# Double Dissolution 2016



## Tisme (4 May 2016)

Interesting read on how the Senate is rebuilt with short and long terms

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen...llocated-after-a-double-dissolution.html#more


----------



## SirRumpole (4 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> Interesting read on how the Senate is rebuilt with short and long terms
> 
> http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen...llocated-after-a-double-dissolution.html#more




Do you get the feeling it would be simpler with fixed terms and no early elections or DD's ?


----------



## moXJO (5 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you get the feeling it would be simpler with fixed terms and no early elections or DD's ?




If the government can't pass bills, then it's better to get change either way with an early election.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 May 2016)

moXJO said:


> If the government can't pass bills, then it's better to get change either way with an early election.




There is some sense in that, but here in NSW we have had fixed four year terms for some years and it seems to have worked ok.

Maybe there would be more negotiation if there couldn't be early elections.


----------



## pixel (6 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> There is some sense in that, but here in NSW we have had fixed four year terms for some years and it seems to have worked ok.
> 
> *Maybe there would be more negotiation if there couldn't be early elections.*




Agree. The DD is a lazy way out of an impasse - if it were one to begin with.
Government should always seek consensus through debate and compromise, not the arrogant "My way or the highway." After all, "Parliament" has its root in the French word "parler" meaning discuss, talk things through. Sadly, when I watch Canberra in action, the idiots on both sides let it degenerate into a slanging match full of snide remarks and interjections. Like bullies in a schoolyard. 
No wonder, the electorate loses all respect and is voting increasingly "against".


----------



## Craton (6 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> There is some sense in that, but here in NSW we have had fixed four year terms for some years and it seems to have worked ok.
> 
> *Maybe there would be more negotiation if there couldn't be early elections*.






pixel said:


> Agree. The DD is a lazy way out of an impasse - if it were one to begin with.
> Government should always seek consensus through debate and compromise, not the arrogant "My way or the highway." After all, "Parliament" has its root in the French word "parler" meaning discuss, talk things through. Sadly, when I watch Canberra in action, the idiots on both sides let it degenerate into a slanging match full of snide remarks and interjections. Like bullies in a schoolyard.
> No wonder, the electorate loses all respect and is voting increasingly "against".




Of course they discuss, debate, nut-it-out, seek a solution but when Labor and the Greens, coupled with the not-so-adept Indies, actively block, refuse to budge, stymie and do all in their power to derail the LNP, all for political point scoring or preening and spruiking their own agendas on just about every issue, well, somethings gonna break.

@Pixel, are you referring to Question Time?
Some of the best comedy to be had right there but never having seen or been personally privy to what actually occurs outside of Question Time, I'd say that governing our great country is serious business. That's what I'd like to believe at any rate. 

If a DD breaks the dead lock, so be it and if breaking that dead lock brings about some real progress and good governance, then I'm all for it.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 May 2016)

Craton said:


> Of course they discuss, debate, nut-it-out, seek a solution but when Labor and the Greens, coupled with the not-so-adept Indies, actively block, refuse to budge, stymie and do all in their power to derail the LNP, all for political point scoring or preening and spruiking their own agendas on just about every issue, well, somethings gonna break.




The majority of Hockey's Budget was passed, Labor and the Greens opposed those parts for which the Libs had no mandate like the $7 Medicare levy.

If a government attempts to do things it never said it would then the Opposition has the right to say no.


----------



## noco (6 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The majority of Hockey's Budget was passed, Labor and the Greens opposed those parts for which the Libs had no mandate like the $7 Medicare levy.
> 
> If a government attempts to do things it never said it would then the Opposition has the right to say no.




Yes and the LUG party even opposed their own savings of $6 billion which the Libs wanted passed....Why did they say  NO to that?

That is just bloody minded...oppose for the sake of opposing......The LUG party then turn around and say LOOK, the Liberals deficit is rising...What a mob crooks.

The LUG party could not care less about the National interest so long as they appear to make the Liberal Government fail.


----------



## pixel (6 May 2016)

noco said:


> The LUG party could not care less about the National interest so long as they appear to make the Liberal Government fail.




Seems they took a leaf out of Abbott's prayer book. What did he, in all his years as Leader of the Opposition, do to support the Labor Government? Arrogant, abrasive, negative misogynist, he only orates from his own Song Book without even listening to other views, let alone participate in rational discussion.

Can't have it both ways.


----------



## Ferret (6 May 2016)

pixel said:


> Seems they took a leaf out of Abbott's prayer book. What did he, in all his years as Leader of the Opposition, do to support the Labor Government? Arrogant, abrasive, negative misogynist, he only orates from his own Song Book without even listening to other views, let alone participate in rational discussion.
> 
> Can't have it both ways.




Exactly.  Abbott was the master of negative politics and it's hardly surprising he got some of of his own medicine back when he was in government.

I couldn't believe when Abbott, a keen proponent of health and fitness, opposed the cigarette plain packaging legislation, just because it was a Labor idea.


----------



## pixel (6 May 2016)

Ferret said:


> Exactly.  Abbott was the master of negative politics and it's hardly surprising he got some of of his own medicine back when he was in government.
> 
> I couldn't believe when Abbott, a keen proponent of health and fitness, opposed the cigarette plain packaging legislation, just because it was a Labor idea.




I wasn't surprised at all. Remember: Abbott was brought up a Jesuit. His thinking is channeled by religious indoctrination. Like for so many of his ilk, Labor represents the Anti-Christ, therefore must be opposed on all fronts.  Militant extremism isn't the exclusive domain of only one religion.


----------



## noco (6 May 2016)

pixel said:


> Seems they took a leaf out of Abbott's prayer book. What did he, in all his years as Leader of the Opposition, do to support the Labor Government? Arrogant, abrasive, negative misogynist, he only orates from his own Song Book without even listening to other views, let alone participate in rational discussion.
> 
> Can't have it both ways.




Now then pixel be fair.

Abbott was opposing Labor's big spending and big borrowings.

Labor has been opposing the Liberals spending cuts in an effort to pay back Labor's debt and deficit....Those Dudd $900 checks to everyone living and dead, here and overseas was really only a loan...Now you and I must pay it back one way or another.

Our economy is like a 350,000 oil tanker...It takes 11 nautical miles to come to a holt...If you try to slow it down any faster, the economy will stall causing all sorts of problems mainly with employment.....Many do not understand, government money still has to flow in order to keep the wheels turning which means continued deficits and perhaps more borrowings...Don't forget we have to pay back some $1 billion interest every week on Labors reckless spending and borrowings 2007/2013......Don't forget Labor had funded the Gonski and NDIS on the mineral tax they never received but Labor still expects the Liberal government to fund them....Does $80 Billion ring a bell?
Don't forget we have still have to pay welfare to the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants living in Australia, Manus and Nauru thanks to Labor.   

Under Labor the debt and deficit would have been much higher.

The Liberals have gone to a DD to receive a mandate to stop union corruption as recommended by the TURC....108 union executives have been charged with over 1000 charges of corruption, extortion, thuggery, bribery and intimidation....If Shorten should become Prime Minister come July2, he will bow to the CFMEU and condone their behavior...He will lead the country like a true unionist into a deeper hole than Rudd/Gillard/Rudd.


----------



## moXJO (6 May 2016)

pixel said:


> Seems they took a leaf out of Abbott's prayer book. What did he, in all his years as Leader of the Opposition, do to support the Labor Government? Arrogant, abrasive, negative misogynist, he only orates from his own Song Book without even listening to other views, let alone participate in rational discussion.
> 
> Can't have it both ways.




Exactly why you need a DD trigger. If one party plays games rather than do what's best for Australia and they control the Senate then it's a waste of 3 years.


----------



## wayneL (6 May 2016)

pixel said:


> Seems they took a leaf out of Abbott's prayer book. What did he, in all his years as Leader of the Opposition, do to support the Labor Government? Arrogant, abrasive, negative misogynist, he only orates from his own Song Book without even listening to other views, let alone participate in rational discussion.
> 
> Can't have it both ways.



Pixel, you dropped the M bomb?

I thought better of you. Not withstanding the fair appraisal on other points, that misogynist crap was *pure* politicking.

Sexist? Yeah maybe. Mysoginist? Pullleeeeez


----------



## Macquack (6 May 2016)

moXJO said:


> Exactly why you need a DD trigger. *If one party plays games rather than do what's best for Australia *and they control the Senate then it's a waste of 3 years.




On that point, will you agree to a* full senate election every election*, or are you just biased?


----------



## pixel (6 May 2016)

wayneL said:


> Pixel, you dropped the M bomb?
> 
> I thought better of you. Not withstanding the fair appraisal on other points, that misogynist crap was *pure* politicking.
> 
> Sexist? Yeah maybe. Mysoginist? Pullleeeeez




Alright - it's rather Greek to me. If you consider Peta C a "G", he was not a complete MG; but with a single woman in his cabinet, and adding his lycra fetish, he definitely rates an "MCP".

My main bugbear is the apparent double standard of his apologists:
His blocking everything the government put forward is deemed justified, at least according to noco & Co.
But the opposition arguing against unpalatable policies when Lib-Nats are in government is obstruction.

If a bunch of elected parliamentarians cannot "parler" matters out, *they should all resign and let a new batch of candidates give it a go.* With luck, the voters may elect a group of representatives that are capable of rational debate and compromise to benefit all Australians.


----------



## noco (6 May 2016)

pixel said:


> Alright - it's rather Greek to me. If you consider Peta C a "G", he was not a complete MG; but with a single woman in his cabinet, and adding his lycra fetish, he definitely rates an "MCP".
> 
> My main bugbear is the apparent double standard of his apologists:
> His blocking everything the government put forward is deemed justified, at least according to noco & Co.
> ...




pixel, I am still waiting for your answer to my post.

*Yes and the LUG party even opposed their own savings of $6 billion which the Libs wanted passed....Why did they say NO to that?*

Would you not call that obstruction?


----------



## Tink (7 May 2016)

A family man with three daughters that volunteers, not much different to Mike Baird actually, Pixel.

I haven't seen Bill Shorten volunteer much in anything.
Same goes for this one here in Melbourne, Daniel Andrews.
All from the same cloth, union which represents only a portion of the community with their declining membership.
Of course, the Greens get a piece of that too.

Let's hope they don't start trashing company vehicles as they did in the last election.

I thought this summed it up pretty well why the ABC and all the lefties wanted him out.
http://brendanoneill.co.uk/page/16

We now have Turnbull, who they thought was the answer to all their problems, but they have turned on him.
Not many of us were happy with the change to Turnbull.

Yes, Labour taxes cigarettes but brings in marijuana, great for the crime rate so it can soar even more here in Victoria with drugs.

Now I can go into the 'gender neutral' that the left are trying to force on the public.
If we take that into consideration, then they can do whatever they like.
What we up to now, 45 different genders or is it 75.

Just my view.


----------



## moXJO (7 May 2016)

Macquack said:


> On that point, will you agree to a* full senate election every election*, or are you just biased?




I'm not sure about every election. But it can cut both ways. Just because Tbull got his DD doesn't mean he will get his way in the Senate. If anything, it may clear the way for labor.
The other downside is that we have enough of these bums retiring on the public purse without creating more every election.


----------



## dutchie (7 May 2016)

Australia has the choice of two big spending parties to vote for.

Neither seem too concerned about the blowing out deficit numbers but are more concerned with getting or staying in power.

1. Shorten, the Union lackey, more interested in welfare and his union mates, than for the people who drive the economy that pays for the welfare bill.

2. Turnbull, the so called great communicator and promiser,  what a dud.

And Australia is the "lucky country"      :1zhelp:


_Red rover, red rover, tell Trumpie to come on over_


----------



## pixel (7 May 2016)

noco said:


> pixel, I am still waiting for your answer to my post.
> 
> *Yes and the LUG party even opposed their own savings of $6 billion which the Libs wanted passed....Why did they say NO to that?*
> 
> Would you not call that obstruction?




Read carefully what I said, noco:

In opposition, Abbott obstructed the elected Labor government.
Labor is now obstructing the Lib-Nat government.

If what Abbott did then was justified and Labor had to put up with it without running to the GG and demand a DD, why is the oh-so-eloquent Malcolm now playing the DD card instead of using his ability and argue his case? The answer to not being able to win an argument is not chucking it in and demanding new rules. It was bad enough that the Big Two colluded to change voting rules to keep the perks of being a Senator to themselves. For Malcolm to now toss in bat and ball and demand new teams for the last few Overs is more than bad sportsmanship. It's intellectual bankruptcy. IMHO.

OK, so you and Tink see a difference and agree with one obstruction, but not the other. That's your prerogative in a democratic society.
Like many others, I disagree equally with both. That's my prerogative. So let's agree to disagree without rancour.


----------



## moXJO (7 May 2016)

pixel said:


> Read carefully what I said, noco:
> 
> In opposition, Abbott obstructed the elected Labor government.
> Labor is now obstructing the Lib-Nat government.
> .




libs didn't control the Senate and labor would have been wiped out.
Labor was too gutless even if they didn't control it.


----------



## noco (7 May 2016)

pixel said:


> Read carefully what I said, noco:
> 
> In opposition, Abbott obstructed the elected Labor government.
> Labor is now obstructing the Lib-Nat government.
> ...




You know very well as I do when Labor was in power 2007/2013 they had control of the senate with the support of a signed agreement between Gillard and Brown and some of the other radicals senators and had no trouble in passing what ever legislation they liked.

2013/2016, Labor still had control of the senate with the Greens and the radicals who were left inclined, so Abbott/Turnbull were continually hampered by this hostile senate ...Obstruct for the sake of obstruction.

I shall point out to you again, Abbott tried to curtail Labor's extravagant spending while Shorten has gone out of his way to prevent the Liberal Government to curtail spending......I am still waiting someone in the Labor circles on this forum to explain to me why Labor has not allowed the implementation of $6 billion of their own savings as agreed  to by the Liberals....Was that in the national interest by the Labor Party.

I will not hold my breath while I wait a Labor members answer.

Turnbull is seeking a DD to pass legislation pertaining to the recommendations of TURC as set down by Dyson Heydon to control the bad behavior of the CFMEU and other unions such as the Shorten run AWU and as outlined in a previous post.


----------



## Tisme (7 May 2016)

noco said:


> You know very well as I do when Labor was in power 2007/2013 they had control of the senate with the support of a signed agreement between Gillard and Brown and some of the other radicals senators and had no trouble in passing what ever legislation they liked.
> 
> 2013/2016, Labor still had control of the senate with the Greens and the radicals who were left inclined, so Abbott/Turnbull were continually hampered by this hostile senate ...Obstruct for the sake of obstruction.
> 
> ...





I understand your passion  Noco, but any prevention by Labor "to curtail spending" was not the basis of the double dissolution, but the tired and worn out attempt to wipe out their arch enemy; organised labour. 

I'm sure if the Libs felt passionately about the budget they would have gone to the polls ages ago when any of the bills had been rejected? That is how the electorate sees it and that is why we now have a situation where an increasing number of voters are to going self flagellate themselves (votes) for being so gullible as to vote for whoever has had a bum on seat in this parliament; they are likely going to punish their own stupidity by voting outside their comfort zone.


----------



## noco (7 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> I understand your passion  Noco, but any prevention by Labor "to curtail spending" was not the basis of the double dissolution, but the tired and worn out attempt to wipe out their arch enemy; organised labour.
> 
> I'm sure if the Libs felt passionately about the budget they would have gone to the polls ages ago when any of the bills had been rejected? That is how the electorate sees it and that is why we now have a situation where an increasing number of voters are to going self flagellate themselves (votes) for being so gullible as to vote for whoever has had a bum on seat in this parliament; they are likely going to punish their own stupidity by voting outside their comfort zone.




Can you please point out to me where I stated the DD was being called on the basis of the prevention of Labor "to curtail spending"

You are becoming as bad as Rumpy for not reading and absorbing the true contents.

Turnbull is calling the DD based on the refusal of Labor to accept Dyson Heyden's TURC recommendations to clamp down on bad union behavior ...Especially the CFMEU whose puppet is Bill Shorten.....the AWU once lead by Bill Shorten.....the corruption in the HSU......Get with it man.


----------



## Tisme (7 May 2016)

noco said:


> Can you please point out to me where I stated the DD was being called on the basis of the prevention of Labor "to curtail spending"
> 
> You are becoming as bad as Rumpy for not reading and absorbing the true contents.
> 
> Turnbull is calling the DD based on the refusal of Labor to accept Dyson Heyden's TURC recommendations to clamp down on bad union behavior ...Especially the CFMEU whose puppet is Bill Shorten.....the AWU once lead by Bill Shorten.....the corruption in the HSU......Get with it man.





I only repeated your own argument against Pixel of how detrimentally obstructionist Labor has been and I was trying to put in perspective that it wasn't so important to the Libs.... the economy was not as important as smashing unions it seems.

The rest of the hysteria about evil that only resides in the Labor/union camp is smoke and mirrors IMO, the real prize is power.


----------



## noco (7 May 2016)

noco said:


> You know very well as I do when Labor was in power 2007/2013 they had control of the senate with the support of a signed agreement between Gillard and Brown and some of the other radicals senators and had no trouble in passing what ever legislation they liked.
> 
> 2013/2016, Labor still had control of the senate with the Greens and the radicals who were left inclined, so Abbott/Turnbull were continually hampered by this hostile senate ...Obstruct for the sake of obstruction.
> 
> ...




Can I please have one of you lefties explain why Labor refused to sanction their own $6 billion spending cuts?


----------



## SirRumpole (8 May 2016)

noco said:


> Can I please have one of you lefties explain why Labor refused to sanction their own $6 billion spending cuts?




I believe Labor said it was because the cuts were framed in such a way that they would also have to agree with other cuts that they didn't want to agree with.

But you wouldn't believe anything they say so it's no point arguing with you.


----------



## noco (8 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I believe Labor said it was because the cuts were framed in such a way that they would also have to agree with other cuts that they didn't want to agree with.
> 
> But you wouldn't believe anything they say so it's no point arguing with you.




You got that right....The Lug Party are full of lies and rhetoric and you and your Fabian mates will not convince me other than it was not in the national interest......It was a case of obstruct for the sake of obstruction.....Labor want to see the Liberal Government fail and they will do and say anything to achieve it.

Bill Shorten will bow to the corrupt rotten unions and will forever be their puppet......$hit, I would hate to think he could be  our next CFMEU/AWU Prime Minister with a double union collar around his neck and a leash attached to David Oliver and Michael O"Conner....Shorten is going to aline himself with 108 criminal union hacks on over 1000 charges of corruption, bribery and extortion.


----------



## Tisme (8 May 2016)

I wonder why the Gillard and Rudd govts managed to get "bad" bills through the senate, but the Abbott/Turnbull couldn't get "good" legislation through?

Even in the unlikely event that Malcolm does get the Libs up in absolute majority in the lower house, chances are he'll loose enough seats in the senate to lose any joint sitting advantage.

Both sides must be praying for their own Tampa moment


----------



## noco (8 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> I wonder why the Gillard and Rudd govts managed to get "bad" bills through the senate, but the Abbott/Turnbull couldn't get "good" legislation through?
> 
> Even in the unlikely event that Malcolm does get the Libs up in absolute majority in the lower house, chances are he'll loose enough seats in the senate to lose any joint sitting advantage.
> 
> Both sides must be praying for their own Tampa moment




Because Gillard/Rudd had a majority of lefties in the senate ...Labor...Greens...and "EGGHEADS"...too easy.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> Both sides must be praying for their own Tampa moment




I think Shorten has got his Tampa moment, the disgraceful display by Turnbull and Morrison over negative gearing. 

People who already own their own house taking other people's houses as well.

Should be worth a few votes out there in renter land I reckon.


----------



## Tisme (8 May 2016)

noco said:


> Because Gillard/Rudd had a majority of lefties in the senate ...Labor...Greens...and "EGGHEADS"...too easy.




So you are saying while Labor had a minority count they coalesced with Oakeshott, Bandt, Windsor, Wilkie who were all lower house socialists?  In the upper house 31 of the 77 senate seats were Labor (Liberal/National/Country/LNP had 34), the rest being socialists? 

Both houses fell into line with Labor because socialists flock together?


----------



## Tisme (8 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I think Shorten has got his Tampa moment, the disgraceful display by Turnbull and Morrison over negative gearing.
> 
> People who already own their own house taking other people's houses as well.
> 
> Should be worth a few votes out there in renter land I reckon.




You may be right insofar as the population left out of the negative gearing rort feeling unentitled and unenabled, but it's not a deal maker. Similarly there aren't too many who have considered the royal commission to knife Bill Shorten as anything but cynical hate politics, so that isn't going to play out as votes imo.

There has to be a clanger waiting in the wings somewhere. Once upon a time you could rely on some randy pollie doing his wife on the office furniture.


----------



## dutchie (8 May 2016)

Whom ever wins the election, let them get a majority in both houses.

Sick of the elected government not being able to govern because of wanker greens and idiot independents.

Get rid of the Senate!!


----------



## explod (8 May 2016)

dutchie said:


> Whom ever wins the election, let them get a majority in both houses.
> 
> Sick of the elected government not being able to govern because of wanker greens and idiot independents.
> 
> Get rid of the Senate!!




How about some points of proof on my being "a wanker"


----------



## pixel (8 May 2016)

dutchie said:


> Whom ever wins the election, let them get a majority in both houses.
> 
> Sick of the elected government not being able to govern because of wanker greens and idiot independents.
> 
> *Get rid of the Senate!!*





yeah, that's what Hitler managed to do. 
He was also pretty successful in vilifying everybody who held a different opinion by accusing them of corruption, treason, profiteering, and being unpatriotic.

As a result of that "success", every true Democracy has now TWO independent Houses at the centre. The names they're given vary across countries: Lower and Upper House; Congress and Senate; House of Commons and Lords; Legislative Assembly and Control Council; ... but the principle remains the same: Keep the bastards honest!

The system may still not be perfect, but it is designed to avoid one side getting it all their way.


----------



## Joules MM1 (8 May 2016)

carpe diem .....is the timing a bit fishy.....is the government swimming upstream.....

this video may enlighten/enliven.......some

[video]https://twitter.com/i/videos/tweet/729090793424621568.html[/video]


----------



## SirRumpole (8 May 2016)

Barnaby's carp performance convinced me that he is a raving idiot not fit to be in Parliament.

Go Tony Windsor !


----------



## Tisme (8 May 2016)

pixel said:


> [/B]
> 
> yeah, that's what Hitler managed to do.
> He was also pretty successful in vilifying everybody who held a different opinion by accusing them of corruption, treason, profiteering, and being unpatriotic.
> ...


----------



## Tisme (8 May 2016)

dutchie said:


> Whom ever wins the election, let them get a majority in both houses.
> 
> Sick of the elected government not being able to govern because of wanker greens and idiot independents.
> 
> Get rid of the Senate!!




Of course Paul Keating is famous for his dislike of the Senate's method of representation:




> In a Sept 1995 interview, PK said: The last time I saw Richard Alston, I was doing a campaign launch in Western Sydney to a news conference, which was arranged by me. He wanted to get into it, and while he was waiting for me, he was hiding in a bush. When I finished, he crawled out of the bush I had not walked three yards and he appeared like some sort of apparition. You know, he was down there with the mulch and the bugs and the bush. Which is, by the way, where he belongs.


----------



## luutzu (8 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> Of course Paul Keating is famous for his dislike of the Senate's method of representation:




Just saw an election ad where our current PM beats up on unions. 

Brave new world.


----------



## Tisme (8 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Just saw an election ad where our current PM beats up on unions.
> 
> Brave new world.




Yes it's a race to the bottom when large sections of the community are outlawed and ostracised by our civic leaders who are supposed to be the social heartbeat of our nation. Cheap votes from the cheap seats are always got when someone pokes a tiger with a stick.


----------



## Tisme (9 May 2016)

I take it everyone saw Malcolm with his pale blue jumper at the park yesterday?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/fed...g/news-story/ed6b4b78251c40774f5dec9a736af787


----------



## SirRumpole (9 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> I take it everyone saw Malcolm with his pale blue jumper at the park yesterday?
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/fed...g/news-story/ed6b4b78251c40774f5dec9a736af787





SHY better steer clear of that place.


----------



## dutchie (9 May 2016)

I see that the "noddies" are back.

Eight weeks of the halfwits nodding their heads in agreement. 

To all the political parties:  for heavens sake, please get rid of them.

Definition:
nod·dy  (nŏd′ē)
n. pl. nod·dies

1. A dunce or fool; a simpleton.


----------



## CanOz (9 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> Yes it's a race to the bottom when large sections of the community are outlawed and ostracised by our civic leaders who are supposed to be the social heartbeat of our nation. Cheap votes from the cheap seats are always got when someone pokes a tiger with a stick.




If the 'large sections of the community' you are referring to are the members of the CFMEU, the ETA or the warfies, then those not represented by those thugs would be quite ok seeing them lose their power and become mortal citizens again. I'm sure. 

This country still has the most militant, thuggish and overpaid for work, unionists on the planet. They need a good kick in the rear before they completely root this place for good.


----------



## Logique (9 May 2016)

An interesting exercise to go through, it might help galvanise people's owns thoughts on how to vote:

ABC Vote Compass:  www.abc.net.au/votecompass


----------



## CanOz (9 May 2016)

For the record....


----------



## noco (9 May 2016)

I cannot believe how the Labor Party fool people with their lies in order to swing voters...

I know a single young lady of 27 years of age who has a good job and works hard......She is deaf and dumb and supports her aged grand father.

She communicated with me the other day stating she will vote Labor this time because she read where Labor stated the Liberal government was going to cut back on aged care....Her first thoughts went immediately to the fact the her grandfathers pension would be cut back under the Liberal government, that was until I set her straight that his pension would not be reduced but increased every March and September......

Unfortunately this is the type of misconception we will all face in the next 8 weeks.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 May 2016)

noco said:


> Unfortunately this is the type of misconception we will all face in the next 8 weeks.




Yeah, it's the same sort of misconception that people get when they are told the value of their houses will go down when they will actually rise by 5% if negative gearing is abolished instead of 7% under the investor take all policy.


----------



## luutzu (9 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> If the 'large sections of the community' you are referring to are the members of the CFMEU, the ETA or the warfies, then those not represented by those thugs would be quite ok seeing them lose their power and become mortal citizens again. I'm sure.
> 
> This country still has the most militant, thuggish and overpaid for work, unionists on the planet. They need a good kick in the rear before they completely root this place for good.




China don't have unions right? Chinese workers on average earn pretty dam low right?

Are most Chinese richer earning less money?

Are people richer if a few of their richest are really rich?


----------



## moXJO (9 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> If the 'large sections of the community' you are referring to are the members of the CFMEU, the ETA or the warfies, then those not represented by those thugs would be quite ok seeing them lose their power and become mortal citizens again. I'm sure.
> 
> This country still has the most militant, thuggish and overpaid for work, unionists on the planet. They need a good kick in the rear before they completely root this place for good.



To add to this:
Anyone who thinks labor isn't about handouts to big business is an idiot. Just so long as those business is union friendly. They f#$ked over thousands of small subcontractors during the BER while a few select building companies made off with the Lions share.
Labor is well known for hating subbies and making it hard for them.


----------



## CanOz (9 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> China don't have unions right? Chinese workers on average earn pretty dam low right?
> 
> Are most Chinese richer earning less money?
> 
> Are people richer if a few of their richest are really rich?




Not sure what you're trying to draw for comparisons here...perhaps lets use a civilized democratic country like the US, Canada or the UK as an example?

I have no objections to Unions, non-what so ever. I do object to the way a Union can operate to EXTORT funds from the business, which eventually cripple the business, industry or country.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> Not sure what you're trying to draw for comparisons here...perhaps lets use a civilized democratic country like the US, Canada or the UK as an example?
> 
> I have no objections to Unions, non-what so ever. I do object to the way a Union can operate to EXTORT funds from the business, which eventually cripple the business, industry or country.




One way or the other someone is going to get away with some of our tax dollars, be it the unions or business.

Labor favours their mates, so do the Libs that's pretty undeniable, but when it comes to health care, education and public utilities I prefer that they are under the control of someone I can vote for, not some corporation with their executives in other countries.


----------



## CanOz (9 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> One way or the other someone is going to get away with some of our tax dollars, be it the unions or business.
> 
> Labor favours their mates, so do the Libs that's pretty undeniable, but when it comes to health care, education and public utilities I prefer that they are under the control of someone I can vote for, not some corporation with their executives in other countries.




We're not talking about just tax dollars, we're talking about something that effects employers, businesses....these are a vital part of the economy. Without competitive businesses, there are no employers....jobs go overseas...sure we can protect our jobs here by using tariffs, but then be prepared for the same on the exports....

Do you know that many businesses charge a 'tax' of their own for purchases on public holidays? Do you know what that is for? That's to cover the penalty rates they need to pay. Are you happy paying that fee? What is so special about a Sunday that one must get paid more than Saturday? Many people might not go out and eat on that day, but stay home instead. So the business stops opening on Sunday all together. 

You can see by my score on the survey that i could easily be a Liberal in the true sense of the word...its just Unionism gone wrong that pushes me to the Liberal party.

I might also add, that i wouldn't have this view unless i had developed a reasonable knowledge of economics and business management from running large business operations and then moving onto trading. I think that's the problem in allot cases, there is a lack of understanding on the part of Unions on how they're actions affect the greater economy. Its fine in boom to milk it for all its worth, but too continue to expect these sorts of 'entitlements' once the economy is transitioning is unsustainable.

There is a level of re-numeration and social benefits that this country can afford. We need to be there, regardless of your standing with the Union.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> We're not talking about just tax dollars, we're talking about something that effects employers, businesses....these are a vital part of the economy. Without competitive businesses, there are no employers....jobs go overseas...sure we can protect our jobs here by using tariffs, but then be prepared for the same on the exports....
> 
> Do you know that many businesses charge a 'tax' of their own for purchases on public holidays? Do you know what that is for? That's to cover the penalty rates they need to pay. Are you happy paying that fee? What is so special about a Sunday that one must get paid more than Saturday? Many people might not go out and eat on that day, but stay home instead. So the business stops opening on Sunday all together.
> 
> You can see by my score on the survey that i could easily be a Liberal in the true sense of the word...its just Unionism gone wrong that pushes me to the Liberal party.




Sure, I can see your point on penalty rates, I think they are outdated and job destroying, but it's not a deal breaker for me. 

There are some Labor policies I disagree with, and the factionalism that they maintain means that I could never be a Labor Party member, but putting a curb on corporate power is more important to me that putting a curb on union power because the unions are becoming more irrelevant anyway as more people think they are unnecessary, but businesses continue to rip people off in a variety of ways and I don't think this will be adequately addressed by the LNP.


----------



## luutzu (9 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> Not sure what you're trying to draw for comparisons here...perhaps lets use a civilized democratic country like the US, Canada or the UK as an example?
> 
> I have no objections to Unions, non-what so ever. I do object to the way a Union can operate to EXTORT funds from the business, which eventually cripple the business, industry or country.




Point was that a country cannot be rich if the majority of its citizens are poor.

Citizens are poor if their wages are driven down to poverty level.


Take the US where there's only some 7% of unionised workers today. How has the average American Joe fared with unions out of the way? Not very well.

We really should stop with this idea that if business and rich people make enough money, they'll share it and we'll all be richer too. 

Sometime when people make more money at other people's expenses... they just keep it and take more holidays.

----

Take Turnbull's ad blaming unions for being "corrupt" and wanting "too high" wages, which in turn drove up higher property prices and priced out young families etc.

Really? Unions? Tradies having it too good?

Tax payer subsidising loss-making property investment for high income earners have nothing to do with high property prices?


----------



## noco (9 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Point was that a country cannot be rich if the majority of its citizens are poor.
> 
> Citizens are poor if their wages are driven down to poverty level.
> 
> ...




You will never make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 May 2016)

noco said:


> You will never make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.




I disagree to a degree.

Increasing the circulation of money by handing it out to people who will spend most of it gets customers through the door of businesses, promotes economic activity and creates opportunities for more businesses therefore creating employment.

Giving a tax cut to business does nothing if the customers aren't buying.


----------



## luutzu (9 May 2016)

noco said:


> You will never make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.




Mathematically, Yes you can. 

Mathematically and economically, you cannot make the poor richer by making the poor poorer.

Economically, you cannot make the rich richer by making the rich richer at the expense of the poor - not permanently; not in the long run.

If the majority of the country are poor and poverty stricken with a few at the top owning everything... roads and infrastructures will grind to a halt and crumble; defense can only afford a few gunboats to protect dirty and polluted cities and towns with full of dried up rivers and dead fishes...

Then either the population will rise up to revolt, or if the gov't is too effective at chopping heads then stronger neighbours and barbarians will just waltz in and liberate...


----------



## Tisme (9 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> If the 'large sections of the community' you are referring to are the members of the CFMEU, the ETA or the warfies, then those not represented by those thugs would be quite ok seeing them lose their power and become mortal citizens again. I'm sure.
> 
> This country still has the most militant, thuggish and overpaid for work, unionists on the planet. They need a good kick in the rear before they completely root this place for good.




Regardless of anyone's motives, including Liberal party of Oz, if we start severe regulation in freedom of association we move the boundaries closer to the next, possibly victimised, group until we have an ordered society, devoid of character.

I can't comment on the unions compared with other countries, but I would presume those unionists who dared march in Turkey on May Day and were rounded up by the military, would be seen as freedom seekers on one hand and trouble makers on the other.

This thread is about the upcoming election based on a suspect double dissolution trigger. The fact that nearly half or more of the voting population will give their count to the ALP means that there is nowhere near an absolute majority who are anti unions, albeit they may not be a member themselves.

Personally I'd like to do bad things to some of the union reps and their site snitches, but despite generations of warnings that we are going down the gurgler because of the union power, we somehow still manage a top lifestyle, a pride in our nation, AAA credit ratings, a chicken in every pot and a great welfare system.... so like most thing in life we may just have to live with the compliment of yin and yang


----------



## wayneL (9 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Mathematically, Yes you can.
> 
> Mathematically and economically, you cannot make the poor richer by making the poor poorer.
> 
> ...




You can't make the poor richer by forcing production offshore, but does make the Chinese richer.

As a general principle though, I'd prefer to make an Aussie richer than the Chinese .


----------



## CanOz (9 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> Regardless of anyone's motives, including Liberal party of Oz, if we start severe regulation in freedom of association we move the boundaries closer to the next, possibly victimised, group until we have an ordered society, devoid of character.
> 
> I can't comment on the unions compared with other countries, but I would presume those unionists who dared march in Turkey on May Day and were rounded up by the military, would be seen as freedom seekers on one hand and trouble makers on the other.
> 
> ...




I don't want to see regulation in the right to associate. I do want to see heavy penalties for stand-over tactics, intimidation and threats to anyone. If i or anyone else does not want to associate with the Union, why should they be intimidated to the point of having their family feel threatened by thugs? This is wrong, just as ice cooking bikers are wrong. 

Freedom of association? The Freemasons meet freely, the Rotary Club meet freely, the Church meet freely. But they're not acting above the law, are they? Do they threaten people that don't want to join? hhmmm, when was the last time i was threatened by the Church for not wanting to join?


----------



## Tisme (9 May 2016)

noco said:


> She communicated with me the other day stating she will vote Labor this time because she read where Labor stated the Liberal government was going to cut back on aged care.....




Do you have the article to support that Noco?

The Libs did introduce the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill and I seem to recall they were about diminishing the pension via a revamped asset test, increasing the pension age to 70,  knocking some concessions on the head or reducing the value of them....

of course I'm only going on my memory here.


----------



## Tisme (9 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> I don't want to see regulation in the right to associate. I do want to see heavy penalties for stand-over tactics, intimidation and threats to anyone. If i or anyone else does not want to associate with the Union, why should they be intimidated to the point of having their family feel threatened by thugs? This is wrong, just as ice cooking bikers are wrong.
> 
> Freedom of association? The Freemasons meet freely, the Rotary Club meet freely, the Church meet freely. But they're not acting above the law, are they? Do they threaten people that don't want to join? hhmmm, when was the last time i was threatened by the Church for not wanting to join?




Well in QLD it's a gift after the Joh days, but if you ride a motor cycle you can't associate, nor wear insignias on jackets regardless of whether you're a 1%er or not.

Community groups and not for profits tend to be well regarded because they are benign and aren't seen as an industry group. I haven't seen as much standover and coercion from the unions as in the past and they do tend to pick on large contractors and EBA sites rather than small business in the construction industry. Nonetheless they are an imposing force, but so are the many ar5eholes who run building companies and don't pay sub contractors and would do the same to individuals who didn't have union oversight.


----------



## Logique (9 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> For the record....



Almost the textbook bellwether voter there CanOz. The parties need to win you over!


----------



## noco (9 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Mathematically, Yes you can.
> 
> Mathematically and economically, you cannot make the poor richer by making the poor poorer.
> 
> ...




Vote 1 Labor on the July2 and you will have all of the about.....


----------



## CanOz (9 May 2016)

noco said:


> Vote 1 Labor on the July2 and you will have all of the about.....




Hopeless social capitalist


----------



## noco (9 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> Do you have the article to support that Noco?
> 
> The Libs did introduce the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill and I seem to recall they were about diminishing the pension via a revamped asset test, increasing the pension age to 70,  knocking some concessions on the head or reducing the value of them....
> 
> of course I'm only going on my memory here.




It was a private conversation I had with that young lady but I will ask her next time I am in contact with her.

I believe the eligible  age pension age will be raised to 67 as out lined by the Labor Party.....the increase to 70 is a long way down the track.

The age pension was introduced in 1909 for those eligible over 65 when the life expectancy of the male at birth was 55.

None of my grand parents lived beyond 66.

With modern medical science and stem cell research, people are now living well into their 80's and even 90's which exacerbates the problem of social security trying keep up. 

People must accept they will have to work longer past 65 if they do not have a suitable superannuation to last them perhaps another 25 years.  

http://www.ncoa.gov.au/report/appendix-vol-1/9-1-age-pension.html

*Age Pension age

The Age Pension age (the age at which a person can access the Age Pension) is currently 65 for men and 64.5 for women (but will soon increase to 65). From 2017 the Age Pension age will be increased by half a year every two years and will reach 67 by 2023.
*
I also had a recent conversation with a 70 year old Asian woman...Her husband is 85 and in ill health......They have a nice home and I am told they are millionaires.....She told me she will be voting for the Labor Party on July2 because the Turnbull government won't grant them an aged pension...She also blamed the Turnbull government for the low interest rate they receive on their money in the bank....I tried to explain to her, no matter which party gains power on July2, things will not change for her....She and her husband will still have to pass the income and asset test.

I just cannot believe how some people think.


----------



## luutzu (10 May 2016)

noco said:


> Vote 1 Labor on the July2 and you will have all of the about.....




I doubt Labor is that much into the People noco. They're not that much into Unions either.


----------



## luutzu (10 May 2016)

wayneL said:


> You can't make the poor richer by forcing production offshore, but does make the Chinese richer.
> 
> As a general principle though, I'd prefer to make an Aussie richer than the Chinese .




The cheap, manual, low-skill manufacturing jobs we ship offshore; the high-skilled engineering and hi-tech jobs we import in.

That's one way to do it.

I worked with Australian engineers and "low skill" trades... they're very smart and able people. Just when there's no more jobs to encourage higher skills or maintenance of those skills... they all either go fishing or go into lower-skilled jobs to put food on the table.

Even our engineering companies does it. With no constant work, once in a couple decade engineering projects they may or may not win... guess what management tend to do with all the Intellectual Properties and engineering patents?

They sell it off to the yanks or the poms. 

One big race to the bottom. Last one there kinda win, I guess.


----------



## luutzu (10 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> Hopeless social capitalist




All smart Capitalists must be "Socialist". That's how you get to keep on making money and keeping it.


----------



## noco (10 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> I doubt Labor is that much into the People noco. They're not that much into Unions either.




luutzu, yes you are right...Labor could not care less about working people...Chiquita and Clean Event is a typical example.

And  you say they are not into unions???????.......Labor is controlled by the unions......Bill Shorten is still a unionist and as he says, "if he gets in to power he will lead like a unionist" and will do a better job of stuffing up the country  than Rudd/Gillard/Rudd.


----------



## luutzu (10 May 2016)

noco said:


> luutzu, yes you are right...Labor could not care less about working people...Chiquita and Clean Event is a typical example.
> 
> And  you say they are not into unions???????.......Labor is controlled by the unions......Bill Shorten is still a unionist and as he says, "if he gets in to power he will lead like a unionist" and will do a better job of stuffing up the country  than Rudd/Gillard/Rudd.




You've heard of "political theatre" yea?

You think only the Coalition plays it?

Every politician is fighting for the little guys, just for some reason the little guys aren't winning. Heck, they're not even staying at the same level, they're getting worst and worst... At some point, these politicians have got to stop helping.


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Every politician is fighting for the little guys, just for some reason the little guys aren't winning. Heck, they're not even staying at the same level, they're getting worst and worst... At some point, these politicians have got to stop helping.



The trick I believe is to avoid anarchy by supporting the little guy at that survival level (food, shelter). The truth is people steal, lie, cheat more to survive if money is scarce. Australia seems to have a social security funding that is comfortable because crime is relatively low.


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 May 2016)

I'm a Labor voter but the Party is having to make promises they can't keep (again) and I would like to think Aussies can think for themselves and see through the fibs. Labor should develop a level of economic conservatism and prepare for next election then they will become genuine leaders. They have nothing for this election.


----------



## Tisme (11 May 2016)

Strange days:

Newscorp backs Albo;
ALP renegades upset about ALP refugee policy;
Lib renegades upset about Lib superannuation changes ;


and then there's this thanks to blather mouthed Kelly

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-...sands-to-buy-duncan-storrar-a-toaster/7403008


----------



## Tisme (11 May 2016)

Big gobbed Kelly again:


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-11/fact-check-negative-gearing-kelly-odwyer/7401096



On another bright note I see that Tanya is under threat from the Greens .... yeah.


----------



## moXJO (11 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> Big gobbed Kelly again:
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-11/fact-check-negative-gearing-kelly-odwyer/7401096
> ...




If Tanya, Albo and Wong lost their seats I would seriously consider labor. I'm over gender warfare.

Realistically Shorten and Tbull are the most center PM's we have had in a while. And so far both have  fairly sensible policy. It's all down to what happens after the election.

Rudd promised a lot and completely changed once he took office. Gillard just straight out lied. 
I don't put much faith in the factions either side with all the infighting.


----------



## ggkfc (11 May 2016)

Shorten seems to have good policies, more health and education

Wouldn't want to fall sick if the current health system is in place.. will be paying for everything health related. First stop Pathology testing in June, next everything?


----------



## Logique (11 May 2016)

Maternity Leave and Family Tax Benefit are elephants in the room. 

Labor defends, but the Coalition wants to wind back as middle class welfare, but plenty in the target group now consider it an entitlement. The usual suspects, upon whom Jenny Macklin has built a political career. 

Negative gearing wind back = good policy ; protect Medicare = good policy ; double dipping Maternity Leave = not so much.

I might have to vote Glen Lazarus. But wait he's a QLD candidate, I can't even do that.


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 May 2016)

ggkfc said:


> Shorten seems to have good policies, more health and education



And the funding?? Wayne Swan speeches about getting back to surplus are in the not too distant past. Conditions are not as favourable now. Basic mathematics really.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 May 2016)

Wysiwyg said:


> And the funding?? Wayne Swan speeches about getting back to surplus are in the not too distant past. Conditions are not as favourable now. Basic mathematics really.




I recall Hockey saying he would be back in surplus after his first Budget ?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...face-on-surplus-guarantee-20130127-2dfn9.html


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I recall Hockey saying he would be back in surplus after his first Budget ?
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...face-on-surplus-guarantee-20130127-2dfn9.html



Thanks for highlighting that.   Just on balancing the budget and working toward surplus, who do you think will actually do it considering Labor is careless with the countries finances?


----------



## SirRumpole (11 May 2016)

Wysiwyg said:


> Very good. Just on balancing the budget and working toward surplus, who do you think will actually do it considering Labor is careless with the countries finances?




I think Labor is more likely to do it in a socially acceptable way. Records over periods of time indicate that spending as a % of GDP is lower under Labor than the Coalition.


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I think Labor is more likely to do it in a socially acceptable way. Records over periods of time indicate that spending as a % of GDP is lower under Labor than the Coalition.



Okay but society has a greater penchant for debt than ever before so I wouldn't let the masses make sensible decisions . The masses will take as much money as the banks will let them have and it would get ugly when interest rates start to rise.


----------



## CanOz (11 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I think Labor is more likely to do it in a socially acceptable way. *Records over periods of time indicate that spending as a % of GDP is lower under Labor than the Coalition.*




Spending as a % of revenue is likely more relevant as spending as fiscal stimulus could change the GDP number. 

I'd be interested in seeing this comparison that you mention.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> Spending as a % of revenue is likely more relevant as spending as fiscal stimulus could change the GDP number.
> 
> I'd be interested in seeing this comparison that you mention.




Here is one:-

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-29/tony-abbott-labor-spent-like-drunken-sailors-spin/6495670


----------



## noco (11 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Here is one:-
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-29/tony-abbott-labor-spent-like-drunken-sailors-spin/6495670




A couple of POVs along with many more on that link.

*amey01

10:00 PM on 30/05/2015

I think Fact Check needs a fact check. There are two figures you need to look at - budget deficits and net debt. There was no debt under the Howard Government. Labor spent like drunken sailors alright and ran up deficits and debt. End of story.
Report Abuse

Score: -3
pedro des

4:17 PM on 30/05/2015

Here is a fact. FactCheck is a biased extension of the left wing ABC and a waste of tax payer funds. How anyone with a memory could not characterize the Rudd/Gillard government as spending like a drunken sailor is delusional. Abbott is spot on.

The wasteful spending by the Labor government is why we now dont have the money in the bank to pay pensioners etc. Their handling of the GFC could be characterised as panic.

The money being wasted by the ABC on the santimonious "FactCheck" should be spent on gathering real news. Something other than lesbian gay happenings, Pedophile priest exploits and the never ending succession of handwringing journalists who seem to want to allow all of the economic migrants from the third world to escape to Potts Point.

How about the ABC investigate why the UN is promoting a vast waste of taxpayer funds in fighting climate change. There are real issues that seem to get no press attention at all because they do not match the left wing agenda of entities like the UN IPCC. Note to left wing readers.....man made CO2 has very little green house forcing effect. Since 1998 there has been no change in global temperatures at a time of massive increases of CO2 by China and India. Given a choice I prefer global warming over a mini ice age that is being predicted as a result of sun cycles.

*


----------



## CanOz (11 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Here is one:-
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-29/tony-abbott-labor-spent-like-drunken-sailors-spin/6495670





lol...

I was thinking you had something credible there for a minute.

I see the ABC's noon headline, something like "Turnbull cancels campaign events as leadership tensions resurface" is a crock of rubbish.

I used to love the ABC, when i lived here before it seemed truly unbiased. The labor party doesn't need to advertise as much now though, as long as they have the ABC. This is disgraceful, almost as bad as Fox in the US. 

I have to listen to the likes of Ross Greenwood just to put some bloody balance back into things....what a f'in country!


----------



## boofhead (11 May 2016)

Noco: The net position was no debt but Howard left office with debt but had money in the bank to cover that debt. Government bonds were still issued to maintain the Commonwealth Government bond market. Also to maintain high quality, low risk bonds for those that wanted such products.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> lol...
> 
> I was thinking you had something credible there for a minute.
> 
> ...




So lets see your data that shows Labor spend more than the LNP.


----------



## CanOz (11 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> So lets see your data that shows Labor spend more than the LNP.




Refer to the graphic, I'm sure i don't need to remind you who were responsible for the budget during this period.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> Refer to the graphic, I'm sure i don't need to remind you who were responsible for the budget during this period.




Do I have to remind you about the GFC ?


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 May 2016)

Yes I can see Bubble Bill borrowing 100 million per day to pay for the we will do this, we will do that, we will be Australia's economic saviour B.S.


----------



## CanOz (11 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Do I have to remind you about the GFC ?




ohhhh ok...i get it now...silly of me really. Labor has had the awful responsibility of spending thier way our of each recession....wait, 2008 was not a recession here....oh, thats right they avioded the recession because they spent. In the end they still spent it...

Now, didn't the Liberals introduce policies to reduce spending, that were knocked back the the other house? Yet, still, they get "well you didn't do anything to reduce the deficit"


----------



## SirRumpole (11 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> ohhhh ok...i get it now...silly of me really. Labor has had the awful responsibility of spending thier way our of each recession....wait, 2008 was not a recession here....oh, thats right they avioded the recession because they spent. In the end they still spent it...
> 
> Now, didn't the Liberals introduce policies to reduce spending, that were knocked back the the other house? Yet, still, they get "well you didn't do anything to reduce the deficit"




Hockey's $7 Medicare levy was never going to reduce the deficit, it was going to medical research. All very noble but not appropriate if they were trying to reduce the deficit. 

And yes, we did avoid the GFC because of budget stimulus.


----------



## CanOz (11 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Hockey's $7 Medicare levy was never going to reduce the deficit, it was going to medical research. All very noble but not appropriate if they were trying to reduce the deficit.
> 
> And yes, we did avoid the GFC because of budget stimulus.




It wouldn't have mattered what the measures were, they would not have got through though would they?



> And yes, we did avoid the GFC because of budget stimulus.




That's been demonstrated to be an opinion. There are other opinions that disagree and say that it was the resource boom that avoided the recession, i.e. China's stimulus..


----------



## Ves (11 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> That's been demonstrated to be an opinion.



Of course it has,  but there are also conflicting opinions on your graph above.  The whole argument of whether "surplus = good and deficit = bad" and if it's "fiscally responsible or not" has been done to death for a very, very long time.

You can't just say something like Government Spending to GDP is irrelevant but surplus/deficit positions are not.  That's silly.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> That's been demonstrated to be an opinion.




Of course it's an opinion, but it's the opinion of a lot of respected economists including Ross Gittins.

http://www.rossgittins.com/2014/10/re-writing-re-write-of-gfc-fiscal.html


----------



## CanOz (11 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Of course it's an opinion, but it's the opinion of a lot of respected economists including Ross Gittins.
> 
> http://www.rossgittins.com/2014/10/re-writing-re-write-of-gfc-fiscal.html




But we can never know if it was the right style stimulus, i.e. bang for the buck. 

In the end, the charts says it all really, in the the time-frame represented on the chart, the Liberals have spent more time in budget surplus, have they not? If they were the bigger spenders, CLEARLY it is because they could afford it then. Now, _*politically it is difficult for them to remain in power and reduce spending because of the previous labor government,*_ duh! Even you would agree with that!

That is the indisputable truth which is the constant thorn in labor's side. Lots of distractions are needed to fool the voters, but i trust they will be fooled once again. Has Shorten even managed a business before? Oh sorry he was a corrupt labor Unionist, that's good enough for the average Aussie voter


----------



## Tisme (11 May 2016)

Logique said:


> I might have to vote Glen Lazarus. But wait he's a QLD candidate, I can't even do that.




He's been a surprise package and I can....you want me top proxy vote on Glen?


----------



## SirRumpole (11 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> But we can never know if it was the right style stimulus, i.e. bang for the buck.
> 
> In the end, the charts says it all really, in the the time-frame represented on the chart, the Liberals have spent more time in budget surplus, have they not? If they were the bigger spenders, CLEARLY it is because they could afford it then. Now, _*politically it is difficult for them to remain in power and reduce spending because of the previous labor government,*_ duh! Even you would agree with that!




I agree that it's politically difficult to abolish things like negative gearing and CGT discounts introduced by previous governments but Labor has shown that it's prepared to take them on. It's also politically difficult to take on Family Tax benefits introduced by Howard during his profligate years and I give some credit to the Libs for recognising that that area is a problem.



> That is the indisputable truth which is the constant thorn in labor's side. Lots of distractions are needed to fool the voters, but i trust they will be fooled once again. Has Shorten even managed a business before? Oh sorry he was a corrupt labor Unionist, that's good enough for the average Aussie voter




Where is your evidence that Shorten was corrupt ? Have any charges been laid against him due to the Royal Commission ?

If you made that slur on tv I think you would be up for a defamation action.


----------



## CanOz (11 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I agree that it's politically difficult to abolish things like negative gearing and CGT discounts introduced by previous governments but Labor has shown that it's prepared to take them on. It's also politically difficult to take on Family Tax benefits introduced by Howard during his profligate years and I give some credit to the Libs for recognising that that area is a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ohhh, sorrrry...he was accused of being of corrupt Union offical


----------



## Tisme (11 May 2016)

noco said:


> A couple of POVs along with many more on that link.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Labor inherited $39.9 billion from Howard when Hawke gained office. Labor gave Howard back his $39.9 billion debt plus another $56 billion to square the ledger, with inflation thrown in:

Score 1 Lib 1 Lab

Howard sold off Labor Party innovated utilities asset worth $72+ billion and no income offset just sold off the farm leaving $24 billion left to pay down. Costello sold off most of our gold reserve for 20% of it's value today; face/palm moment right there.

So Labor policy in setting up Telstra, etc effectively bank rolled Howard's debt to the tune of $72bn - $56bn = $16bn dollars. 

How does that grate ?


----------



## Tisme (11 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Where is your evidence that Shorten was corrupt ?
> 
> .




Did he know Gordon Grech too...small world? 

Who was that lifetime Liberal bloke (Slipper?) who solicited young men and finagled $954 out of the govt instead of going for the Liberal Bronny Bishop golden ring of $93,000 for chopper rides et al.

I wasn't aware Shorten was found guilty of anything other than not promising to put his enemies from the witchhunt the commission and from the LNP through a similar rinse cycle ... all for the good of Oz of course.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> Did he know Gordon Grech too...small world?
> 
> Who was that lifetime Liberal bloke (Slipper?) who solicited young men and finagled $954 out of the govt instead of going for the Liberal Bronny Bishop golden ring of $93,000 for chopper rides et al.
> 
> I wasn't aware Shorten was found guilty of anything other than not promising to put his enemies from the witchhunt the commission and from the LNP through a similar rinse cycle ... all for the good of Oz of course.




Indeed. A lot more bastardry on the LNP side lately. Who was Mal Brough again ? Arthur Sinodinus ?


----------



## Tisme (11 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Indeed. A lot more bastardry on the LNP side lately. Who was Mal Brough again ? Arthur Sinodinus ?




No I think they being let go so they can be proved Labor ringins.

Listening to that Belgian fella this morning, apparently it's Bill Shorten's fault the LNP is giving tax cuts to the wealthy and capping super at $1.6m...it's Bill's policy if it goes south apparently


----------



## SirRumpole (11 May 2016)

The Liberal Party is splitting down the middle.

Members of the Right faction want the Lib member for Eden Monaro to lose because he apparently supported Turnbull, and now the member for Lindsay Fiona Scott is being attacked as being a traitor.

Ho, ho ho, if you can't govern yourselves, you can govern the country.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-...tensions-overshadow-election-campaign/7404450


----------



## Tisme (11 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The Liberal Party is splitting down the middle.
> 
> Members of the Right faction want the Lib member for Eden Monaro to lose because he apparently supported Turnbull, and now the member for Lindsay Fiona Scott is being attacked as being a traitor.
> 
> ...




I think this is a disgruntled ex PM playing his hand via his buddies. The flavour of upcoming Newscorp papers will reveal if Malcolm must be sent to coventry.

I'm rather excited at the prospect of Tanya getting beat


----------



## drsmith (11 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> I see the ABC's noon headline, something like "Turnbull cancels campaign events as leadership tensions resurface" is a crock of rubbish.
> 
> I used to love the ABC, when i lived here before it seemed truly unbiased. The labor party doesn't need to advertise as much now though, as long as they have the ABC. This is disgraceful, almost as bad as Fox in the US.
> 
> I have to listen to the likes of Ross Greenwood just to put some bloody balance back into things....what a f'in country!



I thought Fiona Scott handled the question well. She's under no obligation to publically say how she voted. 

There's a range of reasons why Malcolm Turnbull cancelled a later walkthrough of a shopping centre. What's more serious is that the whole issue illustrates that to some extent at least, an element of the party haven't healed from last year's leadership spill.

Malcolm must be wondering when that political survival instinct will kick in with that element of the Party. With some of the conservative commentariat such as Andrew Bolt, I've reached the conclusion that there's a preference for Labor to win the election over Malcolm Turnbull. If the conservative element of the party is ultimately of the same view, they'll get their wish. 

On other matters candidates, the following is a bit of a shocker for Labor,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-11/labor-candidate-chris-brown-disendorsed-by-alp/7406100


----------



## SirRumpole (11 May 2016)

> I see the ABC's noon headline, something like "Turnbull cancels campaign events as leadership tensions resurface" is a crock of rubbish.




Why is it a crock of rubbish, that's exactly what happened.


----------



## sptrawler (11 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Why is it a crock of rubbish, that's exactly what happened.




Maybe he is just seeing, how little is adversely reported regarding Labor, thankfully most Australians make their own minds up.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 May 2016)

sptrawler said:


> Maybe he is just seeing, how little is adversely reported regarding Labor, thankfully most Australians make their own minds up.




Check post 112 I'm sure that will warm your heart.


----------



## sptrawler (11 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Check post 112 I'm sure that will warm your heart.




As usual we will get the Government we deserve, whether it is the Government we needed, will be proven by history.


----------



## drsmith (11 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Check post 112 I'm sure that will warm your heart.



I'm not writing the government off. What I posted above was an if-then scenario.

Bill Shorten and Labor have a number of issues of their own, one of which I highlighted in the post above and another, greater problem, highlighted in the asylum seeker thread.


----------



## Tisme (12 May 2016)

The media is certainly making a fuss about Malcolm not being accused of wrong doing in regard to the Panama Papers 

Let's hope he gets over the spell of the vapours from yesterday's botched interview with Fiona Scott in tow.  I'm glad Fiona isn't leaking from the party room any time soon. 

Professional pollies....gotta love 'em


----------



## ggkfc (12 May 2016)

drsmith said:


> I'm not writing the government off. What I posted above was an if-then scenario.
> 
> Bill Shorten and Labor have a number of issues of their own, one of which I highlighted in the post above and another, greater problem, highlighted in the asylum seeker thread.




voting for either feels like 

wheres good ol' palmer?


----------



## SirRumpole (12 May 2016)

Ronald Reagan, pioneer of trickle down economics US President 1981-1989

Malcolm Turnbull/Scott Morrison, promoters of trickle down economics.

The graph below of US National debt is a horrifying portent of what could happen to us if Reagan's policies are implemented here.


----------



## luutzu (12 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Ronald Reagan, pioneer of trickle down economics US President 1981-1989
> 
> Malcolm Turnbull/Scott Morrison, promoters of trickle down economics.
> 
> ...




It's been here a while SirR.

National debt is not a problem if it is put towards productive means. A country could get a lot more return if they borrow and invest properly.

Big problem when a country have to borrow just to give it away or spent it on things like corporate bailouts, tax cuts to the upper crust, wage wars overseas and having to beef up security at home in to prevent blowbacks.

An example I heard from Democracy Now news was how US banks got bailed out and given free money (in addition to US gov't guarantees etc.)... Then with the money and free cash, the banks then lend it back to the US Treasuries - at a profit.

It's like I borrow money to lend you money; with you being the bank that lends me the money with my borrowed money - and for the cherry on top of that, I lend you for nothing but you lend me at a higher rate. 

And we wonder why the American public are sick of establishment politics.


----------



## CanOz (12 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Ronald Reagan, pioneer of trickle down economics US President 1981-1989
> 
> Malcolm Turnbull/Scott Morrison, promoters of trickle down economics.
> 
> ...




More rubbish from you!

This is a total mis-representation of data....i get it now, you're not a Unionist, your a statitician!

Let me post a chart of China's debt, Russia's debt, France's debt, Canada's debt and all the other _socialist_ countries and blame it on socialism...

You couldn't pay someone to write rubbish like this, seriously!:1zhelp:


----------



## SirRumpole (12 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> More rubbish from you!
> 
> This is a total mis-representation of data....i get it now, you're not a Unionist, your a statitician!
> 
> ...




Mis representation of data ? Why ?

Are you saying the graph is wrong ?

So what do you blame for the sudden upsurge of debt under Reagan ?


----------



## CanOz (12 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Mis representation of data ? Why ?
> 
> Are you saying the graph is wrong ?
> 
> So what do you blame for the sudden upsurge of debt under Reagan ?




No, YOU explain it. its your bloody chart. Explain what exactly the debt was comprised of! You can't just show a chart with 14 trillion in debt and blame it on a Presidency! 

If this is the way you Labor lot operate, its no F'in wonder you can't manage a piss up in a brewery! You're a complete joke. *A troll*. A complete internet troll with nothing better to do than misrepresent data and drive people crazy with your wining BS.


----------



## CanOz (12 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> It's been here a while SirR.
> 
> National debt is not a problem if it is put towards productive means. A country could get a lot more return if they borrow and invest properly.
> 
> ...




Not to mention a few destructive wars...oh, but that's trickle down too!


----------



## SirRumpole (12 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> No, YOU explain it. its your bloody chart. Explain what exactly the debt was comprised of! You can't just show a chart with 14 trillion in debt and blame it on a Presidency!
> 
> If this is the way you Labor lot operate, its no F'in wonder you can't manage a piss up in a brewery! You're a complete joke. *A troll*. A complete internet troll with nothing better to do than misrepresent data and drive people crazy with your wining BS.




Ha ha ha, thanks for that.

Another troll that just throws insults when presented with evidence.

Zero credibility pal. See ya.


----------



## CanOz (12 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Ha ha ha, thanks for that.
> 
> Another troll that just throws insults when presented with evidence.
> 
> Zero credibility pal. See ya.




You call that evidence? 

Calling you a troll is not an insult, you are clearly here on this forum as a troll, its the absolute truth! What do you contribute in terms of help or assistance to new people interested in the financial markets? 

:bad:ZERO ---- PAL


----------



## SirRumpole (12 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> You call that evidence?
> 
> Calling you a troll is not an insult, you are clearly here on this forum as a troll, its the absolute truth! What do you contribute in terms of help or assistance to new people interested in the financial markets?
> 
> :bad:ZERO ---- PAL




Life is all about financial markets is it ?

A lot of people do just fine without taking any interest in it.


----------



## CanOz (12 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Life is all about financial markets is it ?
> 
> A lot of people do just fine without taking any interest in it.




Time for a reminder......How did you and Tisme end up here anyway? Were you banned from Hot Crapper or something?


----------



## SirRumpole (12 May 2016)

Other views on trickle down economics.

We're being sold the trickle-down economics con

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-...g-sold-the-trickle-down-economics-con/7406844


----------



## SirRumpole (12 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> Time for a reminder......How did you and Tisme end up here anyway? Were you banned from Hot Crapper or something?





Forum: General Chat

For the discussion of all non-market related topics

But as has been pointed out before, a lot of threads actually have relevance to financial markets.

Terribly sorry if you don't like seeing views different to your own, but hey, that's life.


----------



## CanOz (12 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Forum: General Chat
> 
> For the discussion of all non-market related topics
> 
> ...




ITS NOT YOUR VIEW I DISAGREE WITH, ITS THE WAY YOU DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENT THE FACTS.

Your are a politician aren't you? I'm convinced only a politician could show a 7 trillion dollar chart and actually say "this is what could happen here" if Australia adopts a trickle down economics approach.

That debt was not the result of what trickle down economics was designed to do. That debt was a direct result of a corrupt government, a corrupt banking system with a derivatives system bent on leverage and greed. 

Is that what you call trickle down economics?



> President Reagan's economic policies, commonly referred to as "Reaganomics" or supply-side economics, were based on trickle-down theory. The idea is that with a lower tax burden and increased investment, business can produce (or supply) more, increasing employment and worker pay.




Thats not what caused that mountain of debt...to say that is simply not factual.

End of rant. End of discussion with you. Ignore activated.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 May 2016)

> That debt was not the result of what trickle down economics was designed to do. That debt was a direct result of a corrupt government, a corrupt banking system with a derivatives system bent on leverage and greed.




You mean Reagan was corrupt as well as stupid ?

The mountain of debt increased at it's maximum rate during his term of government.

The point (for anyone else willing to debate) is that cuts to the "big end of town" was supposed to produce more revenue over the years that the cuts cost. The is the justification presented for that policy by Morrison and Turnbull.

In the case of the US, that opinion was demonstrably false, as it's almost ever increasing debt shows.

End of reasonable response to a rant.


----------



## Tisme (13 May 2016)

I'm sure all of you will take the same care evaluating your voting intentions as you would when trading shares.

There is no choice, it has to be Clive and his brave band of pups:

https://palmerunited.com/our-achievements:


----------



## Tisme (13 May 2016)

Tony's ex dumping on Mal:



http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...mansion-malcolm-turnbull-20160512-gotu72.html


----------



## Tisme (13 May 2016)

Screenshot of my political compass via ABC site"

https://votecompass.abc.net.au/


----------



## Tisme (13 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> Time for a reminder......How did you and Tisme end up here anyway? Were you banned from Hot Crapper or something?




I take it you suffered from hypogonadism in your youth?   You aren't armed well enough to take on old internet war horses like Rumpole and it shows.

That should get your fishwife mates PMing you madly.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> Screenshot of my political compass via ABC site"
> 
> https://votecompass.abc.net.au/
> 
> View attachment 66660




Where can I vote for you ?


----------



## Tisme (13 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Where can I vote for you ?




You're not on facebook, but one i'm particularly drawn to is TIDGAFP... they seem to fit the bill.


_I'd like to take the opportunity to express how humble I feel at getting the rush of PMs from the voiceless little people of the forum agreeing with my assessment of a particular gelding and his abrasive attitude to caring and thoughtful people like Rumpole and myself.   One thing you would never get from vocal antagonists like Noco is him taking home his bat and ball when he gets cleaned bowled ..... no he has too much strength of character._


----------



## SirRumpole (13 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> You're not on facebook, but one i'm particularly drawn to is TIDGAFP... they seem to fit the bill.




I am on Facebook and I'll check them out. 



> _I'd like to take the opportunity to express how humble I feel at getting the rush of PMs from the voiceless little people of the forum agreeing with my assessment of a particular gelding and his abrasive attitude to caring and thoughtful people like Rumpole and myself.   One thing you would never get from vocal antagonists like Noco is him taking home his bat and ball when he gets cleaned bowled ..... no he has too much strength of character._




Yep, I have to give it to noco he keeps coming back for more, God bless him.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 May 2016)

Anyone going to watch the Turnbull/Shorten debate tonight on Sky ?

If I hear jobs and growth anymore I'll throw up.


----------



## drsmith (13 May 2016)

Bob Day's senate voting reform challenge has been thrown out by High Court,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-...rm-challenge-thrown-out-by-high-court/7410986


----------



## SirRumpole (13 May 2016)

Penalty rates vs Executive bonuses.

Are they both bull$hit ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-13/robertson-why-penalty-rates-are-just-like-ceo-bonuses/7410766


----------



## luutzu (13 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Anyone going to watch the Turnbull/Shorten debate tonight on Sky ?
> 
> If I hear jobs and growth anymore I'll throw up.




you're going to need a big double bag SirR.


----------



## Tisme (13 May 2016)

On Sydney Streets


----------



## moXJO (13 May 2016)

While there is a rush to slam Tbull on this board,  I think his plan for the country is what's needed at this time. 
I'd rather Australia not be dragged back into PC wars regarding gender, race or religion.
Labor last term was more about headlines then it was about sensible policy.

Just because Shorten appears to be taking a center line doesn't mean that's how they will govern. Labor PMS tend to show they are the complete opposite of what they portray once elected.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 May 2016)

moXJO said:


> While there is a rush to slam Tbull on this board,  I think his plan for the country is what's needed at this time.
> I'd rather Australia not be dragged back into PC wars regarding gender, race or religion.
> Labor last term was more about headlines then it was about sensible policy.
> 
> Just because Shorten appears to be taking a center line doesn't mean that's how they will govern. Labor PMS tend to show they are the complete opposite of what they portray once elected.




It also doesn't mean that just because Turnbull is in charge the Libs won't swing further to the Right after the election if they win. Turnbull has already sold his soul over climate change and renewable energy and he's showing his big end of town credentials over corporate tax cuts and negative gearing.

And his intern plan is reckoned by some to be illegal.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics

As for Labor's PC stuff, yes I agree they too often try to appeal to minorities and not the mainstream. That turns me off too but not enough to vote for the LNP.


----------



## drsmith (13 May 2016)

On the point above, it's not Malcolm's inclination to lean to the right. Whether that's a good or bad thing remains to be seen. At the moment at least, he constrained by the right. 



moXJO said:


> Just because Shorten appears to be taking a center line doesn't mean that's how they will govern. Labor PMS tend to show they are the complete opposite of what they portray once elected.



The question is whether enough of the electorate will be fooled after only 3 years in opposition this time.


----------



## moXJO (13 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It also doesn't mean that just because Turnbull is in charge the Libs won't swing further to the Right after the election if they win. Turnbull has already sold his soul over climate change and renewable energy and he's showing his big end of town credentials over corporate tax cuts and negative gearing.
> 
> And his intern plan is reckoned by some to be illegal.
> 
> ...




He seems a bit headstrong to go to far to the right. Small business needs a boost and it's smart to target them this election. 

Negative gearing won't do much at all at this time in the cycle. The Chinese look at storing wealth rather than any tax breaks, when buying housing. And generally they don't sell.

Labor was one f#$k up after another. They actually destroyed a lot of different business across a range of industries with their **** ups.
Most of their policies failed and failed often with disastrous results.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 May 2016)

moXJO said:


> Labor was one f#$k up after another. They actually destroyed a lot of different business across a range of industries with their **** ups.
> Most of their policies failed and failed often with disastrous results.




Can you give some examples ?

How do you feel about the destruction of the car industry and associated component suppliers and the destruction of the rooftop solar installation industry due to the LNP policies ?


----------



## drsmith (13 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Can you give some examples ?



There's a wealth of past discussion on the policy outcomes of the former Labor government on this forum if you wish to look.


----------



## moXJO (13 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Can you give some examples ?
> 
> How do you feel about the destruction of the car industry and associated component suppliers and the destruction of the rooftop solar installation industry due to the LNP policies ?




Insulation scheme wiped out a lot of guys that were in business for years. The local manufacturers couldn't keep up with demand so business had to import it from overseas in bulk. Then they canned the policy and they were left with too much product. It was all the guys that were around for years that were screwed. All the Cowboys made their money and got out. The ones that lived the industry had no work  left. That's on top of all the mistakes and ripoffs that occured.

BER sub contractors were the ones that got shafted waiting for money or having unrealistic time frames set upon them. A lot of subbies were shafted when govt payments taking months or not at all. 

There were a few big builders in cohorts with govt. Personally seeing the above two it was a bloody joke.

The Indonesian knee jerk reaction over cattle screwed over top end cattle producers. All because labor needed another headline.

I really don't want to type all day.


----------



## moXJO (13 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Can you give some examples ?
> 
> How do you feel about the destruction of the car industry and associated component suppliers and the destruction of the rooftop solar installation industry due to the LNP policies ?




All the guys that were doing solar had work.
Labor policy brought in the Cowboys. 
At one stage people were hooking up diesel motors to solar systems to rort the feed in tarriff.


----------



## noco (13 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Anyone going to watch the Turnbull/Shorten debate tonight on Sky ?
> 
> If I hear jobs and growth anymore I'll throw up.




$10 on Shorten

$1 on Turnbull

Any takers?


----------



## noco (13 May 2016)

moXJO said:


> Insulation scheme wiped out a lot of guys that were in business for years. The local manufacturers couldn't keep up with demand so business had to import it from overseas in bulk. Then they canned the policy and they were left with too much product. It was all the guys that were around for years that were screwed. All the Cowboys made their money and got out. The ones that lived the industry had no work  left. That's on top of all the mistakes and ripoffs that occured.
> 
> BER sub contractors were the ones that got shafted waiting for money or having unrealistic time frames set upon them. A lot of subbies were shafted when govt payments taking months or not at all.
> 
> ...




Most of the rusted on Labor supporters have short memories and hate being reminded of Labor's faults.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 May 2016)

noco said:


> Most of the rusted on Labor supporters have short memories and hate being reminded of Labor's faults.




Labor have faults alright but so does the LNP. None of them are Mr/Mrs/Ms Clean.


----------



## CanOz (13 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> How do you feel about the destruction of the car industry and associated component suppliers and the destruction of the rooftop solar installation industry due to the LNP policies ?




Excuse me, if you could be so kind as to clearly explain to me what exactly destroyed the auto industry in Australia? 

I'm not asking an opinion, i'm asking for facts.

Thanks in advance Sir.

edit: nevermind, i found a good article on this myself.

What really killed vehicle manufacturing in Australia


----------



## SirRumpole (13 May 2016)

CanOz said:


> Excuse me, if you could be so kind as to clearly explain to me what exactly destroyed the auto industry in Australia?
> 
> I'm not asking an opinion, i'm asking for facts.
> 
> Thanks in advance Sir.




The elimination of government support to the car industry under the Abbott regime.

And before you say that government support is socialism, every major car manufacturing country supports their car making industry in some form either by subsidies, import quotas or tariffs.


----------



## CanOz (13 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The elimination of government support to the car industry under the Abbott regime.
> 
> And before you say that government support is socialism, every major car manufacturing country supports their car making industry in some form either by subsidies, import quotas or tariffs.




Its seems it was not the high labor cost, but the lack of fair trade....now that's an election campaign topic that's not going to get talked about...


----------



## Tisme (13 May 2016)

moXJO said:


> While there is a rush to slam Tbull on this board,  I think his plan for the country is what's needed at this time.
> I'd rather Australia not be dragged back into PC wars regarding gender, race or religion.
> Labor last term was more about headlines then it was about sensible policy.
> 
> Just because Shorten appears to be taking a center line doesn't mean that's how they will govern. Labor PMS tend to show they are the complete opposite of what they portray once elected.




Bookies are taking bets on how long either of the two last much past the election, elected or otherwise.


----------



## Tisme (13 May 2016)

moXJO said:


> BER sub contractors were the ones that got shafted waiting for money or having unrealistic time frames set upon them. A lot of subbies were shafted when govt payments taking months or not at all.
> 
> .




I know I lost about $200k on schools who wouldn't cough up because they overspent. Not one govt official insight to explain why no oversight.


----------



## moXJO (13 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> I know I lost about $200k on schools who wouldn't cough up because they overspent. Not one govt official insight to explain why no oversight.




I know a young bloke who took on some schools against my advice. Bit wet behind the ears and these were some of his first big jobs. When they decided not to pay him (similar to the above) he had no way of paying his material accounts. Young family, too much debt.
Ended up hanging himself. A bloody waste.

Many people think labor is for the working man. But the thing is they hate most tradies,  small business and subbies. They prefer big business that they can unionize.

Workers comp is another mob that specifically said to a mate we want to put you subbies pri.cks out of business.


----------



## Tisme (15 May 2016)

moXJO said:


> I know a young bloke who took on some schools against my advice. Bit wet behind the ears and these were some of his first big jobs. When they decided not to pay him (similar to the above) he had no way of paying his material accounts. Young family, too much debt.
> Ended up hanging himself. A bloody waste.
> 
> Many people think labor is for the working man. But the thing is they hate most tradies,  small business and subbies. They prefer big business that they can unionize.
> ...




 I've known of quite a few suicides from default payers over the decades, most of them in the construction industry. The courts and govts seem to consider it a peril of the industry as do far too many people who manage far too many  building companies.... the last bastion of govt sponsored frontierism, bastardry, dishonesty, profiteering, bribery, bullying and the solution = go after the unions alone instead of cleaning up industry entirely by insisting on solvency, payments, profitability and prosecution of delinquency & criminal behaviour.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 May 2016)

Cutting taxes to balance the budget? You're having a Laffer

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-16/verrender-cutting-taxes-to-balance-the-budget/7416608


----------



## luutzu (16 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Cutting taxes to balance the budget? You're having a Laffer
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-16/verrender-cutting-taxes-to-balance-the-budget/7416608




Good article.

Wondering at what point will Australians be out on the street demanding changes.

Seems we all know of inequality and job insecurity, then rush off to our day job... wait... hehe


----------



## Tisme (16 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Good article.
> 
> Wondering at what point will Australians be out on the street demanding changes.
> 
> Seems we all know of inequality and job insecurity, then rush off to our day job... wait... hehe




It's just the winding back ownership of the means of production to modern day wannabe Aristocracy and workers having nothing to sell other than serf labour for serf wages . Of course it's all wrapped up in pretty titular packaging like, "teams",  "subcontractor",  "free market", etc, but we all know from year 8 economics classes what it really is. 

But if you want to make good you have to ride that gravy train and play by the rules, coz few of us are going to risk losing the edifice to our success that includes a kitchen, toilet and a few bedrooms, because of martyrdom ... that's the ACTU's job. 

I blame Bill Shorten


----------



## noco (16 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Good article.
> 
> *Wondering at what point will Australians be out on the street demanding changes.*
> 
> Seems we all know of inequality and job insecurity, then rush off to our day job... wait... hehe




If Labor win on July 2,

Job security out the window.


----------



## orr (16 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Cutting taxes to balance the budget? You're having a Laffer
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-16/verrender-cutting-taxes-to-balance-the-budget/7416608




There's a deepening interest from a lot of people I talk to into the effects of Supply Side or to Quote George Bush senoir 'Voo-Doo economics' and how this shichcainery has defrauded their future. 
The last budjet is extremly suseptable to a sharp focus on this trickle down drivel if it's effectively argued.

Can-oz's points to the destruction of the Car industry, and we are talking abliteration, with the direct associated jobs in the hundreds of thousands... Industry Policy... What Industry Policy??? this gives a strong possibility to see one of Xenophon's party take Pyne's(minister for rust and decay) seat and little wonder. The sclreosiis in this 'Agile Government' is a thing to behold.

Musk with 400,000 orders booked in a month to fill for a Tesla3... $17 billion plus on an order book and no factory to build the righthand drive component of that.... And Pyne and the LNP will watch that oppertunaty disappear like a fart in the wind.


----------



## luutzu (16 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> It's just the winding back ownership of the means of production to modern day wannabe Aristocracy and workers having nothing to sell other than serf labour for serf wages . Of course it's all wrapped up in pretty titular packaging like, "teams",  "subcontractor",  "free market", etc, but we all know from year 8 economics classes what it really is.
> 
> But if you want to make good you have to ride that gravy train and play by the rules, coz few of us are going to risk losing the edifice to our success that includes a kitchen, toilet and a few bedrooms, because of martyrdom ... that's the ACTU's job.
> 
> I blame Bill Shorten




I knew I should've paid attention in Year 8 economics. Wouldn't then have to learn it the hard way after the first love, or was that the second? In between?... 

I too blame Bill Shorten!


----------



## Tisme (16 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> I knew I should've paid attention in Year 8 economics. Wouldn't then have to learn it the hard way after the first love, or was that the second? In between?...
> 
> I too blame Bill Shorten!




Economics is such an easy subject, you must have been very busy with the (girls?) loves.



Penny Wong also s4it5 me


----------



## luutzu (16 May 2016)

noco said:


> If Labor win on July 2,
> 
> Job security out the window.




I think job security for the plebs have long been out the windows noco.

Have you seen a recent doco on wealth inequality and other ways of the world stuff?

Check it out if you can: *Requiem to the American Dream* Available on NetFlix. 

A good (and very scary) overview of the economic and political policies of American (and ours) democracies - as seen by Noam Chomsky.

It's amazing to see how our own great leaders follow the same failed policies as those being implemented in the US and elsewhere. Why are they doing it when it obviously resulted in greater job insecurity and economic instability? 

Statecraft and grand strategy like the good old days of Rome and practically everywhere else before Hitler and Communism and people power scare the pants out of them.


----------



## luutzu (16 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> Economics is such an easy subject, you must have been very busy with the (girls?) loves.
> 
> 
> 
> Penny Wong also s4it5 me




Oh yea, very very, very, really seriously busy... with girls and stuff 

I think it's a sign of good mental health when any politician shiets you.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> Economics is such an easy subject, you must have been very busy with the (girls?) loves.
> 
> 
> 
> Penny Wong also s4it5 me




She ****es me too but not as much as the Belgian Bozo.

Repeat after me Jobs and Growth (with a German accent) 500 times.


----------



## Tisme (16 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Oh yea, very very, very, really seriously busy... with girls and stuff
> 
> I think it's a sign of good mental health when any politician shiets you.




You may have gathered by now, that I have had  good times (no gay liaisons!!) with various politicians from the spectrum far left to far right. The ones I like is because I like them, even if they don't have a fricken clue and disagree with my view of the world, which is rather remarkable because they normally don't care about other people's views. So if I don't warm to them it's because my radar says they are not good for us.

Did i mention Plibersek gives me the screaming sheets?


----------



## noco (16 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> I think job security for the plebs have long been out the windows noco.
> 
> Have you seen a recent doco on wealth inequality and other ways of the world stuff?
> 
> ...




Actually unemployment dropped to 5.8%..I was 6.2%.......It was 4% when Labor took over in 2007...It was 6% when The Libs took over from Labor 2013.


----------



## luutzu (16 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> You may have gathered by now, that I have had  good times (no gay liaisons!!) with various politicians from the spectrum far left to far right. The ones I like is because I like them, even if they don't have a fricken clue and disagree with my view of the world, which is rather remarkable because they normally don't care about other people's views. So if I don't warm to them it's because my radar says they are not good for us.
> 
> Did i mention Plibersek gives me the screaming sheets?




Why? What has Plibersek not/done to you/us?

I don't follow Australian politics too much. Maybe because they don't matter all that much - what with doing what Uncle Sam says or does  

No, I thought you only knew some of our enlightened statesman because all the Irish hang out at pubs all the time. 

So you were sent to one of those Emperor's Club where future leaders are kept until there's a vacancy in Parliament were you? Didn't make the cut or got sidetracked from occidentally reading some real books? 

Serious question. Of the Masters of Man you were unlucky enough to hang out with, are there any who understand what it means to be that "Aussie battler" and all that campaign slogans we hear once every few years?


----------



## luutzu (16 May 2016)

noco said:


> Actually unemployment dropped to 5.8%..I was 6.2%.......It was 4% when Labor took over in 2007...It was 6% when The Libs took over from Labor 2013.




I think the GFC hit the world late 2007 into 2008 noco. So a 4 to then 6% rise was quite a miracle. 

But I wouldn't be giving Labor all the credit for that either. The Mining Boom kinda save us a bit there. But Labor under did a lot of economically smart things to my mind. Then Rudd dare take on big miners and polluters   Then Abbott kinda happen and here we are... into the new Turnbull Innovation Boom where national security/high tech project are given to the French and SirR and neighbours will have to live with 9Gig ADSL for a long while yet.

Not sure how much NASA's Space Programme costs - but it spun off a whole lot of innovation and high tech booms out of just sending a few guys to the Moon and back. We're going to spend some $100B next few decades and maybe will create a few cleaning jobs on them subs.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> I think the GFC hit the world late 2007 into 2008 noco. So a 4 to then 6% rise was quite a miracle.
> 
> But I wouldn't be giving Labor all the credit for that either. The Mining Boom kinda save us a bit there. But Labor under did a lot of economically smart things to my mind. Then Rudd dare take on big miners and polluters   Then Abbott kinda happen and here we are... into the new Turnbull Innovation Boom where national security/high tech project are given to the French and SirR and neighbours will have to live with 9Gig ADSL for a long while yet.
> 
> Not sure how much NASA's Space Programme costs - but it spun off a whole lot of innovation and high tech booms out of just sending a few guys to the Moon and back. We're going to spend some $100B next few decades and maybe will create a few cleaning jobs on them subs.




ADSL ?  Looxury !

Wireless out here, phone lines no good.


----------



## Tisme (17 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Why? What has Plibersek not/done to you/us?
> 
> I don't follow Australian politics too much. Maybe because they don't matter all that much - what with doing what Uncle Sam says or does
> 
> ...




There was one bloke who was an opposition leader and he genuinely cared about people. He was universally respected by all sides of the argument. He was Ozzie to the core.....as I'm sure most politicians consider themselves now days, since we realised the Brits gave us the toss back in the seventies.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> There was one bloke who was an opposition leader and he genuinely cared about people. He was universally respected by all sides of the argument. He was Ozzie to the core.....as I'm sure most politicians consider themselves now days, since we realised the Brits gave us the toss back in the seventies.




Kim Beazley ?

He would have make an excellent PM. Not from a union background but as you say he cared about people.

Pity he got turfed by Rudd.


----------



## luutzu (17 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> There was one bloke who was an opposition leader and he genuinely cared about people. He was universally respected by all sides of the argument. He was Ozzie to the core.....as I'm sure most politicians consider themselves now days, since we realised the Brits gave us the toss back in the seventies.




One? 

I guess Lord Acton, or whoever, was right about politics being attractive to mediocre mind with psychotic tendencies on top of Daddy issues.

Kim Beazley sounds like an asthmatic nerd beaten up at school - so he would be a decent guy representing the people. Kinda like Theodore Roosevelt and FDR - both of whom might not understand much about struggles if it weren't for their childhood illness and disability (among other things).

To be fair to the rich and privileged kids, maybe they never realised how tough the others would have it. Kinda like me not knowing SirR doesn't have copper to download... documentaries


----------



## SirRumpole (18 May 2016)

The silent stalkers in this election ?

The Greens are out-campaigning Labor and the Coalition

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-...t-campaigning-labor-and-the-coalition/7423816


----------



## noco (18 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The silent stalkers in this election ?
> 
> The Greens are out-campaigning Labor and the Coalition
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-...t-campaigning-labor-and-the-coalition/7423816




Seriously speaking, that scares the hell out of me.

I hate to think of the outcome on July2.


----------



## luutzu (18 May 2016)

noco said:


> Seriously speaking, that scares the hell out of me.
> 
> I hate to think of the outcome on July2.




it's all going to be the same regardless of who wins. 

France's "socialist" gov't is planning to cut welfare and unions rights and workers' rights - all so that it'll be easier for businesses to "create jobs" of course. 

There's been daily protests past week or so... so bad that the riot police are also protesting for their rights. That's kinda funny. 

Anyway, Shorten is real tough and serious about the weekend penalty rates staying where it is - but if it doesn't, then that's just some other people's ideas - not the elected gov't he'll lead.

It's a play by play of Clinton's and US Democrats outflanking the Liberal/Conservative agenda to capture those votes and bringing the "left" along without them realising it.

Bet you the next Labor leader or two will start beating Refugees like there's no tomorrow.


----------

