Election 2010 August 21

[Moody]

I've really tried to avoid posting in this thread, but you got me skyring. I'd seen this in the paper earlier this week (note use of term "paper" when describing the courier mail - not "newspaper" ).



As a resident of the seat of Griffith, I was appalled at this behaviour. I certainly hope (but dont expext so) that those voters also in my electorate will factor this in. I certainly will be.

His BS excuse was to tell her to "line up like everyone else". What an arrogant ***** (my *s) to not even just say hello and shake hands quickly.


KR has done ZERO for the electorate of Griffith in the last term of government, and frankly, if he's busy trying to tie up all at the same time:

1. Griffith
2. Cabinet / foreign minister
3. NYC / Ban Kee Moon's advisory ("Climate change advisory - he hasnt done ANYTHING about climate change)



Which one do you think is going to get neglected if he "gets" all three.


:evil::evil::evil:

I'm not in the seat of Griffith (or even Queensland for that matter) so can't comment on his level of work in the electorate, but most people understand that as Opposition Leader and then Prime Minister his first duties were national. This is the drawback of having a political leader in your electorate, and unfortunately pork-barrelling gets jumped on by all and sundry so there are limited opportunities for buying favours.

And I also don't know the full circumstances of the non-meeting between Rudd and Docherty, but it sounds like it could have been a media stunt that Kevin wanted no part of.

''I just wanted to wish him well and to say sorry for what happened to him,'' - Yeah, sure you did Rebecca. You're sorry because if he was still the PM you would have been laying the mud on thicker than a 3.5 Pink Batt because the media were enjoying that game. Now with Julia in the job (due to your machinations as much as the Labour party's) you have to campaign on the issues at least some of the time. Tony's not so good at that, is he?

And I am still flabbergasted by the Kevin Rudd opinion polls. Hero to Zero to (wounded) Hero in the space of a year. Are people on drugs or do they get all their political information off coughters? To each their own, I suppose, but the upshot is a choice between Duller and Dumber. Thanks Australia!

 

[medhead]

I have seen some self-centred politicians in my life – indeed a sizeable ego is almost a requirement for the job – but the photograph showing ex-PM Kevin Rudd ignoring his Liberal opponent for the Federal seat of Griffith takes my breath away.

I can't put much faith into a picture like that, there is no context at all. We have no way of knowing that she didn't just clue up the photographer to snap the picture just as she stopped a that point. What happened after the photo was taken? Did he turn around. Why is she standing there like a shag on a rock just outside of the "I want to talk to you" zone?

To me it is a weird picture that isn't telling the full story. She is standing at a discret, non-intrusive distance. He is engaged in conversation, with who? If she wants to get a gig in the big game she needs to be a bit more pushy than standing back like a wet fish waiting to be acknowledged.

edit: just rea that it was published in th Courier Mail (despite also being on the SMH website). So typcial News Limited right wing bias comes into play as well.

 

[drron]

I can't put much faith into a picture like that, there is no context at all. We have no way of knowing that she didn't just clue up the photographer to snap the picture just as she stopped a that point. What happened after the photo was taken? Did he turn around. Why is she standing there like a shag on a rock just outside of the "I want to talk to you" zone?

To me it is a weird picture that isn't telling the full story. She is standing at a discret, non-intrusive distance. He is engaged in conversation, with who? If she wants to get a gig in the big game she needs to be a bit more pushy than standing back like a wet fish waiting to be acknowledged.

edit: just rea that it was published in th Courier Mail (despite also being on the SMH website). So typcial News Limited right wing bias comes into play as well.

And some would say this statement is typical of some one with a left wing bias.
personally i think Rupert is biased towards whoever shows him the money.
Julia has now lost all economic credibility announcing a Cash For Clunkers scheme.Just read about what happened when the scheme ended in LOTFAP.

 

[medhead]

And some would say this statement is typical of some one with a left wing bias.
personally i think Rupert is biased towards whoever shows him the money.
Julia has now lost all economic credibility announcing a Cash For Clunkers scheme.Just read about what happened when the scheme ended in LOTFAP.

Well we could also say the same, in reverse, about those declaring bias on the ABC. I'm would say that I'm biased towards presenting all sides of a story. I totally agree that rupert is baised to money, of course.

But if we take the experience of John Howard's government NEWS limited presented me stories that were unquestion rehashes of Liberal party policy, 95% of the time. Total blind unquestioning faith in the right of the government. You just need to read the letters pages in the Oz and some of the total right sided drivel that gets published.

On the other hand the ABC would question where questioning was warranted, and also sometimes when not warranted. Between the 2 sources I found a more balance view on ABC. But then this is a question of relativities.

Unfortunately, cash for clunkers is about the environment not the economy. That is what a lot of people don't seem to get - economic scarifices have to be made to better protect our environment. Again another balancing act and I certainly don't think the balance has been correct in any of the proposals seen to date.

 

[drron]

As an environmental policy Cash for Clunkers is very poor yield.Just swapping one car for another.
Again the US experience is that most who benefitted from cash for clunkers were high income families.Cash saved from fuel efficiency went to driving further.So economy loses,environment loses.
Simpler would be increasing fuel taxes.Sorry i forgot-the ALP principal of taxation is the more you tax an industry the more they produce.

 

[medhead]

As an environmental policy Cash for Clunkers is very poor yield.Just swapping one car for another.
Again the US experience is that most who benefitted from cash for clunkers were high income families.Cash saved from fuel efficiency went to driving further.So economy loses,environment loses.
Simpler would be increasing fuel taxes.Sorry i forgot-the ALP principal of taxation is the more you tax an industry the more they produce.

Sounds like cash for clunkers fits right in there in Liberal party policy. :shock:
What would really be best of the environment is if the true environmental cost was priced into all energy sources. Ohh but the Liberals, and big business went out of their way to block that didn't they. Totally agree that they should tax fuel more - lets start by removing the diesel fuel excise rebate. :shock:

What I'm really trying to say (poorly) is that cash for clunkers fits perfectly with the disjoint tax/environment system we have now. Neither party over the last 15 years has shown the will or backbone required to fix the mess. If cash for clunkers means more newer, safer fuel efficient cars on the road, I say good. If people drive more, to use the same amount of fuel as previously, so what? They might even drive more to do work and hence increase productivity by the use of the same resources.

I don't know. It made sense to me that shifting the tax burden on mining projects to apply when they were making money rather than to tax at the start when not making money, might result in more mines starting up. Most commentary I saw, Sky news, ABC, News limited seemed to agree that royalties were a bad tax in this regard.
But then I know nothing really.

 

[drron]

And of course since the Cash for Clunkers program has finished it is much harder in the US to find a cheap used car.So who bears the cost-low income families-glad you are happy with the program.
As to the mining tax-big problem-the providers of finance weren't going to take into account the rebates in the original proposal.So smaller projects were no more likely to get off the ground.The big winner would have been the Chinese government as it would have been much cheaper to buy up smaller companies.Of course then investment would have taken off but at benefit for Australia?

 

[medhead]

And of course since the Cash for Clunkers program has finished it is much harder in the US to find a cheap used car.So who bears the cost-low income families-glad you are happy with the program.
As to the mining tax-big problem-the providers of finance weren't going to take into account the rebates in the original proposal.So smaller projects were no more likely to get off the ground.The big winner would have been the Chinese government as it would have been much cheaper to buy up smaller companies.Of course then investment would have taken off but at benefit for Australia?

There are plenty of cheap newer cars available. (that is newer than 1995)
Is any mining really for the benefit of Australia? Sure lots of people have a job and get paid money. But is there a benefit for the country?
Really I shouldn't involve myslef in election discussion has I've had it will both major parties and see no point in the minors. I used to care, I used to follow things 3 years ago. Now meh!

 

[drron]

There are plenty of cheap newer cars available. (that is newer than 1995)
Is any mining really for the benefit of Australia? Sure lots of people have a job and get paid money. But is there a benefit for the country?
Really I shouldn't involve myslef in election discussion has I've had it will both major parties and see no point in the minors. I used to care, I used to follow things 3 years ago. Now meh!

Ah common ground.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Watching great debate with youngest princess tonight asked her " would you like to be PM? " " No I'd like to be a pilot " , "that's great you'd get to fly big jets " , " no I'd like to give out the dinners or else I'd like to work in the 1st Class Lounge at Sydney, that was nice "

 

[Keith009]

Suffering from a dire lack of election coverage here in SF (other than online news sources)... but no worries home in a week! I did manage to catch the Debate last night/this morning, though i can't say I remember much of it as it was preceded by a Sat night out.

 

[drron]

Suffering from a dire lack of election coverage here in SF (other than online news sources)... but no worries home in a week! I did manage to catch the Debate last night/this morning, though i can't say I remember much of it as it was preceded by a Sat night out.

Dont worry.There is a dire lack of an election campaign here.

 

[Keith009]

Dont worry.There is a dire lack of an election campaign here.

:mrgreen::mrgreen: So true - an election that's not framed by any defining issue! Nonetheless, there are several interesting factors that have converged to make this election a compelling one.

 

[drron]

:mrgreen::mrgreen: So true - an election that's not framed by any defining issue! Nonetheless, there are several interesting factors that have converged to make this election a compelling one.

Agreed.I am compelled to flee overseas and not even vote.:shock:

 

[oz_mark]

:mrgreen::mrgreen: So true - an election that's not framed by any defining issue! Nonetheless, there are several interesting factors that have converged to make this election a compelling one.

I cannot remember a more boring election campaign.

We have ended up in our representational democracy, a group of people that are highy attuned to what their constituents want. The downside is that there is no real leadership and vision on either side, as neither is able to grapple with the underlying issues our society faces.

They fear the media, and they fear making mistakes. They are driven by a worm, where any utterance that may push the squiggly line under 50% needs to remain unsaid.

 

[markis10]

This is the first election where each party member has been in the position they have not been before since 1996 (in terms of campaigning for an election as a member of the government or opposition), I think they are out of practice.

 

[hollydavid69]

I won't be voting for Gillard as if she can't manage a '' Building Education Revolution '' without cost blow outs how she can manage a budget / balance the books of the whole government without another budget blow out :shock:.

As for Tony what does he stand for, he spent the whole years of the Howard government believing in work choices & now he doesn't belive in it anymore. So Tony just what do you stand for :shock:.

So i'll be voting for the Greens, in the safe knowledge that won't form government & without a clue for what they stand for .

 

[Must...Fly!]

Abbott was largely cautious of work choices and thought it went too far.

Part of the liberal party ethos is to make it easier for small business in all ways, it was why the party was founded all those years ago.

As a liberal it makes sense Abbott would want more flexibility for small business, but he saw early on that work choices went too far to the right with industrial relations policy.

 

[medhead]

I won't be voting for Gillard as if she can't manage a '' Building Education Revolution '' without cost blow outs how she can manage a budget / balance the books of the whole government without another budget blow out :shock:.

As for Tony what does he stand for, he spent the whole years of the Howard government believing in work choices & now he doesn't belive in it anymore. So Tony just what do you stand for :shock:.

So i'll be voting for the Greens, in the safe knowledge that won't form government & without a clue for what they stand for .

It is pretty clear that State government education departments mismanaged the BER, based on all the reports of value for money that independent schools achieved.

As for voting greens. Just remember that whoever you put at number 2 is likely to get your vote. An informal vote is the only way to prevent either the alp or liberals ending up with your vote.

 

[medhead]

Abbott was largely cautious of work choices and thought it went too far.

Part of the liberal party ethos is to make it easier for small business in all ways, it was why the party was founded all those years ago.

As a liberal it makes sense Abbott would want more flexibility for small business, but he saw early on that work choices went too far to the right with industrial relations policy.

I'm not sure about Abbott was cautious about workchoices. The political commentators I've seen have uniformly said Abbott backed workchoices 100% in his last book. I haven't actually read his book but I'm prepared to accepted these reports from a couple of sources.