That is because the Abbott government doesn't have any economic policy's ......seriously.
That is because the Abbott government doesn't have any economic policy's ......seriously.
If he can't do better than that it beats me why he is considered so "influential".
Regardless of the actual numbers, he's still got more people listening than most other talk / opinion radio shows and that makes it significant. It might only be a relatively small share of the radio audience, but it's bigger once you consider that most radio stations are based on music or other entertainment rather than opinion on political matters.
Same concept with anything really. Regardless of the actual numbers, if you're bigger than everyone else or at least in the top tier within your sector of the market then that's significant.
Spot on smurph, that's why the SMH and the AGE has so much sway, they cover the Sydney, Melbourne masses.
Also the Australian is physically too big and cumbersome to read.
I think you'll find the Sydney "masses" read the daily telegraph.
The Abbott government is being urged to strip billions more from subsidies to wind farms in the final report of a Senate committee that has already pushed renewable *energy investment to favour solar.
In its recommendations, the committee says renewable energy subsidies for new wind farms should be limited to five years from more than 20.
It also wants the issue of renewable energy certificates restricted to projects in states that adopt federal regulations on infrasound and low frequency noise.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-...government-20150731-giozsj.html#ixzz3hVXrAl3N
..As a junior minister in the Howard government, for instance, she spent $140,000 of taxpayers' funds over four years from 1998 to 2001 on chartering aircraft.
That's over and above all the regular commercial flights and RAAF VIP flights she took. And it was seven times the sum spent by two equivalent Liberal ministers at the time, Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey..
Could this get any worse.
'We' must all tighten our belts our political masters tell us. More likely they mean 'you'. So they shouldn't hold their breath waiting for support on that GST thing.
All unions in the private sector space now provide a service to corporations. That service is the supply of a competitive advantage against other businesses. Yes, the main business of modern unionism is the provision of competition reduction or neutralisation across the Australian economy. It’s about providing advantage to some businesses over others. Favoured corporations pay unions, any union, for this service.
This happens in several forms. In construction, unions do deals with some top-tier firms that force subcontractors onto union industrial agreements. Unions harass the subcontractors suppressing their competitiveness. They organise price fixing. This limits subcontractors’ capacity to become competitors to the top-tier firms. Construction unions are paid handsomely for this by the top-tier corporates.
Shorten’s admissions to removing penalty rates for some cleaning companies but not others is another example. Shorten’s union was paid for this by the cleaning company. The giant transport company admitted to paying the Transport Workers Union for the TWU to harass Toll’s competitors. The examples are rolling out in the Royal Commission. Unions collude with some corporates to give those corporates competitive advantage. It’s the new union money stream.
For Abbott and the Coalition parties, there’s a dilemma. Corporations don’t necessarily like an open, free and competitive market. Corporations don’t necessarily find common cause with conservative, free-market political parties. Where then do Abbott and his team find partners in common cause?
The Dendrobium mine, located within the Metropolitan Special Areas west of Wollongong, won approval in February 2013 by the Department of Planning and Environment for five of 10 longwall extractions being proposed for Area 3B.
BHP did not submit a completed groundwater impact study until March 2014, some 13 months later, which gave it a tick of approval. WaterNSW, the catchment authority, said it did not receive that report until October 2014.
"The Area 3B approval demonstrates the problems of allowing mining companies to select, fund and reject consultants at will" said Dr Turner. "It also demonstrates the problem of mining companies being allowed to decide what material is made available to the government and what is not."
Cheers Syd, good observations.Politicans perks are a $500M a year extravagance.
It would be interesting to see how my items in the budget come out less.
But we're told there's no money for programs that actually generate a positive economic and social return.
No wonder we've got a third world economy propping up a first world lifestyle.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...restraint_and_defend_bishop_at_the_same_time/
The Government can’t preach restraint and defend Bishop at the same time
...The Government’s problem, though, is preaching economic restraint and responsible budgeting when at the same time it’s trying to defend Bishop’s expenses. You really cannot do both at the same time.
Both major parties have lost the plot and become far too extreme and niche focused so far as I'm concerned.
What amazes me about the current government is just how brazen they are. It's one thing to be a thief operating discreetly, it's another thing entirely to be doing it in plain view of everyone and seemingly getting away with it. Truly amazing.
Of the two major parties, I suspect that Labor is more capable of reinventing itself as a mainstream representative party and in due course will get there. They've got a lot of work to do, but I think they're more likely to achieve it than the Coalition, "LNP", or whatever they trying to call themselves this week (never heard the term "LNP" until recently and I've been paying attention to politics for quite a long time, it was always "Coalition" or "Liberal", so I take it as an attempt at re-branding. Maybe hoping to be confused with the ALP?).
Sorry to say it but Shorten is a populist opportunist too.
No argument there.
My comment about Labor possibly reinventing itself in due course should not be taken to mean "with the present leadership" as that's unlikely to be the case. But I do think the "mates in the unions" party has got a better chance of changing direction at some point than the "special mates in big business" party has.
I'm invoking The Castlesque refrain:
"You're Dreamin'"
And when Greg Miles, who had at the time been assistant secretary of the ministerial and parliamentary services division of the Department of Finance for eight years, gave evidence in the Slipper appeal hearing, the following exchange occurred (as recorded in the judgment);
“There is no definition of parliament business in the legislation, is there?”
Miles: “No there is not.”
“Or any other document?:
Miles: “No.”
“And it’s not defined in the senators and members handbook, is it?”
Miles: “No.”
“And it’s in fact left to members to determine whether or not they are travelling on parliamentary business, isn’t it?”
Miles: “That’s correct.”
“So essentially, members are required to self assess whether or not travel is on parliamentary business?”
Miles: “That’s correct.”
It's amazing how the politicians have left the barn door open so they can gain access to the trough so easily
http://www.theguardian.com/australi...nses-legitimate-a-when-the-politician-says-so
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?