1
   

The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 05:12 pm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5715878,00.jpg
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 05:14 pm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5714096,00.jpg
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 05:22 pm
He said we weren't going nuclear, afterall, during the debate. So what's happened to those promised/threatened 25 nuclear power plants? I really want to know. (I recall he said he was happy to have one in his own backyard.):

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/23/cartoon2410_gallery__470x277,0.jpg
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 05:28 pm
I know seeing our taxes go down the gurgler like this is not at all funny, but ....... Laughing :

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/23/wbTOONtandberg2410_gallery__470x339,0.jpg
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 05:32 pm
The problem with Nuclear Power Plants is that they need to be sited near a reliable water supply.

As far as I know, there aren't 25 reliable water supplies in Australia.

The Burdekin Dam in North Qld. Any others?
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 05:46 pm
vikorr wrote:
The problem with Nuclear Power Plants is that they need to be sited near a reliable water supply.

As far as I know, there aren't 25 reliable water supplies in Australia.

The Burdekin Dam in North Qld. Any others?


I don't want them at all, vikorr. Nor do many other Australians. Most certainly not near to where they live! Which could be why the Libs are now down-playing the possibility. But JH seemed pretty damned serious about nuclear power before! It really worries me because I don't believe or trust him on this (& so many other issues). Imagine, the eastern coast of Oz dotted with nuclear power plants. Please NO!
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 06:00 pm
Hate to throw a bucket of cold water over you all, but I've been seriously wondering the same thing myself, for quite some time:

The Rudd identity
October 24, 2007
Ross Gittins/the AGE


http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/23/wbOPspooner_wideweb__470x387,0.jpg

Everyone hints or hopes that the Labor leader will become someone else if he wins. What if it's not true?.

I'VE just had a thought that will disturb the committed on both sides of the political fence: maybe with Kevin Rudd, what you see is what you get. We're so used to deception in politics that we expect to find it everywhere. But maybe the grand deception in this case is that there is none.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 07:29 pm
msolga wrote:


He may not know it, but he's busy turning himself into a younger Howard. The signs have been building for weeks, but they came to a head last Friday, when Labor announced its tax policy. .....<ont>


It's all about marketing, msolga. Howard had to take onboard several of Pauline Hanson's policies to hold onto the power seat, and now we see him cowtowing to the indigenous "problem", like it has only just popped up or something.

Electioneering is much like retail sales, in that the customer is always right.

That drama with Rudd being seen in a strip joint in the US seemed to pop up out of nowhere, and I wouldn't doubt that it was a fabrication from Rudd's PR team.

Politics has become even grubbier and nastier than it was in the Hawke/Keating era, so the liberals (how elastic has that word become?) took the baton, and raised the bar again.

Simply put, the divide between left and right on the political sphere has become so blurred, that the swinging voter usually makes their final decision on the actual day of voting, and both parties are aware of this.

Personally, I think the Rudd team would make a go of it, but Howard should be put back in to face the music over the next five interest rises.

His last-minute offer of $34B over the next five years, the reconciliation issue, the housing shortage for the poor, the destabilisation of the family unit through economic hardship due to to both parents having to work, will come back to bite him on the rump.

I'd prefer to watch him backpedalling until he gives up, a la Peter Beattie, rather than Rudd's team of noobs having to struggle with the mess left behind by the liberals.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 07:48 pm
Don't misunderstand, Builder. I desperately want to see the last of Howard & this government ... because of our involvement in Iraq, Tampa, children overboard, WorkChoices, David Hicks, The Wheat Board fiasco, Haneef, the appalling way asylum seekers have been treated, the "Pacific solution", the privatisation of health & education, the undermining of the public service, his overriding loyalty to Bush & co , the endless core & non-core promises, the dishonesty & lack of accountability .... etc, etc, etc ....


Should I go on? :wink:


It's just that I believe that the Rudd that we see is the Rudd we're going have to live with, that's all. Me, I'd prefer that to another term with Howard, any day! But my real preference would be for a more Labor leader. But maybe such a leader couldn't win an election in 2007, I don't really know. I just don't have any illusions, that's all .... Sigh.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 08:17 pm
msolga wrote:



Should I go on? :wink:



It would be handy to have a dozen Kerrie O'Brien's on the Rudd team, to continually throw all those issues you mentioned, and the rest of them, in the face of the liberals (still no word from the nats, I thought this was a coalition????), so the Rudd camp can get on with organising a convincing platform, rather than the reactionary crud they have to use to field the incessant crapola erupting from the Howard camp.

I understand the sighs, msolga. I've been letting a few go myself.

Perhaps the endless smoke-screening is part of the marketing ploy? Like drive everyone to distraction to the point where they don't want to be involved, and they withdraw until the whole sorry mess is over?

I wouldn't put it past them. Sad
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 12:32 am
Builder wrote:
Perhaps the endless smoke-screening is part of the marketing ploy? Like drive everyone to distraction to the point where they don't want to be involved, and they withdraw until the whole sorry mess is over?

I wouldn't put it past them. Sad


God knows if there's such a PLAN, Builder. But I wish it would all stop now & we could get this bloody election behind us & get on with the real needs of the country!

I am SO over this bloody stupid campaign!!!

AGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 12:35 am
Today's post from Crikey:

Dear Squatters,

So here we are on day 10 of the campaign that never ends. Never ends, but continues to find new ways to spend. Thus far John Howard has pledged $38.041 billion in various pre-poll blandishments. Kevin Rudd, fiscal conservative that he is, has so far come up with commitments worth $35.640 billion.

So let's see, two-party preferred spending running at a daily rate of about $3.68 billion ... 31 days left ... that's $114.2 billion by November 24. Which is just over a tenth of a trillion, or put another way, roughly one tenth of Peter Costello's estimate of the entire annual value of the economy.

Guys, are you sure we can afford this?


Nooooooooooooooooooo!

HELL NO!


<sob>
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 01:23 am
msolga wrote:
Builder wrote:
Perhaps the endless smoke-screening is part of the marketing ploy? Like drive everyone to distraction to the point where they don't want to be involved, and they withdraw until the whole sorry mess is over?

I wouldn't put it past them. Sad


God knows if there's such a PLAN, Builder. But I wish it would all stop now & we could get this bloody election behind us & get on with the real needs of the country!

I am SO over this bloody stupid campaign!!!

AGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!


See, it's working. (memo to marketing asking for more more )
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 01:25 am
Builder wrote:
msolga wrote:
Builder wrote:
Perhaps the endless smoke-screening is part of the marketing ploy? Like drive everyone to distraction to the point where they don't want to be involved, and they withdraw until the whole sorry mess is over?

I wouldn't put it past them. Sad


God knows if there's such a PLAN, Builder. But I wish it would all stop now & we could get this bloody election behind us & get on with the real needs of the country!

I am SO over this bloody stupid campaign!!!

AGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!


See, it's working. (memo to marketing asking for more more )


Perhaps not, Builder.

Some of us might be after revenge after being subjected to all this crap! Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 01:43 am
msolga wrote:


Perhaps not, Builder.

Some of us might be after revenge after being subjected to all this crap! Twisted Evil


A very feeble attempt at humour on my part, msolga.

My PC froze up during that reply. Don't know why. Perhaps little Johnny's henchmen are gunning me down. LOL.

Hang in there, and watch them like a hawk. Much shenannigins to follow for sure. The bastards only have to earn their keep for these few short weeks.

The rest of the time they can swan around the place doing as they please.

Make them earn their bucks. Cool
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 01:52 am
Builder wrote:
Hang in there, and watch them like a hawk. Much shenannigins to follow for sure. The bastards only have to earn their keep for these few short weeks.

The rest of the time they can swan around the place doing as they please.

Make them earn their bucks. Cool


Yep, let's keep them on their toes! :wink:

Me, I'm waiting for the Libs' desperate, last ditch appeal to the voters. Whatever it is, it will have to be BIG to have any impact at all.
They will not go down gracefully!
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 02:14 am
msolga wrote:
Builder wrote:
Hang in there, and watch them like a hawk. Much shenannigins to follow for sure. The bastards only have to earn their keep for these few short weeks.

The rest of the time they can swan around the place doing as they please.

Make them earn their bucks. Cool


Yep, let's keep them on their toes! :wink:

Me, I'm waiting for the Libs' desperate, last ditch appeal to the voters. Whatever it is, it will have to be BIG to have any impact at all.
They will not go down gracefully!


I sincerely hope they do go down, msolga.

A more self-centred bunch of pricks would be hard to find.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 02:17 am
Amen! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 02:36 am
msolga wrote:
Amen! Very Happy


Zeus would be proud.

:wink:
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 04:17 am
Quote:
I don't want them at all, vikorr. Nor do many other Australians. Most certainly not near to where they live! Which could be why the Libs are now down-playing the possibility. But JH seemed pretty damned serious about nuclear power before! It really worries me because I don't believe or trust him on this (& so many other issues). Imagine, the eastern coast of Oz dotted with nuclear power plants. Please NO!


I'm personally not that opposed to them, I just don't think they are all that feasible in Australia where water supply is limited.

Australia needs greenhouse friendly electricity, that is an absolute given (in my view).

Were we to introduce tax incentives for hybrid cars (something I would really, really like to see implemented) and greenhouse friendly manufacturing engines, then our need for electricity could soar.

We have limited Hydroelectric opportunities. We have limited wind opportunities (these aren't as easy as they seem, they need geographic locations with constant breeze), and huge opportunities for solar power (apparently it's one of the most expensive options though).

All sources of greenhouse friendly power, Nuclear power included(in my view), should be tabled as an alternative, though that is not necessarily to say that it should be adopted.

It is a shame in my view that we have to rely on fossil fuels for electricity.

Still, as I said at the beginning, I would think there are very few places in Australia with the water needed for a Nuclear Power Plant, so it doesnt seem feasible to me to have more than a few in Australia.

By the way Msgola, may I know what your objections are?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Beached As Bro - Discussion by dadpad
Oz election thread #3 - Rudd's Labour - Discussion by msolga
Australian music - Discussion by Wilso
Oz Election Thread #6 - Abbott's LNP - Discussion by hingehead
AUstralian Philosophers - Discussion by dadpad
Australia voting system - Discussion by fbaezer
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.26 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 01:28:02