1
   

The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

 
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Oct, 2007 03:07 am
msolga wrote:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5719790,00.jpg



Classic. What really sucks about the whole scenario is, the battlers aren't the ones buying plasma tv's and five thousand dollar laptops, mobile dvd's and satnavs for their cars.

Jacking up the interest rates doesn't cool the economy for the rich, it just makes it twice as hard for the poor, pushing some to suicide, and placing their repossessed homes back into the banks hands, so some rich prick can pick them up cheap at auction.

The law is not for the poor. Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Oct, 2007 03:13 am
Who do you trust?

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/26/svOPED_wideweb__470x281,0.jpg
Illustration: John Spooner
0 Replies
 
bungie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Oct, 2007 01:42 pm
Desperate times call for desperate measures ...
Quote:
Needing a better buzz

Jason Koutsoukis
October 28, 2007

Derogatory and unconvincing ads are doing the Liberals more harm than good.

ONE thing John Howard might consider doing to win back support is to stop being so negative.

Take the anti-union advertisements, the basis of the Coalition's campaign so far. One word that sums them up is snide. The ads are derogatory in a nasty, insinuating manner. They are also unconvincing.

Labor's treasury spokesman, Wayne Swan, has never been a union official, yet we keep seeing mug shots of Swan stamped with the words "trade unionist".

What that really means is he's an ex-union member. So what?

Howard's Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, was a union member once. Not just a union member, Nelson was once national president of one of the biggest trade unions in the country, the Australian Medical Association.

And don't forget Nelson's 20-year association with the Labor Party before he changed sides to win Liberal preselection for Bradfield.

Labor strategists should dig up the television footage of Nelson in the 1993 election campaign screaming before a rowdy election rally that he had "never voted Liberal in my life".

Nelson later admitted that statement was a lie, but again, this pattern of behaviour doesn't seem to have affected his performance in government.

Another Labor bogey whose mug shot features in the anti-union ads is Julia Gillard. Her sin? She was once a trade union lawyer. The truth is she was a partner at Melbourne law firm Slater & Gordon. They act for a number of unions.

Does the fact that Gillard may have once acted for a union mean she is susceptible to a union plot to take over the Federal Government? It's such a tenuous connection that it undermines the credibility of the entire advertisement.

Then there was the ad featuring West Australian Joe McDonald, which went to air on Thursday.

It features great footage of McDonald ranting and raving and carrying on like an odious thug at a union meeting.

My first reaction when seeing the ad was to wonder what garbage bin McDonald had crawled out from. But how much influence does McDonald really have? In the nine years I've been covering politics in Canberra, I've never seen the bloke.

Is he an ALP member? Sure. But again, so what? If this was Labor's future Treasurer, then maybe they'd be on to something.

Compare the footage of Joe McDonald to the Liberals' 1996 campaign ad showing then foreign minister Gareth Evans dancing in slow motion at a Labor victory party. That ad worked because viewers could make the link between Gareth the party animal and a government that had lost touch with public opinion.

It's not as if the Liberals don't have influential friends whose character could be called into question. People like Visy boss Richard Pratt, one of the Liberal Party's biggest corporate donors and now a confessed price-fixing cheat.

What looks worse? Some goon over in Perth no one has ever heard of getting carried away at a union meeting with about 10 people watching? Or having as your biggest corporate donor one of the country's most famous businessmen who has just admitted to orchestrating a price-fixing scam that ripped off millions of ordinary consumers?

<SNIP>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/needing-a-better-buzz/2007/10/27/1192941398692.html
0 Replies
 
bungie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Oct, 2007 03:46 pm
Food for thought .......

Quote:
Circa 1787 ?
Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."

"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years"

"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;

2. From spiritual faith to great courage;

3. From courage to liberty;

4. From liberty to abundance;

5. From abundance to complacency;

6. From complacency to apathy;

7. From apathy to dependence;

8. From dependence back into bondage"
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Oct, 2007 12:56 am
Trying to catch up. <puff, pant, puff>:

vikorr wrote:
....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?


Well, the problem of disposing of (potentially deadly/long-lasting) waste, security/sabotage concerns, possibility of meltdown/safety issues/the "accidents" already on record (Chernobyl/Three Mile Island (& possibly of others we don't even know about/secrecy), dangers to populations near the sites, the potential use of by-products for radiological weapons, our acceptance of the nuclear industry here leading expansions elsewhere - potentially to less "safe" countries through the sale of Australian uranium ....
I'd much prefer that we tackled the problems caused by our excessive energy use & adapted to the limited resources we have available, including solar & wind ... & kept seriously working on finding cleaner, safer energy options. Easily said, I know, but if we had a really strong commitment from government & business & a willingness on the part of the population .... who knows what we could achieve? With strong leadership & a genuine commitment to find real solutions, I think we could start to get somewhere! We are going to have to change. That's not such a bad thing, surely?

Your only objection is the lack of water, vikorr?
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Oct, 2007 01:56 am
hingehead wrote:
The more I think about it the more I think Workchoices is bad for employers.

Effectively its aim is to move employees into the realm of 'inputs' like materials or subcontractors, where the organisation is free to stop paying for them when they don't need them. Which sounds good from a JIT perspective - but the overall effect will be to allow managers to be sloppier in recruiting, to throw staff at a problem without thinking about it's cause, or asking the 7 questions, because they can get rid of them when they realise they don't need them anymore (or that they never did).

In affect labour laws are a QA mechanism on employers - you don't employ someone unless:
-you need them for more than a short period
-they fit your org
-their skills fit your org
-you can train them to fit changing needs

Workchoices gives managers the chance to be slack in their employment practices (and vindictive). In effect workchoices will degrade the quality of management in Australia - and I guarantee that will effect productivity negatively.

Workchoices never addresses productivity - but productivity is the key to all labour reform. At least Kev's Education Revolution acknowledges productivity however glibly.


That makes a lot of sense, hinge. Interesting.
Makes me wonder how come there hasn't been much more published material from the "experts" about the impact of WorkChoice's on management & business. (Hang on, I think I might know why! :wink: )
I'd also like to see stats, discussion & analysis about aspects like business profit levels, before & after WorkChoices & lots more! And not just in the investment pages of the papers ..... Most of the discussions have just been limited to whether WorkChoices is "good" or "bad" for workers, employment levels, the unions, etc. We need a much more detailed picture.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Oct, 2007 02:23 am
Apparently this is meant to show "middle Australia" how tough Rudd can be, bungie! I've heard commentators claim it was a very "clever" tactical move!

Yeah?

McDonald is less than flattering about JH, so gets the chop from the ALP? Huh? Confused :


bungie wrote:
Looks like kev has been baited again ...


Quote:
Rudd expels firebrand unionist

Jewel Topsfield
October 27, 2007

MILITANT unionist Joe McDonald has been expelled from the Labor Party over his "incendiary" warning that the Prime Minister was "gone" and he would be back.

After being acquitted on Thursday of unlawfully entering a Perth building site, Mr McDonald yesterday said: "John's gone, you know that? I'll be back."

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd said the comments were "highly inflammatory, completely unacceptable and not part of the 21st century industrial relations system", and he asked the National Executive to expel the firebrand "forthwith".......

http://www.theage.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/rudd-expels-firebrand-unionist/2007/10/26/1192941340870.html
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Oct, 2007 02:41 am
Poor Steve Fielding (Family First) is crying foul because Labor & the Greens look like doing a preference deal. Is he kidding? He's been on a parliamentarian's salary since 2004, having gained only something like 1% (?) of the vote for the senate, courtesy of the the ALP's "clever" preference wheeling & dealing. You gotta feel sorry for him now. Unfair! Laughing

Go Greens! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Oct, 2007 07:54 am
Builder wrote:
msolga wrote:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5719790,00.jpg



Classic. What really sucks about the whole scenario is, the battlers aren't the ones buying plasma tv's and five thousand dollar laptops, mobile dvd's and satnavs for their cars.


I beg to disagree.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Oct, 2007 04:52 pm
Quote:
Your only objection is the lack of water, vikorr?


Not exactly. Water is simply a pre-requisite, of which there is little in this country.

I have similar concerns to yourself, though I would call them concerns, not necessarily objections.

Chernobyl & Three Mile Island are the only ones I know of. Nuclear power technology has come a ways since then, but there is always the possibility.

There is also security risks. Each power station would have to be protected by walls (not a crappy fence), and armed guards around the clock.

There is also the waste problem, though I should think a central facility in unpopulated parts of Australia wouldn't pose a huge risk.

And many other similar things to what you mentioned.

I'm, as you are, for the implementation of environmentally friendly power plants. If we could get all our power needs from Solar, Wind, Hydro (and in the future, perhaps tidal, and nuclear fusion), I would be more than happy.

Talking about environmentally friendly power, I noticed an article on an experiment they are doing in central Qld - they are pumping the CO2 back underground, with a net result of no emissions into the air. Apparently though this can only happen at certain geographic sites (don't know exactly why).
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2007 01:13 am
dadpad wrote:
Builder wrote:
msolga wrote:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5719790,00.jpg



Classic. What really sucks about the whole scenario is, the battlers aren't the ones buying plasma tv's and five thousand dollar laptops, mobile dvd's and satnavs for their cars.


I beg to disagree.


Recent findings suggest that "poor people" are resorting to credit more & more to pay for essentials like mortgage payments, bill payments, rent, etc ..... It seems that less than adequate wage levels are simply not stretching far enough for increasing numbers of low income workers & welfare recipients (not all in "working families" Rolling Eyes ). A couple more interest rate hikes could be crippling.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2007 01:25 am
How about JH & Kevin07 sending a bit of financial relief to the most desperate in our community while they're throwing billions around as election bribes? I mean, will aiding the poorest Australians send inflation through the ceiling, or blow out our balance of payments costs? A bit of compassion, a bit of integrity from our leaders, please!:

Our forgotten poor

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/28/rgoped_spooner_wideweb__470x376,2.jpg
Illustration: Spooner

Cath Smith and Anne Turley
October 29, 2007/the AGE

Minimal attention is given to the huge number of Australians struggling below the poverty line, write Cath Smith and Anne Turley.

0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2007 01:34 am
vikorr wrote:
...I'm, as you are, for the implementation of environmentally friendly power plants. If we could get all our power needs from Solar, Wind, Hydro (and in the future, perhaps tidal, and nuclear fusion), I would be more than happy.


Yes.
And if we were actually encouraged by our "leaders" to fully acknowledge the predicament we're in & begin to seriously work toward a more sustainable approach in future, that would be a HUGE step in the right direction!
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2007 01:41 am
Malcolm comes clean on Kyoto.:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5723275,00.jpg
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2007 01:43 am
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/28/29cartoon_gallery__470x283,0.jpg
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2007 01:47 am
...& while you're at it, Malcolm, tell us what you really think about that horrendous proposed pulp mill in Tasmania! What's left to lose at this stage? Go for it!:wink:
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2007 01:59 am
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/28/svCARTOON_OCT29_gallery__470x323.jpg

Nah, Janette, it's his past whoppers finally catching up with him! You shouldn't make such rash promises, John. (Even though they worked last time.) :wink:
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2007 02:06 am
Today's post from GetUp. What a great idea: an independent senate! No matter which party holds power after the election. Yes! Very Happy:

Dear friends,

For the first time in Australian history, three competing parties have come together in one political ad - under the GetUp banner - with an urgent plea to all Australians: Vote to end the Coalition's rubber stamp in the Senate!

Since the Coalition took absolute Senate control, they've made it a mere rubber stamp for their own policy. And if they retain control, they will have veto power over legislation on the issues that matter - from climate change to IR to Indigenous affairs.

Our recent polling shows that control of the Senate rests on a knife's edge - and with up to 2 million Australians yet to make up their mind how they will vote in the Senate, this ad can tip the balance. Can you donate $100, $50, or just $25 to get this ad on the air in the states where the balance of power will be decided?

www.getup.org.au/campaign/ThreePartyAd

This is not about GetUp taking sides, it's about a functioning house of review where no one party - whether Liberal or Labor - holds all the cards.

What's brought these leaders from the Greens, Labor and the Democrats together? Two years of frustration. Frustration that the Coalition has rejected 98% of other parties' amendments while passing literally 100% of their own. Frustration that ill-conceived legislation was passed on their watch without even the pretence of cross-party compromise.

The good news is that the Coalition holds its majority by just one seat. We're already running an intensive grassroots campaign in Canberra, South Australia and Vict oria, where our efforts can tip the balance of power in the Senate - now we need your help to broadcast this ad and campaign all the way to the election to ensure that no matter who wins, we get democracy back. Click here now to watch the ad:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/ThreePartyAd

One of the good things about not being a political party is you can break the rules and bring people together across party lines in really exciting ways - like creating an election ad starring three major parties.

They've never done this before because never before in Australia have 200,000 people come together across party lines as an independent political force for change. You've astounded the establishment before - most recently when over 4,000 of you donated over $250,000 for our Climate Cleverer ad. Let's get this ad on the air where it really matters.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Oct, 2007 05:00 am
Libs up 4 points, Labor down 4.
The way the Newspoll fellow described it on ABC radio this morning, prior to this, the situation was disastrous for the Libs, now it's just bad.:



Coalition halves Labor's lead
Dennis Shanahan, Political editor
October 30, 2007/the AUSTRALIAN


THE Government is back in the election hunt, with John Howard and the Coalition enjoying their strongest support since Kevin Rudd became Labor leader.

At the start of the third week of the six-week election campaign, Labor still holds a clear winning position but the Coalition and the Prime Minister have sliced away the ALP's crushing lead at the start of the campaign.

After trailing hopelessly in national polling for months, and with Mr Howard badly behind the Opposition Leader as the preferred prime minister, the Coalition is in its best overall position since December last year when Mr Rudd deposed Kim Beazley. ...<cont>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22670483-601,00.html
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Oct, 2007 05:15 am
Did any of you hear/watch the Costello/Swan debate today? I caught some of it on radio. After all the Liberal slagging of Swan, I fully expected him to disgrace himself, but not at all. He sounded quite relaxed (after he had relaxed!) & not the totally nincompoop we've been led to believe him to be. <phew> The worm obviously liked him, too, & declared him the winner, though most commentators declared the debate a dead heat. But the worm most definitely didn't approve of Costello or the Libs' IR policies - it took a nose-dive each time the subject of Costello as soon-to-be Lib leader came up. Ditto the IR laws. That worm is definitely not Liberal-friendly! Laughing
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 0.05 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 09:37:40