The Election: Week One
You will have to forgive me for continuing to monitor the election from afar, but needs must. Our travel timetable has been set, for reasons which will hopefully become joyfully apparent sometime in November, by a calendar that takes little account of the electoral cycle.
Still abroad, I have not been reading the papers with quite the usual diligence, but the one story that appears to have caught the imagination of international news desks is the decision to shift the start time of the televised debate on Sunday night so that it does not clash with the mega-hit cooking show, Masterchef (clearly, the Labor Party, which has gone into the election with a healthy lead after ousting Kevin Rudd was keen for the debate to reach a limited audience). Now Australians can watch both.
Two very different Australias will be on show on Sunday night. Masterchef has been such a hit not only because it focuses on fabulous food - isn't the way to an Australian's heart through his or her stomach? It also deals in hopes and dreams, and is hugely aspirational. Rather than humiliate the young contestants, most of whom dream one day of opening up restaurants of their own, the judges nurture and inspire them. The emphasis is on nice.
You can read the last blog, The Australian Ugliness, for a take on how politics has gone through a particularly nasty and brutal phase. So let's not belabour the point. But it is worth asking whether Sunday's televised debate will offer many of the same ingredients on display in Masterchef: hope, dreams, inspiration and aspiration?
Please holler if I am wrong - and I know that you will - but Australian elections do not tend to deal much with "the vision thing". Sure, politicians outline policies for the future, but they tend not to trade in big ideas, overarching national narratives or high-blown rhetoric. The rhetoric is workmanlike. The promise of change usually comes with the disclaimer that it will be incremental and risk-free.
In Labor circles, Gough Whitlam's 'It's Time' campaign in 1972 is so storied because it was so exceptional. The campaign was launched at the Blacktown Civic Centre in Sydney with the kind of bold speechifying that would certainly be rare today:
"Men and Women of Australia! The decision we will make for our country on 2 December is a choice between the past and the future, between the habits and fears of the past, and the demands and opportunities of the future. There are moments in history when the whole fate and future of nations can be decided by a single decision. For Australia, this is such a time. It's time for a new team, a new program, a new drive for equality of opportunities: it's time to create new opportunities for Australians, time for a new vision of what we can achieve in this generation for our nation and the region in which we live. It's time for a new government - a Labor Government."
You can read the full speech here.
These days, Australian campaigns are more about tactics rather than visions (it's the same elsewhere, before you press the comment button). Indeed, the first few days felt like a tactical re-run of the 1997 campaign with the issue of WorkChoices, the Howard government's unpopular labour laws, brought front and centre. Knowing he was being hammered on the issue, Tony Abbott tried to convince voters that WorkChoices was not only "dead" and "buried" but "cremated," as well.
Then, later in the week, Julia Gillard followed up with another tactic, by trying to neutralise another issue which has troubled the Labor government: setting a price on carbon through the creation of an emissions trading scheme. She did so by
announcing the creation of a Citizens Assembly to reach community consensus on climate change policy, which has been slammed by Liberals and Greens alike as an act of political cowardice. It also produced a rare moment of unscripted drama when an environmental protester tried to shout down the prime minister as she delivered her speech.
The old maxim is that good policy makes for good politics. But from Julia Gillard's change of course on the Big Australia policy to the fumbled new asylum seeker policy, which ABC's Annabel Crabb deftly dubbed "The Non-Specific Solution", policy is politics.
I'll be watching on Sunday night, and I dare say many of you will be too. The Masterchef final or the leaders' televised debate. Which will be the more nourishing?
PS Having said the international news desks haven't yet been paying much attention, one of America's leading columnists, EJ Dionne of the Washington Post, has weighed in.
PPS Thanks, by the way, for the response to Animal Kingdom. Someone complained that the thread was going nowhere, when it had already gone somewhere really interesting. Not a huge number of comments, admittedly, but proof that less is sometimes more.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~56~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Nick:
You are forgiven, for your less than diligent duties on keeping up with Australian Politics and the tenor of the first week of the election.......
(d)
Complain about this comment
Very little is happening in this election: Labor and Liberal are simply trying to "please everybody" and "not make a mistake". Consequently nothing of any depth is being said.
Elections appear to revolve around getting the votes of those people who don't think (don't care?) about politics and so is a race to appeal to those who have half-thought through ideas and prejudices and who can be bought by a trinket or two thrown their way. Particularly if they are in one of the marginals that will decide the eventual outcome.
The issue of "boats" is an example of the level of discourse: despite the tabloid trumpeting the numbers of people arriving on boats is tiny in comparison to overall numbers, and the overwhelming majority of those who risk their lives in this way are eventually found to be indeed fleeing persecution. But don't let that get in the way of a scare campaign against the "other" - by both main parties. The Liberals will "stop the boats" (maybe Tony Abbott will run out and stop them with his bare hands) and Labor acknowledges the "deep concern" that those who are going to "exercise their birthright"(!!! They mean "vote") have about "boats". It's rubbish, pure and simple.
Complain about this comment
The Labor campaign might be subtitled: "Here, have a Super Clinic". They are being pledged for every marginal electorate. Even though they are a sham.
Complain about this comment
Congratulations on the 'hopefully become joyfully apparent sometime in November' event, Nick. Aptly, the election includes a population debate.
At least that's what is claimed. It has become enmeshed in a... congestion in the cities/poor infrastructure/immigration numbers/economic growth/asylum seekers/carbon tax/renewable energy/polluting cars and power stations/... debate
Plus Mark Latham bucketing the political process and Rudd circling like Banquo's ghost
Complain about this comment
Good to hear from you again Nick, I thought Greg might have been right and you had taken over the American desk :)
I too support Wollemi's, "Congratulations on the 'hopefully become joyfully apparent sometime in November' event, Nick. "
What set Gough's election apart from many was we were in a war that was illegal, that involved conscripting young Australian males against their will to fight it, and the fact that we youth of that time outnumbered the 'oldies' something like three or more to one.
While we Baby Bloomers remain the majority of the population, we will always sway the vote. Hence why the swings from one political party to another occurred as we went from outrageous teenagers, to maturing young adults, to aware middle aged apologists, and finally to our simply following our parents in their conservative nature.
Both parties have to feed to the conservative side of politics until we old fa.ts move on and the younger generations get a chance to over ride the 'oldies' we claim we'd never be :)
Complain about this comment
The Australian election must be amusing to the rest of the world (to the few that pay it attention) we got through the GFC part one untouched, our debt (to GDP) is under control, our effective unemployment almost unmeasurable, our growth solid and China still wants to buy everything we can dig up. You'd think we'd be capitalizing on this, dare I say it "moving forward". But political leadership these days seems more interested in not losing than winning.
And so both sides of politics seem set to play for a draw. Blocking every ball. This small target approach seems the way of the politics worldwide. Maybe "It's Time" for journalists to consider some bodyline, you may not get them out but it should get the crowd more interested.
Ps: I hope my bravery in using a cricket metaphor is appreciated given our team's most recent effort.
Complain about this comment
The Election: Week One.
Does "Week One" play on words, referring to "weak one", as in political strategy? If yes, this was a masterful play on words. Congratulations (if applicable)!
Frankly, I’m disappointed in JULIA Gillard's rejection of a Big Australia. What is her reasoning I wonder, except to oppose anything attached to Kevin Rudd.
For someone who is optimistic about Australia's big future, Gillard appears to be running on a platform of a small, smaller, smallest. If she is true to her word, I don’t like this policy. If she is not true to her word…well, you can finish this sentence better than I.
Gillard seems to think that THE END OF BIG AUSTRALIA is a monumental decision (or slogan). Personally, if I was Australian, I would not like the idea, far less the thought of actualization. Gillard's point-of-view seems to be aligned with city woes: traffic congestion, shortages of medical staff, unaffordable home prices, a host of other inadequate city services.
Poor Tony - his plan is to cut, cut, cut services.
Gillard said, after saying she did not believe in a BIG Australia: "I will focus on preserving the quality of life of our Australian sanctuary." Sancuary? Are Australians in need of sanctuary, isolation? Does this mean the troops in Afghanistan are coming home?
Gillard also mentioned that Australia faces water constraints, energy supply challenges, and many other city-sort of disserves that put the great Australian dream" at risk. What is the great Australian dream that can only be answered by a small Australia?
Gillard refered to "clean beaches and precious open spaces" and she would protect them. Wow, I’m really impressed with this foresight and planning ability (NOT).
Gillard affirmed she will stop Australia "from hurtling down the track towards a big population". Australia? Big popilation? Is Gillard confused with India or China? Australia has plenty of room; the population is simply compressed into the wrong areas, and if anything, thoughtful, compasionate planning should allow Immigration – lots of Immigrants – who can turn the not so pleasant areas into pockets of green and fertility (This is one thing the Immigrants to Israel have done exceedingly well.).
Immigration can be a solution as well as a problem, but it takes careful planning: federal-state coordination on issues such as transport, water, infrastructure…
Since I am Canadian, please indulge me: Canada grew quickly from 22M to its present 34M. The Canadian quality of life did not get torn asunder. Here is a Canadian lesson for Australia – PLANNING - Canada distributed its growth across a number of smaller to medium-sized cities.
Australia is a resource-rich nation of just 22M.
So Gillard wants a small Australia. What about compassion? What about the boat people? This closed-door Australian policy is not likely to foster strategic popularity...and there may come a time when Australia needs strategic allies.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the advice, Bluesberry, but you might want to check your facts before your next sermon - in the period that Canada grew from 22m to 34m, a 54% increase, Australia grew from 11m to 22m, a 100% increase.
Australia's current rate of increase is 2.1%, Canada's 1.24%
In this context, scaling down from "Big Australia" means dropping back towards Canada's rate of increase (although probably not that low), something I'm sure you approve of, since we can all learn from canada
Complain about this comment
Last night I listened and watched Ms. Gillard
Everything she was ummm promising us, our stabbed in the back ex Prime Minister Mr. Rudd, had promised us exactly the same things ( If that was written in a book, wouldn't she be sued for plagiarism ? " Mr. Rudd was executed like Caesar by his most trusted friend Brutus, plus others, was it really because he was going to tax the big mining companies ? I must admit I did not follow that very closely except to ask God not to let anymore people to lose their jobs.
Ms. Gillard said she was going to take 30% of G. S. T. from each state ( except one, which I think understands what is going to happen to the people in the states ) The 30% is to pay for extra Doctors, to help the Hospitals and to also help the nurses, but no one seems to ask " Are the local governments going to get back some of that 30% from the businesses or the workers ? If it is from the businesses, then there are going to be job loses, which will put more pressure on the Hospitals as the pensioners and unemployed cannot afford to pay to go and see a private Dr. unless they bulk bill and to find a vacancy with one of those is as rare as hens teeth. When I was a child and poor ( Like now ) The private Dr's were for the rich the hospitals were for the poor.
I also remember a couple of months ago how everyone praised Ms. Gillard about how she took the time to have her hair styled, other woman Politian's seemed as though they did not care, it was not known by us ordinary people that her partner was a hair stylist, the way she informed us was when asked a question about him " Yes he does my hair and he cooks a good dinner " When she realised how it may have sounded she added " We do talk about what I have been doing " I read a book in the 60's called the "Naked Unock" It passed the time until the kids came home from school, until I got to the part about ' Burning your bra ' As soon as I read that I stopped reading it, one; I could not afford to burn my bra, second; my breasts were for my children when they were babies to feed on, third and to me mm the best was for my big baby ( Hubby ) to admire them. Back to the important things, if my hubby, kids or anybody I love or call a close friend does something kind for me, I always give credit where credit is due, it seems as though when you do not believe in God you do not have to believe in anybody except yourself or give credit to anybody.
Now adays it does not take guts to say " I do not believe in God " Especially if you have an alternative motive concerning where you or should I say what country you are thinking of what going to next.
It does not take a lot of guts to say " I believe in God " because soldiers died and are still dying for me to have the right to say it. One last thing if this has not put you to sleep, Mr. Abbott a man with a lot of guts but also a real innocent, who is going against her, Mr. Abbott was on a show last night which was Wednesday, he got booed by the people in the audience watching a show called ' Hey Hey It's Saturday ' I am only saying anybody who can sit in a show saying it was Saturday when it was really Wednesday it just makes you wonder. But to hear the fantastic kylie Minouge ( Please forgive the spelling ) even made me not care if it was Wednesday or Saturday
Thank you
Arial
Complain about this comment
7 BluesBerry wrote: "Frankly, I’m disappointed in JULIA Gillard's rejection of a Big Australia. What is her reasoning I wonder, except to oppose anything attached to Kevin Rudd."
I'm surprised you haven't read the many posts in Nick's previous blogs, and there were many, concerning our fragile country.
Had you done so you would have seen that Australia, though a very large land mass with a very small population, doesn't have the infrastructure to take too many more people without taxes three to four times above what we are paying currently.
And you only have to look at how outraged the mining companies were when they were asked to pay their fair share to see how strong would be the opposition to such tax increases.
"Personally, if I was Australian, I would not like the idea....Gillard's point-of-view seems to be aligned with city woes: traffic congestion, shortages of medical staff, unaffordable home prices, a host of other inadequate city services. "
If you were an Australian, living in Australia, you would not be making such comments.
I recently flew to Sydney on business, and though I do this trip quite regularly, I don't always bother with a window seat, choosing instead to work on projects while flying. This time however, I took the liberty of enjoying my window seat, and I was totally shocked.
From my vantage point, and in comparison to the last time I viewed the sprawl below, with the exception of a few National Parks, the entire area from the Hawkesbury River to Kingsford Smith Airport, was packed with multi layered buildings. The place was past saturation. It was no wonder I had trouble getting a taxi at the airport. On travelling via train I was without a seat for most of the journey to Central Station, and then on my express train to the Blue Mountains area, I had to wait till past Parramatta before I got a seat, and even that was cramped.
On my many trips previously, I have never had such discomfort. Mind you, I was travelling at a different time this trip.
And that is just Sydney.
"Australia? Big popilation? Is Gillard confused with India or China? Australia has plenty of room; the population is simply compressed into the wrong areas, and if anything, thoughtful, compasionate planning should allow Immigration – lots of Immigrants – who can turn the not so pleasant areas into pockets of green and fertility (This is one thing the Immigrants to Israel have done exceedingly well.)."
I see, and so what rules would you envisage being used to force people living in our sparse and arid outer metropolitan areas?
Remember we must have percentages of areas growing enough carbon converters...trees...to sustain the current population as well as your perceived intake.
And what process would you use to get the money necessary to build the dams, electrical generation, roads, rail, power/communication infrastructure, etc BEFORE these migrants are moved to these desolate and isolated places?
"Immigration can be a solution as well as a problem, but it takes careful planning: federal-state coordination on issues such as transport, water, infrastructure…"
And the money? Not once have you put forward a suggestion of where the money will come from? Are you planning to turn the new migrants into slave labour, where they must build or perish?
As I have said in many of my previous posts, we have far too many 'foreigners' trying to tell us how to make our country sustainable, without the slightest hint of knowing the true, on the ground, facts of our nation.
Your suggestions is as naive as me, as an Aussie, never having been to Canada proper, suggesting that your country increase its population 100%, based on the fact that you have more water there than we would ever dream of having. All you'd have to do is simply convert the snow and start living underground.
Thankfully I have an awareness, and common sense, enough to realise that if this scenario were possible, the previous Canadian governments would have already planned such a concept.
I don't like to waste our precious oxygen by babbling out unnecessary co2. Might I suggest you conserve your usage of said precious commodity.
You can read all you like, but until you 'walk in the shoes' of your suggestions, you will simply be creating more unnecessary co2.
Complain about this comment
9 arial plato wrote: "Last night I listened and watched Ms. Gillard
Everything she was ummm promising us, our stabbed in the back ex Prime Minister Mr. Rudd, had promised us exactly the same things"
That's because they both belong to the same political party. They both offered what their party has determined will be policy for the current term, as they determined previously for the past term.
"Mr. Rudd was executed like Caesar by his most trusted friend Brutus, plus others,"
I'm not sure where you have been over the past few weeks, but that is not what happened to Rudd at all. The party's left faction, of which Julia is a member, refused to make a challenge for a change in leadership because they believed they would fail. The right faction, of which Rudd is a member, assumed the left faction were happy with Rudd.
Then it came to pass, within 24 hours of Rudd's removal, that the left and right power brokers realised they were both in favour of Rudd's dismissal.
A challenge was made, as is the standard democratic process, and ALL members of the Labor Government, not a few, not one, not a faction, but ALL members of the Labor government, voted in favour of Rudd's removed and Gillard's replacing him.
Of course the Liberal party and their supporters, both here and in other places, will try and make an issue to the contrary, but facts are facts. Not that I'm saying you are a Liberal supporter.
You sound more like a follower of Today Tonight, A Current Affair, or Sixty Minutes, all of which have a preference to the sensational, rather than to the facts.
The rest of this post I'll let others have a pick over...Oh and Hey, Hey it's Saturday will be returning to Saturdays in the next series...not that they need to be advertised one way or the other, they seem to grab the headlines when they need to.
And according to media reports, the booing of Abbott as he entered was a staged event, intending to create a banter with Red Simons.
Had the booing been genuine, there would have been a noticeable coolness in the audiences reaction over the entire Red Faces segment. There wasn't.
Complain about this comment
Looking at this issue of MasterChef vs the election debate, I suspect MasterChef has had a bigger and more positive impact on the nation's well being, the environment and the farming sector (by encouraging people to eat local, fresh produce) than any politician or government in the last decade. No wonder we'd rather watch that than pollies huffing and puffing on TV.
Complain about this comment
12 matakera wrote: "No wonder we'd rather watch that than pollies huffing and puffing on TV."
Or is it a case of priorities?
We have a community that is ignorant when it comes to our political system, especially who we actually vote for in an election, while the majority of our citizens have a serious eating/obesity problem.
If we were to take less notice of what our media feeds us, when it comes to both food and politics, we would have a much healthier nation.
Complain about this comment
I'm a politically engaged person yet also a sport lover so a race to the bottom does not really inspire me. I also love to cook but the over-dramatised Masterchef is not enticing either. Conclusion - quite comfortably neither for me.
Complain about this comment
Well I have just watched the debate between Abbott and Gillard and I thought is was rather a bland affair. Too controlled, too limited.
But what I was concerned with was the worm on Channel 9 and whatever Channel 7 called their equivalent.
We were told that the blue line represented the vote of the selected males and the red was the vote of the selected females.
I think somehow a mistake was made, and instead the blue represented Lib Nat voters and the red represented Labor.
There is no doubt in my mind that this will be an election determined by the yobbos, the Neanderthals and the mentally challenged.
Therefore Tony Abbott looks certain to gain a high percentage of votes.
Boy I hope I'm wrong.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
16 PeterD: Ha ha I have a fan.
Well PeterD of Canada, there is no limitations as to how many posts are put at this site that I am aware of.
This means you can out do me two to one.
You can best do this by narrowing down your extraordinarily long posts of old, into smaller, more audience grabbing ones.
Now as to my polluting other blogs, that has to be coming from a state of strong dislike that you seem to have towards me that is, to say the least, extremely unhealthy to the point of being dangerous.
This kind of state is usually defined by insulting, aggressive and in some cases threatening phrases against another, with absolutely no logical reasoning as to why this first person, me in this instance, has upset the other, that is you, other than to state a point of view at difference to yours.
Technically someone at the BBC should have removed it, but alas, the phantom complaints button pusher seems to have gone to sleep, again, and so you get to have at least one more post passed, that shouldn't have.
This also applies to the mean spirited comment. How can you possibly know anything about my spiritual intentions? Are you allowing me a right to ascertain your spiritual status, as you have mine?
And where precisely have I stated that I represent the Australian people.
Have I ever stated that your posts are representative of all Canadians, or that you have made such a claim? No, I only write to the matter at hand, not to the writer's personal as such.
And as to your claim that I have contaminated "so much blog space"...its called freedom of speech which all democracies strongly encourage. I thought Canada was a democracy? Has you conservative government clamped down your freedom of speech to the extent where we can't speak our minds?
"Where are the rules to get rid of such conduct?"
There aren't any, which I assume means you either live with it, or you leave.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
My post at 19 that was removed, with the words used by PeterD 18 removed.
No one can know another person simply on what they write anonymously in a public blog. You have no idea who I am, or if I am one or multiple persons posting under the same name.
You have every right to post your opinions on a matter, however there is not much point in posting insults and strong dislikes on another's works simply because you perceive them, from a small percentage of their writings, to be some one you claim you strongly dislike.
If this gets printed, I'd like to know why the first one was removed, and why the offensive words, first posted by PeterD, were permitted to be printed?
What is going on at the BBC????
Complain about this comment
To the BBC monitors:
In reference to my post at 20 I see that one of the posts I referred to of PeterD has been removed and at time of writing, the second one is being referred for further consideration.
As I stated in 20, why was my post removed first when it simply contained parts of PeterD's words, which has now been removed.
Why wasn't the original insulting post by PeterD removed first.
In fact why aren't any insulting or offensive posts removed first, as mine was?
It puts us writers in a very precarious position when we quote from posts, assuming they have past judgement by the BBC, only to have them removed and possibly a blotch notched against us that could well cause us to be banned or have our account blocked, while the original offender, unless reported, has his or her post stay.
In knocking back my complaints in previous times, you have suggested I reply to posters here in the discussion.
Then when I have done so, I have had such remarks removed.
So it gives me no pleasure, under the circumstances, to report to you any and every post that appears to be aimed at me and which breaks house rules, as opposed to me replying to them, as I did in 17 and 19.
Much as this will frustrate you and me, I find under your very vague house rules, that there is no other option open to me.
I don't mean this offensively, or provocatively but simply as an exhausted correspondent that has tried his best to keep all concerned happy...and yet I still seemed to have failed.
Complain about this comment
13 11pete11
"We have a community that is ignorant when it comes to our political system, especially who we actually vote for in an election, while the majority of our citizens have a serious eating/obesity problem."
15 11pete11
"There is no doubt in my mind that this will be an election determined by the yobbos, the Neanderthals and the mentally challenged."
17 11pete11
"Now as to my polluting other blogs, that has to be coming from a state of strong dislike that you seem to have towards me"
I dislike the comments in 13 and 15 and much of he other stuff you post. However, I'm relieved because I believe that you represent yourself and not the vast majority of decent Australians.
The content of your posts describes you better than I or anyone else can.
Complain about this comment
22 PeterD wrote: "I'm relieved because I believe that you represent yourself and not the vast majority of decent Australians."
And I too am relieved that you don't represent the vast majority of bloggers that come to this place.
"The content of your posts describes you better than I or anyone else can."
And I take that as a compliment.
Complain about this comment
23 11pete11
Thank you.I'll happily side with the vast majority of decent Australians than the vast majority of bloggers that come to this place or any other place for that matter.
Having said that, I also believe that you do not represent the vast majority of bloggers that come to this place.
Complain about this comment
Nick Bryant's point is that Australian elections are boring with the exception of of Whitlam's "It's Time" campaign. Unfortunately, that campaign and the subsequent election win proved to be the high point of the Whitlam government due to the presence of some extremely incompetent and controversial ministers. Certainly, both Gillard and Abbot seem to be saying as little as possible. Abbot seems to be following Howard's 1996 strategy of giving the government as little room as possible room to attack him. This was appropriate in 1996 when they could let Prime Minister Keating's sharp tongue get the better of him and suggest an air of arrogance and which ultimately lost him the election. However, todays contestants seem too clever by half. Gillard is fumbling in trying to fix and delay controversial aspects of Rudd's legacy (the mining tax, boat people, carbon policy). Abbot is trying to avoid saying that he will reintroduce 'Work Choices' or a variant thereof and has a bit of a reputation as a foot-in-mouth politician that he is assiduously avoiding in the election. I'm sure political campaigns tried to avoid clashes with sporting events in the past - but Masterchef? The bigger picture is that Labor has been moving into the centre ground of politics ever since the Whitlam disaster (think Connor, Cairns, Murphy) and this has made election campaigns steadily more boring since the early eighties.
Complain about this comment
The main aspect of this election seems to be that of caution. No big spending announcements, and what is being announced is well within the budget capacity of the next three years.
I think the world recovery from the GFC is anything but over, and I think both Abbott and Gillard are fully aware that if either wins the election, that they will need to proceed with extreme caution.
The problem they face this election, as was clear when the ABC interviewed a group of people for their opinion on the Debate at Penrith, is people's expectations.
The comments from those at the Penrith RSL was not the opinion of those that believed we were in a financial crisis world wide. There was the continued self serving requests for moneys to be spent in their particular area of interest.
In fact of the many comments I have heard since the announcement of the election, very few are thinking of the overall needs of Australia, but rather those needs of the individual.
I guess that comes from the fact that most Aussies have not been touched by the GFC, and lets hope it stays that way. It takes a smart government to keep the economy in tight financial control, with an achievable debt repayment, while still financing those projects which continue to promote business growth.
Complain about this comment
The thing that struck me most about last nights debate was the size of Julia Gillard's earlobes! I couldn't take my eyes off them, and as a result I can barely remember a word that was said!
Complain about this comment
When in doubt about a 2 horse race in Australia, ask a bookie.
Labor - buck fifty favourites.
The worm can do what it likes, the boats can come or go as they please, but when Joe Punter has his kids school fees on an election outcome - who will he vote for? The guys he's bet on on the other mob?
Complain about this comment
26. At 00:41am on 26 Jul 2010, 11pete11 wrote:
It takes a smart government to keep the economy in tight financial control, with an achievable debt repayment, while still financing those projects which continue to promote business growth.
It's a terrible shame Australia doesn't have that at present.
Complain about this comment
29 AndyPass wrote: "It's a terrible shame Australia doesn't have that at present."
Hmm, unemployment low, interest rates low, business growth in the black and not in the red, little to no industrial unrest, Aussie dollar healthy, general business projections for Australia very good, record exploration of gas and minerals, along with exports of same...I would say we certainly have a very healthy economy at present, considering how the rest of the world managed during the financial crisis.
Complain about this comment
30. At 01:56am on 26 Jul 2010, 11pete11 wrote:
29 AndyPass wrote: "It's a terrible shame Australia doesn't have that at present."
Hmm, unemployment low, interest rates low, business growth in the black and not in the red, little to no industrial unrest, Aussie dollar healthy, general business projections for Australia very good, record exploration of gas and minerals, along with exports of same...I would say we certainly have a very healthy economy at present, considering how the rest of the world managed during the financial crisis.
I agree 100% Pete and I'm delighted that Australia has sailed through the GFC unscathed.
However, very few of these achievements can be attributed to the policies of the current Government. The only one in your list as far as I can see that is different from 2007 is low interest rates, and that was as a result of the GFC.
I think Rudd & Gillard's Governments could have targeted the stimulus far better and achieved a more lasting legacy for all Australians than throwing untargeted $900 payments at the electorate (and other payments for those with children), the pink batt fiasco (a good idea poorly executed), and the school halls debacle.
I'd prefer more value for my tax dollars.
Complain about this comment
31 AndyPass wrote: "However, very few of these achievements can be attributed to the policies of the current Government."
I guess there is an argument both ways here. You are correct that had there not been such a surplus after Howard's Government, there wouldn't have been the money to deliver the stimulus package.
However there is the counter argument that had Howard actually managed the economy better, by building infrastructure, improving coal port terminals, expanding rail lines to those ports etc, and not saved for saving sake, could well have doubled our exports, not only under his Governments reign, but also over the past three years.
It could be further argued that had such expansion been done in the areas of infrastructure, particularly in the support of decentralisation/forward planning of our cities etc, we would be in a better position to absorb more migrants, justified migrants, looking to build and support our country.
"I think Rudd & Gillard's Governments could have targeted the stimulus far better... "
I fully agree with you on this statement, with the exception of the Gillard addition.
We don't know what Gillard, Tanner or Swan said to Rudd in relation to this package, but from what is slowly leaking out concerning Rudd's method of government, it is highly likely that they had little to no say in how Rudd did business....and hence why he was toppled.
Complain about this comment
30 11pete11
"...interest rates low..."
Incorrect. Australia's interest rates are the third highest out of the 32 OECD countries. Only Icleand and Turkey have higher rates.
Complain about this comment
Nick Bryant,
I have to agree that lately Australian politicians have avoided the mentioning the 'vision thing',particularly the 'nation-building' ideology that both Labor and Liberal once accepted as integral to national politics. The domination of neo-liberal economics undermined the idea of the government as a participant in the process of national development,it was replaced by the delusion that was needed was that the government set the parameters and the magical hand of "The Market" would lead us all to economic prosperity.The abrogation of governmental responsiblity suited even the progressive side of politics,or so it seemed at the time.
So,instead of a national consensus on developmental goals, in other words a 'Vision', our elected representatives (1)avoid compelling issues (Climate change)-who wants to be the first penguin in the water? and (2) focus on a relatively minor issue such as the trickle of refugees arriving by boat.
'Vision' is a product of progressive politics and Oz doesn't have a major progressive party any more.
Complain about this comment
33 PeterD wrote: "Incorrect. Australia's interest rates are the third highest out of the 32 OECD countries. Only Icleand and Turkey have higher rates."
I think most readers, including AndyPass, understood that I was talking about interest rates from an Australian perspective, and relating to interest rates under the Lib Nats compared to under Labor.
And I assume this is what was understood by Andy when he says "The only one in your list as far as I can see that is different from 2007 is low interest rates, and that was as a result of the GFC."
Compared to the world, yes our interest rates are definitely higher, because as our Reserve Bank has said, we need to control our fast growing economy.
Complain about this comment
34 Treaclebeak: Yes you make some excellent points re the neo-liberal economics.
However, I'm wondering just how much of the cautious nature on the part of both parties is more to do with what they may know or suspect concerning the effects over the next three years of what some are suggesting could be a double dip recession. What are you thoughts?
Complain about this comment
26 11pete11
“The problem they face this election, as was clear when the ABC interviewed a group of people for their opinion on the Debate at Penrith, is people's expectations.
The comments from those at the Penrith RSL was not the opinion of those that believed we were in a financial crisis world wide. There was the continued self serving requests for moneys to be spent in their particular area of interest.
In fact of the many comments I have heard since the announcement of the election, very few are thinking of the overall needs of Australia, but rather those needs of the individual.”
This should not have come as a great revelation to you since you consider so many of your fellow citizens as being yobbos, neanderthals, mentally challenged and having serious eating/obesity problems. (13 and 15)
Complain about this comment
37 PeterD wrote: "This should not have come as a great revelation to you ..."
It doesn't, nor did I say it did. Why did you assume it was a revelation unless you are trying to bait me into breaking house rules?
"....since you consider so many of your fellow citizens as being yobbos, neanderthals, mentally challenged and having serious eating/obesity problems. (13 and 15)"
Aren't I confirming my earlier statement?
Aren't I now continuing to affirm that statement?
Do you have anything to add to the contrary; interviews where the overwhelming number of those interviewed were speaking to the country's needs and not to personal ones, as I claim?
Or, as I expect, aren't you simply trying to bait me to create argument and have my posts removed for breaking hose rules?
Complain about this comment
38 11pete11
Since you have posted 16 out of the 38 submissions on this thread (42%), I believe it’s important to remind everyone of the labels you see fit to apply to your fellow citizens. And these of course are in addition to some of your previous gems such as: ‘REAL Australians’ and ‘Paper Australians’.
You have complete freedom as to what you submit. If you apply offensive labels, don’t whine when you are called to account. If you break house rules then you alone are responsible for that.
Complain about this comment
11. 11Pete11 Wrote
"Mr. Rudd was executed like Caesar by his most trusted friend Brutus, plus others,"
I'm not sure where you have been over the past few weeks, but that is not what happened to Rudd at all. The party's left faction, of which Julia is a member, refused to make a challenge for a change in leadership because they believed they would fail. The right faction, of which Rudd is a member, assumed the left faction were happy with Rudd...
--------------------------------
This is labour spin..The truth is the govt panicked because the polls where going against them and an election was looming. To say the left refused to challenge is a joke. This faction, due to panic and pressure from union influences started the process of gathering numbers (behind the PM's back).
Rudd made a deal with Gillard that if numbers fell against him closer to the election he would stand aside.Gillard agreed to this. An honourable thing to do from Rudds perspective.
However on the news given to Gillard by the left that they had canvassed
a majority of numbers,Gillard renaged on the deal and made the challenge.
A dishonourable thing to do,a dirty knife in Rudds back to further her own power ambitions and to satisfy the union controllers of this hopeless government who fear an election loss. Heres hoping.
However on the left informing Gillard they had canvassed the numbers
Complain about this comment
39 PeterD wrote: "I believe it’s important to remind everyone of the labels you see fit to apply to your fellow citizens. "
So in other words you are doing your civil duty to the blind and incompetent of this site, that can't read or understand what I say? And you claim I'm insulting to the readers?
It should be obvious to anyone that reads my posts in Nick's blogs that I speak for my own opinion, I speak as I see it, and I totally support those that constructively criticise me, as was the case with Wollemi and the Ned Kelly opinion differences, or Greg and the population disagreements we have had.
It is those that attack, criticise and bait, and who end up with a serious number of their posts being removed that I suggest the reader should take a long serious look at.
As to my number of posts being only 38%...I guess I'll have to try harder and get it up to at least 50%.
"If you apply offensive labels, don’t whine when you are called to account."
If I apply offensive labels, then those posts would be removed, and obviously no one would know their contents, other than possibly the person reading and removing them.
If you consider 'paper Australians' and 'real Australians' offensive, why didn't you report them to the monitor? Why didn't others report me to the monitor for the same complaint?
And if they were reported, why were they allowed to be used?
In context, they are valid forms of differentiation to the subject at hand, and were never intended to be offensive. If they were taken offensively, then again they should have been reported, and subsequently removed. They weren't, therefore they aren't...offensive.
"If you break house rules then you alone are responsible for that."
Well isn't this the pot calling the kettle multi shades of black.
As you are pretty good with percentages, what are the percentage of your posts that have been removed for breaking house rules, just in this blog alone?
Now I'm sorry, but to continue bantering in this thread could have both our posts removed for being off topic, so I'll go back to working at getting up my percentage score. Feel free to beat me in these percentage stakes if you so desire, but posts removed are not counted. :)
Complain about this comment
40 Emps wrote: "The truth is the govt panicked because the polls where going against them and an election was looming."
I'd say you were pretty right here. Labor knew they had little to no chance of winning an election under Rudd.
"To say the left refused to challenge is a joke. This faction, due to panic and pressure from union influences started the process of gathering numbers (behind the PM's back)."
Well no, you are incorrect. The three power brokers said to have started the ball rolling were from the right faction of the Labor party, not from the left.
"Rudd made a deal with Gillard that if numbers fell against him closer to the election he would stand aside.Gillard agreed to this. An honourable thing to do from Rudds perspective." etc...
This has come from a question asked o Julia Gillard by Laurie Oakes. It has been neither confirmed nor denied by any Labor person, and no other media outlet has been able to confirm or deny it. Even Laurie has taken it no further.
If there was any meat in this story, do you think the media would let it lie?
As I said in the previous blog, it is a myth till otherwise proven, and I doubt we'll ever hear what really happened till well after this election, if at all.
Complain about this comment
Firstly to Nick Bryant, congratulations on the good news.
And, good to know you will be creating more interesting blogs.
Regarding the 1972 "It's Time" campaign, yes times were different then...not just the Vietnam War but a feeling that after 23 years of Liberal/Coalition rule, it WAS time.
As well, after 10 years of Arthur Calwell, and the DLP effectively keeping Labor out of power for 15 years, a new mood was in the air.
The game-changing "It's Time" campaign and "anthem" was a winner, however, interestingly Menzies had used the slogan "It's time for a Change" successfully in 1949.
One thing that keeps amusing me is the "Knife in the Back" take on Rudd's dismissal by "faction members" to which many posters refer.
It's happened before of course when Liberal Prime Minister Gorton lost a no confidence motion in "the Liberal Caucus" in 1971...the reason, "unpopularity".
The reason for that unpopularity?...in the 1969 election, now with Whitlam as leader, Labor gained an 18 seat swing, the best performance by Labor since losing government in 1949.
In the 1970 half-Senate election, for the first time the Liberal vote fell below 40%...in 1971 Gorton was dumped in favour of McMahon.
For the full story, try this link...usual comments regarding Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gough_Whitlam
Regarding the Leaders Debate, I feel Abbott did better than expected however IMHO he is not a "leader" the way Gillard is a leader.
She has the conviction and the passion, while he is a mouthpiece for his party.
Complain about this comment
41 11pete11
Disagree. As far as I'm concerned if a post is assigned a number it's counted. As of now you're at 42.85% :)
BTW. You haven't mentioned your cat for a while. How's he/she holding up these days?
Complain about this comment
44 PeterD wrote: "Disagree. As far as I'm concerned if a post is assigned a number it's counted. As of now you're at 42.85% :):
Oh great. Only around 7% to go. Wonder what prize the BBC will give me. Hmmm on second thought I'd better not ask :)
"BTW. You haven't mentioned your cat for a while. How's he/she holding up these days?"
The poor old dear. Hard to know the difference between her and her fur balls these days....don't dare try giving her a trim for fear it's not her, ...I must say, she hasn't moved much over the past month, and I haven't had to top up her food tray for awhile...
Complain about this comment
43 Greg Warner wrote: "Firstly to Nick Bryant, congratulations on the good news.
And, good to know you will be creating more interesting blogs."
Hey mate, good to see you. So pssss what do you know that we don't concerning Nick's and his 'creating more interesting blogs'...promise I won't tell anyone else. :)
Complain about this comment
while we're on numbers.. it's an election thread after all.
The Peters had 21% of the last entry's comments between them. 30-something from 150-ish.
Currently running about 60% on this thread. 27 from 46 or almost 2-in-3.
A lesson on why you can ignore polls.. the 'concerned citizens' may just be one or two people hitting submit over and over again.
Complain about this comment
Pete...I meant here in Oz.
That's all...I thought he may have been "promoted" to the American desk, but we now see that Mrs Bryant is in the family way, they had some commitment in the USA and had to fulfill that before Mrs B was too pregnant to fly.
Regarding you post #42, I feel you covered that pretty well...but it's amazing how people will believe spin, then take it as "gospel truth".
Also good reply regarding your cat... : )
And thanks to any British posters for that lovely word...moggy.
Complain about this comment
47 Camo: Ha, ha, I like it. Maybe we can get you onto Antony Green's blog :)
48 Greg Warner: Oh damn, I thought you had some real gos :)
Oh Nick! Congratulation are in order here. Hope all goes well.
Thanks mate re 42. What I can't understand is why hasn't anyone in the media quashed this or brought it to fruition, in the interest of an honest debate?
It is almost like the li. I mean mistruth is better to have, rather then the truth.
"Also good reply regarding your cat... : )"
Ha, ha, just having a bit of fun :)
Yes, where did the term moggy come from?
Complain about this comment
# 36 11pete11,
Yes,all I can say is that both parties might be taking a future recession or even depression into consideration, and because if Oz's huge private foreign debt,we would be in for a very difficult time indeed.However, given the short term nature of our politics,I doubt that this is factored into campaign policy platforms,such as they are. Governments in the past would emphasize the long term,after all, many of the voters then had lived through the Depression and WW2 and took a long view from past experience. Many of the current generation of voters are mortgaged to the ears and are easily frightened by short term corrections in the economy,in other words they get nasty if everything doesn't go their way.
So,in my opinion, the present non-event is due to the 'do as little as possible policy' and hope that the other side scores an 'own goal' Of course the Coalition has the old 'black hole in the budget' ploy to implement if it is voted in,this would necessitate drastic cuts to welfare, education and naturally require a more employer friendly industrial relations policy.
Complain about this comment
50 Treaclebeak wrote: "So,in my opinion, the present non-event is due to the 'do as little as possible policy' and hope that the other side scores an 'own goal' Of course the Coalition has the old 'black hole in the budget' ploy to implement if it is voted in,this would necessitate drastic cuts to welfare, education and naturally require a more employer friendly industrial relations policy."
Yes I think you've hit the nail on the head here. The bottom line now is how many voters will look at the bigger picture, and long term needs of Australia, as opposed to the 'wadaboutme' syndrome.
Complain about this comment
I fully agree that Australian politics focuses on tactics ather than strategy and that the last electioneering speech which focused on a 'vision of the future' was Gough Whitlam's. Unfortunately, for both Gough and Australia, he was undone by the underhanded tactics of Fraser (who used the Liberal Party's control of the Senate to block his budget) and was dismissed by the Governor General (representing the queen) when he went to the GG to call an early half senate election. Fraser was appointed caretaker PM until the next election could be called. Given the reaction of the public to having their duly elected PM dismissed due to the actions of the Senate (they preferred Fraser to repeating the whole constitutional crisis), it's not surprising that politicians focus on tactics rather than strategy. The crisis also strengthened support for a republic amongst the left.
Complain about this comment
If I'm not going to yet another wedding of some friend of my lass, I'm hearing all about one of them with 'good news'. Now, even my time spent in cyberspace isn't safe from this good news. *Sigh...*
Congratulations, Nick.
Complain about this comment
The political processes and the influence of business and banking makes the choices the choices of others that the public is asked to confirm. The rethortic is simply that and the legislative bodies will continue to prevent as much progress as possible when current vested interests want their profits protected. All the world muddles along as if with some purpose, but none seems apparent. Bad decisions made for the wrong reasons tend to determine most policies. The world will become more agitated in the next couple of years and the agendas of many nations will be redirected to deal with the continued economic outcomes of the unethical bankers and their political handmaidens. National agendas become more responsive to conditions than directional toward outcomes. Political leadership today is showing a command of euphemisms.
Complain about this comment
42 11Pete11 Wrote
Well no, you are incorrect. The three power brokers said to have started the ball rolling were from the right faction of the Labor party, not from the left.
----------------------
Ok i stand corrected,however the three faction members and others i believe plotted against their elected leader'
"Rudd made a deal with Gillard that if numbers fell against him closer to the election he would stand aside.Gillard agreed to this. An honourable thing to do from Rudds perspective." etc...
This has come from a question asked o Julia Gillard by Laurie Oakes. It has been neither confirmed nor denied by any Labor person, and no other media outlet has been able to confirm or deny it. Even Laurie has taken it no further.
If there was any meat in this story, do you think the media would let it lie?
---------------------
If this was'nt true they would certainly deny it. They have'nt.
Even considering the suspicious policy of not revealing "private" cabinet
discussions, an issue of apparent doublecrossing like this would be flatly discounted if it was not true. Cmon we were'nt born yesterday.
I also think the question was asked on the ABC Lateline program and the answer was referred to the "we never reveal cabinet discussions" non denial.
Complain about this comment
55 Emps wrote: "Ok i stand corrected,however the three faction members and others i believe plotted against their elected leader"
It depends on how you mean plotted. There certainly wasn't a deliberate undermining of Rudd over a period of time, as plotting can suggest. After all, the three factional members were the very up front ones that got him leader in the first place...they were part of his faction.
"Even considering the suspicious policy of not revealing "private" cabinet
discussions, an issue of apparent doublecrossing like this would be flatly discounted if it was not true. Cmon we were'nt born yesterday."
If Julia were to have stated what was actually said in the meeting, she would be hounded for breeching cabinet confidentiality.
Not only that, but if there were no deal, it would make Rudd look worse for not seeing how he was pulling the party down just to suit his own ego.
Had the Laurie Oaks story been correct, and it became an open discussion, prior to an election, it would have damaged Rudd's chances of re election as much as it would have damaged Julia's.
As to "the suspicious policy of not revealing "private" cabinet
discussions," I don't see it as being suspicious. Just like the Liberal party, not telling us all the ins and outs of Turnbull's dismissal, or the topping of any other Liberal leader, and there have been two, so neither has Labor.
And just as an aside, there are some commentators saying that if Julia were to admit to having stabbed Kevin in the back, assuming that were true, she would probably grab more votes. They claim that to some it would show that she won't stop people getting in her way and that could be a good thing for the party.
I personally don't hold with this point of view, but it is one to consider in the bigger political picture.
"I also think the question was asked on the ABC Lateline program and the answer was referred to the "we never reveal cabinet discussions" non denial."
Again that is the only fair way to answer such a question; neither to confirm or deny.
Complain about this comment
IN THE LAUNCESTON EXAMINER TODAY 30TH JULY THE ATHEIST MS GILLARD SAID SHE WILL OFFER SIGNIFICANT PAYMENTS TO PARENTS OF CHILDREN WITH CEREBRAL PALSY, SIGHT AND HEARING DIFFICULTIES, DOWN SYNDROME AND FRAGILE X SYNDROME.( WHICH MADE A LOT OF SUFFERING PARENTS WHO WANT TO SHOW THEIR LOVE FOR THEIR CHILD BY NOT PUTTING THEM IN AN INSTITUTION) , BUT THEN SHE GOES ON TO SAY, IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE EARLY INTERVENTION SCHEME, ABOUT 8000 CHILDREN ( WHO DOES THE CHOOSING THERE ARE A LOT MORE THEN 8000 CHILDREN ) WILL BE GIVEN ACCESS TO PROGRAMS TO HELP THEM. CHILDREN UNDER SIX LIVING WITH ANY OF THE PROBLEMS WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR UP TO $12. 000 WORTH OF HELP ( $ 2 IS UP TOWARDS $12.00 ) THE ATHEIST MS GILLARD SHE WAS COMMITTED ( NOT TO A NUT HOUSE PITY ) TO HER PARTY LABORS PLAN NOT TO SPEND ANY NEW MONEY BUT SHE WOULD OUT LINE WHERE CUTS WOULD BE MADE TO COVER THE NEW SPENDING, SHE WILL PROBABLY TAKE IT FROM THE UNEMPLOYED WHO HAVE LOST THEIR JOBS BECAUSE OF THE DOWN FALL AND HOW SHE HAS NOT SINCE THE PROMISES STARTED TO BE MADE TO GET VOTES HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED.
HOW COME POLITICIANS CAN TELL LIES, MAKE FALSE PROMISES, CON PEOPLE, AND NOT GET INTO TROUBLE FOR IT? THEY JUST SAY OHH WE ARE IN TO MUCH DEBT.
IF US ORDINARY EVERYDAY PERSON DID IT WE WOULD BE CHARGED AND TAKEN TO COURT AND PROBABLY GO TO JAIL? DOES THIS MEAN IF WE ALL BECOME POLITICIANS WE CAN ROB THE POOR, TAKE HOUSES FROM THE ONES WE GAVE EASY LOANS TOO SO THAT THE BUILDING BUSINESS WOULD BE ABLE TO STAY IN WORK? BUT WHEN THE YOUNG FIRST HOME BUYERS TOOK THE EASY LOAN AND BUILT THEIR " OWN " HOME WHO IS GOING TO PUT A ROOF OVER THEIR HEADS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT KEEP UP WITH THE INTEREST RATES WHICH IS GETTING HIGHER AND HIGHER OR THEY HAVE LOST THEIR JOBS.
PLUS THE PENSIONERS WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY AND GO AND SEE A PRIVATE DOCTOR BECAUSE MS GILLARD SAYS SHE HAS NO CONTROL IF THE DOCTORS DECIDE TO CHARGE OR BULK BILL AND YET HER SUPER CLINICS WHERE SUPPOSED TO EASE THE WAITING TIME ( SOMETIMES UP TO FOUR HOURS ) OF THE HOSPITALS. ONCE MORE DOCTORS ARE FOR THE RICH HOSPITALS FOR THE POOR
Complain about this comment
57 arial plato wrote: "THE ATHEIST MS GILLARD "
Didn't John Howard claim to be a Christian? Under his watch, didn't children from illegal boat arrivals get stuck in prison like detention centres?
Does the fact that Gillard makes claim of being an Atheist change the way she runs the country from how a Christian would run it?
"WHICH MADE A LOT OF SUFFERING PARENTS WHO WANT TO SHOW THEIR LOVE FOR THEIR CHILD BY NOT PUTTING THEM IN AN INSTITUTION"
We don't have institutions for the disabled in Australia any more. We have group homes run in residential areas, where depending on the level of disability, carers are responsible for encouraging dignity and quality of life for such persons.
"THE ATHEIST MS GILLARD SHE WAS COMMITTED ( NOT TO A NUT HOUSE PITY )"
Again we don't have institutions for the mentally ill either. The criminally insane are incarcerated in a special section of the prison system.
"BUT SHE WOULD OUT LINE WHERE CUTS WOULD BE MADE TO COVER THE NEW SPENDING, SHE WILL PROBABLY TAKE IT FROM THE UNEMPLOYED WHO HAVE LOST THEIR JOBS BECAUSE OF THE DOWN FALL AND HOW SHE HAS NOT SINCE THE PROMISES STARTED TO BE MADE TO GET VOTES HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED."
I think you're mixing up Julia's statements with Tony's. He is the one talking about cutbacks, including ripping out the BSB after billions of dollars have already been spent, just to spite the Labor Party...with our money.
As to the unemployed, that is the Coalitions intention. Labor kept Aussies in jobs when all other countries were shedding theirs. High unemployment mean better choice of employees, as the coalition see it.
"HOW COME POLITICIANS CAN TELL LIES, MAKE FALSE PROMISES, CON PEOPLE, AND NOT GET INTO TROUBLE FOR IT?"
Because the system doesn't say they can't and it needs fixing so that they sign on their promises.
They will continue to tell us mistruths while we the people believe them. John Howard told us after he had promised us many things that some of those promises were hard core and other were soft core. Never, ever GST, he said and he got four terms of office. We reward those that tell mistruths.
"WHO IS GOING TO PUT A ROOF OVER THEIR HEADS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT KEEP UP WITH THE INTEREST RATES WHICH IS GETTING HIGHER AND HIGHER OR THEY HAVE LOST THEIR JOBS."
Interest rates are actually down, and have been down since Labor came into office because they have returned to the integrity of the independence of the Reserve Bank. Under Howard the Reserve Bank was seriously controlled by his Government, which is why Interest rates were much higher. And again unemployment is lower under Labor than it was under Howard.
"PLUS THE PENSIONERS WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY AND GO AND SEE A PRIVATE DOCTOR BECAUSE MS GILLARD SAYS SHE HAS NO CONTROL IF THE DOCTORS DECIDE TO CHARGE OR BULK BILL AND YET HER SUPER CLINICS WHERE SUPPOSED TO EASE THE WAITING TIME ( SOMETIMES UP TO FOUR HOURS ) OF THE HOSPITALS. ONCE MORE DOCTORS ARE FOR THE RICH HOSPITALS FOR THE POOR"
Are you aware that Labor, under Kevin Rudd, took office in 2007? That in 2008 the GFC, Global Financial Crisis hit the world big time?
Are you further aware that the laying out of the super clinics will take a lot longer than the two years we have had in the two years leading up to this election year?
A question you should be asking is why in 11 years of the Howard Government was none of these matters addressed? This medical situation you are currently addressing didn't just appear in the last couple of years.
And are you aware the whole Medicare/Medibank, PBS schemes were instigated by the Labor Governments of old, strongly fought against by the Coalition then and still today?
The Coalition believe in free enterprise, similar to the previous American system. If they had their way, we would be back to the old days of private insurance like MBF and HCF for hospital and medical cover...and no PBS.
Have you any idea how much it costs to buy prescription medicines in the US?
May I respectfully suggest you use your computer's search engine to find out the differences between Labor and Liberal National Policies.
And also the leaders of the respective parties are ruled by Party Policies, not by personal whims.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS