# ELECTIONS - Labor or Liberal



## insider (11 February 2007)

I'd like this thread to be concerned with the up coming election. Out of Labor or Liberial who will win the election? Why? Who would you vote for? How would the party you voted for benefit you in the sharemarket?


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 February 2007)

can we have a "none of the above " please


----------



## wayneL (11 February 2007)

I think many folks have had enough of Johnny Rotten.

I'm traditionally a liberal voter, but can't wait to see the back end of this lot.

The political landscape is fairly homogenous amongst the big parties anyway.


----------



## wayneL (11 February 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> can we have a "none of the above " please




If the poll said "who do you want to win?" I'd agree wholeheartedly.

Alas, the the poll is "who do we think will win?" And not enough people have the nads to vote outside of the main cabal... errrr, I mean parties.


----------



## Snakey (11 February 2007)

Vote 1 Mickey Mouse


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 February 2007)

Vote 1 for the new dream-team, Shane Warne for President, Brad Hogg for PM.  
lets get some spin coming outta Canberra that we can't pick from a mile off.


----------



## insider (11 February 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> can we have a "none of the above " please




I don't think the other parties are significant at this stage in Australias politcal history... Labor and liberal always battle it out


----------



## insider (11 February 2007)

Vote for pedro


----------



## insider (11 February 2007)

Well, as a 100% investor in Uranium who should I expect to benefit me as far as Uranium mining and the nuclear industry goes?


----------



## wayneL (11 February 2007)

Actually it doesn't matter. Leadership of Aus resides in the White House


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 February 2007)

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/
good discussion on ABC Insiders program this morning
click on "this week on insiders"
or if you want a laugh " talking pictures".
Too close to call on who will win.


----------



## krisbarry (11 February 2007)

Its a landslide victory according to the votes...wooo hooo.  Kick howard out!


----------



## krisbarry (11 February 2007)

How can you keep Howard in when he has slashed education funding, put up HECS fees, Dumped workers needs/rights/working conditions/Pay.

Pumped millions into a useless war.

Lied to the public and allowed 8 interest rate rises to occur

Introduced the GST, a tax on a tax!

Kick the bastard out!


----------



## marklar (11 February 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> not enough people have the nads to vote outside of the main cabal... errrr, I mean parties.



I do; hell, I even ran as a candidate in 2004 for a non-"main cabal" party.

m.

PS. Ten points to whomever guesses correctly which party.
PPS. The points mean absolutely nothing!!!


----------



## insider (11 February 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> How can you keep Howard in when he has slashed education funding, put up HECS fees, Dumped workers needs/rights/working conditions/Pay.
> 
> Pumped millions into a useless war.
> 
> ...




I think hecs is great I just graduated and I'm doing more uni... Hecs is the best loan because it only goes up according to inflation which is easily out performed by share investing... I hope that public transportation isn't free for students though... I always drove to school to get away from the freaks that catch it... I spent $5500 a year just to drive and park my car in the city...


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 February 2007)

insider said:
			
		

> I don't think the other parties are significant at this stage in Australias politcal history... Labor and liberal always battle it out



True in the national and mainland state context. But the Greens have in recent times rivalled the Liberals in Tasmania so it's not impossible for a "new" party to seriously challenge Liberal / Labor given the right circumstances. 

Admittedly, being a serious threat to the "borrow, borrow and borrow some more - doom and gloom are just around the corner" Tas Liberals isn't exactly difficult. But that's really not that different to the two major parties in Canberra in that neither of them offer anything truly progressive (at least not without a major downside they prefer not to mention).

I'd seriously like to see someone from any party address the serious issues facing this country rather than bury their head in the sand and waffle on about whatever the current popular issue happens to be.

Issues?

1. Energy and water. We're headed full throttle off the cliff on this one and few are even aware of it let alone doing anything about it. Inadequate water storage, oil and then gas depletion, the actions of Russia etc over fuel exports, the potential of the US and China outbidding us for available oil on world markets, the maximum possible depletion rate of our own resources, climate change... And this is an issue that could easily (WILL if nothing changes) derail our entire economy, national security and way of life.

2. Education. The lack of even basic knowledge on things that matter (for example finance, major events in history with ongoing relevance and engineering / physics fundamentals) for the future of individuals and the country is an outright disaster IMO. That even well educated people apparently fail to understand such concepts as compound interest and kinetic energy, neither of which are exactly difficult in a basic form, says it all about education in this country.

3. Trade. Argue all you like as to how long it will continue but at some point all that massive debt has to be repaid somehow. Future generations won't thank us for that one. And it's ridiculous from both an economic and national security perspective to rely so much on exporting raw materials in the hope that this will pay for imports of finished goods. One war that may not even directly involve Australia and that flow of goods grinds to an abrupt halt.

4. Climate change. With Chinese emissions growing at an annual rate that exceeds Australia's total emissions, Russia wanting to shift _to_ coal for power generation etc it's pie in the sky to expect a real global solution before serious effects are obvious to all. So we need to start serious preparation for what seems inevitable - stopping building things in areas that will be under water well before the strucutre wears out would be a simple place to start. Major infrastructure to cope with floods etc is another (more politically and economically difficult) one.

5. Population. THE issue that nobody wants to go anywhere near. What is Australia's sustainable population level having regard to the situation with oil, climate change etc? We ought to be VERY careful to not exceed that population level (have we already?).

But it's so much easier to just waffle on about whatever happened recently in the financial markets (usually interest rates), short term weather patterns, some statistic the ABS has released and so on. Just don't go near any of those hard issues that actually need strong leadership.


----------



## chops_a_must (11 February 2007)

marklar said:
			
		

> I do; hell, I even ran as a candidate in 2004 for a non-"main cabal" party.
> 
> m.
> 
> ...



The Greens?

I got offered to run as a green candidate in the 2005 WA state election. Seriously thought about it and declined.

I hope Howard gets pounded. Our universities, hospitals and conventions have never looked sicker. Not to mention a grim outlook for the youth in Australia.

What will Howard be remembered for in another 30 years? Apart from appeasing the cashed up bogans, what has been done in this country? Hawke and Keating are responsible for the strong economy we are seeing now, and that is increasingly viewed as the case. Absolutely no vision, and it will cost us in the long run.


----------



## insider (11 February 2007)

Your right but you have to admit that the greens strategies are pretty bad... No exporting coal overseas... c'mon... a few years ago they had a plan to ban cars from CBD's and make everyone ride bikes instead... No fooling


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 February 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> Lied to the public and allowed 8 interest rate rises to occur



I'm somewhat perplexed as to why someone who is concerned about the high price of houses would seemingly be opposed to interest rate rises?


----------



## chops_a_must (11 February 2007)

insider said:
			
		

> Your right but you have to admit that the greens strategies are pretty bad... No exporting coal overseas... c'mon... a few years ago they had a plan to ban cars from CBD's and make everyone ride bikes instead... No fooling



Yes, the idea is taken from some northern european cities where they have this policy. I think even Portland in the US is the same. And Fremantle at various times has seriously considered it. Instead they have buses timed so that certain streets are free from cars for about 5mins every 30.

Although I agree that we shouldn't be exporting coal, saying we should ban it immediately is just dumb and is not thought out. A much more sensible approach would be to suggest the end to exportation of coal in 10 years or so, whilst capping exports in the meantime. But you can't argue with big business... The health problems in Chinese cities will soon level off demand for coal there anyway.


----------



## marklar (11 February 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> The Greens?



Oh dear $deity no.  I'm not old enough or young enough to even consider supporting them.  

If anyone is curious, did you know that Bob Brown never voted against sending Aussie troops to Iraq?  He was holding a press conference on the steps of parly house while the vote was held in the Senate.

m.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 February 2007)

insider said:
			
		

> Your right but you have to admit that the greens strategies are pretty bad... No exporting coal overseas... c'mon... a few years ago they had a plan to ban cars from CBD's and make everyone ride bikes instead... No fooling



I've argued the point about coal with Greens leader Bob Brown in the past. 

I'll put it this way. Bob has done a lot of good for _conservation_ and environmental awareness generally. But he and the party have done far more harm than good as far as climate change is concerned.

Had they been fully implemented, the Greens policies in Tasmania alone would have resulted in increased greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the burning of about 1,300,000,000 litres of oil (or 2.1 million tonnes of sub-bituminous coal) each year. That's literally a 100% increase on the total combined coal / oil / gas presently used in Tas.

The Greens have a lot of credibility on rivers, forests, biodiversity etc but they can't possibly claim that climate change is their number one or even number two priority when it has consistently rated well down the list as evidenced by their actions to date both in Tasmania and nationally.

Wrong or right? I'm not going to judge that one right here and now. Just don't anyone tell me the Greens have climate change as their "number one priority" when clearly it isn't.


----------



## insider (11 February 2007)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> I've argued the point about coal with Greens leader Bob Brown in the past.
> 
> I'll put it this way. Bob has done a lot of good for _conservation_ and environmental awareness generally. But he and the party have done far more harm than good as far as climate change is concerned.
> 
> ...




Peter Garret's no new coal mine's policy is great... Combine this with carbon taxes and soon we have a real shot for improvement...

Peter Garret doesn't support Uranium mining which I think is rubbish... Placing limitations on the coal industry will benefit the upcoming Uranium Industry...


----------



## insider (11 February 2007)

VOTE FOR PEDRO


----------



## Spot (12 February 2007)

Who ever can do the best deal for Murdock, will win hands down.

It's all a 2 party dictatorship -- until the re-election period.

Twidlee Dum or Twidlee Dee, they are both religious conservatives -- just depends on which pressure groups obtain the upper hand.


----------



## stockmaster (12 February 2007)

kevin rudd definitely has the potential to be a pm, but i am not realli sure that he will sustain the current economic growth base on his policy of child care and other non-economical issues i believe. howard is there for a bit too long, but this old man can control the inflation and sustain a decent growth. at the end of the day, i vote for the guy who can lift the economy which will help the sharemarket. i want to see howard for one more term, and give rudd a chance to prove himself that he can make the economy better than howard!


----------



## krisbarry (12 February 2007)

stockmaster said:
			
		

> howard is there for a bit too long, but this old man can control the inflation and sustain a decent growth. at the end of the day,




ummm did I miss something....8 interest rate rises later and the head of the RBA continually warning Howard of Inflation risks due to infrastructure and transportation bottle-necks on our ports, rail, and freight etc.


----------



## mime (12 February 2007)

Howard has done a freaking good job. Unlike the Labor states who enjoy hindering investment by taxing it (property in NSW) the federal government has made it very easy to invest in stock and look at the result. 

It's never been easier to find work in this rampant economy and don't blame the fed government for hospitals the states are ment to look after them. 

John Howard stepped up to fix our water problem and pay for it saving our rivers,  environment and rural communities when the states are dragging their feet over the issue. While Kevin Rudd more concerned about the hysteria of global warming.

Next time all you spoilt and angry people open your eyes and look around. The country has never been in better shape and it's all thanks to one government.


----------



## CanOz (12 February 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> But you can't argue with big business... The health problems in Chinese cities will soon level off demand for coal there anyway.




Oh, and exactly what else do you think they'll burn instead?


----------



## BIG BWACULL (12 February 2007)

> Oh, and exactly what else do you think they'll burn instead?



 Maybe they could start burning politicians, real estate agents and solicitors and we could all live happily ever after.


----------



## CanOz (12 February 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> Dumped workers needs/rights/working conditions/Pay.




The Unions have been pricing Australia out of the manufacturing business for years. Now demand for labour has outstripped supply, making labour even more expensive in Australia (he should've done more for skilled labour though). Without industrial reform there will be no manufacturing left in Australia. At least he's has the guts to see it and do something about it. If Rudd gets in it will be final nail.

Cheers,


----------



## chops_a_must (12 February 2007)

CanOz said:
			
		

> Oh, and exactly what else do you think they'll burn instead?



Tibetans probably.


----------



## chops_a_must (12 February 2007)

mime said:
			
		

> Next time all you spoilt and angry people open your eyes and look around. The country has never been in better shape and it's all thanks to one government.



I dispute that. Most of the reforms that Keating and Hawke implemented (that they copped flak for) surely have something to do with our international competitiveness. In fact, Howard thanked Keating and Beazley for the strength of the economy when he took office in 96. So if Howard is giving credit to someone else, why can't you?


----------



## chops_a_must (12 February 2007)

stockmaster said:
			
		

> howard is there for a bit too long, but this old man can control the inflation and sustain a decent growth.



Lol! Really? What about when Howard was treasurer? Inflation out of control, interest rates at 21.39% Hardly sound economic management.


----------



## mime (12 February 2007)

Keating put Australia into recession.

Oh and under Kim labor plans to sack the retirement fund to pay for his education package. Hopefully Kevin Rudd if he wins will leave it in tact.


----------



## anon (12 February 2007)

CanOz said:
			
		

> The Unions have been pricing Australia out of the manufacturing business for years. Now demand for labour has outstripped supply, making labour even more expensive in Australia (he should've done more for skilled labour though). Without industrial reform there will be no manufacturing left in Australia. At least he's has the guts to see it and do something about it. If Rudd gets in it will be final nail.
> 
> Cheers,




I think unions are extremely important in any developed industrial society to provide protection for the workers against exploitation. At the same time they need to be more adaptible to the ever changing prevailing conditions which affect Australian workers, such as the competition from the cheap overseas labour. It's about time unions got together with the employers and worked together for the benefit of both parties and for the nation. 

In my opinion John Howard's greatest achievement for the nation was destruction of the Waterside Workers' Union's power.

Here is an extract from an article in The Australian which sheds a bit of light on Kevin Rudd's ability to see and plan for the future -



> Greg Hunt: Rudd recipe no good in a crisis
> 
> * The Labor leader's social democracy ethos would cripple Australia
> * January 03, 2007      The Australian
> ...




We are desperately in need of water right now, not in twenty years' time. Joh Bjelke Petersen could foresee this. Is Kevin Rudd a lesser visionary than Joh was?

anon


----------



## Broadside (12 February 2007)

John Howard is 100% gone, he has no chance of winning the next election, simply he hung on too long and his war of words with Senator Obama shows he is losing his political judgment.  I expect a very big spending May budget, no point leaving too many cookies in the jar for the new government.  If Costello is still Treasurer, that is, he should make his move right now or he will never be PM.


----------



## Kauri (12 February 2007)

Broadside said:
			
		

> John Howard is 100% gone, he has no chance of winning the next election, simply he hung on too long and his war of words with Senator Obama shows he is losing his political judgment. I expect a very big spending May budget, no point leaving too many cookies in the jar for the new government. If Costello is still Treasurer, that is, he should make his move right now or he will never be PM.




  He's still in with a chance, I hear they have spotted another leaking refugee boat off the north west coast..


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 February 2007)

stockmaster said:
			
		

> howard is there for a bit too long, but this old man can control the inflation and sustain a decent growth.



Control inflation? Oh please!

We've had rampant inflation for quite some time now. Just look at house prices to see that one. Same house but it costs two or three times as much - that's inflation at work big time. You need more $ to buy the same goods - the classic symptom of inflation. Choosing not to report this inflation via the CPI is not controlling it but merely hiding it.

The inflation of recent times has sown the seeds for an inevitable wages boom. That's not going to help Australia's competitiveness at all but it's only wages playing catch up to price increases.

As for the general economy, playing the inflation game is pretty much guaranteed to work in the initial stages and indeed it has. The trouble is when the inevitable rising interest rates and wages explosion can no longer be contained. It would be nice timing for Howard to leave that one to blow up in the face of whoever follows him be it Costello or Rudd. 

Personally, I'd like to see someone do something truly visionary for this country but I'm not holding my breath. Over a decade of economic success and we haven't exactly invested much of it in anything of permanent value to the country. Previous generations invested and we've benefited from that. We've just spent, spent and spent some more. Popular perhaps but it's not leadership.

Odds are Rudd won't do much better overall so it's a bit of a non-choice as far as I'm concerned. That said, alternating between Labor and Liberal every few years should at least maintain a better balance than having either all the time.


----------



## nioka (12 February 2007)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Control inflation? Oh please!
> 
> We've had rampant inflation for quite some time now. Just look at house prices to see that one. Same house but it costs two or three times as much - that's inflation at work big time. You need more $ to buy the same goods - the classic symptom of inflation. Choosing not to report this inflation via the CPI is not controlling it but merely hiding it



How much did the GST add to the housing price. Remember the GST tax that Howard said was dead and not on the agenda any more. The first of his many deceptions. Then there are the contributions developers have to make to local government and their cost passed on. The fact that young people expect to start off with a large home in a prime position and have everything now that our generation worked hard for many years to obtain adds to the problems for them.
The best way to get change is to forget party politics put the sitting member last and hope some new faces may change things. Of course change may not end up any better but could it be any worse?


----------



## chops_a_must (12 February 2007)

mime said:
			
		

> Keating put Australia into recession.



Most economists agree that this paved the way for the exceptional growth we have seen in the last 11-12 years. Even Ian Macfarlane says so.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 February 2007)

CanOz said:
			
		

> The Unions have been pricing Australia out of the manufacturing business for years. Now demand for labour has outstripped supply, making labour even more expensive in Australia (he should've done more for skilled labour though). Without industrial reform there will be no manufacturing left in Australia. At least he's has the guts to see it and do something about it. If Rudd gets in it will be final nail.
> 
> Cheers,




Rudd is actually making noises about an industry policy to help manufacturing.
If you think that Howards been doing well in manufacturing then you need to get out more. Port blockages, lack of apprenticeship training, lack of incentives for manufacturing to set up in Australia, free trade policy with the US has rmoved final vestiges of protection. The US have even taken the rights for Ugg Boots and forced the original Aussie manufacturers to close down!

He is now trying to correct the first two but too its too late.

The Liberals can take plaudits for some of the things they did but thats not one of them.


----------



## bingk6 (12 February 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Leadership of Aus resides in the White House




If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny!!!


----------



## CanOz (12 February 2007)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> Rudd is actually making noises about an industry policy to help manufacturing.
> If you think that Howards been doing well in manufacturing then you need to get out more. Port blockages, lack of apprenticeship training, lack of incentives for manufacturing to set up in Australia, free trade policy with the US has rmoved final vestiges of protection. The US have even taken the rights for Ugg Boots and forced the original Aussie manufacturers to close down!
> 
> He is now trying to correct the first two but too its too late.
> ...




What I said was at least he's trying to reform industrial relations and work place laws to help Manufacturing. I didn't say that the liberal gov't had done heaps for manufacturing other than this.

Off course Rudd is making noises, there is an election coming up and he wants business to think he's serious about not taking it up the bum from the unions....hardly a likely truth.


----------



## The Mint Man (12 February 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Most economists agree that this paved the way for the exceptional growth we have seen in the last 11-12 years. Even Ian Macfarlane says so.



 :eek3:


----------



## Dr Doom (12 February 2007)

Here's a thought - get rid of them completely. Why not have true democacy and vote directly on legislation ourselves. If we trust the banks with internet banking, why not internet voting?. We could even propose legislation via the internet, then get the professional buerocrats/bureocrats/ ah! the fat cats in Canberra to do the legal stuff then submit it for electronic voting by the public. Those that don't have internet go down to the post office. Then all we would have to do was vote for 'country representatives' for official duties, but they would have to be qualified for the job, unlike the insider appointments currently.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 February 2007)

Dr Doom said:
			
		

> Here's a thought - get rid of them completely. Why not have true democacy and vote directly on legislation ourselves. If we trust the banks with internet banking, why not internet voting?. We could even propose legislation via the internet, then get the professional buerocrats/bureocrats/ ah! the fat cats in Canberra to do the legal stuff then submit it for electronic voting by the public. Those that don't have internet go down to the post office. Then all we would have to do was vote for 'country representatives' for official duties, but they would have to be qualified for the job, unlike the insider appointments currently.




Sounds good however then we would be at war with Indonesia over Schappelle Corby!


----------



## greggy (12 February 2007)

insider said:
			
		

> I'd like this thread to be concerned with the up coming election. Out of Labor or Liberial who will win the election? Why? Who would you vote for? How would the party you voted for benefit you in the sharemarket?



I think that the Liberals will win, but it will be a nail biter. At this stage Mr Rudd is performing well, but Mr Howard is more experienced and cunning. A lot of people out there vote Labor at the State Elections (I voted for MR Bracks at the last state election and go for Howard at the federal level.   I feel that Labor is better at handling services (education and health) whilst the Liberals are stronger on economic and national security issues, despite the Iraq disaster.  To put Labor into power federally would result in there being no governemnts being Liberal at the state or federal levels.  I would only vote for Mr Rudd at the next election should Mr Costello become PM.  Costello is very arrogant and reminds me too much of Keating.  I hold uranium shares so it doesn't really matter at the federal level who wins.  However, from a speculator's perspective it would be good to get rid of Mr Carpenter in WA, even though he seems a pretty decent man.


----------



## Dukey (12 February 2007)

Kauri said:
			
		

> He's still in with a chance, I hear they have spotted another leaking refugee boat off the north west coast..




Spot on Kauri.  Just be patient... It will come.
It could come in many guises - but I'm sure the scaremongering will come. Especially if it's looking bad for the Libs or even close.

Johnny is an expert fear tweaker, liar  and US groveller. Sure Aust is in boom times but IMO thats got more to with the current resources boom/cycle which is driven by external factors.
Just my


----------



## Buy low. sell high (12 February 2007)

Anybody else think Howard is losing his marbles? What the hell is he thinking with all this Barack Obama stuff? Then there was that gaff in parlament about global warming, not to mention the transparent jumping on the "I love the environment" bandwagon, does anyone buy that?

Strange times indeed!


----------



## greggy (12 February 2007)

Buy low said:
			
		

> Anybody else think Howard is losing his marbles? What the hell is he thinking with all this Barack Obama stuff? Then there was that gaff in parlament about global warming, not to mention the transparent jumping on the "I love the environment" bandwagon, does anyone buy that?
> 
> Strange times indeed!



I did mention the word cunning in my comments.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 February 2007)

greggy

I will vote the other way, I voted Liberal at state level and Labor at Federal!
Must be more doing it your way!


----------



## billhill (12 February 2007)

A strong education reform is the future of this country and that is why i will vote labour. We need investment in the future something i think labour is better at. Its time for a younger generation to lead this country.


----------



## nioka (12 February 2007)

Dr Doom said:
			
		

> Here's a thought - get rid of them completely. Why not have true democacy and vote directly on legislation ourselves. If we trust the banks with internet banking, why not internet voting?. We could even propose legislation via the internet, then get the professional buerocrats/bureocrats/ ah! the fat cats in Canberra to do the legal stuff then submit it for electronic voting by the public. Those that don't have internet go down to the post office. Then all we would have to do was vote for 'country representatives' for official duties, but they would have to be qualified for the job, unlike the insider appointments currently.



Would you trust the bureaucrats that much. Did you ever watch "Yes Minister"


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 February 2007)

greggy said:
			
		

> I think that the Liberals will win, but it will be a nail biter. At this stage Mr Rudd is performing well, but Mr Howard is more experienced and cunning. A lot of people out there vote Labor at the State Elections (I voted for MR Bracks at the last state election and go for Howard at the federal level.   I feel that Labor is better at handling services (education and health) whilst the Liberals are stronger on economic and national security issues, despite the Iraq disaster.  To put Labor into power federally would result in there being no governemnts being Liberal at the state or federal levels.



Generally agreed about Labor and services. All the Liberals do is sell everything off and wonder why it stops working 5 or 10 years later. There's a reason some things are historically in public rather than private hands but the Liberals just don't get it. 

The Liberals thought that rivers (you know, the ones with water in them) would compete against each other on the basis of price 9 years ago down here in Tas. Somehow we were going to have more water in the cheaper rivers and less in the more expensive one thus bringing down overall costs. Yeah right! Biggest load of bull**** I've ever heard from anyone anywhere. And that was the centrepiece of Liberal policy in Tas at the time that was supposedly going to fix everything from the roads to hospitals. Of course, everything had to be privatised as a condition of their policy - a rather blatant attempt to hand control of publicly owned natural resources to their mates that most thankfully saw straight through.

So I'll be sticking with Labor as far as state governments are concerned until such time as the Liberals come up with some sensible policies based on something other than pie in the sky theories that clearly don't work in practice.


----------



## greggy (12 February 2007)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> greggy
> 
> I will vote the other way, I voted Liberal at state level and Labor at Federal!
> Must be more doing it your way!



Its all about balance.  I even voted for the Democrats in the Senate before they fell apart and went to the Left.  Too much power for one party worries me too much.  
I've heard that here in Victoria according to the poll results that around 10% of voters who vote Labor at the state level vote for the Liberals at the federal level.  The trend is also stronger in NSW apparently.  Despite all the scandals Labor will probably still win at the next state election there.  Mr Debnam comes across as clueless.  The Liberals should have elected a leader who was more moderate as NSW is traditionally a progressive state.


----------



## Kauri (12 February 2007)

Its good to hear Paul Keatings view on the Right Honourable John Howard on the radio....
*He's like an old dessicated coconut*.... and... *He's got araldite on his pants, just doesn't want to get out of the chair*...


----------



## chops_a_must (12 February 2007)

The Mint Man said:
			
		

> :eek3:



Have you ever read the Boyer lectures?



> Anybody else think Howard is losing his marbles? What the hell is he thinking with all this Barack Obama stuff? Then there was that gaff in parlament about global warming, not to mention the transparent jumping on the "I love the environment" bandwagon, does anyone buy that?
> 
> Strange times indeed!



Did anyone see that censure motion attempted against him today? Howard sounded like a bumbling old fool when he stated his defence. That Obama attack is becoming an internation scandal. He's already a disgrace internationally, this is just another international liberal party blunder on the list.

Farkin' busted ass countries!


----------



## drgonzo (12 February 2007)

Was the question Who do you THINK will win the election or who do you WANT to win the election..?


----------



## Joe Blow (12 February 2007)

drgonzo said:
			
		

> Was the question Who do you THINK will win the election or who do you WANT to win the election..?




The question was who do you THINK will win the next federal election.


----------



## drgonzo (12 February 2007)

It was a rhetorical question, but in any event, Liberal on both counts.

Australian's have never had it so good and irrespective of what your pursuasion may be, most will atleast privately concede that it is the Federal government's doing.


----------



## DOC (12 February 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> I think many folks have had enough of Johnny Rotten.
> 
> I'm traditionally a liberal voter, but can't wait to see the back end of this lot.
> 
> The political landscape is fairly homogenous amongst the big parties anyway.




anyone who says they are a traditional liberal voter, would not say such things about our great government. you must be a member of the labor party.


----------



## chops_a_must (12 February 2007)

DOC said:
			
		

> anyone who says they are a traditional liberal voter, would not say such things about our great government. you must be a member of the labor party.



There are such things as small "L" liberals you know, that Howard successfully managed to run out of the party. Hence Fraser's disdain for Howard.


----------



## mime (12 February 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Most economists agree that this paved the way for the exceptional growth we have seen in the last 11-12 years. Even Ian Macfarlane says so.




Tell that to the family small business that sank because of the recession. The Howard Government has seen out one boom and currently in another. He has kept inflation under control and it looks unlikely we will see anymore rises in interest rates. He has done a damn fine jobs.

As for Peter Costello I know he seems smug but I think he has a brilliant mind for economic management and is to credit for John Howards success.


----------



## wayneL (12 February 2007)

DOC said:
			
		

> anyone who says they are a traditional liberal voter, would not say such things about our great government. you must be a member of the labor party.



I would thank you not to leap to delusions.


----------



## giss (13 February 2007)

i've always been a liberal voter so far (10yrs) but I consider a vote for liberal next time a vote for costello. I'm not in favour of him for pm & the affect that would have on small business. costello would most likely let big business run right over the top of it.


----------



## MalteseBull (13 February 2007)

*LIBERAL* 

the economy has never been as strong under the liberal government. 
tax bracket has gone up.


----------



## Realist (13 February 2007)

LIBERAL

I do not believe they've done much wrong in the 11 years they've been in.

What exactly do Labor offer?

What improvements would you see if Labor got it?

They can't do any better, and will probably do worse.

Kevin Rudd is a poor mans' Mark Latham..


----------



## moXJO (13 February 2007)

Does anyone know if Obama will have the power to bring troops home by the march deadline he made? Wont the whole process of becoming president still be going through?


----------



## Buy low. sell high (13 February 2007)

moXJO said:
			
		

> Does anyone know if Obama will have the power to bring troops home by the march deadline he made? Wont the whole process of becoming president still be going through?



No he won't be president yet (if ever), which kind of makes Howards comments a bit hysterical.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 February 2007)

No doubt the Laborials will win the election.


----------



## mime (13 February 2007)

Realist said:
			
		

> LIBERAL
> 
> I do not believe they've done much wrong in the 11 years they've been in.
> 
> ...




That is the most sensible argument I've heard throughout this thread. Will Kevin Rudd do any better? Unlikely.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 February 2007)

mime said:
			
		

> That is the most sensible argument I've heard throughout this thread. Will Kevin Rudd do any better? Unlikely.



But would he do any worse?


----------



## wayneL (13 February 2007)

mime said:
			
		

> That is the most sensible argument I've heard throughout this thread. Will Kevin Rudd do any better? Unlikely.



Economically Australia has done very well under Howard. Whether that is his fault or more global factors remains open to argument.

Sociologically, Australia has deteriorated significantly. Whether Rudd can change that, or even if it is on the agenda, can only be proven in the future.

But for mine, the sociological damage is unforgivable. Kick Johnny Rotten out!!!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 February 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Economically Australia has done very well under Howard. Whether that is his fault or more global factors remains open to argument.
> 
> Sociologically, Australia has deteriorated significantly. Whether Rudd can change that, or even if it is on the agenda, can only be proven in the future.
> 
> But for mine, the sociological damage is unforgivable. Kick Johnny Rotten out!!!




Dear wayneL, 

What do you mean by  "Sociologically, Australia has deteriorated significantly." 

I would like some clarification on this statement.

Garpal


----------



## wayneL (13 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> Dear wayneL,
> 
> What do you mean by  "Sociologically, Australia has deteriorated significantly."
> 
> ...




I would have to write a book, but in very simple terms we have gone from a situation where people would prefer a friend over a dollar, to preferring a dollar over a friend.

Overly simplified, and far more than about just "friends", but that's the thrust of it.

<add> I have a lot of data on this topic. One week when I need something to do I will collate into a paper... but too busy chasing dollars at the moment. LOL


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 February 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> I would have to write a book, but in very simple terms we have gone from a situation where people would prefer a friend over a dollar, to preferring a dollar over a friend.
> 
> Overly simplified, and far more than about just "friends", but that's the thrust of it.
> 
> <add> I have a lot of data on this topic. One week when I need something to do I will collate into a paper... but too busy chasing dollars at the moment. LOL




Dear wayneL,

You are fudging a bit in your answer , let me start you off on your paper. More paper ends up in the Yarra, Swan , Brisbane Rivers than is ever published by the way.

I don't know how old you are so forgive me if I cite subjective evidence from my experience. 

There are more babies being born now per woman years than when Keating was PM

More people own their own homes than when Labor were last in power.

"Sociologically" this seems "good" to me.

any comments ??

Garpal


----------



## wayneL (13 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> Dear wayneL,
> 
> You are fudging a bit in your answer , let me start you off on your paper. More paper ends up in the Yarra, Swan , Brisbane Rivers than is ever published by the way.




What does this mean? Condescension perhaps?



			
				Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> I don't know how old you are so forgive me if I cite subjective evidence from my experience.
> 
> There are more babies being born now per woman years than when Keating was PM
> 
> ...




The number of babies born and the number of home owners has zero sociological implications in and of themselves.



> Sociology
> Crystal Reference Encyclopedia
> 
> The study of patterned social behaviour which constitutes a social system or society, a term originally coined by French social theorist Auguste Comte. Sociologists explore the way in which social structures are continually modified as a result of social interaction, and thereby seek to explain the development of new institutions or new types of society. Modern sociology has a number of key theoretical approaches which try to account for social structure and social change. While they differ in very important respects, they all share the belief that they can ‘get behind’ the surface appearance of everyday life, to reveal its complexity and interest. Any aspect of society can be examined sociologically, but there have emerged certain areas of study that have gained most attention, such as crime, the family, gender, the media, science and technology, medicine, and systems of inequality.


----------



## chops_a_must (13 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> There are more babies being born now per woman years than when Keating was PM
> 
> More people own their own homes than when Labor were last in power.
> 
> ...



Yes.

We now have more single mothers than ever before. People are having to be paid to be parents, rather than traditionally, because of long term financial security. This will have dire consequences in another 20 years time, when kids have grown up in a loveless family, and realise they were only brought into this world for money.

More banks own people's property than ever before.

The gap between rich and poor has grown excessively.

The removal of incentive for education.

The victimisation, alienation and removal of hope for the youth of Australia.

Sounds great.


----------



## drgonzo (13 February 2007)

Australia had begun to deteriorate "sociologically" before Howard became Prime Minister. Indeed, one may even suggest that this is not merely a trend in Australia but a trend being experienced worldwide. Furthermore, as requested by somebody else on this threat the comment needs clarification and is really kind of subjective. 

For an example of how effective a Labor government really is, try living in little old Adelaide with Media Mike and his goons pumping our dollars into failed industries and blocking development in the City keeping big business out and the economy in a constant state of stagnation. And they wonder why this state is experiencing next-to-zero levels of population and economic growth and also the highest rate of welfare dependency.


----------



## drgonzo (13 February 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Yes.
> 
> We now have more single mothers than ever before. People are having to be paid to be parents, rather than traditionally, because of long term financial security. This will have dire consequences in another 20 years time, when kids have grown up in a loveless family, and realise they were only brought into this world for money.
> 
> ...




Hah, yes the blind dream of home ownership - in 25 years and at twice the price you actually were meant to pay. Until then, the bank owns it.


----------



## chops_a_must (13 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> "Sociologically" this seems "good" to me.
> 
> any comments ??



I also forgot to mention the Burden of tax being moved from the rich to the poor.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 February 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> The Greens?
> 
> I got offered to run as a green candidate in the 2005 WA state election. Seriously thought about it and declined.
> 
> ...




Dear Chops,

I understand many of your arguments but they stem from a centristic projective element common in Australia. Your "Bogans" are guys I go to the footy with, they earn big money, and spend it in  companies I invest in, they fish and hunt, and live in the environment that bbrown only dreams of.  Sorry choppie, I do agree with many of your sentiments but feel you need to spend a few years in the bush to connect with miners, farmers and support workers who pay for your economic prosperity.

Garpal


----------



## chops_a_must (13 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> Dear Chops,
> 
> I understand many of your arguments but they stem from a centristic projective element common in Australia. Your "Bogans" are guys I go to the footy with, they earn big money, and spend it in  companies I invest in, they fish and hunt, and live in the environment that bbrown only dreams of.  Sorry choppie, I do agree with many of your sentiments but feel you need to spend a few years in the bush to connect with miners, farmers and support workers who pay for your economic prosperity.
> 
> Garpal



I go to the footy.

Most of the miners I have met are among the most militant lefties I have ever met.

I don't actually have much of a problem with most types of mining, which is why I could never be a Greens politician.

My prosperity comes from athletes and office workers.

Cheers,
Chops.


----------



## mime (14 February 2007)

drgonzo said:
			
		

> Australia had begun to deteriorate "sociologically" before Howard became Prime Minister. Indeed, one may even suggest that this is not merely a trend in Australia but a trend being experienced worldwide. Furthermore, as requested by somebody else on this threat the comment needs clarification and is really kind of subjective.
> 
> For an example of how effective a Labor government really is, try living in little old Adelaide with Media Mike and his goons pumping our dollars into failed industries and blocking development in the City keeping big business out and the economy in a constant state of stagnation. And they wonder why this state is experiencing next-to-zero levels of population and economic growth and also the highest rate of welfare dependency.




I remember my old accounting teacher telling me that the goal of Labor is to keep people financially dependent on them. After reading that post it seems true. I fear Mr Rudd will cave to unions and hurt industry which will hurt jobs and the economy.

Chops said the gap between rich and poor is growing. The truth is this works because the rich provide jobs for the poor. Without the rich the poor would be unemployed and welfare dependent.

WayneL  "Johnny Rottens" government has cut taxes and kept inflation under control which is creating bumper profits and takeover bids for Australian stock. Surely being an investor you have benefited from this. Talk about biting the hand that feeds it. You make me sick.


----------



## chops_a_must (14 February 2007)

mime said:
			
		

> Chops said the gap between rich and poor is growing. The truth is this works because the rich provide jobs for the poor.



Yep. When I was rich, I gave my poor self a job.


----------



## wayneL (14 February 2007)

mime said:
			
		

> WayneL  "Johnny Rottens" government has cut taxes and kept inflation under control which is creating bumper profits and takeover bids for Australian stock. Surely being an investor you have benefited from this. Talk about biting the hand that feeds it. You make me sick.




Dear Mime,

I would love to debate these points with you, but you have shown yourself to be irrationally partisan and of deficient comprehension of the topic at hand to ensure intelligent debate.

It would therefore be an exercise in futility.

I'm sorry you chose to insult me in the way you did and behind the safety of an anonymous internet persona, but let me just assure you, the feeling is mutual.

Oh and BTW, the Liberal party does not feed me. I feed myself from my own efforts. In fact If I were to bite their hand, it is because it is in my pocket all the time. I pay more tax now than I ever have.


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 February 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> I pay more tax now than I ever have.




The funny (not haha,silly) thing about paying more tax is that no one gets any additional benefits to a person paying less tax than they.


----------



## mime (14 February 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Dear Mime,
> 
> I would love to debate these points with you, but you have shown yourself to be irrationally partisan and of deficient comprehension of the topic at hand to ensure intelligent debate.
> 
> ...




You can argue for "sociologically" all you want but the truth is that jobs keep people happy. "Johnny Rotten" has kept to unemployment very low. I left my previous job because I was unhappy with conditions. I found a new one that was flexible enough to support my study within days of leaving my old one. I thank John Howard's Government prosperity and demand for employees for it. All you are doing is having bitch and whine about some of the best quality of life we have had in a long time. 

Oh and changing the format of your post to sound more articulated and educated to make me feel socially inferior is pathetic.


----------



## wayneL (14 February 2007)

mime said:
			
		

> You can argue for "sociologically" all you want but the truth is that jobs keep people happy. "Johnny Rotten" has kept to unemployment very low. I left my previous job because I was unhappy with conditions. I found a new one that was flexible enough to support my study within days of leaving my old one. I thank John Howard's Government prosperity and demand for employees for it. All you are doing is having bitch and whine about some of the best quality of life we have had in a long time.
> 
> Oh and changing the format of your post to sound more articulated and educated to make me feel socially inferior is pathetic.




Dear Mime,

You are entitled to your opinion about Johnny Rotten. So am I. Throwing insults like "you make me sick" because your opinion differs to mine is _ipso facto_, socially inferior. There has been no effort required by myself to demonstrate that.

If you read my posts this is my normal vernacular, to which you have again decided to criticize in a most distasteful way; so once again you have hoisted yourself by your own petard.

As far as best quality of life? I would argue that point strenuously; there is a vast difference between "quality of life" and "standard of living". But these are matters of opinion to which I restate; we are both entitled to have an opinion.

Now run along and vote liberal, for the first time in my life I shan't be, as is my right in a democracy.

Ciao


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 February 2007)

Couple of things i dont like is that fact that the CSIRO and science research in general has been decimated.  We might have been the clever country once, but .... that was a while ago.    
But you can bet that there'll be federal funding allocated (to the same accounts it was taken away from) to try to put the plug back in the bath - when 95% of the water has gone (overseas).


----------



## chops_a_must (14 February 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Couple of things i dont like is that fact that the CSIRO and science research in general has been decimated.



Yep, if a CSIRO scientist disputes the government on scientific fact, they are sacked. And we hear nothing of it...


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 February 2007)

mime said:
			
		

> Chops said the gap between rich and poor is growing. The truth is this works because the rich provide jobs for the poor. Without the rich the poor would be unemployed and welfare dependent.
> 
> WayneL  "Johnny Rottens" government has cut taxes and kept inflation under control which is creating bumper profits and takeover bids for Australian stock. Surely being an investor you have benefited from this. Talk about biting the hand that feeds it. You make me sick.



The rich have always employed the poor. The problem is that it's come to the point where an average worker on average wages is no longer able to reasonably afford essentials (especially housing) without permanent dependence on the rich (renting or debt). We didn't have that problem 30, 20, 10 or even 5 years ago but it's a problem now. Meanwhile working hours increase and executive pay soars to levels far in excess of what any one person can reasonably spend without basically throwing it away.

I often come to the example of what used to happen at the APPM mill (aka "the pulp") in Burnie (Tas) for quite some time. 15,000 people in the town with fully 4500 of them employed at the pulp. Lots of husband / wife and grandfather / father / son teams there during that era. 

And the pay scales? Well, the management were paid 3 times that of those on the factory floor. When the company did well, everyone from apprentices to the management benefited. When hard times hit, management shared the pain.

I'd call that a fair and equitable system. Everyone could afford to live in a reasonable manner. Sure, the manager could afford a better car and a better house than a labourer but everyone had a reasonable standard of living relative to others in the community. 

Fast forward to 2007 and practically everywhere (including what remains of the pulp at Burnie) we see ridiculous gaps between the workers and management. And worse still, management makes an error and gets a bonus whilst the workers lose their jobs to pay for it.

It comes down to fairness. Of course a manager ought to be earning more than somebody sweeping the floor. But it shouldn't be to the point where those at the bottom go without whilst those at the top see their pay soar in to the statosphere whilst the company goes broke in the process.

It may well be the case that Labor makes people dependent on government to survive. But it is equally the case that Liberal has made millions dependent on banks and RBA policy. One real tightening of credit, a situation completely beyond the control of Howard and Co, and thousands or even millions find themselves sunk. 

Right now we have mortgage payment levels worse as a percentage of income than at the peak of interest rates under Labor. Australians have become incredibly dependent on bankers and bosses for their day to day survival and yet this comes at a time when all seems well on the surface. Just wait until some real economic pain strikes someday (something that is as sure as the sun coming up in the morning IMO). We find virtual slaves who have no option but to take whatever is offered by the bankers and bosses running the country. 

At least those dependent on government under Labor knew who to hold accountable. Nobody's likely to stand up and take the blame if (when IMO) the market heads the wrong way and many find themselves in real trouble with little remaining of the social security safety net to catch their fall.

Credit where it's due though. At least the Liberals have repeatedly admitted they know nothing about running a business and ought to not be doing such things. They just fail to mention that they are still putting their hands up to run the largest business in the country - the country itself. 

10/10 for Howard's performance as a politician though. He's incredibly capable as far as that aspect is concerned. It's just that I'd rather have leadership than politics. Passing responsibility for everything onto someone else isn't what I'd call leadership. It's clever politics however.

But don't take that as a pro-Labor post. There's no certainty that a Labor government now would do any better. They may even do worse.


----------



## billhill (14 February 2007)

I think running a country is a bit of a balancing act. A bit like ying and yang. If one side had it there way all the time well the country would collapse and fall in a hole just as the soviet union did. Sure times have been pretty good under the libs but we've moved too far to the right in my opinion and need a leftist change to balance out the equation. I'm sure if labour wins the next election in 5 or 10 years we will be critising how they have neglected the issues that the libs are best at dealing with. The country needs new direction.


----------



## maverick11 (15 February 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> ummm did I miss something....8 interest rate rises later and the head of the RBA continually warning Howard of Inflation risks due to infrastructure and transportation bottle-necks on our ports, rail, and freight etc.




oh please, perhaps you would prefer interest rates of 25% when labor was in.  People seem to forget just what it was like under labor control.

Neither party is perfect, but the way hawke and keating screwed Australians & the economy up the ass, there's no way i will ever vote labor.  For decades labor has also been notorious for corruption and vote rigging - even my long-gone grandfather used to say this back in the day.  Keating was arrogant, refused to wear australian made suits & referred to Australia as the "ass end of the world" and asia as "that place you fly over on your way to europe."  He now lives a gay lifestyle.  Peter beatie is a corrupt f*ckwit and hawke is a plain drunk.

Howard has been tremendous in comparison and although it is impossible to please everyone I feel he has done a much better job than say kim beasley would have... god the thought of him in control makes me laugh


----------



## wayneL (15 February 2007)

*Interest Rates*:

Where did  anyone ever get the idea that the Australian government has any control over interest rates? 

Look. Aussie interest rates are largely governed by the US federal reserve... plus or minus a point either way.

I'll not defend Hawke & Keating as both lower than a snake's belly, but the high interest rates of the time were largely due to overseas influences. Likewise, the currently low rates are a reflection of those in the US/UK.

So let's not give merit or demerit to any government over interest rates.


----------



## Kauri (15 February 2007)

maverick11 said:
			
		

> Keating was arrogant, refused to wear australian made suits & referred to Australia as the "ass end of the world" and asia as "that place you fly over on your way to europe." He now lives a gay lifestyle. Peter beatie is a corrupt f*ckwit and hawke is a plain drunk.




   And The Right Honourable John *W* Howard is in the advanced stages of the political strain of dementia...alzheimer politicus..


----------



## chops_a_must (15 February 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> *Interest Rates*:
> 
> Where did  anyone ever get the idea that the Australian government has any control over interest rates?
> 
> ...



This is despite the fact that in the last 25 years, it is actually HOWARD that has delivered the largest interest rate within this period. Or ever in Australia's history.


----------



## TedE (15 February 2007)

I thought I'd respond directly to the questions:

*Out of Labor or Liberial who will win the election?*​
Liberal

*Why?*​
Firstly, Liberal are just too far ahead.  A landslide is required and I don't think there will be a landslide.  Example, if the coalition retains all of its seats in WA, it will almost certainly win as their aren't enough marginal seats outside of WA to switch the balance of power.

Secondly, look at what labor are winning on at the moment...  Climate change.  I don't think Climate Change is a widespread vote getter, especially when most of the so called solutions to climate change involve voters footing the bill.  I'd also point out that they don't seem to be winning on IR... following Workchioices, the sky hasn't fallen in and, apart from Union diehards, there doesn't seem to be much outrage.

Thirdly, things are good.  Unemployments low, people are doing well.  In a compulsory voting system the question is often whether or not the government has done enough to lose the election.  I don't think they have.  Also, its particularly prosperous in WA (see above comment about the effect of retaining WA seats).

Finally, I think some people will be abit scared by the idea of wall to wall labor governments, scared that it will lead to Union domination or just Labor domination.  WA is already enough of a nanny state as it is.

It will be tight though... the Unions will be putting enormous money and resources into this campaign, especially if the Peel By-election is anything to go by.  From what I heard, they had Union volunteers doorknocking every door in the electorate on the day of the vote.

*Who would you vote for?*​
Liberal

_*How would the party you voted for benefit you in the sharemarket?*_​
Higher productivity and a better regulatory environment for business.  Also, Uranium comes into play which means all of these little uranium explorers take off.

See ya,
Ted


----------



## bingk6 (15 February 2007)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> 10/10 for Howard's performance as a politician though. He's incredibly capable as far as that aspect is concerned. It's just that I'd rather have leadership than politics. Passing responsibility for everything onto someone else isn't what I'd call leadership. It's clever politics however.




Indeed, however, being labelled a politican is hardly the best compliment one could bestow on somebody else and Howard's head and shoulders above everybody else in that respect.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 February 2007)

bingk6 said:
			
		

> Indeed, however, being labelled a politican is hardly the best compliment one could bestow on somebody else and Howard's head and shoulders above everybody else in that respect.




This the closest I've seen Labor to being able to pull off a win for years. Little Kevie makes much sense at times, however the Labor frontbench has a lot of dolts, time servers and people about to cruel him,  once Little Johnnie starts into the home stretch. 

Garpal


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 February 2007)

I think it will be too close to call both for who Ill vote for, and who I think will win (being someone who has voted both Lab and Lib in the past) - but
... I'd be interested to know the exact quantum of the reduction in troops envisaged in Iraq. 
For instance we apparently have 1400 there - including the Navy in the gulf there.  Assume about 300 Navy and 1100 Army (?).  Of these you would have to assume that the Army are at most risk of casualties.
Rudd says he will leave about (300 or) 400 to defend the new aust Embassy. 
If he also leaves the Navy contingent, then he is presumably halving our involvement (?)
[Perhaps quartering it if the Navy also comes home (?)]
But at the end of the day, it's not as dramatic as it's being made out to be. (although I'm sure the ones that come home would be ecstatic).  

btw the ratio of (USA : UK : AUS) is (100: 5 : 1) apparently


----------



## Nicks (15 February 2007)

mime said:
			
		

> Howard has done a freaking good job. Unlike the Labor states who enjoy hindering investment by taxing it (property in NSW) the federal government has made it very easy to invest in stock and look at the result.
> 
> It's never been easier to find work in this rampant economy and don't blame the fed government for hospitals the states are ment to look after them.
> 
> ...




What kind of a moron pays ferals $3000 to pump out babies? not only are your taxes now paying for the feral, but also for the $3000, the Hospital they are having the baby in, the welfare to raise the child and probably another $3000 when the child at 16 pumps out one of her own. All so they can buy their smokes.

As a previous poster said, what has Johnnie done? coasted on the economy that Hawke and Keating set up (he even takes credit for it - the arrogance), blown dough on war, allowed the rich to pay for medicine and law degrees, made housing unaffordable for the young, made personal friends with George W, given us more taxes and taken away middle class working rights. Basically looking after rich and powerful people. Widening the gap in our social system between wealthy and middle class. Add to this his arrogance because he is narcasistic.

As for the comment that he has done great things becasue we are very attractive to overseas takeovers - wonderful, this is plain stupid. All the profits of our companies will go to mum and dad shareholders of the US, Japan, China and Europe. Yes you may make a little bit of money as you share price goes up when its taken over, but as any smart investor knows the turtle always wins the race, and in this instance the loser will be average australians who have no locally owned profitable companies left.

Out you go Howard you low life. Glad to see you retire on the legacy of a losing PM, that is unless you jump ship as it gets closer and see the polls aren't getting better for you. The polls are like this because you have not represented the populous.


----------



## greggy (15 February 2007)

happytown said:
			
		

> Ahhhhhhhhh
> 
> Good ol' johnnie "the h-man" howard, australia's most popular heroin dealer, giving the australian public just what they think they need.
> 
> ...



To label Mr Howard as being Australia's most popular heroin dealer is disgusting, even if its meant as a joke. Someone I worked with died from a heroin overdose.  Mr Howard has his faults but please don't label him in this way.


----------



## Kauri (15 February 2007)

Nicks said:
			
		

> What kind of a moron pays ferals $3000 to pump out babies? not only are your taxes now paying for the feral, but also for the $3000, the Hospital they are having the baby in, the welfare to raise the child and probably another $3000 when the child at 16 pumps out one of her own. All so they can buy their smokes.




It may have been called a *baby bonus* but from what I see 9 times out of 10 it wasn't a bonus for the baby.


----------



## Nicks (15 February 2007)

mime said:
			
		

> Tell that to the family small business that sank because of the recession. The Howard Government has seen out one boom and currently in another. He has kept inflation under control and it looks unlikely we will see anymore rises in interest rates. He has done a damn fine jobs.
> 
> As for Peter Costello I know he seems smug but I think he has a brilliant mind for economic management and is to credit for John Howards success.




John W Howard alias posting on ASF here?


----------



## greggy (15 February 2007)

Kauri said:
			
		

> It may have been called a *baby bonus* but from what I see 9 times out of 10 it wasn't a bonus for the baby.



My daughter was born in Jul 04 and the baby bonus was a unexpected benefit as it started only that month. We decided to put the $3,000 straight into the baby's bank account. A number of other people have done the same thing. I feel that it was a nice gesture on the part of a government which is sometimes portrayed as being too tight.


----------



## Nicks (15 February 2007)

Kauri said:
			
		

> It may have been called a *baby bonus* but from what I see 9 times out of 10 it wasn't a bonus for the baby.




Yes it encourgared those who would have a baby just to get $3000 to have one. Anyone else will have or not have one anyway if they were planning on it.
So the people who can't really afford to have babies, or whom are motivated by something else other than haveing a baby (ie $3000 and the future welfare it brings) are the ones encourgared. Also puts more strain on the welfare system both Govt and non Govt as a whole. Strange and stupid policy to me. Im guessing these are the many people I see heavily pregnant and smoking outside the public Hospital I work at. Coz if they were in it for the baby they would surely not be smoking. Guess $3000 is a big carrot to some.


----------



## Nicks (15 February 2007)

greggy said:
			
		

> My daughter was born in Jul 04 and the baby bonus was a unexpected benefit as it started only that month. We decided to put the $3,000 straight into the baby's bank account. A number of other people have done the same thing. I feel that it was a nice gesture on the part of a government which is sometimes portrayed as being too tight.




So you didnt have the baby for the $3000, like anyone else who was having a baby anyway regardless of the bonus. Your point? 

Its nice you feel warm and fuzzy that you made it by a few days and want to share this nice gesture, but I dont see the relevance.


----------



## greggy (15 February 2007)

Nicks said:
			
		

> Yes it encourgared those who would have a baby just to get $3000 to have one. Anyone else will have or not have one anyway if they were planning on it.
> So the people who can't really afford to have babies, or whom are motivated by something else other than haveing a baby (ie $3000 and the future welfare it brings) are the ones encourgared. Also puts more strain on the welfare system both Govt and non Govt as a whole. Strange and stupid policy to me. Im guessing these are the many people I see heavily pregnant and smoking outside the public Hospital I work at. Coz if they were in it for the baby they would surely not be smoking. Guess $3000 is a big carrot to some.



Some people say the same thing about the sole parent pension, but I feel that the clear majority of women have babies for the right reasons, not for the money.


----------



## greggy (15 February 2007)

Nicks said:
			
		

> So you didnt have the baby for the $3000, like anyone else who was having a baby anyway regardless of the bonus. Your point?
> 
> Its nice you feel warm and fuzzy that you made it by a few days and want to share this nice gesture, but I dont see the relevance.



Hi Nicks,

I just saw your post.  I was just responding to Kauri's post.  As for the fact that we made it by 2 weeks, our baby was 6 weeks premature, as long as our child was born healthy that's all we cared about.  The baby bonus announcement relating to its introduction came out after my wife had become pregnant.  With this unexpected bonus, we gave it to our daughter.


----------



## Nicks (15 February 2007)

greggy said:
			
		

> Some people say the same thing about the sole parent pension, but I feel that the clear majority of women have babies for the right reasons, not for the money.




Agreed.


----------



## Nicks (15 February 2007)

greggy said:
			
		

> Some people say the same thing about the sole parent pension, but I feel that the clear majority of women have babies for the right reasons, not for the money.




Agreed and reinforces my point:

"So the people who can't really afford to have babies, or whom are motivated by something else other than haveing a baby (ie $3000 and the future welfare it brings) are the ones encourgared. " ... by the $3000 carrot.

One of the worser examples of John Howard manipulative policy for votes.


----------



## happytown (15 February 2007)

greggy said:
			
		

> To label Mr Howard as being Australia's most popular heroin dealer is disgusting, even if its meant as a joke. Someone I worked with died from a heroin overdose.  Mr Howard has his faults but please don't label him in this way.




To "use" someone you worked with who died from poor life choices in this way is disgusting.

However I would never seek to limit your freedoms, such as speech, so feel free to continue using your ex-workmate to further your political idolatry.

johnnie the h-man will get you in the end.

cheers


----------



## greggy (15 February 2007)

happytown said:
			
		

> To "use" someone you worked with who died from poor life choices in this way is disgusting.
> 
> However I would never seek to limit your freedoms, such as speech, so feel free to continue using your ex-workmate to further your political idolatry.
> 
> ...



Happytown,

Your attitude sickens me and I don't think you live in Happytown.  It worries me that you have to refer to Mr Howard as being a heroin dealer in order to get your point across.  Attack him for his faults, but to label him as being a heroin dealer is simply outrageous.  For the record, I'm a swinging voter.  In the past I've voted for Mr Beazley and for Mr Bracks so Mr Howard is not my idol.  I just feel however that he has done a reasonable job overall as has done Mr Bracks here in Victoria..


----------



## chops_a_must (15 February 2007)

greggy said:
			
		

> For the record, I'm a swinging voter.  In the past I've voted for Mr Beazley and for Mr Bracks so Mr Howard is not my idol.  I just feel however that he has done a reasonable job overall as has done Mr Bracks here in Victoria..



In 96, Howard was elected on one economic premise: To reduce foreign debt. In the ten years in office, it hasn't reduced, it has in fact TRIPLED. Under his own terms, he has failed economically.


----------



## greggy (15 February 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> In 96, Howard was elected on one economic premise: To reduce foreign debt. In the ten years in office, it hasn't reduced, it has in fact TRIPLED. Under his own terms, he has failed economically.



Yes, foreign debt has got out of control, but the Howard Government has slashed its level of debt since 1996. Also, Australia has had a longer period of economic growth than it did under the Hawke / Keating years.  Also, I remember Keating boosting when we went into recession that this is the recession Australia had to have.  Sure Keating made a number of sound economic reforms, but interest rates went up too high in the end and during his last few years he tried to spend his way out of trouble.


----------



## The Mint Man (15 February 2007)

greggy said:
			
		

> Happytown,
> 
> Your attitude sickens me and I don't think you live in Happytown.  It worries me that you have to refer to Mr Howard as being a heroin dealer in order to get your point across...



The greens have said the same about Australia exporting coal.... how stupid. Bloody dirty coal miners, you're all drug dealers 
Labor wants greens preference too. Could you imagine what would happen to our stock market if the coal industry was closed down in 3 years?


----------



## Kremmen (15 February 2007)

I reckon Labor will win easily.

Why? Because Howard has lost his mind. I don't mean that as a throw-away line. I mean that he used to be shrewd and he's now following the line too far, possibly believing his own publicity?

The Howard government's economic success has been partly skill but mostly luck. The GST was far more successful than they expected and that's to their credit. However, the mineral boom and the enormous increase in Australian wealth (and tax) because of mining was absolutely nothing to do with who is in government. However, does anyone care whether Rudd would do a better or worse job? I doubt many do.

Socially and in the media, the big thing Howard has done is align himself with Bush. Now, you have to realise that US politics is much more right-wing than ours. They have no public health system to speak of. Schools are paid for by local taxes (so poor areas have crap schools). The divide between rich and poor is huge and few at the rich end want to change that. I come out a centrist between Liberal and Labor here, but that puts me way left of the US Democrats.

Honestly, Dubya is the closest leader to Hitler in any major country on the planet. The "war on terror" was manufactured by his administration because militaristic governments need a war to keep the people's support. The number of people killed by terrorists, even including 11/9/2001, is so small as to be irrelevant. The number of Aussies killed by terrorism in the last 10 years is, what, about 2 weeks' road toll? Terrorism is slightly more likely to kill us than a White Pointer, but I don't see us spending billions on attacking sharks. Slowly, people are starting to realise, even in the USA, that Bush is a nutter and that starting wars for ones own dirty purposes is bad.

Howard's playing of the Australian public, up until recently, has been very good. He leapt into the whole Bush-inspired war-mongering, but played it better than Bush. Our government has carefully tried to make us feel scared and pretend they are saving us, while at the same time not bringing in the really unpopular measures. So, while we now have lots of unnecessary "security" at airports, non-travellers are still allowed to meet friends at the gate, unlike in the US. It's a clever balancing act.

With Iraq, Howard cleverly deployed troops, but made sure it was mostly elite well-trained troops who, through skill (and some luck) didn't get killed, plus specialists, such as air traffic controllers, who are unlikely to be killed. This meant that he could crow about supporting the War, while having minimal chances of Australian deaths, which might undermine his popularity. Again, clever. (Brutal and disgusting, but clever.)

If Howard had remained at his cunning best, he would have distanced himself from Bush by now. Bush is a lame duck President. Even most of the Republicans are distancing themselves from him because he's stupid, he's incompetent and he's even too far right for them. By doing nothing about the appalling treatment of David Hicks and by criticising Barrack Obama, Howard has renewed his very close alignment to Bush at a time when that is an utterly unpopular thing to do.

I think Howard deserves to be thrown out for all manner of reasons, including the disgusting trade agreement with the USA which will put our copyright system effectively under US control. There are lots of reasons that some people dislike Howard's government and lots of reasons to be wondering whether Rudd will do any better. That's all a wash.

Just like previous useless US wars, the Cold War and Vietnam being repeated with Iraq, I think we will see history repeated: In Victoria, Kennett did great things for the economy, but then became more and more arrogant, ignored the views of the people, thereby pissing people off in droves. Howard is going down the same path. He is now showing unrelenting support for the biggest right-wing nutter on the planet, someone _way_ more right than 98% of the Aussie population. Unless he manages a massive backflip, this will see him come unstuck in a Kennett-sized landslide.


----------



## greggy (15 February 2007)

The Mint Man said:
			
		

> The greens have said the same about Australia exporting coal.... how stupid. Bloody dirty coal miners, you're all drug dealers
> Labor wants greens preference too. Could you imagine what would happen to our stock market if the coal industry was closed down in 3 years?



I'm glad I'm not holding any coal stocks.  Just uranium stocks and Mr rudd is pro-uranium, although not as strongly as the PM.


----------



## happytown (15 February 2007)

greggy said:
			
		

> Happytown,
> 
> Your attitude sickens me and I don't think you live in Happytown.  It worries me that you have to refer to Mr Howard as being a heroin dealer in order to get your point across.  Attack him for his faults, but to label him as being a heroin dealer is simply outrageous.  For the record, I'm a swinging voter.  In the past I've voted for Mr Beazley and for Mr Bracks so Mr Howard is not my idol.  I just feel however that he has done a reasonable job overall as has done Mr Bracks here in Victoria..




Do you use this much emotion when you trade?

cheers


----------



## chops_a_must (15 February 2007)

greggy said:
			
		

> Yes, foreign debt has got out of control, but the Howard Government has slashed its level of debt since 1996. Also, Australia has had a longer period of economic growth than it did under the Hawke / Keating years.  Also, I remember Keating boosting when we went into recession that this is the recession Australia had to have.  Sure Keating made a number of sound economic reforms, but interest rates went up too high in the end and during his last few years he tried to spend his way out of trouble.



The government doesn't control interest rates, the RBA does. Heads of the RBA at the time that Keating was treasurer and PM have ADMITTED that Keating wanted them to raise rates prior to the interest rate spike (to lessen the damage) and to lower them faster than what they did. These heads ADMITTED that they were wrong, and that Keating in the end was correct.

And like I keep saying, Howard gave us the highest interest rates ever on record. Australians and their short memories... geez. I wasn't even born then... no excuse for not knowing this stuff.


----------



## greggy (15 February 2007)

happytown said:
			
		

> Do you use this much emotion when you trade?
> 
> cheers



Happytown,

I've had 28 years trading experience and have enough experience to leave emotion out of it.


----------



## happytown (15 February 2007)

The Mint Man said:
			
		

> The greens have said the same about Australia exporting coal.... how stupid. Bloody dirty coal miners, you're all drug dealers




Minty,

Feel free to go back and look at the context.

cheers


----------



## happytown (15 February 2007)

greggy said:
			
		

> Happytown,
> 
> I've had 28 years trading experience and have enough experience to leave emotion out of it.




Greggy,

And may you enjoy another 28 years.

cheers


----------



## greggy (15 February 2007)

happytown said:
			
		

> Greggy,
> 
> And may you enjoy another 28 years.
> 
> cheers



Thanks Happytown.
As I started at a very young age, I hope to go another 40 years.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 February 2007)

Well, what an interesting set of responses.

Sounds to me like it will be 51/49 no matter who wins.

As to Happytown, well I live in a happy town, and it is not like his, although we have our fair share of unwell and substance abusers. 

We cope no matter which party wins government.

Garpal


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 February 2007)

Sounds like one of the dolts  Peter Garrett has come out of his cave.    Australian Today 

Poor Kevie, he would have been a "not bad" prime minister.



> A setback for Garrett's credibility
> 
> By Malcolm Farr
> 
> ...


----------



## Buy low. sell high (16 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> Sounds like one of the dolts  Peter Garrett has come out of his cave.    Australian Today
> 
> Poor Kevie, he would have been a "not bad" prime minister.



Tell me, do you think EVERY government minister agrees with EVERY government policy?

Personally I'd prefer a government that didn't automatically approve every USA request, especially with the current american administration.


----------



## happytown (16 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> ... As to Happytown, well I live in a happy town, and it is not like his ...




And where pray tell would that be, world according to garpal - the green zone.

cheers


----------



## greggy (19 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> Sounds like one of the dolts  Peter Garrett has come out of his cave.    Australian Today
> 
> Poor Kevie, he would have been a "not bad" prime minister.



I feel that Mr Howard lost even more credibility with his recent remarks in relation to Obama and the US Democrats.  They could be construed as being anti-American.  Although come to think of it Mr Latham's comments about Mr Bush were far worse!! Even though he had some good ideas,  I'm glad Mr Latham didn't win the last election. I'm sure that even many Labor supporters now feel this way.


----------



## Noskcid (20 February 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> How can you keep Howard in when he has slashed education funding, put up HECS fees, Dumped workers needs/rights/working conditions/Pay.
> 
> Pumped millions into a useless war.
> 
> ...





But thats also why the government has money to pay back to other ppl, and Australia is almost debt free (it owes the world the least amount of money compared to everyone else). The other was is to put the taxable income back up in percentage and to increase interest rates to attract foreign companies and investors to dump their money into the Country.


----------



## Noskcid (20 February 2007)

greggy said:
			
		

> I feel that Mr Howard lost even more credibility with his recent remarks in relation to Obama and the US Democrats.  They could be construed as being anti-American.  Although come to think of it Mr Latham's comments about Mr Bush were far worse!! Even though he had some good ideas,  I'm glad Mr Latham didn't win the last election. I'm sure that even many Labor supporters now feel this way.





 Absolutely


----------



## Broadside (20 February 2007)

Noskcid said:
			
		

> But thats also why the government has money to pay back to other ppl, and Australia is almost debt free (it owes the world the least amount of money compared to everyone else). The other was is to put the taxable income back up in percentage and to increase interest rates to attract foreign companies and investors to dump their money into the Country.




by what measure is Australia debt free? the Federal govt has paid off its debts but its economic policies have contributed to a massive private sector debt which leaves us extremely vulnerable should global interest rates rise.


----------



## Noskcid (20 February 2007)

Broadside said:
			
		

> by what measure is Australia debt free? the Federal govt has paid off its debts but its economic policies have contributed to a massive private sector debt which leaves us extremely vulnerable should global interest rates rise.





True True, I agree with that but wasn't really talking about the private sector. And thats if the global interest rates rise Yes!!, but with the situation atm, last weeks un-employment rate in the US!! I dont think it will raise soon, but yes there is that possibility, and if it does I think not just us but alot of people would be in trouble!! 

After all anything is possible!!!


----------



## Broadside (20 February 2007)

Noskcid said:
			
		

> True True, I agree with that but wasn't really talking about the private sector. And thats if the global interest rates rise Yes!!, but with the situation atm, last weeks un-employment rate in the US!! I dont think it will raise soon, but yes there is that possibility, and if it does I think not just us but alot of people would be in trouble!!
> 
> After all anything is possible!!!




I guess the only point I am making is that although I think the govt has done a reasonable job with the economy, they conveniently point to being debt free themselves whilst ignoring the big problem which is private debt (and I don't think they have done enough to address this).  I think the Libs are in bother but John Howard has proved himself to be adept and cunning at winning elections when it matters.


----------



## Noskcid (20 February 2007)

Broadside said:
			
		

> I guess the only point I am making is that although I think the govt has done a reasonable job with the economy, they conveniently point to being debt free themselves whilst ignoring the big problem which is private debt (and I don't think they have done enough to address this).  I think the Libs are in bother but John Howard has proved himself to be adept and cunning at winning elections when it matters.




And it happens that I agree with you, just that my first comment was mainly about the GST/Hecs issues.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 March 2007)

Surely a stupid gaff...  http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1862163.htm


> Terrorism comparison angers Greek community
> A South Australian Labor MP says Prime Minister John Howard's comparison of terrorism in Iraq to Greece have outraged the Greek-Australian community.  Mr Howard last week described terrorist attacks in democratic countries as common and used Greece as an example.
> 
> South Australian MP Steve Georganas says it is outrageous to compare Greece with Iraq, where about 3,000 people are killed each month. Mr Georganas says Mr Howard is risking the relationship between the two countries.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 March 2007)

sorry folks - this is all NSW state stuff - but here's a list of the partys available :-  http://www.abc.net.au/elections/nsw/2007/default.htm

Australian Democrats (NSW) 
Australian Labor Party (NSW) 
Christian Democratic Party 
The Fishing Party .... I FISH I VOTE ??? TFP SUPPORTS SUSTAINABLE FISHING http://www.thefishingparty.info/
The Greens 
Human Rights Party (Peter Breen) 
Liberal Party (NSW) 
The Nationals 
One Nation 
Outdoor Recreation Party 
Save Our Suburbs (NSW) 
The Shooters' Party 
Socialist Alliance 
Unity Party 

Initially I thought it was "1 fish - 1 vote"  - targetting the intellectuals lol. - then I realised it was "I fish I vote" - completely different!


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 March 2007)

Looks like Johnny is playing the credibility card. He'd better hope not too many Liberal MP's have ever met a certain former WA premier...

And of course there's always the nuclear power debate which seems to be emerging as a major Liberal versus Labor issue. And one poll put support for nuclear power at 41% which isn't exactly a small minority - support is clearly growing.

Hmm... A federal election with power as an issue. I'm used to seeing Tas politicians making promises literally measured in meagwatts but I never thought I'd see it from Canberra, at least not in a national context.

What next? Pulp mills?


----------



## Sean K (3 March 2007)

I'm not sure if voting either way really influences the way we live here in Australia.

I am philosphically Liberal, but Labor has slid so far right that I'm not sure of the difference. 

It's all a search for the middle vote now. Ideologies have been sacrificed to the Packer/Fairfax/Murdock/Stokes Gods.

(not sure if this is good or bad yet) 

Plus, do we really think that we are now in control of our tiny little space in the world? A crappy rumour circulates on the trading room floors in a developing nation causing sound international markets to crumble overnight.....I digress...

Back to Liberal or Labor:

I don't think there is any doubt that if you are a true share trader and/or investor then you are a capitalist and a fundamental Liberal. Stop kidding yourself amd admit it. 

Please. 

Your false atruism is killing me.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Initially I thought it was "1 fish - 1 vote"  - targetting the intellectuals lol. - then I realised it was "I fish I vote" - completely different!



Looks like they've caught onto "environment versus conservation" too judging by their website. Now there's a debate that dumbfounds most and gets outright anger going real fast if anyone dares mention it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 March 2007)

kennas said:
			
		

> Ideologies have been sacrificed to the Packer/Fairfax/Murdock/Stokes Gods.



Worst thing that has ever happened to this country IMO. It's at the point now where major capital city newspapers are refusing to print what is known to be an established fact because it's either too difficult to comprehend or doesn't fit their story. Talk about dumbing down the population.


----------



## Julia (3 March 2007)

After the mudslinging engaged in by the Libs this week towards Kevin Rudd about his meetings with Burke, I'm immensely amused to see that one of their own - Campbell- has today had to resign his Cabinet post after being outed for also meeting with said Burke!

Tony Abbott:  "Kevin Rudd has been supping with the Devil"!
What will he say about Mr Campbell?

However, no one can say John Howard is indecisive.  It seems immediately the engagement between Campbell and Burke became public, Campbell's "resignation" was in.

How did others react to the mud slinging by the Libs this week?
Before then, had an election been held yesterday, I would have voted Liberal, being somewhat ambivalent about Rudd, but following their grubby attacks, I probably would have voted for Kevn Rudd, who at least had the sense to admit an error of judgement.

Julia


----------



## Sean K (3 March 2007)

Julia said:
			
		

> How did others react to the mud slinging by the Libs this week?
> Before then, had an election been held yesterday, I would have voted Liberal, being somewhat ambivalent about Rudd, but following their grubby attacks, I probably would have voted for Kevn Rudd, who at least had the sense to admit an error of judgement.
> Julia



Hi Julia, long time, no speak....

Do you really think Rudd is Labor?

He's a junior Jonnie, with more foreign policy creds.....


----------



## chops_a_must (4 March 2007)

kennas said:
			
		

> I am philosphically Liberal, but Labor has slid so far right that I'm not sure of the difference.
> 
> Back to Liberal or Labor:
> 
> I don't think there is any doubt that if you are a true share trader and/or investor then you are a capitalist and a fundamental Liberal. Stop kidding yourself amd admit it.



International actual liberal, or false advertising Australian Liberal?

I think people forget there used to be small "l" liberals (which were more left than current Labor) as well as big "L" Liberals like under Howard. I think one of the worst things that has happened to the country in the last 20 years is Hewson not being elected.

Along the way, somehow, democracy has gone from a vote for the benefit of the whole, to the benefit of the individual.


----------



## Kimosabi (4 March 2007)

The best thing Howard did was pay off Government debt.

I don't think the introduction of the GST was such a bad thing to do either, but they need to get rid of State Goverments Stamp Duty/Taxes etc.

Worst Thing - War in Iraq was a mistake.

After Howards comments about Obama and the US Democrats, I'm beginning wonder if he is actually a NeoConservative.

Labour is going to inherit another 'Recession we had to have' due to stock market/housing inflation booms, etc.  If it wasn't for the resources boom, we'd already be in recession, WA is going to be particularily hard hit once commodities come off the boil and people start leaving, loosing jobs etc.


----------



## Bomba (4 March 2007)

i hate voting .... i hate politicians ... i always donkey vote


----------



## Sean K (4 March 2007)

Kimosabi said:
			
		

> After Howards comments about Obama and the US Democrats, I'm beginning wonder if he is actually a NeoConservative.



Kimo, To tell you the truth, haven't read the comments, but I suspect that this could be true...K


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 March 2007)

Kennas you make a comment back there "Lib being the natural choice of investors" and adding (?) that "false atruism killing me" (sent to the ether).

I don't think that Labour would be so detrimental to the market.  We are after all enjoying some of the plus-es of Labour decisions (the big ones like floating the dollar, tariff reduction etc). 

Conversely, If it is a disaster in the wings , then should we be factoring in the possibility (call it 50-50 whatever) of Labour winning end of year?  I guess too far out.

Maybe you can use your influence with Joe and get spellcheck here lol, but

Altruism is an interesting word - lovely ethical questions -  e.g. in the study of animal behaviour , eg birds, where a "messenger" sacrifices itself to warn the rest of the flock of presence of danger.   

An "Altruistic Trader" then is presumably one who would post in here saying "XYZ has been wiped out by a herd of elephants - tomorrow first thing I'm gonna sell XYZ" lol, - only to find the market depth at opening next day heavily loaded with sellers   

(it could even be argued that there are two types of posts in here , altruistic or ramping?   )

Compare Buddhism with Ayn Rand (If you prefer Ayn Rand to Buddha - that's your choice mate, me I'm interested in living with my conscience first, and getting rich second - but getting off the topic of Lib vs Labour I concede - as perhaps your initial comment was? )  :-
http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Altruistic 


> Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and central to many religious traditions. In English, this idea was often described as the Golden rule of ethics. In Buddhism it is considered a fundamental property of human nature.
> Altruism can be distinguished from a feeling of loyalty and duty. Altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (for example, a God, a king), a specific organization (for example, a government), or an abstract concept (for example, patriotism etc). Some individuals may feel both altruism and duty, while others may not. Pure altruism is giving without regard to reward or the benefits of recognition.



.........


> Philosophers who support egoism have argued that altruism is demeaning to the individual and that no moral obligation to help others actually exists. Nietzsche asserts that altruism is predicated on the assumption that others are more important than one's self and that such a position is degrading and demeaning. He also claims that it was very uncommon for people in Europe to consider the sacrifice of one's own interests for others as virtuous until after the advent of Christianity. Ayn Rand argued that altruism is the willful sacrifice of one's values, and represents the reversal of morality because only rationally selfish ethics allow one to pursue the values required for human life.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 March 2007)

I was going to add that pollies had little in common with (the extremes of) Ayn Rand or Buddha these days - then I remembered Brian Burke who seems to have done the impossible - a lot in common with both  (see Kauri's photo #347 on Hicks thread).

Also trading posts in here probably come under "mutual altruism" I guess - sharing info for mutual gain.


----------



## wayneL (4 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Maybe you can use your influence with Joe and get spellcheck here lol,



A slight digression:

Firefox 2.0 has a built in spell checker. It steadfastly refused to acknowledge English/Australian spelling as correct (color - colour etc) and offers no suggestions, it does however highlight mistakes by underlining in red.


----------



## Noskcid (5 March 2007)

The Fishing Party aiyyyy!!!!!

ummmmm....


----------



## noirua (12 March 2007)

NSW Election, "wikipedia".  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales_general_election,_2007

News: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/election/


----------



## noirua (13 March 2007)

NSW Opposition Leader:  http://www.peterdebnam.com.au

Labor Premier NSW:  http://www.morrisiemma.com.au


----------



## noirua (13 March 2007)

Up to date information on the NSW Elections from "The Australian":  http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/index/0,20671,5006784,00.html


----------



## noirua (16 March 2007)

Despite the poll by "the australian" it looks as if Labor are all but home and dry. The Liberals and Co., just do not stand-up.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 March 2007)

surely the NSW libs are on a hiding to nothing - big gaff by Debnam choosing a "typical family" as one with 8 investment houses    but that in turn will probably make it more difficult for Rudd in 8 months time (imo).  who would choose to have the entire country (state and fed) under one party ?


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 March 2007)

Lol, I forgot the other 60 trading transactions as well !!!  
let's face it !! - (many) pollies are a couple of rungs up the ladder from bald-faced lying ... "baddies" lol   


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1874031.htm PM 'angry and disappointed' with Santoro
> The Prime Minister says his Minister for Ageing, Santo Santoro, had no choice but to resign after failing to disclose dozens of share transactions.
> 
> John Howard says he is angry and disappointed Santo Santoro breached disclosure rules in relation to up to 60 share transactions. "This incident is embarrassing, I don't like and I don't mince words, I don't like it at all," Mr Howard said.  "This is a very annoying thing to me, I'm angry about it and I'm entitled to feel both annoyed and angry."
> ...



and ? did I hear correctly ? maybe the "charity" he gave the $6K profit to for the initial breach was given to Family Council (into political lobbying etc) whose president (seems)   gave him the tip for CBIO in the first place ?!! lol. 



> http://search.abc.net.au/search/search.cgi?query=santoro&collection=abcnews&form=simple&num_ranks=20   Santoro under fire over new share revelations. 15/03/2007. ABC News Online
> Summary: ... Brisbane biotechnology company. Senator Santoro has admitted a technical breach of the ministerial code of conduct. ... It has now been revealed that Family Council president Alan Baker, who is also an investment adviser, offered Senator Santoro the shares in CBIO


----------



## Julia (16 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Lol, I forgot the other 60 trading transactions as well !!!
> let's face it !! - (many) pollies are a couple of rungs up the ladder from bald-faced lying ... "baddies" lol
> 
> and ? did I hear correctly ? maybe the "charity" he gave the $6K profit to for the initial breach was given to Family Council (into political lobbying etc) whose president (seems)   gave him the tip for CBIO in the first place ?!! lol.



Well, how interesting.  Thanks 2020.
I can't begin to imagine how furious John Howard must be with Santoro.
To suggest he has "overlooked" 72 share transactions is beyond belief.  What a fool.

Julia


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 March 2007)

Julia said:
			
		

> how furious John Howard must be with Santoro.



julia, yep  - he broke the 11th commandment !!   lol, wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall in these minister's rooms  - "yes minister" but without any of the subtlety    "politics?", poly=  many, tics = blood sucking parasites   

PS Praps he could mount a defence along the lines of "minister for aging" is surely entitled to a spell or two of dimentia. !(?)


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 April 2007)

A few lines about the choice of electoral terms - 3? 4? maybe less? 

How interesting! electoral year is when it all occurred,
The surplus got distributed, the whole thing goes absurd,
And even Hicks is sudden tried, and teachers are reviewed
And carbon trading's up for grabs, (the subtlety is crude);

Or whether water policy is suddenly full on,
Or whether global warming is a few steps up from "con"
I just wish all this action happened every year bar none
Ahhh...
 .... praps electoral cycles should be shortened to just ... one?


----------



## noirua (15 April 2007)

Excellent poetry 2020. You are hereby appointed the first poet laureat of ASF. 

I don't think it really matter who gets in.  It is more important to get the election out of the way as it's stalling big decisions in NSW.
Bring the election forward to May 2007.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 April 2007)

noirua said:


> It is more important to get the election out of the way as it's stalling big decisions in NSW.
> Bring the election forward to May 2007.



noi, I'm not keeping up with you on the "big decisions in NSW"   
"please explain" lol.:silly: 

But I don't agree with bringing the election forward !!! WHAT !!! - Just when we're getting some action , lol.

Let Johhny finally do something on these tricky ones, who knows at the rate he's going , he'll be a raving greenie in 6 months lol  ... 

I'm also happy to let Labour have a bit more scrutiny of their policies - but I hope they are given a bit of freedom to finetune those same policies.  They are starting from a standing start (new leader etc) after all. 

btw,   as for whoever gets in, you're not suggesting that there are "core promises" and "non-core promises" I hope? lol


----------



## noirua (15 April 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> noi, I'm not keeping up with you on the "big decisions in NSW"
> "please explain" lol.:silly:
> 
> But I don't agree with bringing the election forward !!! WHAT !!! - Just when we're getting some action , lol.
> ...




Hi 2020 et al,  I have to be careful and not go off topic as I could type 10,000 words in my reply. 

Firstly, I don't agree that John Howard is Green as he did say recently how important coal exports are to Australia and if Aussie quality coal is not supplied then inferior coal will be supplied from other sources. 
Therefore Coal, much of it comes from NSW, is a must for the future and we must herald his aims in increasing the number of new technology powerstations and in particular UCC technology.

What else. At the moment the new Newcastle Port Extension decision has been held up and new mines in the Hunter Valley are left needing a go-ahead decision. 

Growth in China and India is around 8% to 10% per year and so everyone has to work together in maintaining this growth and trying to restrict emissions into the atmosphere at the same time. The present Liberal Leader has this view and is working hard to make sure that Australia does not lose out by stopping development of new mines.

I'll stop at this point as I could go on and on.   Good Luck.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 April 2007)

noirua said:


> Therefore Coal, much of it comes from NSW, is a must for the future and we must herald his aims in increasing the number of new technology powerstations and in particular UCC technology.
> 
> What else. At the moment the new Newcastle Port Extension decision has been held up and new mines in the Hunter Valley are left needing a go-ahead decision.



I'll restrict myself to a peripheral comment 
Interesting isn't it, that Labour (the natural choice of the Hunter) should be so on the back foot up there.   Peter Garrett had to muster all his courage to address the miners up there recently   Coal is ok provided its clean coal technology etc.   I would personally be happy if that coal was shipped to the third world.  So long as we ONLY use clean coal technology. (no ifs no buts)

But IMO the difference between the major parties is very minimal (surely you'd agree) - only the minor parties ( greens etc) have the luxury these days of a moral stand - on just about anything


----------



## noirua (15 April 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> I'll restrict myself to a peripheral comment
> Interesting isn't it, that Labour (the natural choice of the Hunter) should be so on the back foot up there.   Peter Garrett had to muster all his courage to address the miners up there recently   Coal is ok provided its clean coal technology etc.   I would personally be happy if that coal was shipped to the third world.  So long as we ONLY use clean coal technology. (no ifs no buts)
> 
> But IMO the difference between the major parties is very minimal (surely you'd agree) - only the minor parties ( greens etc) have the luxury these days of a moral stand - on just about anything




Hi, trouble is new technology costs bundles of cash, about $1.3 billion for a new technology pig iron smelter alone. Australia can't afford to do that. Rio Tinto's Hismelt smelter in WA cost as much and the WA government stumped up a fair wedge of the cost. 

Reducing emissions is up to everyone individually. Don't buy packaged food unless you have to. Turn lights off in the house if you don't need them on. Walk more often instead of using the car. Cancel that flight abroad this year. Drive the car more slowly. Etc., etc., etc., 

I spoke to a person about a month ago who was trading his green credentials whilst talking about his next holiday flight abroad. He also had a car that was a bit of a gas guzzler. 

Green coat but brown and black underneath, imho.


----------



## noirua (15 April 2007)

Hi 2020, you'r spot on.  Labor = Liberal?


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 April 2007)

noirua said:


> Cancel that flight abroad this year. ... He also had a car that was a bit of a gas guzzler.  Green coat but brown and black underneath, imho.



cancel that flight abroad ?
and cancel any thought of having a broad on a flight  - sure way to get on the front page lol.

Question was apparently put to Rudd on talk-back radio during the week - "why does he have a 4 wheel drive - His reply , you can't get a hybrid car in Canberra - Green's pollies immediately rang up and corrected them 

Allegedly, according to Insiders this morning, so too does Al Gore have a big guzzler (although I think that is incorrect - he would be smarter than that wouldn't he?? )  

At least he knows how to spell potatoez ?  doesn't he ? lol.

Getting back to insults you are or aren't allowed to put on ASF -  You have posted a lot of links on that thread . ...
ARE you saying for instance that you are not allowed to say that
"It has been proven..."  - no , start again ...

"There is absolutely no truth in the rumour that 3 out of 4 politicians are the result of a sexual encounter between a man and a pig"

or for instance...
"The hypothetical president of the hypothetical pig breeders association has reacted angrily to the rumours and slurs about the intelligence of pigs contributing to the problems currently facing Canberra, and the lack of action on GW, Kyoto etc.  And he was quick to add that pigs were honest enough to be happy when covered in mud, and only had their snout in the trough during a brief few minutes per day."

Are you saying we shouldn't say that ?
Are we allowed to say " how's the weather?" lol - trouble is after asking that 12,000 times a day , it gets a bit boring.

PS there used to be an old reply "everyone talks about the weather - why doesn't anyone do anything about it"   
many a true word spoken in jest


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 April 2007)

West Aussies might be interested 
60 minutes (7.30pm) has an interview with Rudd. - actually starts about 8pm, maybe just before.
personally I found it very candid, and quite entertaining.


----------



## Jimminy (15 April 2007)

Kevin is too clever for his own good and it comes across in interviews like that with Liz Hayes...... "I have never knowingly lied"......     lol


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 April 2007)

Jimminy said:


> Kevin is too clever for his own good and it comes across in interviews like that with Liz Hayes...... "I have never knowingly lied"......     lol



mmm,
a) I think Johnny has made similar claims - hence the nickname "honest John", and 
b) I think Rudd also asked himself the queston "Am I the paragon of virtue in Canberra ?, no"

Hence I didnt think he overdid it , and ... lol everythings relative mate.

like GW Bush pretending that he was such a Christian in pre-election debates,  and recently being quoted as saying something like "I don't give a flying f*** what the polls say, I'm the president , and what I say goes!" 

Didnt learn that at Sunday school George ! lol
So relative to that, both Rudd and Howard are saints


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 April 2007)

Well what a massive backflip from the Greens in Tasmania over an issue that's been around longer than the party itself. 

The Greens now want the state government to extend funding for the woodheater buy back scheme in Launceston as apparently the council there has run out of money to fund it.

The purpose of this scheme is to get wood burning heaters out of homes and replace them with (in practice) electric heat. No problems there, like most I've had more than enough of foul air from these pollution machines and would gladly see the end of them. Maybe then we'll get air quality that doesn't exceed acceptable (health threatening) pollution levels 3 fold day after day.

But just one point. Which political group was it that actively encouraged the installation of woodheaters in the first place? That came to the point of actually manufacturing them at one stage. That heavily criticised others in the early 1990's who were saying they had to come out as human health depended on it? Who was it? 

The Greens.

A ridiculous saga that even came to the point of a Labor leader holding a press conference on the subject of the underfloor heating he'd installed at home. 

Big issue, lots of nasty effects. And the Greens just quietly change sides and hope nobody realises they were largely responsible for the mess in the first place. Incredible.


----------



## Brujo (16 April 2007)

Jimminy said:


> Kevin is too clever for his own good and it comes across in interviews like that with Liz Hayes...... "I have never knowingly lied"......     lol




Well, he's been sprung three times in as many months now.  His childhood circumstances, his links to Burke and now the Sunrise/Anzac Day shuffle.

This is before he's even in government.

And the polls still have him as preferred PM??  Please explain?

It can only be a matter of time before people wake up that this unassuming bookish image is just a facade.


----------



## noirua (16 April 2007)

As the years pass me by I can see a need for change in Australia. Persons aged 60 or over should be able to travel by public transport free of charge if you start your journey after 9.30a.m. monday to Friday and all the weekend. That would also include trains, and if you start your journey in your state it would be alright to travel as far as that transport takes you, and providing the return takes you back to your State that would be free also.

For instance, Adelaide to Darwin on the Ghan would be free.

Persons under the age of 18 would be allowed to travel throughout their State only, at anytime free of charge.


----------



## BIG BWACULL (24 May 2007)

From the australian this mornin  Hee hee


----------



## Noskcid (24 May 2007)

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## BIG BWACULL (7 June 2007)

Another toon from the Australian, heh heh


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 June 2007)

BIG BWACULL said:


> Another toon from the Australian, heh heh



Nicholson's a genius isn't he - so too nearly all the cartoonists 
But that one's a beauty.   I think for Johnny to demonstrate that after 3 terms whatever he still can't or won't quantify the problem is a real worry for his cred. 

Qld had a deadline for the felling of trees (/ clearing of land) a couple of years ago.  As the deadline drew near, the bulldozers ( + chain and ball etc) were working round the clock.  

America currently has a deadline for oil fired power stations. So sure enough they are trying to rush as many through (at least to get approval status) in an absolute panic. 

Imo, on matters like this, they should give no notice ,  just say , "as of this moment, there will be no more 19th century power stations", (or 18th century attitudes to felling of trees)  etc etc


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 June 2007)

I've posted this on the Aboriginal thread, but I repeat it here.  
To be honest the decision on which way to vote is a massive balancing act, preferring one party in one direction, or another party in another direction ( or simply a minor party who is more single minded and likely to keep em honest etc ) ..  But here's my take on the Aboriginal question:-

Just thinking aloud, but supposing you wanted someone (after the next election) to help change attitudes of the entire AB race towards us, and likewise us towards them..    i.e. to :-

a) HELP (even tuppence worth) "win the hearts and minds" of the ABs,
b) talk WITH them rather than talk down to them 
c) hopefully ACHIEVE a measureable improvement in attitutes across the board
d) for both whites and blacks - especially youth of each, where the black youth must be stopped from destroying themselves , and the white youth will be need the wisdom of Solomon  
e) because youth is where the future is at, and the present generation and it's leadership have simply watched this thing go downhill in all those terrible statistics we are all so familiar with
f) and you need SOMEONE who is in touch with these groups

then would you choose
1.  Mal Brough, whose recent negotiations with an Ab community crashed , just when it was crucial (not only in the cynical electoral cycle) to have a win on that scene, - crucial not only for the Libs , 

but more importantly, so that the OTHER AB communities would see that there was mileage to be gained in negotiating with the Libs, and maybe they weren't just paternalistically throwing them a few dollars without trying to understand.



> Mal Brough , In January 2006 he became Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA). This promotion brought him into Cabinet.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal_Brough
> Malcolm Thomas "Mal" Brough (pronounced Bruff) (born 29 December 1961), Australian politician, has been a Liberal member of the Australian House of Representatives since March 1996, representing the Division of Longman, Queensland. He was born in Brisbane, Queensland, and was an Australian Army officer and businessman before entering politics.




or 
2. Peter Garrett, who has done gigs to crowds of adoring ABs  - and young whites, - 
- where as I say, the future lies. 




> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Garrett Garrett was educated at the Australian National University in Canberra and then at the University of New South Wales, where he graduated in arts and law respectively. He was a rock singer and environmental activist before entering politics. He became lead singer of the successful Australian rock band Midnight Oil in 1973. As well as its great musical and commercial success, the band became well known for its commitment to environmentalist and left-wing causes, and was particularly critical of United States military and foreign policies during the 1980s.
> 
> Garrett was one of the founders of the Nuclear Disarmament Party and stood for a seat in the Australian Senate in New South Wales at the December 1984 federal election. He needed 12.5% of the vote to win a seat in the Senate voting system, but a primary vote of just over 9% was insufficient when Labor withheld preferences.
> 
> ...



PS If anyones interested, in the past,  I've probably voted 50% Libs, 25% Labour, and 35% for minor parties like the Mathematician's Party etc.  
PS The above question is about..

who has the cred with the abs - and the future generations of "Black Elders" and "White Elders" to pull thing thing off.

Heck, here's an election advertising tip for Labour - Have Garret re-record this one 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxDDswhF0zY&mode=related&search= True Grit
Heck, here's an election advertising tip for Labour - Have Garret re-record this one


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 June 2007)

Not that Labour have been exemplarary in "the territories"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1395324.htm


> Labor and Aborigines need to talk, says Tilmouth
> Aboriginal leader Tracker Tilmouth says Indigenous people have a lot of talking to do with the Labor Party about its law and order policies in the Northern Territory.
> Labor won a landslide victory in the election in which it campaigned hard on law and order issues.
> Tracker Tilmouth is a long-time member of the party but has been critical of its policy aimed at locking up habitual drunks.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 June 2007)

Of course Garrett could try that same plastic Surgeon that Paul Hogan used - As the old joke goes, all those wrinkles would look much better as a pony tail at the back     (If you look under his ear, you can just see a bit of it)


----------



## zt3000 (10 June 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> How can you keep Howard in when he has slashed education funding, put up HECS fees, Dumped workers needs/rights/working conditions/Pay.
> 
> Pumped millions into a useless war.
> 
> ...




1) Unemployment below 4.5% and at 30+ year lows

2) Interest rates HALF of what they were in a last labour goverment (ie ~16%) If you knew how to manage your money and not debt yourself to the max an interest rate hike would not hurt you.

3) Union disruption at all time lows ... work actually gets done now .. unless your advocating a strike because there are only two flavours of ice cream.

4) "If your slack - you get the sack" ... NO employer would sack a productive member of its work force ... if Australian business is NOT competitive with the rest of the world ... you will all lose your jobs anyway as its cheaper to move overseas. Thats what you call a free market .... eventually cheap labour in other countries will be able to afford a car, will want a house, good education, hence thier wages increase .... and the whole cycle starts again ... companies move to where they will make the most profit .... that is called good smart business ... survival of the fittest and natural selection at its most beautiful form ....

5) Rudds wife (Why is her last name not rudd? - answer she's a femenistic capitalist with a 150million dollar business) - 

Rudd's Wife = Capitalist
Rudd = Communist

Capitalist + Communist = BIG DISASTER
BIG DISASTER + Socialist Labour Party = Weapon of Mass Destruction


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 June 2007)

zt3000 said:


> Rudd's Wife = Capitalist
> Rudd = Communist




zt , this from aus newspaper a while back - no message implied, just how clever are these cartoonists?!


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 June 2007)

a few more on AWAs and the like - going back as far as Beaconsfield obviously


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 June 2007)

This cartoon was done about Beazley, (way back), but would be just as relevant now with Rudd


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 June 2007)

miscellaneous "SLEEPER" election topics 
oops I notice one of the ones I said was about AWAs was really about AWBs


----------



## arminius (10 June 2007)

rarely have i heard of so much rubbish as your last post zt3000. who are you? general manager of caltex? chairman of 'Razor wire's r us'?
i'll assume for a moment that you have a modicum of intelligence. 
a) unemployment is low and the economy is raging along because why...demand for our minerals and energy on a global scale.
b) not even gonna bother. learn the facts, look at rba interest rate figures, allow economists much smarter than me to explain. rates were 8% when johnny got in. (hint-think global economics)
c) union disruption is low. maybe they're happy because of huge wages due to shortage of skilled tradies, miners etc, thanks to criminal short-sightedness by this regime. a mate is on $130 000 a year. a fitter. why would he complain.
d) whats globalisation got to do with johnny? except to prosper in the decades to come we need to be smart, invent things for asians to make. but no. uni's are forced to sell our knowledge. soon we will be too expensive and relatively stupid.
e) her name is none of yours, or my, business pal. 

since you mentioned w.o.m.destruction...
estimated - 700 000- 1 million iraqis dead. 3500 us troops dead, 134 brit soldiers dead. 350 000 us soldiers maimed, crippled, ****ked up. trillions spent. world stability- gone. australia- target. someone mentioned lie. how about the Bush/cheney lie that johnny stands behind to this day. fair dinkum!!!! i wont go into the myriad of issues that others have mentioned or may mention in posts to come. 
if you live your life caring only for yourself at this point in time, and rate the success of a government solely on how much YOU get paid, then good on ya. just dont ever run into me on the street.


----------



## zt3000 (10 June 2007)

arminius said:


> rarely have i heard of so much rubbish as your last post zt3000. who are you? general manager of caltex? chairman of 'Razor wire's r us'?
> i'll assume for a moment that you have a modicum of intelligence.
> a) unemployment is low and the economy is raging along because why...demand for our minerals and energy on a global scale.
> b) not even gonna bother. learn the facts, look at rba interest rate figures, allow economists much smarter than me to explain. rates were 8% when johnny got in. (hint-think global economics)
> ...




Thats exactily the irrational reposone i'd expect from a labour voter. You see you think too much with your ***** .... not with your head ... enjoy


----------



## Kimosabi (10 June 2007)

Well I was rather apathetic with regards to the Labour/Liberal circus.

But after hearing the Ron Paul message has had on me is that I am really p1ssed off at the Howard Government

These w4nkers have been following the exact same policies and have been in cahotes with the current United States Administration, participating in illegal wars, creating money like there is no tomorrow, sending asset prices and inflation through the roof, and systematically dismantling our civil rights under the guise of Fighting Terrorism, when the real terrorists are the Bush/Blair/Howards and central bankers of the world.

I am definitely not voting for the Liberals.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 June 2007)

topics by the dozen :-


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 June 2007)

more (sorry lib supporters , very few available against labour - dont blame me blame the Australian


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 June 2007)

these a-political


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 June 2007)

Boss, dare's some Good News and Bad News, 
which do you want first ....


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 June 2007)

THis one would make more sense ( surely) if they said "will set us back 100 years? " or "200 years?" instead of 2000 years


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 June 2007)

Petrol...

Unaffordable housing...

Rising costs every time you go to the supermarket...

All part of the same game. Inflation. 

Funny how neither of the major parties are willing to go anywhere near the subject.


----------



## Sean K (11 June 2007)

2020, are all those cartoons about Labour v Liberal? 

Funny though, Thanks!


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 June 2007)

kennas said:


> 2020, are all those cartoons about Labour v Liberal?
> 
> Funny though, Thanks!



kennas,  All available on Australian Newspapers website - hundreds of em.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/index/0,29221,20581,00.html

Here's that site, and anyone is obviously free to find the ones that they think would push the Libs barrow better ( but rare as I said)

Plenty more here on the Sheridan Thread  (this post and the two subsequent and / or previous ones:-
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=164767&highlight=cartoonists#post164767

Here's today's lol

PS there must be more on the SMH etc websites - I just haven't fully checked em out

PS As I said back there , "How clever are these cartoonists ?" 

PS To capture and post , I recommend "Alt + Print Screen", then paste into Irfanview or whatever, then crop, then reduce width to 420 so that two fit side by side (850 max total width) - over to you


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 June 2007)

kennas said:


> 2020, are all those cartoons about Labour v Liberal?
> Funny though, Thanks!



Kennas , sorry missed your point - you were asking are they relevant to thread i.e. political issues -  

depends on your perception 
for instance looking  desparately for water and finding oil implies
a) water management, which is surely a topic; and
b) the resources boom , which is allegedly what has filled the economic hole that the drought etc has left.   -  all those questions of what will happen if the boomgate comes down etc

Certainly one set of 5 back there I openly said was a-political (which I think means nothing to do with thread) BUT I just posted em regardless - I'll blame the lateness of the evening as you just did lol.

(and in any case , the aboriginal issue , uranium- "not in my back yard " - "not in aborigine's back yards?" - they have, since that cartoon,  agreed to receive nuclear waste after all ) 

again - who's to say these won't be major issues by Sept of Oct ?  )

If Labour made one P Garrett Minister for Ab Affairs  - make that "Minister for Affair Gofor Abs"  - then I would probably vote for them on those grounds alone - but I'm me and you're you.  (and everybody else here is everybody else here.)

And btw, I personally have no probs with abs taking nuclear waste and getting paid for it - I hope they get paid handsomely that's all - because the rest of us NIMBY's would never let nuclear power get off the ground otherwise - plenty of hot air -  too much radio, and not enough activity etc


----------



## Rafa (11 June 2007)

I wonder what the editor of the Australian thinks of the cartoonist of the Australian...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21882476-7583,00.html

Does this have anything to do with Labor or Liberal...

I believe everything does....


----------



## Julia (11 June 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> And btw, I personally have no probs with abs taking nuclear waste and getting paid for it - I hope they get paid handsomely that's all - because the rest of us NIMBY's would never let nuclear power get off the ground otherwise - plenty of hot air -  too much radio, and not enough activity etc



And how does this square with the oft quoted mantra of how aborigines are so in touch with the land, would never do anything to despoil it etc etc??


----------



## Buster (11 June 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> We now have more single mothers than ever before.




How I dislike the 'than ever before' cry..  It's gained my attention when I was in the US just after 911.. every second television ad spruiked 'now, more than ever before..' as if to ensure that you 'lived for the moment' because you just never know if you'll be here tomorrow to enjoy that Krispy Kreme doughnut or be able to drive down the 101 in the new convertible 'vette.. Play the fear card at every opportunity, certainly works in the marketing and politics arena.. However, perhaps I am the ultimate cynic.. 

Also, more single mothers now 'than ever before'??? That may just have something to do with the fact that women can walk away for _no_  reason and claim a [in many cases] substantial income for doing nothing other than dragging the kids with them..  I could elaborate, however time and space do not permit..



chops_a_must said:


> People are having to be paid to be parents, rather than traditionally, because of long term financial security. This will have dire consequences in another 20 years time, when kids have grown up in a loveless family, and realise they were only brought into this world for money..




Sad but true.. Although, I seem to remember a comment from someone earlier (may have been you) about how tough it is for the younger generation these days.  I'm sure I'd be better off if a 4-5K bonus per head was payable when I was breeding .. .. let's not even get into the 1st home buyers etc.. 



chops_a_must said:


> More banks own people's property than ever before..




Hmmm... put in context, ie per capita of generations I'd tip that not a lot has changed in the last 1000 years..



chops_a_must said:


> The gap between rich and poor has grown excessively..




Again..



chops_a_must said:


> The removal of incentive for education..




Wow.. more information required.  You mean that these days taxpayers will largely fund or loan you money to pay for University (at very good rates) so that when you graduate as a doctor you can slug me exorbitant rates for the privilege of training you?? Lucky me..



chops_a_must said:


> The victimisation, alienation and removal of hope for the youth of Australia..




Awesome dude.. never let the truth stand in the way of a good post.. Just a guess, but I'd tip you are one of the 'Me' generation.. LOL

Deep down inside, you know you needed to clarify that statement, but you couldn't so you didn't.. Genuinely, I enjoy reading your posts and those of all here at ASF with the diverse opinions and experiences, but you gotta be able to back up statements like your last, 'cause you _just know_ you're going to get called in.. the question is can you?

For the record, I'm hoping the Libs get another run.. I don't agree with some of the calls made over the last decade or so, but I do remember the mess that Hawke and Keating made..  a couple of quotes spring to mind, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' and I don't believe it's 'really' broken, and 'Better the Devil you know'...

Cheers,

Buster


----------



## chops_a_must (11 June 2007)

Buster said:


> How I dislike the 'than ever before' cry..  It's gained my attention when I was in the US just after 911.. every second television ad spruiked 'now, more than ever before..' as if to ensure that you 'lived for the moment' because you just never know if you'll be here tomorrow to enjoy that Krispy Kreme doughnut or be able to drive down the 101 in the new convertible 'vette.. Play the fear card at every opportunity, certainly works in the marketing and politics arena.. However, perhaps I am the ultimate cynic..
> 
> Also, more single mothers now 'than ever before'??? That may just have something to do with the fact that women can walk away for _no_  reason and claim a [in many cases] substantial income for doing nothing other than dragging the kids with them..  I could elaborate, however time and space do not permit..



Nope. There are now more single teenage mothers than ever before in Australia. At least in the first few years after the baby bonus was intoduced, this was the case.



Buster said:


> Sad but true.. Although, I seem to remember a comment from someone earlier (may have been you) about how tough it is for the younger generation these days.  I'm sure I'd be better off if a 4-5K bonus per head was payable when I was breeding .. .. let's not even get into the 1st home buyers etc..



I'm not in the age bracket which benefits from this payment. Neither are the people I am in general speaking for. I wouldn't count people over 30 as youth.



Buster said:


> Hmmm... put in context, ie per capita of generations I'd tip that not a lot has changed in the last 1000 years..



It was a one line cynical response to a one line argument. Don't quote me out of context.


Buster said:


> Again..



Who would you like me to reference, Stiglitz on a broader scale or ACOSS for more relevance?



Buster said:


> Wow.. more information required.  You mean that these days taxpayers will largely fund or loan you money to pay for University (at very good rates) so that when you graduate as a doctor you can slug me exorbitant rates for the privilege of training you?? Lucky me..



You mean you can study for 6 years and still be paid less than a truckie?

You mean my fees haven't gone up 750% in 4 years?

You mean a professor doesn't get paid less than a lollipop man? Lol! (The plight in payment of essential services has been stated elsewhere today)



Buster said:


> Awesome dude.. never let the truth stand in the way of a good post.. Just a guess, but I'd tip you are one of the 'Me' generation.. LOL
> 
> Deep down inside, you know you needed to clarify that statement, but you couldn't so you didn't.. Genuinely, I enjoy reading your posts and those of all here at ASF with the diverse opinions and experiences, but you gotta be able to back up statements like your last, 'cause you _just know_ you're going to get called in.. the question is can you?



Couldn't?

You mean young people aren't forbidden from protesting these days?

You mean young people don't get laws passed specifically against them? i.e. hoon laws. Whilst race tracks and speedways are allowed to be knocked down?

You mean students aren't banned from sitting in on Senate sittings at Universities?

Have a look before you shoot your mouth off.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 June 2007)

Julia said:


> And how does this square with the oft quoted mantra of how aborigines are so in touch with the land, would never do anything to despoil it etc etc??



Obviously there are a heap of things to check out - radioactivity mustn't get out in any way, including leaching into underground water table - but apparently the geology at the station involved is pretty ideal - they've been assured by us that there's "nothing to worry about".

not that they'll get the contract necessarily - apparently the nuclear disposal boys are looking around for some other options, not necessarily for the better geology, but also for a dutch auction over what it's worth to the landowners. 

I won't say more at this stage. 

yes I will, lol .  
Heers a link from July 2006 :- http://www.abc.net.au/alicesprings/stories/s1692156.htm


> It's a while since we've heard anything about the proposed nuclear waste facility. Naturally the question arises: what's happening behind the scenes?
> 
> How many possible sites is the Federal Government actually looking at?  At first there were three. Two of them not far from Alice Springs and suddenly there was a fourth possibility, on *Muckaty Station*, north of Tennant Creek.
> 
> ...




Here's a link from dec 2006 (also old hat) - read it yourself lol. (they were concerned, but obviously compensation and safety fears / precautions have since been negotiated / addressed. 
http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nt/content/2006/s1802547.htm

Finally this one :-  (see jpeg attached) http://abc.net.au/news/australia/nt/alice/200705/s1933023.htm


----------



## --B-- (12 June 2007)

Who do i want to win: Liberal

Who do i think will win: Labor (although thankfully, the Libs are slowly closing the gap)


----------



## sam76 (12 June 2007)

I heard on the radio this morning that Rudd has lost six points to the coalition in QLD (Rudds home state) accoring to the latest Galaxy poll.


----------



## --B-- (12 June 2007)

I think the public is beginning to wake up to Rudd's guise of 'all things to all people'

The "its time for a chaaaange!!" brigade will still hang in there though irrespective of the credentials of each party and their policies.


----------



## arminius (12 June 2007)

zt3000, you think my response was irrational eh. why?

putting aside a resources driven economy for a moment, how has this government advanced our country?  

comment please on defence, foreign policy, education, human rights, indiginous affairs, environment, freedom of speech, honesty, etc. 

i think it with my head, believe it in my heart, and feel it in my cods. 

enjoy.


----------



## --B-- (12 June 2007)

arminius said:


> zt3000, you think my response was irrational eh. why?
> 
> putting aside a resources driven economy for a moment,




ahh, the familiar cry of the howard-hater.



> how has this government advanced our country?  comment please on defence, foreign policy, education, human rights, indiginous affairs, environment, freedom of speech, honesty, etc.




perhaps you could start by explaining where you think the government when wrong on the above?


----------



## Kimosabi (12 June 2007)

arminius said:


> zt3000, you think my response was irrational eh. why?
> 
> putting aside a resources driven economy for a moment, how has this government advanced our country?
> 
> ...




I agree with the above, Howard has been systematically dismantling or civil rights, our workers rights and selling us out to the central bankers and neo-cons by supporting an unconstitutional and illegal war in Iraq.  Howard is well on the way to progressing Australia to become a Police State for the One World Government and we are all blindly sitting in our houses of contentedness, thinking we are rich because we have the illusion that we are rich because we have huge mortgages for over-priced property.

When the plugged gets pulled, and it will get pulled, the poor and middle classes of Australia that are up to their necks in debt are going to get wiped out.

Unfortunately, I don't think Rudd is going to be much better than Howard and will probably continue the sell-out, just in a different fashion.

Now, the question I am now asking, is there anything resembling an honest politician in Australia that I can vote for?


----------



## moXJO (12 June 2007)

Chops do you work at a university?


----------



## chops_a_must (12 June 2007)

Nup.


----------



## arminius (12 June 2007)

no, you tell me...anyone. 
aside from the economy, which is a thread on its own, how has howards government advanced australia, fair or otherwise. ill give you some topics to help get started.
foreign relations
defence
education
indiginous affairs
freedom of speech
honesty of government
human rights 

take your time...think it through. will not accept mere propaganda. try and base answers on fact please.


ps, fyi b. yes i do hate howard, but i detest brendan nelson and tony abbott, while alexander downer is pathetic, not forgetting julie bishop who is incompetent. costello is a good treasurer, and hockey ok. coonan is out of her depth and turnbull is just shallow.


----------



## arminius (14 June 2007)

waiting...waiting...waiting...
oh and we may as well throw in the environment.


----------



## --B-- (14 June 2007)

arminius said:


> waiting...waiting...waiting...
> oh and we may as well throw in the environment.




just to get you started:

*Defence:*

$6.1 billion over 10 years to enhance recruitment and retention of military personnel and logistics

$702 million for national security initiatives to further safeguard against terrorism, including better e‑security.

*Education:*

A comprehensive investment in Australia's education sector, covering universities, VET and schools.

$5 billion will be invested in a new Higher Education Endowment Fund to provide a perpetual source of funding for university capital works and research facilities. The Government will make further contributions from future surpluses.

$768 million for universities to simplify and boost funding and to increase funding and enrolment flexibility.

$222 million for increased income support for tertiary students and an extra 3,500 Commonwealth scholarships.

More assistance to apprentices and the VET sector.

$549 million for 1st & 2nd year apprentices in skill shortage trades for a $500 education voucher to offset fees and, if under 30, a $1,000 tax‑free wage top‑up.

$843 million extra to improve the quality of teachers and the education of all Australian school children. $700 tutorial vouchers to help students meet literacy and numeracy standards.

*Environment: (seeing as you asked nicely)*

$741 million for practical climate change initiatives, including the doubling to $8,000 of rebates for the installation of solar panels by households

$10 billion over 10 years to conserve and sustain Australia's water supply

$2 billion to extend the Natural Heritage Trust.


----------



## cornnfedd (14 June 2007)

arminius said:


> no, you tell me...anyone.
> aside from the economy, which is a thread on its own, how has howards government advanced australia, fair or otherwise. ill give you some topics to help get started.
> foreign relations
> defence
> ...





how to you think Rudd will improve these areas over Howard AND what do you think Howard should have done that he didnt in these areas?


----------



## arminius (15 June 2007)

ok, and before you ask, im up at 4am cause our 2 week old son has been screaming for an hour and i cant get back to sleep.  
i apologise in advance cause this might be long. if you want to get something done today stop reading right now. im serious. 

i am not a member of the labor party, or a union, or a pollie, or staffer. im just a 39 yo bloke in newcastle nsw with a young family. im not rich, or poor, and have no axe to grind. 

i wish to step back a bit and say to some people that i sort of understand why you might like this government. they've been in power for a decade and the economy has been growing for years. you might have a few cars in the garage, watch telly on a plasma, have a nice home etc and be pretty content with where your at. thats good. youve worked hard, and live in a country that gave you opportunity, an education, no wars, and a safe society. a good mate of mine voted libs last time. hes a builder, getting rich, but thinks its thanks to john. he has never worked while someone other than john is the pm. 
you may be mentally scarred by 18% rates in '89.
however, im sure a global ressession had something to do with it and by the time keating left they were down to 8%. rates have been on the up for half of johnnys term. anyway, they pretty much mirror what the rest of the worlds rates do. im fairly sure we are part of a global economy. as we all know, our income from mining has gone up expodentially. it is unbelieveable. 

my response to b.
oz never had a problem recruiting and retaining soldiers. ive been one myself. its only when the adf is asked to go and invade other countries for no moral or legal basis that motivation becomes an issue. our best and most experienced soldiers also leave because of poor renumeration. they slog their guts out for very little, risking their lives, and get paid less than a garbage truck driver- (no disrespect). nelson in his infinate wisdom has overturned 93 years of tradition and said its ok to join if you are a druggie, asthma sufferer, overweight, or convicted crim. excellent work brendan.  we are so far up the backside of bush's america its scary. at least 6 billion for some 'super hornets' that we suddenly need. six billion dollars for planes the air force has said it doesnt want, let alone need. as for 60-100 million in tanks... 
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/natint/stories/s994731.htm
we have, or will waste billions that im sure could pay for... quite a few things actually.

national security issues. please. if we werent complicit in the killing of hundreds of thousands of iraqis, we wouldnt need extra safeguards. why would terrorists come down here to attack us if we were saying to bush. 'george, what youre doing is wrong'. has germany been attacked? france? switzerland? australia used to hold a moral high ground in world affairs. we punched way above our weight in both world wars. we taught the yanks how to fight in vietnam (via our experience in ng and borneo). our presence in iraq is token. a political weapon for bush. if we didnt sign kyoto because our emissions dont count for much on a global scale....
 75% of americans want rid of bush. the US military want rid of bush. yet we are stuck to him like a leech. we are talking about an american mentality that will stop at nothing to further its position. its the only nation ever to use the bomb on humanity, and that was nothing more than two warning shots across the bows of russia. they allowed the japs to bomb pearl. they were reading their comms and, surprise, sent their carriers far out to sea. 
see what the chief of the brit army, other brit generals, US generals,  including batiste, clark, oden, zinni, eaton, say about iraq. a criminal act that will haunt us all forever. its not americans that are insane, its the bush/cheney administration. wheres johnny- sticking his head out from georges crack.

education. do you really think so much cash would have been thrown at universities if labor hadnt laid their cards on the table and received such a welcome response. a decade in power, and 3 months before a potential landslide defeat they spend up. the fund is good. no probs but...
768 million dollars in funding to simplify and boost funding???   how about giving our uni's a few billion to allow them to stop prostituting themselves to o/s students. as a consequence of this, our standards have lowered, essays are marked easy so they pass, so the institution keeps getting paid. lovely. 

im sure someone has first hand knowledge of the fate of TAFEs in the last ten years.  

843 million dollars to improve the quality of teachers. how exactly do you do that? heres a hundred bucks. you are now a better teacher. 
actually, the merit pay scheme will draw better teachers into the cities and better schools, where the studious kids from supportive middle class families attend, leaving less gifted but no less dedicated teachers in rural, poorer areas with the less teachable, and disruptive kids. where does that leave us in 10-20 years? the once great thing about this nation is that you could live in dubbo, or rocky, and get a good education from potentially the worlds best teacher. no more. 
i wont go into the effect this policy will have on teacher morale, teamwork, marking standards, or stress levels.   

the environment?- you are kidding, right. 
just a quick point, pressure from the opposition and john pulls not one, not two, but ten billion dollars out of his **** overnight, with the system almost beyond repair, without asking treasury, or going through proper channels, (pun not intended). if that is not reactionary i dont know what is. they wouldnt know foresight and planning if it headbutted them. yeah the drought is bad, but as far as im aware, its been around for a loooong time, and it will only get worse. 
in short, money is thrown around in either catch up politics, or waste, or plugging a leak busted open by own policies. whats the bill for iraq now? 3 billion? 4? how many water tanks or solar panels would that buy? how much dual carriageway would that pay for? brizzy to cairns? melbourne to adalaide?
how many millions in subsidies for petrol cars to gas?. why not put the billions we obviously have to fritter on first class high speed rail networks. i wont go on. there are too many examples. too many issues.  

i dont know what labor will do, but i do know what the liberals have done to my country. i have only touched the tip of the iceberg, for this whole issue is all-encompassing. 
if you're still reading this, go and eat something, or you will die. 
cheers.


----------



## Julia (15 June 2007)

Entirely valid post.  Interesting what the frustration of a screaming baby can produce in the small hours.

I agree with most of what you say.  But sadly I will still vote Liberal because I like the Opposition even less.


----------



## --B-- (15 June 2007)

arminius said:


> i wish to step back a bit and say to some people that i sort of understand why you might like this government. they've been in power for a decade and the economy has been growing for years. you might have a few cars in the garage, watch telly on a plasma, have a nice home etc and be pretty content with where your at. thats good. youve worked hard, and live in a country that gave you opportunity, an education, no wars, and a safe society. a good mate of mine voted libs last time. hes a builder, getting rich, but thinks its thanks to john. he has never worked while someone other than john is the pm.




yes my own economic prosperity and that of my family and friends is quite a reason to appreciate the current govt.



> my response to b.
> oz never had a problem recruiting and retaining soldiers. ive been one myself. its only when the adf is asked to go and invade other countries for no moral or legal basis that motivation becomes an issue. our best and most experienced soldiers also leave because of poor renumeration. they slog their guts out for very little, risking their lives, and get paid less than a garbage truck driver- (no disrespect).



leftist rubbish.



> nelson in his infinate wisdom has overturned 93 years of tradition and said its ok to join if you are a druggie, asthma sufferer, overweight, or convicted crim. excellent work brendan.  we are so far up the backside of bush's america its scary. at least 6 billion for some 'super hornets' that we suddenly need. six billion dollars for planes the air force has said it doesnt want, let alone need. as for 60-100 million in tanks...
> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/natint/stories/s994731.htm
> we have, or will waste billions that im sure could pay for... quite a few things actually.
> 
> national security issues. please. if we werent complicit in the killing of hundreds of thousands of iraqis, we wouldnt need extra safeguards. why would terrorists come down here to attack us if we were saying to bush. 'george, what youre doing is wrong'. has germany been attacked? france? switzerland? australia used to hold a moral high ground in world affairs. we punched way above our weight in both world wars. we taught the yanks how to fight in vietnam (via our experience in ng and borneo). our presence in iraq is token. a political weapon for bush. if we didnt sign kyoto because our emissions dont count for much on a global scale....



we didnt sign kyoto because Howar refused to bow to greenie pressure and sign an agreement that would severely affect our ecomony while the likes of India and China were granted omission because they are "developing nations"



> 75% of americans want rid of bush. the US military want rid of bush. yet we are stuck to him like a leech. we are talking about an american mentality that will stop at nothing to further its position. its the only nation ever to use the bomb on humanity, and that was nothing more than two warning shots across the bows of russia. they allowed the japs to bomb pearl. they were reading their comms and, surprise, sent their carriers far out to sea.
> see what the chief of the brit army, other brit generals, US generals,  including batiste, clark, oden, zinni, eaton, say about iraq. a criminal act that will haunt us all forever. its not americans that are insane, its the bush/cheney administration. wheres johnny- sticking his head out from georges crack.



like most leftists, your hatred of the US and Bush is clearly evident however i fail to see what any of this has to do with Howards govt. Yeah, the US are our Allies, would your prefer they weren't?



> education. do you really think so much cash would have been thrown at universities if labor hadnt laid their cards on the table and received such a welcome response. a decade in power, and 3 months before a potential landslide defeat they spend up. the fund is good. no probs but...
> 768 million dollars in funding to simplify and boost funding???   how about giving our uni's a few billion to allow them to stop prostituting themselves to o/s students. as a consequence of this, our standards have lowered, essays are marked easy so they pass, so the institution keeps getting paid. lovely.



you have simply been ranting and raving and criticising whatever the govt. has done. eg: "why didnt they do that earlier", "whats that going to do"... 

easy argument to make but it cuts both ways. If labor miraculously gets voted in, im sure i could think up plenty of similar arguments. 



> 843 million dollars to improve the quality of teachers. how exactly do you do that? heres a hundred bucks. you are now a better teacher.



um, training?



> the environment?- you are kidding, right.
> just a quick point, pressure from the opposition and john pulls not one, not two, but ten billion dollars out of his **** overnight, with the system almost beyond repair, without asking treasury, or going through proper channels, (pun not intended). if that is not reactionary i dont know what is. they wouldnt know foresight and planning if it headbutted them. yeah the drought is bad, but as far as im aware, its been around for a loooong time, and it will only get worse.



And still the state labor governments squabble and refuse to support the initiative. 

the drought is reportedly nearing its end. El Niño is making way for La Nina.



> in short, money is thrown around in either catch up politics, or waste, or plugging a leak busted open by own policies. whats the bill for iraq now? 3 billion? 4? how many water tanks or solar panels would that buy? how much dual carriageway would that pay for? brizzy to cairns? melbourne to adalaide?



water tanks and solar panels?? how about a few dams and a nuclear plant? look out for the lefty greenies though.. 



> how many millions in subsidies for petrol cars to gas?. why not put the billions we obviously have to fritter on first class high speed rail networks. i wont go on. there are too many examples. too many issues.



wtf are you on about?



> i dont know what labor will do, but i do know what the liberals have done to my country. i have only touched the tip of the iceberg, for this whole issue is all-encompassing.
> if you're still reading this, go and eat something, or you will die.
> cheers.



please carry on...


----------



## moXJO (15 June 2007)

arminius said:


> no, you tell me...anyone.
> aside from the economy, which is a thread on its own, how has howards government advanced australia, fair or otherwise. ill give you some topics to help get started.
> foreign relations
> defence
> ...




Have you actually looked up the money being spent in these areas yourself? So much easier with google these days. A few solar panels and wind farms aren’t going to cut it we don’t need another white elephant. I prefer a government that assessed its options before jumping in to something not economically viable (not that Howard really cuts it in this area a lot of the time either).I'd like to see something more substantial from labor before I change my vote.


----------



## BIG BWACULL (15 June 2007)

Here a way howard can be useful, heh heh


----------



## BIG BWACULL (15 June 2007)

Coalition of the willing heh heh


----------



## arminius (17 June 2007)

b

i can see now that the govt advertising has had its desired effect. i pity you for your inability to 

you are afraid that a different government will suddenly ruin the economy. this race car economy. i would hav thought that 10 years of doing exactly what they wanted wouold create a robust, reliable, and powerful economy, more like a rugged 4wd powering along regardless of the few bumps and creek crossings it may have to unexpectedly negotiate. by believing the spin and refusing to accept a different government you are nothing more than a  gullible coward. you condone the blatant lies to all of us, as evidenced by howard saying refugees were throwing their children off a boat, and the awb affair, where the dept of foreign affairs received hundreds of intel reports about it. ask andrew wilkie, or warren reid, or pete tinley, or mike kelly about the lengths howard is prepared to go to keep himself in power. i personally dont like being treated like a fool. 

anyone who doesnt support howard is leftist. i could label your thoughts fascist dribble. 

greenie pressure? i would say pressure from just about every intelligent, responsible, and forward-looking man woman and child on the planet. john, george, and you are obviously not included. 
if its so damaging to our economy, why does the govt boast that theyve met all the kyoto targets?

as to the american alliance... yes its good to have, but, allow me to use this analogy, you are walking down the street with your mates and one of them starts punching old women in the face. do you laugh and look on, or do you tell him to pull his head in, stop being a waaanker, and pressure him to stop. the truth has come out and still howard condones bush's action. still!! bwaculls cartoon says it all. 

moxjo, all labor can do in opposition is put forward policy proposals. broadband, exit from iraq, IR so far. i pressume more to come. giving companys emissions targets is a first step to combat gw, same as saying sorry to aboriginals is a first step to repairing their lives. 

its a momentous time in our countrys history. we are rich in minerals that the world needs, and i presume you have invested in these companies. hopefully the drought will break and farmers will be ok. we have smart, good people, and a great culture. our grandkids could live in a cutting edge, fair, progressive, and very wealthy, balanced nation. its under threat. 

the best things the govt has done has come 10 minutes before an election! its targeting people like you b. 
selfish. gullible. scared.
vote for liberal. if they win, in ten/twenty years time when our country has turned to shyte, you will have to live with yourself.

answer my original question. indig affairs, f.relations, honesty, freedom of speech, human rights, defence-(14th june post didnt cut it), environment- (14th june post was pathetic)

hooroo.

news flash- the wallabies can scrummage!


----------



## constable (17 June 2007)

arminius said:


> b
> greenie pressure? i would say pressure from just about every intelligent, responsible, and forward-looking man woman and child on the planet. john, george, and you are obviously not included.
> if its so damaging to our economy, why does the govt boast that theyve met all the kyoto targets?
> 
> the best things the govt has done has come 10 minutes before the election




Such valid points. 
We have seen only token gestures from Howard over the last 10 years and now we, (as a nation) are on an environmental precipice. 10 years of inaction when we have had so much money flying around. 
Why arent rainwater tanks 100% subsidised ?
They raised the energy rating on houses..... what a joke when you see the lightweight rubbish getting used in construction. As for the brick veneer in my opinion it should be outlawed and double brick should be the min standard, (a little to idealistic i know).
Why arent solar panels 100% subsidised , or do we need those billions to build the nuclear reactors?
Why do we sell our natural gas to china for 2c a litre and then start crying about our energy crisis? This was lauded by the liberals in 2002 as a boon to the australian economy. A boon hey? Now I wonder if that same gas should be firing our power stations.
Liberal or labour it doesnt matter both of them are only scratching the surface when it comes to making australia an energy self sufficient and environmentaly sustainable country.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 June 2007)

constable said:


> Such valid points.
> We have seen only token gestures from Howard over the last 10 years and now we, (as a nation) are on an environmental precipice. 10 years of inaction when we have had so much money flying around.
> Why arent rainwater tanks 100% subsidised ?
> They raised the energy rating on houses..... what a joke when you see the lightweight rubbish getting used in construction. As for the brick veneer in my opinion it should be outlawed and double brick should be the min standard, (a little to idealistic i know).
> ...



It's a bit more complicated than it seems on the specifics but agreed with your overall concept.

Rainwater tanks would actually be a BAD thing for the environment in some locations. Obviously sensible in many areas, but not all. A 100% subsidy would see them installed where it doesn't make sense.

Solar panels. Since they're actually quite polluting, far more so than any other mainstream renewable energy technology, subsidising them is questionable. Subsidise wind, wave, hydro, geothermal etc maybe. But solar is seriously dubious if we're talking about photovoltaic panels on roofs. Large solar thermal power stations are a far cleaner option.

Gas. The greatest tragedy in resource management in Australia's history IMO. We're basically giving away gas just as world oil production peaks and OPEC / Russia gain near total control over remaining reserves of both oil and gas. We'll be seriously sorry about selling that gas when we end up without reliable and affordable fuel for vehicles in the not too distant future. Don't like the idea of using it in power stations though - that's like using gold to make water pipes. It's needed for fertilizer (food!), direct use in homes and industry, petrochemicals, automotive fuel etc. Gas is, long term, just like oil in terms of geopolitics, economics etc. You wouldn't want to be using oil to fire power stations... (it used to be done until OPEC forced a rapid shift away).

Liberal or Labor? I'd add Greens and all the others to the list too. NONE of them have any notion of a proper plan for energy sustainability or even independence. Liberals promote nuclear (short term solution). Labor promotes gas (short term solution). Despite their frequent claims, the Greens track record is one of supporting fossil fuels, especially oil and gas, so they aren't any better. Indeed their unquestioning support of the tourism (recreational oil burning) industry makes them arguably worse than the others since oil is the most immediate energy problem.

I wonder how many people realise that the LPG price is essentially linked to the oil price? And that the natural gas price is also moving towards long term oil price linkage as LNG facilities are built? Just imagine if gas and electricity prices had risen in recent years in line with petrol prices. Industry would have been wrecked and likewise household budgets. And yet that linkage is exactly what we're hastily setting up - and it's permanent once established.


----------



## Kimosabi (17 June 2007)

I personally want Howard out.

Howard sold his soul to Bush, Blair and the Neo-cons when he joined them in their illegal and unjust war in Iraq.

The only question is Rudd is any better?

Is Rudd going to pull our troops out of Iraq?

Is Rudd controlled by the same Puppet Masters as Howard?

Is Rudd going to continue our transition towards becoming a neo-con fascist state like the UK and US under the guise of fighting Terrorism?

All this stuff about Labour trashing the economy and Interest Rates is all rubbish.  The Liberals and Labour don't have any real control over Monetary Policy in Australia.  It is the International Central Bankers that control Australia's and the World's Economic Future and they decide whether the Australian and World economy Booms or Busts.

Once you realise that our current monetary system and much of the worlds monetary system is based on nothing but air, everything else is pretty irrelevant until the manipulated and corrupt FIAT monetary system is eliminated.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 June 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> All this stuff about Labour trashing the economy and Interest Rates is all rubbish.  The Liberals and Labour don't have any real control over Monetary Policy in Australia.  It is the International Central Bankers that control Australia's and the World's Economic Future and they decide whether the Australian and World economy Booms or Busts.



Exactly. Hit the nail on the head there.

Last time I checked, Howard wasn't proposing to take over the US Fed or any other major world central bank. Unless / until he does, all his chest beating about interest rates amounts to nothing more than hot air. Howard has only marginally more control over it than you and I do, especially whilst our economy remains so heavily tied to mineral exports.


----------



## moXJO (18 June 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Exactly. Hit the nail on the head there.
> 
> Last time I checked, Howard wasn't proposing to take over the US Fed or any other major world central bank. Unless / until he does, all his chest beating about interest rates amounts to nothing more than hot air. Howard has only marginally more control over it than you and I do, especially whilst our economy remains so heavily tied to mineral exports.




Yes but the unions have control to put enough red tape on business to cost an arm and a leg which would in turn put  pressure on inflation from rising costs.And raise unemployment.And make a resources bust hurt twice as much.


----------



## --B-- (18 June 2007)

moXJO said:


> Yes but the unions have control to put enough red tape on business to cost an arm and a leg which would in turn put  pressure on inflation from rising costs.And raise unemployment.And make a resources bust hurt twice as much.




at last, someone with the ability to see beyond the 'the govt. doesn't control interest rates" line.

A governments fiscal policy, IR policies and general economic management all impact the economy in terms of unemployment, interest rates and inflation.


----------



## --B-- (18 June 2007)

arminius said:


> b
> 
> you are afraid that a different government will suddenly ruin the economy. this race car economy. i would hav thought that 10 years of doing exactly what they wanted wouold create a robust, reliable, and powerful economy, more like a rugged 4wd powering along regardless of the few bumps and creek crossings it may have to unexpectedly negotiate. by believing the spin and refusing to accept a different government you are nothing more than a  gullible coward.




playing the man, not the argument i see.



> you condone the blatant lies to all of us, as evidenced by howard saying refugees were throwing their children off a boat, and the awb affair,




if ever there was a surer thing than a howard-hater bringing up children overboard and AWB.. but what about Tampa?


> anyone who doesnt support howard is leftist. i could label your thoughts fascist dribble.




no, my leftist comment was in regards to your "no disrespect" line to garbage truck drivers. the leftist trait of moral equivalence at its finest.



> greenie pressure? i would say pressure from just about every intelligent, responsible, and forward-looking man woman and child on the planet. john, george, and you are obviously not included.
> if its so damaging to our economy, why does the govt boast that theyve met all the kyoto targets?




the AGW debate is a whole different thread for another time.

the fact that we are meeting emission kyoto targets is one thing. signing up and paying taxes on cow flatulence is another.



> as to the american alliance... yes its good to have, but, allow me to use this analogy, you are walking down the street with your mates and one of them starts punching old women in the face. do you laugh and look on, or do you tell him to pull his head in, stop being a waaanker, and pressure him to stop. the truth has come out and still howard condones bush's action. still!! bwaculls cartoon says it all.




geez, youre good at making up funny stories arent you. i dont actually get this one though. You support the american alliance? Great, so do i.



> the best things the govt has done has come 10 minutes before an election! its targeting people like you b.
> selfish. gullible. scared.




playing the man again...


> vote for liberal. if they win, in ten/twenty years time when our country has turned to shyte, you will have to live with yourself.




oh please.. 



> answer my original question. indig affairs, f.relations, honesty, freedom of speech, human rights, defence-(14th june post didnt cut it), environment- (14th june post was pathetic)




present some arguments about where you think the govt has gone wrong and we can talk about it.



> hooroo.




bye.


----------



## chops_a_must (18 June 2007)

moXJO said:


> Yes but the unions have control to put enough red tape on business to cost an arm and a leg which would in turn put pressure on inflation from rising costs.



Yet a tax that raises prices exponentially on essential services isn't inflationary? Come on.


----------



## moXJO (18 June 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Yet a tax that raises prices exponentially on essential services isn't inflationary? Come on.




And add that tax to the above come on


----------



## constable (18 June 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's a bit more complicated than it seems on the specifics but agreed with your overall concept.
> Solar panels. Since they're actually quite polluting, far more so than any other mainstream renewable energy technology, subsidising them is questionable. Subsidise wind, wave, hydro, geothermal etc maybe. But solar is seriously dubious if we're talking about photovoltaic panels on roofs. Large solar thermal power stations are a far cleaner option.



Smurf appreciate your repy! Im not all that familiar with solar panels except you stick them on your roof and they charge a battery. Does the polution come from the manufacturing of them? Either way like you say wind tidal geothermal its not like this govt hasnt got other green options to subsidise.
More so than ever before i think the greater public is acutely aware of environmental issues and i just hope this translates into a govt that is a little more proactive on the issue.


----------



## moXJO (18 June 2007)

constable said:


> Smurf appreciate your repy! Im not all that familiar with solar panels except you stick them on your roof and they charge a battery. Does the polution come from the manufacturing of them? Either way like you say wind tidal geothermal its not like this govt hasnt got other green options to subsidise.
> More so than ever before i think the greater public is acutely aware of environmental issues and i just hope this translates into a govt that is a little more proactive on the issue.




Solar panels on roofs would be akin to throwing money down the toilet atm.In theory it sounds great just not viable atm.Have to agree with smurf on the geothermal.


----------



## Woody (18 June 2007)

Editorial: Beware deep-green Luddites on climate

June 08, 2007 

Technology is the answer to carbon emission reductions 
WHEN the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6) was announced by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer at Vientiane in July 2005, The Australian gave it the front-page coverage it deserved, recognising in our editorial that the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, would spawn regional agreements, clearing the ground for one that at last engaged China, India and the US. It would adopt the only realistic way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly - through the transfer of clean energy technology. Meanwhile, the doom-mongers at The Sydney Morning Herald, who wrote the initiative off as window-dressing, buried the story on page five and did not bother to editorialise on the subject until the following year, when the grouping was archly dismissed as "partners in pollution".
Almost two years later, the wisdom of our judgement is in even greater evidence. Kyoto has been shown to be bankrupt as a mechanism for reducing carbon emissions. Numerous countries that ratified the protocol are expected to overshoot their targeted reductions - Canada by 33 per cent, Spain by 41 per cent, Portugal by 37 per cent, Greece by 26 per cent - and the total impact of the Kyoto emission reductions is estimated to be a mere 0.6 per cent lower than they would have been if Kyoto had never been signed at all. 
Yet there are still those who cling stubbornly to the Kyoto Protocol as if it were the Holy Grail of the new climate change religion that will deliver us from the evil of carbon emissions. The reality of Kyoto is that it is not about reducing carbon emissions, at which it has been an abysmal failure. It has been a naked attempt by Europeans, who, having chopped down their forests and burned all their fossil fuels, are trying to get the rest of the world to shift to the high cost energy they have been forced to adopt. 
The irony is that Australian devotees of Kyoto reject the very technology that has been at the heart of delivering European carbon emissions reductions - nuclear power. The Labor Party has had trouble agreeing even to export uranium, let alone build nuclear reactors in Australia, which is the logical extension both of signing Kyoto and imposing draconian early reduction targets. The Luddite, clean-energy deniers would have us believe that the only way to avert the coming apocalypse is to close down all the power plants, take all the cars off the road, and return to a pre-industrial Arcadia. But we don't have to choose between the economy and the environment. Although it will cost to develop and implement clean energy technology, it can be absorbed by growing economies such as Australia, China, India and the US. Australia on its own can make no meaningful contribution simply by cutting carbon emissions, since we produce only 1 per cent of them. Where we can punch above our weight is in devising a workable carbon emissions trading scheme that will drive investment into clean energy technology, and in persuading the major emitters to commit to it through groupings such as AP6 and APEC. 
Australia has played a key role in developing both groupings because it has been aware for almost two decades that the geostrategic fulcrum of the world was shifting away from Europe towards the Asia-Pacific, yet there was no regional architecture within which Australia could engage the major powers of the region. Prime ministers Hawke, Keating and Howard can all take credit for the part they have played in developing these two groups, which are now poised to play a key role in responding to the greatest challenge facing the planet today. Interestingly, both organisations have a role, because neither includes all the players. AP6 has the big guns - the US, Japan, China, Korea, India and Australia - but partners who may play a critical role for Australia, such as fellow energy superpower Canada, are not involved. Similarly, APEC includes players such as Canada, but not India. By actively pursuing agreements in both forums, Australia can facilitate linking up the two groups for even greater coverage. And by working with like-minded partners such as Canada, Australia is much more likely to engage the US. An APEC framework that engaged members and others to develop their own greenhouse reduction plans with one long-term goal after the end of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012 would be a real achievement. The top-down, legalistic, prescriptive, eurocentric Kyoto model does not address the development aspirations of countries such as China and India or the emissions of highly efficient but massive energy exporters such as Australia and Canada. Only a framework that respects national sovereignty, but recognises diversity and sets a broad objective without being too prescriptive, will succeed.


----------



## wayneL (18 June 2007)

Woody (and everybody for that matter)

Lay off the derogatory language. Folks are entitled to political/environmental opinions without being called a stooge, or referred to as infesting places. 

It actually says more about the commenter than the commentee, but still not kosher on ASF.

Same applies for either side of the debate.

Thanks


----------



## wayneL (18 June 2007)

Interesting how the poll results have evened up over time. Reflective of the wider community?


----------



## Woody (18 June 2007)

wayneL - point taken.


----------



## Rafa (18 June 2007)

yes, good pick-up there... especially considering the likes of woody and B have a handful of posts and constable have over 250!!! 

this is a joke! 


Anyway, back to the topic...
Did anyone see Coonan on 7:30 report and the crap she was talking about FTTN... She kept saying anyone further that 4kms from the exchange can't get broadband... and that thats why Labors policy is bad...!!!

How ignorant is she? FTTN is Fibre to the Node, which is the breakout box that sits at the end of every second ot third street... NOT THE EXCHANGE!!!

I can't beleive the incompetence of the the so called Communications Minister, who is trying to make decisions on the future infrastructure needs of the country and doesn't know the basics about FTTN!

And her voice is so painfull on the ears... rather like that Julia Gillard!

And as for the WiMax being a good solution for the bush, that ain't any different to NextG and that already provides the 8 - 20Mbps and the coverage is already there... and you can roam and have a laptop card to take it into your shed!!!

This strikes me a complete half baked pre-election sham of a policy. 900m waste of our money to try and looks like they are on the ball with broadband.


----------



## billhill (18 June 2007)

rafa said:
			
		

> This strikes me a complete half baked pre-election sham of a policy. 900m waste of our money to try and looks like they are on the ball with broadband.




Agree
If this government is so fantastic why can't they have sorted broadband out years ago. The libs seem to have no real policy. They simply seem to react to the policies put forward by labor. Carbon trading/environment, broadband, education these are all issues that labor has brought to the fore. One wonders whether these issue would ever have been addressed had there not been an election around the corner. Labors policies may not be the ducks nuts in everyones eyes but at least they are trying to come up with solutions to the problems we face. Wheres the leadership from this government.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 June 2007)

I posted this back at #162
But I was reminded of it again when I heard that broadband was something that the Govt was suddenly considering 



> A few lines about the choice of electoral terms - 3? 4? maybe less?
> 
> How interesting! electoral year is when it all occurred,
> The surplus got distributed, the whole thing goes absurd,
> ...






wayneL said:


> It actually says more about the commenter than the commentee



hey wayne,  

if a camel is a something a committee has designed
what mammal then would commentees contrive?
ah the camel's such a dumb thing - with a cleft foot sandy kind
.... but its useless if you wanta do "high fives"


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 June 2007)

further to previous
I posted that before the budget was handed down - but you didnt have to be Einstein to know that the surplus would be splashed around for the masses of doting (and voting) fans.
but does anyone doubt that the next budget will be much more towards belt tightening etc. ? - whoever gets in?
bit like alternate bludy banquets and binge diets. 

likewise sack all the scientists , then search the world for them to offer reemployment.  and still pretend we're the clever country - gotta hand it to them, they can keep a straight face , even when they're holding a pair of deuces. 

same words, same electoral cycles, only the names of the speakers changed to protect the innocent / ignorant / etc. (well they hope we're ignorant - why else would they be so blatant)


----------



## wayneL (19 June 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> same words, same electoral cycles, only the names of the speakers changed to protect the innocent / ignorant / etc. (well they hope we're ignorant - why else would they be so blatant)



Don't you mean the names have been changed to protect the GUILTY?


----------



## Kauri (19 June 2007)

I can't tell the differce from the view I get of them when their snouts are buried in the trough...


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 June 2007)

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=paul+keating+quotes&meta= 
Paul Keating quotes lol - 
e.g. to McClelland 
"just because you swallowed a dictionary when you were 15 doesn't give you the right to pour **** over the rest of us"  etc etc etc 

"more hide that a herd of elephants" 
 etc

I'm sure Wilson Tuckey etc quotes would be comparable - might search em out later .


----------



## Kauri (19 June 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> I'm sure Wilson Tuckey etc quotes would be comparable - might search em out later .




  20202020
    Leave poor old "Iron Bar Tuckey" alone...   ..
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/22/1061529333629.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 June 2007)

lol - hey Kauri , I've FINALLY worked out how to get rich !!!!!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/19/1955758.htm?section=justin
I'm gonna SUE THE ASX lol!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 June 2007)

> Tuckey's offence, as outlined in Parliament, was to write several letters on his ministerial letterhead to the South Australian Police Minister. He was asking for leniency on his son's $193 expiation notice, incurred for driving a truckload of seedlings for long distances without a logbook.
> 
> Prime Minister John Howard has not used his ministerial code of conduct to sack a minister since 1997. He said that, while Tuckey was "foolish" to use the letterhead, he would not be sacked.
> 
> Leader of the House Tony Abbott went further. "He is a man who quite rightly fights for the things he believes in and if, from time to time, this minister goes over the top in a cause in which he believes, that is his nature, that is the nature of the man, *that is the way this fine Australian operates*," Abbott told Parliament.



lol - like I said
straight faced and not a leg to stand on (not even a pair of dueces lol)


----------



## Flathead Flick (19 June 2007)

You might find this article interesting, on the finance news site CompareShares.com.au:

Are swinging voters more democratic?

It talk about if you never change your vote throughout your life, are you going against the whole premise of democracy.

I reckon that if you always vote for one party, your vote almost doesn't count, because you're not considering matters fully. What do you guys think?

FF


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 June 2007)

no argument from me there FF   what is freedom of thought if not the right to choose between alternatives , and if you're not permitted to choose alternatives because of some personal "preconditioning", then you're hardly free. 

changing subject, but I personally think the ideal result of the elections would be a hung parliament with chops holding the balance of power.  

With one of the doors into Canberra's Parliament House marked "ASF members only" - this week zinc,  next week nickel  etc 

And the other option to consider might be Sheik Al Hilaly in that role lol.


----------



## wayneL (19 June 2007)

Flathead Flick said:


> You might find this article interesting, on the finance news site CompareShares.com.au:
> 
> Are swinging voters more democratic?
> 
> ...



You think this is democracy? LOL

It's a choice of which faces to head up the Oz branch of the NWO.


----------



## Sean K (19 June 2007)

wayneL said:


> You think this is democracy? LOL
> 
> It's a choice of which faces to head up the Oz branch of the NWO.



Have you seen a more democratic country Wayne? 

Curious in the sence that I think we can be hypercritical of our system. We may have holes, of course. But it's all a balance, and we can never satisfy everyone. There are always winners and losers in any political system. Can anything ever be 'perfect', for everybody?


----------



## wayneL (19 June 2007)

kennas said:


> Have you seen a more democratic country Wayne?
> 
> Curious in the sence that I think we can be hypercritical of our system. We may have holes, of course. But it's all a balance, and we can never satisfy everyone. There are always winners and losers in any political system. Can anything ever be 'perfect', for everybody?



Switzerland


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 June 2007)

Wayne, here's a website which compares GWBush with "the Manchurian Candidate" 
http://hnn.us/articles/32618.html by Mr. Buzzanco, Professor of History, University of Houston, is the author of several books and articles on Vietnam War

We don't have that at least (we just have "yes men" at the top   ) 
And the REALLY good news - Bush can't stay on after 2008 

There are heaps more here (almost as if it's a new "nickname") 
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=manchurian+candidate+bush&meta=


> *If enemies of the United States had gotten together *a few years ago to devise a plan to damage America and undermine its global position–diminish its power and credibility, drag it into a stubborn war, harm its relations with allies, create international financial disarray, run up huge deficits, create political openings for the Europeans and China to exploit and become equals in global economic matters, motivate terrorists, bring the U.S. image in the Middle East to its nadir, restrict civil liberties at home, and so forth–*they would have been hard-pressed to create a program that would be more effective than the Bush administration’s policies on these issues of war, terrorism, and global economics have*.
> 
> Indeed, if one is an “enemy” of the U.S., then he/she would have to be heartened that Bush has pursued this agenda and would have to be elated that the war in Iraq continues today. Given enough rope, Bush may hang not only himself, but American influence and credibility, and the global economy. *Like a “sleeper” agent, or Laurence Harvey’s famed character, Sgt. Raymond Shaw, in The Manchurian Candidate, George W. Bush, the ultimate insider, is doing more to damage America than Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Hassan Nasrallah, the Syrians, the Iranians, or any other enemy du jour, ever could. *
> 
> ...




http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/10/manchurian_cand.html


> the longer President Bush occupies the White House the more it becomes clear that his big-government domestic policies, his preference for Republican and business cronies over talented administrators, his lack of a clear intellectual compass and his superficial and often wrong-headed grasp of international affairs – all have done more to destroy the legacy of Ronald Reagan, a President who halted then reversed America’s post-Vietnam decline, than any left-liberal Democrat or European America-hater could ever have dreamed of. *As one astute American conservative commentator has already observed, President Bush has morphed into the Manchurian Candidate, behaving as if placed among Americans by their enemies to do them damage.*


----------



## Sean K (19 June 2007)

wayneL said:


> Switzerland



 Never been there, or studied them. I hear they provide a good service to one of the most democractic countries in the world. The Vatican, something or other. Lots of voting going on there.  Hmmmmm. Well, at least they're not the hand maidens to the new Nazi regime in Bushland. As I said, no one's perfect.


----------



## wayneL (19 June 2007)

> the longer President Bush occupies the White House the more it becomes clear that his big-government domestic policies, his preference for Republican and business cronies over talented administrators, his lack of a clear intellectual compass and his superficial and often wrong-headed grasp of international affairs – all have done more to destroy the legacy of Ronald Reagan, a President who halted then reversed America’s post-Vietnam decline, than any left-liberal Democrat or European America-hater could ever have dreamed of. As one astute American conservative commentator has already observed, President Bush has morphed into the Manchurian Candidate, behaving as if placed among Americans by their enemies to do them damage.



Conspiracy theorists have argued for a long time now that this is precisely the case. Looking at the results, who good possibly doubt them now?


----------



## wayneL (19 June 2007)

kennas said:


> Never been there, or studied them. I hear they provide a good service to one of the most democractic countries in the world. The Vatican, something or other. Lots of voting going on there.  Hmmmmm. Well, at least they're not the hand maidens to the new Nazi regime in Bushland. As I said, no one's perfect.



There was a movement afoot about 12 years ago to implement some aspects of Swiss style democracy, especially citizen initiated referendums.

I voted for them, but the criminal duopoly successfully tagged them as tin hatters and never got any grass roots support. A damned shame.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 June 2007)

Flathead Flick said:


> Are swinging voters more democratic?
> 
> It talk about if you never change your vote throughout your life, are you going against the whole premise of democracy.
> 
> I reckon that if you always vote for one party, your vote almost doesn't count, because you're not considering matters fully.




Antony Green's summary of swinging voters and the next election :-



> Swinging voters, despite the power they wield, haven’t exercised it to a great extent. In the 14 years since 1983 election of the Hawke Labor government, the political party that has assumed power in Canberra has changed only once. Labor was in power for 13 years in that cycle, the Coalition has sat on the government benches for 11 years.
> 
> While noting that there is no firm data, the ABC’s election analyst Anthony Green believes that the proportion of swinging voters in the electorate is about 30 per cent of the total, but Green adds “*Many of these people will in the end stay with their traditional party, but parties still have to spend plenty of time making sure that they do*.”
> 
> ...




Hopefully at least people who vote traditionally will (try to) demand that their party (at least tries to) live up to their expectations.


----------



## Kauri (20 June 2007)

Do you realise that with the latest pay rise the Fed pollies have granted themselves a 50% pay rise over the past 8 years.... a shame they don't have productivity linked rises.. or better still AWA's...


----------



## wayneL (20 June 2007)

kennas said:


> Never been there, or studied them. I hear they provide a good service to one of the most democractic countries in the world. The Vatican, something or other. Lots of voting going on there.  Hmmmmm. Well, at least they're not the hand maidens to the new Nazi regime in Bushland. As I said, no one's perfect.



You are referring to the Swiss Guards?

I believe they are a mercenary outfit and not part of the Swiss military and therefore not a government thing. Could be wrong there, dunno.


----------



## Sean K (20 June 2007)

wayneL said:


> You are referring to the Swiss Guards?
> 
> I believe they are a mercenary outfit and not part of the Swiss military and therefore not a government thing. Could be wrong there, dunno.



Yeah I was. I was clutching at straws to say why the swiss are baddies. I actually think they are selected for the job, and they might have to be Catholic, or something. 

Anything bad about Swiss Land?


----------



## greggy (20 June 2007)

Flathead Flick said:


> You might find this article interesting, on the finance news site CompareShares.com.au:
> 
> Are swinging voters more democratic?
> 
> ...



Everyone's vote counts in a democracy.  If people vote one way all their life so be it. Its their choice.  I am a swinging voter and have yet to make up my own mind about who I'm going to vote for at the next federal election. Just because I'm a swinging voter doesn't necessarily mean that I consider matters more fully than loyal party followers.


----------



## wayneL (20 June 2007)

kennas said:


> Yeah I was. I was clutching at straws to say why the swiss are baddies. I actually think they are selected for the job, and they might have to be Catholic, or something.
> 
> Anything bad about Swiss Land?



I suppose there must be, but Mrs lived there for a short time and waxes lyrical about the place.

I certainly like their political system over most others, that's for sure.


----------



## wayneL (20 June 2007)

Re: Swiss Guards.

You can't say they don't like dressing up


----------



## Joe Blow (20 June 2007)

wayneL said:


> You think this is democracy? LOL
> 
> It's a choice of which faces to head up the Oz branch of the NWO.




I've had this image on my hard drive for a couple of months now and keep forgetting to post it. I suspect this is an good an opportunity as ever.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 June 2007)

Lol - reminds me of one of Keating's quotes ( the one I was looking for the other day .. " we kiss your ass for 3 months (leading into the election), and you can kiss ours for the next 3 years" 



wayneL said:


> You can't say they don't like dressing up



m8, dare you to wear them to a fancy dress party in the wild west. - tell em it's your mad sister's pyjamas lol.


----------



## Flathead Flick (20 June 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Antony Green's summary of swinging voters and the next election :-
> 
> Hopefully at least people who vote traditionally will (try to) demand that their party (at least tries to) live up to their expectations.




But why don't we swing? Is this like religion & football (and sexual preference ) - once you choose a team, that's it for life?

It's worth pointing out that one of the main reasons - apart from wearing flowery bike pants and speaking French - that John Kerry lost the last Presidential election was because he "flip-flopped", or so the propaganda went. Does society accept someone who changes their mind, or must we maintain our stance in finitum?

"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Tolstoy.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 June 2007)

Flathead Flick said:


> "The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Tolstoy.



good one FF 
couple more in similar vein:-


> I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense , reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use - Galileo 1564 - 1642
> 
> He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and *he who dares not is a slave* - Sir William Drummond 1585 - 1649




That's why I'm gonna vote for the best option - informal lol  (just a jest)
that's because I'm a slave to reason - 
and it's the same reason I slave all day and ahh SHUDDUP. 
I'm taking an early mark - adios amigos


----------



## BIG BWACULL (21 June 2007)

Heh heh gotta love this one  
Pricks


----------



## BIG BWACULL (21 June 2007)

Hang on try again oops
Liberals with their new ideas :nono::nono:
Very :bad:


----------



## The Mint Man (21 June 2007)

BIG BWACULL said:


> Hang on try again oops
> Liberals with their new ideas :nono::nono:
> Very :bad:



Thats a bit rich!!!
Question, who from the labor party is not a union member?
Answer:





Cheers


----------



## chops_a_must (21 June 2007)

Given that the Libs are saying Labor have to hand back funds given to them by the CFMEU, does this also logically necessitate that the libs have to hand back votes given to them by the CFMEU at the last election?


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 June 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> Thats a bit rich!!!
> Question, who from the labor party is not a union member?
> Answer:



Not sure where you're going there Mint Man  
Are you saying it is wrong to be a union member?
I mean if the cartoonist who did Bwacull's posted cartoon (Bill Leak, The Australian) did a cartoon on Peter Costello's youtube comment , I wonder where he'd go with it ? - knowing him he'd still be pretty good - but I personally still think Bwacull's post is spot on ....

Also, imo , so what if they are union members.  
If it weren't for unions (and I'm not a unionsist) kids would still be working the mines.

PS John Howard made a major point, when introducing AWA's, of saying IT WAS STILL OK TO BELONG TO A UNION.  Whence then the sarcasm they now spit back at unions?

But.. Here's one he could have REAL fun with , lol .. 
Peter was a member of Young Labour 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Costello



> Costello was born in Melbourne, into a middle-class family of practicing Christians: his brother, Tim Costello, is a prominent Baptist minister and current CEO of World Vision Australia. He was educated at Carey Baptist Grammar School and attended Melbourne's Monash University, where he graduated in arts and law. During his student years he was active in student politics as a socially radical Christian, and was for a time an office-bearer of the Social Democratic Students Association of Victoria, *an affiliate of the Victorian Branch of Australian Young Labor.* After graduating he became more conservative, while retaining liberal views on some social issues.



Peter was surely a unionist himself once lol


----------



## chops_a_must (21 June 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> But.. Here's one he could have REAL fun with , lol ..
> Peter was a member of Young Labour
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Costello
> 
> ...



This is true.

The Liberals gave him his wife to join them.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 June 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> This is true.
> The Liberals gave him his wife to join them.



Hey chops, you into Latin ? lol

Bella gerant allii, tu felix Austria nube. 

Translation: "Others may lead wars, you, happy Austria, marry." Referring to Austria's cunning policy in early modern times to marry into all important royal houses. [ I wonder if the quote was really intended for Australia?] lol 

Trouble is , how to change it to :-
"Others may avoid wars, you, unhappy Australia, marry some mad Texan"


----------



## chops_a_must (21 June 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Hey chops, you into Latin ? lol



Of course. I'm into anything with a pulse, two legs and a hole or two.



2020hindsight said:


> Bella gerant allii, tu felix Austria nube.
> 
> Translation: "Others may lead wars, you, happy Austria, marry." Referring to Austria's cunning policy in early modern times to marry into all important royal houses. [ I wonder if the quote was really intended for Australia?] lol
> 
> ...



Lol!

Where do you have that stuff stored? I could have sworn you were talking pig latin there, but no. Lol!

Seriously, I would like to learn latin though... Very difficult to learn it in perv.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 June 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Of course. I'm into anything with a pulse, two legs and a hole or two.  Lol!
> 
> Where do you have that stuff stored? I could have sworn you were talking pig latin there, but no. Lol!
> 
> Seriously, I would like to learn latin though... Very difficult to learn it in perv.



It's all here m8, lol - hidden in the ASF archives
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=119895&highlight=austria#post119895

Here's one of MintMans  
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=161566#post161566

btw, I personally dont mind Costello, if only for his brilliance in the rough and tumble of the bearpit - but  I sure as hell TRULY admire his brother, Tim 



> Tim Costello, is a prominent Baptist minister and *current CEO of World Vision Australia*.




PS Lol, IMO,  the other thing we all here have to admit to , is that playing with shares on the ASX and ASF is not capitalism, -  it's gambling lol - nothing more nothing less. - maybe just my opinion 

PS , lol - I'd stick to the ones with two holes lol. What's the difference between a bowling ball and a Kings Cross hooker - let's not go there, lol


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 June 2007)

no bias here, just hopeless pollies in action 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCo-pX6Pggg&NR=1 Political High
(they're getting paid for this lol - pissed as a newt)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zmwqbBKYY  What's Tony Abbott thinking about?

last question unanswered on this youtube - so a bit unfair - Except that the treasurer wouldn't even mention the words "global warming" until a month or two back :-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbP42AbMyYA Alexander Downer - US Forces

PS
BTW, The Ab question has hit the headlines at last !!! - yessssss
Except that you cant dictate this - and Howard is wrong to think he can imo
gotta get people on board


----------



## wayneL (21 June 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zmwqbBKYY  What's Tony Abbott thinking about?



ROTFLMFAO

That just gave me a spitting coffee on my keyboard moment.


----------



## Sean K (21 June 2007)

wayneL said:


> ROTFLMFAO
> 
> That just gave me a spitting coffee on my keyboard moment.



 I wonder who the chick was that Little Johnny was referring to during that?


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 June 2007)

wayneL said:


> ROTFLMFAO, That just gave me a spitting coffee on my keyboard moment.



I do it all the time m8, especially looking at pollies in action lol

I find best thing is turn keyboard upside down and let the worst of the coffee drain out - but then I've train these ants to be addicted to coffee, and they finish the cleaning process for me  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTr5_XOUaks Hockey vs Gillard 

strange that he and Rudd were mates - Sunrise program etc -  outside of parliment


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 June 2007)

George W Bush - Give War a Chance


----------



## The Mint Man (25 June 2007)

> Not sure where you're going there Mint Man
> Are you saying it is wrong to be a union member?



no thats not what I was saying.....


----------



## Sprinter79 (27 June 2007)

This is an interesting read:

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=273969

Revealed: the taxpayer-financed propaganda machine helping fund the Coalition's re-election plan. By Chris Hammer.
Last Wednesday, on a bitterly cold Canberra morning, two events unfolded at Parliament House. Taken together, they give a rare insight into how this year's election will really be fought and won - out there in the marginal seats...


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 June 2007)

Sprinter, are you suggesting that Honest John's halo is slipping a bit? 

Anyone remember Ted Mack?
Here's a copy of something I posted on "IR laws" thread  



> Does anyone remember Ted Mack  - now there was a man of principle. Retired two days before he was entitled to what he considered to be overgenerous superannuation payout - what a man !!
> 
> Quote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Mack_(politician) Mack began to take an interest in politics in 1970 after the North Sydney Council approved construction of a 17-storey office block against his back fence. He subsequently ran for election to the council in 1974 and was successful, serving until 1988. He was elected Mayor of North Sydney in 1980, holding the position until his retirement from council in 1988. During his term as mayor, Mack sold the mayoral Mercedes-Benz car, buying buses instead and instituting reforms to improve accountability.
> ...


----------



## trinity (27 June 2007)

Hi, 

I just got my citizenship lately, meaning, I am now obligated to vote.  I have only been in sydney for 3 years.  I have been asking colleagues about their perferences, and most of them are going to vote for labor.  What would a win by labor do to the stockmarket?  Would there be any effect at all?  I started trading asx last week.

So far, the IR laws have affected my husband's wages, so that is a minus for the liberal party for me.  

On the drought, I would have thought that with the drought happening for years, and Mr. Howard being in power for 10 years, they would have done somthing sooner about it?  

But, I haven't quite made up my mind yet... leaning towards labor, but what i want to know is how a labor win would affect the economy?

btw, during my citizenship ceremony, there were heaps of people there... so, they are "building up" the number of "newbies" who will participate in the coming elections.  I wonder if most of them are thinking about who they will vote for as much as I am thinking about it ... 

  Appreciate your views...


----------



## moXJO (27 June 2007)

trinity said:


> Hi,
> 
> I just got my citizenship lately, meaning, I am now obligated to vote.  I have only been in sydney for 3 years.  I have been asking colleagues about their perferences, and most of them are going to vote for labor.  What would a win by labor do to the stockmarket?  Would there be any effect at all?  I started trading asx last week.
> 
> ...




Look for policys that will directly affect you ,your family ,and your values.ATM its all spec how a labor government will affect the economy if it all.


----------



## arminius (28 June 2007)

the election that will affect the aussie economy the most is the chinese one...

actually, as anyone who has read something other than the daily terrorist can attest, the global economy is on thinning ice, with hyper debt, currency issues with the US, opec, euro etc, and a plethora of nasties not too far around the corner.

might i suggest you gather your information from primary sources and beware of govt propaganda- they spin to win.

personally, if howard gets back in, im gonna 1) puke, 2) get very angry and probably do something rash 3) emigrate to NZ.

btw where you from?


----------



## wayneL (28 June 2007)

arminius said:


> the daily terrorist



So true. LOL


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 June 2007)

as far as the graph goes , lol - wouldn't you think that the HQ's of the lib and lab parties would each be busy branch-stacking the membership of ASF ??  - guess the branch-stacking in real life is keeping em too busy


----------



## trinity (28 June 2007)

> the election that will affect the aussie economy the most is the chinese one...
> btw where you from?




I actually have chinese heritage   but i grew up in south east asia.  Wish I paid more attention in my chinese classes since I dont speak mandarin fluently.  



> might i suggest you gather your information from primary sources and beware of govt propaganda- they spin to win.




Thanks for the tip.  But where do we get reliable sources?  Politicians are out to make themselves look good ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 June 2007)

trinity said:


> Thanks for the tip.  But where do we get reliable sources?  ...



I always get soy sauce from Dixon St - the best by far 

hey trinity, I once heard som e aussie tourists in Hong Kong  ... " these restaurants are ok, but they're not as good as the REAL chinese restaurants - like the ones back home in Dixon St ."


----------



## trinity (28 June 2007)

> hey trinity, I once heard som e aussie tourists in Hong Kong ... " these restaurants are ok, but they're not as good as the REAL chinese restaurants - like the ones back home in Dixon St ."




I've only ever been to Hong Kong airport, thrice I think, only as a stopover.  Once I had a five hour stopover, as much as the duty free was big, I was bored to my wits.  I dont really find shopping all that fun ( yeah, my hubby is so lucky ).


How come I dont hear any Liberal votes voicing out?


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 June 2007)

trinity said:


> How come I dont hear any Liberal votes voicing out?



ahh - we did all that 11 years ago  

hey - you do what you like lol. 
go with whichever way your bread is buttered.
In the end , as they say, it doesn't much matter in Aus which side your bread is buttered, - since you eat the same bread either which way

in which case - go with the way where the butter is the least bitter.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 June 2007)

Down here in this down under, vote with head or vote with heart
or wallet praps? hip pocket nerve?  or who you think is smart?
if global warming turns you on, (another place to start)
or global wars, or reasoning a child could take apart.

or whether things in down town Aus could do with something new
or whether things are fine as is  (entirely up to you)
or whether you can trust them when they read from measured scripts - 
but you'll know which ones are lying ....
.......        they're the ones with moving lips


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 June 2007)

recent cartoons from the Australian


----------



## trinity (2 July 2007)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/saving-scheme-for-firsthome-buyers/2007/07/01/1183228964816.html

started my monday right with those news.  i think it's a way better idea than a handout of 7K (?) for First Home Buyers.  The handout just gave developers a way to raise property prices, IMHO.  Teaching and helping people to save for the deposit is a better idea.  

I think I am tilting towards Labor ...


----------



## greggy (7 July 2007)

trinity said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/saving-scheme-for-firsthome-buyers/2007/07/01/1183228964816.html
> 
> started my monday right with those news.  i think it's a way better idea than a handout of 7K (?) for First Home Buyers.  The handout just gave developers a way to raise property prices, IMHO.  Teaching and helping people to save for the deposit is a better idea.
> 
> I think I am tilting towards Labor ...



Hi Trinity,

I think a combination of both would be a preferable option. Interest rates are still pretty low.  I still remember people taking out  mortgages back in 1989 under the Hawke Labor Government (Keating was the Treasurer) when the interest rate for home loan borrowing was 17%.  For business loans the rate was 20%.  The economy went into a recession. 
All of your posts thus far have been pro-Labor, fair enough, yet you say that you're still swinging towards Labor.  I think that you've already made up your mind.  
For me, take a look at my posting history.  I've been in the middle and am a swinging voter.  
Last time I voted for Howard for 2 main reasons: 
1.  I thought Australia was doing pretty well economically at the time 
2.  The ALP Leader, Mark Latham, put me off voting for him with his style which I found to be too aggressive IMO.
At the last Vic State Election I voted for Steve Bracks, ALP.
This time I haven't decided as yet.
I feel that Howard has gone too far with his IR Laws.  The main problem I find  is that good employers reward their staff whilst bad employers have been exploiting the legislation.  Howard's reforms have had unintentional consequences. And believe it or not I'm a union member of the CPSU. At the last election a significant number of union members voted for Howard as they've done since 1996.    
I'm also worried about the Iraq issue. I'm pro -American but firmly believe that we should gradually pull out of Iraq. We should remain committed to our involvement in Afghanistan where progress is being made. The Hicks issue was also of concern. 
Australia is still doing well economically.  The resource boom has played a major role, but surely credit should also go to the Howard Government.  I think privately Rudd would acknowledge this as he now labels himself a fiscal conservative.  Over the past 11 years I feel that the Howard Government has understood the needs of families better than the previous government.  
The Howard Governemnt is looking tired and perhaps a ministerial reshuffle is required. From looking at opinion polls, it seems that Labor is still clearly ahead and many voters are no longer listening to the government. Maybe a large number of voters have become complacent.  Maybe the only thing that will save Howard is to focus on Rudd's lack of any ministerial experience and hyprocisy in relation to Rudd's stance on IR. Don't forget that Mrs Rudd has taken advantage of the government's IR Laws (she is one tough boss as employees are expected to work unpaid overtime).  Rudd however has a good looking resume.  
Either way the next election is going to be strongly fought.  IMO I'm still sitting on the fence.   
Trinity, I enjoy reading your posts as I love talking about politics (I was lucky to major in it at uni).

Regards,

Greggy


----------



## Julia (7 July 2007)

Greggy,

I appreciate your very balanced comments and agree with most of what you say.

However, at this stage I'm definitely going for Liberal.  There's something of the "cardboard cut out" with Kevin Rudd, I have no confidence in Wayne Swan's abilities as Treasurer (also find his political arguments very unimpressive), and, although she's doing her best to cover it up at present, I think Julia Gillard will be very pro-union if they are elected, to the detriment of business.  Additionally, I simply don't like the woman, especially her voice.

A good deal of the poll result at present probably just represents a certain boredom with the current government in terms of their long tenure.  Damn silly reason for making a change imo.


----------



## trinity (7 July 2007)

Hi Greggy, 

I appreciate your inputs, thanks.   I haven't made up my mind 100% yet.  Only because I have been in Australia for only 3 years, so, history-wise, I say I do not know much.  What is affecting my status is what is happening at the moment.  Of course, it is so easy to look back and say, e.g. why didn't Howard do anything about the welfare/aboriginal issues when it has been there since who knows when.  I admit, that is quite unfair for me to judge.  Ok, look at this in a bigger scale, when I took my citizenship ceremonies a few months back, who among those people with me are actually discussing politics?   If I am narrowminded, then I would shut the door and just do my obligation and vote.   I did put out a question on in an earlier post that, how come I haven't heard from a liberal?  So, I appreciate some history lessons and inputs  

And yeah, I do not know much of Mr. Rudd's credentials, but I do admit he has some ideas up his sleeves, such as the "first home buyers" savings fund.  I don't believe the government should just throw money around.  As being here for only 3 years, I really want to stop renting and have our own property and start a family.  Since moving to our current dwelling, the landlord has raised our rent 3 times 

Anyways, what affected me most actually is, (this is a migrant's life I suppose) my husband, when he first came over, had to work night shifts and weekends, because he was not given any other option, and, there was definitely no additional compensation.    Say, why doesn't he look for another job?  He applied to over 100 companies (yeah, he kept a spreadsheet of all those applications he sent).  My husband had it tough when he first came here.  And, I do think a lot of it is because of the IR laws.  But please do enlighten me in this respect.  I do not think of the total abolition of the IR laws is the answer.  But, as you have said, bad employers have taken advantage of it.  What therefore is the balance?

Thanks   And also, Julia, how do you rate Wayne Swan against Peter Costello?


----------



## greggy (7 July 2007)

Julia said:


> Greggy,
> 
> I appreciate your very balanced comments and agree with most of what you say.
> 
> ...



Hi Julia,

Yet another intelligent contribution from you. I don't mind Wayne Swan, although inexperienced, but I don't particularly like Julia Gillard. I dodn't like her comments in telling business to keep out of the IR debate.  Surely all community groups have the right to participate in any debate in a democracy.
In relation to inexpereince we often forget that Peter Costello was a lawyer and had no previous ministerial experience when he became Treasurer.  Overall he's been a good Treasurer (the resource boom has helped), but I still think he needs to tone down his smugness. Infact, I find him similar in character to Keating, plenty of arrogance. Still undecided.
The Howard Government is looking a little tired, but when making up my mind as to whom I'm going to back, I will also be looking at the alternative government.


----------



## greggy (7 July 2007)

trinity said:


> Hi Greggy,
> 
> I appreciate your inputs, thanks.   I haven't made up my mind 100% yet.  Only because I have been in Australia for only 3 years, so, history-wise, I say I do not know much.  What is affecting my status is what is happening at the moment.  Of course, it is so easy to look back and say, e.g. why didn't Howard do anything about the welfare/aboriginal issues when it has been there since who knows when.  I admit, that is quite unfair for me to judge.  Ok, look at this in a bigger scale, when I took my citizenship ceremonies a few months back, who among those people with me are actually discussing politics?   If I am narrowminded, then I would shut the door and just do my obligation and vote.   I did put out a question on in an earlier post that, how come I haven't heard from a liberal?  So, I appreciate some history lessons and inputs
> 
> ...



Hi Trinity,

There are some positive aspects of the new IR Laws.  I'm sure that some employers are more likely now to hire inexperienced employees knowing that its easier to lay them off should they not perform. Its good to see the unemployment rate so low.  But I'm also worried about a number of employers  who are not giving employees a fair deal.  I'm a firm believer in working hard all day long for a fair wage.  It should work both ways. There will probably be the need for further tinkering with the IR Laws.
As for the Howard Government's strong stand on Aboriginal welfare, on this matter he's moving in the right direction.  For too long nothing has been done.  State governments, both Liberal/National and ALP, haven't done enough. Better later than never, although I'm a little bit cynical in an election year.  Its good to see Rudd supporting the PM on this matter. 
My parents came here as migrants.  They paid their own way here and did it tough.  There was much less government support back then then there is now.  Its never easy coming to a new country, but most fair dinkum Aussies welcome migrants here with open arms, especially this one.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 July 2007)

greggy said:


> Hi Trinity,
> 
> I think a combination of both would be a preferable option. Interest rates are still pretty low.  I still remember people taking out  mortgages back in 1989 under the Hawke Labor Government (Keating was the Treasurer) when the interest rate for home loan borrowing was 17%



...which resulted in housing being MORE affordable than at present.

Housing is very rapidly becoming _the_ issue if media reports are any indication (which they generally are in this context). Rudd seems to be doing quite well out of it so far which does show some political ability if nothing else.

There are, of course, only two lasting solutions to the problem. (1) A wages boom that mirrors the house price boom or (2) a house price crash. Most seem to be counting on a wages boom since that's what happened in previous cycles. 

I wonder how happy the business lobby is with the prospect of wages literally doubling? Probably not very. 

And I wonder how happy property owners without children and investors are with the idea of a house price crash? Probably not very.

The difficult spot the Liberals now find themselves in with housing is precisely why real estate booms are something best avoided. (1) Do nothing and quite likely lose the election as growing numbers are priced out of the market and parents realise their children are in a far worse situation than they were at the same age or (2) double wages thus losing the business vote and probably wrecking the economy in the process. Lose either way... 

By the way, I'm NOT anti-Liberal. Labor seems unlikely to do any better, indeed some of their plans involve making things worse. But I am anti-meddling in the markets - that's the real problem.


----------



## Julia (7 July 2007)

trinity said:


> Anyways, what affected me most actually is, (this is a migrant's life I suppose) my husband, when he first came over, had to work night shifts and weekends, because he was not given any other option, and, there was definitely no additional compensation.    Say, why doesn't he look for another job?  He applied to over 100 companies (yeah, he kept a spreadsheet of all those applications he sent).  My husband had it tough when he first came here.  And, I do think a lot of it is because of the IR laws.  But please do enlighten me in this respect.  I do not think of the total abolition of the IR laws is the answer.  But, as you have said, bad employers have taken advantage of it.  What therefore is the balance?
> 
> Thanks   And also, Julia, how do you rate Wayne Swan against Peter Costello?



Trinity:

Good for you in becoming an Australian citizen and taking an active interest in politics.

Re your husband having to work night shifts etc, I don't think that is a problem exclusively experienced by migrants.  Lots of Australian born people are having to do the same.  It's good that he is able to find work.  I'm not here to point out the benefits of the Howard government, but it's nonetheless true to observe that unemployment under their administration is down to I think about a 40year low.  Someone will correct me if that's not right.

It takes some while to feel "absorbed" into a new country.  I only came from as close as New Zealand fourteen years ago, but it took several years before I felt I had much of an understanding of how things worked.  (Australians still puzzle me sometimes!)

Re Wayne Swan v Peter Costello:  I don't much like either of them as people, but feel that Costello has proven himself as a competent Treasurer.  It's not fair to say that it's all due to the resources boom imo.  If he could lose his smirk and become a little more like his brother, then he'd be pretty OK Prime Minister material.  Wayne Swan has not to my knowledge come out with any useful comments re the economy and seems reactive to comments from the government rather than providing any initiatives of his own.  He just doesn't come across to me as having any particularly useful qualities and appears rather shallow and superficial.


----------



## arminius (7 July 2007)

hi all,

i would agree that costello is a competent treasurer, he does his job, and i would agree that swan carries on like a goose much of the time. for me though the issue goes deeper than a few individuals. 
i truly detest this government. i believe in morality, honesty, and equality. a labor vote for me. if labor get elected they may commit the same - but i wont judge them beforehand, and i may vote against them next time if they do. 
the invasion of iraq has DESTROYED countless lives. 
awb, kids overboard, now nelsons comments and backtrack on oil to name just a couple.
making aussies (and migrants) work weekends and holidays without reward so companies can make more money. 
justice is threatened ( hicks, freedom of speech, conviction of airport whistleblower)
when we destroy nations, lie to our own people, squeeze our workforce, and disregard justice...well, it will come back to bite us all, especially the generations that follow. 
a few broad statements but time and space etc.....
have a nice night.
ps. the wallabies are half a chance for the world cup!


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 July 2007)

I'm starting to think the Iraq war is gonna become the major issue / factor for me.  After all it was the big factor in the recent midterm elections in USA.  

Not that I'd go as far as this bloke did in USA (burns himself alve - similar to what the buddhist monks did in the Vietnam war days)  :-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2766794


> Malachi burns himself alive to protest Iraq war.  Activist and artist Malachi Ritscher burns himself alive in Chicago in front of morning rush hour commuters to protest the war in Iraq.
> 
> *The press has almost completely blacked out this news in mainstream press .*   A long time Chicago activist, artist and contributer to the Chicago jazz scene has burned himself alive in an act of protest against the iraq war. He is only one of 10 Americans in history to have done this .
> 
> ...



only an amateur this next fellow, but makes a sincere attempt to sing in key for this tribute 
 "The Great Mandella (The Wheel Of Life)" Peter Yarrow cover

here's the same song sung by artists including Peter Yarrow ( of Peter Paul & Mary) (perhaps PP&M themselves ?? )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Yarrow
 The Great Mandala , Anti-war montage of photos and archetypal images set to folk song by Peter Paul and Mary


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 July 2007)

.....


> An anti-war protest song. I dedicate my cover version to the memory and message of anti-war protestor Malachi Ritscher. Although I do not endorse his ultimate method of protest -- self-immolation -- I wish to honor his commitment and his intention and his sacrifice. Read his own words:
> http://www.savagesound.com/gallery99.htm  etc


----------



## Trader Paul (8 July 2007)

Hi folks,

FWIW ... figure we'll be hearing the results of the election
(or something just as big for Oz) on 09-10 December 2007 .....

..... that day, our government will receive some BIG news,
likely unpleasant and about issues, that have been hidden
(underground?) from us all, previously.

-----

Around that same time, though NOT connected directly to 
our Aussie issues, we should also see a HUGE world event
as well ... a-once-in-lifetime event ... possibly connected
to the Pope (???)

More later.

happy days

  paul



-----


----------



## greggy (8 July 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> ...which resulted in housing being MORE affordable than at present.
> 
> Housing is very rapidly becoming _the_ issue if media reports are any indication (which they generally are in this context). Rudd seems to be doing quite well out of it so far which does show some political ability if nothing else.
> 
> ...



Hi Smurf,

Back in the 1980s there was also a housing boom. Under the Hawke Government with Keating as Treasurer, interest rates went through the roof leading to a severe recession, especially here in Victoria where unemployment went above 12% (including myself).  These days its only one-third of this number ( percentage wise) who are unemployed.  But for argument's sake, if you wanted to go back further interest rates when Howard was treasurer under Fraser in the late 70s/80s were sky high back then as well. 
Is it generally true that when the unemployment rate goes down that means that people are in a position to enter the housing market and that real estate prices generally rise.  Back in the 1980s there was also a housing boom.
Rudd labels himself as being a fiscal conservative. Though untried, if he lives up to this label then Australia will be in fairly safe hands. Rudd's clearly not scaring the horses as he's probably Latham's opposite.  In many respects Rudd is similar to Howard (his persona, conservatism, outlook etc).  The only major points of difference IMO are on IR and Iraq.  But don't be alarmed, Rudd is still pro-American.  Still sitting on the fence.
Before I go, one thought, why don't we have an exit poll ourselves on the day of the election? Would be interesting to see the results.  Given that a lot of traders tend to err on the conservative side, maybe ther result on this forum would be 55% LIb/Nat, 40% ALP and 5% Green/Other.
I'm still sitting on the fence.


----------



## trinity (8 July 2007)

Hi Greggy,



> I'm a firm believer in working hard all day long for a fair wage. It should work both ways. There will probably be the need for further tinkering with the IR Laws.




Right on!  Correct me if I am wrong, feels like Howard does not want to change it, and Rudd just wants to get rid of it?  



> My parents came here as migrants. They paid their own way here and did it tough. There was much less government support back then then there is now. Its never easy coming to a new country, but most fair dinkum Aussies welcome migrants here with open arms, especially this one.




Thanks, I feel so much better knowing there are others who have or are experiencing what I am going through


----------



## greggy (9 July 2007)

trinity said:


> Hi Greggy,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi Trinity,

Howard's already done a little bit of tinkering with it, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's more to come.  At the other end, Rudd seems intent on getting rid of it.  Surely, they will find a happy balance in the middle.  The Australian Democrats used to be good at finding a happy balance for all parties concerned (e.g. the removal of basic food items from the GST), but now they look like a spent force seem finished due to party infighting, the Greens growing popularity etc. I used to always vote for the Australian Democrats in the Senate until the infighting destroyed this party. IMO it was like taking out a form of insurance. Too much power is no good for anyone.


----------



## ghosty (9 July 2007)

Trinity ,

  glad to see your are concerned about your new country and asking questions,

 If I may also add , spend a bit off time finding out who or whom is resposible for each issue ..Either State or Federal..

 It is a very fine line ..

 I noticed you have already questioned Howard on the Drought and Aboriginal issues ..

 I think you will find sometimes the Federal Gov is damned if it does and also if it doesn't

 ghosty


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 July 2007)

To put the world right in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right. -  Confucius 

http://www.wisdomquotes.com/


----------



## trinity (9 July 2007)

hi ghosty,



> If I may also add , spend a bit off time finding out who or whom is resposible for each issue ..Either State or Federal..
> 
> It is a very fine line ..




Yeah, still trying to figure that one out.  There are some things which are clear cut, like, am based in sydney, so, Cityrail dilemma is Lemma's problem.

Then, there's the drought issue, which is kinda state and nation wide problem I suppose.  



> I think you will find sometimes the Federal Gov is damned if it does and also if it doesn't




Sounds like life... well, the government should present the people with more options I reckon.  

What are the specific things that affect your decision during the elections?


----------



## greggy (10 July 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> To put the world right in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right. -  Confucius
> 
> http://www.wisdomquotes.com/



Hi 2020 Hindsight,

For the first time ever you've given me a headache with the Confucius bit.  Confucius is sometimes confusing and should have been more to the point IMO.
LOL! Love your work 2020.


----------



## greggy (10 July 2007)

trinity said:


> hi ghosty,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




G'day Trinity,

If more new Australians took an interest in politics like you do, then maybe this country could become an even better place for it. Discussion of existing policies can often lead to better ideas.
P.S. Having travelled all over the world, I still think we live in the best country in the world.


----------



## billhill (13 July 2007)

Did anyone see lateline business last night. The interveiw with Guy Pearse had some pretty explosive claims that the government was letting its biggest donors dictate its greenhouse gas policy. Just more evidence i guess of the coruption of greenhouse policy from this government. More priority in looking after the party and their donors rather then the public. Shame.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/200707/s1977550.htm



> EMMA ALBERICI: Your central thesis is essentially that the Howard Government allows Australia's biggest environmental polluters to write its Cabinet submissions and ministerial briefings. Now that's a serious allegation, is it something you can actually substantiate?
> 
> GUY PEARSE: I've got tape recordings of industry lobbyists based here in Canberra saying just that, on half a dozen occasions over more than a decade, they were involved in more than one department writing Cabinet submissions, ministerial briefings and costings on greenhouse policy.


----------



## trinity (16 July 2007)

Just on the topic of housing affordability, read an article 
http://au.blogs.yahoo.com/barefootinvestor/36/try-a-reality-check that is saying that the politicians are presenting their "solutions" to housing affordabilty, just to get the votes, which is true, And yet the article says, there is no true solution except for an "inevitable crash".  (well, that;s how i understood the article anyways).

Just wanted to get your opinions regarding housing affordabilty.  Because, I for one am thinking that a savings fund type (pre-tax) is a good suggestion.  It will make people save money and not rely on gov't hand-outs.

What do you guys think?


----------



## Rafa (16 July 2007)

certainly agree, anything that encourages savings is a good thing.

there is another solution too... wage rises...
but i am always in favour of a good crash


----------



## Noskcid (19 July 2007)

that could work tooz


----------



## YELNATS (20 July 2007)

Has Howard erred in not sacking Costello as Treasurer after Costello's unfavourable published opinions of Howard in the book release this week?

Isn't Costello guilty of disloyalty and therefore deserving/needing disciplining rather than support?

Has Howard shown a recent streak of weakness in supporting, rather than disciplining the Treasurer, in view of the disloyalty?

Are Costello's revelations an attempt for him to finally assume the Liberal leadership, even if it means he is at first to be consigned to Leader of the Opposition? 

Will these events have any effect on the upcoming Federal election, or is Howard already a "dead man walking"?

Any ideas/discussion? regards. YN.


----------



## trading_rookie (20 July 2007)

Does Howard have the power to sack Costello? More importantly would it be a costly move if he could? Costello does have his supporters and a recent article suggested that Downer was given the job of tapping Howard on the shoulder asking him to move aside if the polls didn't improve...they did for a while there and that saved him, so not even Howard is safe as leader of the Libs.

It's not like we haven't seen a power struggle b/w a PM and treasurer before. Keating used the numbers to oust Hawke and during the Libs darkest days Peacock didn't want to work with Howard.

As Abbot stated on Lateline last night. As long as the party can work together professionally, social interaction is insignificant.

Anyway, the ALP have had their own hiccup of late. With the revelation that Rudd's brother as ALP member donated AUD10K to the Lib/National coalition.


----------



## Rafa (20 July 2007)

i find this costello howard saga irrelvant to the whole debate!... 
costello just comes across as a spoilt child throwing a tantrum, whilst howard comes across as he always did, a shrewd, coniving, politician who lets nothing get in the way of getting re-elected!

but heck, that whats democracy is all about, hence, nothing that howards does is unexpected... his job is to get the liberals re-elected, simple as that... whats actually good for australia in the long term comes a distant second.

its like nelson's comments on oil... heck, everyone knows its about oil... yet everyone is shocked when nelson said it! 

sometimes i wonder about these political commentators... or is society just so dumbed down nowadays that things like the above actually matter.... 

maybe it is, i guess paris hilton, beckams in LA seem to regularly make the front page news... do people really want this news, its obvious they do, cause the magazines and newspapers sell and make money! 

ok, thats the end of my friday rant... bring on the weekend:alcohol:


----------



## greggy (20 July 2007)

YELNATS said:


> Has Howard erred in not sacking Costello as Treasurer after Costello's unfavourable published opinions of Howard in the book release this week?
> 
> Isn't Costello guilty of disloyalty and therefore deserving/needing disciplining rather than support?
> 
> ...



I first heard the above expression "dead man walking" used in a political sense when Robert (Bob) Dole ran as the Republican Presidentrial candidate against Clinton. Sure enough, he lost.  According to the polls, Howard may not only lose the election, but also also his own seat.  I think that the polls will tighten up during the election campaign.  IMO it seems that voters are no longer listening to the Howard Government.  Maybe Howard is now being seen by many as "yesterday's man".  
I feel that the Iraq issue is weighing him down a bit together with IR. If it wasn't for the new IR Laws, I reckon Howard would win the next election in a canter.  Judging by his partial backdown on the IR laws, I feel that Howard would privately acknowledge that politically he regrets having introduced them.  Poll after poll reflects the fact that many of Howard's battlers aren't happy with the IR laws.  Increased interest rates aren't helping either.  Still unemployment is very low and economic growth is continuing at a sound rate (thanks partly to the resources boom).  Still the Howard Government deserves partial credit for Australia's economic circumstances. Perhaps voters feel that 11 years in power is enough.
I'm still undecided.


----------



## trading_rookie (20 July 2007)

> ok, thats the end of my friday rant... bring on the weekend :alcohol:




Bit early for the weekend, although still time for a liquid lunch ;-)


----------



## YELNATS (20 July 2007)

trading_rookie said:


> Anyway, the ALP have had their own hiccup of late. With the revelation that Rudd's brother as ALP member donated AUD10K to the Lib/National coalition.




I guess both sides have their skeletons in the cupboard. 

Peter's brother Tim, former mayor of St Kilda, was often referred to as "that leftist cleric" by Jeff Kennett, and Peter himself was for a time an office-bearer of the Social Democratic Students Association of Victoria, *an affiliate of the Victorian Branch of Australian Young Labor*


----------



## greggy (20 July 2007)

YELNATS said:


> I guess both sides have their skeletons in the cupboard.
> 
> Peter's brother Tim, former mayor of St Kilda, was often referred to as "that leftist cleric" by Jeff Kennett, and Peter himself was for a time an office-bearer of the Social Democratic Students Association of Victoria, *an affiliate of the Victorian Branch of Australian Young Labor*



At one stage, Tim Costello strongly considered running for the Democrats in the Senate. I would view him as being a small "l" liberal in terms of political philosophy. Whilst Mayor of St Kilda he cleaned up the area's image.  Property prices there have since gone through the roof.


----------



## bingk6 (20 July 2007)

Rafa said:


> costello just comes across as a spoilt child throwing a tantrum, whilst howard comes across as he always did, a shrewd, coniving, politician who lets nothing get in the way of getting re-elected!




At the end of the day, Costello is only human and he obviously finds it difficult to bottle up the incessant stream of BS and lies from Howard. Imagine trying to appear pally with somebody whom you truely despise.


----------



## greggy (20 July 2007)

bingk6 said:


> At the end of the day, Costello is only human and he obviously finds it difficult to bottle up the incessant stream of BS and lies from Howard. Imagine trying to appear pally with somebody whom you truely despise.



Reminds me of Keating's frustration with Hawke.  Remember the Kirribilly Agreement.  Its too late for Howard to even consider handing over the reins to Costello as it would be seen as panicking.


----------



## Julia (20 July 2007)

What surprised me was that Costello knew the biography would come out about now and could only harm the Liberals' chances of re-election.  Gives Labor plenty of ammunition along the lines of "disunity" for a start.  But imo more important than that is Costello's comment that he feels the country's financial health is in danger because Howard is pushing him (the Treasurer) into more spending than the Treasurer feels is sustainable or responsible.

I don't know whether he does in fact feel this, or whether he was feeling sufficiently chagrined and frustrated to suggest this merely as a means of "getting back" at John Howard.

No surprise about how he feels, but I still don't understand why he would want to so clearly shoot his own party in the foot at a time when the outlook for them is so bad already.

I've only seen the 7.30 Report interview with John Howard plus the Lateline one with Tony Abbot (who did little to ameliorate the situation).  Has Costello himself offered any justification for his dummy spit?


----------



## arminius (20 July 2007)

gday all,
its interesting stuff. just how deep does the resentment go? academic really, but its a good example of a disintigrating govt. ( live by the sword etc). 

im quite upset at the mo.
the haneef thing is so wrong at a fundamental level, as was dave hicks. any society is built around justice, and when it is shunted aside that society will start to come undone at the most basic levels. why should our children not lie when it is perfected at the top?

i saw some photos from iraq on a US website late last night. US troops dragged an iraqi bloke about 20-25 yo out of his car in baghdad. they had shot him dead because he was driving slowly around the block and didnt stop when they said to stop. an old lady was crying nearby. 

the dead bloke was a cabbie looking for her house. 
i dont really blame the troops, as they were undoubtedly shi tting themselves, expecting to be blown up at any minute, like thousands of their colleagues. the cabbie is one of over half a million Iraqis.

Bush, Cheney, Howard and the rest of our government have done this. this is not the country i want my two kids to grow up in. 

as far as i can tell, the one thing that binds the government's supporters is their joy at the state of the economy. pc admits jh was a very ordinary treasurer, and a spendthrift pm. thats ok, we have heaps of money floating around, because OF A MINING BOOM. 

is there an economist/ accountant out there who can calculate how much extra income Oz has received in the last 5-10 years over and above what we had in the past. RBA figures show x5 the income of 1989. (table H3 RBA stats) if i earnt $1000 a week then suddenly earnt $5000 a week im sure i could put lobster instread of rissoles on the table.

i truly think most sane and balanced aussies see the govt for what it is, and when the implosions continue the less informed may also see. 

the house of cards built on fear and lies will come crashing down in November.
have a great weekend all. go GBG, LYC, AGS.


----------



## Rafa (20 July 2007)

haven't heard much from costello, tho howard did indicate costello was on ABC radio in the morning...

anyway...

i don't think anything here is new...

we all know that howards only motivation is to get re-elected and will do anything to get there... regardless of the long term consequences, be they economic, social or environmental. so whats the big deal


----------



## ideaforlife (20 July 2007)

Julia said:


> What surprised me was that Costello knew the biography would come out about now and could only harm the Liberals' chances of re-election.  Gives Labor plenty of ammunition along the lines of "disunity" for a start.  But imo more important than that is Costello's comment that he feels the country's financial health is in danger because Howard is pushing him (the Treasurer) into more spending than the Treasurer feels is sustainable or responsible.
> 
> I don't know whether he does in fact feel this, or whether he was feeling sufficiently chagrined and frustrated to suggest this merely as a means of "getting back" at John Howard.
> 
> ...



Good question - why Costello wants to shoot his own party in the foot at a time when the outlook for them is so bad already.

It agains shows that he makes a good treasurer, not a good PM! Personally I like Costello a lot more than Howard, but he is such as technical (per se) person that he doesn't make a good political figure.


----------



## --B-- (20 July 2007)

arminius said:


> the haneef thing is so wrong at a fundamental level, as was dave hicks. any society is built around justice, and when it is shunted aside that society will start to come undone at the most basic levels. why should our children not lie when it is perfected at the top?




the only people Haneef has to blame are his terrorist cousins. Australia has strong anti-terror laws for a reason. A

And hicks???? Please. it simply amazes me that people sympathise with this self-confessed terrorist supporter. It is sickening.



> Bush, Cheney, Howard and the rest of our government have done this. this is not the country i want my two kids to grow up in.




of course, and the terrorists and the insurgents in iraq who kill innocent civilians daily? 


> i truly think most sane and balanced aussies see the govt for what it is, and when the implosions continue the less informed may also see.




continue? what implosions are those?


----------



## chops_a_must (20 July 2007)

Julia said:


> *But imo more important than that is Costello's comment that he feels the country's financial health is in danger because Howard is pushing him (the Treasurer) into more spending than the Treasurer feels is sustainable or responsible.
> *
> I don't know whether he does in fact feel this, or whether he was feeling sufficiently chagrined and frustrated to suggest this merely as a means of "getting back" at John Howard.
> 
> ...




To me it is fairly obvious.

It is well known that Howard is an economic hack (maybe not on these boards), and an outright failure as a treasuer, yet he has tried to claim credit for Australia's recent economic performance. Why wouldn't Costello therefore be trying to set the record straight? Especially when Howard himself and anyone else that KNOWS his performance has tried their utmost to hide his actual economic performance.

But aside from this, I don't think Costello has any fundamental allegiance to the Liberal party. It is known that his wife was given to him by the libs to get him to run for them, as he was at the time, an up and coming future Labor party gun. In fact, I think he is actually more moderate than a lot of ALP members.

So what does he owe the libs? Why should he let Howard the incompetent take credit for his work?


----------



## greggy (20 July 2007)

Julia said:


> What surprised me was that Costello knew the biography would come out about now and could only harm the Liberals' chances of re-election.  Gives Labor plenty of ammunition along the lines of "disunity" for a start.  But imo more important than that is Costello's comment that he feels the country's financial health is in danger because Howard is pushing him (the Treasurer) into more spending than the Treasurer feels is sustainable or responsible.
> 
> I don't know whether he does in fact feel this, or whether he was feeling sufficiently chagrined and frustrated to suggest this merely as a means of "getting back" at John Howard.
> 
> ...



Hi Julia,

I just feel that Costello needs to grow up a little.  Unity is very important.  Any whiff that a party is disunited will lead to further falls in opinion polls. Yes, Costello wants to be PM one day. He just has to wait his turn even if it has been a long time.


----------



## arminius (20 July 2007)

hey b,

would u mind telling us a little about yourself, what u do, where you're from, hobbies etc, as im kind of interested to know what sort of person thinks like you do.


----------



## trading_rookie (21 July 2007)

> I guess both sides have their skeletons in the cupboard.
> 
> Peter's brother Tim, former mayor of St Kilda, was often referred to as "that leftist cleric" by Jeff Kennett, and Peter himself was for a time an office-bearer of the Social Democratic Students Association of Victoria, an affiliate of the Victorian Branch of Australian Young Labor




Yes, I was aware of that, but really no real surprise there, many people in their youth are more centre-left leaning than they are right. It’s once young adults have to work to have something that they realise the greens employment policy ‘if you don’t want to work, you don’t have to’ doesn’t sit well with them.

Costello became more conservative once he graduated (like a lot of young adults) and I doubt he’d ever join the ALP. To prove it, he was a founding member of the economic think tank the New Right in the late 1980’s  (he became a member of the Upper House in 1990) that has strong links to the Lib Party and is hated by the social-left element of the ALP. 

I believe one of the reasons why Howard and Costello don’t get along socially is because Costello still holds some moderate views over Howards stern ultra-conservative ones.

In any event, this isn’t the Liberal Party of the Menzies or Fraser era's, when it was a club for the WASPs. 

Take Joe Hockey (Hockeidonian) for example. As he puts it, the first Arab on the front bench.  He was named after one of Labor’s favourite sons – Joesph Benedict Chifley. At Sydney Uni he was a very visable student union leader and was approached by a very senior ALP figure (he won’t say who as the person is still alive – you can probably assume it was Whitlam) to join the ALP, but 
realised even though society had to help it’s fellow men, there was nothing wrong with individual enterprise and reward for innovation – something Costello realised as well. 

If anything Costello has only himself to blame for not taking over the top job while in opposition. It was basically thrown at him in 1995 but he turned it down…the rest as they say is history ;-)


> But imo more important than that is Costello's comment that he feels the country's financial health is in danger because Howard is pushing him (the Treasurer) into more spending than the Treasurer feels is sustainable or responsible.



Not that dangerous. Howard wanted GST to be lowered from 10% to 8% in 1998 and got the hairy eyeball from Costello. Howard is the CEO and Costello the CFO. Like in any business you’re going to want to spent to entice your customers (or voters in this example) and it’s up to your CFO to let you or not. If you have a weak CFO, the CEO can do what he wants. Costello is obviously a good CFO (well depends on what view you take – we’d all rather be paying 8% GST to 10%) who controls the purse strings.



> we all know that howards only motivation is to get re-elected and will do anything to get there...



Sounds very much like Rudd – although it will be his first term. Won’t be holding my breath though to see how he’ll solve the housing affordability fiasco, nor anything else he’s promising…


> It agains shows that he makes a good treasurer, not a good PM! Personally I like Costello a lot more than Howard, but he is such as technical (per se) person that he doesn't make a good political figure.



Yeah but just watch him stick it to the opposition during quesiton time! “Hello meals on wheels this is Sharon Burrows calling! From the church of later-day unionists" !!! ;-)


----------



## trading_rookie (21 July 2007)

> It’s once young adults have to work to have something that they realise the greens unemployment policy ‘if you don’t want to work, you don’t have to’ doesn’t sit well with them.




...that should of read employment policy.

Hey Joe, how come the edit option is missing for previous posts? If you added a time stamp to when a post was re-edited it would take care of any liability issues if that was of concern. 

It's just frustating when you look back at one of your posts' and notice silly things like the above not to mention spelling/grammar mistakes.

[Fixed it for you... Cheers]


----------



## Sprinter79 (21 July 2007)

If only Hewson got voted in......

I just want to see Howard squirm again like he did after the Obama 'incident' hahaha

And "B", Hick's confession was made under duress, therefore not admissable in a normal court of law.

Fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear

Who are we at war with this week? Iraqi's, hippies, aboriginals, unionists, Costello?


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 July 2007)

greggy said:


> At one stage, Tim Costello strongly considered running for the Democrats in the Senate. I would view him as being a small "l" liberal in terms of political philosophy. Whilst Mayor of St Kilda he cleaned up the area's image.  *Property prices there have since gone through the roof*.



Yet another inflation-producing Liberal. Just what the speculators need and the poor fear most.


----------



## greggy (22 July 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Yet another inflation-producing Liberal. Just what the speculators need and the poor fear most.



Hi Smurf,

I would be very surprised if Tim Costello votes Liberal so it would be unfair to label him as being another inflation-producing Liberal.  He's a firm believer in social justice. He has done a lot of good work helping the homeless and other forgotten members of our society.  His political philosophy IMO is small "l" liberal.  In terms of political philosophy, there's a number of people in all mainstream political parties that would identify themselves as having this philosophy.  I remember my past discussions with a number of Democrat voters who identified themselves as small "l" liberals as well as a number of Howard's battlers. Also, the same can be said about many voters in the US who back the Democrats there. Anyone bored enough to read any of my past posts would realise that I too fit into this group.    
At the last state election I voted Labor yet at the previous federal election I voted Liberal.  After seeing Latham turn on his Labor mates in a very vulgar way via his book vindicated my stand at the last election.  He had some good ideas but IMO was too volatile.  Interest rates were also lower at the time. Voters tend to go for a safe pair of hands so to speak.  Maybe that's one of the reasons why Rudd's doing so well in the polls.  To some extent, he looks like a younger version of Howard.  Rudd is a bookworm, wears glasses, fairly humble and is a fiscal conservative.  He's also agreeing with many of Hoaward's policies on water, aboriginees etc.  The main points of difference seem to be IR and Iraq.  On both issues most voters are backing Rudd's stand.


----------



## Julia (22 July 2007)

greggy said:


> Hi Smurf,
> 
> I would be very surprised if Tim Costello votes Liberal so it would be unfair to label him as being another inflation-producing Liberal.  He's a firm believer in social justice. He has done a lot of good work helping the homeless and other forgotten members of our society.  His political philosophy IMO is small "l" liberal.




I agree about Tim Costello.  He seems a really genuine person, engaged in doing all he can for people who need help.  Hard to believe the two are brothers in terms of their apparent personalities.


----------



## whitta27 (22 July 2007)

Firstly Tim Costello is a tremendous person and has had a great influence on many people, as mayor of St Kilda, head of World Vision and many other positions he has taken on.

I think it is very unfair to compare Peter to him though.
Everyone says if only Peter had the compassion Tim has.

Who says he doesn't..  In the position peter is in I think it is very hard for him to show his true colours.  Everybody hates paying tax and Pete Costello has been the taxing minister for the last 10 years, its politically correct in this country to dislike the man.

I'll give you a tip, political correctness in this country is about as thin as a matchstick.  People at dinner tables having tea with associates discussing how much they made last year on the sharemarket, put their fake socially acceptable politically correct facade on.  Howard knows this .. its politically correct to mock Howard.. You don't think he knows political correctness is matchstick thin.  He doesn't have to make the media portray him as anything special. He just has to relate to the conservative dominant ideology that is within most.. not everyones, minds at the ballot box.  

People mock politicians and comment on their lack of compassion and care for others..  Yes they do make some bad decisions but ultimately they do a considerable amount of good for little in return.

I don't think Peter Costello will be Prime Minister but if he were to make it to the post I think thats when peoples oppinions of him would change as he would be able to get out of his number crunching position and maybe show some of the same attributes that have been bottled up, that his brother Tim has been blessed with and been able to show through the career he has chosen.

whit


----------



## bingk6 (22 July 2007)

whitta27 said:


> Who says he doesn't..  In the position peter is in I think it is very hard for him to show his true colours.  Everybody hates paying tax and Pete Costello has been the taxing minister for the last 10 years, its politically correct in this country to dislike the man.
> 
> I don't think Peter Costello will be Prime Minister but if he were to make it to the post I think thats when peoples oppinions of him would change as he would be able to get out of his number crunching position and maybe show some of the same attributes that have been bottled up, that his brother Tim has been blessed with and been able to show through the career he has chosen.
> 
> whit




I believe that deep down, Costello is quite a decent chap, despite that smirk - which I grant does him no good whatsoever. However, he'll never be PM, because Howard will make sure of it, which is a real shame because he has been a loyal deputy for so long and certainly deserves his opportunity to show the public what is he capable of. After all, he has contributed more than his fair share in getting the government's economic credentials up, but hey, what does Howard know about fairness and justice ????


----------



## Julia (22 July 2007)

bingk6 said:


> I believe that deep down, Costello is quite a decent chap, despite that smirk - which I grant does him no good whatsoever. However, he'll never be PM, because Howard will make sure of it, which is a real shame because he has been a loyal deputy for so long and certainly deserves his opportunity to show the public what is he capable of. After all, he has contributed more than his fair share in getting the government's economic credentials up, but hey, what does Howard know about fairness and justice ????




How do you feel Howard will make sure Peter Costello will never be PM?
How is this within his control?
Who would you suggest would succeed John Howard if it's not Costello?


----------



## Sprinter79 (22 July 2007)

I would laugh so hard it the Libs won the election but Howard lost his seat hahaha


----------



## --B-- (23 July 2007)

arminius said:


> hey b,
> 
> would u mind telling us a little about yourself, what u do, where you're from, hobbies etc, as im kind of interested to know what sort of person thinks like you do.




arminius, im just an average australian white collar worker who despises terrorists and terrorism.

im more interested to know about you, who apparently sympathises with the likes of David Hicks?


----------



## explod (23 July 2007)

--B-- said:


> arminius, im just an average australian white collar worker who despises terrorists and terrorism.
> 
> im more interested to know about you, who apparently sympathises with the likes of David Hicks?





I am not a David Hicks sympathiser but I am concerned about the unfounded evidence that is reducing our civil rights.

As with a lot of young people who push the envelope, Hicks thought it was trendy to go the opposite way and found himself at the wrong place at the wrong time..   I dispise terrorism also and it breeds through ignorance and repression.   Unlike the old Columbo Plan idea we no longer provide adequate funding for re/-education for the less well off, rather for our own interestes we interfere in the sovereign affairs of others and point guns at them.  This in my view just creates more terrorists


----------



## Rafa (23 July 2007)

--B-- said:


> arminius, im just an average australian white collar worker who despises terrorists and terrorism.




thats great, so am i...

which is why i am livid howard as made us a bigger terrorist target by being an ally of bush in iraq...

when...
1. A strong iraq was vital to balance out the real terrorists, i.e. iran
2. Saddam Hussien absolutely hated Osama Bin Laden, and Al Qaeda never had a foothold in Iraq until the US invaded them... Now Iraq is the centerpiece of Al Qaeda a souce of inspiration to possible recruits. (the recent US report on the war backs up that statement)...
3. By detracting from the efforts in Afghanistan, Bin Laden, who was within the cross hairs, was let free...

It makes me think Bush / Howard prefer to have the terrorists florish so they can keep the misrable populace afraid and divided... 

if you seriously wanted peace, you would want a leader who could lead and unite, not divide and rule. Howard track record shows he is the latter... there are many easily swayed by his rhetoric...

the facts are since he's been in power, he has let in more muslims than any other prime minister... and his lack focus on training australians coupled with the 457 visa class has delivered into australia our very own terrorist sympathiser (allegedly, if the AFP are to be beleived and this who thing is not just another tamap)...

He only talks, to keep people like you happy and thinking he is great for national security!


----------



## greggy (23 July 2007)

Julia said:


> I agree about Tim Costello.  He seems a really genuine person, engaged in doing all he can for people who need help.  Hard to believe the two are brothers in terms of their apparent personalities.



Hi Julia,

I have the upmost respect for Tim. In relation to his brother Peter, he may be regarded as a conservative on economic matters but on social issues is considered to be liberal. He's also a republican.  Didn't he also take part in the nationwide "Reconciliation" march?  I think that his unfortunate problem is that he's seen as being similar in personal character to Keating. Peter needs to get rid of his smirk and the perceived arrogance. If he wants the top job he's had plenty of time until now to challenge Mr Howard.  Maybe he just doesn't have the numbers.


----------



## YELNATS (23 July 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> I would laugh so hard it the Libs won the election but Howard lost his seat hahaha




If that happened do you think maybe the Libs would immediately force a by-election, by sacrificing one of their MP's, in order to get John back in parliament and the leadership?


----------



## greggy (23 July 2007)

YELNATS said:


> If that happened do you think maybe the Libs would immediately force a by-election, by sacrificing one of their MP's, in order to get John back in parliament and the leadership?



Hi Yelnats,

Perhaps Peter Costello would make a good one considering how Howard must be feeling at present. LOL!


----------



## trading_rookie (23 July 2007)

> which is why i am livid howard as made us a bigger terrorist target by being an ally of bush in iraq...




A foiled attack on the Lucas Heights reactor (2000 Olympics) by terrorists occurred before we joined Gulf War II...I consider that to the 'mother' of all targets.

ps - thanks Wayne for the edit

ps2 - so Rudd won't follow Latham into supporting the greens over logging Tassie forests? Well so much for 'green' Rudd. What a hypocrite.


----------



## arminius (23 July 2007)

b,

why indeed would i, ex infantry, sympathise with d.hicks?
why would i, rugby prop, hesitate to dive into a fight in iraq?

the answer is at the heart of it all. rafa and explod said it beautifully.

justice.
it is the glue holding it all together. take it away and you've got anarchy. think about it for a while. 
if you or i  are accused of a crime id like to think the judicial system would sort it out. guilty or innocent. do the crime do the time. stitching someone up for political gain reeks of fascist germany in the 1930's.
re-read rafa and explod, and many others. talk to your kids about it, and the missus. forget about who you want to be PM for a minute. THINK.
i sat back and enjoyed the first gulf war and argued we should be supporting our allies-thats what allies do. this one is totally different. Bush /cheney/wolfowitz etc are deranged. most of America want out, including many powerful republicans. the whole world wants the US out, except bush, johnny, and you lot.

if i, or you perhaps, had lost family or friends to an american bullet, I/we'd take up arms. 

the french super army of 1810 called the spanish guerillas 'terrorists'. they killed the french by whatever means they could. rendered the invasion untenable, and the iraqis will do the same. remember, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter eh.   

these are dangerous times, and it will take more courage to walk away than to hook in.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 July 2007)

trading_rookie said:


> A foiled attack on the Lucas Heights reactor (2000 Olympics) by terrorists occurred before we joined Gulf War II...I consider that to the 'mother' of all targets.
> 
> ps - thanks Wayne for the edit
> 
> ps2 - so Rudd won't follow Latham into supporting the greens over logging Tassie forests? Well so much for 'green' Rudd. What a hypocrite.



Surely shutting down Lucas Heights (permanently) would make more sense than adding to the 40% of Tasmania that is already either in the World Herritage Area or a National Park.


----------



## krisbarry (23 July 2007)

*Why the hell would a young person vote for John Howard anyway...*

Voting for John Howard is like voting in your Grandfather..if you know what I mean!

John Howard put in place the I.R. laws which are now punishing the youngest workers the most

John Howard put in place a 25% increase in HECS fees for universities

John Howard put in place the GST, a tax on a tax

John Howard has done nothing for housing affordability except make it worse, much, much worse!

John Howard lied about keeping interest rates low (they have risen 8 times under his government)

John Howard is a liar and a fossel and needs to go!!

In the words of Big Brother..."Its time to go John Howard"

** Remember when John Howard told the producers of Big Brother to get this silly show off TV **

** Well then get this silly Bastard out of Politics PLEASE! **


----------



## moXJO (24 July 2007)

arminius said:


> b,
> 
> why indeed would i, ex infantry, sympathise with d.hicks?
> why would i, rugby prop, hesitate to dive into a fight in iraq?




  I could care less about Hicks, but the Iraqi war was a stupid and tragic waste of life. Neither are issues I would probably be bothered voting on. Subjects like housing, education, Inflation , Employment or idiot militant union members causing strife will be the topics affecting me. I am leaning towards Rudd but would like to see him break away more from union control before my vote is secured.They are both basically the same, one just has a clean slate atm.I think Rudd is just as smart and cunning as his liberal counterpart though.


----------



## --B-- (24 July 2007)

arminius said:


> b,
> 
> why indeed would i, ex infantry, sympathise with d.hicks?
> why would i, rugby prop, hesitate to dive into a fight in iraq?




lol... i wasnt aware rugby props are known for their willingness to go fight in the war in iraq?? funny stuff indeed.

But arminius, earlier you commented that the Hicks case was so wrong on a fundamental level. are you simply referring to the time the case took to be heard? This is often what Hicks sympathisers harp on about with no regard to the many reasons for the delays (many of which were instigated by the hicks camp)



> justice.
> it is the glue holding it all together. take it away and you've got anarchy. think about it for a while.
> if you or i  are accused of a crime id like to think the judicial system would sort it out. guilty or innocent. do the crime do the time. stitching someone up for political gain reeks of fascist germany in the 1930's.
> re-read rafa and explod, and many others. talk to your kids about it, and the missus. forget about who you want to be PM for a minute. THINK.
> i sat back and enjoyed the first gulf war and argued we should be supporting our allies-thats what allies do. this one is totally different. Bush /cheney/wolfowitz etc are deranged. most of America want out, including many powerful republicans. the whole world wants the US out, except bush, johnny, and you lot.




What do you think will happen in iraq if the US and allies retreat tomorrow? do you think iraq will suddenly turn into a peaceful nation? do you think the threat of terrorism will evaporate? what is it?


> the french super army of 1810 called the spanish guerillas 'terrorists'. they killed the french by whatever means they could. rendered the invasion untenable, and the iraqis will do the same. remember, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter eh.




no arminius - im quite clear on what a terrorist is. Those guys who killed hundreds of innocent teenagers in Bali weren't freedom fighters mate.


----------



## Sprinter79 (24 July 2007)

the Hick's confession was made under duress, therefore not admissible in a normal court of law, end of story.

Hundreds of teenagers? Hmmmmm


----------



## --B-- (24 July 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> the Hick's confession was made under duress, therefore not admissible in a normal court of law, end of story.




of course.. Hick was just an 'innocent adventurer" wasnt he? poor fella.

Why then has Hicks not challenged this? oh wait - something about the evil government?



> Hundreds of teenagers? Hmmmmm



oh my apologies... over 200 died in the first bombing of which 88 were australians - and many many of these 200 dead were teenagers. 

and what was your point? does my overstatement make the terrorists somewhat less guilty?


----------



## trading_rookie (24 July 2007)

> Surely shutting down Lucas Heights (permanently) would make more sense than adding to the 40% of Tasmania that is already either in the World Herritage Area or a National Park




That's another point...since the point is terrorists had already planned to attack Australia long before our involvement in Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter. 

Maybe it's because of our rocky relationship over the decades with Indonesia and Malaysia, Pine Gap, Hawke's ALP that was pro-Israel, Hawke's participation in Gulf War I...not just the non-UN sanctioned one raging now. As if terrorists sit around debating that in their eyes GWI was okay 'cause it was backed by the UN while GWII isn't - no they leave that 'futile argument' to the academia of the west...

Getting back to Lucas Heights, I was under the impression it was for scientific research as well as facilitating in medical practises. Is this not true? The site was chosen many decades ago because the land was pretty safe from earthquakes as well as very far away from the population - the greenbelt of Sydney.


----------



## trading_rookie (24 July 2007)

> I could care less about Hicks, but the Iraqi war was a stupid and tragic waste of life. Neither are issues I would probably be bothered voting on. Subjects like housing, education, Inflation , Employment or idiot militant union members causing strife will be the topics affecting me. I am leaning towards Rudd but would like to see him break away more from union control before my vote is secured.They are both basically the same, one just has a clean slate atm.I think Rudd is just as smart and cunning as his liberal counterpart though.




Good post moXJO. As I've said in another post, it would be a landslide victory to the ALP if they abandoned their link with the ACTU/trade unions. 

It's good to see that someone else can see that Rudd too knows how to play the clever pollie, the announcement yesterday to log more in Tassie just proves it further - more interested in winning key seats than sticking to his green policy.


----------



## Rafa (24 July 2007)

trading rookie...
if you notice what you quoted me on...  i said



Rafa said:


> thats great, so am i...
> 
> which is why i am livid howard as made us a *bigger* terrorist target by being an ally of bush in iraq...




Hence, howard fails misrably on that front!

as for rudd, since when is he a greenie...? He has always occupied the middle ground on that... When has he ever said stop burning coal, or mine uranium... calling him a greeny is another example of cheap political mudslinging by the liberals and their sympathisers 

it was latham who tried to go all green... and presently, that job is left to the greens! Rudd talks about climate change as something thats real and something we as australians, with an abundance of natural 'green' resouces as well as cleverness should be looking at as an oppurtunity, rather than a threat...

the only thing thats a bigger threat is clinging blindly to yesterdays technologies such as coal and nuclear... and not trying to progress... heck, sure of overseas countries want to burn coal and nuclear, let them, but not here thanks, we are a lot smarter than that... surely....!


i think you and moXJO are spot on on saying that the link to the trade unions are the key... Can rudd successfully keep the unions in their places like hawke and keating? thats an answer we won't know for a while yet...


all i know is that to win this election, rudd will need union support... to win the next one, he won't


----------



## --B-- (24 July 2007)

Rafa said:


> the only thing thats a bigger threat is clinging blindly to yesterdays technologies such as coal and nuclear... and not trying to progress... heck, sure of overseas countries want to burn coal and nuclear, let them, but not here thanks, we are a lot smarter than that... surely....!




Rafa, how is nuclear 'yesterdays' technology when australia has never had a nuclear power station and the technology is still advancing??

close minded thinking which ignores the only real alternative to coal gets us nowhere.



> i think you and moXJO are spot on on saying that the link to the trade unions are the key... Can rudd successfully keep the unions in their places like hawke and keating? thats an answer we won't know for a while yet...




my skepticism tells me Rudd will more than likely do all he can to hide the true union influence from the public rather than keep them in their place.

IR legislation is where the union presence will be felt and when many more jobs are lost overseas and more companies move overseas, the australian public will no doubt start to wonder what happened to their once prosperous economy.



> all i know is that to win this election, rudd will need union support... to win the next one, he won't




St Kev is coasting on his 'all things to all people' image and its only a matter of time before the public see through the facade. To be a successful leader of this country Rudd will need to grow a spine and wear his heart on his sleeve.


----------



## Sprinter79 (24 July 2007)

--B-- said:


> of course.. Hick was just an 'innocent adventurer" wasnt he? poor fella.
> 
> Why then has Hicks not challenged this? oh wait - something about the evil government?




Not saying that he's not guilty, just saying that his confession is not worth the paper it's written on. The reason he hasn't challenged is because it was part of the 'plea bargain' that was arranged.



--B-- said:


> oh my apologies... over 200 died in the first bombing of which 88 were australians - and many many of these 200 dead were teenagers.
> 
> and what was your point? does my overstatement make the terrorists somewhat less guilty?




My point is that you have deliberately overstated the facts (ie ramped  in order to strengthen your argument.


----------



## surfingman (24 July 2007)

Whose the worse of the 2 evils your guess is a good as mine, cant see much behind those cheesy smiles or large eyebrows. Outsource management and float the parliament maybe we could get some good returns if some decent managers took over.


----------



## Sprinter79 (24 July 2007)

yeah nuclear technology is old, all we have to do is wait till 2050 and we'll have Fusion power hehehe 

Source: Simcity :


----------



## moXJO (24 July 2007)

--B-- said:


> my skepticism tells me Rudd will more than likely do all he can to hide the true union influence from the public rather than keep them in their place.
> 
> IR legislation is where the union presence will be felt and when many more jobs are lost overseas and more companies move overseas, the australian public will no doubt start to wonder what happened to their once prosperous economy.




  Yes I feel that it could swing back too far if left to the unions, who seem hell bent on making employers suffer. And with talk of the union wanting to enforce compulsory membership, you would have to wonder what they have planned if labor does get in. Too much red tape for business will guarantee high prices for everyone, higher unemployment possibly higher inflation.

Rudd needs to clarify his position on the unions


----------



## Rafa (24 July 2007)

--B-- said:


> Rafa, how is nuclear 'yesterdays' technology when australia has never had a nuclear power station and the technology is still advancing??
> 
> close minded thinking which ignores the only real alternative to coal gets us nowhere.




Nuclear technology, that generates radioactive waste is old technology.. 1970's stuff... taking that up is being close minded... 

Fusion will be new technology... 2050 eh Sprinter  looking forward to it.
Geothermal, Waves, solar towers etc, thats the new stuff... see Portugal and what their doing... 



--B-- said:


> my skepticism tells me Rudd will more than likely do all he can to hide the true union influence from the public rather than keep them in their place.
> 
> IR legislation is where the union presence will be felt and when many more jobs are lost overseas and more companies move overseas, the australian public will no doubt start to wonder what happened to their once prosperous economy.




Agreed... i can understand your skepticism, IR is the biggie...



--B-- said:


> St Kev is coasting on his 'all things to all people' image and its only a matter of time before the public see through the facade. To be a successful leader of this country Rudd will need to grow a spine and wear his heart on his sleeve.




Well, i've seen Howards heart... and i don't like it... 
Still to see his spine... he lacks guts to be a true statesman.... prefers his cheap divisive spinless politics to get the easy votes.


----------



## --B-- (24 July 2007)

Rafa said:


> nuclear technology, that generates radioactive waste is old technology.. 1970's stuff... taking that up is being close minded...
> Fusion will be new technology... 2050 eh Sprinter  looking forward to it.
> Geothermal, Waves, solar towers etc, thats the new stuff... see Portugal and what their doing...




while plenty sing the praises of technology that is not fully developed (ie: solar, geothermal etc etc, they appear reluctant to advocate further research into Nuclear for some reason? 

Perhaps further research into nuclear will bring about better ways to dispose of the waste? Much progress has been made since the 70's and im quite sure the technology exists to re-use the waste in some way (ill need to research that part to refresh my mind though..)


----------



## --B-- (24 July 2007)

moXJO said:


> Yes I feel that it could swing back too far if left to the unions, who seem hell bent on making employers suffer. And with talk of the union wanting to enforce compulsory membership, you would have to wonder what they have planned if labor does get in. Too much red tape for business will guarantee high prices for everyone, higher unemployment possibly higher inflation.
> 
> Rudd needs to clarify his position on the unions




absolutely spot on.


----------



## arminius (24 July 2007)

i wasnt aware i had to write an essay on the implications of our foreign policy decisions.
 im sure you dont need me to point out that there is no easy answer to the middle east fiasco. whatever happens, it will be very very ugly. it wont be peaceful for a long time, and for every innocent iraqi who dies in that time you can thank our government for its part. those blokes attacking coalition troops are labelled 'terrorists'. for you to imply that i condone the bali bombings is vile. however, if you think our actions will not continue to motivate ji then you are delusional.
my reference to rugby was an effort to describe myself as one who is partial to a bit of thuggery on a regular basis and not a bleeding heart. from now on i wont resort to oblique literary devices.    
if you want to examine the timelines, how long has america been neck deep in middle eastern politics? hang on...wasnt the taliban their allies v russia? didnt they train osama b laden? didnt they arm and fund saddam v iran? 

domestically, i also agree that rudd needs to keep unions under wraps, because of public perceptions mostly. im not a unionist, and their influence is much less now, but i would imagine you or someone close to you can thank them for your working conditions, for surely you can see how they represented all workers, whose interests were diametrically opposed to employers whose interests were ( if i may put in the simplest terms- lower wages, more hours, maximum profit ) beginning with the shearers strike of 1890, the labor party has and will always be about the working man/woman..cant see them parting ways


----------



## Rafa (24 July 2007)

on that point, arminius, it must be said, unions are certainly not all bad...

pretty much every condition we take for granted these days was won becuase of unions... its easy to forget, just cause times are now good.

but the wheel is turning aided by howards new laws... and the people can see it.

its interesting, whilst we all clamour that unions will send wages up, asset prices are skyrocketing and average wages a simply not keeping up with that... not to metion wages as a percentage of company profits


----------



## --B-- (24 July 2007)

arminius said:


> i wasnt aware i had to write an essay on the implications of our foreign policy decisions.
> im sure you dont need me to point out that there is no easy answer to the middle east fiasco. whatever happens, it will be very very ugly. it wont be peaceful for a long time,




no-one asked you to write an essay. i asked you a simple question of what would happen in iraq if the US and its allies were to pull out tomorrow. 

You said "the whole world wants the US out" and i wonder what you think would happen if the US did actually pull out. I believe it would be highly irresponsible and i'd hazzard a guess iraq would become far more unstable than it is right now.



> and for every innocent iraqi who dies in that time you can thank our government for its part.



has our government somehow assisted those insurgents that kill their fellow iraqis with bombs etc?



> those blokes attacking coalition troops are labelled 'terrorists'. for you to imply that i condone the bali bombings is vile.



no, i simply commented on your 'freedom fighter' analogy which i find ridiculous when you consider the example i provided. for the record - i meant no insult or offence on you.



> however, if you think our actions will not continue to motivate ji then you are delusional.



oh im quite sure anything us "evil infidels" do will motivate them.



> my reference to rugby was an effort to describe myself as one who is partial to a bit of thuggery on a regular basis and not a bleeding heart. from now on i wont resort to oblique literary devices.



well i actually found it quite humorous and id welcome any further devices you can muster.. 



> if you want to examine the timelines, how long has america been neck deep in middle eastern politics? hang on...wasnt the taliban their allies v russia? didnt they train osama b laden? didnt they arm and fund saddam v iran?



did im mention timelines? or was that directed to someone else? i am aware of the US history however  i fail to see the relevance here. should the US base their foreign policy on their historical actions?



> domestically, i also agree that rudd needs to keep unions under wraps, because of public perceptions mostly. im not a unionist, and their influence is much less now, but i would imagine you or someone close to you can thank them for your working conditions, for surely you can see how they represented all workers, whose interests were diametrically opposed to employers whose interests were ( if i may put in the simplest terms- lower wages, more hours, maximum profit ) beginning with the shearers strike of 1890, the labor party has and will always be about the working man/woman..cant see them parting ways



while the unions may have had a place in australias history, and they can be thanked for their efforts, they are no longer required in present day australia.


----------



## Sprinter79 (24 July 2007)

--B-- said:


> while the unions may have had a place in australias history, and they can be thanked for their efforts, they are no longer required in present day australia.





That is absolute crap. How quickly would working conditions revert to those of the past? Unions are still an important part of every OHS legislative body in Australia, and I'm sure people like you would LOVE to see OHS laws disappear too....


----------



## --B-- (24 July 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> That is absolute crap. How quickly would working conditions revert to those of the past? Unions are still an important part of every OHS legislative body in Australia, and I'm sure people like you would LOVE to see OHS laws disappear too....




settle down sprinter, how do my views on unions give an insight into my views on OH&S legislation? 

While i do think the OH&S "industry" perhaps went a little out of control at one stage, i have no drama whatsoever with OH&S legislation and I believe it is essential in modern day workplaces.


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 July 2007)

on the subject of what would happen if the US pulled out - bound to be some sort of phased scale down rather than complete pull out.  (my guess anyway)

back there I speculated on the quantum of actual reduction in numbers. Not sure if there are more accurate numbers yet ?

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=122684&highlight=navy#post122684


----------



## Rafa (24 July 2007)

there was an interest story on the 7:30 report about a mine (i think it was BHP owned) in WA...

everyone on AWA's... 
but apparently almost everyone's marking time before someone gets killed.

OH&S and wages and conditions are all key benifits that were won by the unions. 

I don't want too much union power, nor none of it. What is needed is a balance.
Howards moved the pendulum too much the other way.

What i need Rudd to show me, is that how much will he bring the pendulum back, and will he allow it to overshoot the centre?


----------



## Rafa (24 July 2007)

Foriengn correspondent 8:30 ABC tomorrow on Portugal and its new power generating technology... should make for fascinating viewing.


----------



## Sprinter79 (24 July 2007)

--B-- said:


> settle down sprinter, how do my views on unions give an insight into my views on OH&S legislation?
> 
> While i do think the OH&S "industry" perhaps went a little out of control at one stage, i have no drama whatsoever with OH&S legislation and I believe it is essential in modern day workplaces.




I only used OHS as an example to show how Unions are necessary in the future. 

In WA (and most other states) the unions sit on a tripartite body with the CCI and the Govt to nut out OHS legislation. Nothing gets through unless all three parties agree to it. OHS wouldn't work without union involvement. 

Unions are still required in modern day Australia, not just for OHS, but also IR, minimum wage cases etc.


----------



## Julia (24 July 2007)

--B-- said:


> You said "the whole world wants the US out" and i wonder what you think would happen if the US did actually pull out. I believe it would be highly irresponsible and i'd hazzard a guess iraq would become far more unstable than it is right now.




Isn't it possible that if the US and its allies did pull out of Iraq, the various factions in Iraq would have to stop blaming the US etc for all their problems (I'm not saying such blame is not justified) and eventually - probably after considerably more killing - say to themselves, "hell, we just can't go on like this" and make the decision to talk to one another and draw up some reasonably acceptable conditions which they will all agree to abide by.

Perhaps an unrealistic and idealistic notion?

It doesn't seem, though, that things can get a lot worse than they are at present and perhaps if they were forced to take responsiblity for their own outcomes the government and other factions might actually make an effort which is more than they appear to be doing at present.

I imagine that there are plenty of ordinary Iraqis who if they had the choice would settle for having Saddam back.  At least then they had water and electricity and could walk the streets fairly safely.


----------



## The Mint Man (24 July 2007)

hey Julia... is that kahn in your avatar?
Ok, that was a little off topic, so.... is kahn looking at joining the labor party? fit right in with that bunch of dogs! maybe he can come up with a current tax policy? or any decent policy at all!

Ok that was a bit mean of me..... please do say sorry to kahn on my behalf.

Cheers


----------



## trading_rookie (24 July 2007)

@Rafa,

So Australia is ONLY a BIGGER target from terrorists for joining the CotW in Iraq, NOT for fighting the taliban/al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Is that what you’re saying? If Iraq was sanctioned by the UN, like Afghanistan is, then you’d be okay with the occupation? 


> as for rudd, since when is he a greenie...? He has always occupied the middle ground on that... When has he ever said stop burning coal, or mine uranium... calling him a greeny is another example of cheap political mudslinging by the liberals and their sympathisers



Sorry Rafa you’re right, Rudd is only using political canniness to make us think he’s green – you know use up ample Parliament question time and interviews to express his ‘moderate’ views on Australia’s non-ratifying Kyoto, lowering carbon emissions, carbon trading, cleaning up dirty coal, greenhouse gases, global warming, and elevating champion green Garrett to the front bench to the environment portfolio are all part of an elaborate ploy to tug at the heart strings of Australians, who like you feel it’s the federal government’s fault for not doing more to fix global warming while at the same time chastising them for not lowering the cost of carbon-monoxide (CO) polluting petrol!

Kinda like those traders/investors who have no guilt in reaping the benefits of the mining boom but want to preach their moral views on nuclear power…ring a bell Rafa? 

Rafa: “Nuclear technology, that generates radioactive waste is old technology.. 1970's stuff... taking that up is being close minded...” 

Rafa on ERN (Erongo Energy, uranium prospector) : “yup, i got out of ERN as soon as the new fin year ticked over...
still on my watch list, but if i was trading a company based purely on fundamentals, BMN and MTN have the fundamentals to back them up.”

Still holding MTN stocks? How’s their uranium interest at Mt Gee going? ;-)



> on that point, arminius, it must be said, unions are certainly not all bad...



Seems unions get a ‘fair go’ when it comes to all the good they did in the past and we should give them a pat on the back for that and not question the reasons why membership declined rapidly once their influence and power was on par with that of our employers. 

No, let’s just forget the fact, wipe it straight from living memory that unions could now cut deals with employers for both their benefits, then having the gall to tell it’s members that the employer was within their right to offer this, that, or nothing. Thanks unions.


> my reference to rugby was an effort to describe myself as one who is partial to a bit of thuggery on a regular basis and not a bleeding heart. from now on i wont resort to oblique literary devices.
> if you want to examine the timelines, how long has america been neck deep in middle eastern politics? hang on...wasnt the taliban their allies v russia?



Afghanistan is in Asia not the Middle-East. I guess you must’ve gotten yourself confused and thought muslim countries were a exclusivity of the middle-east…

Gotta admit I can’t recall the taliban v russia war, but I do vividly recall the Afghan v ex-USSR conflict. That conflict ended in 1989, and the taliban gained control of Afghanistan (recall a country in Central Asia, not the Middle-East) in 1991. From memory, never recall Russia fighting any wars on it’s own without the involvement of the other states that made up the now ex-USSR.

@Julia. The 'civil' war in Northern Ireland has been raging on for decades and we're talking about 2 different sub-religions of Christianity with 2 different cultures. To us Iraq might be made up of Iraqians but you need to consider not only Sunni and Shi'te muslims, but the Kurds an ethnic minority. Then there are the Assyrians and subsets like the Childeans. Assyrians are Orthodox while the Childeans Catholic. A carve up of Iraq is probably the only way to stop the bloodshed with UN peacekeepers brought in to monitor border disputes. Of course this plays havoc with established governments in the west who have to form new ties with new republics.


----------



## arminius (25 July 2007)

rookie

dont be a smart ar se. i do know my geography, and geopolitical history. broad statements for the sake of brevity.


----------



## Julia (25 July 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> hey Julia... is that kahn in your avatar?
> Ok, that was a little off topic, so.... is kahn looking at joining the labor party? fit right in with that bunch of dogs! maybe he can come up with a current tax policy? or any decent policy at all!
> 
> Ok that was a bit mean of me..... please do say sorry to kahn on my behalf.
> ...




Hi Mint Man,

(and apologies to others for being off topic)

No, it's not Kahn.  It's one of my dogs.  However, Kahn did go to a really good home so it was a happy ending for him.


----------



## Rafa (25 July 2007)

trading-rookie... why i am bothering to reply i have no idea... but since you have taken all this time to dig up all my old threads, i feel you deserve a reply for you efforts 

so here goes....

i have consistently said i am fine with digging up and selling the stuff, for U power, which i maintain is OLD Technology...(hence my interest in U shares)... 

if other countries want to used U to bridge the gap between fossil fuels and green power, given that that ONLY other option is to build one coal power plant a week (in china's case) its only make sense to sell them as much U as possible...

As far as this great land of Oz goes tho... i for one am not willing to risk it becoming a nuclear waste dumping ground.... which will happen once we join the nuclear enrichment / nuclear power club.

I know you have a lot of time on your hands, so maybe you can search every post i have made on these forums, but i can tell you right now, those views are ones i have cosistently held... hence my holding in Uranium mining companies

in terms of what australia can do... watch SBS at 8:30 tonight (not ABC as i previously mentioned... )story on Portugal...

Also, thanks for being my moral compass.... i am sure you talking up uranium has nothing to do with your holdings in it... just as you voting for the libs has nothing to do with self interest and any personal bias....

How do you do it trading_rookie....??? one day, i just wish i can be as moral and as un-biased as you...


----------



## moXJO (25 July 2007)

Labor running both state and federal is there a danger? I live in N.S.W and have to say they are doing a poor job not that the liberals even tried last election. I use to live in Brisbane a few years ago. And after a few trips up there, seems to be in a decline in standards (hard to tell though since I am no longer living there).

I'm interested in other people’s opinions on how there state is being run atm.And if they see any danger of back to back labor.


----------



## Warren Buffet II (25 July 2007)

Any sensible and smart investor will vote Liberal without any doubt.

Who want to go back 20 years and gove power to unions to destroy companies?

WBII


----------



## Julia (25 July 2007)

moXJO said:


> Labor running both state and federal is there a danger? I live in N.S.W and have to say they are doing a poor job not that the liberals even tried last election. I use to live in Brisbane a few years ago. And after a few trips up there, seems to be in a decline in standards (hard to tell though since I am no longer living there).
> 
> I'm interested in other people’s opinions on how there state is being run atm.And if they see any danger of back to back labor.




Your impressions of Qld were accurate imo.  There are many worrying aspects, not the least of which is increased government secrecy and autocratic decisions.   Peter Beattie continues with his "good bloke" image but underneath is making a joke of democracy.  This is not difficult for him as the opposition is completely useless.  They are a joke, really.  So Beattie continues to get away with everything because we don't have a choice.

He is a self confessed media tart and this disarming public persona is a front for a person who appears to be more and more focused on himself and his image.  
It is entirely possible that SE Qld will run out of water before the recycled pipeline is completed.  Meantime, gardens die and industry is severely affected.  Power stations have so far continued to function with reduced water supply but that may well change when summer comes.

So, for those reasons and even more just on a purely political and philosophical basis, I hate the thought of back to back Labor throughout all the States plus federally.  The Unions will be full of joyful anticipation as it certainly looks like happening at this stage.


----------



## Rafa (25 July 2007)

on the other hand... 
give labor wall to wall gov't for a term and see if they fix anything at all...

for a start, it'll be the end of the blame game...
tho i am sure they'll find someone else to blame 

as for labor state govt's in general, i think NSW is a basket case, and as julia say, qld is no better, tho i doubt the oppostion there can do any better.

my personal preference is state govt be run by the libs and national govt's by labor.

although, in reality, i would like to see state gov't abolished completely (but there is a thread on that anyway).


----------



## moXJO (25 July 2007)

Julia said:


> Your impressions of Qld were accurate imo.   Peter Beattie continues with his "good bloke" image but underneath is making a joke of democracy.




I always remember when Peter Beattie walked past my house with his dog when he first became premier. And it took a dump on my lawn, and he left it there.Seems he has moved on to dumping on the whole state.


----------



## Sprinter79 (25 July 2007)

Warren Buffet II said:


> Any sensible and smart investor will vote Liberal without any doubt.
> 
> Who want to go back 20 years and gove power to unions to destroy companies?
> 
> WBII




Interesting statement. So, you're saying that any investors that vote Labor aren't sensible or smart? Are you also also saying that those who invest should only base their voting choice on how it MAY affect the share market? There are soooooo many other issues affecting our wider community than just the sharemarket. Health, education, civil liberties, security, water, IR, the list goes on. 

If you base your voting decision purely on what is best for the sharemarket, I wouldn't think that that was sensible or smart.


----------



## The Mint Man (25 July 2007)

moXJO said:


> Labor running both state and federal is there a danger? I live in N.S.W and have to say they are doing a poor job not that the liberals even tried last election. I use to live in Brisbane a few years ago. And after a few trips up there, seems to be in a decline in standards (hard to tell though since I am no longer living there).
> 
> I'm interested in other people’s opinions on how there state is being run atm.And if they see any danger of back to back labor.




BIG, BIG nods from me Mo. 
I cant agree more on your first point about labor running everything, biiigg trouble. And I cant agree more with your second observation, that is NSW labor doing a very poor job. Anyone that lives here would have rocks in their head to say otherwise. Iemma just palms everything off onto anyone else but himself or his party...... actually no, I take that back, he does palm things off onto his own party members. The recent train c@ck up was a good example of this. why was this so??? oh, thats right he was on his 5th week of holidays since being elected and didnt have time to deal with it. In fact he has hardly been seen since being elected.
There is so much to say on this but Im not going to go into it all here... just come and live in NSW ATM and you will see!

On another note, I just noticed that the gap on this poll is very small now which is a surprise considering Labor was way ahead to start with. Considering a forum member can only vote once then it would seem that this forum is 50/50.

Cheers


----------



## justjohn (25 July 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> BIG, BIG nods from me Mo.
> I cant agree more on your first point about labor running everything, biiigg trouble. And I cant agree more with your second observation, that is NSW labor doing a very poor job. Anyone that lives here would have rocks in their head to say otherwise. Iemma just palms everything off onto anyone else but himself or his party...... actually no, I take that back, he does palm things off onto his own party members. The recent train c@ck up was a good example of this. why was this so??? oh, thats right he was on his 5th week of holidays since being elected and didnt have time to deal with it. In fact he has hardly been seen since being elected.
> There is so much to say on this but Im not going to go into it all here... just come and live in NSW ATM and you will see!
> 
> ...




Mint-John Howard is like the Dragons mate ,just starting to warm up and preparing for the big one at the end of the year :


----------



## The Mint Man (25 July 2007)

justjohn said:


> Mint-John Howard is like the Dragons mate ,just starting to warm up and preparing for the big one at the end of the year :



Is Nathan Brown the libs advisor too
**** they are in trouble


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 July 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> On another note, I just noticed that the gap on this poll is very small now which is a surprise considering Labor was way ahead to start with. Considering a forum member can only vote once then it would seem that this forum is 50/50. Cheers



Mintman, lol - I've been watching it myself - how every day it goes up like two horses fighting out the bludy Melbourne Cup.

It go me to wondering - somewhat along the same lines - the latest big poll we had was for "is there a god" - and I gotta feeling most people voted at the time (maybe I'm wrong) - about 190 people voted in total.

Here we have over 260 (as of today). - Guess we're recruiting new members pretty fast here as ASF lol.

Apropo of nothing, and totally unrelated (i'm sure ) - In PNG they have a thing they call "branch stacking", i.e. If a pollie wants to be elected into parliament, he brings all his "one-talks" down to Moresby, where they register on the electoral roll - then he gets into parliament, and its as easy as that. 

Remembering that the pollies are now using the likes of youtube and all those opportunities offered by the internet, (to get "in cyber ya brain" ) -  you wonder if our little poll is "being monitored" by the many "big brothers" out there - 

in which case - If you're listening pollies - I'd like someone to fix the bludy pothole at the end of my street please !


----------



## Julia (25 July 2007)

moXJO said:


> I always remember when Peter Beattie walked past my house with his dog when he first became premier. And it took a dump on my lawn, and he left it there.Seems he has moved on to dumping on the whole state.




What a great example that was!
A friend of mine was having this happen repeatedly and became quite tired of it.  One day she waited for it to happen, then got a shovel and a plastic bag and put it in her car boot.  She followed the dog owner home in her car and as he was turning into his drive, she stopped her car and opened the plastic bag, dumped the contents onto his shoes, and suggested in future he not use her lawn as his dog's toilet.  It never happened again.


----------



## trading_rookie (25 July 2007)

> trading-rookie... why i am bothering to reply i have no idea...



Simple, you’re integrity and moral have been questioned…doubt anyone would remain silent ;-)

Poor Rafa so quick to get up on his soap box and question the integrity and moral of the federal governments backing of a long standing ally (an ally he himself has noted as controlling the global economy) yet has a problem when his own integrity and moral is questioned.

The absurdity raised by you Rafa that we have followed the US blindly into Iraq is about as absurd as your claim it’s okay for the rest of the world to use dirty old technology while we here in Aus should only be concentrating on clean, renewable energy.


> but since you have taken all this time to dig up all my old threads, i feel you deserve a  reply for you efforts
> 
> so here goes....



Don’t flatter yourself, I have good ability to recall, and I recall you posted on the ERN thread, a stock I frequently read up on. For the record I would never have mentioned it if I didn’t fall over laughing at your arm waving and chest beating performance in a previous post in this thread for Australia itself not to use dirty, ‘old’ power like U but cleaner alternatives while the rest of the world use up our reserves and any other countries an Aussie company has a tenement in, bit hypocritical isn’t it?


> i have consistently said i am fine with digging up and selling the stuff, for U power, which i maintain is OLD Technology...(hence my interest in U shares)...



‘Consistently’…sounds like you need to say it so many times before you convince yourself ;-)


> if other countries want to used U to bridge the gap between fossil fuels and green power, given that that ONLY other option is to build one coal power plant a week (in china's case) its only make sense to sell them as much U as possible...



I see, better they use our U as it’s their ONLY option as opposed to building another coal powerplant rather than watch Foreign Correspondent and adopt Portugal’s initiatives? 


> As far as this great land of Oz goes tho... i for one am not willing to risk it becoming a nuclear waste dumping ground.... which will happen once we join the nuclear enrichment / nuclear power club.



By all means, I don’t think any of us do and the fact that there is legislation already amongst the countries using nuke technology that they are responsible for the disposal of their own waste means it won’t end up here in Aus. Infact, it would be political suicide for any government to introduce such policy.

But that begs the question, since enrichment isn't only used as an alternative power source, but also capable for weapons use. I don't doubt for a second that customers of U are using the metallic element for their own weapons program.


> I know you have a lot of time on your hands, so maybe you can search every post i have made on these forums, but i can tell you right now, those views are ones i have cosistently held... hence my holding in Uranium mining companies.



That’s the second time in this thread you’ve said that, talk about consistency with consistency or you haven't convinced yourself yet ;-) 



> Also, thanks for being my moral compass.... i am sure you talking up uranium has nothing to do with your holdings in it... just as you voting for the libs has nothing to do with self interest and any personal bias....



Well I just thought we needed some ‘balance’ considering integrity and morals are not just limited to governments ;-)

As for me talking up uranium and my holdings in it…I didn’t make any assumptions on you until I confirmed that it was ‘Rafa’ on the ERN thread. I suggest you do the same before making unsubstantiated claims as I have never talked up uranium. As for my holdings, I don’t have any.

@WayneL, couple of things. Firstly, why am I being awarded 2 infraction points for breaking the 100 character rule in the 'General' forum? From what I've read this rule only applies to the stock forums.

Secondly, why was my post edited and labelled insulting for comparing someone's grasp of geo-politics to that of the US when others have used more insulting slurs like  'cowardly fools', subscribers to 'idiocracy' and now 'tool' that go unpunished - yet to see any of these posts edited. Surely as a mod your position of being unbiased should apply even if you don't agree with someone's political view. Sure edit my post, but please show some consistency to so-called 'personal insults'...cheers.


----------



## wayneL (26 July 2007)

Rookie,



> Firstly, why am I being awarded 2 infraction points for breaking the 100 character rule in the 'General' forum? From what I've read this rule only applies to the stock forums.



I ticked the wrong box, it should have been personal abuse which is 7 points... consider yourself fortunate.



> Secondly, why was my post edited and labelled insulting for comparing someone's grasp of geo-politics to that of the US when others have used more insulting slurs like 'cowardly fools', subscribers to 'idiocracy' and now 'tool' that go unpunished - yet to see any of these posts edited



If you look carefully, I didn't edit your geopolitical points at all. That's why they are still there. Your personal insults of another member were all that was deleted. Insulting non-members or groups of people is outside of my remit as moderator.

Re tool: Missed that, now deleted.

Re your most recent post. I think it is over the line as it is designed specifically to be _ad hominem_, but will leave it for now. Fair warning that in future it will not be tolerated.

Please present your points based on facts and leave the _ad hominem_ attacks out.



> Sure edit my post, but please show some consistency to so-called 'personal insults'.



If you have concerns about my consistency, please take them up with Joe.

Thanks


----------



## greggy (26 July 2007)

Warren Buffet II said:


> Any sensible and smart investor will vote Liberal without any doubt.
> 
> Who want to go back 20 years and gove power to unions to destroy companies?
> 
> WBII



Overgeneralisation there when saying that any sensible and smart investor will vote Liberal without any doubt. I'm a swinging voter who's traded shares now for 28 years.  Last time I voted for Howard. At the state level I voted for Bracks (ALP). This time I'm undecided. How I vote doesn't (nor should it) determine whether or not I'm a sensible/smart investor.
In the US isn't Buffet generally a Democrats supporter.? Traditionally the Republicans have been the party for big business.  He's still a great investor I suppose...


----------



## Rafa (27 July 2007)

NO GREGGY...
Labor are an extreme left party and anyone who votes labor cannot possibly be part of capitalist society and for that matter even participate in the stock market


----------



## robert toms (27 July 2007)

I remember hearing that the sharemarket has,historically and paradoxically,done better under Labour governments than conservative.Does anyone know the figures?
To say that Labour is an extreme left party is not exactly in line with the facts...there are only minor differences.Labour has privatised a lot of state-run enterprises both Federally and at a state level.
Beware the worship of Mammon!


----------



## Warren Buffet II (27 July 2007)

LABOR = UNIONS, UNIONS = CRAP/POOR ECONOMY.

KEVIN RUDD = UNIONS, UNIONS = CRAP/POOR ECONOMY.

Overgeneralisation maybe but it is soo true.

WBII



greggy said:


> Overgeneralisation there when saying that any sensible and smart investor will vote Liberal without any doubt. I'm a swinging voter who's traded shares now for 28 years.  Last time I voted for Howard. At the state level I voted for Bracks (ALP). This time I'm undecided. How I vote doesn't (nor should it) determine whether or not I'm a sensible/smart investor.
> In the US isn't Buffet generally a Democrats supporter.? Traditionally the Republicans have been the party for big business.  He's still a great investor I suppose...


----------



## chops_a_must (27 July 2007)

Warren Buffet II said:


> LABOR = UNIONS, UNIONS = CRAP/POOR ECONOMY.
> 
> KEVIN RUDD = UNIONS, UNIONS = CRAP/POOR ECONOMY.
> 
> ...



The US doesn't have effective unions, and their economy right now is one of the worst in the world.

All swans are white...


----------



## Warren Buffet II (27 July 2007)

Very interesting statement, I agree and it is the reality.

QLD case:
Health = LABOR PROBLEM and Peter Bettie (Doctor Death)
Water = LABOR PROBLEM and Peter Bettie (Level 5)
Education = UNIONS PROBLEM controlling teachers everywhere (I wonder who is to blame)
Civil liberties = Is LABOR better in this? is that a joke? maybe UNIONS can create enough press to increase civil liberties?
IR = IR is an excellent solution to the current economic constraints and LABOR WANTS TO TRASH IT

The list goes on...

KEVIN RUDD is a UNION puppet.

WBII



Sprinter79 said:


> Interesting statement. So, you're saying that any investors that vote Labor aren't sensible or smart? Are you also also saying that those who invest should only base their voting choice on how it MAY affect the share market? There are soooooo many other issues affecting our wider community than just the sharemarket. Health, education, civil liberties, security, water, IR, the list goes on.
> 
> If you base your voting decision purely on what is best for the sharemarket, I wouldn't think that that was sensible or smart.


----------



## Kimosabi (27 July 2007)

Warren Buffet II said:


> LABOR = UNIONS, UNIONS = CRAP/POOR ECONOMY.
> 
> KEVIN RUDD = UNIONS, UNIONS = CRAP/POOR ECONOMY.
> 
> ...




John Howard = Selling out to the Globalists, Loss of Civil Rights and Liberty's through the*'FAKE' *War on Terror

There are more important things in life like Family, Children, Relationships, Friends etc.

I just want to remind everyone, not everthing in life should be equated to MONEY.

Especially our current corrupt money that is produced out of *"THIN AIR"* and lent to us by a corrupt few.


----------



## --B-- (27 July 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> Loss of Civil Rights and Liberty's through the *'FAKE' *War on Terror




care to elaborate? we're those bombings and killings of thousands of innocent people in New York, London, Madrid, Bali x 2, etc etc "FAKE"?


----------



## Kimosabi (27 July 2007)

--B-- said:


> care to elaborate? we're those bombings and killings of thousands of innocent people in New York, London, Madrid, Bali x 2, etc etc "FAKE"?




PM inbound


----------



## moXJO (27 July 2007)

Did Bracks stand down? Heard something on the radio but missed the bulk of it.


----------



## Julia (27 July 2007)

moXJO said:


> Did Bracks stand down? Heard something on the radio but missed the bulk of it.




Yes.  Only staying until Monday.  Completely out of politics.  He said he feels "the time is right".  ABC Radio said he had been having discussions with his colleagues since the drink driving incident involving his son.  His wife was also recorded saying how glad she will be for the family to "have him back".
He appears to be annointing John Brumby as his successor rather than the Deputy Premier.  Is this peculiar?
(I'm in Qld so don't know much about Victorian politics.)
Is his getting out anything to do with the debacle over the Murray Darling ?


----------



## Duckman#72 (27 July 2007)

Julia said:


> Yes.  Only staying until Monday.  Completely out of politics.  He said he feels "the time is right".  ABC Radio said he had been having discussions with his colleagues since the drink driving incident involving his son.  His wife was also recorded saying how glad she will be for the family to "have him back".
> He appears to be annointing John Brumby as his successor rather than the Deputy Premier.  Is this peculiar?
> (I'm in Qld so don't know much about Victorian politics.)
> Is his getting out anything to do with the debacle over the Murray Darling ?




I see the Vicotrian Farmers Federation president came out this morning and questioned whether the Victorian Govt was actually doing the right thing for Victorian Farmers. The impression I got was that the VFF has just come to terms with what the Fed Govt was proposing and believes that the Bracks Govt was in the wrong for now making it so much more difficult.


----------



## Julia (27 July 2007)

Duckman#72 said:


> I see the Vicotrian Farmers Federation president came out this morning and questioned whether the Victorian Govt was actually doing the right thing for Victorian Farmers. The impression I got was that the VFF has just come to terms with what the Fed Govt was proposing and believes that the Bracks Govt was in the wrong for now making it so much more difficult.




OK, that's interesting Duckman.  His resignation makes more sense given that information.  
How Mrs Duckman doing? (and Adam of course?)
Regards
Julia


----------



## greggy (28 July 2007)

Rafa said:


> NO GREGGY...
> Hi Rafa,
> 
> Labor are an extreme left party and anyone who votes labor cannot possibly be part of capitalist society and for that matter even participate in the stock market



Hi Rafa,

Not even the Coalition thinks that Labor are an extreme left party.  When you're talking about the extreme left one usually associates it with communism.  
Politically things have changed in Australian politics since Whitlam left the scene. Both major parties are now seen as being pro-market, despite differences on IR.  Labor still has many friends in the business community.  Even Mr Rudd himself says that he's a fiscal conservative.
After 28 years of trading, I've lived under both Labor and Liberal Governments.  The most important factor at the end of the day is stock selection.  I know a lot of people who trade on both sides of politics, the majority of whom though are conservative.    
In many respects, Howard and Rudd are very similar in terms of outlook and philosophy.  This explains to some extent why the next election is going to be very interesting.  I'm still undecided.


----------



## springhill (7 August 2007)

Im no supporter of the Labor party, but Rudd has put the final nail in Little Johnnys coffin with KEVIN07. Possibly the catchiest and most successful attempt by a politician to become relevant in memory. Of course its all crap, spin and PR but it grabbed my attention, and the youth will take a shine to it. Much better than, er, Little, er, Johnny on, er, YouTube, er. This could get real ugly for the Libs


----------



## Julia (7 August 2007)

springhill said:


> Im no supporter of the Labor party, but Rudd has put the final nail in Little Johnnys coffin with KEVIN07. Possibly the catchiest and most successful attempt by a politician to become relevant in memory. Of course its all crap, spin and PR but it grabbed my attention, and the youth will take a shine to it. Much better than, er, Little, er, Johnny on, er, YouTube, er. This could get real ugly for the Libs




Perhaps.  But I suspect for every youth vote which is won by this, there will be another older Australian who doesn't even have access to the internet.
Tony Delroy (ABC Radio) did his talkback programme on the election last night and there was a very large number of older people who vehemently supported John Howard.

Just an aside, but one amusing call.  One woman phoned to defend Mr Howard.  Amongst her reasons for supporting the Coalition was the following rationale:
"if the soldiers hadn't been sent to Iraq then we would never have found out that some of their equipment was faulty.  Therefore, the war in Iraq is completely justified!!!"
I could imagine the government's minders listening to the programme cringing at how much of a disservice she did their cause.


----------



## chops_a_must (7 August 2007)

Julia said:


> Perhaps.  But I suspect for every youth vote which is won by this, there will be another older Australian who doesn't even have access to the internet.
> Tony Delroy (ABC Radio) did his talkback programme on the election last night and there was a very large number of older people who vehemently supported John Howard.



Older people generally vote for conservative parties, and to their own detriment really. They are the ones who need properly funded health services, and conservatives aren't renowned for providing that.



Julia said:


> Just an aside, but one amusing call.  One woman phoned to defend Mr Howard.  Amongst her reasons for supporting the Coalition was the following rationale:
> "if the soldiers hadn't been sent to Iraq then we would never have found out that some of their equipment was faulty.  Therefore, the war in Iraq is completely justified!!!"
> I could imagine the government's minders listening to the programme cringing at how much of a disservice she did their cause.



Sounds like a fairly representative liberal supporter to me: illogical and senile. :

But it reminds me of the rationale of GWB and Howard supporters and their policy makers i.e. that famous quote, "If stupidity got us into this mess, how come it can't get us out?"


----------



## Rafa (7 August 2007)

that old lady, alas, knows how the world works... she makes a valid point  

not to mention the billions that gets pumped in US, russian, chinese arms companies (and now maybe aussie arms companies too) as they sell more equipment to the gulf states... 

its good business this war... well it was in the old days where one couldn't be effected on their home soil.


anyway, i digress... nothing really to do with the topic.


interested in your thoughts Julia on the blatant poll driven drive to constantly attack the states... including now blaming them for interest rates going up! 

smacks of desperation politics...


----------



## moXJO (7 August 2007)

springhill said:


> Im no supporter of the Labor party, but Rudd has put the final nail in Little Johnnys coffin with KEVIN07. Possibly the catchiest and most successful attempt by a politician to become relevant in memory. Of course its all crap, spin and PR but it grabbed my attention, and the youth will take a shine to it. Much better than, er, Little, er, Johnny on, er, YouTube, er. This could get real ugly for the Libs




He has made good use of the media. Just hope the big brother reference doesn’t hold true 'all promotion no substance’ .Gotta love that catchphrase though.

http://www.kevin07.com/


----------



## explod (7 August 2007)

springhill said:


> Im no supporter of the Labor party, but Rudd has put the final nail in Little Johnnys coffin with KEVIN07. Possibly the catchiest and most successful attempt by a politician to become relevant in memory. Of course its all crap, spin and PR but it grabbed my attention, and the youth will take a shine to it. Much better than, er, Little, er, Johnny on, er, YouTube, er. This could get real ugly for the Libs




I believe the election can be called for as late as January 2008, where will Kevin 07 be in   08.........kevin in heaven maybe

But in reality, todays pole would indicate little shift in the mood of the electorate which has remained about the same for the last six months.   Having fired all cannons hard and with increasing missfires from our John Labour looks to be coming home by a landslide IMHO


----------



## AussiePaul72 (7 August 2007)

G'day All,
Very good thread and thoughts expressed by all. Its interesting that the ASF poll on here is virtually 50/50 from 260+ voters. I personally think that that is probably very close to the mark right across our nation. There has been quite a bit of speculation in the media that labour is well ahead in the polls. My bet is that its going to be a very close election.
I'll be upfront and say that i support the government. I think there are two main reasons that the voting public are very much divided straight down the line 50:50 in this election.
Government Positives - The government has a very good track record while they have been in power. They have a very sound economic record and have Australia placed in a strong position.
Government Negatives - I think John Howard is the best leader to go to the next election but unfortunately he does not have the people appeal that others like Kevin Rudd & Peter Beattie are masters of. I think Peter Costello is a great treasurer but is best if he stays as treasurer and doesn't try to rock the boat.
Labour Positives - They finally have a labour united team that is very committed and smart. Kevin Rudd has that people appeal that labour so badly needed in a leader. Kevin Rudd tells voters what they want to hear.
Labour Negatives - They have a poor track record when it comes to economic stability. The older generations remember past labour performances where as many young voters were too young to have experienced that period of time.

Overall, i think this election will go down to the wire! Here's to the closest election in many years and i think that can only help the people of Australia get a great deal from who ever gets voted in .........


----------



## explod (7 August 2007)

AussiePaul72 said:


> G'day All,
> Very good thread and thoughts expressed by all. Its interesting that the ASF poll on here is virtually 50/50 from 260+ voters. I personally think that that is probably very close to the mark right across our nation. There has been quite a bit of speculation in the media that labour is well ahead in the polls. My bet is that its going to be a very close election.
> I'll be upfront and say that i support the government. I think there are two main reasons that the voting public are very much divided straight down the line 50:50 in this election.
> Government Positives - The government has a very good track record while they have been in power. They have a very sound economic record and have Australia placed in a strong position.
> ...




What a load of crap.    The Hawk/ Keating era revolutionised the economics of this country and Howard has reaped the benifits since.   Johhny's GST has crippled small business, the very people the Liberal Party profess to support.  With tremendous dangers near to our borders, particularly Indonesia we are off supporting the breakdown of Hussian's soverign state. (Not that I had any time for him, but Mugabe is worse)   Saddam used to keep Iran in check, if US have to pull out of that part of the world it will be lost to us,together with the oil that is still sorely needed, need I go on.   Have a big think.   These are the reasons why the polls are the way they are.   People who marched in the streets against the Irak war went silent due to scare campaigns, but they have not forgotten.  Not that Rudd seem to be very strong on this point either.


----------



## AussiePaul72 (7 August 2007)

explod said:


> What a load of crap.    The Hawk/ Keating era revolutionised the economics of this country and Howard has reaped the benifits since.   Johhny's GST has crippled small business, the very people the Liberal Party profess to support.  With tremendous dangers near to our borders, particularly Indonesia we are off supporting the breakdown of Hussian's soverign state. (Not that I had any time for him, but Mugabe is worse)   Saddam used to keep Iran in check, if US have to pull out of that part of the world it will be lost to us,together with the oil that is still sorely needed, need I go on.   Have a big think.   These are the reasons why the polls are the way they are.   People who marched in the streets against the Irak war went silent due to scare campaigns, but they have not forgotten.  Not that Rudd seem to be very strong on this point either.




G'day Explod ....... does that mean you don't agree with my comments??? 
It is only my opinion ... don't get too worked up over it mate! Everyone is entitled to a say .... thats what makes this a good thread and debate. I respect your comments even if i think they are a bit twisted .....lol. I don't profess to agree with everything the government has put forward but as a voter i am supporting the government over the opposition when i way up all the pro's and cons. 
Take care Explod!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 August 2007)

found a couple of youtubes from the old days
Howard's deficit


> Treasurer John Howard went to the 1983 election claiming a budget deficit of $4.3 billion, and later admitted to it being $6 billion when it was in-fact $9.6 billion.



John Howard 1987


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 August 2007)

explod said:


> I believe the election can be called for as late as January 2008, where will Kevin 07 be in   08.........kevin in heaven maybe



explod - now you're thinkin like a pollie lol - what a ripper tactic that would be - defer it to 08 lol - ahh - life is full of funny lill anecdotes aint it 
guess they'd have to change it to "kevins your mate in 08" - and in a hurry .


----------



## explod (7 August 2007)

AussiePaul72 said:


> G'day Explod ....... does that mean you don't agree with my comments???
> It is only my opinion ... don't get too worked up over it mate! Everyone is entitled to a say .... thats what makes this a good thread and debate. I respect your comments even if i think they are a bit twisted .....lol. I don't profess to agree with everything the government has put forward but as a voter i am supporting the government over the opposition when i way up all the pro's and cons.
> Take care Explod!!




Perhaps I went forth with too much in a post.    I would be pleased if you could elaborate on the twisted bit though, having been around politics a long time would be pleased to elaborate on specifics.

As for our forum poll, the investment community have allways been more inclined towards the right wing side so I would see as pretty positive towards the Rudd camp


----------



## numbercruncher (8 August 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> explod - now you're thinkin like a pollie lol - what a ripper tactic that would be - defer it to 08 lol - ahh - life is full of funny lill anecdotes aint it
> guess they'd have to change it to "kevins your mate in 08" - and in a hurry .





Haha i just went checked kevin08.com and the following message with a link to kevin07.com



> Oh for Kevin's sake! It's not 08 yet!
> 
> I bet you're one of those people who buys Christmas presents in June.


----------



## arminius (8 August 2007)

gday aussie paul, 
you seem like a reasonable sort of bloke, but i could not disagree with your political reasoning any more.
as a lot of people have, and i hope continue to point out, the howard govt has not only been asleep at the wheel for 10 years, but they have driven us down a poorly lit dead-end street. 
15 years of economic prosperity, primarily fuelled by a massive resource boom and radical reforms by keating etc. 
the economic hardship under keating ie 18% interest rates- which were halved by the time jh got in, was the state's fault, and a consequence of the prosperity of the time, according to jh.

i havent posted here for ages because frankly im sick of some of the narrow minded and frankly stupid people who fail to face facts. the sad thing is, and the reason why so many posters are passionate about this election is that there is potential for our country to go down the gurgler, financially, socially, and morally. 
one very small example.. no action on the horrific state of aboriginal townships for over a decade, despite countless official reports, and suddenly the senate has two days to check the legislation. they are about to make a new law, with many controversial points, and have given the final 'checkers' a couple of days to ensure it is the right thing for the future of the aboriginal culture. 10 years of s.w.a-- and then a rush job. the report on which this action was based had within it about a hundred recomendations. how many were implemented? NONE. what sort of government ignores its people, then ignores those who study the problem and come up with potential solutions? 
you talk about howards fiscal competence...6 weeks ago-how much will this cost john? '10's of millions'. a few days ago- minimum 500million per year. bit of a difference no?
personally i dont care how much they spend as long as they get it right.
honesty, integrity, compassion, balance. 
four qualities jh, abbott, downer, ruddock, minchin, hefernan, nelson, bishop, coonan would not have between them.  
i dont know if labor do, but im giving them a go.

cheers. Brett.


----------



## moXJO (8 August 2007)

arminius said:


> i havent posted here for ages because frankly im sick of some of the narrow minded and frankly stupid people who fail to face facts. the sad thing is, and the reason why so many posters are passionate about this election is that there is potential for our country to go down the gurgler, financially, socially, and morally.
> .




Ever check the condition of the states NSW and QLD in particular. Last time I looked they were run by Labor and run as badly as you can get. Don’t call people stupid because they don't see it your way when you ramp labor. And like I said before Rudd needs to show a bit more substance because I don't see any great future direction showing up in any of his ideas atm either.In fact he pretty much is a younger version of johnny.


----------



## --B-- (8 August 2007)

arminius said:


> i havent posted here for ages because frankly im sick of some of the narrow minded and frankly stupid people who fail to face facts.




ahhhh... "if you dont agree with me youre ignorant and stupid" 

such a telling comment...


----------



## nioka (8 August 2007)

arminius said:


> there is potential for our country to go down the gurgler, financially, socially, and morally.




And I had thought it already had!!!


----------



## mark70920 (8 August 2007)

Where will all the money come from when the resources boom is over , is the Howard government encouraging young people to get careers in Engineering , physics , biogology etc , is his government supporting R and D , are they investing long term in sustainable industries. Five years ago prior to the boom the big mining companies practically shut down their exploration departments , Geo's a plenty were thrown on the scrap heap , many never returned to the industries , we were on the edge of the biggest resources boom the world had seen and we were not willing to invest in the future. The country could have made plenty more if we were willing to invest long term but big business and the Liberal party only seem interested in the short term. Nothing has changes.

Labour governments spend big on infrastucture , training etc even in hard economics time so when the good times come we are in the position to reap the benefits.
Liberals Governments just reap the benefits. The mining boom happen due to demand in China it had nothing to do with the Australia Government.


----------



## Rafa (8 August 2007)

and now, state govt's 70bill dollar infrastructure spend is considered a bad thing... 

70bill is what howard dished out in pre elections bribes during the 2004 campaign 

wonder which one was inflationary! maybe if the libs spent on infrastructure, state govt's wouldnt have needed to borrow the funds


----------



## The Mint Man (8 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> Ever check the condition of the states NSW and QLD in particular. Last time I looked they were run by Labor and run as badly as you can get. Don’t call people stupid because they don't see it your way when you ramp labor. And like I said before Rudd needs to show a bit more substance because I don't see any great future direction showing up in any of his ideas atm either.In fact he pretty much is a younger version of johnny.



well said


----------



## The Mint Man (8 August 2007)

why am I not surprised
I have been on the wrong end of the a unions dirty tricks (and I was a memberat the time!!) so I can understand this poor womans frustration.


> *Tasmanian union accused of unfair dismissal​*Posted Sat Aug 4, 2007 8:20am AEST, ABC
> 
> As unions continue to attack Federal workplace laws, a former Tasmanian union employee has accused her old boss of unfair dismissal.
> 
> ...




So going off that last comment one would assume that the union would want to put their side of the story forward ASAP, yeh?...... No were still waiting!


> *Union attack on WorkChoices 'two-faced'​*Posted Sun Aug 5, 2007 8:26am AEST
> 
> The union movement has been accused of hypocrisy over its attack on WorkChoices. (File photo) (Getty Images: Ian Waldie)
> The Federal Government has accused the union movement of hypocrisy in its attack on WorkChoices, with two Tasmanian unions accused of unfair dismissal.
> ...



Then this early today


> *Tasmanian ALP president holds his tongue on Federal parliament accusations​*Posted Wed Aug 8, 2007 5:35am AEST
> 
> The President of the Tasmanian branch of the Labor Party has declined to comment on claims made about him in Federal Parliament.
> 
> ...



Ok so my first quote was from the 4th Aug, the second was from the 5th Aug and the last was from today at 5:30am. By my count that makes 4 days and we still havn't had the unions 'side of the story'. The ABC even says in the last article that they were expecting to hear from the union by 'later today', I dont know about anyone else but I think 'later today' has already passed.
When will we get their 'side of the story'? What are they trying to hide?

Cheers


----------



## mark70920 (8 August 2007)

No worries just go to Workers Ombundsman she will sort it out , if they are legally in the wrong they are in trouble.
But if they employ less than 100 people they can't legally be in the wrong or if they employ over a 100 people they most likely sacked her for operational reasons so still can't be legally wrong.
They may be morally wrong but the new work laws lack morales , so I think she is screwed.

PS Shame on these so called unionist if they are morally wrong , still doesn't mean these bad laws are right.


----------



## arminius (8 August 2007)

the new anti labor campaign by business is interesting. 

which two men in the past took away the rights of ordinary workers? who made it illegal to take strike action? who looked after business at the expense of the workforce and general poulation? who used bureaucracy and tighter 'security' measures to control the population? 

Benito Mussilini and Adolf Hitler.


----------



## mexican (10 August 2007)

AWA's no thanks!
Australia is all about "A FAIR GO" and AWA's are not.
Just heading down the American way.


----------



## moXJO (10 August 2007)

mexican said:


> AWA's no thanks!
> Australia is all about "A FAIR GO" and AWA's are not.
> Just heading down the American way.




What effect do you think tearing up awa's will have on bosses and employment?


----------



## mexican (10 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> What effect do you think tearing up awa's will have on bosses and employment?




What effect do you think AWA's have on unskilled and migrant workers?


----------



## --B-- (10 August 2007)

lol. ignoring the direct question mexican? 

do you think an undesirable effect on bosses and employment may also have an undesirable effect on unskilled and migrant workers?


----------



## mexican (10 August 2007)

--B-- said:


> lol. ignoring the direct question mexican?
> 
> do you think an undesirable effect on bosses and employment may also have an undesirable effect on unskilled and migrant workers?




NO, less casual employment and migrant / unskilled workers not working more for less! What effect would it have, if we have a level playing ground, not one way. 
It has gone from one extreme to the other, in the middle is where it should be.


----------



## nioka (10 August 2007)

It is interesting to note that even on this forum of dedicated capitalists that Rudd is ahead. Looks like little Johnny is headed for retirement.


----------



## Spar (10 August 2007)

Remember, 

John Howard as treasurer gave Australia very high interest rates too, but he seems to have forgotten that.
All commentators compliment Howard as a very good politician. Not an honest moral one. But his spin doctors some how managed to come up with the term "Honest John", probably sarcastically.
Liberal government was just in the right place at the right time. China could have boomed on anyone's watch. Australia just happens to have what China wants. They don't care who sells it to them.
Investing in the future through education is where tax dollars should be spent, not cutting education funding. Now uni's have to appeal to the overseas full fee paying students. I'm an Asian, but attending a postgrad class and seeing 80% overseas students just out undergrad, you know that you're not going to be getting the quality class participation.
Record tax surplus every year just means the government is not spending enough on schools, hospitals, infrastructure, etc. Putting extra $10 a week in my pocket doesn't do me any better. Putting that $10 from everyone for the good of the community is much better spent.
The IR laws were voted on around (I think on) Melbourne Cup Day. Good way to distract everyone.

Do I dislike Howard and his liberal condescending government like silver spoon Downer, hell yeah.  

I just don't like a leader/government that appeals to people's fears.

Do I like Labor, no. I use to vote Democrats, but they've imploded.


----------



## mark70920 (10 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> What effect do you think tearing up awa's will have on bosses and employment?




None or little , if the business fundementals are good and the management is flexible it will not have much of an effect. (The CEO bonus may be reduce by a few percent)
If the business relies on explotation of unskilled labour it will make things harder for the employer , but these sort of people usually find a way around paying a fair days pay for a fair days work.
As for unfair dismissal laws under Labour if you employ less than 15 people then you have 12 months before the laws kick in and 6 months for larger companies. If you can't assess an employee in that time you will most likely end up out of business any way. (Got this from Difference of opinion last night on the ABC)


----------



## The Mint Man (10 August 2007)

nioka said:


> It is interesting to note that even on this forum of dedicated capitalists that Rudd is ahead. Looks like little Johnny is headed for retirement.



I have been watching this thread since it started and Rudd has been ahead the whole time.... he was way, way ahead at one stage.
But I tell you what 'little Johnny' has come back in a BIG way lately.


----------



## moXJO (10 August 2007)

mark70920 said:


> None or little , if the business fundementals are good and the management is flexible it will not have much of an effect. (The CEO bonus may be reduce by a few percent)
> If the business relies on explotation of unskilled labour it will make things harder for the employer , but these sort of people usually find a way around paying a fair days pay for a fair days work.
> As for unfair dismissal laws under Labour if you employ less than 15 people then you have 12 months before the laws kick in and 6 months for larger companies. If you can't assess an employee in that time you will most likely end up out of business any way. (Got this from Difference of opinion last night on the ABC)




You ever employed people in the construction industry? That last statement is a crock of $hite.Back in the days of unfair dismissal builders down here have had employees steal after a period of a few years only to wind up in court because they cant sack them.AWA's need to be tweeked not thrown out.I'd hardly say handing the reigns back to the unions will produce level ground either.


----------



## The Mint Man (10 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> You ever employed people in the construction industry? That last statement is a crock of $hite.Back in the days of unfair dismissal builders down here have had employees steal after a period of a few years only to wind up in court because they cant sack them.AWA's need to be tweeked not thrown out.I'd hardly say handing the reigns back to the unions will produce level ground either.



here here, well said. The CFMEU are a bunch of mugs, you dont want them running ****. IMHO they (the CFMEU) are bad for business, employers and employees.


----------



## mark70920 (10 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> You ever employed people in the construction industry? That last statement is a crock of $hite.Back in the days of unfair dismissal builders down here have had employees steal after a period of a few years only to wind up in court because they cant sack them.AWA's need to be tweeked not thrown out.I'd hardly say handing the reigns back to the unions will produce level ground either.





I have work in both unionised work places(back in the late 80's  early 90's) and non unionised work places and stealing has always resulted in instant dismissal. 
The same with serious safety breaches like removing someone else danger tag (The company wanted to keep this employee, the work force insisted he be sacked and he was)
If the unfair dismissal laws allow someone to steal we need to "tweek" the unfair dismissal laws. 

If you want a divided society like the United States keep work choices (The minimum wage will be the next thing to go under JWH)
We need a system with balance , its not about handing back power to the unions its about finding a middle ground.


----------



## moXJO (10 August 2007)

mark70920 said:


> I have work in both unionised work places(back in the late 80's  early 90's) and non unionised work places and stealing has always resulted in instant dismissal.
> The same with serious safety breaches like removing someone else danger tag (The company wanted to keep this employee, the work force insisted he be sacked and he was)
> If the unfair dismissal laws allow someone to steal we need to "tweek" the unfair dismissal laws.
> .




why not tweak awa's? And I know of a few instances where stealing has resulted in a compo payout for the thief when fired.


----------



## mark70920 (10 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> why not tweak awa's? And I know of a few instances where stealing has resulted in a compo payout for the thief when fired.




I think people who steal from their employer should be sacked and the law should reinforce that no matter what system they are employed under.(They should also be charged and arrested).

Employers who exploit their employees are no different they are stealing money from these people and there should be laws that prevent that sort of behaviour not encourage it. 

Again a balanced fair system is needed , John Howards Liberals failed to produce such a system. Thankfully the majority of the work force is still employed under the previous systems , we still have time to change before our society is badly damaged.


----------



## --B-- (10 August 2007)

mark70920 said:


> Employers who exploit their employees are no different they are stealing money from these people and there should be laws that prevent that sort of behaviour not encourage it.




there are laws to protect employees. the anti-workchoices howard-haters simply rely on the ALP and union rhetoric that all bosses will screw their employees if they have the chance. the cold fact is, that is simply not the case. 

all the workchoices legislation and AWA's do is give each party an equal right to negotiate. of course, the employer has an inherent advantage because they have the job to give out, but this simply gives each person the incentive and onus to make themselves as employable as possible so that they call the shots. this already happens now. 

what it also does is ensures if you are an exceptional worker that you are fairly remunerated, and if your workmates choose to bludge, they get the pay they deserve. Rudd wants to bring back a centralised wage system and all this does is provide a disincentive to succeed and try hard.



> Again a balanced fair system is needed , John Howards Liberals failed to produce such a system. Thankfully the majority of the work force is still employed under the previous systems , *we still have time to change before our society is badly damaged*.



what do you base this on? innuendo and waffle?


----------



## mark70920 (10 August 2007)

--B-- said:


> there are laws to protect employees. the anti-workchoices howard-haters simply rely on the ALP and union rhetoric that all bosses will screw their employees if they have the chance. the cold fact is, that is simply not the case.
> 
> all the workchoices legislation and AWA's do is give each party an equal right to negotiate. of course, the employer has an inherent advantage because they have the job to give out, but this simply gives each person the incentive and onus to make themselves as employable as possible so that they call the shots. this already happens now.
> 
> ...




NO I base this on what I have seen working in the UK and what I have study about the United States. We still have a fair even society with a very small underclass , the underclass in the US is massive and its growing all the time in the UK. 
I don't want to live in a society of haves and have nots , I am willing to sacrifies some of my personal gains to live in a more even society.

Finland is heavily unionised and has one of the highest standards of living in the world as the employers and unions work together to achieve mutual beneficial outcomes , the power is spread not in the hands of one or the other.


----------



## Rafa (10 August 2007)

i am on an AWA and i got no problems with AWA's as long as there is a safety net....

pre work choices the system worked fine...
there was AWA's and a safety net via the no discrimination clause where the AWA salary package had to be equal or better than the union agreed one!

why change that unless you want to drive down wages and conditions in the long term.


----------



## moXJO (10 August 2007)

mark70920 said:


> I think people who steal from their employer should be sacked and the law should reinforce that no matter what system they are employed under.(They should also be charged and arrested).
> 
> Employers who exploit their employees are no different they are stealing money from these people and there should be laws that prevent that sort of behaviour not encourage it.
> 
> Again a balanced fair system is needed , John Howards Liberals failed to produce such a system. Thankfully the majority of the work force is still employed under the previous systems , we still have time to change before our society is badly damaged.




Wasn't the previous system under Howard except he watered down the union bs.Labor had a terrible system that favoured the lazy when they were running it ,and they left it in place for years .Systems don't instantly become problem free overnight.

My friend in Brisbane recently got work.He is unskilled and has a shoulder injury (his doctor actually advised against him working).It took him all of 4 days to get into and he had a few options of other jobs at the time.His job allows for training in any department he wants 1 day a week ,and extra incentives hell they even feed him.He is happy that he has the opportunity to train up.

People complain about skill shortages, but this is a great time for unskilled workers to get something behind them given that employers are desperate to train staff.And they will pay well to retain them.


----------



## skint (11 August 2007)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...1186530620059.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Since I've been reading this thread, it is clear that many people are still buying the tripe that Howard has been prattling on about for last 11 years. Nasty, horrid unions are destroying our economic competitiveness etc..
Above is the address of an article in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald. The article disusses the findings from the World Economic Forum which compared the global competitiveness of countries using both hard data and a survey of 11 000 business leaders. Denmark at number 4 (after Switzerland, Finland and Sweden) is well ahead of Australia at no.19. As the article points out, Denmark is characterised by extremely high union membership, a strong welfare system and high spending on training and education. Further, Denmark has low inflation, low unemployment and runs budget surpluses which is completely contrary to what Howard would have us believe would occur here. Demonising unions and cutting education and research expenditure as fast as the paperwork can be completed can hardly be reagarded as sound economic management. Before someone pipes up with the interest rate boogie man, its also noteworthy that a large survey of business economists at the last election found that the it was largely irrelevent which party won government, as it is the global economic situation that dictates interest rates. More garbage that the Australian public has been swallowing.


----------



## arminius (11 August 2007)

spot on skint. 
i reckon those of you reading this who have beautiful homes, nice cars and a healthy bank balance have so because you have worked hard and smart, and been responsible with your income. history will show that it was not due to the perceived brilliance of j howard and p costello. 
i put it to you that in the coming years your material wealth will improve, notwithstanding the debarcle going on now, and you will look back on these times and think 'why did we put up with that goose for so long?'.

when other things happen before the election i sometimes think who will be left to vote for the libs. all i can come up with is peter hendy and the C.E.O of Razor Wire's R Us.
 (how hot is the chick on Dr Who!!)


----------



## Sprinter79 (11 August 2007)

Something that people seem to be missing here is the effect AWAs will have on those who are most vunerable in our society. The young, the unskilled, those with poor education levels etc. 

When the job market turns, the AWA's will go to those who undercut the price other workers will offer. The young will be exploited, the unskilled will have to work for pittance (and not be able to pay off their HSV) and those who can't read will sign something that completely rips them off. It's either that, or don't have a job.


----------



## Julia (11 August 2007)

skint said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...1186530620059.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
> 
> Since I've been reading this thread, it is clear that many people are still buying the tripe that Howard has been prattling on about for last 11 years. Nasty, horrid unions are destroying our economic competitiveness etc..
> Above is the address of an article in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald. The article disusses the findings from the World Economic Forum which compared the global competitiveness of countries using both hard data and a survey of 11 000 business leaders. Denmark at number 4 (after Switzerland, Finland and Sweden) is well ahead of Australia at no.19. As the article points out, Denmark is characterised by extremely high union membership, a strong welfare system and high spending on training and education. Further, Denmark has low inflation, low unemployment and runs budget surpluses which is completely contrary to what Howard would have us believe would occur here. Demonising unions and cutting education and research expenditure as fast as the paperwork can be completed can hardly be reagarded as sound economic management. Before someone pipes up with the interest rate boogie man, its also noteworthy that a large survey of business economists at the last election found that the it was largely irrelevent which party won government, as it is the global economic situation that dictates interest rates. More garbage that the Australian public has been swallowing.



You don't mention tax.
" « Encyclopedia of the Nations :: Europe :: Denmark 
Denmark
TAXATION

Denmark's taxes are among the highest in the world. Danish residents are liable for tax on global income and net wealth. Nonresidents are liable only for tax on certain types of income from Danish sources. In 1999, the total collected taxes amounted to 51% of the GDP.

The corporate income tax in Denmark is 30%, which must be prepaid during the income tax year to avoid a surcharge.

Personal income tax is collected at state, county and local levels. A tax ceiling ensures that combined income taxes do not exceed 59% of income. Income tax rates are progressive: 39% on income up to â‚¬22,118; 45% on income between â‚¬22,118 and â‚¬36,025; and 60% on income above â‚¬36,025. Several kinds of deductions or reductions can be applied to taxable income. There is also a voluntary church tax with an average rate of 0.8%. The social security contribution from employee earnings is 9%, 8% for unemployment insurance and 1% for special pension scheme savings. The voluntary church tax and social security contributions do not count toward the 59% tax ceiling. Tax is withheld at the source. Foreign researchers and key employers may qualify for a gross tax of 25% on their salary instead of paying regular income tax. They are still liable for 9% social security contributions.

Denmark's main indirect tax in the value-added tax (VAT) first introduced in March 1967 with a standard rate of 10%. The current standard rate of 25% was introduced in January 1992. Daily newspapers and a few other goods and services are exempt for the VAT.


----------



## mime (11 August 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> Something that people seem to be missing here is the effect AWAs will have on those who are most vunerable in our society. The young, the unskilled, those with poor education levels etc.
> 
> When the job market turns, the AWA's will go to those who undercut the price other workers will offer. The young will be exploited, the unskilled will have to work for pittance (and not be able to pay off their HSV) and those who can't read will sign something that completely rips them off. It's either that, or don't have a job.




If businesses especially small ones are at the mercy of a collective bargaining agreements and the union and the business shuts down who wins? The employee? The employer? The answer is neither.


----------



## mime (11 August 2007)

skint said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...1186530620059.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
> 
> Since I've been reading this thread, it is clear that many people are still buying the tripe that Howard has been prattling on about for last 11 years. Nasty, horrid unions are destroying our economic competitiveness etc..
> Above is the address of an article in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald. The article disusses the findings from the World Economic Forum which compared the global competitiveness of countries using both hard data and a survey of 11 000 business leaders. Denmark at number 4 (after Switzerland, Finland and Sweden) is well ahead of Australia at no.19. As the article points out, Denmark is characterised by extremely high union membership, a strong welfare system and high spending on training and education. Further, Denmark has low inflation, low unemployment and runs budget surpluses which is completely contrary to what Howard would have us believe would occur here. Demonising unions and cutting education and research expenditure as fast as the paperwork can be completed can hardly be reagarded as sound economic management. Before someone pipes up with the interest rate boogie man, its also noteworthy that a large survey of business economists at the last election found that the it was largely irrelevent which party won government, as it is the global economic situation that dictates interest rates. More garbage that the Australian public has been swallowing.




I think it'll back fire when their young, intelligent workers will take up jobs in other Eu countries with less oppressive taxes once they finish studying. My girlfriend is Danish and she is studying law in Aus at the expense of the Danish Govt. It's unlikely she will work in Denmark once she finishes as her degree is in English.


----------



## Sprinter79 (11 August 2007)

mime said:


> If businesses especially small ones are at the mercy of a collective bargaining agreements and the union and the business shuts down who wins? The employee? The employer? The answer is neither.




God damn it. Just because there is a collective bargaining agreement in place, doesn't automatically mean that a business will shut down. It is a very fine line between securing fair pay for the employees and pricing themselves out of the market, and the unions know it. Just because the only coverage that the unions get in mainstream media is the militant extremists, doesn't mean that there aren't people behind the scenes working all this out. 

If you want to talk about a union driven agreement, check out the minimum wage case. If a business can't afford to pay minimum wage, they shouldn't be in business.


----------



## moXJO (12 August 2007)

skint said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...1186530620059.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
> 
> Since I've been reading this thread, it is clear that many people are still buying the tripe that Howard has been prattling on about for last 11 years. Nasty, horrid unions are destroying our economic competitiveness etc..
> Above is the address of an article in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald. The article disusses the findings from the World Economic Forum which compared the global competitiveness of countries using both hard data and a survey of 11 000 business leaders. Denmark at number 4 (after Switzerland, Finland and Sweden) is well ahead of Australia at no.19. As the article points out, Denmark is characterised by extremely high union membership, a strong welfare system and high spending on training and education. Further, Denmark has low inflation, low unemployment and runs budget surpluses which is completely contrary to what Howard would have us believe would occur here. Demonising unions and cutting education and research expenditure as fast as the paperwork can be completed can hardly be reagarded as sound economic management. Before someone pipes up with the interest rate boogie man, its also noteworthy that a large survey of business economists at the last election found that the it was largely irrelevent which party won government, as it is the global economic situation that dictates interest rates. More garbage that the Australian public has been swallowing.




Wow you read in the paper about a place you do not live and work in and take it as gospel to greener pastures, better check their tax rate skint and I doubt our pollies are as efficient. I worked under the old system when the unions had a strangle hold in construction. And the corruption and arrogance was rife. In fact we had a very strong welfare system back then as well, remember the old gravy train and dole bludger references. Under labor early 90s  no one could be bothered getting jobs which was lucky because their were none around at the time. I don’t need Howard to tell me how it was or this "swallowing garbage" crap. I’m not worried about the new media sob story or how other countries are making this or that work. I’m worried about labor bringing back its old problems that they had established before. Hmmm lets reimpose the old industrial relations system ,innovative thinking there.

If I think Rudds policies or future direction are better then I will vote for him ,but at the moment Johnny and Rudd are so alike that there is not really much difference.And the old I.R laws are my sticking point.

Red tape will be the downfall of small business and most do not have the resources to fight the unions or the time to waste doing so. Considering how many people have become sub-contractors or small business since Howard has been in I dare say they are looking at these issues as well. I dare say most of the miners will be watching carefully too.


----------



## moXJO (12 August 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> Something that people seem to be missing here is the effect AWAs will have on those who are most vunerable in our society. The young, the unskilled, those with poor education levels etc.
> 
> When the job market turns, the AWA's will go to those who undercut the price other workers will offer. The young will be exploited, the unskilled will have to work for pittance (and not be able to pay off their HSV) and those who can't read will sign something that completely rips them off. It's either that, or don't have a job.




Won’t this be a good thing for unions who can actually become relevant again and do something for their members.Has union membership been climbing the last few months?


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 August 2007)

I had an interesting conversation with someone last week. In short, they actually seem happy with a situation where their employees never express a view that differs from their own and are quite happy with a working environment which actively discourages innovation - credit goes to those at the top whilst the blame for errors always goes to whoever made them. 

They pointed out to me "that's how it works everywhere" and didn't see a problem with it.

Very, very dumb IMO. It might work now and it might be common, but at some point it's going to go horribly wrong when you're encouraging your employees to not think too much.

Best thing I ever did was convincing those at the bottom to hold me accountable, ask lots of "difficult" questions and, most importantly, think for themselves. We have recorded a 57% productivity increase in 18 months and still trending up.


----------



## skint (12 August 2007)

mime said:


> If businesses especially small ones are at the mercy of a collective bargaining agreements and the union and the business shuts down who wins? The employee? The employer? The answer is neither.




If collective agreements resulted in businesses shutting down, you would expect low unempoyment in countries with individual "agreements" and high unemployment in heavily unionised countries. Howard would have us believe this is the case, but of course no such association exists.


----------



## Julia (12 August 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> I had an interesting conversation with someone last week. In short, they actually seem happy with a situation where their employees never express a view that differs from their own and are quite happy with a working environment which actively discourages innovation - credit goes to those at the top whilst the blame for errors always goes to whoever made them.
> 
> They pointed out to me "that's how it works everywhere" and didn't see a problem with it.
> 
> ...



Doesn't it depend somewhat on the business?
I'm with you and wouldn't work for someone who didn't allow me some input, but I guess a business such as Woolworths isn't going to have every check out operator expecting to have a say in how things are done.


----------



## skint (12 August 2007)

mime said:


> I think it'll back fire when their young, intelligent workers will take up jobs in other Eu countries with less oppressive taxes once they finish studying. My girlfriend is Danish and she is studying law in Aus at the expense of the Danish Govt. It's unlikely she will work in Denmark once she finishes as her degree is in English.




The Danes indeed pay excessive tax but that doesn't alter the fact that their high union membership exists in a low unemployment environment. Collective agreements have not lead to high unemployment. Your girlfriend may understandably choose to work outside Denmark due to the tax rates, but probably not because of the employment situation.


----------



## skint (12 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> Wow you read in the paper about a place you do not live and work in and take it as gospel to greener pastures, better check their tax rate skint and I doubt our pollies are as efficient. I worked under the old system when the unions had a strangle hold in construction. And the corruption and arrogance was rife. In fact we had a very strong welfare system back then as well, remember the old gravy train and dole bludger references. Under labor early 90s  no one could be bothered getting jobs which was lucky because their were none around at the time. I don’t need Howard to tell me how it was or this "swallowing garbage" crap. I’m not worried about the new media sob story or how other countries are making this or that work. I’m worried about labor bringing back its old problems that they had established before. Hmmm lets reimpose the old industrial relations system ,innovative thinking there.
> 
> If I think Rudds policies or future direction are better then I will vote for him ,but at the moment Johnny and Rudd are so alike that there is not really much difference.And the old I.R laws are my sticking point.
> 
> Red tape will be the downfall of small business and most do not have the resources to fight the unions or the time to waste doing so. Considering how many people have become sub-contractors or small business since Howard has been in I dare say they are looking at these issues as well. I dare say most of the miners will be watching carefully too.




No, I'm not advocating Denmark as some utopian state. For example, I'm not a great fan of their high taxes. Domestically, the GST has swamped any income tax cuts, so Howard's record on tax is not good. You've also neglected to recognise that it was Labour that managed to achieve the industrial reforms that have placed Australia in a more competitive position, when they introduced enterprise bargaining. It is widely accepted that enterprise bargaining produces efficiencies. AWA's over time simply lead to lower wages for the vulnerable, with no productivity benefits. New Zealand provides a good example of individual agreements not leading to enhanced productivity. America has weak unions and a minimal wage that borders on the criminal. Their unemployment rate is not dissimilar to ours and 15-20% of the population live in poverty. What a glowing example of a dog eat dog society. If you look at the polls, there are more voters concerned about the draconian IR laws than there are voters lovingly embracing them. Of relevance to us traders/investors/(punters? lol), are the surveys of economists held each election, that consistently indicate that a change in government (either way) has a neglible effect on either interest rates or the markets. I think you're confusing Howard genius with a worldwide economic boom. As Costello has repeatedly stated, Howard spends the profits of the boom like a drunken sailor before an election simply to get elected and with scant regard as to whether the money is spent efficiently.


----------



## greggy (12 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> Wow you read in the paper about a place you do not live and work in and take it as gospel to greener pastures, better check their tax rate skint and I doubt our pollies are as efficient. I worked under the old system when the unions had a strangle hold in construction. And the corruption and arrogance was rife. In fact we had a very strong welfare system back then as well, remember the old gravy train and dole bludger references. Under labor early 90s  no one could be bothered getting jobs which was lucky because their were none around at the time. I don’t need Howard to tell me how it was or this "swallowing garbage" crap. I’m not worried about the new media sob story or how other countries are making this or that work. I’m worried about labor bringing back its old problems that they had established before. Hmmm lets reimpose the old industrial relations system ,innovative thinking there.
> 
> If I think Rudds policies or future direction are better then I will vote for him ,but at the moment Johnny and Rudd are so alike that there is not really much difference.And the old I.R laws are my sticking point.
> 
> Red tape will be the downfall of small business and most do not have the resources to fight the unions or the time to waste doing so. Considering how many people have become sub-contractors or small business since Howard has been in I dare say they are looking at these issues as well. I dare say most of the miners will be watching carefully too.



Howard and Rudd are indeed very similar.  Both are economic and social conservatives. IMO the major points of difference are IR and Iraq. Howard is well behind in the polls, but is still leading in terms of economic management (according to the polls).  Rudd is definitely playing a smart game agreeing with Howard on most issues. This is shaping up to be a very interesting election, most likely to be held in Nov 07 (my guess). Still undecided as to whom I'll go for.


----------



## skint (12 August 2007)

greggy said:


> Howard and Rudd are indeed very similar.  Both are economic and social conservatives. IMO the major points of difference are IR and Iraq. Howard is well behind in the polls, but is still leading in terms of economic management (according to the polls).  Rudd is definitely playing a smart game agreeing with Howard on most issues. This is shaping up to be a very interesting election, most likely to be held in Nov 07 (my guess). Still undecided as to whom I'll go for.




At Centrebet, the shortest odds are all dates in Nov., so I'd have to agree with your 'guess'. The bookies are usually pretty good predictors of election dates and outcomes. The government is currently at $2.60 and Labour at $1.55, but this can change as the campaign heats up of course. Howard will leave it as late as he can IMHO but he probably wouldn't want to hold it over the holiday season. People don't like having their holidays interrupted. Greggy, you've been sitting on that fence for a while now. Careful you don't cause yourself an injury mate!


----------



## moXJO (12 August 2007)

skint said:


> No, I'm not advocating Denmark as some utopian state. For example, I'm not a great fan of their high taxes. Domestically, the GST has swamped any income tax cuts, so Howard's record on tax is not good. You've also neglected to recognise that it was Labour that managed to achieve the industrial reforms that have placed Australia in a more competitive position, when they introduced enterprise bargaining. It is widely accepted that enterprise bargaining produces efficiencies. AWA's over time simply lead to lower wages for the vulnerable, with no productivity benefits. New Zealand provides a good example of individual agreements not leading to enhanced productivity. America has weak unions and a minimal wage that borders on the criminal. Their unemployment rate is not dissimilar to ours and 15-20% of the population live in poverty. What a glowing example of a dog eat dog society. If you look at the polls, there are more voters concerned about the draconian IR laws than there are voters lovingly embracing them. Of relevance to us traders/investors/(punters? lol), are the surveys of economists held each election, that consistently indicate that a change in government (either way) has a neglible effect on either interest rates or the markets. I think you're confusing Howard genius with a worldwide economic boom. As Costello has repeatedly stated, Howard spends the profits of the boom like a drunken sailor before an election simply to get elected and with scant regard as to whether the money is spent efficiently.




Denmark has very flexible hiring and firing rules I thought? Don't they have the least restrictive rules on dismissal? I'd like to see labor bring that in lol


----------



## Flying Fish (12 August 2007)

Won't matter who is in power, the next government will fry due to the global situation. My opinion though.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 August 2007)

Some great quotes on this morning's Insiders on ABC :-
"we have the choice between one little guy with glasses, or another little guy with glasses".
"these days when people see a politician pull a rabbit out of a hat, they are wise enough to say , "yep, that's a rabbit all right" "


----------



## juiceman (12 August 2007)

I would like to put the cat amongst the pidgeons for a moment; re Labour and Liberal.
My company owns 9 retail outlets in shopping centre's in the Eastern States.
We must by law trade; Thursday night/Saturday and Sunday.
We employ 60 to 80 people depending on the time of year, most are part time, and have worked WITH us for years.
Our staff are happy
Their age ranges between 16yrs if they are new, to 62yrs, and they are not stupid, they like working for us.
They are well paid for what they do.
Because of the type of business we have, none of them will be able to create their own empire,via working with us directly.
Some of the younger one's will move on to much better thing's, and we promote that.
Others are happy with their life and just want flexability, or some extra cash for themselves while their children are at school.
Some can only work the odd day per wk because of their own needs; ie
school/study/home/husband/children/sport/hobbies, their life etc
Some can only work weekends, others only through the week.
We are what  you might call small business in Australia.
Any of our staff can take a holiday with their family any time they choose, so long as they can swap or change their shifts another staff member.
All of the above could not happen if it was a union workplace.
There is no official award that could work in our workplace.
We do not pay penalty rates ( why should somebody be paid more for working weekends, when that may be the only time they can work)
Would you swap a weekend shift to work mid week for half pay (i don't think so)
How would our mid week staff feel about working 2 day's for the same money as one that just work's one Sunday (that's not fair i think)
And our company flexibility would be gone
Our staff's flexibility would be gone,they would no longer enjoy their work and
 would look to leave, or retire.
If Labour and their union heavies think they will be able to push small business around, they should think again.
I like many others would just sell our businesses to owner operators, and retire.
Thats the begining of higher unemployment, starting with 60 or 70 of my own ex employee's


----------



## wayneL (12 August 2007)

juiceman said:


> I would like to put the cat amongst the pidgeons for a moment; re Labour and Liberal.
> My company owns 9 retail outlets in shopping centre's in the Eastern States.
> We must by law trade; Thursday night/Saturday and Sunday.
> We employ 60 to 80 people depending on the time of year, most are part time, and have worked WITH us for years.
> ...



Great points juiceman. (a clue to your business in your moniker?)

To remain relevant, todays unions must evolve with the times and reflect the current workplace landscape as you've outlined.

Is there still a place for unions? Certainly not the old style thugs that persist in the building industry, but to try to get rid of them altogether, would virtually guarantee their eventual resurgence.

You sound like the type of employer unions should be encouraging and working with. But there is still a need because there are still plenty of @rseholes out there.


----------



## wayneL (12 August 2007)

Flying Fish said:


> Won't matter who is in power, the next government will fry due to the global situation. My opinion though.



Agree, it's a poison chalice. Not just here, US and UK also.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 August 2007)

Julia said:


> Doesn't it depend somewhat on the business?
> I'm with you and wouldn't work for someone who didn't allow me some input, but I guess a business such as Woolworths isn't going to have every check out operator expecting to have a say in how things are done.



True. It wouldn't work at Wollies. Should have mentioned that the business in question is highly technical computer / engineering / electronics related.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 August 2007)

Flying Fish said:


> Won't matter who is in power, the next government will fry due to the global situation. My opinion though.



I think of this situation every time I hear that "x will happen under Labor". What they aren't saying is it's just as likely to happen under the Liberals. 

The interest rate farce is the absolute classic example since neither Rudd nor Howard are running for election to the US Federal Reserve, Bank of Japan or the European Central Bank.


----------



## juiceman (12 August 2007)

wayneL said:


> Great points juiceman. (a clue to your business in your moniker?)
> 
> To remain relevant, todays unions must evolve with the times and reflect the current workplace landscape as you've outlined.
> 
> ...




Thankyou for your comments WayneL
Without good, and happy staff it would be impossible for my wife and i to have more than one retail outlet as you can only be in one place at a time.
With or without employer unions, business's with owner or manager operator @rsholes are easy to spot, they are the one's that continually have new staff that do not look happy.

Ps when i posted i really expected to be attacked for my comments re penalty rates etc
Maybee i should test the waters with Miss Gillard


----------



## arminius (12 August 2007)

i firmly believe australians should be paid a bonus to be taken away from their friends and family, sport, recreation, or plain ol time out. 
i feel sorry for the retail workers on beautiful sundays, and i get angry to think their bosses only pay them base rates to be there. 
if you make a good profit from their labours on sundays, good on you. 

we asked some friends to come to a barbie today. they couldnt...working.


----------



## zt3000 (13 August 2007)

arminius said:


> i firmly believe australians should be paid a bonus to be taken away from their friends and family, sport, recreation, or plain ol time out.
> i feel sorry for the retail workers on beautiful sundays, and i get angry to think their bosses only pay them base rates to be there.
> if you make a good profit from their labours on sundays, good on you.
> 
> we asked some friends to come to a barbie today. they couldnt...working.




Umm ... were your friends FORCED to work on sunday? 

i think it would be a resounding NO ... in other words we live in a country that values CHOICE .. hence why should someone decide for me if im allowed to go to the shops on a sunday or allowed to work on a sunday? Where is the democracy in that?

Why are so many people in this country so conservative and afraid of change?

Frustrated is an understatement ...


----------



## The Mint Man (13 August 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> We have recorded a 57% productivity increase in 18 months and still trending up.



Must have been bad to start with? 
Also, isnt this exactly what the liberals have been saying all this time? productivity increase since new IR laws.

Cheers


----------



## The Mint Man (13 August 2007)

greggy said:


> Howard and Rudd are indeed very similar.  Both are economic and social conservatives. IMO the major points of difference are IR and Iraq. Howard is well behind in the polls, but is still leading in terms of economic management (according to the polls).  Rudd is definitely playing a smart game agreeing with Howard on most issues. This is shaping up to be a very interesting election, most likely to be held in Nov 07 (my guess). Still undecided as to whom I'll go for.



No, Rudd agreed on Iraq. As for IR, Rudds just pleasing the unions.... for the moment

Cheers


----------



## mark70920 (13 August 2007)

zt3000 said:


> Umm ... were your friends FORCED to work on sunday?
> 
> i think it would be a resounding NO ... in other words we live in a country that values CHOICE .. hence why should someone decide for me if im allowed to go to the shops on a sunday or allowed to work on a sunday? Where is the democracy in that?
> 
> ...





The most precious thing we have as Human Beings is time , once our time is gone it is gone forever. As the animal we are and have involved into over the years , we are not designed to work night shifts (its actually reduces your life span) therefore if you work night shifts it costs you more time than just the time worked, it cost you less time on the planet so you should be paid a penalty.(a real penalty not a token amount)

If you have a young family your time with them again is finite , they won't be children forever if you ask someone to sacrifice quality family time you should pay a penalty , if this is the same across the board all business are paying ,then the cost is passed on to the end user (the consumer) after all they are the people demanding services etc at nights and weekends.

I don't want to live in a society of working robots , where the only measure of success is the bottom line. Do you?

PS I'm not afraid of change , but I want change that is positive to society as a whole ,not just the business community


----------



## Sprinter79 (13 August 2007)

Well said Mark.


----------



## greggy (13 August 2007)

skint said:


> At Centrebet, the shortest odds are all dates in Nov., so I'd have to agree with your 'guess'. The bookies are usually pretty good predictors of election dates and outcomes. The government is currently at $2.60 and Labour at $1.55, but this can change as the campaign heats up of course. Howard will leave it as late as he can IMHO but he probably wouldn't want to hold it over the holiday season. People don't like having their holidays interrupted. Greggy, you've been sitting on that fence for a while now. Careful you don't cause yourself an injury mate!




Hi Skint,

Yes, I've been sitting on the fence for a while. I may need to get a helmet for extra protection. I generally make my final decision towards the end of the election campaign.
I follow politics very closely and majored in it at uni. 
Howard and Rudd are both very similar. Rudd is trying his best not to scare the horses unlike Latham in 04.


----------



## moXJO (13 August 2007)

greggy said:


> Hi Skint,
> 
> Yes, I've been sitting on the fence for a while. I may need to get a helmet for extra protection. I generally make my final decision towards the end of the election campaign.
> I follow politics very closely and majored in it at uni.
> Howard and Rudd are both very similar. Rudd is trying his best not to scare the horses unlike Latham in 04.




I'll join you on that fence for the moment and see how it pans out late in the election campaign


----------



## Julia (13 August 2007)

arminius said:


> i firmly believe australians should be paid a bonus to be taken away from their friends and family, sport, recreation, or plain ol time out.
> i feel sorry for the retail workers on beautiful sundays, and i get angry to think their bosses only pay them base rates to be there.
> if you make a good profit from their labours on sundays, good on you.
> 
> we asked some friends to come to a barbie today. they couldnt...working.




I had one job where I worked shift work (airline).  Sometimes a 4.30 am start, sometimes a 2am finish.  Didn't hurt me a bit and I really enjoyed having weekdays to shop at leisure and just enjoy being free when everyone else was at work.  Even opted to work Christmas Day one year and completely enjoyed it.  

If people don't like their working conditions surely in this time of high employment they can find something they prefer.


----------



## Rafa (13 August 2007)

Julia said:


> If people don't like their working conditions surely in this time of high employment they can find something they prefer.





the word choice seems to be coming up an awful lot... (zt3000 brought it up earlier) as a justification for the new IR policies...

There is one thing to have choice, its a completely different thing to have the option to excercise choice.

Not everyone is in a position to make choices... Certainly, in the present boom times more people have the option to make a choice... (how long is this going to last?). Still for most, its means moving into mining, or changing careers...

But with record high debt being burdened on the young... both with education costs, mortgage / rent costs, cost of living... the ability to excercise choice is diminishing by the day...

Again, this doesn't apply to any us in this forum... Nor does it apply to those of us who value money more than time... in those cases, the choice is easy.


----------



## moXJO (13 August 2007)

Rafa said:


> But with record high debt being burdened on the young... both with education costs, mortgage / rent costs, cost of living... the ability to excercise choice is diminishing by the day...
> 
> Again, this doesn't apply to any us in this forum... Nor does it apply to those of us who value money more than time... in those cases, the choice is easy.




Doesn’t seem to stop people running out and buying the biggest TVs I have ever seen (how much profit has Harvey Norman made even with all these interest rates).Sooner or later people will learn the nasty lesson of saving when in boom times. Even the simple act of saving for a deposit on a house has been eroded.I have friends that seem to splurge and splurge. I can't figure out how the hell the can buy so much when they are already in so much debt.

Personal responsibility, and a bit of thought into your own future, would not go astray in this country


----------



## Rafa (13 August 2007)

Can't argue with that...

we are indeed the lucky country... no where else does the ordinary working class enjoy such high standard of living.

why should that be? i guess we can't have paradise forever


----------



## chops_a_must (13 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> Doesn’t seem to stop people running out and buying the biggest TVs I have ever seen (how much profit has Harvey Norman made even with all these interest rates).Sooner or later people will learn the nasty lesson of saving when in boom times. Even the simple act of saving for a deposit on a house has been eroded.I have friends that seem to splurge and splurge. I can't figure out how the hell the can buy so much when they are already in so much debt.



The statement was about pressures on the young, not about people already established.


moXJO said:


> Personal responsibility, and a bit of thought into your own future, would not go astray in this country



Surely this may have spilled over into voting habits... wouldn't you say?


----------



## moXJO (13 August 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> The statement was about pressures on the young, not about people already established.
> 
> Surely this may have spilled over into voting habits... wouldn't you say?




Thats funny I was talking about 23year old couple in my example.Or are you talking younger and less established, that at this time have the opportunity to make a killing in the mines if they delay studies for 2 years?


----------



## Rafa (13 August 2007)

i'll repeat what i said...
There is one thing to have choice, its a completely different thing to have the option to excercise choice.

the choices exist because of the mining boom... (tho i am sure not everyone is cut out to be a miner!) The IR laws will exist long after it....

If someone CHOOSES to work weekends at no penalty rates simply to help stop their house being repossessed... do you call that having CHOICE?

And if someone refuses to accept lower conditions, but there are many people grudgingly accepting it so as to stop their houses being repossesed... or pay off their huge HECS debts, or to get that big plasma TV that everyone apparently HAS to have.... what do you have then...?

the CHOICE of being unemployed or to have a race to the bottom in wages and conditions.

guess which choice most are going to take...

i am all for personal responsibility... but then be prepared for huge social inequity and the other social repercussions that come with that... cause in the end, we do all live in the same society... you need look no further than the US for proof.

If your happy with that... then thats fine... thats your CHOICE. Cast your vote accordingly.


----------



## moXJO (13 August 2007)

Rafa said:


> i'll repeat what i said...
> There is one thing to have choice, its a completely different thing to have the option to excercise choice.
> 
> the choices exist because of the mining boom... (tho i am sure not everyone is cut out to be a miner!) The IR laws will exist long after it....
> ...




So award rates have been done away with alltogether with no employee protection?


----------



## Sprinter79 (13 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> So award rates have been done away with alltogether with no employee protection?




You just summed up where it's heading beautifully.


----------



## mark70920 (13 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> So award rates have been done away with alltogether with no employee protection?




At the moment award rates still exist , but the majority of new positions will be AWA's , if someone on the EBA leaves the , new person will only be offered an AWA(this happens where I work) so in time there will be no one left on EBA's or awards. If there no one on an award it will not be reviewed and will remain static , so if you compare an AWA to the old award it will look much better because the old awards value would not have risen in real terms in years.
The majority of Australian still work under EBA and awards , the sky hasn't fallen. If the Liberals get in again they will be working toward getting the majority on AWA's , given time this will occur. Not because this is what people wanted most will have no choice. The social security safe net will be futher eroded and the minimum wage will be something you tell your grand children about.


----------



## The Mint Man (13 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> I can't figure out how the hell the can buy so much when they are already in so much debt.
> 
> Personal responsibility, and a bit of thought into your own future, would not go astray in this country



Can't agree more. I'm sick of all these people going on about interest rates when they got themsef into the situation to start with. I understand that some people are doing it tough but I think alot of these people have got in way over their head without even thinking about the future. Also, there was more than enough warning to lock their rate in! why didn't they do it? simply because it would have cost a little more for alot of saving down the track? 
I bought my first house around June 07' and just caught an interest rate rise but it was locked in from there so I've missed the rest, I just cant see why everyone else would not have done the same. surely they could see it coming

Cheers


----------



## chops_a_must (13 August 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> Also, there was more than enough warning to lock their rate in! why didn't they do it? simply because it would have cost a little more for alot of saving down the track?



Perhaps because honest john promised to keep interest rates at record lows?


----------



## wayneL (13 August 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Perhaps because honest john promised to keep interest rates at record lows?



Exactly!

Gu'mints (not just here but all over) have been promising lower interest rates right up until a couple of months ago.

Merv (the perve) King had been promising that inflation would ease (and therefore interest rates) for the last eighteen months.

This is something that many young people can only learn the hard way... Governments LIE!


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 August 2007)

wayneL said:


> people can only learn the hard way... Governments LIE!




hey cmon wayne !!
they don't lie!
just that, well, 
sometimes, they get the line wrong between "core promises" and "non-core"


----------



## moXJO (13 August 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> hey cmon wayne !!
> they don't lie!
> just that, well,
> sometimes, they get the line wrong between "core promises" and "non-core"




You mean children have been living in poverty since 1990
Honest johns best one was the "I will not introduce GST"


----------



## Julia (13 August 2007)

Rafa said:


> i'll repeat what i said...
> There is one thing to have choice, its a completely different thing to have the option to excercise choice.
> 
> the choices exist because of the mining boom... (tho i am sure not everyone is cut out to be a miner!) The IR laws will exist long after it....
> ...



Rafa, I simply can't follow your reasoning here.  As I stated earlier, yes indeed I did choose to work weekends and at no penalty rates.  Nothing to do with a house being repossessed.  
I have always had plenty of choices of jobs and never had to consider being a miner, for heaven's sake.
Why does personal responsiblity imply huge social inequity?  I would have thought quite the reverse.  If more people did take responsibility for their own lives and outcomes, we would have a damn sight fewer people existing on welfare.


----------



## arminius (13 August 2007)

good evening all,

as i watch the value of my portfolio shrink each day i am somewhat comforted to read savvy people contributing to an entertaining and informed discussion on the future of australia. 
i was hoping to ask a nagging question. in what way has our g'ment advanced the country over the last decade. 
these areas should be able to stand up to reasoned scrutiny here.
ann's made in the last 3 months dont count as they are either reactionary or poll driven. leave aside the economy, as global influence, a massive mining boom, and divided opinion among respected economists eg ross gittens require its own thread. 
a decade is a fair timeframe to judge a gov't that has controlled both houses.

eg: national security, education, human rights, environment, infrastructure etc.


----------



## kivvygosh (13 August 2007)

> The majority of Australian still work under EBA and awards



I wonder if there are any statistics to back this up?

I've only been in the workforce since after John Howard was elected.  My first job was under an EBA - I supposed because it was for Australia Post, which is a Government owned company and fairly unionised.  I expect that they are still putting people on EBAs over there.

However in the half dozen + jobs I've had since, I've always worked on either AWA (twice) or Common Law agreement (the rest).

One of the employers that offered an AWA gave the option of an award but, as anyone who has earnt award wages knows, the choice between an award and an AWA is generally an easy one.  The employer is prepared to pay significantly more to you in return for the 'flexibility' (ie if you don't perform they can fire you).

I've done some quick searches on percentages of workers employed under different types of contracts but can't find anything.  Anyone know of any sources?


----------



## mark70920 (14 August 2007)

kivvygosh said:


> I wonder if there are any statistics to back this up?
> 
> I've only been in the workforce since after John Howard was elected.  My first job was under an EBA - I supposed because it was for Australia Post, which is a Government owned company and fairly unionised.  I expect that they are still putting people on EBAs over there.
> 
> ...





I will try to find you some stats , but it difficult as both the unions and the government quote different figures , I have attach a link to an article on wages and conditions on awards , EBA's vs AWA's. It may suprise you.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/05/1970390.htm


----------



## mark70920 (14 August 2007)

Here is the link to the governement site on work place agreements stats

http://www.oea.gov.au/text.asp?showdoc=/news/researchStatistics.asp


----------



## Sprinter79 (14 August 2007)

mark70920 said:


> I will try to find you some stats , but it difficult as both the unions and the government quote different figures , I have attach a link to an article on wages and conditions on awards , EBA's vs AWA's. It may suprise you.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/05/1970390.htm




Some key stats: 

*Take WA out of the picture, and everywhere else AWA workers average 11 per cent less than workers on collective agreements. 

*Female casuals on registered individual contracts averaged 8 per cent less than those reliant on the award. And this was before the full impact of abolishing the no-disadvantage test was felt.

*88 per cent of AWAs abolished or 'modified' overtime rates; 89 per cent of AWAs either abolished or 'modified' shiftwork loading; 91 per cent abolished or 'modified' monetary allowances; 85 per cent abolished or 'modified' incentive payments; 82 per cent abolished or 'modified' public holiday payments; and 83 per cent abolished or 'modified' rest breaks. (FWIW, rest breaks are an OHS issue, so AWA's that abolish rest breaks would be breaking both state and federal OHS legislation)

*We know that AWAs last for up to five years, and that while a majority of AWAs gave at least one wage increase, for only 14 per cent was it a guaranteed, quantifiable increase.

*The new no-disadvantage test doesn't apply to AWAs already signed.


----------



## Rafa (14 August 2007)

Julia said:


> If more people did take responsibility for their own lives and outcomes, we would have a damn sight fewer people existing on welfare.




I agree 100%... in theory. But I think you are overestimating peoples capabilities to do the above... 

I am coming mainly from the social consequences point of view... the more poeple that falll off the social ladder, the worse it gets for everyone in society... unless you build a moat around your neighbourhood and protect it with force.

Its also the reason, where in the country where that principle is adhered to most stringently... everyone needs to carry guns and there are lot of people on welfare or working for $5 an hour.

Having AWA's means its a race to the bottom in wages and conditions.... and huge profits for those who run businesses... 

What makes a society great is the collective wealth not the individual wealth. That is why Australia is such a great country today and the UK 100 years ago was filled with petty thieves they had to dispatch to Australia... Did anyone see the worst jobs in history... the cigarette matches factory workers in the UK... no wonder the union movement started... that was barely 100 years ago... not that long time ago... and its that that distributed the wealth from the owners to the workers and made the country as a whole a lot more prosperous.


----------



## numbercruncher (14 August 2007)

Julia said:


> Why does personal responsiblity imply huge social inequity?  I would have thought quite the reverse.  If more people did take responsibility for their own lives and outcomes, we would have a damn sight fewer people existing on welfare.




I see this kind of statement as narrow minded but roughly typical of the Baby boomer mindset.

By mere virtue of being born when they where baby boomers have Inherited a kind of prosperity that has not been enjoyed by virtually any other generation ever.

They havnt worked harder or smarter, they where simply in the right place at the right time.

Perhaps if more people took responsibility for "other" peoples lives we would have a damn sight fewer people existing on Welfare eh ?

Australias economic prosperity of the last few years has done little more than build an economic bridge between the haves and have nots.

I see this all across Australia, I even have a personal experience of this, My parents are divorced, One is a Millionaire and one "exists" on welfare, One gets richer by the day the other is 100pc reliant on welfare.

The socio econmomic gap in Australia has been widened hugely the last few years and i know its easy when you have it all to question why others dont, but to treat them with distain is simply unAustralian


----------



## moXJO (14 August 2007)

Seems awards are a sticking point here. So if awards were protected but the dismissal laws remained the same would that be a justifiable trade off, or still not kosher?


----------



## Rafa (14 August 2007)

moXJO,

i have no problems with unfair dismissal laws being abolished for small businesses ... as long as the NO DISADVANTAGE test is retained in terms of wages and conditions.

I would re-define what a small business is... i.e. i think 100 staff ain't no small business... i would define it more on turnover... say > 10m. But certainly agree with the principle.


----------



## Julia (14 August 2007)

Rafa said:


> I agree 100%... in theory. But I think you are overestimating peoples capabilities to do the above...
> 
> I am coming mainly from the social consequences point of view... the more poeple that falll off the social ladder, the worse it gets for everyone in society... unless you build a moat around your neighbourhood and protect it with force.
> 
> ...



Fair comment, Rafa.  I understand what you are saying.


----------



## Julia (14 August 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> I see this kind of statement as narrow minded but roughly typical of the Baby boomer mindset.
> 
> By mere virtue of being born when they where baby boomers have Inherited a kind of prosperity that has not been enjoyed by virtually any other generation ever.
> 
> They havnt worked harder or smarter, they where simply in the right place at the right time.



What a silly generalisation.  I'm not interested in telling you of the many difficulties I and many of my friends have had to overcome, but simply inheriting prosperity wasn't part of it.  I recall interest rates of 22% for starters.



> Perhaps if more people took responsibility for "other" peoples lives we would have a damn sight fewer people existing on Welfare eh ?



It so happens that I spend many hours working with people on welfare in several different capacities in order to make their lives more manageable, and am mostly not paid for this.  I see all the time first hand those who make a genuine attempt to change their lives and who have been immensely unfortunate, but also plenty who are perfectly content to exist on the dole and have no interest in getting a job.  Example:  a bunch of bikies sharing accommodation, all getting either the dole or Disability Pension, behind in the rent, unpaid electricity, because the money has gone into alcohol and drugs, plus their long distance rides.



> Australias economic prosperity of the last few years has done little more than build an economic bridge between the haves and have nots.
> 
> I see this all across Australia, I even have a personal experience of this, My parents are divorced, One is a Millionaire and one "exists" on welfare, One gets richer by the day the other is 100pc reliant on welfare.
> 
> The socio econmomic gap in Australia has been widened hugely the last few years and i know its easy when you have it all to question why others dont, but to treat them with distain is simply unAustralian



You are making assumptions with arrogance and ignorance.


----------



## numbercruncher (14 August 2007)

Julia said:


> What a silly generalisation.  I'm not interested in telling you of the many difficulties I and many of my friends have had to overcome, but simply inheriting prosperity wasn't part of it.  I recall interest rates of 22% for starters.




Sure it was baby boomers mostly Inherited there wealth, you didnt work for a 500k home you worked for a 80k home, the boom did all the work.

22pc Interest rates, personally id like those times to return.



> It so happens that I spend many hours working with people on welfare in several different capacities in order to make their lives more manageable, and am mostly not paid for this.  I see all the time first hand those who make a genuine attempt to change their lives and who have been immensely unfortunate, but also plenty who are perfectly content to exist on the dole and have no interest in getting a job.  Example:  a bunch of bikies sharing accommodation, all getting either the dole or Disability Pension, behind in the rent, unpaid electricity, because the money has gone into alcohol and drugs, plus their long distance rides.




Good on you for your charitable work.

Where are all these Bikies on the Dole that you speak of ? Does the dole pay enough now a days to buy Drugs , Alcohol, rent , motorcycles and petrol, wow thats awesome, where do i sign up ? This is what im talking about with typical baby boomer mindsets.



> You are making assumptions with arrogance and ignorance




Sorry you took it all so personally.


----------



## moXJO (14 August 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Sure it was baby boomers mostly Inherited there wealth, you didnt work for a 500k home you worked for a 80k home, the boom did all the work.
> 
> 22pc Interest rates, personally id like those times to return.
> 
> ...




What an odd way of looking at things


----------



## numbercruncher (14 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> What an odd way of looking at things




lol i know im an odd person. 


Just tales from Baby boomers of there hardships bore me to tears because they are for the large part exagerated and it irks me when they turn around and insinuate that those without dont try or are mostly the sum of there own equation.

For the large part the baby boomers wealth is the debt of the current generation.

Im not begrudging baby boomers, just seems alot of them take the deal forgranted and dont realise how easy it was/is for them.


----------



## moXJO (14 August 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> lol i know im an odd person.
> 
> 
> Just tales from Baby boomers of there hardships bore me to tears because they are for the large part exagerated and it irks me when they turn around and insinuate that those without dont try or are mostly the sum of there own equation.
> ...




Lol ,not odd in bad way. That was actually a perspective I had not thought about.

However I do believe that at this time there is a lot of opportunities in a lot of areas to get yourself ahead. With some forward thinking and the shortage of skilled workers in so many areas it’s a great time to look at your options. Takes some hard work but depends on how much you want it.Nothing wrong with being happy in your current position of course.


----------



## numbercruncher (14 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> Lol ,not odd in bad way. That was actually a perspective I had not thought about.
> 
> However I do believe that at this time there is a lot of opportunities in a lot of areas to get yourself ahead. With some forward thinking and the shortage of skilled workers in so many areas it’s a great time to look at your options. Takes some hard work but depends on how much you want it.Nothing wrong with being happy in your current position of course.




I agree moXJO , there is loads of opportunities and particularly like you said if you plan ahead. I read there is a plumber shortage at the moment with most not getting out of bed for less than 1500 a day - now thats pretty cool , Plumbers on 300k+ a year.

Maybe its part of the reason why its been thumbed a crack up boom.

There is how ever a growing proportion of society that have been left behind, and id cite especially the Young (which is demonstrated in the sheer numbers of 20 somethings still living at home) and the ones whom i feel most sorry for are the very old who are retired on there 1980s money.

Its just become to convienient to blame the have nots for there have nots.

I made a considerable profit on the first house i bought and sold, but i know i didnt "earn" that profit but someone sure paid for it by indebting there future.

I dont know what an equitable solution is, but it all seems so unsustainable to me.

The government touts how theyve reduced Government debt to zero, but this debt has merely been transferred (and increased) to Citizens in the form of personal debt and mortgages, if the good times dont keep rolling, man o man ....


----------



## Julia (14 August 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Sure it was baby boomers mostly Inherited there wealth, you didnt work for a 500k home you worked for a 80k home, the boom did all the work.
> 
> 22pc Interest rates, personally id like those times to return.
> 
> ...



I shall defer to your superior sociological understanding and breadth of experience.


----------



## The Mint Man (14 August 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Perhaps because honest john promised to keep interest rates at record lows?



IMO your a nut job if at those rates you didn't lock it in, no matter what anyone says. Moral to the story is, stop blaming others for your own stupid decisions.


----------



## The Mint Man (14 August 2007)

Julia said:


> If more people did take responsibility for their own lives and outcomes, we would have a damn sight fewer people existing on welfare.



Well said!


----------



## numbercruncher (14 August 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> Well said!




Karma is not about retribution, vengeance, punishment or reward; karma simply deals with what is. The effects of all deeds actively create past, present and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one's own life, and the pain and joy it brings to others.


----------



## The Mint Man (14 August 2007)

what the hell are you on about? go back to reading 'the secret' mate. Maybe the universe will deal you a better head:bonk:

Cheers


----------



## numbercruncher (14 August 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> what the hell are you on about? go back to reading 'the secret' mate. Maybe the universe will deal you a better head:bonk:
> 
> Cheers





I can handle your insults safe in the knowledge that you will someday come back as a lesser being.

But i think you should apologise to chops-a-must for the unwarranted calling a Nutjob and stupid. Is that how you communicate with people in society or just when you get to hide behind a computer screen ?

Failing that a chill pill may be of assistance.


----------



## chops_a_must (14 August 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> But i think you should apologise to chops-a-must for the unwarranted calling a Nutjob and stupid. Is that how you communicate with people in society or just when you get to hide behind a computer screen ?



Did he?

I don't remember that. Technically, he is correct with the nutjob comment, but not with the stupid comment. I'd say the opposite of one is the reason for the other.


----------



## chops_a_must (14 August 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> IMO your a nut job if at those rates you didn't lock it in, no matter what anyone says. Moral to the story is, stop blaming others for your own stupid decisions.




So as a Howard supporter, you believe things in a way totally contrary to Howard?

But I'm not stupid enough to buy overvalued property at the top of a cycle. And wont be for a long time (buying property that is, not stupid). Buying a house in the last few years is nothing but stupid.


----------



## moXJO (14 August 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> So as a Howard supporter, you believe things in a way totally contrary to Howard?
> 
> But I'm not stupid enough to buy overvalued property at the top of a cycle. And wont be for a long time (buying property that is, not stupid). Buying a house in the last few years is nothing but stupid.




  Are you a Rudd supporter or just anti Howard out of interest. Actually are most on here Anti Howard or Rudd supporters?


----------



## Sprinter79 (14 August 2007)

I'm anti-polititions. We can only but hope for some kind of bird flu that targets only those in 'the house' :


----------



## moXJO (14 August 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> I'm anti-polititions. We can only but hope for some kind of bird flu that targets only those in 'the house' :




You know somethings wrong when both labor and liberals are basically the same.You know somethings really wrong when the leaders of both partys start looking the same.If Rudds eyebrows start filling out I'm outa here.


----------



## arminius (14 August 2007)

anyone see downer on lateline?
i just wanna smash him.

heres a question for costello
do you think honesty is a requirement for high office?


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 August 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Buying a house in the last few years is nothing but stupid.



Depends on your reason for buying. Agreed if it's as a long term investment since there were certainly better options to buy things that were under or at least fairly valued rather than over valued.

But if it's just a house to live in then it could be argued that it's just another form of consumption spending. Computers, new cars, any TV or similar device, current CD's, in-fashion clothing and so on are _always_ over valued relative to likely future prices just a few months away but that won't stop most people from buying them just because they are absolutely a dud investment.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> Are you a Rudd supporter or just anti Howard out of interest. Actually are most on here Anti Howard or Rudd supporters?



Neither. I'm just in favour of long term thinking over short termism.

It's sad that there are so few examples of progressive leadership in Australian politics. Only two come to mind in recent decades.

1. Paul Keating for his economic reforms which, despite inflicting great pain at the time thus risking the government's re-election, laid the foundations for at least some of the prosperity we now enjoy.

2. Tasmanian premier Eric Reece (Labor) who lead the state throughout the 1960's. A consistent policy of minimising current expenditure and investing practically every last cent into infrastructure and then using that infrastructure to attract wealth creating industry saw the state prosper economically. Indeed by some measures Tasmania was ahead of Queensland and WA in absolute (not population adjusted) terms during that era. To this day, a large portion of Tasmania's exports relate directly to decisons made by the Reece government.

Worth noting that even subsequent Liberal governments freely proclaimed Reece as by far the state's greatest leader with the Greens being his only real critic, though even their criticism relates largely to a single issue. Another notable feature (so I am told by a former ABC news employee) was his lack of minders, spin doctors and the like. 

...

As for Howard, I'm not against him or the Liberals but Howard just doesn't rate in terms of actually having done anything much progressive and visionary IMO. Watching interest rates fluctuate around the world and encouraging speculation over production doesn't fit my definition of leadership. It is purely coincidental that both the examples above are Labor - I've certainly been known to vote Liberal (and Labor) in the past depending on the circumstances at the time and will likely vote for both at various times in the future (depending on what happens of course).


----------



## zt3000 (15 August 2007)

If your a fan of quesiton time or paliament debates

http://webcast.aph.gov.au/livebroadcasting/

LIVE webcast of House of Reps, Senate etc ... good stuff

i love watching them rip into each other and when you think there is no comeback .. they pull a rabbit out the hat and stick it back 

so much fun heheh


----------



## The Mint Man (15 August 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> I can handle your insults safe in the knowledge that you will someday come back as a lesser being.



:eek3: sure your on the right forum?



numbercruncher said:


> But i think you should apologise to chops-a-must for the unwarranted calling a Nutjob and stupid. Is that how you communicate with people in society or just when you get to hide behind a computer screen ?



I think chops knows that wasnt directed at him, weve both been around long enough to know that. It was a general comment directed at those who didnt lock their interest rate in at say 5.5% - 6%, how much lower did they expect it to go?
Oh, and yes I would say this to people if they were winging about how their interest rate went from 5.5% a few years ago to 8% now. Like I say it would be very silly if you didnt lock them in at those sort of rates.
By the way, the reason I used the word nutjob was because your 'the secret' style of posts reminded me of The Chasers nutjob of the week, the one where the nutjob for the week was 'the secret'. So it was at the back of my mind at the time.



numbercruncher said:


> Failing that a chill pill may be of assistance.



 Im fine, no problems here. Im simply joining in on the forum. On the other hand your the one going on about kama and all sorts of rubbish that has nothing to do with the conversation. I think your the one that has been taking pills and their definitly not 'chill' pills.:emp::aliena:

Cheers

Edit: anyone here thinking that this guy might be the son of Bullmarket?... 'numbercruncher, I am your father'


----------



## Rafa (15 August 2007)

Julia, Mint Man... I don't think your man in the lodge is listening to what you have to say...



> JOHN HOWARD has warned Coalition MPs and senators to resist from blaming the housing affordability crisis on people aspiring to have bigger and better homes than their parents.
> 
> In a party room address yesterday the Prime Minister said it was "very important that we do not lecture people about their expectations".
> 
> ...




Oh dear...


----------



## Julia (15 August 2007)

Rafa said:


> Julia, Mint Man... I don't think your man in the lodge is listening to what you have to say...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear...



Rafa, I'm disappointed to say that my views about our fearless leader are diminishing daily.  Plus the latest revelation about Costello's confidences to journalists confirming further how little he comprehends about trust and loyalty.
I'm still not ready to vote Labor, but I was particularly disgusted with John Howard's announcement of  funding for the Tasmanian hospital which is pure politicking (is that a word?) and not at all in the interests of good medical care.  Ditto his offer to fund referenda on the Council amalgamations here in Qld.  It won't affect the outcome (legislation has now been passed) but was a clear attempt to wedge federal Labor and buy votes.

Your "oh dear" is well founded.  We have more months of this to come, sadly.


----------



## Rafa (15 August 2007)

i must admit... i am sick and tired of politics in general, and in particular this blame game politics of the howard variety... 


This  Hospital issue / Queensland council issue has cause to me look at this from another angle...

I will be voting labour simply so that we DO get wall to wall labour govts... then there is no excuses. They will have 3 years to sort out the mess... if they stuff up, this will be the last time they get my vote.

Do i expect them to succeed... NO, simply becuase all Politicians are useless... But I am willing to give them a chance simply becuase voting for the libs, with labor holding states, means there is no end in sight for this buck passing...


----------



## moXJO (15 August 2007)

Rafa said:


> i must admit... i am sick and tired of politics in general, and in particular this blame game politics of the howard variety...
> 
> 
> This  Hospital issue / Queensland council issue has cause to me look at this from another angle...
> ...




Yes would hope they could actually work together.Hopefully not stuff things up more and then raise the gst.


----------



## Nicks (15 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> Yes would hope they could actually work together.Hopefully not stuff things up more and then raise the gst.




Wouldn't suprise me if thats is what he does next if he wins. The arrogance will really go to his head and to cover up for all the spending the GSt will be the next thing that adds just a percent or three.


----------



## skint (15 August 2007)

Nicks said:


> Wouldn't suprise me if thats is what he does next if he wins. The arrogance will really go to his head and to cover up for all the spending the GSt will be the next thing that adds just a percent or three.




As far as thoughtless spending goes, Howard is in a league of his own. As Costello has repeatedly said, Howard throws huge amounts of money around before an election, with re-election the only consideration. For example, the $10b on federalising the water wasn't even run through treasury for costing. He just plucked a large figure out of his head presumably. How many billions have been spent stuffing up Iraq, or government advertising etc, etc etc..As far as a high taxing government goes, the coalition win on that count also. Pity they can't spend it wisely. Tax receipts have never been so high nor been wasted more carelessly. I don't view Rudd as the 'great saviour', but he could hardly be worse than the goat of a PM we currently endure.


----------



## moXJO (15 August 2007)

skint said:


> As far as thoughtless spending goes, Howard is in a league of his own. As Costello has repeatedly said, Howard throws huge amounts of money around before an election, with re-election the only consideration. For example, the $10b on federalising the water wasn't even run through treasury for costing. He just plucked a large figure out of his head presumably. How many billions have been spent stuffing up Iraq, or government advertising etc, etc etc..As far as a high taxing government goes, the coalition win on that count also. Pity they can't spend it wisely. Tax receipts have never been so high nor been wasted more carelessly. I don't view Rudd as the 'great saviour', but he could hardly be worse than the goat of a PM we currently endure.




Rudd has promised to spend less but he wont say by how much.Remember the disaster that was latham his figures didnt exactly add up either.


----------



## bepra1 (15 August 2007)

I would vote for John Howard but I don't like the idea of Peter Costello replacing him as Prime Minister. He is cunning and ambitious man who will do everything to get in power.....


----------



## chops_a_must (15 August 2007)

bepra1 said:


> I would vote for John Howard but I don't like the idea of Peter Costello replacing him as Prime Minister. He is cunning and ambitious man who will do everything to get in power.....




Lol!


----------



## Mousie (15 August 2007)

Good one Chops; still waiting for Peter to perform a Macchiavelli...


----------



## wayneL (15 August 2007)

bepra1 said:


> I would vote for John Howard but I don't like the idea of Peter Costello replacing him as Prime Minister. He is cunning and ambitious man who will do everything to get in power.....



The irony....... just beautiful. LOL!


----------



## moXJO (16 August 2007)

Will this nasty downturn affect the way the general population votes?


----------



## Rafa (16 August 2007)

well hopefuly they might realise the good times are less to do with the libs and more to do with the US / Japan / EU Feds and their easy credit policies of the last decade. (i.e. 0% to 3% interest rates...)

somehow i doubt it tho, i can see this play into the hands of the libs cause everyone believes its them that keep interest rates low


----------



## moXJO (16 August 2007)

Rafa said:


> well hopefuly they might realise the good times are less to do with the libs and more to do with the US / Japan / EU Feds and their easy credit policies of the last decade. (i.e. 0% to 3% interest rates...)
> 
> somehow i doubt it tho, i can see this play into the hands of the libs cause everyone believes its them that keep interest rates low




Will they keep the same government in during uncertain times,given Rudds experiance is lacking.


----------



## The Mint Man (16 August 2007)

Rafa said:


> I will be voting labour simply so that we DO get wall to wall labour govts... then there is no excuses. They will have 3 years to sort out the mess... if they stuff up, this will be the last time they get my vote...



I agree, I have expected this to be the case for a while. I think labor will get in, be over their head and in 3 years time be booted out again.
But who knows, the same people joining in on all those polls may get to the booth and put 1 in the liberals box, and I wouldnt blame them.... Better the devil you know.


----------



## arminius (16 August 2007)

'better the devil you know'

all things considered, that is the most ridiculous thing i have read in a long time.


----------



## Broadside (16 August 2007)

arminius said:


> 'better the devil you know'
> 
> all things considered, that is the most ridiculous thing i have read in a long time.




Like it or not, in times of uncertainty people take the safe option not the brave one.  Still think Rudd will win but Howard's odds will shorten if interest rates keep rising (counter intuitive) and if credit crunch sends jitters into the "real" economy ie affects Joe Average. 

I think the ripples will appear after the next election though.


----------



## chops_a_must (16 August 2007)

arminius said:


> 'better the devil you know'
> 
> all things considered, that is the most ridiculous thing i have read in a long time.



It's also the second most hilariously ironic thing said on this page, considering we don't actually know for certain there are 2 devils in this contest...


----------



## chops_a_must (16 August 2007)

wayneL said:


> The irony....... just beautiful. LOL!



I can't be sure if it's irony or sarcasm...


----------



## moXJO (16 August 2007)

arminius said:


> 'better the devil you know'
> 
> all things considered, that is the most ridiculous thing i have read in a long time.




The majority of  people beyond this board could care less about the election. Or don’t have a clue about either partys.So the statement 'better the devil you know' may hold weight with them.

After the panic on the market today it just shows that fear is a great driver.


----------



## Sprinter79 (16 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> fear is a great driver.




I dunno about that. Last time i let fear drive my car, the bastard wrote it off. Prick


----------



## chops_a_must (21 August 2007)

Geez... there is an enormous variety of puns one can use for the current situation... and I'm surprised no-one has taken the bait...

Shame, shame, shame...


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 August 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> I agree, I have expected this to be the case for a while. I think labor will get in, be over their head and in 3 years time be booted out again.
> But who knows, the same people joining in on all those polls may get to the booth and put 1 in the liberals box, and I wouldnt blame them.... Better the devil you know.



IMO whoever wins the next election stands a very good chance of losing the following one. 

Interest rates and petrol prices are both losers as far as governments are concerned and both are likely to keep trending up IMO. If the Liberals stay in, they'll lose at least some of their economic credibility. If Labor wins this time, they'll cop the blame for a deteriorating situation for Joe Average.


----------



## moXJO (22 August 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> IMO whoever wins the next election stands a very good chance of losing the following one.
> 
> Interest rates and petrol prices are both losers as far as governments are concerned and both are likely to keep trending up IMO. If the Liberals stay in, they'll lose at least some of their economic credibility. If Labor wins this time, they'll cop the blame for a deteriorating situation for Joe Average.




Labor will simply blame libs for the mess same as always.Bit like the current situation of labor taking glory for the boom.Rudd can distract Joe Average with his own brand of tity bar 'Rudds Jugs' or something similar.Best name wins bragging rights.


----------



## Rafa (22 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> Labor will simply blame libs for the mess same as always.Bit like the current situation of labor taking glory for the boom.Rudd can distract Joe Average with his own brand of tity bar 'Rudds Jugs' or something similar.Best name wins bragging rights.




Conversely, if libs win, they will still blame labor for the mess... somehow!!! 

All politicians should be hung, drawn and quartered


----------



## whitta27 (22 August 2007)

I think people that make comments like that actually wish they had the balls to hold a position such as politician.. instead of just being the typical joe blow bagger of politicians that gives neither their money to time for the betterment of society.

Thats not a reflection specifically on previous posters just people that take the easy view.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 August 2007)

what a classic lol.
Just heard on PM .,..
Tas Labour have successfully called Abbott's bluff 
They offer him Mersey Hospital (at Latrobe) for $1 lol
provided it happens before the fed election
Abbott says " no, they need time for due diligence check".
State Health Minister Lara Giddings responds...
"since when do you need due diligence for a deal worth $1 ?? lol - ripper.

Just happens to be a marginal seat . 

She goes on to accuse the coalition of setting up another "non-core" promise   - and at this rate, you'd have to say she's probably right - no way do they want that little problem "cured" before the election .


----------



## arminius (22 August 2007)

excuse me moxjo...

can u explain to us here how labour is taking the glory for the mining boom, when not a day goes by without costello or howard bragging about how good the economy is, yet none of them dares breathe the word 'mining'. lets take our mining income back to 1985 levels and we'll see how much cash is sloshing around canberra.

this government is imploding. it's corrupt, malicious, and is currently looking up the fascist manual 'how to win elections'

here's a quote from martin boremann's secret notes taken during mealtimes at hitler's prussian bunker. 
'generally speaking, the people never question an established regime; they are content to accept things as they are'.
sound like anyone we know?
 no one has replied to an earlier question re: what has this govt done to advance oz. pre mid 2007 election promises ( p barrelling). 
waiting..............waiting..............waiting................


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 August 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> what a classic lol.
> Just heard on PM .,..
> Tas Labour have successfully called Abbott's bluff
> They offer him Mersey Hospital (at Latrobe) for $1 lol
> ...



It's a marginal seat alright. It's a perpetual Tassie joke about the roads up there too - Burnie with it's 20,000 or so people gets the best highway in the state whilst Hobart has by far the worst access in the state and, unlike Burnie, somehow completely misses out on the National Highway funding thrown around so liberally in the North-West.

Needless to say, a marginal seat in the North-West versus reasonably safe Labor seats in Hobart. Apart from forgetting the name of the local Liberal candidate and pursuing the union background of Labor candidates (until recently Kevin Harkins), Johnny doesn't seem too interested in this end of the state.

As for Lara, she's one of the more capable people in politics in any party IMO. Quite a few visitors to Tas seem genuinely surprised to watch the news and find someone of that age (34) holding such a senior and contentious portfolio as health (and previously minister for economic development). She's been in parliament since her early 20's and it wouldn't surprise me if she ends up being premier.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 August 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's a marginal seat alright. It's a perpetual Tassie joke about the roads up there too - Burnie with it's 20,000 or so people gets the best highway in the state whilst Hobart has by far the worst access in the state and, unlike Burnie, somehow completely misses out on the National Highway funding thrown around so liberally in the North-West.



howdy smurf -  ahh to be living in a marginal electoral district at the moment , lol
heck, if Burnie / Devonport etc get such good roads - and if they end up with the only federally run hospital in the country, (ignoring territorities) , and the feds  wouldn't dare let that run down -   then..
sounds like Burnie might be a good spot to retire to 

Heck, by then, Lara might be the first lady president ! 
(by which I mean her husband would be "first lady" - just like Bill  )


----------



## juiceman (23 August 2007)

arminius said:


> excuse me moxjo...
> 
> can u explain to us here how labour is taking the glory for the mining boom, when not a day goes by without costello or howard bragging about how good the economy is, yet none of them dares breathe the word 'mining'. lets take our mining income back to 1985 levels and we'll see how much cash is sloshing around canberra.
> 
> ...




Paid off Labours 90-100 Billion Dollar DEPT + some
Without that Labour legacy Australia would be awash with cash or infrostructure


----------



## nioka (23 August 2007)

juiceman said:


> Paid off Labours 90-100 Billion Dollar DEPT + some
> Without that Labour legacy Australia would be awash with cash or infrostructure




 Paid it off by selling national assets. Allowed the country's infrastructure and investment in education to flounder. Try again your arguments dont stand up against the failure and deceit of the Howard and Costello regime. Where has the surplus gone? INTO PUBLIC SERVICE SUPER FUND>


----------



## numbercruncher (23 August 2007)

juiceman said:


> Paid off Labours 90-100 Billion Dollar DEPT + some
> Without that Labour legacy Australia would be awash with cash or infrostructure




Effectively transferred that debt from national debt to record personal debt.

Pretty neat trick really.


----------



## moXJO (23 August 2007)

nioka said:


> Paid it off by selling national assets. Allowed the country's infrastructure and investment in education to flounder. Try again your arguments dont stand up against the failure and deceit of the Howard and Costello regime. Where has the surplus gone? INTO PUBLIC SERVICE SUPER FUND>




Are you saying we should have kept that labor government in at the time???

There was a reason they got the ass and haven’t got back in to date. Take a good look at NSW and the mess it’s in. Bob Carr ran out at the height of the mess.


----------



## nioka (23 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> Are you saying we should have kept that labor government in at the time???



No. I voted for Howard at the time. He was Honest John then. Remember? I did not expect him to have "non core" promises, be so pally with George Bush, bring in the GST which was supposed to be dead and disarm the country with draconian gun laws ( plus other faults) 
Bob Carr was a disaster for NSW and so is his replacement but what has that got to do with the new look federal Labour party. I have never voted Labour ( been voting for over 50 years) but I will this time unless I have a good independant standing locally.


----------



## moXJO (23 August 2007)

nioka said:


> disarm the country with draconian gun laws
> Bob Carr was a disaster for NSW and so is his replacement but what has that got to do with the new look federal Labour party.




Did you really find the gun laws that bad? I shoot a bit ,and didnt find a need for semi-autos everywhere.One basic mod and those old ar-15 were pretty much M-16s back in the day.Its still pretty easy to get a gun license.


----------



## nioka (23 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> Did you really find the gun laws that bad? I shoot a bit ,and didnt find a need for semi-autos everywhere.One basic mod and those old ar-15 were pretty much M-16s back in the day.Its still pretty easy to get a gun license.



Agree that there needed to be gun laws to the extent that some of the military type guns needed to be better controlled. I lost a good pump action 12g used for pest control and a family heirloon 110 yr old but still servicable gun. The crooks are still armed, it is only the honest ones that aren't.


----------



## Happy (23 August 2007)

nioka said:


> The crooks are still armed, it is only the honest ones that aren't.




When it comes to crunch, and we have few seconds to defend ourselves we only can use alternatives:
Knives, axes, machetes, baseball bats, golf clubs, fists, sometimes enough, but no much to led poisoning.

If alive after the event, all we can do is call 000 and ask for police.

Crooks are long gone; often never to be seen again often never matched to crime if caught on another occasion.


As what is has to do with election? No matter whom I vote for, somehow those who win do not seem to represent me, even if election promises were encouraging.

Part of this post I should put in depression/apathy area.


----------



## greggy (23 August 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> what a classic lol.
> Just heard on PM .,..
> Tas Labour have successfully called Abbott's bluff
> They offer him Mersey Hospital (at Latrobe) for $1 lol
> ...



Hi 2020,

I don't like cynical spending near election time in marginal seats. Both  sides do it. I especially remember Ross Kelly's (former Hawke Govt minister) whiteboard with marginal seats where spending was targeted.


----------



## kitehigh (23 August 2007)

Happy said:


> As what is has to do with election? No matter whom I vote for, somehow those who win do not seem to represent me, even if election promises were encouraging.
> 
> Part of this post I should put in depression/apathy area.




Yes I know how you feel, but I do agree with compulsary voting.  If you look at the American system where its not compulsory to vote.  They only have something like a 30% turn out at election times.  The lobby and interest groups get a far bigger say in that country I'm afraid.

As they say if you aren't happy with the current situation, make changes.  It may mean you need to get more involved personally.  Try joining a party and running for election yourself.  I for one just left the country  .  Not sure when or if I will return.  Seems like everytime I go back home its turning more and more into a nancy police state.


----------



## arminius (23 August 2007)

good evening all,

theres 140 odd people out there who want to return the government. can one of you outline for me how they, over a decade, have improved oz, leaving aside economics- suffice to say many people are well off. (the reasons for this are many and varied) leave out announcements made in the last few months as they are driven by politics, not policy.

give me a decent answer and ill stop bugging...promise.

if voting wasnt compulsory, i agree kitehigh, no one but special interest groups would turn up. 

does anyone take abbott or downer seriously?? they are an embarrassment to the australian male.


----------



## Sprinter79 (23 August 2007)

arminius said:


> good evening all,
> 
> 
> does anyone take abbott or downer seriously?? they are an embarrassment to the australian male.




At least Nelson went to a strip club..... once. He swears he didn't inhale though :


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 August 2007)

greggy said:


> ...cynical spending near election time in marginal seats. Both  sides do it. ..Ross Kelly



yep - no argument there m8 

The other thing you'll see are compliments from a strong and confident opposition leading into an election - 
 remember when Johnny Howard used to say (just before he won first term) ..
" I don't have a monopoly on wisdom - and Labour got this or that right, etc" 

Now Rudd says " I agree with Libs" - same song, different singer (IMO) 
As they say - deny potential divisive topics any oxygen;  leave your opponents without any traction...etc


----------



## whitta27 (24 August 2007)

arminius .. - the most important thing is people have jobs.
if they don't have jobs they have no money life will be tough

howard has managed to bring the unemployment levels down to extreme low levels

thats a significant achievement.

if a rudd government is elected watch the unemployment level rise as business owners and employers aviod hiring people because they are scared of union thuggery.

what could howard do to win your approval?


----------



## nioka (24 August 2007)

whitta27 said:


> arminius
> howard has managed to bring the unemployment levels down to extreme low levels
> thats a significant achievement.
> what could howard do to win your approval?




Wrong. The mining boom brought down the unemployment. Without it the umemployment would have risen because Howard exported so many jobs. Howard has got to a point where he couldn't win me back because I would not have faith in being able to trust him, Abbot or Costello. Until I see otherwise I have would place more faith in Rudd.


----------



## Rafa (24 August 2007)

whitta27 said:


> if a rudd government is elected watch the unemployment level rise as business owners and employers aviod hiring people because they are scared of union thuggery.




what absolute rubbish...
u seriously suggesting the our big miners are going to stop hiring people so that they can dig up more ore to sell to china just cause the labor party are in govt?

i notice you were the one defending politicians before as the only ones who have balls... if you mean balls to stand up and lie in front of everyone... on that point, i certainly agree with you.

are you a policitician?


----------



## Happy (24 August 2007)

Big miners are OK either way, but unfair dismissal law was stoping small shop operators hiring.

Great number of shops means great number of people employed.


----------



## Rafa (24 August 2007)

agreed... small businesses need the protection.

i look forward to hearing what labor has to say about unfair dismissal.
I believe their thinking is a 1yr probationary period... which makes sense. But I would like to see unfair dismissal and all other red tape for small business reduced significantly.


----------



## moXJO (24 August 2007)

nioka said:


> Wrong. The mining boom brought down the unemployment. Without it the umemployment would have risen because Howard exported so many jobs. Howard has got to a point where he couldn't win me back because I would not have faith in being able to trust him, Abbot or Costello. Until I see otherwise I have would place more faith in Rudd.




Partly Wrong. Flexible hiring allows for smaller business to take on more people without the risks.


----------



## Sprinter79 (24 August 2007)

The liberal cut off point for a small business is 100 employees.

That is way too high. A much more representative cut off point would be 20 employees, for example. 

A recent project we did into the Steel and Metal Fabrication Industry found that the largest employer of our sample had 89 employees. The smallest had 2. Most were between 10 and 30 employees.


----------



## moXJO (24 August 2007)

arminius said:


> good evening all,
> 
> theres 140 odd people out there who want to return the government. can one of you outline for me how they, over a decade, have improved oz, leaving aside economics- suffice to say many people are well off. (the reasons for this are many and varied) leave out announcements made in the last few months as they are driven by politics, not policy.




The problem with doing that is that it will be torn apart by opposing views who have there own theory. 

Superannuation ,Ease of doing business thus creating a lot more opportunity, tax reform ,immigration of skilled labor instead of family reunion policy bs, I.R reform (to a degree) , Gun laws after public backlash(good or bad depending which camp your in)Foreign aid increases.

Now there’s also a huge list of bad stuff as well. Now are you voting labor because you hate Howard or think Rudd’s policies are good?


----------



## explod (24 August 2007)

Rafa said:


> agreed... small businesses need the protection.
> 
> i look forward to hearing what labor has to say about unfair dismissal.
> I believe their thinking is a 1yr probationary period... which makes sense. But I would like to see unfair dismissal and all other red tape for small business reduced significantly.




Small business you say.   Yes Johnny said he was the chaampion of small business and killed it with the droconian manner in which he introduced the GST.   Small business remembers all right.

And while we are on unemployment, the figures did not use to include part time jobs.   Wonder what the real unemployment figure is.   Yeh Johnny, the champion of the worker eh, who are the heads of the families


----------



## zt3000 (24 August 2007)

Several Points to make

1) The problem is Rudd has never, not once been a leader in any shape or form ... he has not even lead his local council. He's a puppet to union leaders which are going to bring this country back 10 to 15 years. 

2) If we are going to be living in a country where we can strike becuase a site down the road has 3 flavours of ice cream and we have two ... god help us ... even better lets all chuck a sicky at the same time ... yeah thats a good idea ... no wonder the Perth to Mandurah rail line still hasn't been built and is way over budget ... Why?? Because leightons is a shoddy operator ... Yeah, thats right, leightons dont know how to deliver a job on time (you morons) ... Unions are the SCURGE of modern man! Labour govt should not build anything ... and everything should be privatised! Only business knows how to conduct business in the most efficient manner ... not governments ...

3) We should take a page out of the italians book and vote in a billionaire business man who knows whats going on ... at least things will get done in this country.

4) No im not an employer but i am a hard worker who is sick of LAZY people ... you work hard you get justly rewarded ... simple ... just cant wait until things slow down, when there are no jobs going around.

5) Why is it that when we as australians visit other countries/cities, NY, Berlin, Paris, Shanghai, we are in AWE ... come back like stunned mullets ... why cant we be developed, advance ... nope we always 2 years behind in everything .. never the first

6) WA again ... we have how many km of coastline ?? More than 10000km surely ... why cant developers take say 20km of this ... and develop the crap out of it .. make a satellite city, bring in tourists ... what do we have to offer them now? FARK ALL ... (excuse my french) ... 

Come on people ... think outside the BOX ... why be followers when we can be leaders! Australia has SO MUCH potential and frankly the time is being wasted. When resources run out ... what will we be producing and exporting??? Somebody tell me please!

Vote 1 - Peter Costello (this should open a can of worms) - just listen to him in parliament question time ... he's bloody good!

(This has not been proof read and is designed to bring up critical discussion. Take no offence to what is above. Its all a joke and only to be taken as that.)


----------



## Rafa (24 August 2007)

I think howard has done a few good things
1. GST
2. Super (which was incidentally was introduced by Labor, and heavily opposed by the libs)... 
3. Abolition of unfair dismissal laws for small business, tho I too also disagree with the 100 employees... 

But a lot of good things, he has simply gone over the top (too americanised) in some of his changes...
1. GST: too much paperwork for smal busiess
2. Super: Still disagree with the way its done... by allowing lump sum withdrawals at no tax. 
3. IR Laws... complete abolition of unions, which could be the thin end of the wedge, both in terms of wages, conditions, health and safety, etc
4. two tier health with all this private health rebates, penalties, surcharges, etc, lack of dental health, etc
5. higher education fees thru the roof

then there are the other issues (i am undecided as to for or against)
1. move towards a more traditional family values (mum's who works getting severely penalised)
2. more support for private education
3. gun laws
4. lack of any major attempt to keep manufacturing jobs in Australia
5. a deliberate vilification of minority groups incl aborignes, unemployed, refugees, single mothers, and now muslims.
6. blatant populism
7. so many skilled migrants being let in on 457's when vocational education has been severely run down.
8. yet at same time vilify immigrants to appease the hanson supporters
9. lack of activity regards to global warming

Overall, he hasn't done too bad a job

if ONLY he wasn't so devisive and blatantly cunning.... 
1. children overboard
2. tampa
3. refugees could be terrorists
4. interest rate rubbish
5. nuclear power is needed in australia
6. and the latest blame the states for everything...
i might have voted for him again... 


He says he wants increased participation, but heavily taxes mums who want to join the work force...

He panders to the anti-immigrant sentiment, but lets in more immigrants than any other prime minister in history

he says boat people can be terrorists, but its doctors who come in becuase there is a skill shortage since he cut funding for higher education that seem to be the most risk!

he says he's a friend of small business, but small business have been burdened with more red tape with the GST and now AWA's its not funny.

he says he wants national outcomes, but fails to take things away from the states cause he rather have someone else to blame (abbotts response to rudds health plan exposes this tactic rather well)

i could go on...

there are simpy too many contradictions from howard for me to trust him anymore. 

we live in a gloabal economy, everything is floated, we are almost tariff free, the rba is independent, we are riding on our mineral exports ... if the world economy booms, we will boom, if it goes bust, we will go bust.

in essence both leaders are virually identical... i.e. center right... howard is right of center right, more americanised and individual... rudd is left of center right.. a bit more social justice and collective thrown in. (more european).


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 August 2007)

zt3000 said:


> This .... is designed to bring up critical discussion.



bs, zt, no bloody way is that post gonna bring up any criticism !

 
 Monty Python Argument Sketch


----------



## zt3000 (24 August 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> bs, zt, no bloody way is that post gonna bring up any criticism !
> 
> 
> Monty Python Argument Sketch





heheh i know ... the more emotion i stir the less rational the response become hahaha


----------



## moXJO (24 August 2007)

explod said:


> Small business you say.   Yes Johnny said he was the chaampion of small business and killed it with the droconian manner in which he introduced the GST.   Small business remembers all right.
> 
> And while we are on unemployment, the figures did not use to include part time jobs.   Wonder what the real unemployment figure is.   Yeh Johnny, the champion of the worker eh, who are the heads of the families




The GST isn’t that bad and is progressively being improved to make it easier. I still don’t like it, but who does like tax. Its better then what we had.

It’s fairly easy to get a job atm as well. Just had a friend call me 10 mins ago about being scalped by another building company at a much higher rate of pay.

Can we talk about Rudd and some actual policies people like or think are a step in the right direction. So far he seems to have dodged the whole process by simply not being Howard. And so far have not seen much discussion about him at all.The Unions were told to shutup till after the election and have since closed the doors on the media.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 August 2007)

Happy said:


> Big miners are OK either way, but unfair dismissal law was stoping small shop operators hiring.
> 
> Great number of shops means great number of people employed.



Trouble is, all the "competition" stuff has largely got rid of small shops in order to enable the majors to more successfully win the "competition" to empty our wallets.


----------



## IFocus (24 August 2007)

I think ten years is more than enough for one government containing the same leadership. I always feel that they tend to become a little detached / arrogant / they are the only ones who can govern and in the case of Howard currently policy driven by polls.
Howard's attack on the federation is bewildering coming from a Liberal centralizing power.

My only regret with the current administration is that Costello never got a shot at the top job. He is not the politician that Howard is in terms of playing the game but  his intellect would have been a nice change and would possibly added some energy to the parliamentary Liberal party.

Its unfortunate that Rudd wont have the talent that Hawke started with (i believe at the time it was the best qualified front bench of any Australian government) but having said that the talk of doom and gloom re unions and the like is laughable (I was active in the union movement for a number of years and clearly the narrow focus on the union faults is a joke apply the same test to business and the horror story's are just as bad if not worse).

But in the end the people of Australia will get the government they deserve unfortunately resembling the presidential style deployed in the US.

Regardless who is in power you can only hope that the bureaucrats will run the county regardless.


Focus


----------



## whitta27 (24 August 2007)

Rafa said:


> i notice you were the one defending politicians before as the only ones who have balls... if you mean balls to stand up and lie in front of everyone... on that point, i certainly agree with you.
> 
> are you a policitician?




i don't think they are the only one with balls obviously there are people everywhere doing a good job in a variety of positions.
- but what kind of people do you want in parliament.? examples?

you and your drinking buddies?

i'm just saying these people are the ones that put their name in the hat having a go - yeah there not perfect but i for one respect them for having a crack.

haha and no i'm not a politician -


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 August 2007)

zt3000 said:


> everything should be privatised! Only business knows how to conduct business in the most efficient manner ... not governments ...



The problem with privatisation is that with very few exceptions it increases the cost thus requiring either higher taxes (in the case where government still funds the work and outsources it) or higher charges to end users where the private owner deals directly with the public.

Witness the disasters in electricity, gas, traffic lights, roads and all manner of other things that governments have privatised. We're paying, paying and paying again for that mess.

Just compare electricity prices in privately owned areas with the publicly owned suppliers.


----------



## Miner (25 August 2007)

I noticed this thread recently and would like to put some of my observations on forthcoming election.

First of all I hate to say that Labour will unfortunately win the election. To be frank and being a pragmatic I believe that will be a downturn of the Australian economy and sliding path of recession. But the fact is in March/April this year  I have been visiting   Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane in addition to  Perth where I came from. I made s my own survey by asking taxi drivers, common people, hawkers and likewise. The clear trend at that time was towards labour though they all recognised the good work done by Liberal. One of the key factor was the perceived threat from changes in workplace relation. It seems  the leverage obtained from royalty, taxes etc from high growth and resource boom were not capitalised well by Liberal Government. Specially  some of the members in Mr Howard's ministry missed the opportunity to encash for next election forgetting that most of our  Australian voters have fish like short memory, least political sensitivity and will tend to vote for labour out of complacency  just to see the change after 11 years. What percentage of  people really understand the policy, stratgic direction ?

Mr Howard has been too greedy to barter his personal ambition with country's benefits by not creating a stable second line of defence. After the loss his job will be simple - to resign from politics but damage will be done. The Liberal part in Federal will be of the same status of liberal party of WA - infighting. End of the day mums and dads will have sleepless nights with high interest rate, recession and Mr Rudd will convincingly blame Liberal and their bad policy.
I am no astrologer but please read my statement in mid 2009 and tally it then.

Regards
24 August 07


----------



## zt3000 (25 August 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> The problem with privatisation is that with very few exceptions it increases the cost thus requiring either higher taxes (in the case where government still funds the work and outsources it) or higher charges to end users where the private owner deals directly with the public.
> 
> Witness the disasters in electricity, gas, traffic lights, roads and all manner of other things that governments have privatised. We're paying, paying and paying again for that mess.
> 
> Just compare electricity prices in privately owned areas with the publicly owned suppliers.




Im sorry but your completely wrong

Advantages of Privatisation

·Privtaely owned Firms are more cost efficient - because they need to make a profit.

·Privatisation places the risk in the hands of business or Private Enterprise.

·Govt. Businesses are subject to an enormous amount of red tape (Beauraucracy)

·Private enterprise is more responsive to customer complaints and innovation.

·Govt Ent. Have an advantage over private Ent. Because they can guarantee payment of bills and they don't pay tax. 

·The Govt. should not be a player and an umpire.

·Privatisation provides a one off cash boost for Govt. This can be spent on Hospitals etc...

·Privatisation leads to lower prices and greater supply.

·Competition in privatization increases differentiation.


Shall i go on?

I can if you wish ... i wrote my honours dissertation on Economic Benefits of Privatisation ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 August 2007)

zt3000 said:


> I can if you wish ... i wrote my honours dissertation on Economic Benefits of Privatisation ...



zt, When I was a director of a small engineering company, our (deputy) bank manager asked could he do his dissertation for MBA on our company  - we had a chuckle when we read it 

I think, if I was to have my time again, I'd do an MBA as well, and write one on "The Economic Benefits of Dissertations" lol

PS I probably agree with you about privatisation tho 
And don't Govt love handing over the reins - so that they can blame someone else lol


----------



## wayneL (25 August 2007)

zt3000 said:


> Im sorry but your completely wrong
> 
> Advantages of Privatisation
> 
> ...



That is mostly rhetoric.

In certain situations privatization can be a benefit. In other cases, it stinks. Many privatized government enterprises are an unmitigated disaster. 

Corporatisation is a superior path IMO. (FWIW... I can't be bothered putting up examples)


----------



## Miner (25 August 2007)

Hi 
It may be a distraction from original thread but we love to blame government.
Yes Government loves to privatise just like all big companies love to hand over things to contractors. 
What do you expect when a director of government department earns bloody $90K, a professor earns some $140 K against an ordinary trades person earns some $160K through overtime etc and a director of company like MBL earns about $20 M. Whereas any dog and cat can spit on the government officer or the college professor who dares to raise a finger on the tradie or the director of a company ? 
Bottom line you get what you pay. Under the circumstances teh so called government officials will be those who either sheer incompetent or just too lazy. Unfortunately those officers will take decisions for those  multi millionaires.

So let us not blame government and rather let us try to reduce the blaming on government and be more critique on sending the competent people there and at least raise their compensation package at par with a tradie if not a company director.

Regards


----------



## chops_a_must (25 August 2007)

zt3000 said:


> ·Private enterprise is more responsive to customer complaints and innovation.




Oh yeah, Western Power certainly are that.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 August 2007)

zt3000 said:


> Im sorry but your completely wrong
> 
> Advantages of Privatisation
> 
> ...



It depends on the situation. I have worked both for government and private enterprise so I've seen both sides. 

In general, my observation is private employees are significantly more productive in terms of output per hour at work but are far less efficient in their use of materials.

I'll avoid mentioning specific items to avoid identifying individual businesses but some examples.

1. I worked for a government department that sought to outsource some maintenance work. The lowest quote received was 3 times the fully costed (including all overheads etc) cost of doing the work in house. The most expensive quote was 5 times as much. Even the (liberal) state government baulked at the additional cost of outsourcing and the project collapsed.

2. Our average annual maintenance cost on a specific set of (quite common) equipment was $861.34 versus a generally accepted benchmark for private contractors of $5000.

3. Our maintenance was to a higher standard than that of contractors operating in Victoria and NSW. We typically achieved 50 - 100% longer equipment lifetimes as a direct result.

4. We obtained, for $50 each plus $450 freight, several sets of equipment valued at $15,000 new that was deemed "unrepairable" by interstate contractors. It took us less than one day's labour to identify the problem (which would have been far easier when it was still in-situ and connected to power, external devices etc) and less than $50 in parts to repair. A decade later most of these are still running to my understanding.

WHY are the contractors universally so lacking in skill? And WHY are their lack of skills so readily passed on  as to abandon $15,000 worth of equipment in order to avoid literally half a day's labour (one person) an under $50 in parts to find the problem and fix it? That's most certainly NOT efficiency by any means. Incompetence and blatantly trying to profit from the sale of new equipment maybe, but not efficiency.

5. A national conference raised specific "unresolvable" technical problems in doing a specific task and sought solutions. I simply stood up and pointed out our literally 100% success rate with our in-house designed and built systems over the past 20 years that cost less than half that of the non-performing alternatives. Stunned silence...

6. Since I was responsible for the cost estimating I can assure you that we were not receiving favourable tax treatment. It was a requirement to include all relevant taxes both on estimates and completed works. And yes, we also included super, administration costs, vehicles, employee time, rent on the building at market rates, cleaning, toilet paper and so on as part of our overheads which were factored in to all works.

...

On the other hand I could point to some successful privatisations. Hazelwood power station, generally accepted to be the least efficient large coal-fired power plant in the developed world, was scheduled for closure by the old SECV in 2005. The new private owners are planning on at least another two decades of operation.

Airlines seem to run much better in private hands. But then they aren't a utility or taxpayer funded service.

Telstra's lack of customer service is renowned and not much seems to have changed with the move from government to private ownership. The customer still has to stand around waiting for Telstra's ridiculous work scheduling system to send a tech from the other end of the state to fix their phone (whilst a local tech is sent in the opposite direction). 

Don't misunderstand me, I'm certainly not against private enterprise or proposing that the government start selling ice creams and making shoes. But with very few exceptions (mostly those previously run by the Commonwealth) whenever some public utility has been privatised the end result is a lowering of technical standards and an increase in price. Witness the ridiculously expensive electricity in SA and Vic (private) versus NSW and Qld (mostly public) and you'll see what I mean.

Private enterprise does most things reasonably well but I've yet to see an example where an essential service privatisation has benefited the majority of consumers. 

Worth noting that even big business _consumers_ don't like the idea of competition in electricity supply in Tas and are publicly concerned about what they see as an inevitable increase in costs and made quite a fuss last year. 12 months later and the state's biggest ever rise in power prices is announced, justified by the "incresing costs in the competitive market". Hmm... Just like gas bills in SA went up "due to the costs of competition". 

Economic theories are one thing. In many cases they are right. But there's plenty of examples where privatisation has been a massive failure when applied to public utilities, the very area where the benefits were most aggressively promoted.

As for the bit about one-off benefits and hospitals, that's the big problem. A one-off gain that gets spent in a few years at most. Then we're forever stuck paying higher taxes to offset the lost revenue or ongoing cost of using contractors.

These things come and go. Today's management fad and buzzwords are tomorrows failed ideas. That's just the way it is. Remember KPI's? (seen them come and go twice now).


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 August 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> a government department that sought to outsource some maintenance work. The lowest quote received was 3 times the fully costed (including all overheads etc) cost of doing the work in house. The most expensive quote was 5 times as much. Even the (liberal) state government baulked at the additional cost of outsourcing and the project collapsed.
> 
> 2. Our average annual maintenance cost on a specific set of (quite common) equipment was $861.34 versus a generally accepted benchmark for private contractors of $5000........
> 
> 3. Our maintenance was to a higher standard than that of contractors operating in Victoria and NSW. We typically achieved 50 - 100% longer equipment lifetimes as a direct result.



Smurf, 
1. In summary you reckon you were cheaper and better .  Must admit I'm surprised   My theory is you get "what you honestly pay for"  - by which I mean ALL expenses in the ledger, so that you're comparing Tasmanian apples with Tasmanian apples (and not with those inferior Mainland apples lol).  

2. Apart from the fact that, when you get say three private enterprise quotes , one is high, one is about right, and one has (usually) made a mistake . .. 
And the fact that he is the one who gets the job.  

3. and Rarely is the contract awarded on any other consideration that "cheapest".  Forget all the talk of QA etc.

4. Irrespective, if he (the successful private contractor) doesn't make the profit he thought he would, he scales down his service to balance his budget.   

(take privatisation of hospitals, gaols etc - just my impressions ) 

5. Conversely, if the Govt had continued to run it, and costs exceeded expectations/ budget - they would find some way to hide the expenses, lol.

6. Anecdote :- I lived in the islands - they privatised the power station - including the maintenance of some old generators.  I think that, wisely, the contractor insisted on "subject to confirmation after the machines overhauled" -   all I know is that the "brown-outs" continued, and the Govt kept complaining about the expense 

and I'm sure the contractor was responsible for making the Govt accept the reality that those machines needed serious money spent on them . 

7. Continuing :- lol , The billing of the public continued to be handled by Govt.  They used computers.  People were send absolutely ridiculous bills.  There was a massive queue at the complaints dept - I was present when the bloke 3 ahead of me presented the frazzled clerk behind the counter with a bill that read "$3,45, 789" or whatever, ( in the millions).  

the clerk let the bloke get off his steam - then said, "would it help if I suggested that you might pay it by cheque, and write on the back "paid under duress" -


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 August 2007)

PS Then of course there's privatisation of Immigration Detention Centrs ,  (and hospitals I guess - and schools?)
 where govts can blame "others" and /or "contracted people" etc 
i.e. for reasons other than financial


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 August 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> My theory is you get "what you honestly pay for"  - by which I mean ALL expenses in the ledger, so that you're comparing Tasmanian apples with Tasmanian apples
> 
> ..., if he (the successful private contractor) doesn't make the profit he thought he would, he scales down his service to balance his budget.



lol - I have a similar theory about failed marriages 

i.e. if a second marriage works, where a first one didn't - then there's good chance that it's partly because the person / persons  involved has/have brought his/her/their experience(s) into the second marriage  - AND BEEN PREPARED TO TRY HARDER THERE. 

question then is " perhaps they could just as easily have applied the same "extra effort" to the first marriage ?"

i.e. if a man/woman had spent as much time and effort with their spouses as they do on their lovers - then they'd probably stay together? 

or in Smurf-speak (or rather getting back to the topic ? )   "If a Govt had spent the proper money maintaining generators in the first place - etc etc " ...... - sorry m8, I'm being disrespectful of your superior technical abilities again 

PS I know very little about generators 
 or maintaining happy marriages for that matter lol


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 August 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> lol - I have a similar theory about failed marriages
> 
> i.e. if a second marriage works, where a first one didn't - then there's good chance that it's partly because the person / persons  involved has/have brought his/her/their experience(s) into the second marriage  - AND BEEN PREPARED TO TRY HARDER THERE. ...
> 
> ...




And what about the way Govt Depts all get renamed lol - old letterhead is thrown out etc - for what !!  except massive waste !! 

Just taking that theory a step further - perhaps COUPLES should have namechanges - a symbolic re-marriage  _ that way the lady gets her new surname! - 

and so does the bloke !! 

Here's a quick poem I just whipped up on the subject  

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=195717&highlight=namechanges#post195717


----------



## Sprinter79 (26 August 2007)

"Best" example of privatisation in WA is the buses. Less services, worse maintenance and they're stilling asking the govt for more money to keep the whole thing going.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 August 2007)

IMO whether something is best done by private enterprise or government comes down to the nature of the activity. Specifically, whether it is a viable business in its own right and whether it _naturally_ competes with other producers of the same product or service OR is it an integrated system which by its nature is most efficient as a monopoly?

Some examples.

Let's say we privatised Melbourne's water storages with separate owners for each dam. 

Now, the costs are essentially fixed capital - the dams have little ongoing cost once built until they eventually require major works (which may be over a century later).

The volume of production is variable but absolutely at the discretion of nature, not the dam's owner. A private owner won't get more rain than government ownership.

The key to operational efficiency is to minimise water lost to spill. You don't want one dam overflowing whilst another is running low simply because its owner offered a lower price. What you want is to efficiently capture as much water as possible with minimal waste. Given that the total cost is mostly the original investment rather than ongoing operation and that the construction cost can not now be changed, even a 5% loss of water due to less efficient management can't possibly be offset in cost by any realistic operational cost saving.

Now here's the problem. To get efficient management of the water storages you need to be drawing water according to storage levels, overall demand and inflows. If one owner is charging $10 and another is charging $1000 then that's irrelevant since either you manage for long term resource efficiency or you end up completely running out of water. If you don't use the $1000 water today then you WILL use it tomorrow. 

Short term there may appear to be competition but long term it's an outright monopoly even if you have 50 dams and 50 owners. The ONLY way to avoid that is to build a lot more dams than you actually need. Trouble is, with most of the cost being capital rather than operation that's going to push costs up rather than down.

To put some figures on it, operating costs for hydro-electric plant in Australia are generally less than 5% of total cost. The other 95% is capital. If you lost 2% of the water due to non-integrated operation then you need a 40% cut in operating costs just to break even. Trouble is, international experience with making river systems and storages compete against each other is that you lose 10% of the water to spill. You've got no chance of a 200% cut in operating costs to offset that so there's no chance of anything but a net loss from competition.

So privatisation per se isn't the problem but rather it is competition. Nature doesn't compete. Private ownership would be economically viable as long as you accept a monopoly.

But is anyone going to argue that a privately owned monopoly is going to reduce the price compared to a government owned monopoly? Possible but I'd argue that government faces more pressure to be reasonable in this regard than some multinational corporation would. Joe Public doesn't get the chance to throw out the corporation's board every few years or elect a new CEO.

Roads are another one. Traffic works as an integrated system that doesn't compete. You're not going to travel North of Sydney tomorrow afternoon just because a private road owner had a discount offer and it was cheaper than travelling South. 

Roads are a monopoly no matter who owns it unless there is absolute duplication of infrastructure. But it comes back to the same argument as the dams. Most of the cost is that of construction and much of the rest is maintenance that is needed regardless of actual traffic volume. If you add even 5% to the infrastructure then you're never going to recover that through improved operational efficiency.

Same with rail. I've never heard of anyone going to a major railway station and asking for the cheapest ticket to anywhere. No, they want to travel to location X and won't travel to location Y just because a different track owner is offering cheaper travel. Competition is only going to work with massive duplication of infrastructure and the cost of that is so huge that you'll never recover it through increased efficiency.

It's similar with electricity too. The competitive market produces reasonable prices only with surplus capacity. The operation of the power stations might have become more efficient in a management sense (though it has become far LESS efficient technically in many cases - a lot of coal gets burnt simply  to make "competition" work) but now we need idle plant sitting there otherwise the price spikes and industry faces ruin.

The common theme here is that the private operator is more efficient in their use of employees etc but LESS efficient in their use of infrastructure. You need excess dams, roads, rail tracks, power stations or whatever in order to keep prices reasonable under a competitive market system whereas a government monopoly requires no such surplus capacity. 

The fundamental point that economists miss - by introducing competition into certain industries it is inevitable that technical and capital use efficiency goes down. If it didn't then you would still have a monopoly. The overall cost is only going to drop if that loss can be more than offset through increased maintenance etc productivity - sometimes it can, often it can't.

I've seen plenty of reports etc into competition, especially in the power industry. NONE of them said anything about how much extra fuel would be needed per unit of electricity produced in order to make this system work. Yep, that's right, they completely missed the single largest ongoing cost in the entire industry as though they didn't realise that plant efficiency isn't constant. 

I'm not advocating that we nationalise power, roads, rail or anything else. But there's a real need to start counting ALL the costs in any economic debate as we clearly haven't been so far. The economic reformers wouldn't have a clue what a heat rate or anything else that affects the operation of any complex technical system is and that's the problem.


----------



## arminius (27 August 2007)

good morning all,

it appears howards legacy has been to reduce unemployment, get rid of unfair dismissal, allow for flexible hiring of staff, increase funding of private education, introduce strict gun laws, and increase privatisation.

nioka points out this is due largely to the mining boom, as a massive injection of revenue into our economy is going to stimulate other businesses as cashed up miners head into town and spend up in restaurants, bars, buy wizz bang electronics, new cars etc. mining shares have gone thru the roof, (before coming back to earth recently) and shareholders have buku dollars to spend. the u rate in the usa is about 4.5%, uk is 5.5% so ours is good but nothing special. global economics is the major driver, not howards policies.

i know little about the running of a business but to me unfair dismissal laws helped small business sack workers, but removed a workers security. good and bad reoint of view. labours policy brings balance imho.
the struggle between employee and employer has always been there. to work well there must be a balance all round. howard went too far.  

the gun laws were a positive i reckon. i am a shooter but as has been said, we dont need assault rifles behind the bedroom door. in saying that i agree- lots of good people forfeited good guns. 

privatisation. smurf has shown the considerable negative effects of it. its not a lay down mazzaire winner. at the end of the day a company needs to maximise profits for its shareholders. reduce cost or increase price, or both. i have nasty dreams where aussie post is privately run and i get a sms to say 'you have mail.. it can be collected between 9 and 4 etc etc. 

apart from stricter gun laws there is little evidence that howard has advanced australia. 

how has he sent us backwards?
education-  yes more money has gone in, because the student population has grown, but percentage wise, its less. in a technological era, we are being left behind. we are becoming a dumb country. our unis are forced, thru lack of real funding, to import O.S students. this lowers our standards (they are obliged to pass so the uni gets the cheque, and educates our competitors to our high standards. 
gotta go...to be continued


----------



## arminius (28 August 2007)

the role of a govt is to provide strategic direction. to gather all available data and plan ahead for the current population and future generations. 

education- the gov't wants to bring in merit pay for teachers. bishop should resign for this alone.
of course some teachers are better than others, we could all pick out our favorites from our school days, just as some politicians are better than others. there are heaps who should be taken out the back and put down. 
by attracting the better teachers to select schools, where the kids are easier to teach because of cultural capital, leaves the rest to deal with the rowdier kids in less desirable towns. do that, and within a generation you can say goodbye to australian egalitarianism. 

foreign policy- the pacific island nations in our arc of responsibility are basket cases. JI will trickle into areas of poverty like water to low ground. we only give a quarter of 1 percent in aid, yet downer runs around thinking hes their defacto chief. 
we took part in an unsanctioned invasion of a soverign nation, justified by a deliberate deception, and has destroyed a nation, killed over half a million civilians, 3000 us troops, 100 pommies, etc. we have a battalion there training what iraqi soldiers the yanks didnt kill. the yanks have 160 000 in country, we have 500. their deployment is token-politically motivated. 
thanks to our govt, we are all complicit in the all the deaths to date and all the death to come. there is no easy solution, just more carnage.

the vaunted pacific asylum-seeker solution has had nil effect on the numbers coming and has cost over a BILLION dollars. 

environment- when al gore came here with 'an inconvenient truth' our esteemed industry minister, mcfarlane, said he was just a political has been flogging a b grade movie. guy pearce proved that the big polluters are integral to australian policy formation. for 10 of its 11 years the govt has denied global warming, despite a plethora of reports. we contibute only 1 % of the global problem but we could have developed renewables years ago and sold the technology to the big polluters, making our nation wealthier, cleaner, and having a massive impact on global emissions. all business wants is a target and we cant even give them that. 
for 10 years there was no problem with water supply and suddenly the situation is so bad a $10 billion water plan is announced that did not go thru a single relevant dept, including treasury. water supply to queenslanders, NSW, and victorians is a national problem and needed federal leadership

aboriginal affairs- for 10 and a half yrs there was no problem, now its so bad that the policy doesnt go thru cabinet, and doesnt take in a single recommendation from the report that 'inspired it'. the plight of abs is not restricted to one state and is a national disgrace requiring federal leadership. a a nation we havent said sorry, havent admitted to the stolen generation or the massacres eg waterloo creek. a childrens book by john marsden called 'the rabbits' says it all. 

there are so many other aspects which all up make me think that this govt will be remembered as an aberation in the political history of australia. many have enjoyed economic prosperity, but how much is really down to them and how much is due to our natural resources, tourism, agriculture, hard work, intelligence, previous policies etc. this country could be a magical place to live, but not while howard, abbott, costello, downer, bishop, nelson, mcfarlane, coonan, hockey, and ruddock are steering the ship.
have a top day...its gonna be a beauty.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 August 2007)

arminius said:


> the role of a govt is to provide strategic direction. to gather all available data and plan ahead for the current population and future generations.
> 
> education- the gov't wants to bring in merit pay for teachers. bishop should resign for this alone...
> 
> ...




note for diary - next year give the horse a flue injection...

weekend entertainment  - read back on the political backflips that occurred during this election year (more U-turns that a carpark full of grannies looking for a spot on Saturday morning) 

and tonight - watch out for the moon in the east at sunset


----------



## IFocus (30 August 2007)

Editorial from the Australian today pretty much on the money i thought in regards to the current Liberal governments legacy. 

Focus

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22329657-16741,00.html


----------



## Rafa (30 August 2007)

well, with the release of labor's new IR policy... its time to start this up again.

I for one am happier that the new policy is taken the common sense approach, by keeping the good bits of Work Choices and backing it up with solid safegaurds such as 'no disadvantage' and heavy union restrictions.

Would have still liked the unfair dismissal for small businesses retained, but it looks like BHP lis happy with this...



> MINING giant BHP Billiton, the employer of 15,000 Australians and a supporter of Work Choices, yesterday praised Labor's updated policy for its flexibility.
> 
> While industry group the Australian Mines and Metals Association continued its attack on Labor's industrial relations blueprint, BHP's leadership team decided it could live with it.
> 
> ...




meanwhile the liberals have started with the negative campaign, just like they did against broadband, education, even IR etc... What bet they will eventually try to copy labors policy but do it in their own way and do it rather badly (i.e. dodgy bush wireless broadband scheme, higher education endowment fund, and the flimsy protection for workers under 75k).

Still they need to get their own story straight first



> JOHN Howard and Joe Hockey ought to get together more often so that they can agree on how Labor's industrial relations policy will wreck the economy.
> 
> According to the Employment Minister on Tuesday, "Kevin Rudd's policy will mean lower real wages for Australian workers." But Howard thinks the problem will be the opposite: "Labor's policy will mean more power to the union bosses to push industry-wide wage claims, leading to increased inflation and upward pressure on interest rates." Perhaps the Government is just having a bet each way.




Sources: The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22329650-7583,00.html




Interesting Editorial in the Australian on how the Howard govt has dropped the bundle on economic reform in the boom times...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22329657-16741,00.html


----------



## greggy (1 September 2007)

Miner said:


> I noticed this thread recently and would like to put some of my observations on forthcoming election.
> 
> First of all I hate to say that Labour will unfortunately win the election. To be frank and being a pragmatic I believe that will be a downturn of the Australian economy and sliding path of recession. But the fact is in March/April this year  I have been visiting   Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane in addition to  Perth where I came from. I made s my own survey by asking taxi drivers, common people, hawkers and likewise. The clear trend at that time was towards labour though they all recognised the good work done by Liberal. One of the key factor was the perceived threat from changes in workplace relation. It seems  the leverage obtained from royalty, taxes etc from high growth and resource boom were not capitalised well by Liberal Government. Specially  some of the members in Mr Howard's ministry missed the opportunity to encash for next election forgetting that most of our  Australian voters have fish like short memory, least political sensitivity and will tend to vote for labour out of complacency  just to see the change after 11 years. What percentage of  people really understand the policy, stratgic direction ?
> 
> ...



Although one can't rule out a late Howard fightback, I too think Mr Rudd will win the election. According to the polls, the Goverment has lost a lot of the so-called "Howard battlers" vote. I feel that its largely a combination of the following factors as to why this is the case.
1.  The unpopular IR legislation.
2.  Interest rates have risen 5 times since the last election. This has hurt many battlers.
3.  The "Its Time" factor.  After 11 years there are also voters seeking change. They considered change last time only to to be put off by Mr Latham's character. Now they feel that Mr Rudd is similar to Mr Howard in many respects.
The next election will be interesting indeed.  One should not forget that Labor still needs a fairly considerable swing to win.


----------



## Julia (1 September 2007)

greggy said:


> 3.  The "Its Time" factor.  After 11 years there are also voters seeking change. They considered change last time only to to be put off by Mr Latham's character. Now they feel that Mr Rudd is similar to Mr Howard in many respects.




Yes, I agree that Kevin Rudd's similarity to John Howard, and his apparent capacity to echo John Howard's philosophies to a large degree, is allowing the electorate to have a change which they believe won't really be a change at all in terms of the good stuff.  We'll see.


----------



## nioka (1 September 2007)

John Howard is waiting to see what Pauline Hansons policies are. Remember he has put into place most of the policies he condemned her for having. Has she got anything left to fight for.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 September 2007)

A classic example of how ideologically driven policies are wasting our money that I found out about last week.

In short, a government office needed a printer so an enthusiastic employee picked a suitable model, went to the shop and bought it. It cost $1200.

All went well until management found out. It seems that buying the printer broke some IT outsourcing contract and it had to go, to be replaced with a printer from the contractor.

OK, so $1200 wasted then? Nope!

*It costs $24,000, yes $24,000, to lease that $1200 printer from the government's IT contractor for 3 years. That doesn't include toner or paper.* 

Now you know why I'm truly fed up with outsourcing. I've seen plenty of examples like this involving all sorts of things, not just IT, and the end result is higher taxes or reduced service whilst some contractor laughs all the way to the bank. An outcome that completely defeats the objective of outsourcing in the first place.

Another government department that imports cheap and nasty copy paper from Israel because that's what suits the stationery contractor is another one that comes to mind. As usual, stupid fools outsourced the entire stationery supply operation so they've got no ability to simply buy something else and distribute it to their offices. Apparently the paper doesn't even stay flat once it's printed on and causes lots of problems in printers, copiers etc with jamming. 

It does however come with all the relevant fancy logos, stamps etc that it conforms to this, that and every other standard and is a quality product. As usual, the fools making these decisions seem to think that just because something is "certified" means it's good enough. As I've said, leave technical things to technical people and keep contractors and office clowns well away from them. I'll admit I hadn't thought of them stuffing up with something as simple as paper though - that they did makes the point rather well IMO.

Needless to say, this cheap paper isn't so cheap once the taxpayer gets the bill for it. Actually it's about the same (so I'm told) as paying retail at officeworks for decent paper.


----------



## Gspot (2 September 2007)

Reading this forum, listening to talkback radio or reading the newspaper,everyone is fed up, on a governmental system that spends all our taxes on beauracracy gone mad. 
We have 1 federal, 6 state and 2 territorial education departments with their own curriculums, in the one country. With say roughly a billion$ being spent annually in each department, of course thiers no money for a better qualified/paid teacher. 
That's education, now do the same for health, law enforcement, transport, ports, enviroment, etc, etc
Labor, Liberal doesn't matter, their all their to feed their face while they can, including the contractors, who do deals that the public don't see. Jobs for the boys, is alive and well.
What can we do....find and support the smaller parties out their trying to stop the rort. www.republicans.org.au are on the right track and worth looking at.
We have to start somewhere, and getting involved is the only way.


----------



## greggy (2 September 2007)

Julia said:


> Yes, I agree that Kevin Rudd's similarity to John Howard, and his apparent capacity to echo John Howard's philosophies to a large degree, is allowing the electorate to have a change which they believe won't really be a change at all in terms of the good stuff.  We'll see.



Spot on Julia.  Both are economic and social conservatives.  They agree on most issues with the major exceptions being on IR and Iraq. Mr Rudd is playing it very smart indeed.  Mr Latham might well have won the last election if he hadn't scared the horses.


----------



## chops_a_must (4 September 2007)

Wow... Gillard just smashed Hockey on the 7.30 report.


----------



## somesortoftrader (5 September 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Wow... Gillard just smashed Hockey on the 7.30 report.




Chops.. I think that 'smashed' is a bit of an extention, but if shes on your team pump her up!  

What I want to know from Gillard is; why I cant have the right to negotiate my own wages & conditions just because I earn less than $100k. It smacks of the ALP exlcuding [from work place flexibility] the very people they are supposed to be going in to bat for!


----------



## Knobby22 (5 September 2007)

somesortoftrader said:


> Chops.. I think that 'smashed' is a bit of an extention, but if shes on your team pump her up!
> 
> What I want to know from Gillard is; why I cant have the right to negotiate my own wages & conditions just because I earn less than $100k. It smacks of the ALP exlcuding [from work place flexibility] the very people they are supposed to be going in to bat for!




You can still negotiate your wage, somesortof trader, as long as it is greater than award conditions. You could before the latest IR rules.


----------



## Rafa (5 September 2007)

somesortoftrader said:


> why I cant have the right to negotiate my own wages & conditions just because I earn less than $100k. It smacks of the ALP exlcuding [from work place flexibility] the very people they are supposed to be going in to bat for!




this smacks of you falling hook line and sinker for the govt scare campaign!


----------



## Julia (5 September 2007)

Given the unpopularity of George W., plus the huge inconvenience and over the top security in Sydney for APEC, not to mention the cost thereof, I can't help feeling that - rather than gathering kudos for John Howard in hosting this event - all this fuss will send him even further downward in the Polls.

Just looking at GWB and JWH on television this evening, each praising the other to a quite nauseating degree, e.g. "the man of steel" stuff etc, and GWB's crappy comments to the ADF personnel when he joined them for lunch, I can feel a vote for Labor coming on!

I can't help thinking that this visit by George W. is only going to further highlight in the minds of the Australian electorate all the things they dislike about John Howard, notably the determination to stick with the US in Iraq.


----------



## arminius (5 September 2007)

im gonna make some predictions here, as the masses become more informed:

rudd to get 70% vote after preferences.

slx and gbg to skyrocket

arminius to party hard election night.


----------



## explod (5 September 2007)

Julia said:


> Given the unpopularity of George W., plus the huge inconvenience and over the top security in Sydney for APEC, not to mention the cost thereof, I can't help feeling that - rather than gathering kudos for John Howard in hosting this event - all this fuss will send him even further downward in the Polls.
> 
> Just looking at GWB and JWH on television this evening, each praising the other to a quite nauseating degree, e.g. "the man of steel" stuff etc, and GWB's crappy comments to the ADF personnel when he joined them for lunch, I can feel a vote for Labor coming on!
> 
> I can't help thinking that this visit by George W. is only going to further highlight in the minds of the Australian electorate all the things they dislike about John Howard, notably the determination to stick with the US in Iraq.




Could not agree more.   It even appeared that John Howard was looking a bit uncomfortable and tense at times.   Some of the snappy comments from cabinet members also give a feeling of frustration and /Costello a look of serious  (no smirk) resignation.

The alliance towards nuclear enrichment, supply and storage (not that I am against nuclear) will not go down well.  Storage of anything at all toxic is met with very toxic opposition in Australia.  Dubya may have stood on a big toe in this time.  IMHO of course


----------



## chops_a_must (5 September 2007)

somesortoftrader said:


> Chops.. I think that 'smashed' is a bit of an extention, but if shes on your team pump her up!
> 
> What I want to know from Gillard is; why I cant have the right to negotiate my own wages & conditions just because I earn less than $100k. It smacks of the ALP exlcuding [from work place flexibility] the very people they are supposed to be going in to bat for!




Not really.

I think it's a pretty big worry when the opposition knows more about the legislation than someone who has supposedly written parts of it.

Just like it would be if I knew more about your family than you did.


----------



## numbercruncher (5 September 2007)

Oh yeahs Johnnys Toast for sure, you only have to look at the odds at the betting shops to know that.

Everyones had a gut full of basically everything about him, all this babble about record Government surplus so they can go buy 10 billion dollars worth of Jetfighters and Help make millions of Iraqi refugees .. etc etc etc- good work Johnny  - all whilst too many Australian households drown under a debt burden never before seen in our history , virtually a whole generation of young Australians given up on home ownership(you have any idea how many 20 somethings still living at home with mummy and daddy, its truly shocking),  in what is the greatest economic boom Australia has ever seen.

Johnny had the chance to be remembered as the Greatest PM ever but hes squandered it to be remebered as a old fogey who cant keep pace with progess, reality or public sentiment. Reactive rather than proactive .... what a fool.


----------



## arminius (6 September 2007)

very pleased to hear you may be coming over to the dark side julia. we embrace you with a big hug. 

is anyone considering marching in protest on saturday? im going down, primarily for three reasons.

v US/Oz foreign policy
US/Oz environmental policy
the fact that they are trying to muzzle the dissenters.

the world is watching, and it may be the only real chance to express our distain. 

could be interesting.


----------



## greggy (6 September 2007)

arminius said:


> im gonna make some predictions here, as the masses become more informed:
> 
> rudd to get 70% vote after preferences.
> 
> ...




Hi arminius,

Whilst I think its more than likely that Mr Rudd (a 90% chance) will win the next election I doubt that he'll get 70% of the vote after preferences. If he did so there would be only a couple of conservatives left.  Even when Australia's worst governments were thrown out (IMO Scullin, Whitlam and Fraser) no one even got close to the figures that you were talking about.
At this stage I'll tip  55% Labor to 45% Liberal which is still a massive swing to Labor on a two party preferred basis.  
Considering that most Australians want our troops out of Iraq (myself included, as long as its done gradually and not in one go) Mr Howard and Mr Bush appearing to be such good buddies isn't going to go down too well with the voters.


----------



## noco (6 September 2007)

Whilst I agree with most that a change in Government is sometimes necessary,what concerns me most is that if Labour wins government, we will have coast to coast Labour Governments. 
Now if we have agreement from all states,territories,federal government and the senate, what do you believe could happen to the GST? It is within the constitution on GST to allow this to happen.
Will the cash strapped states and territories pressure Kevin Rudd to increase the GST from 10% to ?????.After all they in debt to the tune of $70B.
It is very possible and most likely probable.The states will have the muscle and may very well use it on Kevin Rudd.
It is rather disconcerting when you think about it!


----------



## Julia (6 September 2007)

noco said:


> Whilst I agree with most that a change in Government is sometimes necessary,what concerns me most is that if Labour wins government, we will have coast to coast Labour Governments.
> Now if we have agreement from all states,territories,federal government and the senate, what do you believe could happen to the GST? It is within the constitution on GST to allow this to happen.
> Will the cash strapped states and territories pressure Kevin Rudd to increase the GST from 10% to ?????.After all they in debt to the tune of $70B.
> It is very possible and most likely probable.The states will have the muscle and may very well use it on Kevin Rudd.
> It is rather disconcerting when you think about it!




Yes, you're quite right.  There is not enough focus given to his aspect.
I'm surprised the Libs have not made more of a meal of it.

The other area which has had me squirming has been the response of some of the senior Libs to the polls, i.e. Alexander Downer rabbiting on about Labor being so cocky about how they are a shoo-in etc and that they would be in for a shock.  I've not actually heard any Labor candidate sounding cocky at all (though they would be more than a little entitled to), and all this sort of remark does is make Downer appear to have a limited grasp on the reality of the situation to go with his spiteful mutterings.

The other aspect I've been wondering about is whether the swing to Labor has reached the stage where it gathers momentum of its own accord, and people in some possibly subconscious way don't like to align themselves with "the losing side"?  So perhaps previously undecided voters might be jumping onto the side they perceive as winners?  I'd be interested to know if anyone else thinks this could be happening.


----------



## Rafa (6 September 2007)

i am amazed at the poll results, and would certainly expect them to close up come election time... one of the reasons is that the coalition are going to put in the mother of all scare campaigns...

GST rates: which Rudd has already discounted... and to be fair, i doubt that it will happen, not because I trust rudd… but IMHO raising the GST is as politically suicidal as Work Choices... i.e. loose the next election…. Regardless, there is still the issue of senate control which liberals will hold for quite a while.

(in other words, it will only succeed in scaring the ignorant)

The other issue is the experience factor... The thing is, besides Howard, the rest of his minister are a bunch of amateurs. 

Downer is an amateurish minister and his comments as per Julias post above, and he pervious ones confirm the opinion that he is an impetuous spoilt rich kid...  (which incidentally he is)… not a mature politician.

Costello is also a impetuous kid ... based on his tantrums on leadership... not to mention him trying to take all the credit either off Howard, or off Keating!

Minchin is on the record apologising to some institute (name escapes me)... that Work Choices is not tough enough.... now that is something that labor can use to counteract any liberal scare campaign!

And where do we even start on Abott, Hockey, Nelson and Andrews


----------



## explod (6 September 2007)

Julia said:


> Yes, you're quite right.  There is not enough focus given to his aspect.
> I'm surprised the Libs have not made more of a meal of it.
> 
> The other area which has had me squirming has been the response of some of the senior Libs to the polls, i.e. Alexander Downer rabbiting on about Labor being so cocky about how they are a shoo-in etc and that they would be in for a shock.  I've not actually heard any Labor candidate sounding cocky at all (though they would be more than a little entitled to), and all this sort of remark does is make Downer appear to have a limited grasp on the reality of the situation to go with his spiteful mutterings.
> ...




A lot of younger people for the last few years have leant towards a conservative bias but not that involved.  This group is now a big part of the work force and are the new mums and dads.   Some are terrified of higher interest rates and their mortgage.  The other group are fed up with rising rents and want their own home.   Both are being hurt by higher petrol, food and childcare.   They are not bothered by Iraq or the war on terror.  They do see enourmous waste in the Apec excercise and John H is coming over as a nerd.

Not hard to see why the polls are going the way they are and why they probably wont change.

Problem is a "lot of pollies think that us voters are as stupid as they are" was one member of the families comment


----------



## skint (6 September 2007)

greggy said:


> Hi arminius,
> 
> Whilst I think its more than likely that Mr Rudd (a 90% chance) will win the next election I doubt that he'll get 70% of the vote after preferences. If he did so there would be only a couple of conservatives left.  Even when Australia's worst governments were thrown out (IMO Scullin, Whitlam and Fraser) no one even got close to the figures that you were talking about.
> At this stage I'll tip  55% Labor to 45% Liberal which is still a massive swing to Labor on a two party preferred basis.
> Considering that most Australians want our troops out of Iraq (myself included, as long as its done gradually and not in one go) Mr Howard and Mr Bush appearing to be such good buddies isn't going to go down too well with the voters.




Hi Greggy, I can't agree with you with regard to Whitlam being "one of the worst governments". The stagflation (high unemployment/high inflation) at the time was a global phenomenon that was largely attributable to the massive oil price shocks of '72 and '74 (by memory). Globally, governments and their Reserve Bank equivalents were very poorly equipped to manage this new beast. Whitlam was probably the greatest social reformer in the decades before or since. Below is an extract from wikipedia which identifies some examples. 

"Whitlam replaced Australia's adversarial divorce laws with a new, no-fault system; acted to improve the position of women and the Aboriginal minority; introduced the Trade Practices Act; slashed tariff barriers; ended conscription; introduced a universal national health insurance scheme Medibank, now known as Medicare; gave independence to Papua New Guinea; made all university education free to its recipients; introduced needs-based federal funding for private schools; established the long-awaited "third tier" in Australian radio by legislating for the establishment of community-based FM radio (commercial FM radio would be established under his successor Fraser); and established diplomatic and trade relations with the People's Republic of China."

Whilst his failings such as Timor and minister selection were problematic, the above reforms put him streets ahead of those that went immediately before and after IMHO. Without Whitlam, it may well have transpired that Australia would have contnued down the path of the US (ie. health and education for those that can afford it). Unfortunately, Howard has been fighting tooth and nail to derail these reforms, the importance of which cannot be overstated.


----------



## arminius (6 September 2007)

personally, id like to see wall to wall labor, if only to have all our politicians reading off the same sheet of music. 

imagine what could be achieved!

how much time, money, and effort they spend fighting each other instead of  making the most of the opportunities. 
forget the scaremongering and fear for a minute. if all the states are labor, it might follow that the natural ideology of Australians IS labor, and so the insertion of a labor govt at federal level is a natural progression. 

by labor ideology i mean, protect the rights of all working people, and thats most of us.
provide strong health and education, and that affects most of us,

pursue a foreign policy that is in the best interests of our country, rather than someone else's, after all, it was labor's john curtin who told churchill to go jump re: deployment of 6th div to PNG,(kokoda) rather than europe. (greece n crete)
as raf said, if they pumped up the gst or some other nasty, they'd probably get kicked out in 3 yrs time.   

a bit of political harmony goes a long way.


----------



## Rafa (6 September 2007)

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22373545-12377,00.html



> *Rudd steals limelight with Mandarin
> By Doug Conway | September 06, 2007
> *
> 
> ...




Here's our 'EXPERIENCED' foreign minister downer at it again...!


----------



## chops_a_must (6 September 2007)

Rafa said:


> Here's our 'EXPERIENCED' foreign minister downer at it again...!



I'm continually amazed at Downer's gaffs, and the ignorance of Australians towards these. How can you have a foreign minister that actively insults other countries at every opportunity? Busted **** person... heh heh heh.


----------



## numbercruncher (6 September 2007)

> $10,000 BET SAYS RUDD’S WORKPLACE LAWS WORK FOR PUNTERS
> 
> Kevin Rudd and the Australian Labor Party have finally revealed their long awaited response to the Federal Government’s workplace relations policy and it has stimulated fresh election betting activity.
> 
> ...




http://bettingzone.com.au/default.aspx?s=newsdisplay&aid=3625


Ruddmeister for the Win


----------



## IFocus (6 September 2007)

> personally, id like to see wall to wall labor, if only to have all our politicians reading off the same sheet of music.




Hi arminius

The idea that State and Federal Governments getting along will never ever happen no matter what the political persuasion's. They always have and always will be poles apart. 
Those who remember Charlie Court (Liberal Party) here in the West kicking political gaols by staring down successive Federal Liberal Governments was an absolute vote winner and i don't believe the rules have changed for either side.

It would be a bonus if Rudd can form a consensus over health care etc with the states instead of the adversarial approach used by the Howard Government for political point scoring and centralization of power in Canberra (so much for the Federation) but i think its unlikely to happen.


Focus


----------



## chops_a_must (6 September 2007)

IFocus said:


> The idea that State and Federal Governments getting along will never ever happen no matter what the political persuasion's. They always have and always will be poles apart.
> Those who remember Charlie Court (Liberal Party) here in the West kicking political gaols by staring down successive Federal Liberal Governments was an absolute vote winner and i don't believe the rules have changed for either side.



WA politics is slightly different though. Even though I am a supporter of the "left", Charlie Court did do some incredibly important things, as did Richard for that matter, for the development of this state, despite the hurdles put up by the feds.

And as Allan Carpenter said last night, which is a constant gripe of residents here, that the rest of Australia has absolutely no idea what is going on or what does go on in this state.

Hopefully a Labor federal government would be less obstinant in coming to the table when it comes to helping this state out in vital infrastructure, rather than leaving us to do everything ourselves...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 September 2007)

Labor look as if they will romp in with a reasonable margin in the House of Reps. The Greens, Family First  and Pauline will probably hold the balance in the Senate.

Garpal


----------



## numbercruncher (6 September 2007)

You know Johnny has pulled off a trick straight out of his side kicks Dubbyas book and changed the law that if your not enrolled when he calls the election you cant vote !!!



> The new regulations will most affect those who are young enough never to have voted before, those on low incomes (because they're more likely to move home frequently), those with limited literacy or English skills, the disabled or housebound, and members of remote communities, which often lack reliable communications and ready access to bureaucratic offices. Indigenous Australians, many of whom live in remote areas and have limited English literacy, are also disproportionately represented among prisoners, all of whom have been completely disenfranchised under the new legislation. (Previously, those serving less than three years could vote.)




http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/democracy-sold-out-by-enrolment-law/2007/08/29/1188067186728.html


Johnny and his Imperialistic mates, busy selling out democracy.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> You know Johnny has pulled off a trick straight out of his side kicks Dubbyas book and changed the law that if your not enrolled when he calls the election you cant vote !!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




To which empire are you referring. As far as I know, none now exist,  since Britain pulled out of India. The czar is gone. The kaiser is long dead. Only the Greens seem interested in having global control. Even the poor old Chinese and Russians only want to make a quid now. Same with the Stans. 

Johnny and his mates will be gone soon and the millionaires in the ALP will be back in. There are other targets you could apply your logic to.

Garpal


----------



## Duckman#72 (6 September 2007)

greggy said:


> Hi arminius,
> 
> Considering that most Australians want our troops out of Iraq (myself included, as long as its done gradually and not in one go) Mr Howard and Mr Bush appearing to be such good buddies isn't going to go down too well with the voters.




Come voting day, very few voters will give a toss about the Iraq issue. Die hard labor supporters don't get that - nor will voters be voting on trees, climate change or nuclear power stations in their own backyard. These issues haven't decided an election yet and I doubt they will this year. 

The coalition has completely bungled the "unofficial" election campaign to date - but if they ever get their act together the polls could gap up considerably. 

Agreed they need to forget about getting any political mileage out of Bush and the US. That is dead and buried. But they don't really need it. They also need to stop targeting Kevin Beattie...sorry..I mean Rudd...(I keep forgetting his name). Every taunt makes him grow stronger....and every blemish on his resume.....followed by the obligatory "sorry" ......makes him more likeable. The voters want to like Rudd and they do. The Coalition have been trying to make the public dislike Rudd - and this is not going to happen.....they need to concentrate on making sure the public just don't vote for him.

The biggest assets for the Coalition are Swan, Gillard and Garrett. The Coalition need to bring these players front and centre come election time. Forget Rudd - put the spotlight on his frontbench. And the new ex-union party members. Each time Gillard, Swan and Garrett speaks they diminish the star that is "Kevin 07". 

The economy, unemployment, job security, wages, health and education will come back as the big issues in October - Hicks, Iraq, Bush, Whaling, Nuclear Power and all the other lefty issues will drop right off. 

In my opinion the election is far from over - the Government just need to tap into the right stream to stop the voter swing. As yet they haven't come close.....surely they will hit some targets before October.    

Duckman


----------



## moXJO (7 September 2007)

Duckman#72 said:


> The economy, unemployment, job security, wages, health and education will come back as the big issues in October - Hicks, Iraq, Bush, Whaling, Nuclear Power and all the other lefty issues will drop right off.
> Duckman




Totally agree with this statement. You would hope that wall to wall labor as rafa and arminius mentioned before would sort out the health and education mess in the states. Right now Rudd’s workplace measures would be tolerable with the unions on a lesh. Would have liked to have seen more done on the unfair dismissal laws for small business. But like I said it’s taken a bit of the sting out.

  If Rudd keeps his focus on fixing the mess in the states particularly the schools which are just a joke atm (and a real personal peeve) and the health system, then I don’t see the libs coming close.

On a side note, Rudd brown nosing the Chinese might be good considering they are looking like the future superpower. Howard seems to have already got us on good terms with the US from doing the same thing.

Will just have to wait and see what the election brings.


----------



## Spar (7 September 2007)

moXJO said:


> On a side note, Rudd brown nosing the Chinese might be good considering they are looking like the future superpower. Howard seems to have already got us on good terms with the US from doing the same thing.




Its real kudos if you can talk to a super power in their own language, and Rudd does speak Chinese.  That has got to give him brownie points with China. So with China a rising superpower, its better to have Rudd holding the reins. Its not as if he's anti-business, his own wife is a successful business person. Unlike Janette Howard, what does she actually do anyway, definitely not enough charity work according to other former first wives.


----------



## greggy (7 September 2007)

skint said:


> Hi Greggy, I can't agree with you with regard to Whitlam being "one of the worst governments". The stagflation (high unemployment/high inflation) at the time was a global phenomenon that was largely attributable to the massive oil price shocks of '72 and '74 (by memory). Globally, governments and their Reserve Bank equivalents were very poorly equipped to manage this new beast. Whitlam was probably the greatest social reformer in the decades before or since. Below is an extract from wikipedia which identifies some examples.
> 
> "Whitlam replaced Australia's adversarial divorce laws with a new, no-fault system; acted to improve the position of women and the Aboriginal minority; introduced the Trade Practices Act; slashed tariff barriers; ended conscription; introduced a universal national health insurance scheme Medibank, now known as Medicare; gave independence to Papua New Guinea; made all university education free to its recipients; introduced needs-based federal funding for private schools; established the long-awaited "third tier" in Australian radio by legislating for the establishment of community-based FM radio (commercial FM radio would be established under his successor Fraser); and established diplomatic and trade relations with the People's Republic of China."
> 
> Whilst his failings such as Timor and minister selection were problematic, the above reforms put him streets ahead of those that went immediately before and after IMHO. Without Whitlam, it may well have transpired that Australia would have contnued down the path of the US (ie. health and education for those that can afford it). Unfortunately, Howard has been fighting tooth and nail to derail these reforms, the importance of which cannot be overstated.



Hi Skint,

There's no doubting the fact that Whitlam introduced a number of important social reforms, many of which I agree with being a small "l" liberal in terms of political philosophy.  The problem is that he had quite a number of incompetent ministers and tried to do too much in such a short period of time.  Spending went way through the roof and there was also a wages explosion. He did little in the way of controlling inflation until it was too late.  Infact, the 1975 Budget delivered by Bill Hayden was probably its best budget. But we all know what happened next.  Fraser's mob kept on refusing to pass the supply bill.  Fraser was indeed a divisive leader and IMO a failed PM. He left us with high unemployment and inflation.   
I also especially didn't like the fact that Whitlam turned a blind eye to the situation in East Timor.


----------



## greggy (7 September 2007)

Duckman#72 said:


> Come voting day, very few voters will give a toss about the Iraq issue. Die hard labor supporters don't get that - nor will voters be voting on trees, climate change or nuclear power stations in their own backyard. These issues haven't decided an election yet and I doubt they will this year.
> 
> The coalition has completely bungled the "unofficial" election campaign to date - but if they ever get their act together the polls could gap up considerably.
> 
> ...




Hi Duckman,

The situation in Iraq is still a negative for the Howard Government.  To be pictured and appearing to be a great chum of Bush is no longer a political asset. There's plenty of doctor's wives out there who consider the issue very seriously.   
Rudd is in a strong position and the government will have to work very hard indeed to win back lost support.


----------



## greggy (7 September 2007)

Julia said:


> Yes, you're quite right.  There is not enough focus given to his aspect.
> I'm surprised the Libs have not made more of a meal of it.
> 
> The other area which has had me squirming has been the response of some of the senior Libs to the polls, i.e. Alexander Downer rabbiting on about Labor being so cocky about how they are a shoo-in etc and that they would be in for a shock.  I've not actually heard any Labor candidate sounding cocky at all (though they would be more than a little entitled to), and all this sort of remark does is make Downer appear to have a limited grasp on the reality of the situation to go with his spiteful mutterings.
> ...



Hi Julia,

Interesting points as always.  
I've noticed increasing bitterness among a growing number of Howard's ministers.  This will not change how people vote.  What they need to do is to figure out why the electorate is generally turning against them in such a big way before its too late.  Howard has come from behind before, but this time he's leaving it a bit late.    
In relation to undecided voters, I feel that most of them make up their minds during the election campaign.  There may be a few voters who jump onto the Rudd campaign simply because momentum is running his way.  But I often feel that undecided voters sometimes shift the other way when it looks as if a party is far ahead in the polls.  This happened in the 1999 Vic State Election.  Kennett was far ahead in the polls and was headed for another landslide victory.  A considerable number of voters changed their minds at the last minute and Bracks was voted in as Premier.  
On a totally diffferent subject it was very impressive to see Rudd talk Chinese yesterday in the presence of China's leader.  As China is now a major trading partner our relationship with them under a Rudd Government is unlikely to suffer. Infact, it may even be improved.  Rudd's Chinese work experience has served him very well indeed.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 September 2007)

Spar said:


> Its real kudos if you can talk to a super power in their own language, and Rudd does speak Chinese.  That has got to give him brownie points with China. So with China a rising superpower, its better to have Rudd holding the reins. Its not as if he's anti-business, his own wife is a successful business person. Unlike Janette Howard, what does she actually do anyway, definitely not enough charity work according to other former first wives.



spar
do any of us do enough charity work?
as for the speaking chinese bit - lol - 
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s2026356.htm



> RICHARD WOOLCOTT: (laughs) Well, that's right. There are plenty of examples like that. I mean, there's one in my book where Andrei Gromyko, the Russian foreign minister at the time was meeting Jack McEwen, who was then the deputy prime minister of Australia, and the Russian interpreter introduced him.
> 
> And in those days the National Party was called the Country Party, and he was having trouble with this and what he actually said in Russian meant that, "This is the honourable John McEwen, the Deputy Prime Minster of Australia and the leader of the Australian Peasants Party", and Gromyko actually spoke quite good English, said, "Really? I didn't know they had one!"
> 
> ...


----------



## Rafa (7 September 2007)

hehe... 

apparently rudd met with Hu today and conducted the whole meeting in mandarin!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...ns-games-invite/2007/09/07/1188783466709.html

he also scored an invite to the olympics (which i assume is regardless of election outcome).



> China's President Hu Jintao has invited federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd and his family to Beijing for next year's Olympics.
> 
> Mr Hu made the offer during formal talks in Sydney conducted in the Chinese leader's native language of Mandarin this morning.
> 
> ...


----------



## Happy (7 September 2007)

He might be handy as translator for next Australian PM if it doesn't happen to be him.

(If true, Hu with this invitation seems to have covered all bases).


----------



## numbercruncher (7 September 2007)

This is Chinas way of unofficially endorsing Rudd as PM !!


China is our guarantee of economic prosperity !


If your a resource bull, Rudds the best bet !


----------



## moneymajix (7 September 2007)

Election campaign

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5rT97LGmtw&mode=related&search=


----------



## numbercruncher (7 September 2007)

Good one Money, that was hilarious


----------



## moneymajix (7 September 2007)

NC

Quite well done.


There are other episodes to be found on YouTube for those interested.


----------



## numbercruncher (7 September 2007)

While there found this one, suitable seen these guys are a hot topic atm 




Chaser War on Everything - John W. Howard


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-ALZyrAF3Q&mode=related&search=


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> If your a resource bull, Rudds the best bet !



hey - now isn't that an interesting take on it lol.
you might be right cruncher.
.... in the economy of the future, no man is an island - maybe that particularly goes for Aus (whatever the geography book says)  ?


----------



## vvguru (8 September 2007)

the perception is liberals are better on economy, so our johnny is share market friendly, if labor wins would be too much for market confidence, but seems our share traders paying the dearest for liberals, their bribe-to-retain-in-power tax cut 2 years in a row now seen overdone.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 September 2007)

I read recently that "Menzies was a poisonous old fart, hanging around the backside of Great Britain"
so I guess you could say that Johnny has just .. moved the concept around the world a bit


----------



## Julia (10 September 2007)

In another thread I wondered if Labor in both Federal and State governments might mean an improvement in our woeful health services.  Well, perhaps not.


----------



## greggy (10 September 2007)

Julia said:


> In another thread I wondered if Labor in both Federal and State governments might mean an improvement in our woeful health services.  Well, perhaps not.



Nice cartoon there, Julia.  I would like to see the Federal Government take over health services as I'm sick to death of the constant blaming games played by both state and federal governments.  The current system isn't working and trying something different will not hurt in my opinion.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 September 2007)

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2029170.htm
Media watch tonight was a classic !!
Miranda Devine shown up to be the idiot she is- 
and Dennis Shanahan
(and possibly Andrew Bolt - by association?) 

Attached is Shanahan's article in the Australian - god he and Devine are jokes!!

"the first casualty of war is truth"

serious desperation on Iraq publicity
 cripes even out-Vietnaming Vietnam 

the truth??


> Baghdad Civilian deaths rose in August to their second-highest monthly level this year…That raises questions about whether U.S. strategy is working days before Congress receives landmark reports that will decide the course of the war.
> 
> — Associated Press, AP's Count: Contrary to Claims - Civilian Deaths Soaring in Iraq, 1st September, 2007




Here's one of Devine's articles:-
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/0728_devine.pdf



> Miranda Devine's own instant expert status was achieved in less than 48 hours in Iraq.
> 
> Her elevation to visiting war correspondent has been met with "scoffing" derision within Fairfax.
> 
> ...


----------



## Julia (11 September 2007)

greggy said:


> Nice cartoon there, Julia.  I would like to see the Federal Government take over health services as I'm sick to death of the constant blaming games played by both state and federal governments.  The current system isn't working and trying something different will not hurt in my opinion.




Hi Greggy,
Yes, you'd think any option would be an improvement, wouldn't you!
But the Federal Government's record on nursing homes (for which they have full responsibility) is less than reassuring.


----------



## noirua (11 September 2007)

Julia said:


> Hi Greggy,
> Yes, you'd think any option would be an improvement, wouldn't you!
> But the Federal Government's record on nursing homes (for which they have full responsibility) is less than reassuring.




Here is a link to nusing homes in Australia:  http://www.itsyourlife.com.au/information/nursing_homes.htm

How the UK compares on costs etc., ( excluding Scotland, where all care home costs are free):  http://www.neath-porttalbot.gov.uk/olderpeople/residential.cfm


----------



## Rafa (11 September 2007)

Julia said:


> Hi Greggy,
> Yes, you'd think any option would be an improvement, wouldn't you!
> But the Federal Government's record on nursing homes (for which they have full responsibility) is less than reassuring.




yeah, tho i have also heard states complaining that if there was enough nursing homes for the elderly it would free up stacks of beds in the hospitals... and hence improve hospital performance!

the buck needs to stop with one govt, only then they can look at it wholistically.... 

ah... one can always dream... 

but i think one party at all levels is actually a good thing... at least for a few years.... the labor run in the states will end soon enough, it a natural cycle.


----------



## greggy (11 September 2007)

Julia said:


> Hi Greggy,
> Yes, you'd think any option would be an improvement, wouldn't you!
> But the Federal Government's record on nursing homes (for which they have full responsibility) is less than reassuring.



Good morning Julia,

I'm just sick of the blaming games that all governments play.  I rather see responsibilities given to one or the other especially when there are so many problems. 
The federal government's record on nursing homes has been poor indeed.  Surely some of the surplus could be used to fix the problem.  I think that the quality of aged care is generally less than par and that's both private and public.


----------



## robert toms (11 September 2007)

Asian countries are a little bewildered by aged care in places like Australia....families in Australia pass responsibility for their parents and relatives to aged care facilities,and then blame governments for the standards of aged care.
Is this because people are too busy making money,and in most cases excess ,to really care about these things ?
I write with hypocrisy ,because my mother spent the last six years of her life in a high care nursing home.I had more important things to do with my life.
(My wife is a manager of an aged care facility)


----------



## greggy (11 September 2007)

robert toms said:


> Asian countries are a little bewildered by aged care in places like Australia....families in Australia pass responsibility for their parents and relatives to aged care facilities,and then blame governments for the standards of aged care.
> Is this because people are too busy making money,and in most cases excess ,to really care about these things ?
> I write with hypocrisy ,because my mother spent the last six years of her life in a high care nursing home.I had more important things to do with my life.
> (My wife is a manager of an aged care facility)




Thought provoking comments there.  I'd like to think that most people still care a lot about their parents.  I care deeply for both my parents, one of whom recently had a severe stroke. Luckily my mother is still able to care for him.  I've had discussions with them about the subject of aged care (down the track) and would be more than happy for them to live with me.  They have told me that they would prefer to live in a retirement village or a private nursing home.  
Some people dump their parents into nursing homes and forget about them which I find totally disgusting.


----------



## Happy (11 September 2007)

robert toms said:


> Asian countries are a little bewildered by aged care in places like Australia....families in Australia pass responsibility for their parents and relatives to aged care facilities,and then blame governments for the standards of aged care.
> Is this because people are too busy making money,and in most cases excess ,to really care about these things ?
> I write with hypocrisy ,because my mother spent the last six years of her life in a high care nursing home.I had more important things to do with my life.
> (My wife is a manager of an aged care facility)





Shifting responsibility doesn’t stop there.
We covered to some extent people to blame everybody and everything except themselves for being overweight.

Similar voices cry for help in raising children, education.

Even publican is responsible for drunken patron hitting the road and then hitting something else.

We had even uncovered meat comment for excuse of rape.

What next?


----------



## Julia (11 September 2007)

I think it's very easy to say we should all take our aged parents into our homes and care for them, but in reality this frequently just isn't an option because of complex physical and psychological problems which require nursing attention and security in the case of dementia.

Also, it's simply not always the case that the aged parent wants to live with the children and will prefer to be amongst their own age group.

Friends of mine cared for the mother for seven years.  She had very advanced dementia - did not know them, could not talk, walk, feed herself, was incontinent etc.  It took both of them to look after her with the bathing, lifting etc.  So they both gave up very highly paid jobs - one a psychologist, and the other a University administrator, and lived on Carer's Pensions for the whole of this time.  They felt it was what they wanted to do but it significantly disadvantaged them financially and I found it hard to see that it made much difference to the mother.

With another friend, her mother was really happy in a hostel type situation and they enjoyed a very happy relationship until the old lady died.  They both agreed their relationship would not have survived the old lady living with the daughter.

But, despite individual needs and preferences, those in our community - and it might be all of us one day - should have the right to a dignified old age and not have to worry about being left in wet beds for whole days at a time.


----------



## greggy (11 September 2007)

On a different note, the press is today full of reports that a growing number of Howard's ministers want Howard to step down before the election.  Labour must be really laughing in the background.  So close to an election, yet there is growing disunity amongst conservative ranks.  Unless Rudd completely stuffs during the election campaign I reckon he's headed for a landslide victory.  If a growing number of Howard's ministers don't want him in charge then how do they expect the voters to re-elect them for another term.  Maybe, just maybe, its time for Howard to step down and give his replacement a few months to settle in to the new job. The most likely replacement is Costello who will benefit (if sworn in) from a honeymoon period.     
Any thoughts?


----------



## Happy (11 September 2007)

greggy said:


> On a different note, the press is today full of reports that a growing number of Howard's ministers want Howard to step down before the election.  Labour must be really laughing in the background.  So close to an election, yet there is growing disunity amongst conservative ranks.  Unless Rudd completely stuffs during the election campaign I reckon he's headed for a landslide victory.  If a growing number of Howard's ministers don't want him in charge then how do they expect the voters to re-elect them for another term.  Maybe, just maybe, its time for Howard to step down and give his replacement a few months to settle in to the new job. The most likely replacement is Costello who will benefit (if sworn in) from a honeymoon period.
> Any thoughts?




I wander if Mr Downer has a chance as an alternative to Mr Costello.
Why replacement has to come from treasurer’s seat?


----------



## numbercruncher (11 September 2007)

Happy said:


> I wander if Mr Downer has a chance as an alternative to Mr Costello.
> Why replacement has to come from treasurer’s seat?




Sshhhh the stinking libs will get more votes if Downer gets the hot seat.


----------



## skint (11 September 2007)

greggy said:


> On a different note, the press is today full of reports that a growing number of Howard's ministers want Howard to step down before the election.  Labour must be really laughing in the background.  So close to an election, yet there is growing disunity amongst conservative ranks.  Unless Rudd completely stuffs during the election campaign I reckon he's headed for a landslide victory.  If a growing number of Howard's ministers don't want him in charge then how do they expect the voters to re-elect them for another term.  Maybe, just maybe, its time for Howard to step down and give his replacement a few months to settle in to the new job. The most likely replacement is Costello who will benefit (if sworn in) from a honeymoon period.
> Any thoughts?




The Tories are damned whichever way they jump. Public and private polling consistently indicate that Costello is less popular than Howard. On the other hand, with Howard currently at the helm, the bookies have Labour at $1.37 (for a $1 bet) and the Liberals at $3.10. Also, I don't think that Costello would enjoy the traditional honeymoon, due to his "fart in a space suit" level of popularity. I've also read that Costello doesn't want the leadership until after the election. That is, he "doesn't want to be handed the dirty nappy". The Libs will be throwing a massive amount of resources into being re-elected but FINALLY, FINALLY, FINALLY, it looks hopeful that they're going to meet their Waterloo. If Maxine McKew beats Howard in Bennalong, that would just be the ultimate cream on the cake. Be good to see this divisive and regressive twit of a PM scurrying off with his tail between his legs.


----------



## skint (11 September 2007)

Happy said:


> I wander if Mr Downer has a chance as an alternative to Mr Costello.
> Why replacement has to come from treasurer’s seat?




The Libs have already tried Downer. He was an absolute disaster for them. He went from gaffe to gaffe to self implosion. What did they do with a bloke who can't open his mouth without sticking his foot in it? Made him the foreign minister! Personally, I hope they do put him in the top job. The Coalition would then have absolutely zero chance of winning. Although its not yet a certainty, if the coalition do lose the election, I wouldn't be surrised to see Turnbull chipping away at Costello from the sidelines and taking a shot leadership. He definitely wants it.


----------



## greggy (11 September 2007)

Happy said:


> I wander if Mr Downer has a chance as an alternative to Mr Costello.
> Why replacement has to come from treasurer’s seat?



Hi Happy,

It would be fair to say that at this stage Costello would be the front runner to take over from Howard.  A left of field option would be Turnbull.  Turnbull is a moderate who might give the coalition a boost in the polls. However, he might need to increase his profile. Downer proved to be a disaster last time he was in charge of the Liberal Party with his "things that batter" joke. 
Opinion polls have consistently shown the Liberals being even furthe behind under Costello's leadership.  Either way the speculation going on is damaging the Liberal Party. One other note, if Howard were to step down he would most probably retire from federal politics thus making it easier for Labor to win his seat.


----------



## somesortoftrader (11 September 2007)

skint said:


> The Tories are damned whichever way they jump. Public and private polling consistently indicate that Costello is less popular than Howard. On the other hand, with Howard currently at the helm, the bookies have Labour at $1.37 (for a $1 bet) and the Liberals at $3.10. Also, I don't think that Costello would enjoy the traditional honeymoon, due to his "fart in a space suit" level of popularity. I've also read that Costello doesn't want the leadership until after the election. That is, he "doesn't want to be handed the dirty nappy". The Libs will be throwing a massive amount of resources into being re-elected but FINALLY, FINALLY, FINALLY, it looks hopeful that they're going to meet their Waterloo. If Maxine McKew beats Howard in Bennalong, that would just be the ultimate cream on the cake. Be good to see this divisive and regressive twit of a PM scurrying off with his tail between his legs.




Diatribe like this has sunken the thread into an argy bargy of nothingness.  

The Polls & the Bookies are saying a win to Rudd/Labor.... but do they deserve to win?  Rudd still needs to offer something for mine... winning on the back of a "its time" mandate is frog droppings! 

I say bring on the election campaign and lets some ticker.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 September 2007)

here's an old post that introduced (accidentally perhaps lol) some of the minor parties ...
and some of the other "clashes" that the election campaign may yet introduce for the major parties to lock horns over. 

but, as you say, (somesorta) , bring on the REAL election campaign , - 
.........
 which, arguably, (when it does finally start) - will already have grey hair lol 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=169060&highlight=dichotomies#post169060



> As we suggested earlier in this guide, online censorship and digital free speech have become something of a crusade for enthusiasts of various persuasions, with truth caught in the crossfire while industry groups and government agencies tread warily (or merely wearily) across the battlefield



let's agree that, in Aus, it's a privelege we enjoy to be able to disagree - without a midnight knock on the door


----------



## Whiskers (11 September 2007)

somesortoftrader said:


> The Polls & the Bookies are saying a win to Rudd/Labor.... but do they deserve to win?  Rudd still needs to offer something for mine... winning on the back of a "its time" mandate is frog droppings!




I think the most forgotten, or rather dissafected groups from the Lib's policies perspective are the elderly and youth. The aged care problems and IR controvicies, probably the two biggest issues.

No doubt Howard will come up with some 'carrots' once the campaign is officially launched, but the feeling I am getting is that most people want a government with more social conscience. 

Traditionally Labour wears that mantle and Rudd seems to be quite acceptable as leader.

As the old saying goes... oppositions don't win power, governments loose power. In this case I just can't see howard winning back peoples confidence. I believe he is in the similar position and the only thing he can do to salvage any hope for his party is resign as beattie has done.

Otherwise, it may well come down to just that... 'it's time for a change'.


----------



## skint (11 September 2007)

somesortoftrader said:


> Diatribe like this has sunken the thread into an argy bargy of nothingness.
> 
> The Polls & the Bookies are saying a win to Rudd/Labor.... but do they deserve to win?  Rudd still needs to offer something for mine... winning on the back of a "its time" mandate is frog droppings!
> 
> I say bring on the election campaign and lets some ticker.




Read my post. Read your post. Which one offered more substantive evidence of the likely outcome of the next federal election. Does Labour desrve to win? - Different discussion. Happy to have it.


----------



## numbercruncher (11 September 2007)

somesortoftrader said:


> Diatribe like this has sunken the thread into an argy bargy of nothingness.
> 
> The Polls & the Bookies are saying a win to Rudd/Labor.... but do they deserve to win?  Rudd still needs to offer something for mine... winning on the back of a "its time" mandate is frog droppings!
> 
> I say bring on the election campaign and lets some ticker.





You should check out Labors website, if there isnt a proposal in there that you find substantially appealing I would be flabbergasted.

I believe all voters at this election should look further than short term gain and think long term sustainability with Australias best interests at heart, it sure seems to me that Labors plans will deliver on this.

Im afraid if Liberals remain they will continue to squander money on patch jobs and reactionary fixes, Labors plans are proactive and will steer us towards an Sustainable and prosperous future. 

What scares me to death is Howard is setting us up to become exactly like the US, at a time when we should be becoming uniquely Australian, they are quickly evaporating our individual identity and good reputation.


----------



## The Mint Man (11 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> You should check out Labors website, if there isnt a proposal in there that you find substantially appealing I would be flabbergasted.
> 
> I believe all voters at this election should look further than short term gain and think long term sustainability with Australias best interests at heart, it sure seems to me that Labors plans will deliver on this.
> 
> ...




Hey numbercruncher,
Could you please provide the link to the labor website, I would like to look up their Tax policy and do some number crunching of my own

Cheers


----------



## numbercruncher (11 September 2007)

Howdy The Mint Man


http://http://labor.com.au/

http://http://kevin07.com.au/



If you want your vote to count this year, Make sure you are enrolled, Johnny has taken a feather out of his Idol G.Dubbyas book and altered the rules, not enrolled when the election is called and you cant vote.

Just another sign of what life under Howard will be like in the future, Imagine the rules of our police state when hes 90 and still running the show  I reckon by then speaking against the Government would probably be an act of Terrorism punishable by 10 years or a finacial sum of equivalent pain. Ok im going a bit over the top, I did vote Liberal the last couple of elections but they are now freaking me out.

I think the swing to Labor is shaping up to be massive, my 11 year old neice was lecturing my Wife about how terrible Howards government have become, told so by there teachers !! The new Gen have be taught from an early age to be very enviromentally resposible, something Johnny and co currently have zero credibility in.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (11 September 2007)

I love lamp!

I love lamp!


----------



## arminius (11 September 2007)

hi all,

if howard handed costello the top job it would be nothing more than a hospital pass, and maybe destroy costello as a political force.

would the libs have the foresight to see past this election and rally their forces for 2009, with PT at the helm. going on their performance as a government, id have to say no. 

a lib backbencher was crying the other day that all the attention was on JH and not 'the team'. unfortunately 'the team' are reserve grade at best. as many have said, everyone is depressed by downer, turnbull doesnt appear to have popular support, and the less said about the rest the better. 

i think the libs will let howard get washed down the drain with all the filthy bath water and return in 2009 with Mal Brough at the helm. 
of course by then we'd have had 3 yrs of prosperity, security, and social justice and the libs will not hold power for AT LEAST 10-15 yrs.

for those who are scared, especially about the US alliance, remember that bush is gone in a yr and either clinton or obama will be boss, both ideological allies of the ALP.


----------



## trinity (11 September 2007)

> What scares me to death is Howard is setting us up to become exactly like the US, at a time when we should be becoming uniquely Australian, they are quickly evaporating our individual identity and good reputation




That would really be sad if Australia becomes more and more like the US.  What's with all those US tellie shows brainwashing our kids?  I have personally never been to the US, but, scares the !!! out of me when I hear of kids going to school and some looney toon decides to blow everyone's head off.  

Anyways, election is to be called soon ... so, let's hope and pray for the best.


----------



## Julia (11 September 2007)

arminius said:


> ,
> 
> 
> i think the libs will let howard get washed down the drain with all the filthy bath water and return in 2009 with Mal Brough at the helm.




Now, that is a sensible suggestion.  I think Mal Brough has a lot of promise.


----------



## Duckman#72 (11 September 2007)

skint said:


> The Tories are damned whichever way they jump. Public and private polling consistently indicate that Costello is less popular than Howard. On the other hand, with Howard currently at the helm, the bookies have Labour at $1.37 (for a $1 bet) and the Liberals at $3.10. The Libs will be throwing a massive amount of resources into being re-elected but FINALLY, FINALLY, FINALLY, it looks hopeful that they're going to meet their Waterloo. If Maxine McKew beats Howard in Bennalong, that would just be the ultimate cream on the cake. Be good to see this divisive and regressive twit of a PM scurrying off with his tail between his legs.




Lions headed to Perth to play West Coast earlier this year with the Eagles at the unbackable odds of $1.20 and the Lions at $7.00. The Lions won. 

As for the comment about the 11 year old niece who's teachers had been talking about "the terrible John Howard" - that is nothing new. I had a teacher in Year 7 that used to tell us daily how all the problems in Queensland could be related back to Joh. Union reps have been pushing their own agenda for years!! 

Skint - I'm sorry that the last 11 years have left you so obviously scarred.   

Duckman


----------



## chops_a_must (11 September 2007)

Julia said:


> Now, that is a sensible suggestion.  I think Mal Brough has a lot of promise.



I think all of you guys are way off the mark and are missing the most obvious candidate, Andrew Peacock. With everything that has gone wrong with Howard of late, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if he pops up somewhere.

Perhaps the soufflÃ© can rise thrice. Lol!

I'm trying to find a fast forward clip of the Starship Free Enterprise to go along with this... no luck. 

What's my age again? What's my age again? Lol!


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 September 2007)

chops 


> An Droopy ****?
> lol - not bludy likely




Here's that post again - Media watch
NB - the govt are seriously pushing crap here !!! - misinformation about the Iraq war 
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2029170.htm
seriously disturbing !! - seriously dishonest crap.



> *Still there are pockets of blind loyalty to the Government and Defence Minister Brendan Nelson knows exactly where to find them. In this election year he's hand picked just three journalists to join him on his travels to Iraq and Afghanistan.  They're government barrackers - Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt, The Australian's political editor, Dennis Shanahan and The Sydney Morning Herald's columnist, Miranda Devine.*
> 
> Two - Miranda Devine and Dennis Shanahan have just been to Iraq with the Minister.  *And both splashed with front page stories that the war in Iraq was now going much better than you might have thought.*
> 
> ...


----------



## explod (12 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> chops
> 
> 
> Here's that post again - Media watch
> ...




Most who have made up their minds for the election have already switched off because of such percieved manipulation and destruction of the media since the start of the war, and our disgraceful participation in it. 

Too late, the backroom libs are realising this finally; and the adage that, "you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all..."  etc

Interesting, that when dollars are being spent and the lives of our own are at risk, the ultimate auditor's are the electorate


----------



## ghotib (12 September 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> I think all of you guys are way off the mark and are missing the most obvious candidate, Andrew Peacock. With everything that has gone wrong with Howard of late, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if he pops up somewhere.
> 
> Perhaps the soufflÃ© can rise thrice. Lol!
> 
> ...



HOOOOOWWWWLLLLL!!!!

Thanks you Chops. This is a glorious time for lovers of politics as theatre, but that's introduced a truly wonderful comic sub-plot to a classical Greek tragedy. 

Hmmm.. HOW old did you say you were??


----------



## chops_a_must (12 September 2007)

ghotib said:


> HOOOOOWWWWLLLLL!!!!
> 
> Thanks you Chops. This is a glorious time for lovers of politics as theatre, but that's introduced a truly wonderful comic sub-plot to a classical Greek tragedy.
> 
> Hmmm.. HOW old did you say you were??



I don't know, but I was a very politically astute 3 year old when Peacock was having his second go. Lol!


----------



## skint (12 September 2007)

Duckman#72 said:


> Lions headed to Perth to play West Coast earlier this year with the Eagles at the unbackable odds of $1.20 and the Lions at $7.00. The Lions won.
> 
> As for the comment about the 11 year old niece who's teachers had been talking about "the terrible John Howard" - that is nothing new. I had a teacher in Year 7 that used to tell us daily how all the problems in Queensland could be related back to Joh. Union reps have been pushing their own agenda for years!!
> 
> ...




Whilst it's true that a political party/footy team etc.. can win against unbackable odds, it happens rarely. Otherwise all the bookies would be broke long ago. 
I haven't read the post about the "11 year old niece", but as for Joh, your Year 7 teacher wasn't too far wrong. Recall Joh's proposal to turn the Barrier Reef into a huge oil field or perhaps his attempt to turn the Daintree into suburban lots. How much tourist income would Queenslanders now be doing without if he had his way? Joh had Queensland so gerry mandered that he kept being re-elected with a paltry percent of the vote. When he ran for PM, he didn't win a single seat in Queensland or elsewhere without the benefit of the gerry mander. Recall also that 11 out of 12 jurors found him to guilty of gross corruption. The 12th juror turned out to be a fanatical Joh supporter and the jury ended up being hung. On a positive note though, I think Joh is doing his best work right now!


----------



## Duckman#72 (12 September 2007)

skint said:


> as for Joh, your Year 7 teacher wasn't too far wrong. Recall Joh's proposal to turn the Barrier Reef into a huge oil field or perhaps his attempt to turn the Daintree into suburban lots. How much tourist income would Queenslanders now be doing without if he had his way? Joh had Queensland so gerry mandered that he kept being re-elected with a paltry percent of the vote. When he ran for PM, he didn't win a single seat in Queensland or elsewhere without the benefit of the gerry mander. Recall also that 11 out of 12 jurors found him to guilty of gross corruption. The 12th juror turned out to be a fanatical Joh supporter and the jury ended up being hung. On a positive note though,
> 
> I think Joh is doing his best work right now!




I think my Grade 7 teacher would agree with that statement!!!

......actually your ravings are giving me flashbacks.......oh it couldn't be...could it?.... NO WAY......you're not Mr Hansen are you? 

Oh ****.....I had no idea who I was talking to.....sorry Sir......won't happen again Sir......yes Sir....more power to the Unions Sir.......yes Sir .......completely corrupt imbecile Sir....yes Sir....go Kevin 07....whatever you want me to think Sir.


----------



## happytown (12 September 2007)

this may just explain a thing or two,

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...cs10sep10,0,5349018.story?coll=la-home-center



> Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain
> 
> Even in humdrum nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives literally think differently, researchers show.
> 
> ...




link to the study,

*note: sub req'd for article, abstract only appears below*:

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nn1979.html



> Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism
> 
> Political scientists and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty. We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern.




cheers


----------



## nioka (12 September 2007)

happytown said:


> this may just explain a thing or two,
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...cs10sep10,0,5349018.story?coll=la-home-center
> 
> ...



No wonder the current government parties in Australia have so many problems between themselves. The Liberal party is the conservative party which this article says are opposites. That is why they confuse us with noncore promises. They are confused themselves trying to decide if they are liberal or conservative.


----------



## greggy (12 September 2007)

nioka said:


> No wonder the current government parties in Australia have so many problems between themselves. The Liberal party is the conservative party which this article says are opposites. That is why they confuse us with noncore promises. They are confused themselves trying to decide if they are liberal or conservative.




The politics of it all is also confused by the fact that Rudd is fairly conservative himself.  Other than on IR and Iraq I see no other significant differences between Howard and Rudd. I feel that the "Its Time" theme is now one of the major factors as to why the Liberals are trailing so badly in the polls. The current disunity within the Liberal Party could only worsen the situation.  Its very interesting how Costello has kept quiet during the past week.  So close to an election its madness how they're behaving. From the point of view of a swinging voter, its very off puting.


----------



## Aussiejeff (12 September 2007)

It would be interesting to see how this threads "old" poll results would shape up if it started from today.... most votes were cast some time ago and of course, you can't revote! 

The thread poll's extreme closeness (within 3-4%) appears to be at odds with what all the recent polls out there are saying..... 

AJ


----------



## theasxgorilla (12 September 2007)

nioka said:


> The Liberal party is the conservative party which this article says are opposites. That is why they confuse us with noncore promises. They are confused themselves trying to decide if they are liberal or conservative.




Ifs a flaw with just using left-wing/right-wing to define political parties, IMO.


----------



## Whiskers (12 September 2007)

With an election coming up and possibly a constitutional referendum later re the replubic issue, we should be considering another constitutional change.

This transpired from the worst drought ever thread and a particularly low period in Qld democracy.

People... we need a law for politicans, similar to business law where a nominated percentage of shareholders can force a general meeting and vote on issues.

Qld premier Beattie, sacked his own party members for not jumping to his command  on the Traverston dam and arogantly threatened to sack any councils who organised a poll re the redistrubution issue. I know other states and federally we have perodiaclly had the same issues.

I say do unto others as you wish them to do unto you. 

We need a mechanism in our constitution to enable us the people to call a vote on issues where politicians inexplicibly go against the wishes of the people, to recind bad laws and/or decisions and/or politicans who highjack the system rather than having to tolerate them and the damage they do for up to three years before we can vote them out. 

*We need the power to sack politicans like Beattie as brutally as he sacked and threatened to sack his opponents. That would be true democracy*


----------



## numbercruncher (12 September 2007)

I agree with Whiskers.


----------



## explod (12 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> I agree with Whiskers.




Problem with your approach is, that the quality of pollies though bad enough, with increased contraints and restrictions will only make it more difficult to attract better charachters to Parliament.

To improve the quality of parliamentarians and the system, more people need to join their preferred parties at the local levels and be a part of the machine the makes the choices and guides the development of policy.  It is in this area that Unions have always been strong and perhaps imposed an imballance on the ALP for example.

When I worked in west Queensland as a youth I remember the Country Party being very active at all levels which gave old Joh for example great power on one hand but he had to be on the ball within that system and make the state work for those behind him.  Porbably not a good example because he went badly off the rails at the end.   But that is my drift


----------



## Whiskers (12 September 2007)

explod said:


> Problem with your approach is, that the quality of pollies though bad enough, with increased contraints and restrictions will only make it more difficult to attract better charachters to Parliament.




Hi explod

I have no doubt we would see a different type of people entering politics. 

I reckon it boils down to the business best practice definition of a good leader, someone who earns the respect of their constituents as opposed to demanding respect a la military, police style.

From my experience good  leaders often stay in so called thankless positions in social and sporting organisations without pay when there is open transparent cooperative administration. 

Ordinary employees and business execs have those constraints and restrictions now. I'd have thought a more accountable system would only discourage sly, dishonest, manipulative people with hidden adgendas.


----------



## greggy (14 September 2007)

theasxgorilla said:


> Ifs a flaw with just using left-wing/right-wing to define political parties, IMO.



IMO its harder these days to distinguish between left wing and right wing parties as many left wing parties have turned towards the political centre and even to the right in many cases (e.g. England and Australia). It seems that everyones trying to please the financial markets these days!


----------



## noirua (23 October 2007)

The election is a long drawn out affair and although Labor are well in the lead the Liberal coalition has an ace up its sleeve. IF the polls fail to improve in the next 3 weeks then Howard will agree to hand over to Costello within 18 months, after the election.


----------



## Julia (23 October 2007)

noirua said:


> The election is a long drawn out affair and although Labor are well in the lead the Liberal coalition has an ace up its sleeve. IF the polls fail to improve in the next 3 weeks then Howard will agree to hand over to Costello within 18 months, after the election.




Noirua, he has already said he will hand over to Costello at about 18 months. Are you saying you believe he will say 'vote for me but as soon as the election is over I will retire and Costello will be PM'?  I'm not sure what you mean???

The way the polls are going, it's going to be a hypothetical situation anyway.


----------



## noirua (24 October 2007)

Julia said:


> Noirua, he has already said he will hand over to Costello at about 18 months. Are you saying you believe he will say 'vote for me but as soon as the election is over I will retire and Costello will be PM'?  I'm not sure what you mean???
> 
> The way the polls are going, it's going to be a hypothetical situation anyway.




I'm not sure it's quite as definite as you say and Howard appears to be sitting waiting for the polls to shift in his favour. Then, as before, he can say, the Australian people have convincingly voted for me and I intend to stay for most of the three years.
If however, he finds the polls fail to move in his favour he would be forced, imho, to name a definite date in less than 18 months time.


----------



## arminius (24 October 2007)

its all very compelling at the moment. 
the latest polls were disastrous for howard, yet these were taken BEFORE the debate. most people can agree that howard got smashed on sunday night. what will the next poll be like? if its worse, as is probable, will the libs start eating their own, as they did during apec? they've shot off both barrels, they have no-one else to pork barrel. (maybe a $1000 grant to all immigrants with a promise not to put em in gaol)


----------



## bvbfan (25 October 2007)

arminius said:


> (maybe a $1000 grant to all immigrants with a promise not to put em in gaol)




Nah, he'd soon give that $1000 to some Indonesians and give them a boat to sail to Australia so he can try another Tampa and Children overboard angle.


----------



## Aussiejeff (25 October 2007)

Somehow I think the "amazing bottomless" pork barrel is not quite empty yet... plenty of time for both parties to inject "magic cash" into OzEcon's veins..

Who cares where the MagicCash is going to come from. It's the Promise that counts!



AJ


----------



## Rafa (25 October 2007)

i don't think the oz economy veins needs any more cash 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22643323-5013407,00.html


> AN interest rate hike will be the most certain bet on Melbourne Cup day and Treasurer Peter Costello has only himself to blame. A booming economy used to be a point of pride for an incumbent government and indeed it should still be so.
> 
> Trouble is, when the Government is perceived to have run out of ideas and the punters are facing higher mortgage repayments they start to look for someone to blame, even if they still have a job.
> 
> ...


----------



## Julia (25 October 2007)

This extract from today's 'Crikey.com' struck a chord with me.

"Christopher Monie writes: Re. "John Howard no longer a fiscal conservative" (yesterday, item 19). I don’t think I know what economic conservatism is, and I don’t think I want to know. What I do know is that it seems a bad way to go. I want a political party to inform me, clearly and precisely, as to what their position is in relation to matters of national significance. I want them to inform me as to how services will be provided, at what level and by whom. I want them to inform me of the cost to the public purse of the provision of those services. Then I want them to inform me at what level they will need to tax me in order to provide those services - and provide a living income support system for those who are not employed. And I want the taxation system to be fair, progressive and as inexpensive to run as possible. Do you get my drift? Have a plan, cost it and pay for it and don’t waste my money? I do not want political parties who say we don’t know what we’re doing but we’ll give back some of the excess that we rip off you. We won’t fix the system because it suits us for you to have no idea of the relationship between services, expenditure and taxation. This appears to be the essence of economic conservatism."


----------



## arminius (25 October 2007)

good evening julia,
i think i read somewhere that you are gonig to vote lib. yet every now and then you seem to waver.
now, close your eyes....relax...breathe......vote for those who you know in your heart to be the right choice. let go of your fears...forget your prejudice......ignore the negativity........come over to the light......we await you.......


----------



## Julia (26 October 2007)

arminius said:


> good evening julia,
> i think i read somewhere that you are gonig to vote lib. yet every now and then you seem to waver.
> now, close your eyes....relax...breathe......vote for those who you know in your heart to be the right choice. let go of your fears...forget your prejudice......ignore the negativity........come over to the light......we await you.......




Ah, Arminius, so nice to be wanted!
The difficulty is, however, that I don't want to vote for either of them.
Now, if you were to find me a replacement for Julia Gillard, then I would seriously reconsider.  Mm, make that Wayne Swan as well.  Kevin Rudd I like.

I had a nasty nightmare a few nights ago.  I decided to stand against Kevin Rudd!!!!!!  I can't think of anything more bizarre.  How disturbed my subconscious must be.  Clearly too much exposure to politics recently.


----------



## skint (26 October 2007)

It's rare to hear from a coalition supporter without some diatribe on the evils of unions. Below is an article from the SMH which adds weight to the unions involvement in the Reserve adopting a 2-3% inflation target. Notably, the importance of unions in controlling inflation is endorsed by none other than Malcom Fraser (although he says he thought of it first). 



PAUL KEATING made a grand appearance into the election campaign yesterday, describing Peter Costello as the laziest treasurer in 60 years and releasing secret cabinet notes to argue that the unions were the driving force behind the 3 per cent inflation target that the Howard Government claims as its own.

The former prime minister said Mr Costello had inherited an economy recovering strongly from the recession of the early 1990s and had been lucky in its management of the economy.

He said Mr Costello had "been in a hammock for 10 years" and called him "the laziest, most indolent, most unimaginative treasurer in postwar history".

Mr Keating disclosed that in May 1995, during a meeting with the former ACTU secretary Bill Kelty and fellow union leaders Martin Ferguson and Jennie George to negotiate what became the government's last accord with the labour movement, *unions argued for an upper limit on inflation of 3 per cent*.

"Unions were the progenitors of low inflation in this country," Mr Keating told an audience in the Hunter Valley, where he was launching the campaign of another former ACTU secretary, Greg Combet, for the seat of Charlton. "They were the inventors of the 2 to 3 per cent [target]."

He said the then Reserve Bank governor, Bernie Fraser, had "co-adopted" the target with the government.

Mr Keating's combative defence of unions was designed to blunt a Government attack - in the wake of Wednesday's ominous inflation figures - in which Mr Costello said a union-dominated Labor government would push up inflation and create a recession. "This inflation target didn't begin with the Reserve Bank; it began with me, as prime minister, and Bill Kelty representing the ACTU."

Last night, Mr Fraser disputed Mr Keating's recollection, saying he had conceived the 2 to 3 per cent target in March 1993, floating it as an option during a speech to the Economics Society in Canberra. But he endorsed Mr Keating's defence of the unions, saying the ACTU had been vital to containing inflation at the time.

"Paul's recollections are a little different to mine," he told the Herald. "The origins of that target predate the meeting he is talking about in 1995, and they certainly predate 1996, when the present Government came to power. But [it] is absolutely true that the unions and the government got on board and we were the only country in the world, as I recall, where the unions supported a central bank inflation target."

Mr Keating also accused John Howard, as treasurer in 1982, of presiding over the biggest wages explosion in postwar history, when wage demands hit 18 per cent. "The last wages blow-up occurred under John Howard," he said. "He was in the tinderbox, with all the TNT around him, and he went in and lit a match and said, 'where am I?"'

During a feisty speech, Mr Keating produced his handwritten notes, which he had archived for the past decade. According to his notes, obtained by the Herald, the "accord partners remain committed to the maintenance of low inflation and regard it as a desirable social outcome".

Campaigning in Perth, Mr Howard distanced his Government from any responsibility for the impending rise in interest rates by saying the latest inflation increase was driven by factors beyond his control.

"Many of the components in the increase of the cost of living over the past year, if you look at the CPI, have been due to issues related to the drought," Mr Howard said.

"There's no evidence to suggest that an alternative government would have done any better in relation to that and there's plenty of evidence that an alternative government would add to inflationary pressures through its industrial relations policy."

Mr Howard noted that the Reserve Bank has found wages growth was "behaving in a very sensible and restrained fashion" and that "investments that have come through in recent times have eased capacity constraints".

"So that deals with both of the arguments that have been advanced by the Labor Party," the Prime Minister said.


----------



## arminius (26 October 2007)

look i agree, swan annoys me as well. he is far too quick to jump in and get all defensive blah blah,  and i wish they had tanner as tres. as for jg, put me in an elevator with her and helen coonan and ill take jules thank you very much. but, its not about individual personalities. its the big picture. 
besides, after nov 25 you wont hear much from them all. the nations sick to death of seeing pollies on the box every single night and day. i know i am.
and julia, i think your red neck is turning pinker by the day. 
but at least youve got a neck. everyone tells me i havent. (think rugby prop)


----------



## moXJO (26 October 2007)

arminius said:


> but at least youve got a neck. everyone tells me i havent. (think rugby prop)




Up to your shoulders in Rudd : jk
Sorry couldnt resist


----------



## roland (26 October 2007)

I have trouble with all elections for the following reasons:

- It doesn't seem to matter - they are all fronts for larger influences that I don't understand or have informational access to

- My vote in the larger pool of votes is close to no consequence to the outcome

- The media, in my opinion, is the major influence to who wins ... remember the worm, remember Alan Jones and remember the number of mindless clones that follow media bias

- There never seems to be a good option covering everything that I want ... yes, pull our troops, no to terrorism, no to cutting down old growth forests, yes to zero tolerance on criminals, no to reduction in civil liberties, yes to better hospitals and education, no to increases in taxes, yes to exporting uranium, yes to reduce government waste on useless headcounts in government, no to anything that negatively impacts our environment, yes to better water and land management, yes to better military defence, no to increased unwarranted foreign aid, no to immigration to incompatible cultures .... etc

My list seems to go on forever, and I am sure we all have a differing view and I am sure that in reality we will never have an ideal candidate to fill our individual needs. We generally pick out the best alternative of the media presented flavour of the day in choosing a complete Government. Considering that a large portion of the voting public are not entirely free thinking, include large numbers of fanatical groups, have religious and racial agendas - then I wonder how we can ever have a Government that truley represents the wants and needs of the average Australian.

Truthfully I don't like any of the candidates. We have so many more better Australians, probably in the thousands that would make a hugley better PM than the choices we are forced to deal with - even my mother would do a better job.

Out of 21 million people (some obviously a bit young), we get a choice of 2 - I think lotto has a better chance of making us a winner.


----------



## Rafa (27 October 2007)

know how you feel roland...
alas its a choice between two...


This policy below tho does make labor a better choice IMO, especially after the recent string of cover-up's and the 'i know nothings' from the howard govt...



> LABOR has pledged to break "the code of silence" it says has developed under the Howard Government, promising to extensively overhaul the freedom of information laws.
> 
> As accountability shapes as an issue in this election, Labor said its changes would foster open government and relate to journalist privilege, whistleblower protection and privacy laws.
> 
> ...




Full Article: http://www.theage.com.au/news/feder...ul-freedom-laws/2007/10/26/1192941340879.html


----------



## greggy (27 October 2007)

arminius said:


> good evening julia,
> i think i read somewhere that you are gonig to vote lib. yet every now and then you seem to waver.
> now, close your eyes....relax...breathe......vote for those who you know in your heart to be the right choice. let go of your fears...forget your prejudice......ignore the negativity........come over to the light......we await you.......



I think from the posts I've read that Julia might well be a soft Liberal supporter. By that I mean that she does not come across as a die hard Liberal and thinks about who she's going to vote for. Her intelligent posts are often thought provoking.

In my household, my wife will be always be voting Labor and thats how it is.  As for myself, I've always been a swinging voter.  I voted Labor at the last state election and federally I backed the Liberals.

IMO Howard won the first week of this election campaign, but since then Rudd has come back strongly.  Unless Rudd stuffs up like Latham did during the 04 election, I reckon that Rudd is headed for the top job.  He's very similar to Howard. If an election were held today I would have voted Labour. After 11 years in office, the Howard Government is looking a bit tired. IMO Howard is not committed as he once was as he's already stated that he will be retiring mid term. He is the first PM in history to say this.  Rudd in this respect is more committed.  After Howard retires (should he win) there's no guarantee that Costello will become PM. I find Costello very similar to Keating.  I voted for Howard in the 96 election feeling that it was time for a change.  Once again I'm getting this feeling.  At recent BBQs I've attended most people reckon Howard's done a reasonable job (with the exception of IR and maybe Iraq) and agree that a change would bring some fresh air.
Of course if Rudd stuffs it up we can always vote against him at the next election. But for the sake of this amazing country lets hope he does a good job should he win.


----------



## Julia (27 October 2007)

Today I was speaking with someone who  knows both Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan pretty well.  She put forth the view that Kevin Rudd has all his life been what she called obedient, i.e. he pretty much does what he is told by the power brokers (in this case the unions).  Her view was that when (not if) he's elected he won't last long before being rolled.

I have no idea whether this is right or not but it's a view I haven't heard expressed before.  I can't say it has been my impression.  Apart from his irritatingly repetitive use of cliches "can I just say", "crystal clear", "Australian working families", etc etc he seems to me to be fairly decisive, yet quite thoughtful and reasonable.

Just can't say the same for the rest of the bunch and herein lies my difficulty.

Greggy, thanks for your comments.  So it sounds as though you are coming down off the fence, huh!  

So, Arminius, as you can see, I haven't swung over yet.  Several weeks to go (sigh).


----------



## wayneL (27 October 2007)

I would put up with Wayne Swine for 3 years to be shot of Johnny Rotten.

I would be a struggle, but certainly no less unbearable than the Banana Republic guy.


----------



## greggy (27 October 2007)

Julia said:


> Today I was speaking with someone who  knows both Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan pretty well.  She put forth the view that Kevin Rudd has all his life been what she called obedient, i.e. he pretty much does what he is told by the power brokers (in this case the unions).  Her view was that when (not if) he's elected he won't last long before being rolled.
> 
> I have no idea whether this is right or not but it's a view I haven't heard expressed before.  I can't say it has been my impression.  Apart from his irritatingly repetitive use of cliches "can I just say", "crystal clear", "Australian working families", etc etc he seems to me to be fairly decisive, yet quite thoughtful and reasonable.
> 
> ...




Hi Julia,

No worries. Your comments are well thought out and I tend to agree with the vast majority of them.
Its taken me a while to finally get off the fence.  All along I've tried to give a balanced view of political affairs. I see both good and bad within the major political parties. Its good to see that the ALP has finally found a capable leader in Rudd.  Most voters now consider him to be a safe pair of hands.  IMO history will judge Howard as having been an above average PM, but one who should have retired whilst he was on top. His major mistakes have been on IR and Iraq.  He should have recalled his troops from there. Howard now risks losing his seat just like Stanley Bruce in 1929 when he lost his seat (Flinders). What a way to fall.


----------



## Rafa (28 October 2007)

If labor gets rid of Rudd, i won't be voting for labor...
As for alternative liberal PM's... i hope turnbull gets the job ahead of Costello.


----------



## YELNATS (28 October 2007)

Julia said:


> Today I was speaking with someone who  knows both Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan pretty well.  She put forth the view that Kevin Rudd has all his life been what she called obedient, i.e. he pretty much does what he is told by the power brokers (in this case the unions).  Her view was that when (not if) he's elected he won't last long before being rolled.




I've got a feeling that with the fullness of time and the benefit of hindsight, all this effort to associate the leadership of the ALP with the worst aspects of unionism will prove to be a red herring. It's smacks of 1950's old-style conservative McCarthyist politics - there's "a red under every bed", remember all that?


----------



## Whiskers (28 October 2007)

YELNATS said:


> I've got a feeling that with the fullness of time and the benefit of hindsight, all this effort to associate the leadership of the ALP with the worst aspects of unionism will prove to be a red herring. It's smacks of 1950's old-style conservative McCarthyist politics - there's "a red under every bed", remember all that?




I'm inclined to agree, YELNATS.

I'm sure I can recall Rudd saying a number of times that he wanted to reduce unionists in decision makeing positions to allow greater public participation in the running of the party, to make it more appealing to the average voter. 

That is probably the main reason why I am leaning a bit back to fed labor. If the unions were to topple Rudd I think it would do enormous damage to labor and send them straight back to the political wilderness for years again.

On the same note I think it is because Howard has pandered to big business especially with IR, that many people are dumping him.


----------



## nioka (28 October 2007)

Rafa said:


> If labor gets rid of Rudd, i won't be voting for labor...
> As for alternative liberal PM's... i hope turnbull gets the job ahead of Costello.




My sentiments entirely.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 October 2007)

YELNATS said:


> It's smacks of 1950's old-style conservative McCarthyist politics - there's "a red under every bed", remember all that?



does anyone remember the debate between Hawke and Fraser? or was it Hawke and Peacock?
someone suggested that Labor wouldn't be safe with money - 

anyway Hawke says jokingly  "well, now they say you'll have to put your money under the bed because you can't trust us with it - but then 
you can't do that either ....
because there are reds under the bed to take it from you" 

I liked his comment today (the silver budgey ) - "Howard wants to spend money on hospitals, roads etc ....   in fact he should think about sending some money to Syria whilst he's at it, because with all these conversions on the road to and from Damascus - he's worn the bludy road out going back and forwards."


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 October 2007)

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2069358.htm



> But to the extent that these beliefs are based on electoral outcomes, the assertion that we are an inherently conservative electorate is built on sand, not bedrock.
> 
> It is the inherent inefficiency of the Australian electoral system, not any ingrained streak of conservatism in the Australian people, that has sustained Australian governments of all persuasions in office when the Australian people have voted otherwise.
> 
> ...





> The Australian people again pulled stumps on the conservatives in 1969, when in the clearest parallel to the 2007 election, Gough Whitlam obtained a swing of over 7% to defeat the Gorton administration.
> 
> To balance things somewhat, had seats followed votes, Prime Minister Peacock would have replaced Bob Hawke in the Lodge in 1990.
> 
> ...





> Since 1949, the Australian people have voted for political change at almost every other election, yet their will has been denied by a complex system that does not reliably deliver a majority of seats to the side that wins a majority of votes.
> 
> This absurd contraption of single member electorates locks up and effectively disenfranchises millions of Australians in safe electorates, while showering largesse on a small number of voters in marginal seats.
> 
> ...




The question of "one person one vote" is important or course - especially if city folk want to be selfish about drought relief for instance.  

about 90% of WA appears to be under one electorate - extending Kalgoorlie to Broome etc . (and in the Pilbara, - just one corner thereof - you find a massive percentage of the wealth generation) 

Anyway - I find this interesting - and someone adds under that ABC post that NZ system is better  ...

this posted by Atticus... 







> http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2069358.htm
> As for the electoral system not delivering the will of the people, I agree. It does not. A system of proportional representation using preferential voting, and an electorate and top up system, as is used in NZ, is the way to go. It has not produced chaos there Ãƒ ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚“ in fact quite the opposite.


----------



## Purple XS2 (28 October 2007)

Rafa said:


> If labor gets rid of Rudd, i won't be voting for labor...
> As for alternative liberal PM's... i hope turnbull gets the job ahead of Costello.




Leadership in the ALP since Keating has been a matter of "Who's our best salesman?" They persevered with Beasley for years until it finally dawned on them that as a frontman, he was a liability. Latham was a brave experiment ("brave" in the "Yes, Minister: sense). Crean was a collective cry for help, as if it were a suicide attempt.

In other words, Rudd is a mere frontman. I would expect an ALP government would be very much a collegiate affair. Not a bad thing, IMHO. If Prime Minister Rudd were to take himself too seriously, he would likely be jettisoned.

As for the Libs, Costello's hour came and went: everybody noticed but he himself. Turnbull has yet to manifest any inner belief in anything except Turnbull, and time is getting short. Mal Brough is probably their best option. Whatever one makes of the Aboriginal Affairs 'intervention', it can at least be used by Brough as an example of resolute administration.

Brendan Nelson would be a Lib Latham: a "brave" choice, but would come unstuck. An ego in search of a cause. By middle age, politicians really ought to have a cause or two.

In a saner world, the ALP would be able to be represented and/or led by somebody intelligent. Lindsay Tanner for example. Alas, as John Lennon said ('Working class hero'):
"They hate you if you're clever, and they despise a fool ..."

As for me, I'm a greenie, and proud of it.


----------



## arminius (28 October 2007)

with each day we see more embarrasment, deceit, and utter panic from our wonderful government. this will only heighten in the next few weeks as the punters get a crash course in political history, ie: see whats been really going on. 

i stand by my statement made months ago. only the ignorant or the gutless would vote these criminals back in. ignorant to the lies and deceit and the backward policies. gutless 'cause they succumb to the fear campaign we've been warning about for 3 months. 

and i stand by a prediction of 70% win for labor. that would restore my faith in the wisdom and courage of my country.


----------



## Julia (28 October 2007)

Purple XS2 said:


> Leadership in the ALP since Keating has been a matter of "Who's our best salesman?" They persevered with Beasley for years until it finally dawned on them that as a frontman, he was a liability. Latham was a brave experiment ("brave" in the "Yes, Minister: sense). Crean was a collective cry for help, as if it were a suicide attempt.
> 
> In other words, Rudd is a mere frontman. I would expect an ALP government would be very much a collegiate affair. Not a bad thing, IMHO. If Prime Minister Rudd were to take himself too seriously, he would likely be jettisoned.
> 
> ...




Hey Purple,

Great post.  Would that your insight could communicate itself to those who would make good use of it.


----------



## Julia (28 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> I would be a struggle, but certainly no less unbearable than the Banana Republic guy.




I actually voted for Paul Keating.  I arrived to live here in 1993 and, after the well mannered politeness of New Zealand politics, found him quite compelling.
Not at all sure my response would be the same now.
However you feel about him, he's the master of a sharp response.

Re comments on Malcolm Turnbull:  agreed.  He has no passion or conviction.
It's as though he has succeeded in business and politics is the next thing to be ticked off.  No thanks.

I like Mal Brough.  At least some fire in the belly.


----------



## arminius (29 October 2007)

outrage. outrage. outrage.

if anyone saw 4 corners tonight they would now be aware of the incompetence on a criminal scale perpetrated by this 'wonderful experienced govt that so good on national security'.

i mentioned some months ago about the decision to buy super hornets even though the air force didnt want them. check the story. 

we would have lost the most important defence capability of our country. in a conflict, our best pilots would be blown out of the sky.

Nelson and Huston refused to be interviewed for the report. nelson is at this very moment hiding under his bed quivering with fear. 'they know about it, they know about it' .

i want the government to answer for this. i want you liblovers to stand up here and defend this gross incompetance. 

vote this government back in and there will be riots on the streets.


----------



## chops_a_must (29 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> The question of "one person one vote" is important or course - especially if city folk want to be selfish about drought relief for instance.
> 
> about 90% of WA appears to be under one electorate - extending Kalgoorlie to Broome etc . (and in the Pilbara, - just one corner thereof - you find a massive percentage of the wealth generation)




Well... in WA, the country bumpkins only recently rolled over and gave up their weighted voting rights. Although that was forced to the high court! So much for democracy! Anyone living in rural WA, that opposed one vote one value, can stick it where you know what.

And Purple, I'm with you bud.


----------



## propro1234 (29 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Vote 1 for the new dream-team, Shane Warne for President, Brad Hogg for PM.
> lets get some spin coming outta Canberra that we can't pick from a mile off.




hey you are looking for a cricket government what about aussie rules and footy?


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 October 2007)

propro1234 said:


> hey you are looking for a cricket government what about aussie rules and footy?



forgotten I'd said that - 8 months ago (?) - (post #6 )

but I remember one of the arguments against us going to a Republic was that "your typical okker would be more likely to pick someone like Shane Warne than a sensible Presidential candidate"  ( paraphrasing) 

The Republic debate? 
I must say, whilst we would need to define our terms, but basically I'd be for reopening the file  

(and cricketers - apart from being expert at spin - seem to stick to milder drugs.
although lol - I notice that (even) Alan Greenspan has admitted he was heavily into  pot as a teenage musician - back in the early 60's - very early 60's presumably )


----------



## chops_a_must (29 October 2007)

arminius said:


> outrage. outrage. outrage.
> 
> if anyone saw 4 corners tonight they would now be aware of the incompetence on a criminal scale perpetrated by this 'wonderful experienced govt that so good on national security'.




BAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Andrew Peacock did pop his head up. I knew he couldn't stay away from another Howard train wreck.

So the soufflÃ© can rise thrice!

But it's all over for Howard now. The disaster is complete, Peacock is there again.

On to more serious matters... Geez... the last 11 years of mistakes in the defence force kind of puts the Collins class subs debacle into perspective.

Sea Sprites (or lack of them)
Abrams tanks, that don't have the range to get out of the metro areas (very handy for a small continent like Australia)
Now this...

I wonder what sort of bribes were paid... or what dirt Peacock had on these guys. Howard sure hasn't been adverse to taking bribes in the past... I seem to be smelling some ethanol about now...


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2069358.htm
> The question of "one person one vote" is important or course - especially if city folk want to be selfish about drought relief for instance.



ANOTHER POST ON THAT abc WEBSITE ....
(and the risk of gerrymanders etc)

(personally I still think the bush needs a friendly handicap of some sort)



> Gavin Sparrow :
> 28 Oct 2007 8:56:50am
> 
> I agree 110% with this article. "One 'Man' (person) One Vote" most certainly does not apply in Australia. And even with the constant gerrymander of allowing country residents almost "One Man Two Votes" *my father, as an electoral commissioner many years ago, told me that he was offered a knighthood to %$^& an election by &*^%$#() an electoral redistribution. Please note: he was not knighted and I don't think any other commissioners ever were.*But at least our preferential system is a very good basis on which to build a fair system. First past the post means dictatorship.


----------



## noco (30 October 2007)

arminius said:


> with each day we see more embarrasment, deceit, and utter panic from our wonderful government. this will only heighten in the next few weeks as the punters get a crash course in political history, ie: see whats been really going on.
> 
> i stand by my statement made months ago. only the ignorant or the gutless would vote these criminals back in. ignorant to the lies and deceit and the backward policies. gutless 'cause they succumb to the fear campaign we've been warning about for 3 months.
> 
> and i stand by a prediction of 70% win for labor. that would restore my faith in the wisdom and courage of my country.




Arminus
Kevin Rudd has really got you sucked in. Why would he want to be Prime Minister when he could make 10 times more  money as an actor in Hollywood.
He is nothing more than a media tart like ex Premior Beattie. He is full of carisma, rhetoric and no substance and that is not the ingredients for a good leader. Did you see the polls tonight? I think you are deluding yourself old fellow with your 70% win to Labor. Perhaps you are getting mixed up with the 70% union dominated shadow front bench.


----------



## chops_a_must (30 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> (personally I still think the bush needs a friendly handicap of some sort)



Why? Most people in the bush are retarded anyway; isn't that enough of a handicap already?


----------



## wayneL (30 October 2007)

noco said:


> He is nothing more than a media tart like ex Premior Beattie. He is full of carisma, rhetoric and no substance and that is not the ingredients for a good leader.



Sooooo.... how is that different to any other leader in modern politics?


----------



## Sean K (30 October 2007)

noco said:


> He is full of carisma, rhetoric and no substance and that is not the ingredients for a good leader.



Being charismatic and able to argue a point are not good leadership qualities?


----------



## Wysiwyg (30 October 2007)

Gawd help any government that threatens the compromised rights of workers.


ps they need to be smooth talkers, quick thinkers and look like a p.m.


----------



## greggy (31 October 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Why? Most people in the bush are retarded anyway; isn't that enough of a handicap already?



Some of my mates who live in the bush are doing it tough right now, hoping for more rain.  They're going through tough times at present, but are hanging in there. 
Most people in the bush are certainly not retarded, but I can tell right now that my brother certainly is through no choice of his own.  
I reckon its great how we still look after those going through rough times and the disadvantaged.


----------



## chops_a_must (31 October 2007)

greggy said:


> Some of my mates who live in the bush are doing it tough right now, hoping for more rain.  They're going through tough times at present, but are hanging in there.
> Most people in the bush are certainly not retarded, but I can tell right now that my brother certainly is through no choice of his own.
> *I reckon its great how we still look after those going through rough times and the disadvantaged.*




Sorry to hear that. I was speaking metaphorically, obviously. But my point was demonstrated by the Yarragadee protests. And my gripe is with the rural vote in WA which have excessive legislative control.

I'm wondering if we do actually look after those going through rough times anymore though. The last ten years has seen an absolute raping of mental health services, as well as a crackdown on those people with disability pensions.

I do believe it's time for quote; perhaps from one of my favourite sources, Catch-22:



> "Major Major's father was a sober God-fearing man whose idea of a good joke was to lie about his age. He was a longlimbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding *rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anyone but farmers was creeping socialism.* He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce. Major Major's father worked without rest at not growing alfalfa."




Ding a ling a ling.

Which bring us to another point. Why should farmers be given federal assistance for a failing business venture? As a small business owner, I don't have a right to ask for a handout from the government if it turns sour - even if it is through no fault of my own. What is the difference in this instance?

And it's fairly rich then, to sit at a trade table and ask Europe to stop building cheese mountains and wine lakes, or to ask the US to stop paying farmers for doing nothing, when we ourselves are subsidising farmers. Let alone expect third world countries not to have government interference in the rural sector.

It is good to see Howard looking to target young voters though:


----------



## Julia (31 October 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Which bring us to another point. Why should farmers be given federal assistance for a failing business venture? As a small business owner, I don't have a right to ask for a handout from the government if it turns sour - even if it is through no fault of my own. What is the difference in this instance?



I agree about this.  In an "Insight" programme a few weeks ago Brian Toohey, journalist with, I think, the Fin Review suggested that if farmers were to receive aid from the taxpayers in times of drought, then they should repay that aid when times are good, along the lines of the HECS system.
Sounds fair to me.  I suspect at least a portion of aid given to farmers is on an emotional basis (the backbone of the country and that sort of thing) rather than justifiable support of a *viable business* during a temporary setback.


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 November 2007)

John Clarke and Bryan Dawe talk to John Howard about global warming and climate change


----------



## Whiskers (1 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Which bring us to another point. Why should farmers be given federal assistance for a failing business venture? As a small business owner, I don't have a right to ask for a handout from the government if it turns sour - even if it is through no fault of my own. What is the difference in this instance?
> 
> And it's fairly rich then, to sit at a trade table and ask Europe to stop building cheese mountains and wine lakes, or to ask the US to stop paying farmers for doing nothing, when we ourselves are subsidising farmers. Let alone expect third world countries not to have government interference in the rural sector.




The little bit of drought aid Aus pays farmers is peanuts compared to the subsidies the US and Europe pay farmers. 

A lot of the Drought Aid is low interest loans, not a handout. 

When farmers are drought declared they only get the same as the dole, but called (I think) something like Drought Relief Grant. If your business is adversely affected by drought, ie a business that relies on farming activity, you can get the same assistance.


----------



## Whiskers (1 November 2007)

Julia said:


> I agree about this.  In an "Insight" programme a few weeks ago Brian Toohey, journalist with, I think, the Fin Review suggested that if farmers were to receive aid from the taxpayers in times of drought, then they should repay that aid when times are good, along the lines of the HECS system.
> Sounds fair to me.  I suspect at least a portion of aid given to farmers is on an emotional basis (the backbone of the country and that sort of thing) rather than justifiable support of a *viable business* during a temporary setback.




Hi Julia

Further to my reply to chops, the HECS theme has been beat about by an occassional illinformed or predjuced 'cityite' reporter before. As I mentioned to chops, a lot of the aid is loans, albeit low interest, that still have to be repaid.

The bit that is often not emphasised is that farmers don't get the payment in any or every drought, far from it. This assistance is paid in 'Exceptional Circumstance Drought' conditions. 

As for the drought releif payment, the equivilant of the dole, paid to drought declared farmers, that payment stops as soon as the area is removed from the exceptional circumstances drought declared list. Unlike the dole where people can deliberately fail job interviews etc to stay on the dole, farmers have no control over how long they will recieve it. When the beauracrats decide the drought is over, so is the payment. 

Many farmers have been too proud to accept the payment. It has only been in the last few years that a concerted campaign has been waged by centrelink and various welfare groups in the face of significantly increasing rural suicides that many farmers have relunctantly accepted the payment in the face of the worst drought in living memory in most areas.

If you think about it, wouldn't you rather pay a subsistance benifit to a farmer in exceptional circumstances drought conditions, who typically employs a few people in normal seasons and is literally the backbone of rural towns and small businesses in those towns, or would you prefer to pay it to the no doubt just as many professional welfare cheats that mostly hide in the cities and contribute nothing to society.

If it is good enough to advocate that farmers repay their welfare payments in the good times, then why not the unemployed repay the dole after they get a job. Why stop there, have single parents repay their benifits, the disabled, pensioners...


----------



## Rafa (1 November 2007)

I must say, i have NO problems whatsoever with helping out the family farmers...
Without a farming community, i fail to see how a country can survive...


and yes, i know there is gloablisation and we can import, etc, etc.. but that is only been possible, on a mass scale in the last 50 years and with the era of cheap oil ending, probably won't last another 50 years...


self sufficiency has to be the goal of every country... and that starts with having food on the table.


----------



## nioka (1 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> John Clarke and Bryan Dawe talk to John Howard about global warming and climate change





This video is no longer available. I wonder who pulled it?


----------



## Julia (1 November 2007)

Whiskers said:


> Hi Julia
> 
> Further to my reply to chops, the HECS theme has been beat about by an occassional illinformed or predjuced 'cityite' reporter before. As I mentioned to chops, a lot of the aid is loans, albeit low interest, that still have to be repaid.
> 
> ...



Hi Whiskers,

I absolutely accept your point.  I was under the impression that the payments made to farmers were grants, not loans.  I have no problem with any such payments/loans being made where the farms are (under no drought circumstances) viable businesses, but if conditions are simply no longer viable because of climate change or anything else, I just don't see much point in sustaining people's existence where nothing is going to change.
Also don't think we have any business growing crops like rice and cotton in Australia.
In another thread, I mentioned that I'd bought on the same day two bunches of asparagus at the same price - one was grown in Australia and the other was grown in Peru.


----------



## --B-- (1 November 2007)

Julia said:


> I have no problem with any such payments/loans being made where the farms are (under no drought circumstances) viable businesses, but if conditions are simply no longer viable because of climate change or anything else, I just don't see much point in sustaining people's existence where nothing is going to change..




I 100% agree with your sentiments, Julia.


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 November 2007)

did I hear on ABC this morning that Bennalong is 15th seat in line to fall - IF there was a uniform percent swing across the country -  and Labour need 16 to win govt?

i.e. whoever wins Bennalong (pretty much) wins govt(?)

and if it goes to script, Peter Costello will be leader of the coaltion by the end of Nov


----------



## greggy (1 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Sorry to hear that. I was speaking metaphorically, obviously. But my point was demonstrated by the Yarragadee protests. And my gripe is with the rural vote in WA which have excessive legislative control.
> 
> I'm wondering if we do actually look after those going through rough times anymore though. The last ten years has seen an absolute raping of mental health services, as well as a crackdown on those people with disability pensions.
> 
> ...



Thats all right Chops. Thanks for the clarification.  I still think though that government should continue to look after the disadvantaged within our community.  It could well do more in this regard. I suppose its all about finding the right balance. All levels of government need to be more pro-active in this regard.


----------



## Rafa (1 November 2007)

to quote you from the other thread 2020



2020hindsight said:


> The former chief justice of the Australian High Court, Sir Gerard Brennan, has criticised both major parties for their policies on the death penalty.
> .
> .
> .
> ...




well, we are up to the trade unions now in Oz....


----------



## brilliantmichael (1 November 2007)

We can promise, we can promise! Haha

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDn_1Xa2a_o


----------



## Julia (1 November 2007)

greggy said:


> I still think though that government should continue to look after the disadvantaged within our community.  It could well do more in this regard. I suppose its all about finding the right balance. All levels of government need to be more pro-active in this regard.



Completely agree, Greggy.  It's just so easy for those of us who are doing pretty well - and politicians touting the successful economy, low unemployment rate etc - to just "not notice" the many people who are really struggling.

Yesterday I spent some time with a young woman who is a single mother, having escaped a violent relationship.  She has a sick baby, the child having been in hospital for the last three weeks and now needs considerable ongoing medication and medical care.  The young woman herself needs to have major surgery and will need to go to a capital city for this.  She is in constant pain and also needs expensive medication.

She has no family to support her and will need community assistance to get herself to Brisbane for her surgery.  She has been going without food for herself to pay the rent plus the medication etc.  She is immensely worried about who will care for her baby while she is in hospital.

So what I'd like to see is more assistance for genuinely needy people, especially including people with disabilities (and I don't mean the pseudo bad backs which are used in order to escape the obligation to have a job) and the mentally ill.  With rising rents, it's really very difficult to manage on a single pension.


----------



## Whiskers (1 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Hi Whiskers,
> 
> I absolutely accept your point.  I was under the impression that the payments made to farmers were grants, not loans.  I have no problem with any such payments/loans being made where the farms are (under no drought circumstances) viable businesses, but if conditions are simply no longer viable because of climate change or anything else, I just don't see much point in sustaining people's existence where nothing is going to change.
> Also don't think we have any business growing crops like rice and cotton in Australia.
> In another thread, I mentioned that I'd bought on the same day two bunches of asparagus at the same price - one was grown in Australia and the other was grown in Peru.




Hi Julia

I'm not picking on you, just using the points you raise to highlight misconceptions about the rural sector. :remybussi

They are valid points you raise and for the benifit of Chops and others I will clarify a few main points. Firstly, one has to remember, and all political parties in office surcombe to the reality that the Australias economy has for a long time rested on the strength of our agricultural sector. The strength of the mining industry has overshadowed it at the moment.

There are some grants that can be claimed by farmers for land conservation, salinity control, irrigation efficiency etc, not unlike grants made to other industries and even community organisations, but your enterprise has to pass certain criteria limits to qualify. Marginal farming businesses would not get them unless they could demonstrate that it amounted to a significant change of direction that had a good chance of profitability.



> I just don't see much point in sustaining people's existence where nothing is going to change.




The government does has a number of schemes that pay grants to farmers to leave the industry. The sugar industry was one example where it was considered that only those farmers in better soils, larger holdings, closes to suitable infrastructure and with reasonable water resources etc were likely to survive against cheap competition from particularly the rapidly expanding Brazilian sugar industry. Sugar growers were offered a one off grant to assist them to leave the industry and do something else.



> Also don't think we have any business growing crops like rice and cotton in Australia.




I'm still undecided on this one, but what I do understand is the rice growers in particular have proved to be very resourceful at maximising their water usage. For example, they recycle the water and after they have drained the rice paddock and harvest the rice, they utilise the ground moisture to immediatly grow a rotation crop, usually another cereal crop. They get much higher yields more consistantly than larger dry farm practises.



> In another thread, I mentioned that I'd bought on the same day two bunches of asparagus at the same price - one was grown in Australia and the other was grown in Peru.




Yeah, this one is not what is seems all the time also, because the big supermarkets have resorted to all sorts of tricks to drive down prices for Australan growers. Out of season importing is generally accepted to be benificial. The biggest problem that we see is that with some imported commodities the chemical residues are higher than allowable for Australian grown produce. While Australian produce is regularly and randomly checked, imported commodoties are often let through quarantine on the strength of supposodly QA assurances from the supplier. Asian prawns with unacceptably high antibiotic levels are a recent example. 

I'm not sure whether the government has approved the import of cheap philippenes bananas yet, but that is another example of a cheap labour source riddled with all sorts of exotic diseases that we don't have here. Part of the reason why they are so cheap is they spend little or nothing on quality control. 

Actually, some of our 'best' produce trade arguements has been with your old country, NZ about price and pests and diseases. :

I'ts a tough battle sometimes getting the right balance between price, protection and longer term national interest.


----------



## Julia (1 November 2007)

> Yeah, this one is not what is seems all the time also, because the big supermarkets have resorted to all sorts of tricks to drive down prices for Australan growers. Out of season importing is generally accepted to be benificial. The biggest problem that we see is that with some imported commodities the chemical residues are higher than allowable for Australian grown produce. While Australian produce is regularly and randomly checked, imported commodoties are often let through quarantine on the strength of supposodly QA assurances from the supplier. Asian prawns with unacceptably high antibiotic levels are a recent example.




I'm sure you're not seriously suggesting that all Australian produce is free of chemicals when it arrives in our supermarkets?
Re the prawns and other imported seafood, judging by volume of sales, I suspect most consumers buy on taste and cost and frankly don't give any thought to antibiotic levels and suchlike.  As I understand the suggested risks in said antibiotic levels (and I could have misunderstood this) the concern relates to us as individuals consuming too many antibiotics and thus reducing the potential effectiveness of same when they are required to fight infection.  My own view when buying Asian seafood - which I do all the time - is that this risk is probably minimal and I am just not going to spend my life worrying about what microscopic levels of various compounds may or may not be in various foods.  I know this matters to a lot of people.  I am simply not one of them.



> Actually, some of our 'best' produce trade arguements has been with your old country, NZ about price and pests and diseases. :



The only genuine resistance I have heard on a scientific basis relates to the fireblight disease in apples which Australia says could be brought into Australia if we imported Kiwi apples.  NZ, on the other hand, says this is not a risk and the reluctance of Oz is a convenient excuse for not furthering this trade.  If you have ever eaten New Zealand apples, you'd realise that should they ever be imported into Australia in any decently consumable quantity, then that would be the end of the apple industry in Australia.  Why?  Because NZ apples are just *so much better!!!*

New Zealand is an exceptionally clean, green country with produce the envy of much of the rest of the world.  Apart from the tropical fruit, I've yet to eat any fresh produce here that matches what is produced in NZ.


----------



## Whiskers (2 November 2007)

Julia said:


> I'm sure you're not seriously suggesting that all Australian produce is free of chemicals when it arrives in our supermarkets?




No, not at all, Julia. In fact I made a comment on this forum somewhere a week or so ago about mancob residue still visible on some produce such as snow peas, mangoes and paw paw, but we do have a fairly good system of QA certification and testing as well as random testing, much better than in some other countries, although I think these resources and quarantine resources in this area have not been funded as well as they could be by state labour or fed coalition.



> Re the prawns and other imported seafood, judging by volume of sales, I suspect most consumers buy on taste and cost and frankly don't give any thought to antibiotic levels and suchlike.




Quite right, because we expect everybody is doing the right thing. It is not until a problem like antibiotics or unheigenic handling and packing facilities for fruit and veg or lead paint substituted on toys and all manner of chemical concoctions in fabric etc, come to the fore, that we start to be a bit more concerned about imports.



> The only genuine resistance I have heard on a scientific basis relates to the fireblight disease in apples which Australia says could be brought into Australia if we imported Kiwi apples.  NZ, on the other hand, says this is not a risk and the reluctance of Oz is a convenient excuse for not furthering this trade.




Yes, thats about how it works. But there have been others over the years. Australian growers wanted to export tomatoes to NZ to compete with the more expensive NZ hothouse produced tomatoes. Zucchini is another one that I am familiar with that NZ banned occassionally.  



> If you have ever eaten New Zealand apples, you'd realise that should they ever be imported into Australia in any decently consumable quantity, then that would be the end of the apple industry in Australia.  Why?  Because NZ apples are just *so much better!!!*




I can't say that I have eaten NZ apples, so you've got me there.



> New Zealand is an exceptionally clean, green country with produce the envy of much of the rest of the world.




No dispute there. Just as a matter of interest, is that a result of labor party policy or a common philosiphy of all NZ politicians?



> Apart from the tropical fruit, I've yet to eat any fresh produce here that matches what is produced in NZ.




Here in Qld, what often happens is we send our best produce to export, 2nd best to Vic, NSW or SA, and woolworths and coles usually gets the third best because they don't pay well enough. 

Sometimes the very best got highjacked by 5 star resorts, restaurants and the like who just want the best. Price is of little consequence. 

The other thing that is not doing our horticultural industry any favours is the practice of woolworths and coles buying bulk in season at lower prices and storing for long periods and literally killing the goodness and flavour. Apples is a good case in point.

Labor has talked a bit about monitoring supermarket prices. Maybe, if they get elected, that inquiry will pick up on this practice, because it is easy for growers to label the pick and pack dates and include an industry acceptable useby date if necessary. In fact those that prepack produce (in serving or family size packs) already do just that.

Gotta go and tuck unto a nice mango I got from IGA yesterday for $2.95. The oroma of four sitting on the table is getting to me. By the way, I looked a some in woolworths for nearly $5. I might have paid it if they were good enough, but because I regularly find better deals at IGA I passed it up.


----------



## Julia (2 November 2007)

Whiskers said:


> Yes, thats about how it works. But there have been others over the years. Australian growers wanted to export tomatoes to NZ to compete with the more expensive NZ hothouse produced tomatoes. Zucchini is another one that I am familiar with that NZ banned occassionally.




That surprises me because when I was living in NZ I was always able to buy Australian tomatoes when the local ones were out of season.  Zucchini (known in NZ as courgettes) seemed to be available all year round so I imagine that must have been imported during the NZ winter which is far too cold to grow zucchini unless it was hot house grown.







> I can't say that I have eaten NZ apples, so you've got me there.



It's probably enough to say that in NZ I ate heaps of apples - some varieties we just never see here - but now I just never buy them they are so awful.
I totally accept your point that the best of all our fruit here is exported, then the remainder cool stored until all the life has gone out of it.
There are some exceptions to this.  We've had a great Qld strawberry season with fresh local strawberries being as cheap as 75c per 250g punnet.







> No dispute there. Just as a matter of interest, is that a result of labor party policy or a common philosiphy of all NZ politicians?



I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, Whiskers.  In saying that NZ is a clean, green country I was really just stating a fact.  Do you mean do all sides of politics promote it as such?  If so, then yes, without doubt.








> Gotta go and tuck unto a nice mango I got from IGA yesterday for $2.95. The oroma of four sitting on the table is getting to me. By the way, I looked a some in woolworths for nearly $5. I might have paid it if they were good enough, but because I regularly find better deals at IGA I passed it up.



Hope you enjoyed it.  Mangoes could almost make me believe there is a fruit God, especially the R2E2 variety.


----------



## mishu (2 November 2007)

> Ninemsn's Passion Pulse, the largest election poll of the 2007 campaign, forecasts an electoral bloodbath for the Coalition, including a loss in Wentworth, the seat held by Malcolm Turnbull.
> 
> After surveying more than 50,000 voters, ninemsn can reveal that as many as 20 seats will swing to the Opposition, leaving the ALP with at least 81 seats in the Lower House.
> 
> Among those is Bennelong ”” the seat Mr Howard has held since 1974 ”” set to fall to Labor's star recruit Maxine McKew in a 6.9 percent swing.






More here including predicted swings in particular seats. 

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/minisite...=312287 §ionid=6046 §ionname=minisiteelection

The latest newspoll has Labor ahead 10 percent two party preferred. 

I expect Labor to win. I don't think the party in power will make a significant difference to share market trading.


----------



## Whiskers (2 November 2007)

Julia said:


> That surprises me because when I was living in NZ I was always able to buy Australian tomatoes when the local ones were out of season.




Hi Julia, I didn't phrase that very well. What I meant to say was when Qld tomato growers wanted to compete with the NZ hothouse season they met with stiff opposition, as one would expect, before a protocol was agreed.

But on the whole Aus and NZ have had better trade relations between each other than most countries.


----------



## Rafa (2 November 2007)

mishu said:
			
		

> I expect Labor to win. I don't think the party in power will make a significant difference to share market trading.



given that both parties have very similar policies, it probably won't make much difference...

but i am expecting stronger leadership from the ALP rather than simple poll driven or populist policies... something which the howard govt has fallen into the trap of doing in the last few years... 

whatever happened to politicians making real reform and willing to bear short term pain for long term gain...

things like deregulation of financial markets, floating of the currency, GST, etc. Its ironical, that the two 'BRAVE' policies by both parties that have really set us up for the long long term have been their ultimate undoing... i.e. Labors high interest rates which purged the Australian economy of fat (resulting in a painful recession, and subsequent independence of the RBA) and the Liberals IR Laws, which although going too far, are certainly a step in the right direction.

things i would like to see are:
genuine tax reform
genuine progress on the environment, esp renewable energy, 
improved aboriginal health
improved transport infrastructure, esp moving freight off roads and onto rail!

The coalition certainly hasn't done much in the last few years, can labor do better.... maybe, maybe not... but I am happy to give them a chance.


----------



## trinity (2 November 2007)

> 'We'll just change it all'
> Opposition frontbencher Peter Garrett has been accused of saying that Labor will change its policies if it wins government at this month's election.




http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/well-just-change-it-all/2007/11/02/1193619130682.html

  

I still don't know who to vote for ...


----------



## sam76 (2 November 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND4bjDqE45k

hahahaha check out the "election '07 rap"  with bboy Johnny H v's gansta Kevin "Federline" Rudd

What's up my Diggas!?

Opposition in tha house!!

aiiight


----------



## Rafa (2 November 2007)

Oh dear... Garetts opened is big mouth...
hey Julia, do you prefer Garrett now... 

here's garetts response to what trinity posted above... wonder if rudd steps in to sort it out... i guess its always a danger having someone with genuine passion in politics



> OPPOSITION frontbencher Peter Garrett has fended off claims he told a journalist that Labor would change its policies if elected by saying the conversation was "short and jocular."
> 
> Sydney radio personality Steve Price told his audience today he had a conversation with Labor's federal environment spokesman at Melbourne Airport this morning.
> 
> ...



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22691972-12377,00.html


----------



## Julia (2 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> Oh dear... Garetts opened is big mouth...
> hey Julia, do you prefer Garrett now...
> 
> here's garetts response to what trinity posted above... wonder if rudd steps in to sort it out... i guess its always a danger having someone with genuine passion in politics
> ...



Hi Rafa,

Somehow I seem not to have been clear with what I said about Garrett.
Today's effort on his part is a further example of just what I was talking about, i.e. when he does speak out he generally stuffs up.  This is twice in one week.  I shudder to think of him as the Minister in charge of anything at all.  He lacks political savvy.  Maybe he was OK as a rock star and maybe he was OK waxing lyrical about the environment, but as a politician frankly I think he's a failure.  He's more of a liability to the Labor Party than an asset.


----------



## Julia (2 November 2007)

Does anyone know if the Labor Party has made any statement as to whether or not they will maintain the current Super rules?  Specifically that all withdrawals will be tax free after age pension age?

There was a comment on Crikey.com today that someone within the Labor Party has suggested this will be changed if they get into office.

Given the amount of money flowing into Super, this is a really important point and we need to know.


----------



## Rafa (2 November 2007)

i think in turnbull and garett you as seeing the inexperience shining thru... politics is a cutthroat game, certainly no room for individual opinions.



haven't heard much about the super rules... be good to find out tho, it doesn't effect me much, but i know my parents have planned their super this year to take full advantage of it... 


the only tweak i would consider to the super rules is a cap on taking out the lump sum tax free...  i think this is a recipe for blowing it all up and falling back on the pension!


----------



## weird (2 November 2007)

Sounds like ALPs 'stated' policies is just spin to get elected ... 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/02/2080497.htm

"That's why an admission like this from Peter Garrett at this critical juncture of the election campaign suddenly explains it all. The Kevin Rudd me-too policy is a pretence."

Aussiestock forums is quite polite compared to others,

http://au.messages.yahoo.com/news/politics/102574?p=1


----------



## Julia (3 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> the only tweak i would consider to the super rules is a cap on taking out the lump sum tax free...  i think this is a recipe for blowing it all up and falling back on the pension!



Yes, I'd agree with that too , Rafa.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 November 2007)

Well, if you put all the gaffes side by side, I think it's probably a dead heat between the Coalition and Labor - in the gaffes dept that is.   

Some great quotes in this article by Helen Razor... (although written 2 Nov, it must have been before Garrett's gaffe - for mine that is obviously a jest, btw ) 



> *"Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares."*
> 
> "Political* debate is often reduced to competing claims about what to fear,*" says Furedi. I urge you to *think about the power of that statement*.
> 
> ...



http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2079655.htm


> Joe Hockey might not be the best calibrated weapon in the coalition arsenal. He does tend, however, to be the sort of bloke that journalists adore.
> 
> He's quite adept at reckless talk. And, as you know, news outlets love nothing so much as a colossal gaffe.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 November 2007)

There's a post by "FactFinder" (03 Nov 2007 5:59:21am) replying to "Dorothy" ,   .... (re the economic slurring by the current PM - who has his own record to defend if he wants to get nasty about it )...



> By "Dorothy" : (02 Nov 2007 9:20:32pm)
> So Mr.Hockey is quoted as saying..." our fear campain is based on fact."
> Is it not an intelligent person that fears the facts.
> Fact.Labour governments are hopless 'money' managers. Their mentality on all things fiscal is deficient.Isn't it reasonable to fear this? That's common sense!!
> Only a Labor Socialist appologist(eg.Helen Razer) would suggest otherwise.






> By "FactFinder" (03 Nov 2007 5:59:21am):
> Dorothy you confuse facts with Liberal Party propaganda. In fact, Hawke & Keating deserve the major credit for important economic reforms that have facilitated the 17 years of economic good times. Measures such as floating the Australian Dollar in 1983, reductions in trade tariffs, taxation reforms including the fringe-benefits tax & capital gains tax, changing from centralized wage-fixing to enterprise bargaining, the privatization of Qantas and Commonwealth Bank, and deregulating the banking system.
> 
> Fact: under Treasurer Howard, the 90-day cash rate peaked at 22% on 8 April 1982, while home loan mortgage rates were 13.5%, and inflation peaked at 12.5% in September 1982. Check out the facts & figures on the RBA website: Tables FO1 & GO1
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 November 2007)

Another good post on the "FUD factor" - spot on IMO - including the contribution of (many of) the mainstream media.



> By "Goff " 02 Nov 2007 7:19:10pm)
> 
> The FUD factor has been around for years and is getting worse all the time. *Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt *is supposed to make you *run to the shelter of Daddy's arms.* Remember last election?? What sort of leaders do we have that attempt to turn outgoing, positive, optimistic and strong people like Australians into quivering wrecks so they can retain power? A rhetorical question of course because we see them before us now every day and no wonder we are all turning off from them - we don't believe them and they should be ashamed. *And you can include the media in this disgraceful game too*




As for the "fear of inexperience" - as constantly expressed by the PM, my own reaction to that is 
a) we need two strong parties up there, one in power and one in opposition
b) if one party is getting behind in the experience stakes, then get em some experience quick !! - in the interests of Australia's long term prosperity ,
and also.. 
c) when Howard took over the reins (third time?), there was damn all experience in the Coalition as well.  :2wocents


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 November 2007)

Finally a couple of beaut comments about unions ... (I agree with these).



> by "Robyn" : 02 Nov 2007 6:44:05pm
> What do people think the National Farmers Federation, the Law Society, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Medical Assoc, etc etc are if they are not the equivalent of Trade Unions?






> by "krypto" : 03 Nov 2007 2:31:08am
> Indeed Robyn, a valid and pertinent point, the Wiki article on trade unions places their origins as medieval guilds, similar in many ways to freemasonry or other "benefit" societies, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander methinks.






> by "davo" : 02 Nov 2007 5:32:13pm
> 
> The fear message isn't just about membership of a union - that's relatively innoccuous. They wouldn't run the advert if that's all it said.
> 
> ...






> By "FactFinder" :03 Nov 2007 12:48:24am
> *The Labor Opposition has a Shadow Minister for Service Economy, Small Business and Independent Contractors.The Shadow Minister is Craig Emerson.
> 
> Qualifications & Occupation before entering Federal Parliament*:
> ...


----------



## Julia (3 November 2007)

Further to my earlier wondering if Labor will retain current Super rules, here is their reply to my email:

Thank you for your email.

Labor will retain the Government's super reforms including tax free super. 

Regards

ALP Campaign Information Services


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 November 2007)

Julia, since Keating introduced (7% initial? - something like that - up since then of course)  compulsory employer contributions to super - I'd have been surprised if you received a different answer to the one you just posted  - but thanks for the confirmation


----------



## Julia (3 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Julia, since Keating introduced (7% initial? - something like that - up since then of course)  compulsory employer contributions to super - I'd have been surprised if you received a different answer to the one you just posted  - but thanks for the confirmation




You are most welcome, 2020.
My concern was not to do with the contributions but rather with the modification introduced by the present government allowing tax free withdrawals from Super after reaching age pension age.

Given the huge amount of money that has flowed into Super since these changes were introduced about a year ago, there would have been a lot of pretty cross voters if Labor had withdrawn the tax free aspect.

Now, I wonder if that is a core promise???


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 November 2007)

I think I agree with Lucy Saunders in this article on the ABC. 

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2081502.htm


> Our ********'s better than your ********
> Last week was a lot of fun for both parties, really. Actual policy announcements and other matters of substance were forgotten in the sparkle and drama of high-profile candidates from both parties making absolute twits of themselves. I wrote about the general lust for a drop of blood in the water last week - now there's enough floating around to appease even the hungriest of the media sharks.
> 
> Tony Abbott, somewhat unsurprisingly, was the first to fall off the tightrope. Admirably he did it not once but three times in quick succession. First he had to apologise for savaging a bloke dying of a work-related illness - good to see the man in charge of health has such a low opinion of the sick. Then, whoops, it turns out that this Mersey Hospital upgrade the libs have suddenly set their heart on can't go ahead. Embarrassing. Then, with the same level of charm and grace that has always characterised Tony, he decided to rock up late for a policy debate and - heavens above - swear at the Labor shadow health minister, Nicola Roxon. And I'm sure that Roxon, somebody who's spent a lot of time in the ALP, was just shocked by his language, too.
> ...






> Both of these events were epic, epic trainwrecks, the kind of thing that haunt the nightmares of party people. I'm sure it took about three seconds after Garrett spoke for the Liberal ad featuring a sinister voiceover and a dodgy photo of the jolly green giant to get thrown together - 'Peter Garrett secretly wants to criminalize all coal', 'ten percent of Labor's front bench are ex-rock and roll officials', 'a vote for Labor could be a vote for anything, but mostly terrorism', all that kind of thing. Fair enough, too. This was an absolute gift for the Liberals, they'd be mad not to flog it as far as it'll go, and maybe a little bit further.






> Inexperienced candidate, by the way, doesn't mean that he's unqualified for government. Nobody's going to deny that Peter Garrett is a credible environmental spokesman who understands and is passionate about the issues. The problem is that while he's got bucketloads of experience in his actual portfolio area, he's not particularly practiced in the inanity of an election campaign. *This is what happens when people not born and raised in the party machine get promoted - better product, worse packaging. Tony Abbott is the opposite. A seasoned and high profile Liberal party hack, his errors lay not in some ill-considered gag, but in a genuinely vicious streak. *While he didn't reveal the Liberal Secret Plan - they're very good at waiting until safely after the election for that - he did show himself to be a total thug, uninterested in policy debate, making rash promises to get an issue to go away and generally more interested in brawling than serious governing.




I mean - what about non-core vs core promises ?? - as if the Libs are saints, sheesh. 

again I find myself agreeing with "krypto" 


> "krypto":- as far as Peter Garrett's comments to Steve Price, Garrett's only appology should be for giving that ridiculous man the time of day, I wouldn't trust Price with my dog's "leavings" much less journalistic integrity and the truth, the ONLY third party witness Richard Wilkins has already said Garrett's remark was a "throw away line" taken "out of context" by an unscrupulous charlatain who distorts the truth professionally.
> I mean the man lists his profession as "shock jock" for pitty's sake.
> There is no such excuse for Abbott's outragous behaviour but we are supposed to forgive and forget because he "had a bad day" oh please, this is a federal cabinet minister not a guest on high 5.






> http://www.theage.com.au/news/Natio...h-drink-driving/2007/04/15/1176575679704.html
> Steve Price charged with drink driving  (from april )
> Sydney radio personality Steve Price admits he made "a dumb mistake" and was "plain stupid" after he was charged with drink driving over the weekend.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 November 2007)

there's an interesting scenario there as well...
If Greens + Labor join forces to beat coation, who would be Environment minister? - Brown or Garrett ? 

(unlike Horricks, I don't have a problem with that scenario btw - almost as good as Greens having balance of power in the senate  ) 



> "Horrocks " :  05 Nov 2007 2:34:56pm
> 
> now that would be an interesting scenario, ALP only win 13 seat, Greens win 4 but coalition don't actually loose enough to loose government, in fact it's a hung parliament, what would happen in that case, would the Coalition stay on the Government benches or would the ALP/Green coalition be given a chance to ruin the country. Who would be Environment minister in such a coalition, Garrett or Brown, it seems to be a scenario nobody has raised.
> 
> Then there are Windsor & Katter to consider, who would they support (and of course Peter Andren's seat will be up for grabs)


----------



## arminius (5 November 2007)

if the economy is the most important consideration in these turbulent times that lay ahead, who will be treasurer of the country when pete takes over as pm? 

whoever it is, i dont think they'd have too much 'experience'. in fact, i think they'd be a rank novice.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 November 2007)

arminius said:


> if the economy is the most important consideration in these turbulent times that lay ahead, who will be treasurer of the country when pete takes over as pm?
> 
> whoever it is, i dont think they'd have too much 'experience'. in fact, i think they'd be a rank novice.




arminius, they've been dodging that one nicely - while *at the same time *asking Labour to commit to it's front bench prior to the election.

As if LIBS won't have a MAJOR reshuffle !! -  How many will even be there !!and the PM and other ministers in marginal seats and all  !


I wonder sometimes if they realise how lacking in cred they are.


----------



## wildkactus (7 November 2007)

just think,
If the libs get back in and JH goes, we could be run by Abbot and Costello.


----------



## explod (7 November 2007)

wildkactus said:


> just think,
> If the libs get back in and JH goes, we could be run by Abbot and Costello.





Yeh.... wonder if they will update into colour, could be quite a show.  Might make Pel the Governor General.  A hoot from the spire and a line with Rome.


----------



## numbercruncher (7 November 2007)

Costello running this country just scares the crapper out of me (not too mention abbott as his side kick as mentioned)

Did you see Costello at the worm debate just sitting there with that continual crazy/weird/freaky smile on his face, something just aint normal with that lad.


----------



## Aussiejeff (7 November 2007)

With the 6th interest rate rise by the RBA just confirmed this morning under John Howard's & Peter Costello's watch since the last election (and the prospect of another one shortly thereafter), the Libs are going to have to start a soft shoe shuffle to get out of jail on the interest rate argument before the election.

Whatever anyone from the Lib Party might try to say to "soften" the impact of this latest rise (via foot in mouth or otherwise), it is NOT going to be a GOOD thing for a lot of strugglers out there in house mortgage land....

The problem for Labor is that if they win, they will probably inherit a climbing interest rate scenario which they might not be able to control either!


Cheers,

AJ


----------



## Rafa (7 November 2007)

good point AJ... in economic times such as this... this could well be a poison chalice 

this article in the SMH is a good reminder of what a treasurer really does since the hawke keating reforms and the subsequent independence of the RBA



> *The treasurer is mainly pretence*
> by Ross Gittins
> 
> Surprisingly, a central question in the third last week of the election campaign is: what's the role of the federal treasurer? If you think it's to manage the national economy, that's what you're meant to think. But although the politicians on both sides want you to believe it, it hasn't been true for a long time.
> ...




http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...pretence/2007/11/06/1194329223119.html?page=2


----------



## Blank1979 (7 November 2007)

They both present an interesting mix this time around I think.

It seems to me that people like catch phrases, and that the public aren't really that upset with liberal's policies clearly - because of Rudd's blanket copying and yet popularity - just that maybe Howard's had his turn...

There's a couple of interesting articles about this on Business Spectator:
The Fatal Blow
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/The_fatal_blow_8N7MU?OpenDocument

and

Robert Gottliebsen's article about the liklihood of Kevin Rudd copying, or at least not significantly changing Howards IR Reforms:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...et_IR_victory_8MPFR?OpenDocument?OpenDocument


I'm partial to both sides of the coin in this election - I can see what Rudd's saying but think that Howard is a better economic manager.

I guess it's going to hinge, at least for me, on whom is going to better manage a more difficult economic climate with Amercia melting down next year.


----------



## numbercruncher (7 November 2007)

Its actually quite amusing to listen too, last few days Costello was saying no interest rise needed, and today he is touting the rise as a sign of great economic management ....



> Federal Treasurer Peter Costello says today's interest rate rise is proof of good economic management, and a reason for Australians to keep the Coalition in power.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/07/2084177.htm


----------



## drama_queen (7 November 2007)




----------



## Nyden (7 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> good point AJ... in economic times such as this... this could well be a poison chalice
> 
> this article in the SMH is a good reminder of what a treasurer really does since the hawke keating reforms and the subsequent independence of the RBA
> 
> ...





That raises the point; who are the *markets* hoping will win? Or isn't it clear-cut? I guess I haven't had the time to go over both sides policies!

I just seem to fear a Labor government; afraid they'll mess with the CGT system in a negative way, or something... I just have this perception of Labor as being anti-upper class, & overly pro-blue collar


----------



## imitrust (7 November 2007)

Liberal.

Though I kind of want Labor to get in so they ruin it for 4 years and let the Libs in for another decade.


----------



## nioka (7 November 2007)

Nyden said:


> .. I just have this perception of Labor as being anti-upper class, & overly pro-blue collar




I thought aussie was a classless society. Are you upper class, if so could you please explain your class or mine. Could you please explain what it takes to be upper class.


----------



## Nyden (7 November 2007)

nioka said:


> I thought aussie was a classless society. Are you upper class, if so could you please explain your class or mine. Could you please explain what it takes to be upper class.




Well isn't that a pipe dream.

No society in the world is classless, although class shouldn't affect health care, education, & anything of the likes - the class I am referring to is obviously being well off, or for lack of a better word being a "battler".

How can you say we're classless, when (at least, by my definition) politicians themselves are appealing to the masses, and even label them as 'battlers'.

I think to say we're classless is a touch naive, when in certain suburbs and you see nothing but BMW dealerships surrounding the million dollar properties?

When in reverse, in the lower priced areas you see Holden dealerships?


----------



## brilliantmichael (7 November 2007)

nioka said:


> I thought aussie was a classless society. Are you upper class, if so could you please explain your class or mine. Could you please explain what it takes to be upper class.




"Upper class" is the label people want to call _themselves_ when they're insecure enough to want to be one, but know they'll never reach their dream of being called one in their lifetime. E.g. people who come onto ASF trying to act all haughty-taughty and flog so-called lib values (contrary to what the libs are at heart really about), and wish to identify themselves with right-wing nationalism (which liberals are _not_ about - hence the term "liberalism" - look it up on Wikipedia). Examples include "well educated" but non-rich professionals who are secretly supportive of the Cronulla riots and (no offense to _all_ the libs) Kevin Andrews!


----------



## Rafa (7 November 2007)

Nyden said:


> That raises the point; who are the *markets* hoping will win? Or isn't it clear-cut? I guess I haven't had the time to go over both sides policies!




there is a whole thread on which govt is better for the market... i think the outcome of that one was... It doesn't matter...




Nyden said:


> I just seem to fear a Labor government; afraid they'll mess with the CGT system in a negative way, or something... I just have this perception of Labor as being anti-upper class, & overly pro-blue collar





As for any of this class nonsense... this is Australia... there are no classes here, except those that have been recently created by the libs with the two tier health system, and the two tier uni entrance system (i.e. fee or no fee)


----------



## Nyden (7 November 2007)

brilliantmichael said:


> "Upper class" is the label people want to call _themselves_ when they're insecure enough to want to be one, but know they'll never reach their dream of being called one in their lifetime. E.g. people who come onto ASF trying to act all haughty-taughty and flog so-called lib values (contrary to what the libs are at heart really about), and wish to identify themselves with right-wing nationalism (which liberals are _not_ about - hence the term "liberalism" - look it up on Wikipedia). Examples include "well educated" but non-rich professionals who are secretly supportive of the Cronulla riots and (no offense to _all_ the libs) Kevin Andrews!





I should hope you're not referring to me : I never labeled myself as that, I don't much appreciate any form of labeling. I merely stated that I fear a government that seems (at least, by my perception!) to only care about those who are struggling.

Australians have no one to blame but themselves for these rate-hikes, I know *plenty* of people who keep buying big screen TVs, lounge furniture rivaling the cost of most cars, & constantly going on holidays all on their *credit* cards; fooled by the "Interest Free!!" slogans.

Those who weren't stupid shouldn't suffer for those who were.




> As for any of this class nonsense... this is Australia... there are no classes here, except those that have been recently created by the libs with the two tier health system, and the two tier uni entrance system (i.e. fee or no fee)




I'm not saying having classes are a good thing, but it is an unfortunate reality.
You can't say "There are no classes here! Oh, with the exception of this, and that, oh and that other thing"
It *is* unfortunate, but I believe it is a reality. Hey, when it comes to anything but the markets - I'm a pessimist.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 November 2007)

Couldn't help smiling this morning - 
ABC had the Queen's voice talking about introducing bills to parliament to counter global warming ----  "for reducing the generation of carbon dioxide by 50% (?) by 2050 (? whatever)" .... (you have to imagine her regal tones saying this) ...

and I wondered to myself...

Gee at this rate Johnny Howard probably wishes he'd backed Malcolm Turnbull in the Republican days 




> Nyden :-.... Australians have no one to blame but themselves for these rate-hikes, I know plenty of people who keep buying big screen TVs, lounge furniture



PS Nyden - I have about 8 sets of lounge chairs . sofas etc  - they're in our garage for the kids and their guests, all picked up from nice people who dump them during kerbside cleanups 

PPS but also, surely the big handouts will be inflationary (?)


----------



## Rafa (7 November 2007)

Nyden said:


> You can't say "There are no classes here! Oh, with the exception of this, and that, oh and that other thing"
> It *is* unfortunate, but I believe it is a reality. Hey, when it comes to anything but the markets - I'm a pessimist.




Apologies... that should have read 'were'... as in there were no classes here
Things have changed in the last few years...


----------



## chops_a_must (7 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Gee at this rate Johnny Howard probably wishes he'd backed Malcolm Turnbull in the Republican days



You're always on par with those 'laugh a day' comments. Keep 'em coming, I love your work.


----------



## noco (7 November 2007)

Imitrust, it is the younger generation who may help Labor over the line because they have not experienced what it is like under Labor.
As you say, perhaps a good dose of Labor for 3 years (not 4) may be enough to keep them out for a decade.
The thing that concerns me most is that we may  have to contend with coast to coast Labor if they win this election. Rudd says over my dead body will he increase the GST, but with 6 Labor states and 2 Terriortories all Labor, there is nothing to stop them increasing the GST to 14 % which some of the Labor states are already talking about.
Remember Keating, L-A-W TAX which he reneged on.
Remember Bob Hawke, no child would be in poverty after 1990.
Remember Paul Keating, the recession we had to have. 
Remember "ME TOO" copy cat  Kevin Rudd. According to Peter Garrett things will all change after the election and the "ME TOO" thing will be thrown out the window and back will come McDonald, Reynolds and the other union thugs to dictate the terms to KRUDD, after all they will want a return for the millions of $'s they have pumped into the Labor campaign.
I'll stick with the Liberals thank you.


----------



## chops_a_must (7 November 2007)

noco said:


> Remember Keating, L-A-W TAX which he reneged on.



As did Howard when treasurer.


----------



## Rafa (7 November 2007)

love that raising the GST scare campaingn...
he'd have to get that thru the upper house first which which be liberal controled!


regardless, unless he wants to get voted right back out, doubt we'd see that happen.

and speaking about GST, funny how you forgot the never ever GST noco?


----------



## noco (7 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> love that raising the GST scare campaingn...
> he'd have to get that thru the upper house first which which be liberal controled!
> 
> 
> ...




The upper house may only be controlled by Liberal untill 30-06-08, after that it may be controlled by Labor if they get a majority in the Senate.
What is wrong with the GST? the Labor states love it and it gets increased every year. 
A lot of you dumbos who raved on about everything would cost another 10% more, obviously had no idea how much hidden sales  tax you were paying, like 25% on motor vehicles, Keating jumped it from 20-25% in one hit.
22.5% on a can of Coca Cola, 33% on stationery, 22.5% on toilet paper and I could go on, but I am sure you have got the message by now. All sales tax on goods was removed on the introduction of the GST so in fact most items became cheaper.
And what about all the previous election campaigns where Labor were going to ROLL BACK the GST. Never hear a word from Rudd or Swan about ROLL BACK, so they must have approved of it, any way the states would not let them do it now. 
Gillard said 6 months ago she would tear up all the AWA'S, never mentions it any more, I wonder why?
I'll trust the Libs over Labor any time thanks.


----------



## Rafa (7 November 2007)

there is nothing wrong with the GST... i voted for it!
its the only good reform that this govt has done...


----------



## bvbfan (7 November 2007)

noco said:


> What is wrong with the GST? the Labor states love it and it gets increased every year.




Nothing except that the promise was that it would force the states to abolish a lot of state taxes like stamp duty. I know it was done on share transactions but what about property, vehicles.

What about the fact that the Commonwealth Grants Commission who dole out the pie from the GST revenue seem to give it to the poorer states.
I was led to believe that the state that the GST was raised would get the funds back.

I'd support a higher GST across all items and a cut of tax rates and make the tax only payable above the rate determined as sufficient to live on.


----------



## hangseng (7 November 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> How can you keep Howard in when he has slashed education funding, put up HECS fees, Dumped workers needs/rights/working conditions/Pay.
> 
> Pumped millions into a useless war.
> 
> ...




The GST is not "a tax on a tax" the state labour govts agreed to abolish certain state taxes but never did. The Labour govts (including fed) never did a thing to address this regressive impost. The WA Labour Govt actually has the gall to state the surplus' they have achieved are based on sound fiscal management, what a lot of cods! WA has the highest taxes in the country and the Labour govt did nothing to curb the huge stamp duty on property they just took it all and actually increased it. They will bankrupt this state if permitted to as they have no idea how to manage money, neither does the proposed federal Labour govt. 

No amount of Rudd hand waving, reading prepared script or public ear wax eating will ever convince me of otherwise.


----------



## numbercruncher (7 November 2007)

I think the liberals have themselves proved how inept they are, no Government would call an election at a time when interest rates were about to be raised, they could of called elections a month ago, to me it proves the current Government had absolutley no idea that inflation was running so high, I guess their servants do their shopping, fill the tank, pay the bills etc ?

Seriously, if Government knew inflation was so high, and thought there was even a slight chance of a raise during the campaign they would of had voting day before the rba meeting.


----------



## chops_a_must (7 November 2007)

noco said:


> A lot of you dumbos who raved on about everything would cost another 10% more, obviously had no idea how much hidden sales  tax you were paying, like 25% on motor vehicles, Keating jumped it from 20-25% in one hit.



Hmmm... I remember being shown an historical inflation graph that showed a spike after the GST was introduced, in my econonimc intro unit. Says a lot about who's a dumbo I think.


----------



## hangseng (7 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Hmmm... I remember being shown an historical inflation graph that showed a spike after the GST was introduced, in my econonimc intro unit. Says a lot about who's a dumbo I think.




Quite a lot of people missed a lot of economics 101.

Including the people who didn't see the hidden sales taxes on all goods as indicated by Nico. Labour ensured we would continue to have high taxes to pay for the unproductive socialist policies by not removing state taxes and in fact increasing them, as they will again.


----------



## Julia (7 November 2007)

Just diverting back to whether or not Australia is a classless society, perhaps once it may have been, but frankly I doubt it.  Although we don't have the clearly delineated classes of, e.g. the UK, there are definite divisions within our society.

Until tonight I hadn't heard the term "upper class" referred to in this country.
More commonly, it seems the reasonably well off, reasonably well educated, reasonably socially mobile people term themselves "middle class".

I think we have politicians to thank for much of the divisions we see in Australian society.  How many times do Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard say "Australian working families" in the course of a day?  Hundreds probably! 
It's driving me insane.  Are they referring to the middle class folk described above?  No, they are not.  They are attempting to appeal to the blue collar workers who defected big time from Labor at the last election and strayed into unfamiliar Liberal territory.  John Howard is trying hard to hold on to them but, given all the interest rate rises, cost of petrol, food, general increases in the cost of living, he doesn't have much chance.

The consumer items which have reduced in price with the increase in the value of the dollar are not the everyday "must have" items, but rather the big TV's, high end audio gear etc.

Mr Howard's constant refrain of "we have never had it so good" is wearing very thin indeed with people struggling to pay rent or meet mortgage payments.

But those on good incomes with added income from investments are relatively untouched by all of this.  

So any notion of a classless society is, sadly, unrealistic.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Just diverting back to whether or not Australia is a classless society, perhaps once it may have been, but frankly I doubt it.  Although we don't have the clearly delineated classes of, e.g. the UK, there are definite divisions within our society.
> 
> Until tonight I hadn't heard the term "upper class" referred to in this country.



well - it's pretty "classless" in the centre of the NT that's for sure. 

and if you make it to the end of year 1, 
 then you go "upper class" for next year


----------



## Superfly (8 November 2007)

Have been reading in the papers ( I live o/s ) that Labour are going to win the uncoming election...are Australians really that naive to vote for political inexperience on both national & international issues as Labour ( unions ) are. Do people just choose to forget the past 11 years of wealth. 

Saint Kevin representing Australia o/s....please...

It will be like putting the corporal in charge of the Army....

Australia has a great team in government..... the record speaks for itself !!!!


----------



## arminius (8 November 2007)

what are you doing o/s superfly? 
running the labour camps in Burma?

since you've been without a tv for a while, the country is raking in lots and lots of cash from selling lots and lots of coal, iron ore, bauxite, and gas, just to name a few. 

the libs won lotto, and are quite happy to blow it. 

now get back to work and crack that whip.


----------



## hangseng (8 November 2007)

Superfly said:


> Have been reading in the papers ( I live o/s ) that Labour are going to win the uncoming election...are Australians really that naive to vote for political inexperience on both national & international issues as Labour ( unions ) are. Do people just choose to forget the past 11 years of wealth.
> 
> Saint Kevin representing Australia o/s....please...
> 
> ...




I agree with you completely. The Libs have done an excellent job of running the country. Labour will blow it all (again).


----------



## Aussiejeff (8 November 2007)

Well, that IS a surprise.... I wonder if Malcolm Turnbull will become the Liberal party's new "gay icon" and speak passionately about gay rights for the rest of the election run-up? 

Unfortunately, it seems he didn't want to speak to the media after his gay policy announcement yesterday. Just out of curiosity, can any Lib insiders tell me whether he has  always been an ardent supporter of gay rights - or has he just been "put up to it" in the last couple of days by his pollie mates?

Hmmm... I think I smell a rat....



AJ


----------



## mark70920 (8 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> I agree with you completely. The Libs have done an excellent job of running the country. Labour will blow it all (again).




There was a corporal who once ran a country , he was a short , ultra nationalist , who was good at demonising his enemies and telling the mass want they wanted to hear , a master of propoganda .He ignored international treaties and marginalised minorities for political gain. He held on to power at all costs as he was convinced he was the only person who could save his country and when the realisation came that he was going to lose, he blamed everyone other than himself.(Sounds like someone we know)

John Howard state in 1996 that 10 years was too long for one side to be in power and in 1996 the liberals had no experience either. Time to give the other side a go , this side has run out of steam.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (8 November 2007)

Irrespective of the good/bad/otherwise of all the parties, I don't think having Labour in every state and in federal can have a good outcome. On the other hand while I am in general a liberal voter a number of decisions and comments from Govt. over the last few months are smelling of desperation. What to do....certainly not greens or democrats.


----------



## nioka (8 November 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> What to do....certainly not greens or democrats.




 Put the sitting member last. Put an independant first. Forget the party part. Get a few new faces and stir the pot.


----------



## arminius (8 November 2007)

if our fellow aussies put their fear aside for a moment and voted labor, with all the governments of this country reading off the same sheet of music for once, perhaps great things can happen. 

after all, they are well aware that all eyes are watching, and if they stuff it up they know what the likely outcome will be a few years down the track.

dont be scared. be happy. lets get on with life without looking over our shoulders for the boogie monsters.


----------



## ithatheekret (8 November 2007)

Which ever way the wind blows come election day , the fact remains that neither party have a clear and decisive plan to combat the ever growing hardships faced by rural communities , aboriginal settlements and low income families .

Every single move by either party to date has been reactionary .

This alone proves that there isn't ounce of common sense to be drain out of the whole line up .

The smell someone mentioned before about Malcolm Turnbull , is actually the wads of cash he has stuff down his pants , he's stinking rich .
And what does a rich man want when he already has everything ............ POWER !

The only positive view I have of this election , is that if Labor wins , at least they won't get full control of the Senate .
I make no apologies for being a Liberal , but .......... Howards time is up , and he should have handed over the reigns to a more clinical financial thinker , instead of chasing his own idealogy . His legs may still be able to jog , but his brain is locked in its own little world .

Everyone of them that comes out spruiking that they'll keep interest rates low , are nothing but stonefaced liars . You see to do so they would have to stop spending , but .... , Australia has been in a vacuum over spending , all the cash put out to date has been an eachway bet for an election , that goes for promised spending also .
They should try to spend at a set pace , but it should be spent on infrastructure , like wharf expansions and rain catchments , perhaps even a pipeline that could bring wasted water from up North , down through central Australia . But oh no , they put it out on first home buyer grants that helped send house prices soaring , only to be matched by a boom in $1000.00 babies and other fanciful ideas , that has them trying to build an economy up , but it's as though the recipes are out of an upside down CWA cookbook .

Nope the more I think about it , I keep reflecting that , the only good politician is one in bronze , at least the pidgeons get to poop on them .


----------



## chops_a_must (8 November 2007)

ithatheekret said:


> Which ever way the wind blows come election day , the fact remains that neither party have a clear and decisive plan to combat the ever growing hardships faced by rural communities , aboriginal settlements and low income families .



Logically, there is no point in wasting political resources on rural communities. They vote right wing en masse, so there is no point Labor pandering to them, nor is there any point for the Liberal to devote money to them, as voting intentions are rigid. A change in voting habits would change the way they are treated. It's simple.


----------



## shaunm (8 November 2007)

I feel like I am in the "Twilight Zone" seeing the same scare ads from the libs, the same argument that Labor is inexperienced....so basically forever onwards no-one but the Liberals should be in power. Talk about delusions of gandeur!
So if Labour get in wages will go up and force inflation and interest rates up which is bad. But hang on, the libs are telling us that since "workchoices" wages have gone up, so that's different?? Well inflation has increased and look what has happened to our interest rates!

I really felt like throwing something at my TV last night watching John Howard & Peter Costello squirming and spinning their way through the interest rate announcement.
They are happy to claim the credit when interest rates hit rock bottom (BTW that phennomenon was worldwide actually) and ridiculously claim that they are able to keep them there.
Now the rates are up it's because of the drought, the Aussie dollar, the sub-prime, the........ (next excuse).

The Libs have played on the general ignorance of the population who have been so caught up watching their wallet, but it appears that people are waking up and seeing the terrible situation that Howard has put us into like Iraq, Tampa, FTA, David Hicks, Pacific Solution, AWB, ANti-Terror Laws, Work Choices, university funding, failing infrastructure, NT intervention and Climate Change. Their campaign slogan should be "Asleep At The Wheel!"

I am not a die-hard Labour voter. I would have voted Liberal in the NSW state election if the dopes had put a decent show on. 
And the ridiculous premise of trying to scare us from voting Labour federally when every state has been happy to put Labour in charge.

Now back to the stock market.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 November 2007)

Funny how "political" messages are hidden in totally unsuspecting places ...

Like tonight on "The Adventure of English" - Melvyn Bragg makes the point that .... 
(paraphrasing)..


> "in 1972 Gough Whitlam came to power and many of the strong conservative English roots in Australia were replaced by a new nationalism ....
> 
> *Four years later the first Australian dictionary, the Macquarie Dictionary, was published*"




Incidentally, (and changing the topic) - he screws up badly with "waratah" lol

and completely ignores New Zealand's contribution to the English language 



> http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-4770859_ITM
> THE FLOWER of New South Wales, according to Melvyn Bragg, is the "w'ratter". Australia s national dictionary, which he thoroughly recommends, is the "McCarry".
> 
> The program was a series called The Adventure of English and it is a very accessible and scholarly piece of work about the birth and development of the English language--*until his lordship deals with Australia.* Does the standard of research and accuracy fall in a heap at this point, just as it has in other worldwide series? I'm afraid it does. The local television critics, however, raved about the show and gave it the "cancel all engagements" treatment.
> ...


----------



## Shane Baker (9 November 2007)

shaunm said:


> II am not a die-hard Labour voter.




Probably need some Viagra then,


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 November 2007)

I really don't like the way ex-military are treated. 
Apart from the fact that the dead get a nice funeral - what about the fights for justice after Vietnam that went on for years  (Agent Orange effects are still around) - Desert war syndrome - injections against nerve gas that misfired - etc .  *And people have to fight against an unhearing govt for years and decades. - sheesh! *

Or the Voyager for cryssake. - 43 years ago !  (obviously both labour and liberal in power since then - but I'm talking about an attitude for future pollies to take on)

*Justice delayed is justice denied.*
And all the rhetoric that flows from "such sympathetic pollies". eek 
*blatant hypocrisy!!*



> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/09/2086453.htm
> 'Voyager' survivors dying before getting justice: lawyer
> Posted Fri Nov 9, 2007 12:02pm AEDT
> Updated Fri Nov 9, 2007 12:00pm AEDT
> ...




As for any funeral of any Aus (or USA) soldiers - such brave blokes for sure - damned site braver than the ones that sent them there.    Widows should be given the right to prevent pollies from speaking about the matter. 

George Bush 
a) made sure he wasn't called up to go to Vietnam (they say the current White House is the biggest collection / highest concentration whatever of draft dodgers you'll find anywhere)
b) prior to 9/11, he slashed funds for veterans (rehabilitation etc) - if I recall Fahrenheit 9/11 correctly
c) then does his Hollywood bit every time a lead-lined coffin comes home from Iraq - as if he's just an innocent bystander.


----------



## greggy (10 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Completely agree, Greggy.  It's just so easy for those of us who are doing pretty well - and politicians touting the successful economy, low unemployment rate etc - to just "not notice" the many people who are really struggling.
> 
> Yesterday I spent some time with a young woman who is a single mother, having escaped a violent relationship.  She has a sick baby, the child having been in hospital for the last three weeks and now needs considerable ongoing medication and medical care.  The young woman herself needs to have major surgery and will need to go to a capital city for this.  She is in constant pain and also needs expensive medication.
> 
> ...



Hi Julia,

Despite many having benefited from the current economic boom, there are indeed people out there who are doing it tough. My heart goes out to the young mother in question.  Despite her awful situation, she can at least consider herself to be lucky to still be alive having escaped a violent relationship. 
My wife was previously married to a man who became a drug addict and regularly beat her up. After 5 years she finally decided to leave him. She still suffers depression to this day. 
I'm glad that I met her, my life would certainly be empty without her. She has a big heart. She also given me a precious daughter who I love dearly.  
Having been busy of late taking my father to and from hospital, I'm sick of the blaming game going on between all levels of government.  The federal government should step up to the plate and takeover full responsibility for  health.  I wouldn't mind paying a higher medicare levy if the problems were fixed. I also have private health cover, so does my father.  Australia is still a rich country relatively speaking, but its a pity that our health system isn't in better shape.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 November 2007)

Julia I also agree 110 % - more help to the less fortunate (there but for fortune for cryssake)
and that goes for carers as well


----------



## Julia (10 November 2007)

Greggy and 20-20, good to know that you have a sense of compassion.
You've made an important point, Greggy, about being grateful for the good stuff, e.g. your wife and daughter, despite the abuse your wife has experienced before knowing you.

The young woman I described still manages to smile.  Why?  Because, she says, she has her beautiful baby.  Such is a person who sees the glass half full and never half empty.


----------



## greggy (10 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Greggy and 20-20, good to know that you have a sense of compassion.
> You've made an important point, Greggy, about being grateful for the good stuff, e.g. your wife and daughter, despite the abuse your wife has experienced before knowing you.
> 
> The young woman I described still manages to smile.  Why?  Because, she says, she has her beautiful baby.  Such is a person who sees the glass half full and never half empty.



Julia, you certainly have a great sense of compassion.  I wish the young woman and her beautiful baby all the very best.  Every day I come home from work, my 3 year old daughter runs to the front door to greet me with excitement and love. What else could anyone ask for? 
There's plenty of good and bad people in the world out there, but I still consider myself an optimist.  The good clearly outnumber the bad by a huge majority.  I only look down on people in order to give them a hand up.
With such big budget surpluses I'd like to see more spent on health and education for the greater good of this country.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2007)

SEMANTICS

1. Howard regrets the stolen generation but won't apologise;
2. He says that he personally didn't say that interest rates would stay at record lows - just his party advertising said that;
3. He says that he wants to clarify misunderstandings with the abs, but, oh no, he wont be the one changing; 
4. and now he's sorry that rates went up, but since he has nothing to do with it, , there can be no blame laid at his door, and no way can that even be remoting linked with an apology. (?)

The English language has many oportunities to twist things.  
Diplomats do it all the time.  For instance when an aggressive developer wants to rip the heart out of an old suburb , they say they make a "Submission" to the council.   - as if there's anything "submissive" about it !

As for trying to differentiate himself from his party (the 2003 TV ads about rates staying at record lows) - how ridiculous was his defence, and how much more credible if he had just pleaded a stuffup.   Trouble then of course, those ads were pivotal to the 2003 coalition campaign. 

ARROGANCE OF THE INCUMBANT

btw, If Rudd gets in, I would not be at all surprised if Rudd is also forced to resort to semantics to cover up for his departments.  Will he become as arrogant as Howard? - not if he is forced to answer to the senate.   This has been howard's downfall imo.  not sufficient fairness in legislation that could be pushed through both houses (and not even giving them time to read the 600 pages or whatever in the 24 hours allotted etc). 

And the longer Rudd stays in the more likely it will be that he has to use "clever" wording.  This is the way of these things - when howard beat keating 11 years ago, he was never as beligerent or arrogant as he is now.  He even used phrases like "I don't have the monopoly of wisdom - Keating was right to do this or do that etc".

DEFENCE OF WHISTLE BLOWERS

On the question of arrogance increases with time in office.  Hopefully he won't do what Nifty Wran (NSW) did back in the 80's when an anonymous whistleblower pointed out corruption in the police or hospitals or somesuch - and he yelled into the press microphone that "he was not interested in checking out the facts - but this person should come forward, be identified, and suffer the consequences."    

ACCC, OMBUDSMAN etc 

And then for Carr to accuse Greiner of arrogance - when Greiner's biggest mistake was to be caught in his own web (some trivial matter of a sideways promotion of Metherill) - by the hitherto unheard-of unprecedented moral code of the ACCC - which HE had introduced.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2007)

btw also lol
The Lib advertising has been noticeably avoiding any photo of howard.  (and likewise some Labor ads of Rudd - but less so)

The story goes that your local member will make a difference.  !!   Try to pretend it's not a presidential campaign. 

Trouble then is,  once elected,  they are not permitted to think!! - Once in,  they are "one bum on one seat" - and pity help anyone who uses their grey matter - or disagrees with the party machine - and particularly if they cross the floor.!  

Winston Churchill crossed the floor twice at least - even changing party in the process - then again , he had "a mind".  



> Crossing the Floor of the House
> The floor of the House is the broad gangway which separates the two sets of benches in the House of Commons chamber.
> Crossing the floor is the term used to describe a Member of Parliament's decision to leave one political party to join another.
> 
> In 1904, Sir Winston Churchill crossed the floor, leaving the Conservative Party to join the Liberal (leftwing in UK)  Party. He then returned to the Conservatives in the 1920s (second crossing).


----------



## Spaghetti (11 November 2007)

hangseng said:


> I agree with you completely. The Libs have done an excellent job of running the country. Labour will blow it all (again).




The labor party did an excellent job. When they left office interest rates were very low and houses were very affordable. There was good economic growth with no china boom. Howard inherited good economic policy. There was short term pain for long term gain but I give credit to Hawke/Keating for that as it was long term policy.


----------



## zt3000 (11 November 2007)

Spaghetti said:


> The labor party did an excellent job. When they left office interest rates were very low and houses were very affordable. There was good economic growth with no china boom. Howard inherited good economic policy. There was short term pain for long term gain but I give credit to Hawke/Keating for that as it was long term policy.




And under Hawke/Keating we had unprecidented striks and industrial actions being undertaken, wage increases which was unrelated to increased productivity. A company has $500k to spend on wages, so they employ 10 people .. $50k each. Right, unions demand a pay increase, nothing employer can do so they grant the increase to $55k, now what ... hrmm wages outgoings are $550k so what happens .. one person gets the sack ... back to 9 people at $500k. People its not rocket science. The new IR laws promote jobs and promote increased productivity. 

Im all for giving higher wages demanded by some unions. Yes thats fine, but get up off your lazy a** and be more productive to justify those increases. This intern is then non-inflationary. The fact of the matter is the majority of people are not union members, so why vote in a goverment which is represented by a disproportionate amount of trade unionists. Its just asking for trouble.

Rudds slogan "Its time for change" ... umm hasn't Mr Rudd been virtually copying all of Howards policies ... i mean come on .. and why change something that is going so well? Ask yourself this ... has your asset value increased, has your wages increased, are you able to change jobs? I bet most of you would answer yes and this was delivered in the time of a liberal govt.

Interest rates haha now this is a good one

It bemuses me. I watched the debate, i would bet that say 70% of the population didn't understand a word they were saying when talking about fiscal policies, inflationary pressures ect ect ... bahhhh

there's my  lol


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> SEMANTICS
> ....
> ACCC, OMBUDSMAN etc
> 
> And then for Carr to accuse Greiner of arrogance - when Greiner's biggest mistake was to be caught in his own web (some trivial matter of a sideways promotion of Metherill) - by the hitherto unheard-of unprecedented moral code of the ACCC - which HE had introduced.



oops
make that the ICAC lol (speaking of semantics - just a typo - plus I got the letters a bit mixed up


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2007)

zt3000 said:


> And under Hawke/Keating we had unprecidented striks and industrial actions being undertaken, wage increases which was unrelated to increased productivity. A company has $500k to spend on wages, so they employ 10 people .. $50k each. Right, unions demand a pay increase, nothing employer can do so they grant the increase to $55k, now what ... hrmm wages outgoings are $550k so what happens .. one person gets the sack ... back to 9 people at $500k. People its not rocket science. The new IR laws promote jobs and promote increased productivity.



sure, zt, but equally the scales would be tipped too far if companies survived because they rip people off (surely). 

Of course in many places people are on far far less than $50K - (my guess is that very few of us can even empathise) - and again it's not rocket science to see that only smart companies that can survive without ripping people off should survive. 

I also think you are totally incorrect in saying that under Hawke / Keating we had unprecendented strikes or wage blowouts.  I think you will find that 
a) that occurred under Fraser / Howard  ( after Fraser foolishly promised a fistful of dollars - and Hawke and the unions happily obliged)

b) that under Hawke / Keating there was more "accord" with the unions than ever.  

I think you will find that the truth is that noone has been able to rein in the unions EXCEPT Labor.
edit - make that "in a fair manner" without completely putting the boot in as the latest govt have done in the last 3 years.


----------



## Spaghetti (11 November 2007)

zt3000 said:


> And under Hawke/Keating we had unprecidented striks and industrial actions being undertaken, wage increases which was unrelated to increased productivity. A company has $500k to spend on wages, so they employ 10 people .. $50k each. Right, unions demand a pay increase, nothing employer can do so they grant the increase to $55k, now what ... hrmm wages outgoings are $550k so what happens .. one person gets the sack ... back to 9 people at $500k. People its not rocket science. The new IR laws promote jobs and promote increased productivity.
> 
> Im all for giving higher wages demanded by some unions. Yes thats fine, but get up off your lazy a** and be more productive to justify those increases. This intern is then non-inflationary. The fact of the matter is the majority of people are not union members, so why vote in a goverment which is represented by a disproportionate amount of trade unionists. Its just asking for trouble.
> 
> ...





We have not had productivity growth recently, have we?


----------



## Spaghetti (11 November 2007)

Labour costs in Australia are rising at the second-fastest pace of the world's wealthiest countries, underscoring the Reserve Bank's fears of rising inflation and consolidating the case for a rise in interest rates next month.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's measure of unit labour, released last night, shows wage gains are racing ahead of productivity increases in Australia. Productivity has become a heated election battleground, with the Labor Opposition accusing the Government of not doing enough to stimulate productivity growth at a time of bulging government coffers.

Among the OECD's 26 members, Australian unit labour costs were rising at the fastest pace, with the exception of Norway, in the three months to June.

The heady gains help explain why interest rates are on the increase in Australia when central banks in the US, Europe and Britain are considering rate cuts.

http://http://www.smh.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/wage-gains-beating-productivity-oecd-figures-show/2007/10/25/1192941243227.html

So unions can't be blamed for that problem anymore can they?


----------



## Spaghetti (11 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> sure, zt, but equally the scales would be tipped too far if companies survived because they rip people off (surely).
> 
> Of course in many places people are on far far less than $50K - (my guess is that very few of us can even empathise) - and again it's not rocket science to see that only smart companies that can survive without ripping people off should survive.
> 
> ...




Yes labor fixed the problem the Accord and producivity growth etc started to really take off.


----------



## zt3000 (11 November 2007)

Spaghetti said:


> Labour costs in Australia are rising at the second-fastest pace of the world's wealthiest countries, underscoring the Reserve Bank's fears of rising inflation and consolidating the case for a rise in interest rates next month.
> 
> The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's measure of unit labour, released last night, shows wage gains are racing ahead of productivity increases in Australia. Productivity has become a heated election battleground, with the Labor Opposition accusing the Government of not doing enough to stimulate productivity growth at a time of bulging government coffers.
> 
> ...




No, most probably soley due to mining in WA lol ... ive been on sites where the whole staff i mean everyone stopped working because the mine down the road had one more flavour of ice cream seriosly come on


----------



## Spaghetti (11 November 2007)

Well going on my historic view unions were not the problem. One problem was the Reserve Bank was over ruled in setting interest rates and that would not happen now and banks were saddled with bad debt and some collapsed. I guess I see Skase more a symbol of the bad rather than unions.However, as now, the problems were blamed on economic growth and good economic management and the subsequent boom in investments, again what we hear about now. I do not remember the unions being behind the real problems of the early nineties but yes the late 70's and early 80's when howard was treasurer. Perhaps he blames them for his past failures and holds a long term grudge.

I do understand problems with unions in the past but I also understand the role in contributing so much to the egalitarian nature of the workforce we once had. I dont mind discussing past union problems but I do feel that Howard is using propoganda in his war against unions rather than actual facts. Instead of discussing of what really has happened in the past, or even what is happening now seems too much focus is placed on distortion of history. It has worked I guess because so many seem to be of the view the sky was falling in during the early nineties. Not how I remember it at all.


----------



## ithatheekret (11 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Logically, there is no point in wasting political resources on rural communities. They vote right wing en masse, so there is no point Labor pandering to them, nor is there any point for the Liberal to devote money to them, as voting intentions are rigid. A change in voting habits would change the way they are treated. It's simple.




For simplicities sake ........  

Rural communities ............ every city was a rural community once .

No point in pandering to them . That's how those rural commuinties became cities . From cities we witnessed births of Provinces , States and Territories ................  and in many cases Countries .

A habit or intention should come under moral acts technically , so it could be seen as nonconforming or an allegience .   

On the flipside , whatever is promised by them today , we will have to make up for tomorrow .


----------



## Superfly (11 November 2007)

mark70920 said:


> There was a corporal who once ran a country , he was a short , ultra nationalist , who was good at demonising his enemies and telling the mass want they wanted to hear , a master of propoganda .He ignored international treaties and marginalised minorities for political gain. He held on to power at all costs as he was convinced he was the only person who could save his country and when the realisation came that he was going to lose, he blamed everyone other than himself.(Sounds like someone we know)
> 
> John Howard state in 1996 that 10 years was too long for one side to be in power and in 1996 the liberals had no experience either. Time to give the other side a go , this side has run out of steam.




.... you say the Lib's had no experience....right or wrong John Howard was a member of the Fraser government in the 70's....and then he was part of the opposition that voted with the Labour gov to send troops to Desert Storm BEFORE the UN sanctioned it, not like the current opposition who choose to do anything to gain an easy vote even on critical issues of international importance, and try to create anti Amercianism in this country....have heard no mention of the war in Afganistan..why...because the west is winning it....St Kevin, J Gillard.....what experience do they have, besides marching at May Day rallys....John Howard has over 30 years...

As for blaming everyone other than yourself....sounds like a state Labour government all day everyday....  

Were they not meant to remove a host of state taxes in lure of GST payments, but never did or very little and only with arm twisting from Peter Costello....thats what you get with the left.


----------



## Knobby22 (11 November 2007)

Superfly said:


> .... you say the Lib's had no experience....right or wrong John Howard was a member of the Fraser government in the 70's....and then he was part of the opposition that voted with the Labour gov to send troops to Desert Storm BEFORE the UN sanctioned it, not like the current opposition who choose to do anything to gain an easy vote even on critical issues of international importance, and try to create anti Amercianism in this country....have heard no mention of the war in Afganistan..why...because the west is winning it....St Kevin, J Gillard.....what experience do they have, besides marching at May Day rallys....John Howard has over 30 years...
> 
> As for blaming everyone other than yourself....sounds like a state Labour government all day everyday....
> 
> Were they not meant to remove a host of state taxes in lure of GST payments, but never did or very little and only with arm twisting from Peter Costello....thats what you get with the left.




All the money is with the Feds and they are spending it unwisely at present.
The Liberals have failed. I don't see how they can call themselves great. They have allowed all our solar technologies be owned by Chines and US companies due to their stopping of funding in 2000 which they have belatedly restarted. The US free trade treaty is a disaster for us. Foreign debt is getting scary. We have had the biggest boom ever and yet we have not followed what other countries have done such as Norway and built up foreign reserves which then would have kept the dollar lower and also interest rates lower. They have allowed tax distortions such as the 50% capital gains tax on property to mean Australians are pouring money into property instead of wealth creation businesses. They have underfunded the Tafe colleges to such an extent that we are short of all trades and have to triple our foreign intake to get the skills. 

I can go on and on. I have usually voted Liberal. Not this time. Rudd is the only alternative so we just have to hope he can do better than the retograde dullards presently running the country.

Finally, we are not winning the war in Afganistan, *we are losing it.* You are watching too much channel Fox.


----------



## nioka (11 November 2007)

We must be a dumb country. John Howard says so. When did he say that you ask. When he says ,that out of a country of over 21million people, he is the only one who can run it. ( even in boom times.) Do you believe we are all that dumb?


----------



## nioka (11 November 2007)

nioka said:


> We must be a dumb country. John Howard says so. When did he say that you ask. When he says ,that out of a country of over 21million people, he is the only one who can run it. ( even in boom times.) Do you believe we are all that dumb?




I'd better correct that. He did say there was also the second best who could do it at a pinch. Peter (non core promise) Costello.


----------



## mark70920 (12 November 2007)

zt3000 said:


> No, most probably soley due to mining in WA lol ... ive been on sites where the whole staff i mean everyone stopped working because the mine down the road had one more flavour of ice cream seriosly come on




Name the mine and the year , thats a very old story from back in the peco days at ROBE RIVER , hasn't happened at all in the last 15 years since the mining unions were smashed.
The fact is most WA miners are on AWA's and couldn't strike over a major safety issue let alone ice cream flavours.


----------



## chops_a_must (12 November 2007)

Superfly said:


> Were they not meant to remove a host of state taxes in lure of GST payments, but never did or very little and only with arm twisting from Peter Costello....thats what you get with the left.




Yes... but the Liberals took the States to the high court over certain tarriff charges, and won. Yet, they did not return that same revenue to the states; so the states were forced to keep existing taxes to balance revenue. But this is does not compensate, there is a nett loss as compared to the situation before.


----------



## BSD (13 November 2007)

*Rodentomics strikes again!!!

*

I have had enough of this rubbish

*Education Policy *- give a non means tested benefit of $800 to anyone to offset the tuition fees at Geelong Grammar, Brisbane Boys Grammar and other such venerable homes of deep thinking. 

*Childcare* - the more you earn, the cheaper it gets. Magic thought from a bloke who thinks the place of a women is at home.

*Housing Affordability* - give a tax break to parents and grandparents to subsidise their kids. $1000 a year for over 18s? How much do these idiots think it costs for a home? 

Rich kids get a deposit for a home and their parents get a CGT free punt. 

Poor kids get nothing - 90% of parents dont have $1000 per annum spare to get their child set in a home at 20. But th lucky 10% are set. 

Poor kids, if they are smart,  still  get the gift of a $40,000 HECS bill for their effort. 


Toss these idiots out - they have lost any grip on reality. Economic reform? 

Why not subsidise Bentleys for 'aspirational' voters?

Anyone who pays tax should feel sick at the thought of a new Rodent/Smirk Government. 

And before anyone plays the "UNION" card - remember that Labor, under Mr Keating, dismantled centralised bargaining. A concept that cannot be forgotten like microeconomic reform - but has been sorely lacking from these fools. 


Good riddance Rodent...


----------



## noco (14 November 2007)

I cannot believe the way Rudd and his cronies especially Gillard are raving on about John Howard handing over to Peter Costello half way through his next term if elected on the 24-11-07. At least he is more honest than Beattie, Carr and Bracks whom all lead the people in their respective states to believe they would be there for the their full term. They all pulled the pin half way through, gave some 2 or 3 days notice and walked out. So don't talk about a vote for Howard is a vote for Costello. At least you know who you will get.


----------



## nioka (14 November 2007)

noco said:


> So don't talk about a vote for Howard is a vote for Costello. At least you know who you will get.



That is exactly the problem. We know that we will get Costello who is on the record as saying John Howard makes too many spending promises. He can call them "noncore" promises in the future and say HE didn't make them. He is also on record, I believe, as saying that Work Choices need to go further. Costello is the last person we need.


----------



## Rafa (14 November 2007)

One really does wonder if there are any economic conservatives left in this country... the way middle class welfare has taken off... !!! 

Anyone who thinks that the liberals under Howard are economic conservatives need to go back and look at their policies in the last 6-7years... Even private schools are shaking their heads at the latest round of pork barelling by howard...

The scary thing is... the RBA are watching over and shaking their heads in disapproval.


*Private school backs ALP*

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22755440-5014046,00.html



> *THE headmaster of one of the nation's richest private schools believes John Howard's tax rebate for school fees should be means-tested.*
> 
> The King's School headmaster Tim Hawkes, who weathered the storm of former Labor leader Mark Latham's decision to elevate his school as the public face of his hit-list policy, has also endorsed Kevin Rudd as "politically astute".
> 
> ...


----------



## Knobby22 (14 November 2007)

The truth is, as the previous quotes say, is that Howard isn't an economic conservative. An economic conservative would be buying overseas capital in this boom times.

This has been done by many successful European countries and places llike Singapore.
This (1) helps the balance of payments.
       (2) lowers the rise in the dollar
       (3) reduces pressure on interest rates by not pump priming a booming economy. (We have the highest interest rates in the OECD by the way). 

I am an economic conservative and am only voting Rudd to stop Howard doing more damage. I just hope Rudd is smarter. (faint hope)


----------



## Rafa (14 November 2007)

Yeah, that was a fascinating article on the Age on the right and wrong ways of handling resource booms...

Keeping the tax proceeds of the resource boom in a separate investment fund that actually invests it in overseas ventures is way to balance out the terms of trade, keep the dollar lower and also deliver earnings (which you can then spend)...

Its basic financial management really... with any windfall, you invest and live of the earnings... NOT BLOW THE WINDFALL IN ONE BIG PARTY!

Here it is
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/11/10/1194329562546.html

Some excerpts...


> As both parties announce tax cuts and goodies for grey voters and those of other hues, neither party has addressed the fact that the resource boom is doing more to reduce Australia's long-term prosperity than to enhance it.
> 
> As Australians plan for even more expansive overseas sojourns this Christmas, or an even bigger splurge on imported luxuries, all courtesy of the high dollar, ask yourself this simple question: Can a country that has racked up more than half a trillion dollars in foreign debt since the float of the dollar in 1983 really afford to have an exchange rate approaching parity with its US counterpart?
> 
> ...


----------



## noco (14 November 2007)

nioka said:


> That is exactly the problem. We know that we will get Costello who is on the record as saying John Howard makes too many spending promises. He can call them "noncore" promises in the future and say HE didn't make them. He is also on record, I believe, as saying that Work Choices need to go further. Costello is the last person we need.




Sooner see Costello than Swan; Swanie can't lay straight in bed; he lies through his teeth every time he opens his mouth. Peter Garrett confirms this when he had a slip of the tongue by saying what ever Rudd and Swan say about "ME TOO", will all be thrown out the window "IF" elected. Don't come back and tell me it was all a "BIG JOKE".
Nobody knew who they were going to get when Beattie,Carr and Bracks pulled the pin.
WORK CHOICES HA!  If I were you I would more worried about the Unions : McDonald, Reynolds  and Mihyl, these fellows will want to be rewarded for the $m's they pump into the Labor Party campaign.


----------



## Rafa (14 November 2007)

ooo... i'm scarred...

I guess you don't mind howard spending like a drunken sailor... 



> Labor's commitments announced today were one-quarter of those announced on Monday, he said.
> 
> 'I have no intention today of folllowing Mr Howard's irresponsible spending spree,'' he said to an enthusiastic response.
> 
> ...


----------



## chops_a_must (14 November 2007)

noco said:


> WORK CHOICES HA!  If I were you I would more worried about the Unions : McDonald, Reynolds  and Mihyl, these fellows will want to be rewarded for the $m's they pump into the Labor Party campaign.



Did they ask to be rewarded last time when the CFMEU gave control of the senate to the Libs?


----------



## moXJO (14 November 2007)

Thank God someone showed some restraint when it came to spending. Rudd must have his fingers on the voter sentiment pulse because he just won me over.Theres a lot I don’t agree with in labors overall plan, but Howard’s $9billion splurge at this time shows just how off the mark he is.

While it will be interesting times in the following years for small business, I'm hoping it won't be a total disaster.


----------



## nioka (14 November 2007)

noco said:


> Sooner see Costello than Swan;
> WORK CHOICES HA!  If I were you I would more worried about the Unions : McDonald, Reynolds  and Mihyl, these fellows will want to be rewarded for the $m's they pump into the Labor Party campaign.




Are you suggesting Rudd will hand over to Swan. We know Howard will hand over to Costello.
RUDD IS MORE LIKELY TO REWARD THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED HIM IN THAN A HAND FULL OF UNION BOSSES.


----------



## Aussiejeff (14 November 2007)

noco said:


> Sooner see Costello than Swan;....




Un/fortunately, Costello is not guaranteed the job - Mr Howard said so in one of his latest interviews. He said that it will be up to his (Costello's) colleagues in the party room after JH retires.

So who knows? Maybe Ruddock? Downer? Abbot? Turnbull? Hockey? 

Which one of those alternative members of "The Dream Team" tickles your fancy....?



Cheers,

AJ


----------



## explod (14 November 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Un/fortunately, Costello is not guaranteed the job - Mr Howard said so in one of his latest interviews. He said that it will be up to his (Costello's) colleagues in the party room after JH retires.
> 
> So who knows? Maybe Ruddock? Downer? Abbot? Turnbull? Hockey?
> 
> ...




Yat gotta be jokin.  They have all lost the big piicture.  So I am going for Bob Brown.  If we have any hope at all for the Grandchildren we should all have to sit in the middle of the  highways and stop the traffic to stop pollution in its tracks.  And we have to convince the Pope to put all Catholic Women on the pill and convince all men they would be doing mankind the best service by going on the pull.  Selibacy should go too.  The priests should marry the Nuns so that alter boys can live an adjusted normal life and if the Pope does not like that he would be better off joining Lucifer in Hell.


----------



## Julia (14 November 2007)

Explod, good stuff re the Catholic suggestions.  Don't hold your breath,however.

I was pretty impressed by Kevin Rudd's speech today (or at least the bits of it I heard):  big on imagery, passionate and well delivered.  Left John Howard for dead. 

I still don't know who I will vote for, but no longer a definite Liberal voter now.  When John Howard lost me was in a brief grab I saw on TV where he went to visit an obviously disabled child in the child's home after apparently the child had written to him about saving the Orangutangs in Borneo.
Howard appeared to almost hug the kid who was clearly overcome by the whole performance, and then the announcement was made that we would spend $500,000 to save the Orang -u Tangs.  Well, that's very nice indeed.
I am all for saving endangered animals.  But first, Mr Howard, I would like you to save a few endangered species in Australia, like human beings who are homeless or simply whose teeth are falling out because they can't afford any dental care and you abolished the Commonwealth Dental Plan when you came into office.

Somehow, this piece of spin - designed to warm our hearts with his affection for the little kids, the disabled and the animals all in 30 seconds - just hit all my hypocrisy buttons and I felt disgusted at the insincerity of it all.

Anyone else still undecided?


----------



## noirua (14 November 2007)

My general feeling on the election is that the Liberal alliance will make a recovery in the last 7 days, leading up to the election, and win with a slim majority.


----------



## Francis Begbie (15 November 2007)

I consider myself the youth of this nation at ninety and this election has just put me completely off Australian politics. In my eyes, Australians see an election as what they can get from there public purse, and see the government as an asset for the individual, rather then something that deals with economic policy. Infrastructure and and a respectable gov't surplus don't win votes.

Both parties seem to be focused on playing a game of media chess, with the sassy kevin rudd making all the right moves with his green funds, computers in schools and his high-speed broadband (which he said would be everywhere in Australia, yet in the same speech took that back and said everywhere *possible*. He also accused the govt's 7 billion$ handout of been inflationary, despite the fact that all his policies are also inflationary, without any mention of policies that would provide downward pressure. Howard on the other hand is just as bad, and almost identical, although has a better team (with actual experience with businesses rather then public servants) and is influenced by big business rather then unions/preferences (better economy = better equity).

I finalising, Australians need to learn that the rest of the world doesn't live like us, and economically the way live isn't sustainable for ourselves little own the world. In world standards a job is a privilege that is earnt, not a right. And your employers aren't the enemy, even if you work your ass off for the minimum wage.

Sorry about the ramblings, but theres my thoughts, will vote liberal for reps, and greens for senate.

Howards an idiot dinosaur
Rudds more of an idiot and a better mre manipulative politician

Thought this article was interesting on the liberals poor economic management (considering massive growth.)

http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/2...us-Australia-our-pathetic-savings-record.html

Peace Guys


----------



## Francis Begbie (15 November 2007)

moXJO said:


> Thank God someone showed some restraint when it came to spending. Rudd must have his fingers on the voter sentiment pulse because he just won me over.Theres a lot I don’t agree with in labors overall plan, but Howard’s $9billion splurge at this time shows just how off the mark he is.
> 
> While it will be interesting times in the following years for small business, I'm hoping it won't be a total disaster.




My grasp of economics isn't at that of ben bernake just yet, but how much pressure do you think $9 billion towards school fees will put on inflation/the economy when we already have some $30 b (unsure of figure) of tax cuts and a labour govt saying they will cut emissions buy 60% by 2050, with no sought of scientific plan, viable policy to do so. 

I hate to say it, but either way it looks as if when a recession does come in some years time, it will come hard, and we are goin to need a jeff kennet style government to shapen up Australia for the future. The more you save now, the more you have in the future boys.


----------



## shaunm (15 November 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Un/fortunately, Costello is not guaranteed the job - Mr Howard said so in one of his latest interviews. He said that it will be up to his (Costello's) colleagues in the party room after JH retires.
> 
> So who knows? Maybe Ruddock? Downer? Abbot? Turnbull? Hockey?
> 
> ...




Now you are really scaring me! Why not add Christopher Pine & Kevin Andrews:007: to the mix for a truly terriffying scenario.:hide:


----------



## robert toms (15 November 2007)

I will tell you one group that has been rewarded by the Coalition government....Riverina irrigators amongst others.They stand to make windfall profits from the ten billion dollar " so-called plan",
It will be rough justice if inflows into the Murray stay low for years...their windfall profits will not eventuate...their water rights that most got free will be unsaleable.
I have asked my MP for some specific details on this plan,but of course not many people understand this hastily concocted plan....especially MP's.
All that most can say is that at least we have a plan!
On a personal level I have not owed money on a loan for quite a few years,and all of my children are in their thirties...so no amount of personal bribery by any party has any effect on me.
However, I have concern for the future of my grandchilren and as such the party with  education and environmental plans will get my vote.
On a personal level ,I do not vote for war criminals !


----------



## shaunm (15 November 2007)

Julia said:


> When John Howard lost me was in a brief grab I saw on TV where he went to visit an obviously disabled child in the child's home after apparently the child had written to him about saving the Orangutangs in Borneo.
> Howard appeared to almost hug the kid who was clearly overcome by the whole performance, and then the announcement was made that we would spend $500,000 to save the Orang -u Tangs.  Well, that's very nice indeed.
> I am all for saving endangered animals.  But first, Mr Howard, I would like you to save a few endangered species in Australia, like human beings who are homeless or simply whose teeth are falling out because they can't afford any dental care and you abolished the Commonwealth Dental Plan when you came into office.
> 
> ...




You can add the $10 million he has committed to a V8 Supercar race track in Far Nth Qld:screwy:.
Oh well at least now there's a place for the parents to take the kids so they can drive their "suped" up race cars on weekends.

These sort of things add to reinforce the charge that he is desperate and has lost touch!


----------



## arminius (15 November 2007)

labor have to appeal to middle australia. after watching 4 corners the other night you can see how they need to appeal to the stupid and selfish as well. 

they cannot do all these good things if they dont get over the line, and they need to pretty well match the govt in handouts to do this.

its the price we pay in a democracy inhabited by citizens whose only consideration is how to pay the next bill. its not these people we should blame, but the ones who want more, regardless how much they get.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 November 2007)

"But as I keep telling you, the media, everyone else - including my own party - I'll stay as long as they want me!!"

must be a moral here for all of us 
never overestimate your own importance?
never think that the sky will fall when you step down?

(you wonder if it was more about his friendship with Bush...  a concern that Costello would be more moral? (who knows on that score - unlikely to be less so)

that Costello might even apologise to the abs - just for instance - since he walked in the march. 

I just hope that Aus one day recovers its old image of a bit less selfish, bit more genuine concern for the planet, bit less inclined to take on preemptive strikes on falsified grounds, bit more heart and a little less concern about wallets - especially the big guy's wallets. 

PS "And I'll deny admitting in pulbic that there was ever a deal to hand over to Costello after a reasonable time - even if it means making him look an idiot"


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 November 2007)

Interesting that Turnbull might get in on a technicality  
I'm sure we haven't heard the last of that one yet. 
Although worst case appears to be that it goes to bi-election?

(or as they say in Wentworth , a "buy-election" )


----------



## Aussiejeff (15 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Interesting that Turnbull might get in on a technicality
> I'm sure we haven't heard the last of that one yet.
> Although worst case appears to be that it goes to bi-election?
> 
> (or as they say in Wentworth , a "buy-election" )




"*Bi*-election" is pretty appropriate terminology for the Liberals new "Voice For Gay Rights" - Malcolm Turnbull.




AJ


----------



## Aussiejeff (15 November 2007)

noirua said:


> My general feeling on the election is that the Liberal alliance will make a recovery in the last 7 days, leading up to the election, and win with a slim majority.




Good one, noirua - you have raised an important issue that needs resolving! So, here is my suggestion....

Sometime within the last 5 days leading up to voting day, this forum should start the _*FINAL PRE-ELECTION POLL*_ thread, to try and gauge the last minute sentiment of voters here in ASF, since so many respondents have already said they will leave it until near voting day to decide.

Now that WOULD be interesting, wouldn't it?

Whaddya all think?



AJ


----------



## nioka (15 November 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Good one, noirua - you have raised an important issue that needs resolving! So, here is my suggestion....
> 
> Sometime within the last 5 days leading up to voting day, this forum should start the _*FINAL PRE-ELECTION POLL*_ thread, to try and gauge the last minute sentiment of voters here in ASF, since so many respondents have already said they will leave it until near voting day to decide.
> 
> ...




Definitely . Up till now I have been for Rudd because I did not want Howard again or Costello. After seeing Rudd perform yesterday I am for Rudd because of Rudd himself.


----------



## arminius (15 November 2007)

the question should be who will you vote for?. not, who do you think will win?


----------



## nioka (15 November 2007)

arminius said:


> the question should be who will you vote for?. not, who do you think will win?




Yes please. It will mean more.


----------



## Julia (15 November 2007)

Francis Begbie said:


> I consider myself the youth of this nation at ninety and this election has just put me completely off Australian politics. In my eyes, Australians see an election as what they can get from there public purse, and see the government as an asset for the individual, rather then something that deals with economic policy. Infrastructure and and a respectable gov't surplus don't win votes.
> 
> 
> Peace Guys




Hello Francis,

I'm not sure that most Australians see an election as what they can get from the public purse, but rather that the politicians think that that is what Australians are looking for.  I've noticed a widespread sentiment this time about people preferring e.g. the tax cuts to go into essential infrastructure like water projects, and to rescue our ailing health system.

I doubt very much that whomever is elected all these over the top promises will be kept.  Also - amongst the passion and drama of Mr Rudd's speech yesterday - where he announced so many new projects/handouts, I noticed there was no dollar figure attached to any of them.  Not much point in establishing some wonderful sounding new scheme if it's not adequately funded.

The proposed spending from both sides is going to stimulate inflation as the R.B. has clearly attempted to indicate.  

Yep, let's have a poll for the last week asking who we will vote for.
I might have decided by then.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 November 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Good one, noirua - you have raised an important issue that needs resolving! So, here is my suggestion....
> 
> Sometime within the last 5 days leading up to voting day, this forum should start the _*FINAL PRE-ELECTION POLL*_ thread, to try and gauge the last minute sentiment of voters here in ASF, since so many respondents have already said they will leave it until near voting day to decide.
> 
> ...




sounds good AJ - be interesting to see if we mirror national trends .

I guess you could have a guessing comp as well:-

"How long after polls close on Sat 24 Nov will the result be known"?

PS How's this for an option....  Start the thread here on the morning of voting - and ask "How did you vote".
That way we won't have as many branch stacking problems 
(PS only rarely do polls around here score upwards of 400 votes btw)


----------



## kivvygosh (15 November 2007)

> Also - amongst the passion and drama of Mr Rudd's speech yesterday - where he announced so many new projects/handouts, I noticed there was no dollar figure attached to any of them. Not much point in establishing some wonderful sounding new scheme if it's not adequately funded.




It was funded in the policy document.  The speech was about impressing with ideas rather than dollar signs as a means of differentiation from the Coalition.

news.com.au


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> PS How's this for an option....  Start the thread here on the morning of voting - and ask "How did you vote".
> That way we won't have as many branch stacking problems
> (PS only rarely do polls around here score upwards of 400 votes btw)



The poll on "Is there a God" scored about 270 votes total.
"Who will be our next God" (this thread) scores 416 at this point.

Having made that observation, damned if I know what to say in response to it  lol.  - just the way it is I guess


----------



## numbercruncher (15 November 2007)

This is how I think the voting will go ......


60pc of 60+ year olds will vote Liberal
60pc of people under 30 will Not vote Liberal
85pc of 18 to 21yrs will not vote Liberal
90pc of hardcore one eyed capitalists will vote Liberal
65pc of people with young children wont vote Liberal
100pc of Enviromentalists wont vote Liberal
100pc of the Exclusive Brethren sect will vote Liberal
65pc of Business owners wont vote Labor
90pc of Muslims wont vote Liberal
60pc of Christians will vote Liberal
80pc of people voting that are struggling with $ wont vote Liberal
80pc of people on a hospital waiting list wont vote Lib
60pc of people that have been to Hospital recently wont vote Lib
65pc of University students wont vote Lib
90pc of people with rotten teeth wont vote Lib
70pc of High speed Internet fans will vote Labor
99pc of people too young too vote wouldnt vote Liberal

Add to the list if you like


----------



## bvbfan (15 November 2007)

100% of morons will vote Liberal


----------



## Rafa (15 November 2007)

More proof for blatant pork barrelling...
I guess its only fair that Labor now get in to redress the imbalance and attend to electorates that have missed out over the years... 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22763338-601,00.html



> *Auditor slams Coalition grants use*
> 
> Siobhain Ryan | November 15, 2007
> 
> ...


----------



## BSD (15 November 2007)

The Rodent is on the slide

Updating the betting markets tonight and the Rodent is yesterdays pest

It appears the "big lie" no longer works. 

Apparently no one believes that such a lightweight BS artist could actually keep interest rates low, property prices high and the copper/iron/steel/Chinese GDP/Nickel/coal price high???

Who would have thought?

*You cant bribe me with my own money*

Dont leave any Rodent Droppings in Kirribilli you pest - we own that...


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 November 2007)

BSD said:


> Dont leave any Rodent Droppings in Kirribilli you pest - we own that...



lol, 

Like every taxi driver in Sydney, I voted for the rodent in preference to Latham ... but sheesh.... 

(has anyone ever considered that Latham was right to call Bush "the worst president ever imagined etc etc "... and Kev is reaping the benefits ?)

having said that Latham was a total f-wit in almost every other respect (including sanity) !!!

PS and when we talk about "swings" we are talking about "post-Latham".
sheesh it should be 20% surely !!


----------



## nioka (15 November 2007)

It appears that John Howard will finally find something to be really sory about


----------



## UMike (15 November 2007)

Labour will win but I remain unimpressed by Rudd's Labour


----------



## nioka (15 November 2007)

nioka said:


> It appears that John Howard will finally find something to be really sory about




Sorry. Make that sorry not sory although he will be quite sore about it all so maybe I didn't make a typing error after all.


----------



## noco (15 November 2007)

nioka said:


> Are you suggesting Rudd will hand over to Swan. We know Howard will hand over to Costello.
> RUDD IS MORE LIKELY TO REWARD THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED HIM IN THAN A HAND FULL OF UNION BOSSES.




Sawnie's got no chance. I suggest KRudd not turn his back on Gillard; she is the one with the bag full of knives and is the best mate of the loonie left in the unions. Just listen to what Brian Courtice (Hinkler) ex Labor candidate said about KRudd. If KRudd wins the election the union thugs will grab him by the throat and replace him with Gillard, after all they are totally opposite factions and hate each others gutz.


----------



## noco (15 November 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Un/fortunately, Costello is not guaranteed the job - Mr Howard said so in one of his latest interviews. He said that it will be up to his (Costello's) colleagues in the party room after JH retires.
> 
> So who knows? Maybe Ruddock? Downer? Abbot? Turnbull? Hockey?
> 
> ...




I'll put my money on Costello. Julie Bishop is an  impressive perfomer; has charisma, well educated, intellagent and above all pretty good looking. Could make a good first female PM. What do you reckon Aussiejeff.


----------



## chops_a_must (15 November 2007)

noco said:


> I'll put my money on Costello. Julie Bishop is an  impressive perfomer; has charisma, well educated, intellagent and above all pretty good looking. Could make a good first female PM. What do you reckon Aussiejeff.




She is a total baffoon, hence her vacancy this campaign.

But if she did get the PM job, maybe we could decide her pay?


----------



## bvbfan (16 November 2007)

If we're talking abouot a female prime minister, no choice but Kate Ellis


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 November 2007)

From AAP today re: the controversial Regional Parterships Program...  

_"A scathing report by Commonwealth auditor-general Ian McPhee yesterday found the program, designed to help fund community projects in regional areas, was little more than a pork-barrelling fund for marginal coalition electorates. 

It found Howard Government ministers over-rode departmental recommendations not to approve projects and fast-tracked money for certain projects before the last election. *Of the 43 projects that were approved against departmental advice, 38 were in coalition seats*"_. 

How could these morons possibly think they were going to get away with such blatant political intereference? Grrrr...  This sort of abuse of governemnt power is the sort of thing you would expect to see from a 3rd world communist or fascist ruling body! I thought we lived in a "democracy" where we all had an even chance of getting a share of that money for regional development? Apparently, some are more worthy than others....

Well, this latest "negative issue" will definitely *not* help the Dream Team's chances of re-election. Could this be the last straw to re-break the Camel's already broken back....?

Sheesh... 


AJ


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 November 2007)

Mr Abbott today said he was confident the Government could still win because *it would be "very, very unusual'' for the electorate to vote the Opposition into government*. "This is still very winnable,'' Mr Abbott told ABC Radio today. 

"Let's not forget that *it would be totally unprecedented for the Australian electorate to throw out a good and competent government for an un-tried opposition*'' he said. 

*"It's more likely that the people will change the polls than change the government.''*

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

Forget EI ... Tony Abbott has a terminal case of "Foot-In-Mouth" disease! 

Errr, Tony ... so, given your wonderful logic, why did the "dumb" majority of electors vote for the "un-tried" Liberal opposition after all those years of Hawke/Keating? Should the idiot electors back then NOT have voted for the coalition at the polling booth?

In the words of another classic F.I.M.mer, "Please explain!" 


AJ


----------



## numbercruncher (16 November 2007)

Abbott at it again ......




> Health Minister Tony Abbott has conceded what opponents of Work Choices have long argued, that workers have lost protections under the coalition's reforms.
> 
> Mr Abbott, a former workplace relations minister, is heard making the comment in amateur video of him speaking at a local electorate function two days ago.
> 
> ...





http://au.news.yahoo.com/071031/2/14tg8.html

Least hes honest I guess 

I read one the other day a guy in Tassie lost his job because there was " no work" , then he saw his same job advertised two weeks later for 20k less ...


----------



## mark70920 (16 November 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> This is how I think the voting will go ......
> 
> 
> 60pc of 60+ year olds will vote Liberal
> ...




The exclusive brethren don't vote , 100% will not be voting for the LIBs. But they do manipulate , 100% of their campaign donations will be going to the Liberal party , no string attached? I don't think so. 
The liberal party has a history of associating with cults , like the brethren and the HR Nicholls society (A cult of rich people who oppose the minimum wage every wage case and believe Australian companies should have access to the worlds labor markets. They want to achieve this with an open door immergration policy. Peter the next lib PM Costello is a founding member).
But don't take my word for it , have read yourself.

www.hrnicholls.com.au


----------



## numbercruncher (16 November 2007)

mark70920 said:


> The exclusive brethren don't vote , 100% will not be voting for the LIBs. But they do manipulate , 100% of their campaign donations will be going to the Liberal party , no string attached? I don't think so.
> The liberal party has a history of associating with cults , like the brethren and the HR Nicholls society (A cult of rich people who oppose the minimum wage every wage case and believe Australian companies should have access to the worlds labor markets. They want to achieve this with an open door immergration policy. Peter the next lib PM Costello is a founding member).
> But don't take my word for it , have read yourself.
> 
> www.hrnicholls.com.au





Thanks Mark, Thats just downright scary , If i was in any doubt as to who to vote for that would of just made up my mind ....


----------



## numbercruncher (16 November 2007)

Interesting read about the HR Nicolls folks .....




> IF the Howard Government is re-elected, we will not get a Howard Government for the next four years. Sometime, in a year or two, he will retire and Treasurer Peter Costello will likely take over.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




http://www.mua.org.au/journal/julaug_2004/costello.html


----------



## Julia (16 November 2007)

Joe/Moderators

Is someone going to organise the new Poll:  who will you vote for
to run during next week?
Will it have its own thread or will it replace the poll on this thread?

Thanks.


----------



## moXJO (16 November 2007)

Francis Begbie said:


> My grasp of economics isn't at that of ben bernake just yet, but how much pressure do you think $9 billion towards school fees will put on inflation/the economy when we already have some $30 b (unsure of figure) of tax cuts and a labour govt saying they will cut emissions buy 60% by 2050, with no sought of scientific plan, viable policy to do so.
> 
> I hate to say it, but either way it looks as if when a recession does come in some years time, it will come hard, and we are goin to need a jeff kennet style government to shapen up Australia for the future. The more you save now, the more you have in the future boys.




I've argued against all that before (supporting libs).Johnny is more desperate to buy vote’s atm then Rudd. Unfortunately the plus side to voting lib or labor is pretty low. The fact that labor will be running state and federal will either be a godsend or a nightmare. The emissions target is BS I agree but at least renewable energy will be given a start which I think is needed. As far as inflation goes at least Rudd is cunning enough to act faster then Howard even if it is only grandstanding. Make no mistake though I'm not impressed with labor at all.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 November 2007)

Apparently the Senate only changes mid next year (30 June 2008) - 
so we're in for a interesting and bumpy 6 months if Labour win. 

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/sen_exp.htm

looks like the following step down for re-election 30 Jun2008:-
.... oops - refer jpeg 
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/senatecomposition.htm

And must check what it takes to get "a change"
http://www2b.abc.net.au/Elections/View/SenateCalculator.aspx?e=1&ca=nsw


----------



## robert toms (17 November 2007)

To Aussie Jeff of Wondonga re Pork-barrelling.
The line on the Murray plan that I have been using for a long time goes to the heart of National Party Pork-barrelling.
No scientific or qualified advice was sought regarding future inflows ,the viability of irrigation,environmental imperatives etc.
However,in under two weeks a plan to not disadvantage ,and instead enhance ,the prospects of National party interests in the Riverina was concocted.They stand to make windfall profits from the plan.
Victorian irrigators have different arrangements and will not benefit like their NSW counterparts...Victorian governments have been more responsible in most respects than their NSW counterparts (line ball in over-allocation vandalism however)
Any other legitimate interests in the Murray have been ignored,to satisfy National party pork-barrelling.
In nineteenth century in SA there was a mistaken belief that rainfall followed the plough,that worked for a few good seasons before rainfall patterns  returned to historical averages...farms were abandoned in northern low -rainfall areas.
In this plan,concreted drains will follow the irrigator,no matter where they are now esconsed...no matter how unviable.All projections are for lower inflows into the Murray system.
National Party pork-barrelling at work!


----------



## greggy (17 November 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Mr Abbott today said he was confident the Government could still win because *it would be "very, very unusual'' for the electorate to vote the Opposition into government*. "This is still very winnable,'' Mr Abbott told ABC Radio today.
> 
> "Let's not forget that *it would be totally unprecedented for the Australian electorate to throw out a good and competent government for an un-tried opposition*'' he said.
> 
> ...



It makes laugh when I heard Mr Abbott make the comment "This is still very winnable". I'm surprised by his performance during this election.  For a seasoned campaigner I've thought he wouldn't have so many gaffes. 
I reckon that with all the help he's given the ALP, Rudd (should he win) should make Mr Abbott the Speaker in the House of Reps.  LOL!
I reckon one of Howard's biggest problems is that he would retire mid term should he win next Saturday. This contrasts with Rudd saying that he's committed to serving a full term. Also, Costello isn't very popular with voters.  Most people generally respect him as Treasurer, but PM is another thing all together.  I'm sorry, but I doubt whether he'd make a good PM. I see him as being too similar to Keating in terms of his attitude.


----------

