."
> 
> ...




http://www.afr.com/news/politics/ch...g-plan-wont-create-new-bubble-20160213-gmtkck

I'd like to see some form of policy document that offers some more detail on these proposals but are yet to fine one.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 February 2016)

You have to give Shorten some credit for finally getting Labor doing something. 
Rudd and Gillard were abject failures on reform. I do wonder however if the reason this is occurring is to try to short circuit Turnbull's reforms which I am sure will have some similarities.


----------



## drsmith (15 February 2016)

Labor's NG policy is based on the following from the McKell Institute,

http://mckellinstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/pdf/McKell_Negative-Gearing_A4_WEB.pdf

For its policy, option 4 has been chosen.

It would appear from the above that the restriction will be limited to residential property. This will still allow negative gearing into other investment categories casting doubt over the revenue projections.

Casting further doubt over the revenue projections would be the extent to which investment would inevitably be brought forward to beat the cut off date. This would be compounded by the proposed GCT concession changes.

Given the initial small revenue projections initially (due to grandfathering), there's a possibility this might even cost the budget in its early years. 

Sorry folks, the policy in its present form is crap.


----------



## drsmith (15 February 2016)

drsmith said:


> A quick note on Labor's proposed halving of the CGT discount.
> 
> At present, the top two rates of income tax (including the deficit levy on the top rate and Medicare) are 49% and 39% respectively. With the present 50% CGT discount, these reduce to 24.5% and 19.5% respectively. If this discount is reduced to 25%, the above CGT post rates post discount are 36.75% and 29.25% respectively.
> 
> For those on the top marginal rate, this results in a tax rate that is higher than the present 30% corporate rate. There will therefore be an obvious incentive for high income investors to undertake capital investment through a corporate structure rather than as an individual taxpayer. I wonder if the modelling of the additional revenue this is expected to raise takes that into account.



The CGT discount requires reform but the above illustrates how simply cutting it is too simplistic. It also compounds the shortcoming of the existing discount in relation to long term investment relative to the former CPI indexation method.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 February 2016)

drsmith said:


> Sorry folks, the policy in its present form is crap.




Is that so ?

Others don't agree

Relax, we have nothing to fear from negative gearing reform

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/janda-nothing-to-fear-from-negative-gearing-reform/7168716


----------



## drsmith (15 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Is that so ?



Yes, it is for the reasons I've outlined above which have nothing to with fear of negative gearing reform.


----------



## drsmith (20 February 2016)

ANU have produced an analysis of Labor's recently announced NG and CGT policies,

http://rsss.anu.edu.au/sites/defaul...lling _Negative_Gearing_and_Capital_Gains.pdf

Labor have also added the policy to its website,

http://www.alp.org.au/negativegearing

The latter confirms Labor's NG policy is not broadly across the investment sector,



> Labor will limit negative gearing to new housing from 1 July 2017. All investments made before this date will not be affected by this change and will be fully grandfathered.
> 
> This will mean that taxpayers will continue to be able to deduct net rental losses against their wage income, providing the losses come from newly constructed housing.
> 
> From 1 July 2017 losses from new investments in shares and existing properties can still be used to offset investment income tax liabilities. These losses can also continue to be carried forward to offset the final capital gain on the investment.




Shares are excluded from the policy, that's clear. Property outside the residential sector is still not clear from the above.

ANU above,



> For negative gearing the Federal Opposition proposes to quarantine negatively geared investments to newly constructed dwellings only. Negative gearing would no longer be allowed for existing dwellings or a range of other investment classes. There are a number of exemptions in this policy though for business investment classes.




It's not clear from the above whether business investment classes is a reference to privately held shares or losses from investments held within a business.


----------



## Tisme (23 February 2016)

Shorten's ALP:



> I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, I pay my respects to elders past and present.
> 
> For Labor people, those words of respect always carry a promise – a promise to close the gap and extend equality of opportunity to the first Australians.
> 
> ...




I was exhausted after the first sentence



http://billshorten.com.au/category/speeches


----------



## SirRumpole (23 February 2016)

Tisme said:


> Shorten's ALP:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Bill's got a way with words, there are too many of them. Same with Turnbull, a lot of hot air.


----------



## Tisme (23 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Bill's got a way with words, there are too many of them. Same with Turnbull, a lot of hot air.





Yeah I'm thinking of an app that eliminates the waffle and leaves the substance.


----------



## DB008 (29 February 2016)

Don't know if this has been posted yet (or in other threads), but here goes...

*ALP operatives on taxpayer-funded US trip caught up in hidden camera campaign sting​*


> Labor volunteers have been caught on hidden cameras bragging about using Australian taxpayer funds to work on a US presidential campaign and interfering with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton campaign signs.
> 
> In a video posted online by the conservative undercover campaign group Project Veritas Action, four Australians are recorded saying they received taxpayer funds for flights, accommodation and daily expenses while organising for Democratic senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, a possible breach of US election law.
> 
> ...






http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/alp-operatives-on-taxpayerfunded-us-trip-caught-up-in-hidden-camera-campaign-sting-20160227-gn5chk.html​


----------



## Tisme (15 August 2016)

> Now the Liberals, they don't understand any of this because, basically, they
> don't have any faith in people, they don't see you as fellow Australians, but
> rather some sort of class enemy, some sort of political enemy




Interesting time capsule:


http://pmtranscripts.dpmc.gov.au/release/transcript-9771


----------



## sptrawler (24 January 2021)

sptrawler said:


> Another example of the government short term vision,IMO
> They have given the go ahead for offshore processing of the Browse Basin. Short term thinking again, dig it up get rid of it mentality.
> 
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/18311233/gray-paves-way-for-browse-flng/



The above post was from 2013, another useless brain fart that did nothing to further Australia.

Well I am just pleased this disaster, has ended up as it deserved to, down the S bend. 









						'Very expensive LNG': World's largest floating gas plant restarts, but critics say it's too late
					

It was supposed to be an economical and environmentally safe solution to LNG production, but with almost a third of its short life in shutdown Shell's floating colossus may prove to be a mistake.




					www.abc.net.au
				




Just an absolute disgrace, the whole sorry story, the gas should have been processed onshore from the start. IMO
Minority groups and the media screwing Australia as usual, difficult to claim the "green' high ground when you are spewing out hydrocarbons into the atmosphere.
Barnett must be pizzing himself laughing, meanwhile loonie Bob Brown mounts up to chase the next windmill, what a mess.
Just my opinion.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 April 2021)

"Working-class Aussies are abandoning the ALP in droves over the party’s obsession with “woke” issues like gender, race and climate change."

So says Joe Hildebrand anyway.



*"Private research commissioned by the NSW Electrical Trades Union – which was itself just taken over by the Left this week – has found a quarter of union members surveyed no longer vote Labor and a further 35 per cent reported decreasing support for the party."*

Pretty worrying for Labor if it's true, but it's something I've suspected for a while.









						‘F*** you, we’ll vote Pauline Hanson’
					

EXCLUSIVE




					www.news.com.au


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 April 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> "Working-class Aussies are abandoning the ALP in droves over the party’s obsession with “woke” issues like gender, race and climate change."



It's absolutely true and the crux of the party's problems from what I've seen.

The basic sentiment seems to be that there's a very valid case for equal opportunity and treatment for both genders, all races and so on but they've had more than enough of those who can't be bothered taking the opportunity complaining that they're hard done by.

That plus there seems to be a perception that it's an endless agenda and an increasingly trivial one at that. Fix whatever the current demand is then immediately there's a new one which jumps the queue. Associated with that is that most working class people can take a joke, they're not as easily offended as some others seem to be and they sure don't call a lawyer because someone said something.

Disclosure: I'm a former member of the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) / Communications, Electrical & Plumbing Union (CEPU). Only reason I'm not presently a member is it doesn't really relate to what I'm doing at present. I'm still on their email list however.


----------



## IFocus (18 April 2021)

Doesn't change workers voting for LNP is the same as turkeys voting for Xmas.

In fact you could apply that to most of the middle class just the fact the LNP backed the banks ripping people off speaks volume.


----------



## orr (18 April 2021)

IFocus said:


> Doesn't change workers voting for LNP is the same as turkeys voting for Xmas.
> 
> In fact you could apply that to most of the middle class just the fact the LNP backed the banks ripping people off speaks volume.



Recent posters to this thread are active on the Education Disgrace thread I've noticed.
The Gonski reforms of the last Labor Government were a step toward what's been going on in Finland for the  past 25-30 yrs. 
Finland /Gonski are an existential threat to Private Schools in Australia; And they know it. They and the LNP will work to undermine any action toward steps in this direction. 

A consequence of the Finnish long term educational reforms can be assessed in myriad forms not least the National 
Incarceration Rate  53: 100,000.
Australia                 205: 100,000...
Magnetudes of discrepency as this don't come because of cold long nights in winter.

Fascinating as well was the fluke meeting of Frydenberg and Holgate that give high level imprimater to Holgates push for Banks in post offices to distract from Schmo's 26 defections of  a Royal Cimmission into the Banks... 
Only one of the things a better Educated public would have demanded long long ago... 
And a population  not so easily  vexed by the elected shills of the Fossil Fuel/ mining industry...

and be a bit better at connecting dots in general... 

Keep'm Stupid, greedy and bigoted and enough 'Turkeys' will vote LNP....


----------



## sptrawler (18 April 2021)

IFocus said:


> Doesn't change workers voting for LNP is the same as turkeys voting for Xmas.
> 
> In fact you could apply that to most of the middle class just the fact the LNP backed the banks ripping people off speaks volume.



Thats a bit rough and some what biased IMO.
The last time the workers and middle class voted Labor in, they got two extra years on their working lives(pension age raised to 67), so really a bit of give and take, wouldnt go astray.
Maybe thats why the workers and middle class deserted them, sick of the Labor Party making turkeys out of them?


----------



## sptrawler (18 April 2021)

orr said:


> Recent posters to this thread are active on the Education Disgrace thread I've noticed.
> The Gonski reforms of the last Labor Government were a step toward what's been going on in Finland for the  past 25-30 yrs.
> Finland /Gonski are an existential threat to Private Schools in Australia; And they know it. They and the LNP will work to undermine any action toward steps in this direction.
> 
> ...



Yes, I think we were just rated above Finland, but 3.5 years behind China, when ranking our 15 year olds.
Rah,Rah,Rah.
Jeez Orr, read up on the absolute mess the teachers union have made of our education system sunshine.
Maybe it makes you feel great that the kids are learning sod all, but it depresses most Australians.
Our standards have been dropping since the Labor Party weaponised how hard it is for teachers.lol
So they got a student free day to prepare after the holidays, which they get 12 weeks of a year, it breaks my heart I can understand how difficult it must be.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 April 2021)

IFocus said:


> Doesn't change workers voting for LNP is the same as turkeys voting for Xmas.
> 
> In fact you could apply that to most of the middle class just the fact the LNP backed the banks ripping people off speaks volume.




Trouble for the ordinary person in the middle is that they've got two choices and neither has been anything short of a disaster.

I mean seriously, what does the ordinary worker or middle class person have to do in order to get a government that's actually on their side?

For a very long time now the choice has come down to who was perceived as least bad, there was no option to pick someone who was actually good.


----------



## sptrawler (18 July 2021)

A stuff up, processing onshore could have opened up the Kimberly and what do we have know zip?
No offshore processing and Broome still a basket case, of unemployment and social problems.


sptrawler said:


> Another example of the government short term vision,IMO
> They have given the go ahead for offshore processing of the Browse Basin. Short term thinking again, dig it up get rid of it mentality.
> 
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/18311233/gray-paves-way-for-browse-flng/



And 8 years on:








						Shell’s $12 Billion Prelude LNG Barge Drifts Toward A Finale
					

Prelude or finale, that’s a question some pessimists are starting to ask about a ship called Prelude which was supposed to revolutionize the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## Knobby22 (18 July 2021)

sptrawler said:


> A stuff up, processing onshore could have opened up the Kimberly and what do we have know zip?
> No offshore processing and Broome still a basket case, of unemployment and social problems.
> 
> And 8 years on:
> ...



Yes, I remember that.
The partnership said the project wouldn't be profitable if it wasn't processed offshore.
And having an Australian company WPL as a partner the government were desperate for the money to flow in.

Looks like Shell have failed to be able to design snd build it and now it is definitely not profitable.
The WA premier Barnett who was against all this  can now say "told you so".
Can't believe how many billions have been wasted. At least it's not taxpayers money.


----------



## Humid (18 July 2021)

I know people in Broome who camp up here at the sight of the proposed  gas plantare pretty happy.
Pristine part of the world
Port Hedland has BHP,FMG and Roy Hill and is the worlds biggest bulk tonnage port and is still a dump


----------



## orr (18 July 2021)

"_In the Kimberley, Australia’s largest oil and gas company, Woodside, along with industrial giants Shell, BP and PetroChina, proposed to build a huge gas hub at James Price Point just north of Broome. In 2013, following a similar campaign in the media and in boardrooms, Cousins succeeded in having the $45 billion plan abandoned."_

That's Geoff Cousins mentioned above, good mate of John Howard (ex Liberal PM from memory) who installed him to the Board of Telstra  after working on the Optus Board also member of the Australian Club(well known Trotsykist 'hot bed'), in a quote lifted from an article from The Saturday paper high lighting his efforts in denying Adani's financing for it's Carmichael effort... (hint; it reeks of stranded asset)
Cousins also put the skewer threw Gunns Pulper in Tasmania...
 People  like Cousins it seems can see the future a long while before others. This is aided immensely by taking off the ideological blinkers and also knowing a lot.... less be shown that they don't.


----------



## sptrawler (18 July 2021)

Humid said:


> I know people in Broome who camp up here at the sight of the proposed  gas plantare pretty happy.
> Pristine part of the world
> Port Hedland has BHP,FMG and Roy Hill and is the worlds biggest bulk tonnage port and is still a dump



I know why they camp up there, too scared to stay in Broome, the crime is through the roof, daughter and S.I.L took the kids up there last month.
But you are right about Port Headland it is a dump.


----------



## basilio (2 August 2021)

*Labor To Back Ordinary, Hard-Working Millionaires   *

Saying it was time to return to the party’s roots, Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese has made a range of announcements which he says will appeal to Labor’s traditional base of everyday, hard-working rich people.

“I think we’ve lost our way,” Albanese said. “When people think about Labor and what it stands for, they think of lending a hand to those grinding out a living in the top tax bracket. Ordinary families trying to make ends meet. Hard-working mums and dads trying to put food on the new table that they bought for the holiday house in Palm Beach”.                                                                             

He said the party had been drifting from its core purpose. “The truth is, we’ve diverged from our values. We want to be the party for workers. Those regular Australian workers looking for some relief in the $180k-$200k per annum wage range”.

Mr Albanese also defended his party’s plans to move away from its policy of scrapping negative gearing. “We want to give every working investor the chance to own their first negatively geared property”









						Labor To Back Ordinary, Hard-Working Millionaires
					

"Regular Mums and Dads grinding out a living in the top tax bracket”




					www.theshovel.com.au
				




*      This is a joke... (not)*


----------



## SirRumpole (2 August 2021)

basilio said:


> *Labor To Back Ordinary, Hard-Working Millionaires   *
> 
> Saying it was time to return to the party’s roots, Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese has made a range of announcements which he says will appeal to Labor’s traditional base of everyday, hard-working rich people.
> 
> ...




Seriously though I was disappointed at Labor's backdown on the great middle-upper class tax rort called negative gearing.

I wonder what research they have done to determine whether that policy was a major factor in their loss, rather than say climate change policy or their increasing 'wokeness' that gravitated to subjects a lot of struggling workers don't really care about.

Someone will have to pay for the massive debt chasm and it's up to Albanese to detail exactly who those people will be , otherwise their traditional base will
get nervous again.


----------



## moXJO (2 August 2021)

Who is this "Labor" you speak of.


----------



## PZ99 (2 August 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> Seriously though I was disappointed at Labor's backdown on the great middle-upper class tax rort called negative gearing.
> 
> I wonder what research they have done to determine whether that policy was a major factor in their loss, rather than say climate change policy or their increasing 'wokeness' that gravitated to subjects a lot of struggling workers don't really care about.
> 
> ...



I suspect Labor no longer looks upon negative gearing as the low hanging fruit with interest rates this low.

Albo is targeting the Howard Battlers of 1996 after losing that unlosable election


----------



## IFocus (2 August 2021)

Just don't mention franking credits...


----------



## sptrawler (2 August 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> Seriously though I was disappointed at Labor's backdown on the great middle-upper class tax rort called negative gearing.
> 
> I wonder what research they have done to determine whether that policy was a major factor in their loss, rather than say climate change policy or their increasing 'wokeness' that gravitated to subjects a lot of struggling workers don't really care about.
> 
> ...



I don't think Albo should have done a complete 180 turn, the fundamentals of Labors ideas were sound, as usual the implementation was woeful.
Only allowing negative gearing on new builds, when middle and low income earners can hardly afford a house, isn't going to work.
As we said at the time just put a cap on negative gearing and allow first home buyers to claim their interest as a tax deduction.
But no Labor was only going to allow the rich to negative gear and also give them a guaranteed gov income if they rented to the hard up, no wonder there was a massive swing to Labor in the wealthy suburbs, it would have been a license to print money for the rich.
Meanwhile it would have trashed the value of houses in blue collar areas, so the working class wouldn't have the collateral to get up the ladder.

The same ridiculous approach was suggested for franking credits, take in them of low income earners and self funded people, while allowing industry funds and billionaires to keep them was weird and only designed to force SMSF's into industry funds IMO.
Just remove the franking credits completely, for a period of time and then weigh up the outcome. At least that would be fair and reasonable and would have also been a net benefit to Australia and given the ATO some real numbers to work with.

Albo has only ditched the negative gearing and franking credit proposals completely, because he knows that the scare tactics on them being introduced when they get in office, would be a problem in the election campaign.
Albo is doing fine, at least they have a leader with a bit of common sense, rather than just a massive ego and an even bigger nasty streak as the last leader had IMO. 

Now I will just slip on the flack jacket and crash helmet and wait for the ton of rust to hit.🤣


----------



## Humid (2 August 2021)

sptrawler said:


> I don't think Albo should have done a complete 180 turn, the fundamentals of Labors ideas were sound, as usual the implementation was woeful.
> Only allowing negative gearing on new builds, when middle and low income earners can hardly afford a house, isn't going to work.
> As we said at the time just put a cap on negative gearing and allow first home buyers to claim their interest as a tax deduction.
> But no Labor was only going to allow the rich to negative gear and also give them a guaranteed gov income if they rented to the hard up, no wonder there was a massive swing to Labor in the wealthy suburbs, it would have been a license to print money for the rich.
> ...



Your tin foil one should do


----------



## sptrawler (2 August 2021)

Then we would be twins.lol
People would only be able to tell us apart, by the fact you wear blinkers. 🤣


----------



## macca (2 August 2021)

sptrawler said:


> I don't think Albo should have done a complete 180 turn, the fundamentals of Labors ideas were sound, as usual the implementation was woeful.
> Only allowing negative gearing on new builds, when middle and low income earners can hardly afford a house, isn't going to work.
> As we said at the time just put a cap on negative gearing and allow first home buyers to claim their interest as a tax deduction.
> But no Labor was only going to allow the rich to negative gear and also give them a guaranteed gov income if they rented to the hard up, no wonder there was a massive swing to Labor in the wealthy suburbs, it would have been a license to print money for the rich.
> ...




If they simply said " all investment loans require a 10% unencumbered deposit" it will stop excessive NG and the workers who want a spare house can still invest in real estate.

It is the multiple excessively geared BS artists fudging their figures for low doc loans that create upward pressure on the lower priced houses IMO


----------



## sptrawler (2 August 2021)

macca said:


> If they simply said " all investment loans require a 10% unencumbered deposit" it will stop excessive NG and the workers who want a spare house can still invest in real estate.
> 
> It is the multiple excessively geared BS artists fudging their figures for low doc loans that create upward pressure on the lower priced houses IMO



Any sort of sensible limit would have worked, be it sensible deposit size, number of NG properties, or actual $limit. 
The problem with the proposal as it was, the gap between the rich and the poor would have been made much bigger. The poor would be caught in a rental trap, the middle class would have had their PPR value trashed and the rich would have started land banking, to build government funded rental slums as demand increased.


----------



## sptrawler (10 September 2021)

I bet Penny and Tanya aren't happy campers. 
Good move by Albo, who said he wasn't smart?








						NSW Labor powerbroker backs Kristina Keneally switch amid backlash
					

The former NSW premier’s switch to a lower house seat in western Sydney has split the NSW Right and caused unrest within the local community.




					www.smh.com.au


----------



## Belli (26 September 2022)

IFocus said:


> Just don't mention franking credits...




Speaking of which this has resurfaced.

"As part of the 2016‑17 Mid‑Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, an integrity measure was announced to prevent the distribution of franking credits where a distribution to shareholders is funded by particular capital raising activities.

The Government has prepared exposure draft legislation giving effect to this measure, which will prevent companies from attaching franking credits to distributions to shareholders made outside or additional to the company's normal dividend cycle, to the extent the distributions are funded directly or indirectly by capital raising activities that result in the issue of new equity interests.

The Government is seeking stakeholders’ views on the exposure draft legislation and accompanying explanatory material implementing this measure.

You can submit responses to this consultation up until *05 October 2022*. Interested parties are invited to comment on this consultation."







						Franked distributions and capital raising | Treasury.gov.au
					

As part of the 2016‑17 Mid‑Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, an integrity measure was announced to prevent the distribution of franking credits where a distribution to shareholders is funded by particular capital raising activities.




					treasury.gov.au


----------



## Value Collector (26 October 2022)

Belli said:


> Speaking of which this has resurfaced.
> 
> "As part of the 2016‑17 Mid‑Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, an integrity measure was announced to prevent the distribution of franking credits where a distribution to shareholders is funded by particular capital raising activities.
> 
> ...



I wish the Government would just forget about their obsession with changing the franking credit system. The Franking credit system is the most fair way to treat company earnings being paid as dividends that have already been taxed at the company rate.

The sad part is that the people who are against franking credits and franking credit refunds normally don't even understand what franking credits are or why they exist. They also often use a bunch of silly examples about what they shouldn't be paid or why they shouldn't be refunded.

-------------------------------
One of the most annoying things that is often pointed out is that some retirees get refunds for franking credits paid in their super, But that is simply because super in the pension phase is Tax free, and all the super funds earnings from all sources is tax free hence the tax paid gets refunded.

If you want retirees to pay more in tax, raise the tax rate on all super profits, don't just target company earnings/dividends.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 October 2022)

Value Collector said:


> The Franking credit system is the most fair way to treat company earnings being paid as dividends that have already been taxed at the company rate.




Companies and their shareholders are separate entities and should be taxed seperately.


----------



## Value Collector (26 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Companies and their shareholders are separate entities and should be taxed seperately.



No, a company is just a conduit in which investors aggregate funds to make investments.

There is no logical reason that an investment should be taxed at a higher rate just because it is owned via a company structure rather than directly.

For example if the government is ok with a super fund paying 0% tax on $100 earned in a direct real estate investment, why shouldn’t it also be ok with handing back the $30 it took from an investor that held a similar real estate investment via a company?

In the current system both investors get to keep their $100 earnings tax free, in a system that doesn’t allow for franking credits the company structured investment is taxed at 30% and the investor only gets to keep $70, when the folks rich enough to do direct investments get taxed at 0%

———————————

If they want to raise more revenue, just raise the taxes on super, and keep the franking credits in place. This would be far more fair.


----------



## The Triangle (27 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Companies and their shareholders are separate entities and should be taxed seperately.



A husband and wife are separate entities and should be taxed separately.


----------



## wayneL (27 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Companies and their shareholders are separate entities and should be taxed seperately.



What if the company has one director which is the only shareholder?


----------



## SirRumpole (27 October 2022)

wayneL said:


> What if the company has one director which is the only shareholder?



Pretty unlikely , public companies must have at least 3 directors, but in any case the law says that directors an d shareholders are separate entities, shareholders can't be sued for company debts and vice versa.


----------



## wayneL (27 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Pretty unlikely , public companies must have at least 3 directors, but in any case the law says that directors an d shareholders are separate entities, shareholders can't be sued for company debts and vice versa.



So you're saying public companies should be taxed differently to private companies. That shareholders of public companies should suffer double taxation where as private companies won't?


----------



## SirRumpole (27 October 2022)

wayneL said:


> So you're saying public companies should be taxed differently to private companies. That shareholders of public companies should suffer double taxation where as private companies won't?



If shareholders benefit from the advantages of the 'corporate veil', then yes.


----------



## wayneL (27 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> If shareholders benefit from the advantages of the 'corporate veil', then yes.



What benefit from a corporate veil is there for a shareholder in Sausage Software as opposed to Joe Bloggs Lawnmowing Pty Ltd


----------



## wayneL (27 October 2022)

Or even large private companies such as Hancock Prospecting?


----------



## SirRumpole (27 October 2022)

wayneL said:


> Or even large private companies such as Hancock Prospecting?




If a company is constructed under the Companies Act , as far as I know the shareholders can't be sued for the debts of the company, they are separate entities and should be taxed separately.


----------



## wayneL (27 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> If a company is constructed under the Companies Act , as far as I know the shareholders can't be sued for the debts of the company, they are separate entities and should be taxed separately.



Lmao.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Even Keating realised it was unfair, hence why double taxation was abolished


----------



## SirRumpole (27 October 2022)

wayneL said:


> Lmao.
> 
> That makes no sense whatsoever. Even Keating realised it was unfair, hence why double taxation was abolished



We are one of only 4 countries in the OECD that allow this form of tax avoidance. Thanks to the Libs and their massive debt and deficit we just can't afford it any more.


----------



## wayneL (27 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> We are one of only 4 countries in the OECD that allow this form of tax avoidance. Thanks to the Libs and their massive debt and deficit we just can't afford it any more.



Firstly, it is not tax avoidance, it is a legal, claimable tax credit (whether cash refunds on imputations should be allowed is a separate argument.

Secondly, one must look at taxation on the grand scale, Australia has one of the highest levels of corporate taxation in OECD.

For a share investor, I find it incredible you'd lobby for double taxation on already high levels, that is financial masochism.

Oz in red, OECD average in black


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> We are one of only 4 countries in the OECD that allow this form of tax avoidance.



Two basic problems we've got in Australia:

1. Our corporate tax rate is relatively high by global standards.

2. All sorts of key industries are intentionally inefficient by design.

Put those two together and Australia's a high cost country in which to do business and that's without even considering wages and standards. Anyone doing business here has to hand rather a lot of money to others through taxation and mandated inefficiency.

End result is we're a country that's attractive only to those who are doing something they need to be here in order to do. Eg resource extraction.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 October 2022)

Smurf1976 said:


> Two basic problems we've got in Australia:
> 
> 1. Our corporate tax rate is relatively high by global standards.
> 
> ...




I suspect low population and geographical isolation are factors as well.


----------



## Value Collector (29 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Pretty unlikely , public companies must have at least 3 directors, but in any case the law says that directors an d shareholders are separate entities, shareholders can't be sued for company debts and vice versa.



That’s got nothing to do with it, and it’s no reason to create double taxation.

The fact is companies exist as a conduit to invest investors funds, if it does end up generating profits and those profits are handed back to individuals as dividends it makes sense to treat those profits as you would any other source of income on the persons tax return.

————————

A company structure is one of the few ways individuals of small means can access large scale investments, so why treat their earnings from these investments more unfairly than rich folks who can take on these larger investments directly?


----------



## Value Collector (29 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> If a company is constructed under the Companies Act , as far as I know the shareholders can't be sued for the debts of the company, they are separate entities and should be taxed separately.



That’s got nothing to do with taxation? 

The limited liability rule was just a rule that was brought in to encourage people to invest, the economy does better when people are willing to invest in riskier ventures, but they won’t invest if they like their $10,000 investment in a speculative new mining venture means they could be sued for $1M and lose their house.

There is nothing immoral about that, everyone else understands that when you are dealing with an LTD or PTY LTD you are dealing with a limits liability company.

But again none of that is a reason to create extra taxation.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 October 2022)

Value Collector said:


> That’s got nothing to do with it, and it’s no reason to create double taxation.
> 
> The fact is companies exist as a conduit to invest investors funds, if it does end up generating profits and those profits are handed back to individuals as dividends it makes sense to treat those profits as you would any other source of income on the persons tax return.
> 
> ...




I don't know if it's unfair.

Corporations pay tax and individuals pay tax, seems fair to me.

People who own unincorporated businesses take on a far greater risk, why should they pay higher taxes than investors whose risk is limited ?


----------



## SirRumpole (29 October 2022)

Value Collector said:


> The limited liability rule was just a rule that was brought in to encourage people to invest, the economy does better when people are willing to invest in riskier ventures, but they won’t invest if they like their $10,000 investment in a speculative new mining venture means they could be sued for $1M and lose their house.




I have nothing against that, but it's not a reason to reduce the amount of taxes they would otherwise pay.


----------



## Value Collector (29 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> We are one of only 4 countries in the OECD that allow this form of tax avoidance. Thanks to the Libs and their massive debt and deficit we just can't afford it any more.



What are you talking about? 

How is franking credits tax avoidance? All it does is mean the tax is paid based on an individual’s tax bracket.

———————-

Other countries like the USA have other rules to limit the double taxation, for example in the USA dividends are only taxed at 15% 

If you want to follow that rule I will be happy, because My earnings will be taxed at 33%, instead of the 47% they are taxed at under the franking credit system.

But, using the USA system the lowest income people will suffer, as their tax rate will still be 33% like mine, where as in australia the franking credit system allows their tax rate on their company earnings to be augmented to what ever it would be on other types of earnings.


----------



## Value Collector (29 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't know if it's unfair.
> 
> Corporations pay tax and individuals pay tax, seems fair to me.
> 
> People who own unincorporated businesses take on a far greater risk, why should they pay higher taxes than investors whose risk is limited ?



So you think some one earning $10,000 from a term deposit in their own name should pay 0% tax, when some one that happens to have the exact same term deposit under a company structure should have a minimum tax rate of 30%?

Even though they are earning the exact same income you believe they should have different tax rates? How does that make sense?

There are many different structures partnerships, some traders, trusts, companies, unit trusts etc we always treat the income from all those structures when they pass through to an individual the same way, to achieve that with companies we use franking credits.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 October 2022)

Value Collector said:


> A company structure is one of the few ways individuals of small means can access large scale investments, so why treat their earnings from these investments more unfairly than rich folks who can take on these larger investments directly?




So you don't mind if retirees on $200k from superannuation (tax free) actually get a refund of franking credits, whereas people still working have to pay tax on their dividends ?

If you are concerned about fairness you have to agree that this is a crock.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 October 2022)

Value Collector said:


> So you think some one earning $10,000 from a term deposit in their own name should pay 0% tax, when some one that happens to have the exact same term deposit under a company structure should have a minimum tax rate of 30%?



Non sequitur.


----------



## Value Collector (29 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> I have nothing against that, but it's not a reason to reduce the amount of taxes they would otherwise pay.



It’s no reason for them to pay extra taxes either.

Don’t think about franking credits as people paying less tax, think of it as a way to stop double taxation, and instead augment the tax payable to what that person would pay on any other source of income.

—————
Also remember it only applies to the portion of earnings paid out as a dividend, any money the company retains is still taxed at 30%.


----------



## Value Collector (29 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Non sequitur.



How so?


----------



## Value Collector (29 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> So you don't mind if retirees on $200k from superannuation (tax free) actually get a refund of franking credits, whereas people still working have to pay tax on their dividends ?
> 
> If you are concerned about fairness you have to agree that this is a crock.



I think this is where you are thinking about it in the wrong way.

The $200k the retiree makes in her super will be tax free regardless of its source,

There is no difference in her earning $200k in property rent or bank interest and keeping it all tax free because she is being charged 0% tax

Or

Earning $200k inside a company paying $60k company tax, then being paid the remaining $140k as a dividend and getting a refund of the $60k

Both investors end up with their $200k earnings tax free.

——————-

If you want wealthy retirees to pay more tax raise the tax rates of super funds, then all the investors will pay tax at the same rate regardless of structure.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 October 2022)

Value Collector said:


> If you want wealthy retirees to pay more tax raise the tax rates of super funds, then all the investors will pay tax at the same rate regardless of structure.



Probably a good argument there.


----------



## Value Collector (29 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Probably a good argument there.



I  wouldn’t have an issue with super fund income being subject to some sort of tax bracket system, even if it was much lower than regular rates. (Eg 0% under $40k, 10% $40k - $100k etc) 

That would be fair, because it would mean all income is subject to the same taxation.

The debate over franking credit refunds makes no sense though, as I said if you don’t want to refund as much to wealthy retirees just raise the tax rate.

But it’s bogus to try and demonise the refunds, because the refunds only have to be refunded because the tax has already been paid, and there is no difference between allowing one investor to keep earnings tax free and refunding another tax already paid, the end result is the same.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 October 2022)

Value Collector said:


> But it’s bogus to try and demonise the refunds, because the refunds only have to be refunded because the tax has already been paid, and there is no difference between allowing one investor to keep earnings tax free and refunding another tax already paid, the end result is the same.




There is double taxation all around.

The petrol we buy has already been taxed (fuel excise)  yet we still pay GST on it. How about refunding the 40c a litre from the total price ?


----------



## Value Collector (29 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> There is double taxation all around.
> 
> The petrol we buy has already been taxed (fuel excise)  yet we still pay GST on it. How about refunding the 40c a litre from the total price ?



Those are different taxes, you don’t have to pay GST twice or Fuel excise twice, imagine if the petrol station had to pay fuel excise when it bought the fuel, and then you paid it again when you purchased from the fuel station.

But with investment earnings under a company structure with out franking credits you would be taxing the same profits twice.

————————

Also, I am. It sure if you have ever owned a business and understand how it works, but when a product is sold and GST is charged, all prior GST is deducted so that double taxation of GST is prevented. This is very similar to frank in credits.

Eg. If shop owner pays $1.10 for a product he has already paid 10cents GST, so when he sells it to you for $2.20 it will say on your receipt you paid 20cents GST, but the shop owner doesn’t pay the government the full 20cents he deducts the 10cents he paid to his supplier, and hands along only the additional 10cents he collected from you.

This is to prevent double, triple or quadruple GST taxation as products pass through the supply chain, and ensures only the final sale price is taxed, this is very similar to franking credits.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 October 2022)

Value Collector said:


> This is to prevent double, triple or quadruple GST taxation as products pass through the supply chain, and ensures only the final sale price is taxed, this is very similar to franking credits.




From the business point of view, fine, the consumer is still double taxed.


----------



## Value Collector (29 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> From the business point of view, fine, the consumer is still double taxed.



Not really, they are different taxes setup for different purposes.


----------



## moXJO (29 October 2022)

No more additional taxes thanks


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> From the business point of view, fine, the consumer is still double taxed.



As a technicality the consumer pays two taxes but they don't pay the same tax twice.

They pay excise, and they pay GST on the total price including excise, so there is indeed GST applied to excise.

Any individual tax is only once however. There's no excise on excise or GST on GST.

For the franking credits argument, I'll simply say that apart from blatant rorts etc, the only ones who'd actually lose in a big way if the present arrangement were removed are low income earners. Given they must've been in better circumstances at some point in order to have acquired investments, it's effectively an idea to apply a special tax only to the self-funded unemployed, widows, disabled and others who've had a major fall in life.

As a concept I see that as pretty hard to defend. A tax that you only pay if you fall on hard times and you're self funded (not claiming welfare). Meanwhile we hand out money just like to all sorts of people who've made comparatively no effort to avoid it.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 October 2022)

Smurf1976 said:


> As a technicality the consumer pays two taxes but they don't pay the same tax twice.
> 
> They pay excise, and they pay GST on the total price including excise, so there is indeed GST applied to excise.
> 
> ...



A means test could be applied to franking credits. You get them if your TOTAL (not assessable) income is below a threshold, after that they fade out. I just don't get how retirees whose super is tax free get a full refund while workers pay tax at their marginal rate.


----------



## Value Collector (29 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> I just don't get how retirees whose super is tax free get a full refund while workers pay tax at their marginal rate.




They get a full refund *because* their super is tax free. If you don’t want them to get a refund raise the tax.

Let me give you two examples and then ask if you are ok with the situation.

Retiree 1 - has a CBA term deposit and earns $100k bank interest inside his super, because super in the pension phase is tax free he gets to keep the entire $100k.

Retiree 2 - owns CBA bank shares, and he earns $100k in company earnings, CBA deducts $30k and pays company tax from his earnings, then hands him a $70k dividend with $30k franking credit.

Both investors assets have earned $100k, but retiree 2 has only received $70k because $30k has been paid in tax.

Retiree 2 requires a $30k refund just to bring him back to the same tax free level at $100k in earnings retiree 1 got, otherwise retiree 2  will be unfairly taxed at 30% when other retirees with investments outside company structures get the 0% tax that is meant to be applied.

As I said though if you want the retirees to pay tax, just raise the tax rate on super and both 1 and 2 will pay equal amounts from their $100k in tax.

for example if you tax super at 10%, Retiree one will have to hand over $10k bringing him down to $90K, and retire 2 will only be able to claim $20k of his franking credits bringing him up to $90K, so this way you can change the tax rate to what ever you like and both investors  pay the same tax, without messing with the franking credit system.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> A means test could be applied to franking credits. You get them if your TOTAL (not assessable) income is below a threshold, after that they fade out. I just don't get how retirees whose super is tax free get a full refund while workers pay tax at their marginal rate.



Fundamentally, the argument against franking credits is essentially an argument to abolish the lowest Income Tax brackets for those receiving franked dividends. Outside of superannuation that's the practical effect.

If it had been proposed to take it away from middle and higher income earners, or simply to abolish it completely for everyone, then there'd be a fair argument about social equity and governments needing to raise revenue somehow and so on.

To propose only taking something away from those who've already fallen is decidedly "un-Australian" however, it's the sort of argument that many find unacceptable regardless of the impact or lack of it on them personally.

Earn $500k a year? No worries you get these franking credits and they're worth $ and we're looking after you there, you'll be keeping those.

Lose your job? Ah, well we'll take those franking credits off you too. Now you're stuffed eh? Oh well, sucks to be you.

For Labor to come after those on lower incomes, whilst retaining the same thing for those on higher incomes, is just too far from supposed core values hence the reaction. Some other party that makes no pretence of looking after the lower half could probably get away with it but not Labor.

Superannuation's a different situation and I do agree some reforms could be made there. My comments are referring to investments outside of super and the context that someone finds themselves reliant on that. Bearing in mind they've already paid tax when they earned that money, there's tax on capital gains and so on - versus someone who spent the lot then claims welfare who's imposing a far greater cost to government.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2022)

Smurf1976 said:


> Fundamentally, the argument against franking credits is essentially an argument to abolish the lowest Income Tax brackets for those receiving franked dividends. Outside of superannuation that's the practical effect.
> 
> If it had been proposed to take it away from middle and higher income earners, or simply to abolish it completely for everyone, then there'd be a fair argument about social equity and governments needing to raise revenue somehow and so on.
> 
> ...



Yes, well the revenue options seem rather limited then in the biggest debt and deficit situation we've ever faced. Can't reduce negative gearing because those with multiple houses will complain. Cant put a tax on super because retires on over $100k tax free super will complain they can't take overseas trips any more, can't tax resource exports because the big companies will stop investing (yeah right), our company tax is already too high so we can't put that up, so looks like it 's a case of cutting spending in health or education and just importing high wage skills or  keep borrowing and kick the can down the road for the next generation.

The country is stuffed, but we all want to keep our perks. So be it.

BTW, good point about people blowing their super and going on the pension, what should be done about that ?


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> A means test could be applied to franking credits





SirRumpole said:


> Yes, well the revenue options seem rather limited then in the biggest debt and deficit situation we've ever faced. Can't reduce negative gearing because those with multiple houses will complain. Cant put a tax on super because retires on over $100k tax free super will complain they can't take overseas trips any more, can't tax resource exports because the big companies will stop investing (yeah right), our company tax is already too high so we can't put that up, so looks like it 's a case of cutting spending in health or education and just importing high wage skills or  keep borrowing and kick the can down the road for the next generation.
> 
> The country is stuffed, but we all want to keep our perks. So be it.
> 
> BTW, good point about people blowing their super and going on the pension, what should be done about that ?



I just did the numbers.

If you took the franking credit system away, and didn’t replace it with another system like other countries have such as a lower tax rate for dividends.

Then my tax rate would go to 63%, instead of the 47% I am currently on.

While people earning under $21,000 who currently have a tax rate of 0%, would have their tax rate rise to 30%, (how ever their friends with rental properties, term deposits or any other investment would still enjoy the 0% rate)

—————————————

But, if you kept the franking system but just abolished refunds, I would stay they same and still only be taxed at 47%

Those low income guys though would have to suck it up and pay 30% though.

—————————————

The main issue people seem to have is as I pointed out caused by the 0% pension phase super tax rate, but as I pointed out that actually has nothing to do with franking.

There is also already limits to it, because there is a limit to how much assets you can put into your pension phase account.

There is also limits to how much you can contribute to super over the years.

———————————-

Also, I believe “these wealthy retirees” are actually doing society a favour, by building up enough super to earn a large tax free income, they might enjoy a 0% tax rate, but atleast they aren’t draining the government coffers either.

They also do still pay taxes like GST, Fuel excise, alcohol tax, customs fees and airport taxes etc etc.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2022)

Value Collector said:


> They also do still pay taxes like GST, Fuel excise, alcohol tax, customs fees and aurport taxes etc etc.




Big deal, so does everyone else.

At least abolishing refunds would be a start. A means test could be applied.


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Big deal, so does everyone else.
> 
> At least abolishing refunds would be a start. A means test could be applied.



But why would abolishing refunds be better than just raising the tax rate on every one?

Do you understand the examples I have been giving?

Why would you be ok with someone earning $100k tax free from a rental property, but not ok with some one earning $100k that got it paid as $70k in dividends then having their franking credits refunded so that they end up with their full $100k back.


——————-

Do you understand that -

1. Earning $100k from a rental property and being allowed to keep it tax free.

Is exactly the same as

2. Earning $100k in company and paying $30k tax, then getting a $70k dividend and $30k refund.

In Both examples $100k was earned and zero tax was paid, the shareholder just had $30k of their money held by the government for a few months before it was paid back.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2022)

Value Collector said:


> But why would abolishing refunds be better than just raising the tax rate on every one?
> 
> Do you understand the examples I have been giving?
> 
> ...



Who earns $100k tax free from rental properties?


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Who earns $100k tax free from rental properties?



You want to tax them as well, fine by me.


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Who earns $100k tax free from rental properties?



Lots of people, Probably the same amount of people that earn $100k in dividends.

All it would take is 5 houses or a small block of units, or a decent industrial warehouse or a few shops etc.

But that’s not the point the point is are you happy with other investors earning $100k tax free?

And if you aren’t, why only target franking credits?


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> You want to tax them as well, fine by me.



The point I am trying to explain is that you can tax everyone fairly without messing with the franking credit system.

The franking credit system isn’t the problem, it’s a scape goat, that weak politicians want to use to try and unfairly raise taxes because they think it’s easier to get that under the radar rather than a broad based tax increase on super.

They want to take advantage of 

1. Peoples ignorance on how the system actually works and why it’s important.

2. Peoples prejudice against those who are wealthy.

And sneak in a tax rise, even though the results are totally uneven.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2022)

Value Collector said:


> Lots of people, Probably the same amount of people that earn $100k in dividends.
> 
> All it would take is 5 houses or a small block of units, or a decent industrial warehouse or a few shops etc.
> 
> But that’s not the point the point is are you happy with other investors earning $100k tax free?



No im not happy with anyone earning $100k tax free. So if keeping the precious dividend imputation and  taxing all income at the same rate is more efficient, fine.


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> No im not happy with anyone earning $100k tax free. So if keeping the precious dividend imputation and  taxing all income at the same rate is more efficient, fine.



So install some sort of tax bracket system to super earning then, other you are over taxing certain assets classes and allowing others to be tax free.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2022)

Value Collector said:


> So install some sort of tax bracket system to super earning then, other you are over taxing certain assets classes and allowing others to be tax free.



And do away with the Stage 3 tax cuts for high income earners ?


----------



## sptrawler (30 October 2022)

If the removal of franking credits had been transparent and proposed in a honest and fair way, it would have been accepted by most as just one of those things that happen.
But the way it was proposed was deceitful and dishonest, the proposal was to take the franking credits off low income earners and self managed retirees, yet industry super funds and retail super funds were'nt going to lose them.
That IMO is descriminatory and morally corrupt.
Whether a low income earner gets the franking credit, or a billionaire gets the ffanking credit, the ATO loses it either way, so if they want to remove it, remove it from everyone IMO.
The easiest and fairest way to increase the tax revenue, is to increase the gst, then everyone wears it.
ATM the only ones who are carrying the majority of the pain are those with loans, the banks are increasing profits but the Govt is losing income.
Back of on interest rates and crank up gst IMO, then the Govt gets the dough.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2022)

sptrawler said:


> Whether a low income earner gets the franking credit, or a billionaire gets the ffanking credit, the ATO loses it either way, so if they want to remove it, remove it from everyone IMO.




Indeed. 



sptrawler said:


> The easiest and fairest way to increase the tax revenue, is to increase the gst, then everyone wears it.



Not fair at all, everyone does wear it but the lowest income earners wear it the most. 

Pretty easy and fair is to put an export tax on gas and coal that is linked to domestic prices.

If exporters want to reduce their export tax then they charge domestic consumers less.

No reason why we should pay world prices for stuff we own.


----------



## wayneL (30 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> ...so looks like it 's a case of cutting spending in health or education and just importing high wage skills or  keep borrowing and kick the can down the road for the next generation.
> 
> The country is stuffed, but we all want to keep our perks. So be it.




They could reduce spending on pork barrelling and other such nonsense. They won't, and that's the reason we're stuffed..

And FFS, the perks in Australia isn't in trying to level taxation across different asset classes.

Sheesh!


----------



## sptrawler (30 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Indeed.
> 
> 
> Not fair at all, everyone does wear it but the lowest income earners wear it the most.



That is a bit of a backflip from you Rumpy, it was only a couple of posts back that you were promoting penalizing the lowest income earners with franking credits. Just saying😉


GST is still the fairest and most broad based way of increasing Govt revenue, it is also the one easiest and fairest to compensate those on welfare, for example if GST is raised 5% welfare could also be increased at the same time.
The lowest earners are always hurt the most when costs are increased, they have no one to pass the increased cost on to, that is an unfortunate part of being at the bottom of the food chain.
Don't you think the RBA increasing interest rates, isn't hurting the low income earner most? They have increased debt costs and increased rent costs to name a couple of obvious ones.
The thing is the increased cost isn't being collected by the Govt, as much as it is being collected by the banks and the Govt gets a small share of it.
IMO far better for the Govt to slow down consumer spending, by increasing the GST and then using that money to improve services and targeted support.


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Indeed.
> 
> 
> Not fair at all, everyone does wear it but the lowest income earners wear it the most.
> ...



I agree, I think the GST hits lower incomes harder than it does guys like me because it is basically a consumption tax, so the people that have to consume all of their earnings pay a larger portion of their earnings towards it.

————————

I really do think the current system is fair, I don’t think we should raise the taxes above 47%, and abolishing franking credits would make it 63%. (Actually is good make it even higher where a company receives dividends from another company it would be 77% tax by the time the investor pays his tax)

————————

I guess we as a society need to ask ourselves 

1. how much should the lowest tax rate be? And what levels of income should that apply?

And 

2. How much should the highest tax rate be? and what level of income should that kick in?

I find it hard to justify a tax rate higher than 50%, but as I said I would accept some higher taxation on super

But super tax still has to be low because we want people to contribute to it so they aren’t a burden later, and also if some one does save enough to be a self funded retiree, then I think the fact that they aren’t a burden on society deserves a bit of a tax break.

—————————
Australia’s pension benefits are equal to owning assets of about $400,000. So we have to encourage people to save $400,000 over their life into super, starting them off with higher taxes will be counter productive.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2022)

sptrawler said:


> That is a bit of a backflip from you Rumpy, it was only a couple of posts back that you were promoting penalizing the lowest income earners with franking credits. Just saying😉




Mate, the lowest income earners just don't have the money to invest in shares or rental property so changes to franking credits or negative gearing means stuff all to them whereas an increase in GST means a lot. And a lot of low income earners aren't on welfare they just happen to be lowly paid so increases in welfare won't affect them either.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2022)

Value Collector said:


> But super tax still has to be low because we want people to contribute to it so they aren’t a burden later, and also if some one does save enough to be a self funded retiree, then I think the fact that they aren’t a burden on society deserves a bit of a tax break.




Well even if you taxed super income at half the marginal rate that is still an incentive and would increase revenue. As @Smurf1976 pointed out something should be done about those who blow their super then go on the pension.


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Well even if you taxed super income at half the marginal rate that is still an incentive and would increase revenue. As @Smurf1976 pointed out something should be done about those who blow their super then go on the pension.



One factor worth thinking about is that if super was taxed at say 20%, a lot of retirees that would have been self funded will burn through their super faster, and drop into the pension years earlier than they would have other wise.

So it might not be as big of a net win as we would hope, especially if that 20% drop in revenue caused a certain portion to drop out of private health care, or private nursing homes etc.

For every 1 wealthy retiree that you want to tax there is probably 20 border line self funded retirees.


----------



## sptrawler (30 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Mate, the lowest income earners just don't have the money to invest in shares or rental property so changes to franking credits or negative gearing means stuff all to them whereas an increase in GST means a lot. And a lot of low income earners aren't on welfare they just happen to be lowly paid so increases in welfare won't affect them either.



Mate a lot of low income earner mum and dads have Telstra and Medibank shares.
I also never said they negative geared, but I did allude to the fact if they are renting, the landlord would pass on the increased cost of higher interest rates onto the low income tenant.
Those low income earners may work in somewhere like Woolies or Bunnings, so they definitely will have shares earned as part of their wage package through the employees share purchase plan, but you dont mind kicking them in the goolies. Lol


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2022)

sptrawler said:


> Mate a lot of low income earner mum and dads have Telstra and Medibank shares.
> I also never said they negative geared, but I did allude to the fact if they are renting, the landlord would pass on the increased cost of higher interest rates onto the low income tenant.
> Those low income earners may work in somewhere like Woolies or Bunnings, so they definitely will have shares earned as part of their wage package through the employees share purchase plan, but you dont mind kicking them in the goolies. Lol




It was your suggestion to get rid of franking credits for everyone, wasn't it ?


----------



## sptrawler (30 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> It was your suggestion to get rid of franking credits for everyone, wasn't it ?



Absolutely, I have said over and over, it is immoral to take it of the lowest earners, while high wealth individuals retain them.
How you can say it is ok to take the franking credits off the person who stood behind a checkout for 45 years and yet give them to Twiggy Forrest, is beyond me. But everyone to their own.

It is the same as saying, only those who have worked qualify for a pension, because they are the only ones who have paid tax to support the pension.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2022)

sptrawler said:


> Absolutely, I have said over and over, it is immoral to take it of the lowest earners, while high wealth individuals retain them.
> 
> It is the same as saying, only those who have worked qualify for a pension, because they are the only ones who have paid tax to support the pension.




Well I think we agree then.


----------



## sptrawler (30 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Well I think we agree then.



Well my position hasnt changed.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2022)

Value Collector said:


> One factor worth thinking about is that if super was taxed at say 20%, a lot of retirees that would have been self funded will burn through their super faster, and drop into the pension years earlier than they would have other wise.
> 
> So it might not be as big of a net win as we would hope, especially if that 20% drop in revenue caused a certain portion to drop out of private health care, or private nursing homes etc.
> 
> For every 1 wealthy retiree that you want to tax there is probably 20 border line self funded retirees.




So start at $100k, then the borderline ones won't be affected


----------



## sptrawler (30 October 2022)

The whole tax system requires looming at, the problem is every time a review is produced, the politicians file it in the too hard basket.


----------



## sptrawler (30 October 2022)

Appologies for the spelling of looking, Im currently on the phone, big fingers and small letters arent a good fit. Lol


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2022)

sptrawler said:


> Appologies for the spelling of looking, Im currently on the phone, big fingers and small letters arent a good fit. Lol



It's looming as well, larger than life !


----------



## sptrawler (30 October 2022)

It sounds as though the energy issue is starting to cause a problem, on one hand the treasurer is talking about introducing new taxes on the gas suppliers and in the next breath talking about capping what they can charge consumers, it could all get very messy IMO.
Interesting times.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers can’t say when Australians' power bills will come down








						Treasurer can't say when power bills will come down, as government weighs price cap
					

Jim Chalmers says the government is "always recalibrating our expectations for electricity price rises" and that prices will "moderate in time".




					www.abc.net.au
				












						Treasurer to consider increasing tax on gas companies
					

Jim Chalmers has signalled the government will consider strengthening the petroleum resource rent tax arrangements to collect more revenue from gas exporters.




					www.google.com


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2022)

sptrawler said:


> It sounds as though the energy issue is starting to cause a problem, on one hand the treasurer is talking about introducing new taxes on the gas suppliers and in the next breath talking about capping what they can charge consumers, it could all get very messy IMO.
> Interesting times.
> Treasurer Jim Chalmers can’t say when Australians' power bills will come down
> 
> ...



Do people in Saudi Arabia or the USA pay world parity prices for their own oil i wonder ?


----------



## sptrawler (30 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Do people in Saudi Arabia or the USA pay world parity prices for their own oil i wonder ?



I doubt it.
The thing is Albo, Bowen and Chalmers need to get some rhyme and reason to their narrative, it is all sounding like a confused symphony with no common flow, it sounds a bit chaotic.
They quoted that they will reduce emissions by 43% and reduce power bills, at the moment they sound like they will be lucky if they can keep the lights on, there is an underlying feeling of panic IMO.
I just hope they sort it out.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2022)

sptrawler said:


> I doubt it.
> The thing is Albo, Bowen and Chalmers need to get some rhyme and reason to their narrative, it is all sounding like a confused symphony with no common flow, it sounds a bit chaotic.
> They quoted that they will reduce emissions by 43% and reduce power bills, at the moment they sound like they will be lucky if they can keep the lights on, there is an underlying feeling of panic IMO.
> I just hope they sort it out.



I think they are trying too hard to please everyone (except the consumers). They have to grasp the nettle and lay down the law to the resource exporters who are the ones making billions at the expense of the rest of us.


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Do people in Saudi Arabia or the USA pay world parity prices for their own oil i wonder ?



In the USA I would say pretty close to it, Oil is privately owned in the USA, no oil company is going to want to sell their oil at a discount.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 October 2022)

Value Collector said:


> In the USA I would say pretty close to it, Oil is privately owned in the USA, no oil company is going to want to sell their oil at a discount.











						USA gasoline prices, 26-Dec-2022 | GlobalPetrolPrices.com
					

Gasoline prices per litre, octane-95: We show prices for USA from 19-Sep-2022 to 26-Dec-2022. The average value for USA during that period was 1.02 U.S. Dollar with a minimum of 0.90 U.S. Dollar on 19-Dec-2022 and a maximum of 1.09 U.S. Dollar on 10-Oct-2022. For comparison, the average price of...




					www.globalpetrolprices.com


----------



## sptrawler (30 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> I think they are trying too hard to please everyone (except the consumers). They have to grasp the nettle and lay down the law to the resource exporters who are the ones making billions at the expense of the rest of us.



I think you are spot on, but I also think Bowen and Chalmers are talking themselves into a corner.
They need to take a deep breath and calm down, now Bowen is quoting nuclear facts from 20 years ago when Ziggy did a review, IMO he is just digging a bigger and bigger hole.
He needs to back off on the rhetoric and get some technical advice, not only is the fossil fuel sector getting nervous, it sounds as though the AEMO is also.
In Sept they were talking about giving the AEMO more control over gas, today they are talking about changing the way gas and it's pricing is dealt with. To the layman it must project a image of chaos IMO.


			https://www.energy.gov.au/government-priorities/energy-ministers/priorities/gas/proposed-regulatory-amendments-extend-aemos-functions-and-powers-manage-east-coast-gas-supply-adequacy


----------



## Value Collector (30 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> USA gasoline prices, 26-Dec-2022 | GlobalPetrolPrices.com
> 
> 
> Gasoline prices per litre, octane-95: We show prices for USA from 19-Sep-2022 to 26-Dec-2022. The average value for USA during that period was 1.02 U.S. Dollar with a minimum of 0.90 U.S. Dollar on 19-Dec-2022 and a maximum of 1.09 U.S. Dollar on 10-Oct-2022. For comparison, the average price of...
> ...



What did you want me to get from that info? It’s talking about gasoline/petrol prices, not oil prices.

Petrol prices are affect by many things, eg taxes, refining costs, transport costs etc etc.

The USA has a huge network of very efficient refining, it transports oil and gasoline very efficiently by rail and pipeline and has low taxes.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 October 2022)

sptrawler said:


> I think you are spot on, but I also think Bowen and Chalmers are talking themselves into a corner.
> They need to take a deep breath and calm down, now Bowen is quoting nuclear facts from 20 years ago when Ziggy did a review, IMO he is just digging a bigger and bigger hole.
> He needs to back off on the rhetoric and get some technical advice, not only is the fossil fuel sector getting nervous, it sounds as though the AEMO is also.
> In Sept they were talking about giving the AEMO more control over gas, today they are talking about changing the way gas and it's pricing is dealt with. To the layman it must project a image of chaos IMO.
> ...



In short I've followed this from the start. Right from the start. I've still got early planning documents from 1993 when the idea of an electricity market was first being proposed.

The basic problem right now is the whole thing's so far removed from both engineering and economic fundamentals as to be a nightmare. Or more to the point, an accident waiting to happen both technically and economically.

Fundamentally there's no reason that prevents the efficient and economical supply of electricity and gas to consumers in Australian cities and all but the most remote towns. We've got plenty of suitable natural resources, we've got land to build things on, etc.

Trouble is we've got a political class that simply doesn't respect technical knowledge and skill. It's as simple as that. Find any once-great technical institution, from TAFE to manufacturing, from utilities to research, and governments have over the past few decades slowly but surely done their best to destroy it.

If there's a genuine desire from politicians, of whatever persuasion, to fix the mess then quite simply they need to keep the politics out of it. Put competent people in charge and leave them to get on with it, noting that technical things don't always make for great political announcements and photo ops but such is life.

If they don't do that, if they keep meddling, well there's darkness ahead. Literally so. 

Next winter could well bring down the government if they're not careful. I don't think they really grasp that reality and what needs to be done to fix the situation. Politicians are simply far too down a rabbit hole of ideology and waffle speech and lack any real understanding of the fundamentals of what needs to happen.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Do people in Saudi Arabia or the USA pay world parity prices for their own oil i wonder ?



No and yes in that order.

Bearing in mind that Saudi does however encourage technical efficiency by the public. They're one of the few countries that actively encourages use of the correct octane petrol for example - bearing in mind that "correct" does not necessarily mean "highest". So they do push technical efficiency there.

Same in fuels for power generation. They've intentionally pushed it toward the use of lower value fuels despite the technical challenges of doing so.

Similar with the other ME oil countries. Dubai with its well known pursuit of lighting efficiency being an obvious example - and you can't buy those bulbs anywhere else in the world.

In Australia you can buy a 7W LED to replace a 60W incandescent.

Go to Dubai and you'd buy a 3W LED to do the same job. Theirs lasts two thirds longer too.

So those countries are pursuing technical efficiency basically.


----------

