2013 Federal Election: 7 September 2013

[drsmith]

Yep they were responsible for the world oil shocks that help cause them not to mention the breaking of inflation cycle world wide BTW you forgot the one under Fraser in 83 must have been Labors fault to.

Ah that would be the coalition you are talking about then.

We're not far from this government's last supper now.

Three sleeps to go.

 

[Ves]

A bit of light reading.....make of it what you will.

I like light reading. I also like doing further research of the facts. Not going to do all of them, because I don't want to commit to the time, but a few seemed flawed.

FACT: Australia’s escaped relatively unscathed from the so-called “Global Financial Crisis” due to the legacy of the Howard Government leaving strong budget surpluses and eliminating the debt - Australia had no net debt federally, and, according to the IMF, some of the lowest gross debt in the world. Furthermore, the Howard government's reforms to industrial relations ensured a flexible labour market and increase productivity. This – combined with some prudent monetary policy (the lowering of relatively-high interest rates by the Reserve Bank giving Australians a higher disposable income, thereby boosting consumption) and the strength of Australian banks – is what spared us.

There was something called the resources super-cycle going and its contribution to Australia's GDP did not slow down until very recently, at least until after the Global Financial Crisis.

An opinion, omitting material facts such as this, should not be labelled fact. It is safer to say that no government has a massive level of control over the fate of the economy.

MYTH: Countries who cut spending did worse between 2008-2013 than those who increased spending
FACT: In every country where governments cut spending, the economy started to boom. Estonia is a good example of this, and even , Sweden – the darling country of the left! - slashed spending which resulted in an “economic miracle”. Other examples are numerous.

Estonia real GDP growth for the period 2008-13 was negative 4.5%.

Unemloyment in Estonia was 5.5% in 2008. In 2013 it is now 8.3% (after peaking at around 18% in 2010).

Can you please explain how this is a booming economy?

Sweden runs an export economy - based in hydropower and iron ore and engineering amongst others. All of which have done especially well in the period mentioned. Can you please how there is a high correlation between their economic success and slashed gov spending?

What are the other examples?

Did I miss the source of this article? Since there is no source provided can we assume it is your personal work?

 

[Miss Hale]

I don't know if I am typical (probably not) but I really have had zero interest in this election. It feels like it has been an eternity in coming and I just can't wait for Saturday to be over. I could partly be because it has come at the business end of the footy season and I am pretty preoccupied with that (dumb choice of dates by both Gillard and Rudd) but it just seems like a everyone is going through the motions.

 

[bunyip]

I like light reading. I also like doing further research of the facts. Not going to do all of them, because I don't want to commit to the time, but a few seemed flawed.


Estonia real GDP growth for the period 2008-13 was negative 4.5%.

Unemloyment in Estonia was 5.5% in 2008. In 2013 it is now 8.3% (after peaking at around 18% in 2010).

Can you please explain how this is a booming economy?

I don’t have the slightest interest in explaining anything to you in relation to that article.
I didn’t write it, I have expressed neither agreement nor disagreement with any of it, I simply posted it here for the interest of this forum. As I said, make of it what you will.

Did I miss the source of this article? Since there is no source provided can we assume it is your personal work?

Sure, you can assume that if you want, but your assumption would be wrong. Julia asked me for the source of the article, and I provided it.

 

[Ves]

I don’t have the slightest interest in explaining anything to you in relation to that article.
I didn’t write it, I have expressed neither agreement nor disagreement with any of it, I simply posted it here for the interest of this forum. As I said, make of it what you will.

You don't have any interest in checking the actual facts of articles that you share on a public forum?

That sounds absurd to me. What does interest you, if not the truth?

Sure, you can assume that if you want, but your assumption would be wrong. Julia asked me for the source of the article, and I provided it.

Supposedly? You don't even know for sure.

 

[burglar]

... I just can't wait for Saturday to be over ...

Perhaps it will be safe to surf TV once more.

 

[drsmith]

How it's looking for Labor in Queensland.

MATT WORDSWORTH: It's not just Forde that looks lost for Kevin Rudd in Queensland; Labor's head office is privately describing internal polling as grim and deteriorating. After the leadership change, they were talking of winning back seats lost in 2010. Now they're facing losing up to half the eight they now hold.

Even Kevin Rudd is at risk of losing his seat of Griffith to former AMA chief Dr Bill Glasson.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3841334.htm

 

[bunyip]

You don't have any interest in checking the actual facts of articles that you share on a public forum?

That sounds absurd to me. What does interest you, if not the truth?


Supposedly? You don't even know for sure.

Like you, I’m not prepared to commit the time to looking into each of the opinions expressed in the article.
I’ll post something on here if I think it will be of interest to the forum. If I don’t, I won’t.
If you’re OK with that, great. If you’re not OK with that, too bad - you'll get over it.

It was supposed to be from the Australian Taxpayers' Alliance, according to the bloke who sent it to me. I’d never heard of them, which is why I used the word ‘supposedly’ in describing the source of the article.

I have just now Googled it, and it appears that it was in fact the Australian Taxpayers Alliance that put out the article. Here’s the link.
https://www.taxpayers.org.au/factcheck-did-kevin-save-us-from-the-gfc/

 

[drsmith]

Is this the first sign of the electoral rout to come for Labor ?

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2013/09/0...s-has-an-electoral-wipe-out-already-occurred/

 

[Aussiejeff]

Is this the first sign of the electoral rout to come for Labor ?

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2013/09/0...s-has-an-electoral-wipe-out-already-occurred/

They must already know the result. The numbers of pre-polling day voters turning out to vote early has been massive as far as I can tell. All parties have their analysts out in the field gauging what is going on. The Laborious Party would know beyond doubt even now that they are doomed to an inglorious wipeout.

Blind Freddy could even see this. Yet the pretense is played out right till the last siren at tax payer's expense.

What a joke.

 

[Judd]

As Anthony Green indicates in his election blog:

The instructions say you must fill in every square, but the savings provision of the act require that only 90% of the squares be filled in, and will allow a maximum of three sequencing errors. A sequencing error is any doubling up of numbers and any break in the number sequence.
If you want to be ultra safe, fill in below the line and the fill in one of the above the line squares. The below the line vote takes priority, but if proves to be informal, the ballot paper will revert to the above the line option.

How people can vote in the Senate without directing their preference, if you consider them equally bad or a mixture, to either major party? The answer to this is that you only have to fill in 90% of the boxes when voting BTL, so you can deliberately exhaust your vote without it reaching either major. That said, there are many candidates who are probably much worse than both majors, and that it is worth preferencing both majors just to put the others last.

Basically if you vote 1 for someone who is going to get a quota or likely to get a quota, and your preferences between parties differ wildly from how your partly has allocated its above-the-lines, then you run a huge risk that at some point of the count your preferences will be effectively wasted or a candidate you like even harmed. What I like to do is vote 1 for a complete no-hoper - in the case of the Senate a #2 or #3 candidate from a very obscure microparty that I don't have a problem with. That way my vote is no longer getting trapped in anyone's surplus off the first count.

Beyond that strategic voting gets very tricky for the Senate.

What I have done, tedious as it was, is to use http://www.belowtheline.org.au/ as it has links to the parties web-sites and policies which I read. Then used https://www.clueyvoter.com/ to generate a sample voting paper. Following that, and using great care, highlight the numbers generated by clueyvoter and changed them according to my views in regard to each party's policies. Then print. It will be take in to the voting booth, but not left behind, as my Aide-mémoire.

Obviously, I take my vote seriously. I view “How to Vote Cards” as “How you don't have to think cards.”

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Many pre-pollers are committed and probably reflect the voting intentions of 3-6 months ago.

Where it will matter are with the undecided on the day in the marginals.

I am told it does not look good for the ALP, as there is a definite swing on in pre-polling.

gg

 

[McLovin]

I'm looking forward to Monday morning, we can finally get this dreary campaign behind us. Having the Libs back in, for all their flaws, has to be better than the current mob.

Bring on Saturday.

 

[Logique]

We're not far from this government's last supper now.

Three sleeps to go.

Two now Doc. A bottle of red cordial on the counter.

But will the market sell the news.

 

[IFocus]

Labor lost the house of reps some time ago what will be interesting will be the Senate.

I don't expect Labor to fair as badly, looking like the greens will hold or improve on their position with independents possibly holding the balance.

Given Abbott's comments earlier in the week on the carbon tax I assume Liberal internal polling to be showing just that.

 

[Calliope]

Rudd should come clean with the electors of Griffith and tell them whether he intends to stick around after he loses the election or do what former Qld Premier Anna Bligh did and resign rather that face the humiliation of leading a rump party.

FEDERAL Labor is likely to hand the leadership to Bill Shorten after a devastating election defeat on Saturday as it seeks to put the Kevin Rudd era firmly behind it.

Senior Labor sources across the factions have told The Australian that Mr Shorten is expected to get the nod to fill the Prime Minister's shoes in opposition -- despite resentment about what they consider his duplicitous role in the dumping of Julia Gillard in June.

Mr Shorten is still not on speaking terms with factional allies within Labor, including Wayne Swan and Stephen Conroy.

He is also off-side with figures from his political power base -- Paul Howes and Bill Ludwig from the Australian Workers Union.

All, however, are expected to put aside their anger and join Mr Shorten's main remaining backer -- the ALP's dominant Right faction in NSW -- in an anticipated post-election leadership contest.

With Labor headed for defeat on Saturday, senior party sources say Mr Rudd will almost certainly be dropped, despite having returned to the leadership little more than 70 days ago.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-to-replace-rudd/story-fn9qr68y-1226710919763
And;

As he tries to capture the electoral momentum flowing his way, Mr Abbott warned Mr Rudd's constituents they could face a by-election if Labor lost but the PM retained his seat.

"If he does lose the election but holds his seat there will swiftly be a by-election in Griffith and that's the last thing that people want," Mr Abbott said.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...rudd-in-griffith/story-fnho52jo-1226710938137

 

[Craton]

Thankfully I'll be out of state come Saturday and have already submitted my vote. I had a really good giggle at some of the parties offering themselves for election.

Two that really pricked my ears up are the Sex Party and the HEMP Party. More curious are the two no name parties. They seemed really on the ball and with it so, they go my vote, j/k.....

 

[IFocus]

What a complete sham


Tony Abbott defends not having 'bulletproof' climate change and broadband policies costed

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has defended the Coalition's decision not to have two of its major policies independently costed, saying the measures are "bulletproof".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-05/abbott-says-costings-are-bulletproof/4937130

- - - Updated - - -

Thankfully I'll be out of state come Saturday and have already submitted my vote.

Me to I'll be some where deep in the jungles of Central Kalimantan Borneo so wont actually hear the result until some time next week.

 

[drsmith]

Tony Abbott defends not having 'bulletproof' climate change and broadband policies costed

Tony Abbott's climate change policies have been costed. He's not going to spend any more than he's budgeted.

How's the rollout of Labor's NBN going ?

Two more sleeps.

 

[sydboy007]

Tony Abbott's climate change policies have been costed. He's not going to spend any more than he's budgeted.

How's the rollout of Labor's NBN going ?

Two more sleeps.

How's MTs free handover of Telstra copper going? An asseet ont heir books at some $30B from memory.