ELECTIONS - Labor or Liberal

[greggy]

Sorry to hear that. I was speaking metaphorically, obviously. But my point was demonstrated by the Yarragadee protests. And my gripe is with the rural vote in WA which have excessive legislative control.

I'm wondering if we do actually look after those going through rough times anymore though. The last ten years has seen an absolute raping of mental health services, as well as a crackdown on those people with disability pensions.

I do believe it's time for quote; perhaps from one of my favourite sources, Catch-22:



Ding a ling a ling.

Which bring us to another point. Why should farmers be given federal assistance for a failing business venture? As a small business owner, I don't have a right to ask for a handout from the government if it turns sour - even if it is through no fault of my own. What is the difference in this instance?

And it's fairly rich then, to sit at a trade table and ask Europe to stop building cheese mountains and wine lakes, or to ask the US to stop paying farmers for doing nothing, when we ourselves are subsidising farmers. Let alone expect third world countries not to have government interference in the rural sector.

It is good to see Howard looking to target young voters though:

Thats all right Chops. Thanks for the clarification. I still think though that government should continue to look after the disadvantaged within our community. It could well do more in this regard. I suppose its all about finding the right balance. All levels of government need to be more pro-active in this regard.

 

[Rafa]

to quote you from the other thread 2020

The former chief justice of the Australian High Court, Sir Gerard Brennan, has criticised both major parties for their policies on the death penalty.
.
.
.

"Perhaps they might reflect on Pastor Niemoller's lament in Hitler's Germany," he said.

"'They came first for the communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a communist.

"'Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew.

"'Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

"'Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

"'Then they came for me, and by that time, no-one was left to speak up.'"

Sir Gerard concluded by saying issues of injustice against people like David Hicks and Dr Haneef were glaringly absent from the current election campaign.

"It is, I suppose, inevitable that an election campaign should be pitched at the majority and that the protection of the few against injustices would not be an election issue," he said.

"Ultimately, political rhetoric about the rule of law may be exposed to be as genuine as the electoral kissing of babies.

well, we are up to the trade unions now in Oz....

 

[brilliantmichael]

We can promise, we can promise! Haha

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDn_1Xa2a_o

 

[Julia]

I still think though that government should continue to look after the disadvantaged within our community. It could well do more in this regard. I suppose its all about finding the right balance. All levels of government need to be more pro-active in this regard.

Completely agree, Greggy. It's just so easy for those of us who are doing pretty well - and politicians touting the successful economy, low unemployment rate etc - to just "not notice" the many people who are really struggling.

Yesterday I spent some time with a young woman who is a single mother, having escaped a violent relationship. She has a sick baby, the child having been in hospital for the last three weeks and now needs considerable ongoing medication and medical care. The young woman herself needs to have major surgery and will need to go to a capital city for this. She is in constant pain and also needs expensive medication.

She has no family to support her and will need community assistance to get herself to Brisbane for her surgery. She has been going without food for herself to pay the rent plus the medication etc. She is immensely worried about who will care for her baby while she is in hospital.

So what I'd like to see is more assistance for genuinely needy people, especially including people with disabilities (and I don't mean the pseudo bad backs which are used in order to escape the obligation to have a job) and the mentally ill. With rising rents, it's really very difficult to manage on a single pension.

 

[Whiskers]

Hi Whiskers,

I absolutely accept your point. I was under the impression that the payments made to farmers were grants, not loans. I have no problem with any such payments/loans being made where the farms are (under no drought circumstances) viable businesses, but if conditions are simply no longer viable because of climate change or anything else, I just don't see much point in sustaining people's existence where nothing is going to change.
Also don't think we have any business growing crops like rice and cotton in Australia.
In another thread, I mentioned that I'd bought on the same day two bunches of asparagus at the same price - one was grown in Australia and the other was grown in Peru.

Hi Julia

I'm not picking on you, just using the points you raise to highlight misconceptions about the rural sector. :remybussi

They are valid points you raise and for the benifit of Chops and others I will clarify a few main points. Firstly, one has to remember, and all political parties in office surcombe to the reality that the Australias economy has for a long time rested on the strength of our agricultural sector. The strength of the mining industry has overshadowed it at the moment.

There are some grants that can be claimed by farmers for land conservation, salinity control, irrigation efficiency etc, not unlike grants made to other industries and even community organisations, but your enterprise has to pass certain criteria limits to qualify. Marginal farming businesses would not get them unless they could demonstrate that it amounted to a significant change of direction that had a good chance of profitability.

I just don't see much point in sustaining people's existence where nothing is going to change.

The government does has a number of schemes that pay grants to farmers to leave the industry. The sugar industry was one example where it was considered that only those farmers in better soils, larger holdings, closes to suitable infrastructure and with reasonable water resources etc were likely to survive against cheap competition from particularly the rapidly expanding Brazilian sugar industry. Sugar growers were offered a one off grant to assist them to leave the industry and do something else.

Also don't think we have any business growing crops like rice and cotton in Australia.

I'm still undecided on this one, but what I do understand is the rice growers in particular have proved to be very resourceful at maximising their water usage. For example, they recycle the water and after they have drained the rice paddock and harvest the rice, they utilise the ground moisture to immediatly grow a rotation crop, usually another cereal crop. They get much higher yields more consistantly than larger dry farm practises.

In another thread, I mentioned that I'd bought on the same day two bunches of asparagus at the same price - one was grown in Australia and the other was grown in Peru.

Yeah, this one is not what is seems all the time also, because the big supermarkets have resorted to all sorts of tricks to drive down prices for Australan growers. Out of season importing is generally accepted to be benificial. The biggest problem that we see is that with some imported commodities the chemical residues are higher than allowable for Australian grown produce. While Australian produce is regularly and randomly checked, imported commodoties are often let through quarantine on the strength of supposodly QA assurances from the supplier. Asian prawns with unacceptably high antibiotic levels are a recent example.

I'm not sure whether the government has approved the import of cheap philippenes bananas yet, but that is another example of a cheap labour source riddled with all sorts of exotic diseases that we don't have here. Part of the reason why they are so cheap is they spend little or nothing on quality control.

Actually, some of our 'best' produce trade arguements has been with your old country, NZ about price and pests and diseases. :

I'ts a tough battle sometimes getting the right balance between price, protection and longer term national interest.

 

[Julia]

Yeah, this one is not what is seems all the time also, because the big supermarkets have resorted to all sorts of tricks to drive down prices for Australan growers. Out of season importing is generally accepted to be benificial. The biggest problem that we see is that with some imported commodities the chemical residues are higher than allowable for Australian grown produce. While Australian produce is regularly and randomly checked, imported commodoties are often let through quarantine on the strength of supposodly QA assurances from the supplier. Asian prawns with unacceptably high antibiotic levels are a recent example.

I'm sure you're not seriously suggesting that all Australian produce is free of chemicals when it arrives in our supermarkets?
Re the prawns and other imported seafood, judging by volume of sales, I suspect most consumers buy on taste and cost and frankly don't give any thought to antibiotic levels and suchlike. As I understand the suggested risks in said antibiotic levels (and I could have misunderstood this) the concern relates to us as individuals consuming too many antibiotics and thus reducing the potential effectiveness of same when they are required to fight infection. My own view when buying Asian seafood - which I do all the time - is that this risk is probably minimal and I am just not going to spend my life worrying about what microscopic levels of various compounds may or may not be in various foods. I know this matters to a lot of people. I am simply not one of them.

Actually, some of our 'best' produce trade arguements has been with your old country, NZ about price and pests and diseases. :

The only genuine resistance I have heard on a scientific basis relates to the fireblight disease in apples which Australia says could be brought into Australia if we imported Kiwi apples. NZ, on the other hand, says this is not a risk and the reluctance of Oz is a convenient excuse for not furthering this trade. If you have ever eaten New Zealand apples, you'd realise that should they ever be imported into Australia in any decently consumable quantity, then that would be the end of the apple industry in Australia. Why? Because NZ apples are just so much better!!!

New Zealand is an exceptionally clean, green country with produce the envy of much of the rest of the world. Apart from the tropical fruit, I've yet to eat any fresh produce here that matches what is produced in NZ.

 

[Whiskers]

I'm sure you're not seriously suggesting that all Australian produce is free of chemicals when it arrives in our supermarkets?

No, not at all, Julia. In fact I made a comment on this forum somewhere a week or so ago about mancob residue still visible on some produce such as snow peas, mangoes and paw paw, but we do have a fairly good system of QA certification and testing as well as random testing, much better than in some other countries, although I think these resources and quarantine resources in this area have not been funded as well as they could be by state labour or fed coalition.

Re the prawns and other imported seafood, judging by volume of sales, I suspect most consumers buy on taste and cost and frankly don't give any thought to antibiotic levels and suchlike.

Quite right, because we expect everybody is doing the right thing. It is not until a problem like antibiotics or unheigenic handling and packing facilities for fruit and veg or lead paint substituted on toys and all manner of chemical concoctions in fabric etc, come to the fore, that we start to be a bit more concerned about imports.

The only genuine resistance I have heard on a scientific basis relates to the fireblight disease in apples which Australia says could be brought into Australia if we imported Kiwi apples. NZ, on the other hand, says this is not a risk and the reluctance of Oz is a convenient excuse for not furthering this trade.

Yes, thats about how it works. But there have been others over the years. Australian growers wanted to export tomatoes to NZ to compete with the more expensive NZ hothouse produced tomatoes. Zucchini is another one that I am familiar with that NZ banned occassionally.

If you have ever eaten New Zealand apples, you'd realise that should they ever be imported into Australia in any decently consumable quantity, then that would be the end of the apple industry in Australia. Why? Because NZ apples are just so much better!!!

I can't say that I have eaten NZ apples, so you've got me there.

New Zealand is an exceptionally clean, green country with produce the envy of much of the rest of the world.

No dispute there. Just as a matter of interest, is that a result of labor party policy or a common philosiphy of all NZ politicians?

Apart from the tropical fruit, I've yet to eat any fresh produce here that matches what is produced in NZ.

Here in Qld, what often happens is we send our best produce to export, 2nd best to Vic, NSW or SA, and woolworths and coles usually gets the third best because they don't pay well enough.

Sometimes the very best got highjacked by 5 star resorts, restaurants and the like who just want the best. Price is of little consequence.

The other thing that is not doing our horticultural industry any favours is the practice of woolworths and coles buying bulk in season at lower prices and storing for long periods and literally killing the goodness and flavour. Apples is a good case in point.

Labor has talked a bit about monitoring supermarket prices. Maybe, if they get elected, that inquiry will pick up on this practice, because it is easy for growers to label the pick and pack dates and include an industry acceptable useby date if necessary. In fact those that prepack produce (in serving or family size packs) already do just that.

Gotta go and tuck unto a nice mango I got from IGA yesterday for $2.95. The oroma of four sitting on the table is getting to me. By the way, I looked a some in woolworths for nearly $5. I might have paid it if they were good enough, but because I regularly find better deals at IGA I passed it up.

 

[Julia]

Yes, thats about how it works. But there have been others over the years. Australian growers wanted to export tomatoes to NZ to compete with the more expensive NZ hothouse produced tomatoes. Zucchini is another one that I am familiar with that NZ banned occassionally.

That surprises me because when I was living in NZ I was always able to buy Australian tomatoes when the local ones were out of season. Zucchini (known in NZ as courgettes) seemed to be available all year round so I imagine that must have been imported during the NZ winter which is far too cold to grow zucchini unless it was hot house grown.

I can't say that I have eaten NZ apples, so you've got me there.

It's probably enough to say that in NZ I ate heaps of apples - some varieties we just never see here - but now I just never buy them they are so awful.
I totally accept your point that the best of all our fruit here is exported, then the remainder cool stored until all the life has gone out of it.
There are some exceptions to this. We've had a great Qld strawberry season with fresh local strawberries being as cheap as 75c per 250g punnet.

No dispute there. Just as a matter of interest, is that a result of labor party policy or a common philosiphy of all NZ politicians?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, Whiskers. In saying that NZ is a clean, green country I was really just stating a fact. Do you mean do all sides of politics promote it as such? If so, then yes, without doubt.

Gotta go and tuck unto a nice mango I got from IGA yesterday for $2.95. The oroma of four sitting on the table is getting to me. By the way, I looked a some in woolworths for nearly $5. I might have paid it if they were good enough, but because I regularly find better deals at IGA I passed it up.

Hope you enjoyed it. Mangoes could almost make me believe there is a fruit God, especially the R2E2 variety.

 

[mishu]

Ninemsn's Passion Pulse, the largest election poll of the 2007 campaign, forecasts an electoral bloodbath for the Coalition, including a loss in Wentworth, the seat held by Malcolm Turnbull.

After surveying more than 50,000 voters, ninemsn can reveal that as many as 20 seats will swing to the Opposition, leaving the ALP with at least 81 seats in the Lower House.

Among those is Bennelong ”” the seat Mr Howard has held since 1974 ”” set to fall to Labor's star recruit Maxine McKew in a 6.9 percent swing.

More here including predicted swings in particular seats.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/minisite...=312287 §ionid=6046 §ionname=minisiteelection

The latest newspoll has Labor ahead 10 percent two party preferred.

I expect Labor to win. I don't think the party in power will make a significant difference to share market trading.

 

[Whiskers]

That surprises me because when I was living in NZ I was always able to buy Australian tomatoes when the local ones were out of season.

Hi Julia, I didn't phrase that very well. What I meant to say was when Qld tomato growers wanted to compete with the NZ hothouse season they met with stiff opposition, as one would expect, before a protocol was agreed.

But on the whole Aus and NZ have had better trade relations between each other than most countries.

 

[Rafa]

I expect Labor to win. I don't think the party in power will make a significant difference to share market trading.

given that both parties have very similar policies, it probably won't make much difference...

but i am expecting stronger leadership from the ALP rather than simple poll driven or populist policies... something which the howard govt has fallen into the trap of doing in the last few years...

whatever happened to politicians making real reform and willing to bear short term pain for long term gain...

things like deregulation of financial markets, floating of the currency, GST, etc. Its ironical, that the two 'BRAVE' policies by both parties that have really set us up for the long long term have been their ultimate undoing... i.e. Labors high interest rates which purged the Australian economy of fat (resulting in a painful recession, and subsequent independence of the RBA) and the Liberals IR Laws, which although going too far, are certainly a step in the right direction.

things i would like to see are:
genuine tax reform
genuine progress on the environment, esp renewable energy,
improved aboriginal health
improved transport infrastructure, esp moving freight off roads and onto rail!

The coalition certainly hasn't done much in the last few years, can labor do better.... maybe, maybe not... but I am happy to give them a chance.

 

[trinity]

'We'll just change it all'
Opposition frontbencher Peter Garrett has been accused of saying that Labor will change its policies if it wins government at this month's election.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/well-just-change-it-all/2007/11/02/1193619130682.html



I still don't know who to vote for ...

 

[sam76]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND4bjDqE45k

hahahaha check out the "election '07 rap" with bboy Johnny H v's gansta Kevin "Federline" Rudd

What's up my Diggas!?

Opposition in tha house!!

aiiight

 

[Rafa]

Oh dear... Garetts opened is big mouth...
hey Julia, do you prefer Garrett now...

here's garetts response to what trinity posted above... wonder if rudd steps in to sort it out... i guess its always a danger having someone with genuine passion in politics

OPPOSITION frontbencher Peter Garrett has fended off claims he told a journalist that Labor would change its policies if elected by saying the conversation was "short and jocular."

Sydney radio personality Steve Price told his audience today he had a conversation with Labor's federal environment spokesman at Melbourne Airport this morning.

Price said Mr Garrett told him that accusations against Labor that it had copied Coalition policies would not matter because, if Labor won the election, he said "we'll just change it all''.

After coming under fire in the media, Mr Garrett called a press conference in Melbourne this afternoon at which he continually repeated his stance that he had a casual conversation with Price.

When asked whether his second mistake in a week was distracting the opposition's campaign, he replied: "On the basis of a short jocular conversation in the airport with Steve Price, I'm very happy to say there will be changes.''

When asked whether Price had misunderstood the conversation, Mr Garrett replied: "This was a very short and casual conversation and what is clear is that things would be a lot better under a Labor government.''

He said changes would undoubtedly occur if Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd was elected.

"If Labor is elected to govern there will be big changes - in Work Choices, industrial relation legislation in climate change, immediate ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, in education, installing an education revolution.''

Mr Garrett was asked if he had chosen the right profession after a stellar rock music career.

"I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the path we are on is a positive and necessary one, and that includes being a member of parliament and and that includes talking to politicians that count for the people of Australia,'' he said.

"A short conversation at an airport lounge with a radio announcer which identifies quite positive changes for the people of Australia if a Rudd Labor government is elected doesn't strike me as being a gaffe.''

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22691972-12377,00.html

 

[Julia]

Oh dear... Garetts opened is big mouth...
hey Julia, do you prefer Garrett now...

here's garetts response to what trinity posted above... wonder if rudd steps in to sort it out... i guess its always a danger having someone with genuine passion in politics


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22691972-12377,00.html

Hi Rafa,

Somehow I seem not to have been clear with what I said about Garrett.
Today's effort on his part is a further example of just what I was talking about, i.e. when he does speak out he generally stuffs up. This is twice in one week. I shudder to think of him as the Minister in charge of anything at all. He lacks political savvy. Maybe he was OK as a rock star and maybe he was OK waxing lyrical about the environment, but as a politician frankly I think he's a failure. He's more of a liability to the Labor Party than an asset.

 

[Julia]

Does anyone know if the Labor Party has made any statement as to whether or not they will maintain the current Super rules? Specifically that all withdrawals will be tax free after age pension age?

There was a comment on Crikey.com today that someone within the Labor Party has suggested this will be changed if they get into office.

Given the amount of money flowing into Super, this is a really important point and we need to know.

 

[Rafa]

i think in turnbull and garett you as seeing the inexperience shining thru... politics is a cutthroat game, certainly no room for individual opinions.



haven't heard much about the super rules... be good to find out tho, it doesn't effect me much, but i know my parents have planned their super this year to take full advantage of it...


the only tweak i would consider to the super rules is a cap on taking out the lump sum tax free... i think this is a recipe for blowing it all up and falling back on the pension!

 

[weird]

Sounds like ALPs 'stated' policies is just spin to get elected ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/02/2080497.htm

"That's why an admission like this from Peter Garrett at this critical juncture of the election campaign suddenly explains it all. The Kevin Rudd me-too policy is a pretence."

Aussiestock forums is quite polite compared to others,

http://au.messages.yahoo.com/news/politics/102574?p=1

 

[Julia]

the only tweak i would consider to the super rules is a cap on taking out the lump sum tax free... i think this is a recipe for blowing it all up and falling back on the pension!

Yes, I'd agree with that too , Rafa.

 

[2020hindsight]

Well, if you put all the gaffes side by side, I think it's probably a dead heat between the Coalition and Labor - in the gaffes dept that is.

Some great quotes in this article by Helen Razor... (although written 2 Nov, it must have been before Garrett's gaffe - for mine that is obviously a jest, btw )

"Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares."

"Political debate is often reduced to competing claims about what to fear," says Furedi. I urge you to think about the power of that statement.

This campaign strives to nurture a menagerie of animal panics. Be afraid of Trade Unions. Be afraid of Global Warming. Interest Rates. Inexperience. Experience.

We have nothing to fear. But the intensification of fear itself.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2079655.htm

Joe Hockey might not be the best calibrated weapon in the coalition arsenal. He does tend, however, to be the sort of bloke that journalists adore.

He's quite adept at reckless talk. And, as you know, news outlets love nothing so much as a colossal gaffe.

Joe delivers.

Of course, the Minister hardly merits the cabinet prize for indiscretion this week. This honour, needless to impart, goes direct to Mr Abbott. Can we begin to even count Tony's peccadilloes? If giving Shadow Health Minister Roxon a free kick in the late debate did not amply soil his repute, he brought it on home with a dig at a dying man and a Mersey dash.

Oh. And then there was the hissed vulgarity.

Nice work, Tony. You'll be difficult to beat.

It is Hockey's unchecked silliness that still resounds in my ears, however. Late last week, the guy held forth with a statement that will be tricky to top in the "things we shouldn't say on the Hustings" awards.

Addressing a raft of reporters Hockey said from within his North Sydney electorate, "Our fear campaign is based on fact."

We can safely imagine reporters as benumbed by the cut-and-paste tedium of life on the campaign trail. In fact, a mate of mine, subject to editorial decree, is on the circuit this minute. "Please, somebody kill me, please" he implored by text just this morning.

So, in a wasteland of empty language and non-core conditional promises, you can imagine how juicy something like this would seem. Almost as good as a senior Minister uttering, "Bulls—t".

As much giddy fun as it is to watch Abbott swear, rather than spend, like a drunken sailor, Hockey's statement emerges as the more intriguing blunder. I guess it didn't form part of a hat-trick of chaotic abuse. It may not haunt him for the rest of his career. (Tony can almost certainly look forward to a lifetime of "You're late, Mr Bulls—t!") It's fascinating, nonetheless.

In an unwary moment, Joe Hockey actually admitted what many of us had suspected for years. Viz. that politicians are in the habit of trading in fear rather than promises.

In fact, there's a provocative documentary that addresses the mechanism of this new dread head-on. You might have seen the BBC series The Power of Nightmares. Film-maker Adam Curtis's oft quoted aphorism begins the series, "Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares."

There are those, like Curtis, who believe fear is painstakingly constructed by politicians. Carmen Lawrence writes along similar lines in her work Fear and Politics. Therein she offers, we are living, not for the first time, in an era of heightened collective fear, a fear which is being exploited and encouraged by our governments through the media".

I guess she'd know. Being, for the next five minutes, a politician.

A great many scholarly tomes have been devoted to this topic. A few years ago, I discovered the work of Frank Furedi. His work, The Politics of Fear, is an instructive rant against our cowardice. As an unwilling constituent in the coalition of the nervous, I found this book to be helpful. At the very least, I stopped having ludicrous, low-probability day-mares about being killed by a Muslim on a train.

"Political debate is often reduced to competing claims about what to fear," says Furedi. I urge you to think about the power of that statement.

The consequences for meaning and optimism in the public sphere are not looking good. From all sides of politics, reasons to fear the competition resound.

Many of us take it as routine these days: policy makers embroider and mask truth to bolster fear. We accept that meaning has become secondary to the efficient political gain leaders buy with the tender of fear.

This campaign strives to nurture a menagerie of animal panics. Be afraid of Trade Unions. Be afraid of Global Warming. Interest Rates. Inexperience. Experience.

Whatever you do, be afraid. And vote for the candidate you fear the least. What sort of pledge is this?

Hockey makes it plain. Fear, the thing that drains meaning from true debate, is now a legitimate tactic. We have nothing to fear. But the intensification of fear itself .