2010 Federal Election

[trainspotter]

Heeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ..... what is going on here? Latest polls out show Coalition has the lead in primary votes? Kruddy is in hospital having his gall bladder removed, Latham has hit Kruddy on the head as the leak meister ...... FAR OUT MAN !! Nuffin said in here? Is this because we have been relegated to the #2 page or what?

We need to keep posting in here as well and not just on the #1 page !!!!!!!

 

[wayneL]

Heeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ..... what is going on here? Latest polls out show Coalition has the lead in primary votes? Kruddy is in hospital having his gall bladder removed, Latham has hit Kruddy on the head as the leak meister ...... FAR OUT MAN !! Nuffin said in here? Is this because we have been relegated to the #2 page or what?

We need to keep posting in here as well and not just on the #1 page !!!!!!!

Just heard it on the radio over here. Early days yet, but looks like the Catholic Autocracy might get the nod over an Orwellian Dystopia.

 

[overit]

Is this even legal?

Parties bet they will lose

EXCLUSIVE

SENIOR Labor figures have placed significant bets on the outcome of the federal election, with some punting against their own party. A major betting agency said bets had been placed on members of the opposing team to win marginal seats in NSW and Queensland.

Centrebet primary analyst Neil Evans said: ''I can't tell you who but I can tell you this: these are people very high up betting on some of the critical seats and I can tell you they don't always stay faithful to their party - they swap sides.

''They are well-known Labor figures and associates that are punting on these seats. A lot of Labor-connected money has been backing a Coalition win in marginal seats and, to a lesser extent, the Coalition has been doing the reverse.''

The Sun-Herald understands the figures include parliamentary staffers, advisers and senior party officials.

 

[Calliope]

Gillard and Swan now say that Rudd is an "honorable man."

And of course his gang of assassins are "honorable" people. They are all honorable. As Marc Antony said;

The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault;
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest,
For Brutus is an honorable man;
So are they all, all honorable men,
...

 

[Calliope]

If our leaders think Rudd is an honourable man, then God help us.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ever-really-knew/story-e6frezz0-1225899480960

 

[noco]

Julia Gillard's defacto gets had up for drunk driving 10 years ago in his own BMW and that is his problem.

But for Gillard's defacto to get caught running a red light and speeding in Gillard's Government tax payers funded car is Gillard's problem OMG.

She also says her prayers go out to Kevin Rudd's speedy recovery from hospital. I thought she was a self confessed athiest.

That's our unelected Prime Minister and she wants us to reelect her.

 

[DocK]

Did anyone see the Chasers on ABC last night? Julie Bishop can stare down a concrete garden gnome. Julia Gillard said this "I am looking forward to going forward with the Australian people going forward." ........ I just lost it.

I found myself shaking my head with disbelief at Julie Bishop's appearance - I cannot for the life of me understand what would motivate her to be televised acting so foolishly. Maybe I'm "old school" but I like my politicians to appear at least semi-intelligent and credible - in my view Rudd lost a lot of credibility due to his hunger for media attention - is this now common to all politicians? Sure, they need their faces and message broadcast, but appearing on shows such as Chasers, Rove etc doesn't do much to make me take them seriously - just the opposite in fact. Every time I see one of our pollies making an idiot of themselves in an attempt to win "popularity" I cringe.

What's next - Abbott v Gillard on Minute to Win It???

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Tony Abott looks the better leader by far. He looks, sounds, more genuine. He seems more real.

 

[prawn_86]

What's next - Abbott v Gillard on Minute to Win It???

Sadly in our 2 party political system, with no policies to diferentiate themselves, and a populous that couldnt care if they did, the winner simply comes down to media saturation and salience.

It becomes about what will the 'consumer' remember first at the sotre &/or polling booth. Very few people actually care about policies and most know there is no real difference, so they will simply go with one that has got the most attention (whether the voter realises this or not).

This is the downfall of having compulsary voting. The politician have the vast populous where they want them. IE - comfortable, but not well off enough to have a hard think about things. Most people are simply chugging along trying to pay of their mortgage and raise their kids, they couldnt give a toss about the future. Take away the debt and have people live within their means then they would actually start to question things, as the majority of ASF members do

 

[Julia]

Sadly in our 2 party political system, with no policies to diferentiate themselves, and a populous that couldnt care if they did, the winner simply comes down to media saturation and salience.

Prawn, I think you may be underestimating the involvement and interest of the populace. My impression is that most people have quite a reasonable level of interest in differentiating between the two brands, and 'brands' is what it has become about.

There is one definite difference and that is that the coalition is much less likely to ever waste money on the scale the government has with its pink batts, BER, Green Loans and other similar schemes. Countering this is that the coalition may well sacrifice necessary infrastructure and e.g. healthcare
in their quest to restore a surplus.

It becomes about what will the 'consumer' remember first at the sotre &/or polling booth. Very few people actually care about policies and most know there is no real difference, so they will simply go with one that has got the most attention (whether the voter realises this or not).

Perhaps that's right. But given the media saturation of both leaders, I think a lot of votes will come down to who appears the most trustworthy. Hence the sudden fall off in the polls for Ms Gillard after the leaks suggesting she could not be trusted.

This is the downfall of having compulsary voting. The politician have the vast populous where they want them. IE - comfortable, but not well off enough to have a hard think about things.

I agree absolutely about compulsory voting. It's not the case in NZ and they usually get about an 80% turnout. Obviously these are the people who are informed and interested enough to vote. Compulsory voting just generates votes from people who either don't care or haven't a clue.

 

[noco]

Andrew Bolt has carried out some research on Julia Gillard's background revealing her close association with the Communist party and the Fabian Society and she can't escape the fact the DNA is still embodied in her.

That's our unelected Prime Minister

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

 

[nioka]

Sadly in our 2 party political system, with no policies to diferentiate themselves, and a populous that couldnt care if they did, the winner simply comes down to media saturation and salience.

The sad part as I see politics in Australia is the preferential system where you have very little chance of a choice between the two parties. In the end it means that you have to vote for one or the other. The allocation of the green preferences will determine who wins in many cases. Because of that there will be blackmailing deals made that will tie the hands of a winner. If it were not there you could find more quality independent candidates. People that join one of the major parties as the only way to get in. Once in they must toe the party line regardless of how it affects their electorate. I dont WANT to vote for any of the big 2 or the greens at this stage.

 

[Calliope]

The sad part as I see politics in Australia is the preferential system where you have very little chance of a choice between the two parties. In the end it means that you have to vote for one or the other.

The problem with the two party system is that one party stands for everything that is good and the other party stands for everything that is bad.

You need to be an educated voter to know which is which.

 

[nioka]

The problem with the two party system is that one party stands for everything that is good and the other party stands for everything that is bad.


You need to be an educated voter to know which is which.

Are you for real, that statement must be a misprint.

I've possibly voted in more elections than you have had birthdays does that make me an educated voter? No it doesnt. Does my uni degree make me educated? No it doesnt. Being born in the biggest depression and starting work at 9 probably qualifies me more than most. Even then I still dont know what an educated voter needs to know but one thing I do know is that an educated voter would never say that one party stands for all that is good and the other party stands for all that is bad. You have failed miserably, stay back after class.

 

[So_Cynical]

The problem with the two party system is that one party stands for everything that is good and the other party stands for everything that is bad.

You need to be an educated voter to know which is which.

Its that simple hey Calliope care to make the case for why work choices was good for us and the economy?

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

Wayne im wondering if you think Calliope is capable of being objective because he/she's not a socialist?

 

[Macquack]

Andrew Bolt has carried out some research on Julia Gillard's background revealing her close association with the Communist party and the Fabian Society and she can't escape the fact the DNA is still embodied in her.

That's our unelected Prime Minister

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

Bolt is a bum lazy journalist so devoid of intelligent comment he has to rehash the same story he has previously written and try to make it look new. Good try you wanker.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Bolt is a bum lazy journalist so devoid of intelligent comment he has to rehash the same story he has previously written and try to make it look new. Good try you wanker.

Macquack,

Bolt is no fool. I have heard him on radio take lefties apart with facts and logic which highlighted his intelligence.

What about the Fabians is beneficial as you see it?

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Sadly in our 2 party political system, with no policies to diferentiate themselves, and a populous that couldnt care if they did, the winner simply comes down to media saturation and salience.

It becomes about what will the 'consumer' remember first at the sotre &/or polling booth. Very few people actually care about policies and most know there is no real difference, so they will simply go with one that has got the most attention (whether the voter realises this or not).

This is the downfall of having compulsary voting. The politician have the vast populous where they want them. IE - comfortable, but not well off enough to have a hard think about things. Most people are simply chugging along trying to pay of their mortgage and raise their kids, they couldnt give a toss about the future. Take away the debt and have people live within their means then they would actually start to question things, as the majority of ASF members do

That's a good post Prawn.

 

[wayneL]

Bolt is a bum lazy journalist so devoid of intelligent comment he has to rehash the same story he has previously written and try to make it look new. Good try you wanker.

So hang on! Bolt is a lazy unintelligent wanker because he has the temerity to highlight Dullard's core beliefs?

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

 

[Calliope]

Are you for real, that statement must be a misprint.

I've possibly voted in more elections than you have had birthdays does that make me an educated voter? No it doesnt. Does my uni degree make me educated? No it doesnt. Being born in the biggest depression and starting work at 9 probably qualifies me more than most. Even then I still dont know what an educated voter needs to know but one thing I do know is that an educated voter would never say that one party stands for all that is good and the other party stands for all that is bad. You have failed miserably, stay back after class.

Obviously my post went completely over you head. It apparently upset you. Perhaps you are too far outside the square.

My comment refers to the impression an impartial observer might get on listening to the antagonists.

Perhaps "educated" was the wrong word. I should have said "intelligent". You go on about how educated you are, but you have failed miserably on the intelligence test.

Keeping you back after class can't fix that.