yea, I hope liberal win again. :)

I say we all vote for a minor party and get a nobody elected!

I hope Liberal win, but that Howard loses his seat.


Voting Secular in the Senate, I suggest you do so too if you hate the religious decisions being forced on us as law.

go johnny!

any, don't you mean costello? you're not voting for johnny..but for costello..

I hate elections...

No No, think of it as a two for one deal. You vote for Johnny, and you get Costello too! ... :(

Federal Elections day! It is for sucks!

Come on Kruddler!

Today the Libs become an ineffective minority of unwanted asshats.. yay!!!!

Kind of like QGL reaaly.. :D

I had a dream last night that it was a Labor landslide, it was as though it had already happened so I thought I must have forgotten to vote (in my dream)... so vote early and vote often people.

Kevin07

wait, do you vote for the one you want to evict, or the one you want 2save ?

I hope Gretel is hosting tonight.

If anyone is going to say who you are voting for - can you give reasons for or against one or the other?

My first time voting today

Had a debate with ppl at work and their view is:
Liberal = Better for business owners, and everyone as a 'whole', keep rich rich, and keep poor poor
Labor = For selfish people who only care about themselves, bring everyone equal, and cause small businesses to go out of business

Politics is just annoying, no matter who wins no one is happy.

even www.google.com.au is in on it :)

vote liberals cause rudd the dudd eats his own ear wax.

if you havn't already noticed, both parties are the f***ing same anyway. its new leadership either way. no way i want costello, rudd is the man for the future.

Every Election Howard has lied... he has made promises and hasn't kept them. Now while I am sure this is just normal political crap to get the votes, I am frankly at the point where I don't want to even listen to a thing John Howard says. I think Kevin Rudd would make a very good leader for this country so have already been and cast my vote. It's time for a change. Have always voted ALP and don't see the Coalition giving me any reason to change that now. Besides that, my father would disown me if I voted any other way :)

Well its a new PM either way; a Coalition vote wouldn't have a lot of front bench changes unless they lose a lot of prominent seats and win a lot of marginals. It would still be Hockey / Downer / Turnball et al.

Labor is presenting an entirely new Cabinet choice, though they might have some old stones in their front bench from the old Hawke-Keating Governments?

All you can do is make up your mind as best you can Jerry. In political discussions, everyone has their opinion and bias. There is no 'true' answer unfortunately. Often it comes down to personal circumstances.

Also the centrist shift in politics in recent years from both parties is making a meaningful decision much harder.

Had a debate with ppl at work and their view is:
Liberal = Better for business owners, and everyone as a 'whole', keep rich rich, and keep poor poor
Labor = For selfish people who only care about themselves, bring everyone equal, and cause small businesses to go out of business

To sum things up. If you want a kick in the balls. Vote for Labor. If you want a punch in the face, vote for Liberal. Both parties have very similar policies. There are no real differences. For me, the deciding factors are:

1. Rudd is going to buy a computer and software and hire staff and pay the increases maintenance cost to put a computer on every kid's desk at high school. Idiot.
2. Rudd wants to apologise on my behalf to the Abo's. No thanks.
3. Withdrawal of troops from Iraq/Afgh. Regardless of the reason for going in, you don't f*** the country up then leave...stay until it is fixed again.

These were my 3 deciding factors in putting Labor last on my preferences.

When I was in the line, there was a Father with his daughter. (Ya she was pretty hot)
Obviously it was her first time voting. He was telling her how to vote, but Giving her a 'Family First' Card and telling her to do it exactally like 'this' and told her the guy to vote for in the senate.

f***ing bastard complained for the 15min wait to vote. At the 5min mark saying "This bulls***, feels like an hour already"

Bogans shouldn't be allowed to vote/tell their family how to vote.

Independent for me.

2. Rudd wants to apologise on my behalf to the Abo's. No thanks.

Pretty sure he has said that 'his' government wouldn't be doing this in their first term anymore.

I heard on the radio that rudd is s***-canning 16000 public servant jobs created by johnny... Im not sure if thinning bureaucracy is good or losing jobs is bad. He sure as s*** doesnt care about the aussie battler if hes going to put that many people out of work.

f*** kevin07 in his no chinned, always smiling skull.

anybody who votes based purely on the decision 'its time for a change' is a retarded person who shouldn't be allowed to vote.

its already been said, but both parties are virtually identical, the computers for everybody idea is just f***ing retarded, tremenodous waste of money - but hey thats what government is all about, big-ass empty promises which will never get implimented.

s*** yes The Fishing Party.

I voted Labour - but I don't like either.

I think Australia needs a 'Beer Drinkers Party'.

My main policies would be to abolish all taxes on beer. The main aim of this is to increase general beer consumption, due to the lower price. My second policy will be to construct 'drunk lanes' on main arterial roads. These drunk lanes are for pissed drivers only and will feature heavy padding on the guard rails to prevent motor vehicle damage. This will allow the beer drinkers, who are now pissed more often thanks to policy one, to safely go about their business and not interfere with the losers of society (the non-beer drinkers).

I think I'd get a few votes.

last edited by mission at 12:17:22 24/Nov/07

I hope you didn't spell it like that on the card.

anybody who votes based purely on the decision 'its time for a change' is a retarded person who shouldn't be allowed to vote.

its not that stupid. there is a theory that democracy works so well because people get voted out and can't hold on to power.

anybody who votes based purely on the decision 'its time for a change' is a retarded person who shouldn't be allowed to vote.

What about those who wanted the change at every election they have voted at since Liberals came into power?

Well then they wouldn't be voting for a change then would they?
They would be voting on a pre-conceded notion that one party is better then the other, without looking at the policies or promises that each different party at each different election holds.

without looking at the policies or promises that each different party at each different election holds.

whats the point of that? not like johnny ever delivers on them

I think Australia needs a 'Beer Drinkers Party'.

My main policies would be to abolish all taxes on beer. The main aim of this is to increase general beer consumption, due to the lower price. My second policy will be to construct 'drunk lanes' on main arterial roads. These drunk lanes are for pissed drivers only and will feature heavy padding on the guard rails to prevent motor vehicle damage. This will allow the beer drinkers, who are now pissed more often thanks to policy one, to safely go about their business and not interfere with the losers of society (the non-beer drinkers).

I think I'd get a few votes.

A few issues with your policies..

1) Why aren't guard rails heavily padded on normal highways for sobar people? They run into them without drinking (i did, by falling asleep). The idea of guard rails is probably to inflict as much damage on the car without hurting the passengers so that people are encourage not to hit them
2) We are having enough trouble getting roads fixed as it is, more lanes put in on normal highways.. So i doubt that it would be possible to provide the space for an individual drunk lane + protection, and youd be voted back out by the time its built - and what about in the suburbs? most drunk accidents are in surburbs, not on the highway, do you turn all roads into 4 lanes and demolish all of houses that are so close to the road, and transfer all of the electrical poles, re-allign and transfer all of the elect/coms/gas/water,etc u/g services in that way to make these extra lanes... australia would go broke, and again - youd get voted out before even the planning stage is complete - but it would keep me in a job for quite a while
3) If you were making these policies, then there is no way you would say 'hey lets abolish tax on beer' - what do you think pays your wages in that position?

3) If you were making these policies, then there is no way you would say 'hey lets abolish tax on beer' - what do you think pays your wages in that position?

raising taxes on wine, cider and lpg?

last edited by paveway at 13:03:15 24/Nov/07

last edited by paveway at 13:03:25 24/Nov/07

Blonde question for the day.

The green paper is for the local member only right?
The white paper is for the senate and decides the prime minister, yes?

^

A Typical voter in Australia.

And people wonder why Democracy doesn't work.

I am aware that there are two houses to our government. I am just confused as to which is which.

Local member sits in the same house as the prime minister?

Senate is the uppity ones who if the loser house can't agree they deal with it?

Gah, I did this s*** in primary school, I can't remember

*goes to google*

last edited by Kat at 13:20:15 24/Nov/07

man it was a tough decision for me.
liberals had so much going for them:
- tax cuts
- dirty tricks like saying labour are muslim sympathisers
- and a good track record as far as i'm concerned

in the end, i just couldn't vote for costello

he should have challenged the leadership already
and i would hate to see howard retire and just hand over the leadership to costello

some things need to be fought for

I can't stand those people who walk around with a big grin on their face with shirts "kevin 07"
i mean.. WTF. Feel like doing a happy gilmore manoeuvre on that shirt.

Oh and the little flags on the side of the cars. I've already ridden up and taken one off a car. Oh and those greens posters. f*** them off!!!!
Heil libs

Senate is the uppity ones who if the loser house can't agree they deal with it?

the imperial senate?

I personally think there shouldnt even be party's at all. Why not just vote on your local member for whatever he/she beleives in and then they all get together and vote on the bigger decisions.

As if everyone in the party's always agree on everything, but they just vote the party line pretty much all the time.

Is that how the americans work?

That's what we here in Australia call 'Independents'

I can't stand those people who walk around with a big grin on their face with shirts "kevin 07"

Yes, how dare they wear party shirts, grin and hold posters just like every other f***ing party there, including Liberal.

I can't stand those people who walk around with a big grin on their face with shirts "kevin 07"

Same here man, walked up and I felt like I was walking into a Stooge festival, here take this pamphlet.. ohh u know X is doing this for the community?

I mean wtf, why waste ur time if ur goin into vote, u already made up ur decision,
and had some old lady in the line readn a txt i was writting. hahahahah.

I had to laugh when I read on the paper, Woman First, I was like wheres Mens First, beer, full stomach and boobs!!!

I mean wtf, why waste ur time if ur goin into vote, u already made up ur decision,
and had some old lady in the line readn a txt i was writting. hahahahah.

You think everyone going into the polls knows who they are voting for? WRONG

The idea of guard rails is probably to inflict as much damage on the car without hurting the passengers so that people are encourage not to hit them

Yeah that's what they are for.
Not to stop the car running over embankment/into oncoming traffic/into a tree. They are there to teach you a lesson.

We are having enough trouble getting roads fixed as it is, more lanes put in on normal highways.. So i doubt that it would be possible to provide the space for an individual drunk lane + protection, and youd be voted back out by the time its built - and what about in the suburbs?blah blah blah

What, are you retarded or something? Like the Beer Party was a serious suggestion?
The fact that you took the time to respond in detail to what was obviously a joke begs the question - "why aren't more defects identified in the womb?"

And I bet you voted today too...

Egads.

http://www.google.com.au/election2007/

Wow, go google :)

I got to the booth, look down at the sheet, who the f*** is LDP?!
Still put them before Family First, might turn out to be the Legalise Drugs Party?

:O!
it IS the legalise drugs party!

http://www.ldp.org.au/federal/policies/index.html#Victimless_crimes
Victimless Crimes

The LDP does not generally support the criminalisation of victimless crimes. Wherever possible it will seek to reduce the intrusion of government into these areas.

yeah due to a balls up the party is on the ballots as LDP and not as the full name

and yes, the party does have a more liberal policy on drugs

Re-legalisation of recreational marijuana use by adults (subject to prohibition on involvement of minors, etc) and a review of prohibitions on certain other drugs.

Does anyone know what time you have to vote by

closes at 6

Go liberal!

Voted Liberal.

About 80% of the people in queue when i was there had Liberal vote cards. Surprising considering it was Griffith (Kevin Rudd's electorate). Oh well, only a small sample.

just like every other f***ing party there, including Liberal.

Haven't seen one liberal shirt.
Only kevin dudd shirts.

All the parties handing out pamphlets are wearing partied shirt.

be it family first, liberal, labor, or greens, etc etc

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH POLICE are seeking two men who allegedly attacked two young Liberal Party campaigners outside the polling booth at Indooroopilly State School last night.
Trog and stick where were you last night????

Haven't seen one liberal shirt.

All parties have combinations of shirts, posters, banners and pamphlets. You'd have to be blind not to see them. Blind or biased, your pick.

Every day I've driven to work over the last few days there's been a Liberal crowd parked on the side of the road with posters up and waving at passing motorists. f*** off I'm driving, stop distracting me (I'd say the same to Labor or Greens if they were doing it).

:(
i wished id voted green after i seen how hawt the greens chick was

No i dont mean at the polling booths. I mean in towns, sidewalks.
Prior to the election day you nuggets.
I never saw a liberal shirt prior to election day.

i and many others were i voted had liberal vote cards, didn't vote them tho, they just happened to be the one that jumped me while i was trying to sneak in.

doubt it what vote cards they had shows how they voted.

was tempted to vote the fishing party ^_^, but didn't know where the preferences would goto

i wished id voted green after i seen how hawt the greens chick was

I saw her in person yesterday and I concur. But voted Labor because I couldn't bring myself to number all 20 something boxes. She'll be preferenced anyway.

I am with spook ... greens had a hawt candidate

20something...

it was freaken 63 or 64 (I didn't pay that much attention)

3. Withdrawal of troops from Iraq/Afgh. Regardless of the reason for going in, you don't f*** the country up then leave...stay until it is fixed again.

You think it's "fixable" ? Is Iraq better now then it was 3 months ago ?

We took a state which despite being run by a toolbanger didn't actually have terrorism problems and as far as any one can tell was actually anti terrorism.

Sure is lucky we gave them a democratic lifestyle .. those iraqis sure are living it up now.

Hence why he's saying we shouldn't leave, because it's still f***ed.

We should help to fix the mistakes that were made.

Anybody else wait up to half an hour just to vote?

Damn gov taking up my saturday time

nope, in and out at salibury primary immediately

only stopped to buy a raffle ticket in a money tree and to purchase a bacon and egg sandwich from the scouts over the road

even came in the back way, where there was only a single labor guy haassling on his how to vote cards

best voting evar!

Counting is just starting to come in.

go here

To get updated results every 90 seconds.

Currently at:
Coalition Votes Percentage % Swing %
Liberal/National Coalition 438 66.06 -3.59
Australian Labor Party 225 33.94 +3.59

last edited by Cl1nt at 18:22:50 24/Nov/07

yer i had a nice ez vote. walked to the local primary school, went in a gate that had no flyer ppl at it, no line n like 6 ppl to sign ppl in.. rokn. overheard this crazy old woman arguing with one of the sign-in women coz she wasn't in the right electorate n i quote "you can't make me vote somewhere else!@#!" hahah.

ohnos, the coalition is up

ohnos, the coalition is up

You should actually click that link to see how many have been counted:

# Currently 0.05% of the primary vote has been counted.
# The two party preferred count is 0.02% complete.

0.05% = 0.0005. long way to go.

last edited by parabol at 18:31:40 24/Nov/07

Hence why he's saying we shouldn't leave, because it's still f***ed.

We should help to fix the mistakes that were made.

Hence why I said is it any better then 3 months ago

We aren't fixing anything

I wonder which seat they're counting too.

However I do believe Spook was just having a go.

Went past a booth at oxley at 8am and the line was onto the street about two buildings up. Throught f*** that and went over to my parents. Drove them out to vote and bam, another voting place where it took half an hour to vote.

vote at 10 to 6, nobody was there, was awesome.

i vote labor and greens. i don't believe in giving the one party full control.

tv is already predicting labour to win even with only 6-12% of the vote counted. pretty stupid to go on such early calls though ive been saying all along that labor will probably win this election.

im pretty suprised at how well the greens are doing so far. either way going to be an interesting night with pretty varied yet balanced coverage between abc 7 and 9.

Swing just seems to keep on blowing out. Certainly not looking good for Howard.

It's pretty much all over, Kevin Rudd is the new PM of Australia and John Howard will lose his seat.

I'm moderately satisfied with the result, not real happy for a labor landslide, but whatever.

yer looks like labour has won :/

Bye bye Johnny!
Time to update Stanley Bruce's Wikipedia entry...

"Stanley Bruce led his Nationalist-Country Party coalition government into the 1929 election, which was held on 12 October. Not only was his government defeated by the Labor Party under James Scullin, but Bruce was defeated personally in his own electorate of Flinders - to date, the only sitting Australian Prime Minister to suffer this fate."

Went to vote at oxford st bulimba and the lineup went down the goddamn street. Went over to balmoral high and it was empty. choice moves.

bye johnny bye, bye

looks like mongies becoming a citzen of england.

They just called it, Labor wins the election....Kevin Rudd is the new Prime Minister!

they lost bonner OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


johnny lost his seat haha

you beauty, now hopefully Garrett wasn't bulls***ting with what he said about getting in and then just changing their whole approach back to the real left.

well rudd has won, Good bye economy. Lol cya Australia.

Crakaveli can I come live with you till the idiots here realise the f***ing mistake they just made and vote liberal back in next election?

looks like we have a red state, hopefully they don't last long enough to do so much damage it takes 3 coalition terms to fix it!

looks like ross vaster has lost his bonner

Crakaveli can I come live with you till the idiots here realise the f***ing mistake they just made and vote liberal back in next election?

Sure, but my mum will want board money.

warlord kevin rudd 07 will save are nation

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/77422747.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1937E7588A1370768CD27781BD2C3869F46284831B75F48EF45

haha all you fools who believe labor 'will stuff out economy' are dips***s..

the labor party were the ones who carried out the structural framework of our economy that made it the success we are today. paul keatings and bob hawkes reforms are the ones that the libs have been riding on the back of. the fact china is booming and the mining industry in this country is providing the most massive windfall in tax revenue in our history doesnt have jack s*** to do with the liberal party.

the howard argument of 'it happend in the past its defiantely going to happen again' is tired and lazy. people saw through his lies this time as we all knew what happend last time... children overboard, workchoices, gst.. all these things were on the back of lies.

lets have a tally of economic reforms;

labor: decentralised wage structures, tariffs removed, floating of the aus dollar.

liberals: gsTAX.... thats it

yeah those laborites really f***ed the economy..

and the crap about interest rates.... id happily pay 17% on a 50k loan on a 70k HOUSE (which would later appreciate at least 400% boohoo baby boomers) rather then 8% on a 210k loan on a 2br UNIT which is the case of most udner 30s including me now...

f*** howard, hope the lying c*** loses his own seat

Yeah, the last labor PM really showed that. LOL

you missed a few reforms from both sides there cainer, some pretty major ones.

you missed a few reforms from both sides there cainer, some pretty major ones.

People who vote labor generally do that alot.

lets hope rudd doesnt polish bush pole and lie through his ass about his election promises.

talkign about major structural economic reforms... i listed them all.

the liberal policy of keeping a 1% surplus by shifting $ from 1 area to another, health to roads, education to health etc etc its a load of crap.. i hope you all enjoy your hecs debts.

as for the libs big 'reform'

workchoices was just a way of busting unions and tipping the balance too far in 1 direction, which is the reason unions were formed in the first place all those years ago... this is all fine and dandy in the current economic climate, what happens in a few years when chinas demand for our minerals slow down ???

its already been proven that the most vulnerable, low/non skilled get f***ed over with awa's... 1/2 of the awa's submitted to the govt fail the fairness test. what does that say ?? theyre a good thing ? why was the fairness test brought in ?? the govt knew the f***ed up.

we live in a society, not an economy. the i'll be right jack attitude of people in this country in the last 10 years is really at the detriment of our society. government policies which support the big end of town don't do much for everyone else... lucky we live in a democracy and we can have a collective voice at the end of the day.

I personally hope he was lying about the whole computer for every kid promise at least.

Same s***, different colour.

People who vote labor generally do that alot.

at least they can spell 'a lot'

at least they can spell 'a lot'

But most of them can't spell labor.

Yeah, the last labor PM really showed that. LOL

Actually, Paul Keating did make a lot of really positive reforms that Hawk and Fraser refused to do. In fact, a lot of the early positive growth that the nation had when Liberal took power was because of the reforms of the last labor PM.

I really don't understand why people compare the current Labor government with the previous one. At least not without mentioning the fact that the previous Liberal government also sucked monkey nuts.

last edited by typo at 22:33:35 24/Nov/07

It seems reports of the sky falling have yet to still come in.


But the Libs said it would.....

well running aroudn with your head cut off claiming the sky will fall in if you dont vote for howard wasnt exactly the best piece of electioneering campaigning. nothing new, nothing positive, same old anti worker s*** over and over

i love you cainer, i really do.

well running aroudn with your head cut off claiming the sky will fall in if you dont vote for howard wasnt exactly the best piece of electioneering campaigning. nothing new, nothing positive, same old anti worker s*** over and over

Things will work out better right? Lol

I'm a little surprised that Labor actually won. I know there was a lot of hype suggesting they would, but there has been hype before which has just fizzled out when it came to the crunch and I was expecting the same this time around.

politics ftl

Things will work out better right? Lol

well they cant exactly end up any worse. nothing the labor party will do will be at the detriment of workers wages and conditions... can the coalition claim that ?
at the end of the day 'the fair go' has been thrown out the back door with workchoices. unless you work in a special industry like the mining industry (where you often work fly in fly out 2weeks on 2weeks off, where you deserve a premium, and is not unique to australia) your conditions are at risk. conditions that meet the right balance between work and life. ask yourself why you work. ask yourself why you live.

if you voted libs you obviously go for the live to work mantra, work 3 jobs at minimum wage to be able to afford to pay off a place to live within 1 hour of the city. woo yeah america what a role model...

aww man I was really hoping What Women Want would win

too cold to vote here :S

I dunno, I guess i just don't expect labor to be any different to liberal, except f*** the economy. Then again, i'm still only young and probably don't know f*** all.

you obviously have fallen hook line and sinker to another lib lie, that only they are the gatekeepers to an economy that doesnt implode. after winning an election on the children overboard, introducing gst after promising not to and implementing work choices almost immediately after their last win without mentioning it once in the previous election campaign.

if there is 1 track record you can go by, at least you know howard will be lying about something.

even if labor are f***ed, they couldnt be any worse...

I dunno, I guess i just don't expect labor to be any different to liberal, except f*** the economy. Then again, i'm still only young and probably don't know f*** all.

qft, as is most liberal voters on this forum.

the key to politics is balance, you want a balanced senate that pulls the pm's head in line when they try to pass through things like work choices. For 11 years we have been controlled by liberal, there values arent that bad, they care for australia as much as labor or any other party, the problem is they didnt have a leash and thought they could pull any bulls*** they wanted. aka work choices.

now labor has alot of the power, things will be nice at first while they fix up all the mistakes the libs have put in place, but once they sort the s*** out i hope to hell we have a more blanced senate that will stop labor from turning the country into a circus.

suck s*** infi

ah well we gave it our best shot. i'll enjoy sitting back and watching these lame c***s f*** the whole country (in cahoots with those commie greens).

what an unholy alliance.

the way it should be is, major parties in the house, and a clusterf*** of crazy extremist nutters, conspiracy theorists, and tree huggers in the senate

living in a safe lib seat i knew it really wouldn't matter how i voted, and as it turns out, it indeed didn't

i just hope infi is gonna be ok without the kickbacks

and

the 150 bux

I couldn't really give a s*** either way, but I did find it amusing that the PM (or ex PM now I guess) couldn't even win his own seat. If thats not a kick in the balls, I dunno what is.

I couldn't really give a s*** either way, but I did find it amusing that the PM (or ex PM now I guess) couldn't even win his own seat. If thats not a kick in the balls, I dunno what is.

Rudd becoming PM?

talkign about major structural economic reforms... i listed them all.

I'd disagree.
eg.
Deregulation of the finacial sector. Keating likes to take credit for it, but I think that process actually started in something like 72 or 73 and didn't really finish until what 86 or 87 ?

Really it was Johnny who f***ed up and handed power over to Labor. All he had to do was either commit to the full term or give it up to Costello. Also maybe he shouldnt have introduced Workchoices like pre-WW2 Germany. If he'd been subtle and more tactful about it he could have hoodwinked the electorate into Workchoices like he did for interest rates.
All Labor had to do was put up a bland conservative candidate who wasnt a 'cabbie basher' which they did.

No, I'm afraid Johnny f***ed himself in the ass big time. Shame really, when he could have gone out on a high.

as if kevin is bland

You just know that soon as we get another rate rise, which will probably be in a few months, which the rudd government cant do anything about, that the liberal people will go, "see interest rates are now higher under labor than they where under us".

As if Labor weren't doing that during the campaign (well, both of them were).

I'm very interested to see how this plays out. I didn't vote for Rudd but I am interested to see what he does with his 4 years. Who knows, in 4 years time more people might want to keep him.

I'd like to congratulate Liberal in advance for winning the next of every single state election.

Proof people shouldn't have a 'right' to vote: Tasmania. They've gone and voted in the Greens on the basis of the logging and pulp mill, when the federal government has no control over it whatsoever. On the plus side that's going to come back and bite the Greens on the ass come next election, when all the locals see they've not delivered on their promise to get rid of it.
Sigh. Retards. That's a state issue.

Anyway. Get ready for higher unemployment and the associated interest rate rises people. Rudd's already started with his claim of intent to slash 16,000 government jobs.

I'll be making up a javascript date count-up script shortly, which will show times for the following:
- Time Labour has been in power and has:
-- Not repealed the GST, as claimed
-- Not repealed Liberals sedition laws, which they were apparently so against.
-- Not repealed Work Choices, which they campaigned on bigtime
-- Troops still in certain foreign countries
-- Done nothing about the environment
-- Not ratified Kyoto (why the hell you would do this is beyond me).

Really it was Johnny who f***ed up and handed power over to Labor. All he had to do was either commit to the full term or give it up to Costello. Also maybe he shouldnt have introduced Workchoices like pre-WW2 Germany. If he'd been subtle and more tactful about it he could have hoodwinked the electorate into Workchoices like he did for interest rates.

Funny how this is all people make their decisions on and the sedition laws are now long past, having noone who remembers that you can still be locked up for opposing the government.

In a split decision, Justice Tamberlin issued a dissenting report in which says that section 42(c) of the Environment Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Act is applicable in this case and therefore requires the Minister to take into account the ‘adverse impacts of the RFA forestry operations occasioned by the need to supply timber to the pulp mill…Having intentionally excluded consideration of these matters, the Minister erred in law.”

Minister? As in the Minister for the Environment? The Federal government guy? Having the ability to do something about it?

I'd like to congratulate Liberal in advance for winning the next of every single state election.

Does Queensland even have a Liberal party anymore?

I'll be making up a javascript date count-up script shortly, which will show times for the following:
- Time Labour has been in power and has:
-- Not repealed the GST, as claimed
-- Not repealed Liberals sedition laws, which they were apparently so against.
-- Not repealed Work Choices, which they campaigned on bigtime
-- Troops still in certain foreign countries
-- Done nothing about the environment
-- Not ratified Kyoto (why the hell you would do this is beyond me).

dude... politicians lie, get used to it. its not like howard delivered on ANY of his promises.

-- will not introduce a GST
-- will not introduce workplace reforms
etc etc etc.

Mal Brough to be the next Premier of QLD...

currently Campbell Newman holds the highest office of any Liberal Party member in the country.

I simply see the next three years as an opportunity to say 'I told you so' as much as possible as we suffer an economic downturn and low skilled workers expect the conditions and pay of high skilled and specialised workers, because they're eithers stupid, or refused to work hard enough.

Labor won't repel the GST, the chance to do that has long gone. Pretty sure on the last two elections they've said they wouldn't do that anyway.

I hope that work choices is scrapped, not because it affects me in any way shape or form
but because I'm sick to f***ing death of hearing about it

dude... politicians lie, get used to it. its not like howard delivered on ANY of his promises.

-- will not introduce a GST
-- will not introduce workplace reforms
etc etc etc.

Never said he wouldn't reform the workplace, they always wanted to and always said they would. It just took until the 4th term before they won the power in the senate to do it.

He said in 1995 he wouldn't introduce GST and he won the 1996 election. In 1998 he clearly stated that he would introduce the GST, but we would wait until after the election to do so. Quite a brave move. He went to the 1999 election with the clear policy that there was no doubt he would introduce GST if elected, and he was elected - so any idiots claiming they voted for him and he broke his promise on GST, is exactly that, an idiot.

So in conclusion, you have no idea.

please let me know what etc etc is

Wow, there's nothing like a crushing loss to bring the right-wing fundamentalists out of the woodwork.

[I am aware that Rudd is a right-wing fundamentalist parading as neutral, and I have no particular political alliance. Informing you of your choices.]

So in conclusion, you have no idea.

please let me know what etc etc is

Children overboard, AWB, war in iraq (doubtful), i'm sure others have more

Spidz once again points out why I believe not everyone should have the right to vote. (I'm talking about you, d0mino. And sorry Kat, but in this case, you too with your drastically scary comment earlier - I feel like I need that big rubber "This person votes" stamp/graphic the Chaser had).

People who think going into Iraq was the 'wrong' thing to do are morally pathetic. What you're basically saying is that "We should have allowed a brutal dictator to continue to rule". I'm not saying their justification for going in was in any way right - lying about the whole WMD thing was just plain wrong - they should have simply said "this guy can't be allowed to stay in power".

In fairness though, we should also be giving quite a number of other countries some liberating (Burma perhaps? Oh wait, no oil there).

But I mean, seriously. To delude yourself that leaving Saddam in power was the morally right thing to do? That's so incredibly f***ed up. And no, it's NOT the US's fault Iraq is so f***ed up right now. That's the fault of f***ed up fundamentalists and neighbors. What, it's somehow the US's fault suicide bombers have no moral fiber?

(Burma perhaps? Oh wait, no oil there).

yeah no oil there at all.

What you're basically saying is that "We should have allowed a brutal dictator to continue to rule".

So you propose that we should go into every country that has a brutal dictator and impose the way we live on them? Or should we only liberate nations that we've helped prosper for the last 30 years?

last edited by typo at 11:00:36 25/Nov/07

What, it's somehow the US's fault suicide bombers have no moral fiber?

FACT: The Coalition of the Willing is responsible for destabilising Iraq.

Saddam may having been offing the occasional dissenter, but the numbers of innocent people being killed under Saddam is far less than the number of innocent people being killed under a liberated and free(?) Iraq.

Looking at the state that Iraq is in now, maybe Saddam was doing a s***-hot job of keeping a country of nut jobs in line?

Raven stop trying to justify the loss of innocent lives for oil on moral grounds. That is morally pathetic.

And that war... how did it start again? was it terrorism first? or was it WMDs? or were we getting rid of a terrible dictator? or is it just the oil now? I'm confused.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/c/c5/Mission-accomplished.jpg

last edited by d0mino at 11:24:04 25/Nov/07

last edited by d0mino at 11:24:15 25/Nov/07

blah blah who cares, let's see how Kevin does. Either one was the lesser of two evils.

lol teq is freaking out cause apparently kev wants to raise interest rates

I believe not everyone should have the right to vote.

You hardcore right wing people say some crazy s***.

Start by getting rid of female voters and black voters amiright?

To delude yourself that leaving Saddam in power was the morally right thing to do? That's so incredibly f***ed up.

No, the part that is f***ed up is the U.S. supporting dictators when it suits them, then calling them the enemy a decade later and attacking them when it pleases them. I think that's the part that many people have a problem with. They set up their own f***ing enemies.

Look at Pakistan right now with the emergency rule. Is the U.S. doing anything substantial to stop this dictator? Not really, they're friends! If it were Iran doing this, they'd be claiming political and human rights abuses, middle-east instability and start beating the war drums.

And no, it's NOT the US's fault Iraq is so f***ed up right now.

Actually they are largely at fault for the instability. They attacked with NO plan for helping the country rebuild. They also have very little plan to withdraw. Perpetual conflict is in the U.S's interest, as they can keep the whole "terrorism is a never ending threat, we must strip your rights to keep you safe" thing alive.

Are you trolling or just severely naive?

last edited by parabol at 11:35:29 25/Nov/07

severely naive

FACT: The Coalition of the Willing is responsible for destabilising Iraq.

Oh bulls***, you're a f***ing moron if you believe that media tripe.

Yes, the coalition went in and removed the existing government from power. They did however also go to great lengths to put in place a government that works - however they're just fighting amongst themselves over religious bulls*** and bringing in the outside assistance of militants to get through their own views.

Raven stop trying to justify the loss of innocent lives for oil on moral grounds. That is morally pathetic.

I'm not. I agree that's wrong. I just don't agree it was wrong to go in, on different grounds. I agree it's wrong for them to claim they're there fore reaons other than what they really are (oil).

Start by getting rid of female voters and black voters amiright?

Only if those particular female and black voters don't meet the requirements for understanding of what it is that they're voting for. Their gender and colour really don't come into this at all.

No, the part that is f***ed up is the U.S. supporting dictators when it suits them, then calling them the enemy a decade later and attacking them when it pleases them. I think that's the part that many people have a problem with. They set up their own f***ing enemies.

Look at Pakistan right now with the emergency rule. Is the U.S. doing anything substantial to stop this dictator? Not really, they're friends! If it were Iran doing this, they'd be claiming political and human rights abuses, middle-east instability and start beating the war drums.

Quoting this just to make it clear that I agree with you here. Getting into a war with Pakistan though... not really sure that's the best of ideas though given the risks to all.

I just don't agree it was wrong to go in, on different grounds. I agree it's wrong for them to claim they're there fore reaons other than what they really are (oil).

So you think it is justified going to war over oil. I don't.

I'd like to congratulate Liberal in advance for winning the next of every single state election.

Proof people shouldn't have a 'right' to vote: Tasmania. They've gone and voted in the Greens on the basis of the logging and pulp mill, when the federal government has no control over it whatsoever. On the plus side that's going to come back and bite the Greens on the ass come next election, when all the locals see they've not delivered on their promise to get rid of it.
Sigh. Retards. That's a state issue.

Anyway. Get ready for higher unemployment and the associated interest rate rises people. Rudd's already started with his claim of intent to slash 16,000 government jobs.

I'll be making up a javascript date count-up script shortly, which will show times for the following:
- Time Labour has been in power and has:
-- Not repealed the GST, as claimed
-- Not repealed Liberals sedition laws, which they were apparently so against.
-- Not repealed Work Choices, which they campaigned on bigtime
-- Troops still in certain foreign countries
-- Done nothing about the environment
-- Not ratified Kyoto (why the hell you would do this is beyond me).

raven, im now going to go out of my way to run you over on your bike, i will be doing australia a favour

newsflash commies - the Labor party supported going to Iraq.

just life those idiots in Tasmania who delivered all 5 seats to the Labor party due to the pulp mill, despite the fact that Rudd, Garret and the Labor party also supported that too!

oh dear.

Everyone should have the right to vote, but it shouldn't be compulsory.

So you think it is justified going to war over oil. I don't.

Holy crap, you truly are blind! I just said quite clearly in the post above that I didn't think that was justified. I think that going to war to stop an oppressive dictator is justified.

No wonder you're a Labour voter with responses like the ones you're giving!

raven, im now going to go out of my way to run you over on your bike, i will be doing australia a favour

What, because of THAT post (as opposed to the others)? Now that's just f***ed up. All because I'm happy to point out the failed promises and shortcomings of a government, and because I've pointed out how moronic the voting was in Tasmania on the grounds they made the decision?

Why oh why am I surrounded by idiots!?

pssst, its "Labor"

lol :)

They did however also go to great lengths to put in place a government that works - however they're just fighting amongst themselves over religious bulls*** and bringing in the outside assistance of militants to get through their own views.

Hang on, how is that a government that works then?

You are justifying a war in Iraq which is a war for oil.

I think that going to war to stop an oppressive dictator is justified.

but

I agree it's wrong for them to claim they're there fore reaons other than what they really are (oil).

"going to war to stop an oppressive dictator" is one of those other reasons.

A war for oil is a bad thing. Please stop trying to justify the loss of innocent lives for oil.

You are morally bankrupt. No wonder your a liberal voter.

last edited by d0mino at 12:10:43 25/Nov/07

for some reason rudd reminds me of martin...

http://www.rob-clarkson.com/duff-brewery/martin/01.jpg

For he is Martin! And thine Sun shall rain upon thee and thou shall be gay...

Why am I talking in Old English? Martin does look like hes doing some Shakespeare though...

Just ignore my random burst of lyric.

Oh btw, KevDogg's office is just up the road from me. Might go say g'day and make sure they doing everything as they said...

Hang on, how is that a government that works then?

I didn't say they succeeded.

A war for oil is a bad thing. Please stop trying to justify the loss of innocent lives for oil.

I'm not. I'm justifying a war for other reasons. That it happens to be going on for oil is a separate issue. You seem unable to separate the two.

You can call me morally bankrupt all you want, you're wrong, and as you've demonstrated by the way you keep trying to argue the same seriously flawed arguments. Trying to claim I'm arguing something I'm not... how am I the one here morally bankrupt? You're showing what a utter f***ing moron you are when it comes to these kinds of things.

The 'innocent lives' bit in the case of many (but certainly not all or perhaps not even the majority) is seriously arguable, since a large number of these deaths are militants and geurillas.

In a split decision, Justice Tamberlin issued a dissenting report in which says that section 42(c) of the Environment Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Act is applicable in this case and therefore requires the Minister to take into account the ‘adverse impacts of the RFA forestry operations occasioned by the need to supply timber to the pulp mill…Having intentionally excluded consideration of these matters, the Minister erred in law.”

Minister? As in the Minister for the Environment? The Federal government guy? Having the ability to do something about it?

yeah and he approved it, with the support of Rudd and Garret as well.

"going to war to stop an oppressive dictator" is one of those other reasons.

A war for oil is a bad thing. Please stop trying to justify the loss of innocent lives for oil.

You are morally bankrupt. No wonder your a liberal voter.

perhaps, so I assumed you preferenced the Libs at 7 and Labor at 6? After all, the Labor party has openly supported the war in Iraq from day dot.

Or are you a 'morally bankrupt' Labor voter?!

I'm not. I'm justifying a war for other reasons. That it happens to be going on for oil is a separate issue. You seem unable to separate the two.

Lets seperate those issues:

a) The motivation for going to war.

b) The motivation to remain at war.

The motivation for both is Oil.

The Coalition of the Willing went into it claiming Saddam had terrorist links. Then they claimed he had WMD's. Then they claimed that he was just a bad guy and wanted to get rid of him. When all along it has been about oil. The fact that it is now blatantly about the oil doesn't seperate the motivation from going to war from the motivation to remain.

Stop deluding yourself that there was some kind of virtuous reason for going to war in Iraq. Just stop.

Why oh why am I surrounded by idiots!?

You are an idiot surrounded.

Arguing on the internet is dumb. I'm out.

last edited by d0mino at 13:29:14 25/Nov/07

yet you continue to ignore the fact that The Labor Party supported the Iraq war and won't be withdrawing troops in the near future...

The Coalition of the Willing went into it claiming Saddam had terrorist links. Then they claimed he had WMD's. Then they claimed that he was just a bad guy and wanted to get rid of him. When all along it has been about oil. The fact that it is now blatantly about the oil doesn't seperate the motivation from going to war from the motivation to remain.

Are you still too dense to realize that I've already stated clearly that *all* of the reasons they *claimed* to be going for war were absolultely bulls***, and that only one of the claimed reasons they used (albeit only for a short time) was actually a valid one? Everyone here knows the reason the people in charge are staying there is because of oil, noone sane here is denying that.

Clearly you're too dense to see this. Serious complete f***ing idiot I swear.

it's bizarre how much people lose thier objectivity during elections & similar. i went to an election party with a heap of my old telecom mates last night (who are , of course, mad leftwing socialists when compared with liberals or even labor!) & it was surprising to see how any sort of logic or objectivity is just thrown out the window.. especially as the outcome became clear. howard was pure evil & rudd is the shining light of salvation.. it was more like knobs watching some moronic sport than an election with the hyperbole approaching religious fervour. so around 10pm i decided to go visit another friend in the valley who had a mostly liberal-flavoured election party & was dismayed to see almost a negative image of the previous party. ie: rudd, who is pure evil, will now destroy the planet because the righteous had been vanquished, bs, bs, bs...

*yawn*

last edited by demon at 12:47:11 25/Nov/07

we're a laughing stock.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2936993.ece

POLITICS

Wait, election party? Haha :D

last edited by icewyrm at 13:08:42 25/Nov/07

election parties, i bet that was a rad night :p

*Edit*
That article is whack.

last edited by Xy at 13:27:28 25/Nov/07

yet you continue to ignore the fact that The Labor Party supported the Iraq war and won't be withdrawing troops in the near future...

Sorry, I didn't vote Labor.

you have a party n there is a federal election on... seems pretty straight forward concept to me :D i will admit that niether party was exactly a 'rad night' out but my friends are all mostly 40+ with kids so ermm.. yer.

waiting in line for f***ing 40minutes to vote is retarted.

boo to voting!

Getting into a war with Pakistan though... not really sure that's the best of ideas though given the risks to all.

So, we should go invade countries because we don’t like the way they are governed, but only if getting those outcomes is if it isn’t very risky?

I'm justifying a war for other reasons.

Revisionist justifications do not make for a solid argument. In fact, it’s a common form of logical fallacy.

Was Saddam a good person? No, he clearly wasn’t. Would it be good if we could have removed Saddam and leaving the Iraqi people and nation in a position where they have strong liberty and freedom? Yes, that would be a wonderful thing. However, have we improved Iraq and the Iraqi people’s position? That’s clearly debatable, and we won’t know the answer for decades to come.

However, the problem with your s***ty logic is two fold.

1) If the only justification that Australia and her allies need to invade sovereign nations is “to liberate people from a despot”, then why are we not going around liberating them? Why are we not in places like Fiji, Thailand, Pakistan, Libya, Burma, or the dozens and dozens of countries that are being ruled by despots? Why are we not in half of Africa? Why are we not invading the rest of Persia? Why are we not in North Korea?

2) If it is such a good justification, why didn’t we go in under those notions in the first place?

At the end of the day, your argument uses nothing more than a red herring to attempt a ‘bait and switch’ justification.

since a large number of these deaths are militants and geurillas.

I think it’s fairly safe to assume that it isn’t America and her allies that are running around shooting civilians in the face for no apparent reason. I think it’s also fairly safe that it is the people who America and her allies are fighting in Iraq who are killing so many civilians. However, the crux of question is, would those people have enough power to do that in Iraq if America and her allies hadn’t walked in, under false pretences, and caused a giant power vacuum with no policy on keeping s*** in order? i.e. is the current result, for the people we are supposed to be saving, any better than it was before we went in?

Everything might come out smelling like flowers and rainbows, but that isn’t assured. In fact, it is going to take years before we know we did a good or a bad thing in Iraq.

Spidz, Mal Brough has too much credability to be involved with the state opposition. (But they desperately need him).

-- Not repealed the GST, as claimed

Um ... wasn't that Beazley or Latham ?
And before you waffle on about how Rudd voted against it... welcome to the Australian political system. Tow the party line or get out. It is perhaps the major flaw in our system, members vote on party lines, not on what is good for their constituents.

-- Not ratified Kyoto (why the hell you would do this is beyond me).

Because it a process however flawwed that gets everyone to sit down to work towards solutions is better then nothing. If you don't sign it, you don't get to sit down at the table the next time they try it. And simply saying its crap is not enough, provide an alternative.

People who think going into Iraq was the 'wrong' thing to do are morally pathetic. What you're basically saying is that "We should have allowed a brutal dictator to continue to rule"

Raven, you are so far off the mark it's not funny.
Facts
1. We were told we went there for WMDs ... there were none and even at the time the evidence was hearsay or coerced (a tortured prisonner will tell you they are a martian planning a galactic invasion if it'll make the torture stop).
2. And we were told they had links to al quedia.. turns out Sadam was anti terrorism, and had told them to piss off. (Again hearsay and coerced, in a climate of anti arab fear post 911)

After we didn't find anything, and after we had destroyed the entire government (and most of the infrastructure)... We suddenly were here to free these people.

Now if this were true and brutal dictator's were our target, why aren't we invading Sudan ? Burma ? North Korea ? Cuba ? Iran ? and even China ? or Pakistan ?

To delude yourself that leaving Saddam in power was the morally right thing to do?

No doubt morally he was repugnant... BUT is the life of an average Iraqi better or worse now ? Is our continued involvement improving anything ? Remember no one went there because he was a bad guy, heck the US even funded him because he was a tough guy.

America has a duty of care, we went there on their intelligence, they called us in to help. Now that it turns out they lied to their mates, f*** em they can fix what they broke... that or Howard new it was all bulls*** and went anyway.

Iraq is a hard country to govern it is really atleast 3 nations with artifical boundries draw up by the winners of world wars, and don't relfect the reality of whats on the ground. True democracy may never work there. It need someone like Ataturk (the father of Modern Turkey) to come in and reform a nation, step one needs a local hero, step two making it a secular nation.

we're a laughing stock.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2936993.ece

i think ill still be able to sleep at nite

no doubt simon was one of johnnys biggest fans

The virtual tally room seems to have slowed down a s***load, I wonder if they're counting all the absentee/postal votes and such now?

The Federal Liberal Party of Australia http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/6175/gtfovh1.gif

Bwwahahahahahahahahaha.

I'm one of the people that the electorate analysts likely want to get a hold of to poll to find out what the f*** just happened.

I last voted Labor in the last election that Keating won (92-93 .. whatever) and jumped ship in the famous 1996 Howard victory. I've since backed old Johnny and yesterday helped deliver Leichardt to the Labor party - one of the key QLD seats that handed Ruddles the Lodge.

Why did I dump the Government this year after backing them for their entire term? No single event or slogan made up my mind, rather a combination of factors.

• As much as I admire Peter Costello and his track record, nobody should be gifted the Prime Minister's job. At the absolute least he should have had to challenge Howard for it within the party, and he lost points with me with the alleged backdoor maneuvering that failed to result in a challenge.
  
  Someone back there said 'some things should be earned'. Damn straight - welcome to Opposition Pete, we'll talk again in three / four years I hope. You deserve a shot at it having worked so hard as Treasurer.
  
  
• The Government's Upper House majority (hi infi) worked against it as I had thought it might when they unexpectedly won it. A deeply entrenched Government was delivered a mandate to do what they willed for four years, with the only accountability being this past election.
  
  In hindsight the moderating effect of having to negotiate legislature through the house of review would have taken the extreme edges off WorkChoices and delivered a much more defendable product, much as the GST was softened through the Senate.
  
  
• Over the years Honest John has worn away his credibility with me. I understand that all politicians have dubious moral and ethical grounding, but over the years Johnny just tarnished bit by bit.
  
  Tampa, Iraq, GWB butt kissing, WorkChoices hubris, APSI, AWB, 'We've never had it better', 'Never ever no GST' ... the list just goes on. Individually these points can be explained and expanded and made feel less grubby, but collectively over time the Government just eroded its image with each scandal and setback.
  
  The barnacled old Government with its visibly tired old figurehead could not help but compare badly against a visibly vital 'new Labor'. Only time will tell if this is a veneer or a truly new direction and message.
  
  
• New Labor, old Labor, the one thing that I know is that Labor stands for (and continues to stand for) social justice and equity. This is a selfish point, but I have a personal stake in exactly how generous and supportive the Federal Government is towards less advantaged citizens.
  
  I'm working as hard as I can to help offset it, but the simple fact is that if the ticking timebomb that is my health goes off I will be personally better off under a left-leaning Government than a conservative one.
  
  
• The simple fact is that the economy is so strong that a 3-4 year experiment with Labor has limited opportunity to bring the sky down. The budget is so astonishingly deep in surplus that we do have room to play with a new Government that has a slightly different outlook on social equity, justice and lefty issues like 'the environment'.

Much like the old Government's Senate majority, if the new one f***s up its newfound power, we can take it back off them.

Because it a process however flawwed that gets everyone to sit down to work towards solutions is better then nothing. If you don't sign it, you don't get to sit down at the table the next time they try it. And simply saying its crap is not enough, provide an alternative.

You don't sign up for a flawed agreement to score political points.

As I keep saying, nearly ALL those that ratified kyoto didn't meet their emission reduction targets. Australia did not ratify, but DID meet their targets.

If people are so worried about the environment, they should be concerned by the outcomes, not the political stunts. Outcomes was that we reduced our emissions to those set out for us in the Kyoto protocol, those that did ratify it, didn't.

this make the Kyoto Protocol about as useful as a computer for every kid in every school. ie: f***ing useless.

last edited by spidz at 15:04:41 25/Nov/07

^ Oh you poor dear.

If people are so worried about the environment, they should be concerned by the outcomes, not the political stunts. Outcomes was that we reduced our emissions to those set out for us in the Kyoto protocol, those that did ratify it, didn't.

If we don't sign the agreement, but keep our emission standards below those of the protocol, we can't participate future communications on standards. Nor can we point a finger at countries who did sign it and then didn't do a lot to get their emissions below the agreed levels.

We were told we went there for WMDs ... there were none and even at the time the evidence was hearsay or coerced (a tortured prisonner will tell you they are a martian planning a galactic invasion if it'll make the torture stop).

To be fair a lot of it came from informants (as in iraqis) who were initially part of the iraqi placeholder government. When it became clear they had lied about the WMDs, they were dis-credited and moved out of the picture. Clearly the evidence wasn't exactly concrete, and those who provided it were doing so for their own reasons. Irrelevant of what you think of the US seeking war with iraq, for someone to bring war to their own country is a whole different level of amorality.

If we don't sign the agreement, but keep our emission standards below those of the protocol, we can't participate future communications on standards. Nor can we point a finger at countries who did sign it and then didn't do a lot to get their emissions below the agreed levels.

Incorrect. We've been invited to the negotiating table for Kyoto Mk II.

If we don't sign the agreement, but keep our emission standards below those of the protocol, we can't participate future communications on standards. Nor can we point a finger at countries who did sign it and then didn't do a lot to get their emissions below the agreed levels.

Nah, the reasons for not ratifying it was that it would unfairly advantage other economies not bound by targets. The outgoing governments stance was that without developing nations being a part of it, there was no point in setting targets in the first place. It weakens the countries stance on that issue, to then turn around and ratify it, and would damage the case for a global carbon treaty in the future.

Kyoto is a waste of time and theres some evidence to suggest that its counter-productive. Aka, manufacturing, industry etc in European countries (where more nuclear-, hydro-, wind-power is used) is reduced due to higher energy costs, and is offshored to developing countries which are able to produce co2 unchecked, and whos clean power is far less developed or widespread and energy costs are far lower. Remember consumption for manufactured goods hasn't decreased, as the costs have likely remained unchanged.

f*** I wish the word "ratify" never existed. I swear the only time I've ever heard it used so much is when talking about Kyoto. FFS, just use something like "agree". When you say ratify you sound like a wank.

That is not meant for people here, just in general.

8-)

^ I agree. The only thing you should be able to 'ratify' is a f***ing rat cage.

http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~boldajis/images/rat.jpg

I think that going to war to stop an oppressive dictator is justified.

Others I think have pretty successfully deconstructed this statement, but I'll just add - change in things like this has to come from within. I don't think anyone'd say Saddam wasn't a dick, but its up to the people of a country to change their system - yes, it'll probably be bloody, but that's the cost of freedom - and once you get it, you should never let it go (sort of like the US is doing as their freedoms are eroded piece by piece, and we'll be doing if we keep following in their retarded footsteps).

Anyway, they didn't go there to stop an oppressive dictator, they weren't there in part of the stupid war on terror under the false pretense that there were WMDs.

I agree with demon; it's interesting to see how people go mental at election time and just really go off the wall. Why anyone expects politicians to actually come through on any of their promises - promises that we know are made just because they're contrary to the other guy's position, no less - is beyond me!

Anyway, here's hoping Kevin Rudd can actually do something useful with the country now that he's been given the reins. I'm still yet to hear him say one single word about his policies; every time I've seen him on TV he's just being saying what the Liberals ARENT going to do, or WONT do, or WHY they suck. In a normal world, he'd do the complete opposite, so it'll be interesting to see what happens.

Trog: He went to a job interview and he told the shareholders he was going to seliver record profits, revenue and growth. He got the job, despite not telling them how he is going to do it!

haha nice analogy, kinda obvious you vote liberal :P

I'm with Hogfather.

First time I've ever voted labor, and Howard's government brought it on themselves.

Australia did not ratify, but DID meet their targets.

Only because we had significantly reduced targets. And its not about political points (it only became poitn worthy when the liberal party chose to um and ahh and not agree to anything), its about being a part of the process, being part of the solution.

I strong doubt if Howard to this day believe the environment is a serious issue, he only gave it any lip service because he was aware that others do (and then probably by accident).

a computer for every kid in every school

If you read what he said it was computer access... not a desktop, not 1:1 ratios. Just that every student had access. What that means ? is anyones guess.

# The simple fact is that the economy is so strong that a 3-4 year experiment with Labor has limited opportunity to bring the sky down. The budget is so astonishingly deep in surplus that we do have room to play with a new Government that has a slightly different outlook on social equity, justice and lefty issues like 'the environment'.

Honestly? I'd rather a 3-4 year experiment with the Greens. At least they made some of their f***ing policies available in the limited amount of air time they got, as opposed to Rudd who used it solely to say "omg howard SUX BALLZ".

If we're going to "experiment" with our awesome economy, maybe we should just really roll the dice and go with someone that's going to try something really interesting!

If you read what he said it was computer access... not a desktop, not 1:1 ratios. Just that every student had access. What that means ? is anyones guess.

labor's website:

Giving every Australian student in years 9-12 access to their own school computer will mean Federal Labor’s new National Curriculum will be able to include a vast new repository of online teaching materials.

vague, but sounds to me like 1 computer per student to me.

Labors representatives were already grating on me this morning. They are still fully in election mode, and I suspect will be until well in to 2010. Couldn't answer a single question honstely on Insiders this morning. Still the same fluff and rehersed pomp we got over the last 6 months.

Why did you think there was such a large swing towards you?

"Because Kevin had a plan for the future..... " and on the BS roles.

I'm sick of the media continuing to give them such an easy ride. A lax media does this country, and the politicians themselves, a significant disservice.

I'm sick of the media continuing to give them such an easy ride. A lax media does this country, and the politicians themselves, a significant disservice.

Oh, yeh, when the front page of the Courier Mail was devoted to a pro-Rudd message it pretty much strengthened my resolve to not ever buy another f***ing news ltd rag ever again.

the australian, believe it or not, is much more balanced and a far better read.

can't stand the courier mail.

Why did you think there was such a large swing towards you?

"Because Kevin had a plan for the future..... " and on the BS roles.

You do realise all the members of each party said they same thing about themselves every time the won or retained their a seat? Or do you conveniently tune out when it's not to your liking?

(Disclaimer: I don't particular like any party, but they all said the same BS)

vague, but sounds to me like 1 computer per student to me

also sounds like 1 teacher to 60 students :(

I'd rather a 3-4 year experiment with the Greens.

Only problem is that the Greens are Communists. Read their policies, they are a total lol.

Only problem is that the Greens are Communists. Read their policies, they are a total lol.

point them out for me? Maybe you mean things like "sustainable, equitable economic progress is best achieved by government ownership of natural monopolies, and new government investment in strategic assets", which sounds great to me

I think pollies can be honest in the wake of an election only if they lose or retain government. If they've just come in from the wilderness, they've only just got in the door, they have the trust but no track record. Pushing this analogy further if i were the homeowner I reckon I'd be a bit alarmed if the story I'd been hearing suddenly changed..

Let's hope they don't trash the joint!

Trog,

They would shut down all coal productions, which would put us not in recession, but DEPRESSION within 6 months!

infi gets free money from the liberal party so you can't really trust anything he says in a political thread.

What concessions will the Greens extract from their bed partners the ALP to pass legislation in the Senate? There's a big phat future fund there for them all to spend...

I was considering voting for the Greens, except [as you'd expect] they are insanely anti-nuclear (not that other parties aren't):

The Australian Greens want:

5. a nuclear-free Australia.
6. a nuclear-free world.
7. safe, long-term containment of Australia’s existing nuclear waste.
8. the elimination of nuclear and depleted uranium weapons.
9. safe, ecologically sustainable energy options.

http://greens.org.au/about/policy/policy.php?policy_id=21

They seem to be scared of anything with the word "radiation" associated with it :/


last edited by parabol at 22:00:06 25/Nov/07

ironic considering they radiate gay

conduct a full review of the superannuation system with the aim of reducing its complexity and establishing progressive rates of superannuation taxation.

this should be reason enough not to give the greens government power. the government should keep away from the superannuation system. the great thing about the super system is that employers and governments can't raid it when they have cash problems. obviously some people in the greens see the supersystem as some massive golden egg to be raided.

gotta wonder what the complexities are. like maybe the single purpose rule that says superannuation trusts should be run to generate money for the beneficiaries retirement and not for some other pie in the sky scheme dreamed up by the greens.

oh and

only allowing losses from an investment to be offset against income from the same investment;.

really takes the cake for stupidity. i'm not sure how the greens can explain why an investment that packages 12 coin flips should enjoy a better return than 12 investments that have 1 coin flip each.

last edited by hast at 22:30:06 25/Nov/07

nuclear power is the only possible way to cut significant enough C02 emissions to make an impact on global warming.

"waaah" labor will ruin us

What is Howards legacy ? ... GST, IR Reform that by their own standards usually results in "unfair" outcomes even in prosperous times, a war in Iraq ... oh and the exclusion of bits of Australia as Australia so we can store refugees on Naru ...

What was Keatings legacy ? ... Superannuation, a floated dollar, deregulated finacial sector, tax reform(eg. aligning the top marginal and company tax rates and a heap of other things) and welfare reform.

The word Liberal does not mean fiscal credability. Costello is/was a good treasurer (Howard was awful as treasurer).

Hopefully Labor won't win control of the senate and they have to work together to make things happen.

The senate, eh, hmm

as opposed to Rudd who used it solely to say "omg howard SUX BALLZ".

as opposed to howard who use it solely to say "omg labor will roooon the economiics yes it will, remember what happend 20 years ago boogy boogy unions rarrrrrr"

You do realise all the members of each party said they same thing about themselves every time the won or retained their a seat? Or do you conveniently tune out when it's not to your liking?

Parabol, I said TODAY. Not yesterday during the election, i can understand they are still in election mode YESTERDAY, but Today on ABC Insiders they were still ranting the same way.

It took two questions for Alexander Downer to get honest, the Labor representative was paroting the shallow election bulls*** throughout the five minutes of air time.

I flicked between Sky and ABC on the night of the election, the presenters on both channels were glowing with happiness throughout the night. Compared that with just three years ago and the somber mood then. Just the facts, it's election coverage time. Not last night it wasn't.

I think we are in for the next six years with a very media & appearanced focused government, much like Tony Blair's.

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5768549,00.jpg

wow, labor can get legislation through the senate only if it gets the greens, family first and Nick Xenophon on-side. It's going to be a fun first term.

Reload, that is exactly why you don't use news.com.au for any purpose.

Parabol, I said TODAY

Ah fair enough.

I think we are in for the next six years with a very media & appearanced focused government, much like Tony Blair's.

or peter beattie's for that matter

wow, labor can get legislation through the senate only if it gets the greens, family first and Nick Xenophon on-side. It's going to be a fun first term.

Or the libs... sometimes they actually do agree on stuff after some negotiation.

they'll have to go through the libs until july next year anyway regardless. so hopefully we aren't looking at a complete reversion of IR laws. specifically the unfair dismissal laws, they used to be a joke.

so hopefully we aren't looking at a complete reversion of IR laws. specifically the unfair dismissal laws, they used to be a joke.

I think most people can accept that unfair dismissal laws are currently as stupid as the previous ones. What we need is something in the middle of the two.

In fact, that's what the entire IR process needs, a shifting into the centre for the best of both words. Think of it like this.

We are here -> UNION HELL |<----------------|->| LIBERAL s***FEST
We were here -> UNION HELL |<-|---------------->| LIBERAL s***FEST
We should be -> UNION HELL |<---------|-------->| LIBERAL s***FEST

Australia doesn't need the Unions in the same level of power that they were before. However, we don't need the same level of power in the hands of employers as they currently have. We need some checks and balances so that employers can't screw employees, and employees can't screw employers.

with or without labor in power the Unions have been steadily loosing power anyway.

They will never have a place like they used to even under a labor government, because people as typo said, much prefer to be in the middle of the two evils =]

They would shut down all coal productions, which would put us not in recession, but DEPRESSION within 6 months!

Well without electricity, we sure would be in trouble! Unless you mean they wouldn't just turn it all off, but would find something to replace it with first - I'm not sure.

I was considering voting for the Greens, except [as you'd expect] they are insanely anti-nuclear (not that other parties aren't):

Yeh this is a pretty good objection to the greens - although that said, I'd love to see massive government investment in other energy resources, JUST TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED, while we're talking about tossing around our future by voting for the people that didn't put us in this awesome economical position

What is Howards legacy ? ... GST, IR Reform that by their own standards usually results in "unfair" outcomes even in prosperous times, a war in Iraq ... oh and the exclusion of bits of Australia as Australia so we can store refugees on Naru ...

How short is your memory? Low unemployment, ass-kicking economy, telstra finally made a corporate entity (oh wait, that was a mistake)...

Everyone's focusing on a handful of bulls*** negatives (that in fact could be responsible in many ways for the awesome positives) as an excuse to vote in Rudd and his total lack of policies (at least those that weren't ripped off from the liberals), "just for something different". Why do we want something different!?? Everything is awesome now! Well, it was before Saturday.

I think most people can accept that unfair dismissal laws are currently as stupid as the previous ones.

I dunno, I admit I haven't looked at them too closely, except from the perspective as an employer - and even then, not very closely - because the one time I *did* want to know something about them and talked to an IR lawyer, she basically explained that everything still worked the same as always anyway and that everyone was getting worked up over the changes for nothing. I know, hard to believe!

I'm sure there's more to it than that and I have no doubt that some people HAVE been disadvantaged by the new IR laws, but I don't know anyone so don't have any personal knowledge of what's happening - the only people I've seen complaining are the odd one or two people on Today Tonight or ACA, and generally when I see people complaining on that show it seems a safe assumption that they'd just fail at everything anyway.

People (mostly those who didn't vote before 1994) seem to forget that before 1994 there was no unfair dismissal laws in Australia.

It is totally unnatural to have a law which prevents a free-minded country from letting its citizens terminate relationships.

We don't do it in marriages or in financial partnerships, so why is employment such a sacred cow?

In any effective partnership it takes two to tango, and if one partner is not getting any satisfaction why force the relatonship to continue? It is totally artificial and the relationship will then be further eroded through the deterioration of any remaining goodwill.

It's best part company as friends before becoming enemies.

I've asked a couple of unionists this question before:
Why exactly should employees have the right to quit, but employers not have the right to sack?

Not once have I got an answer to my question, everytime they go into some rant accusing companies of treading on the little guy and other union rhetoric.

the old laws (pre-workchoices) pretty much allowed any employee dismissed (regardless of the reasons) to make a claim before the IR tribunal. what typically happened was it'd go into mediation or whatever they called it between ex-employee and ex-employer and someone from the IRC. now if the reasons weren't completely clear cut, aka they were s*** at their job rather than they pulled a knife, there was a good chance that could go further. now no small business wants their named dragged through a ir court, so generally they'd just pay a certain amount to the ex-employee and they'd go away. say 1-3 months normal wages.

GREAT SYSTEM

why ? heres a good reason. give employers and inch and they take more then a mile. if you give the right to sack someone just because you dont like their face or they did have to look after the kids on that shift you just changed them to, they will.

it was proven with workchoices what employers will do if theyre given leeway which in the collective minds of australians (as was proved on saturday) threw the fair go out the back door. 1/2 the agreements failed the fairness test, which made people worse off then they were before. case in point just there

i don't think i've heard of a case where employers were genuinely firing people "unfairly". there was a couple of cases that the media latched on to but in general they were people either breaking the law (wc) in the firings or people generally asking for it (aka the chick who f***ed two work mates in the same room as another female work mate)

if you give the right to sack someone just because you dont like their face or they did have to look after the kids on that shift you just changed them to, they will.

Shrug, if you're a valuable employee, your employer won't let you go and they'll look after you - unless they're retards, in which case their business is almost certainly doomed anyway, unless they can figure out a way to just make money of raping employees rights without any word getting out.

i don't think i've heard of a case where employers were genuinely firing people "unfairly". there was a couple of cases that the media latched on to but in general they were people either breaking the law (wc) in the firings or people generally asking for it (aka the chick who f***ed two work mates in the same room as another female work mate)

I got fired because I refused to leave early in my notice period.

story goes, I gave 4 weeks notice to my employer, they worked me like a dog for the first two weeks then said you can go start your new job now, so I no worries just pay me out for the full 4 week notice period.
they said no, I said well you're going to get sued.
the next monday I came in to work and before I got a chance to sit down at my desk they walked me out and said I was being fired for "not implementing a valid security policy" on a server which I had installed 4-5 months before this date.
I had email logs which disproved this theory and I showed them before I left, I also emailed myself a copy just to be sure they didn't try to delete the evidence

anyway I left and got my final pay cheque, which was missing two weeks pay, off I went to the dept of IR.
long story short they're getting raped by the dept. of IR because they fired me unfairly, during the 4 week period where I gave notice (so obviously stupid)
I provided the dept of IR with my contract (not work choices) and the logs saying that the server was secured etc, the software had been installed and was reporting to admin@ etc

so they lost, I used my own solicitor to sue them and the dept of IR is also going to get my final pay cheque issued to me, along with all my entitlements that they tried to strip me of during the last 2 weeks
they will also incur a fine of $3000+ as a result, very stupid considering it wasn't the first time they'd done something like this

correct me if I'm wrong teq, but that sort of scenario could have happened with or without the new IR laws? its always been against the law to not pay out employee entitlements - even if you were legitimately fired I'm pretty sure you're still entitled to holiday pay, etc

notcainer

yes trog, the holiday stuff etc they also used the excuse "we were over paying you so we're going to with hold the difference from your holiday pay"
the only thing I was disputing was their ability to fire me within my notice period for something so silly

kind of two seperate issues, I used my lawyer to make sure they didn't get away with trying to not pay me my holidays etc, as they "realised" they were overpaying me (false)
I had to get an accountant and lawyer to make sure they didn't get away with that

the department of IR only made sure they didn't get away with the unfair dismissal

Shrug, if you're a valuable employee, your employer won't let you go and they'll look after you - unless they're retards, in which case their business is almost certainly doomed anyway, unless they can figure out a way to just make money of raping employees rights without any word getting out.

Trog's on the money.

yes trog, the holiday stuff etc they also used the excuse "we were over paying you so we're going to with hold the difference from your holiday pay"

Yeh, they definitely can't do s*** like that. One of the conversations I had with our IR lawyer was about that (not that we were planning on doing it or anything, it just came up as something in conversation); basically you cannot hold back entitlements for anything - even if the employee owes you money for whatever reason or something, they're still entitled to their, uh, entitlements and everything else you have to work out independently (IIRC).

Shrug, if you're a valuable employee, your employer won't let you go and they'll look after you - unless they're retards, in which case their business is almost certainly doomed anyway, unless they can figure out a way to just make money of raping employees rights without any word getting out.

yeah thats all well and good in a magical fairy land with rainbows and lollipops. unfortunately, as has been proven time and again, real life dictates that if there is a dollar to be made within the letter of the law, its going to be made at any cost. bosses are c***s. they might be all happy family friendly types when the business is 10 people big, when it gets to 50 - 100+, people are expendable, just get in another boat load from the phillipines or sri lanka (qantas do that right now in their maintenance facilities because the pay is too s*** to attract anyone in the industry) outsource or just sack them and reemploy another uni grad on 1/2 the pay.

Shrug, if you're a valuable employee, your employer won't let you go and they'll look after you - unless they're retards, in which case their business is almost certainly doomed anyway, unless they can figure out a way to just make money of raping employees rights without any word getting out.

Do you propose that all employers treat all of their employees as valuable commodities? Do you also propose that there are no members of our society that need protecting?

Intelligent people who have the capability to A) negotiate differences, and B) realise that there are alternatives to being shafted can do something about it. However, that isn’t indicative of many people in the work force, and we shouldn’t expect that everybody has the same social skills and internal willpower that we do.

Do you propose that all employers treat all of their employees as valuable commodities? Do you also propose that there are no members of our society that need protecting?

Do you mean "propose" or something else, like "posit"? If you mean propose, then I answer "yes" to the first question, and "no" to the second. I don't think you mean propose though?

sounds to me like you're blaming workchoices for a globally influenced and competitive economy.

if a uni graduate can do as good a job as someone whos been there for 25 years, it says to me the job isn't a particularly skilled one and should be cheaply paid. make sense to me.

The fundamental question that remains unanswered is: why make an employer keep an employee they don't want, when it is the employer's capital at risk?

In terms of economic decision-making removal of the unfair dismissal laws provided great certainty to business to the extent that 85% of new employment in 2007 was full-time, far outstripping full-time employment pre IR changes.

If Labor bring back unfair dismissal laws they will also be bringing back casualisation of the workforce.

infi is (uhh) right.

great example is my work, prior to work choices most new positions were filled under 12 month contracts. about 1.5 years ago, that all changed to permanent positions (though some project positions remained contracts).

i never was under one thank god, but it absolutely sucks to be on one and having it constantly extended. if you work hard, you'll have job security.

Do you mean "propose" or something else, like "posit"? If you mean propose, then I answer "yes" to the first question, and "no" to the second. I don't think you mean propose though?

History doesn’t support that all employers do value their employees. Nor does it support that all employees are able to protect their interests.

The fundamental question that remains unanswered is: why make an employer keep an employee they don't want, when it is the employer's capital at risk?

Unfair dismissal laws suck because it limits employers to remove people who shouldn’t be working there, for whatever legitimate reason. However, some unfair dismissal laws are good because it prevents unscrupulous employers from exploiting workers with unfounded threats of getting fired. That’s all I’m suggesting is that we need something that gives us the best of both worlds; that is, the ability to f*** off douchebags, and the ability to protect people who are not, for whatever reason, in a position to protect themselves.

Providing a third party (some bureaucratic tribunal) which does not know my company, nor care about my company, nor care about the other workers in my company - providing it the right to make binding business decisions for me is not fair.

There is no "best of both worlds" balance to be struck. I have no objection with providing an avenue of enforcement over workplace entitlements or freely negotiated agreements eg. leave accrual payments etc but that is entirely different to creating NEW rights to forced employment security.

The simple fact is that if we have unfair dismissal laws you will have prick employees abusing the system with nuisance claims even though they deserved the ass, and if we don't have the laws we will get some prick employers who do the reverse.

On the balance though, I would submit it is better to not interfere and let everyone move on if someone is not happy with the employment relationship rather than force the relationship to remain on life support.

Just gotta laugh, the three Amigos are all gone from positions of power in their parties, Howard, Costello and now Vaile. Looks like the drovers dogs have been given the green dream.

Rats leaving a sinking ship - HMAS Howitanic.

I'd love to know what the new laws (before or after the coming changes) say about companies restricting employees to accruing a certain number of days holiday. I've got 35 accrued at the moment and the company don't particularly like that.

Can we ban some fat bastard? His anti-liberal rhetoric is way worse than anything infi has ever spewed upon the labor party. At least infi seems kind of sane, if biased to his party of choice - where as some fat bastard sounds like that f***ing mental union guy who kept refusing to leave.

As a general rule, your employer can direct you to take annual leave at any time with one month's notice, or long service leave with three month's notice.

Your employer must just be biting their tongue re your accrual at the moment.

An employer may direct an employee to take a period of paid annual leave if the employee has accumulated an annual leave credit greater than what an employee would ordinarily accrue over two years. In this situation, the employer may direct the employee to take up to one quarter of his or her accumulated annual leave credit.

edit: this new 2 year minimum seems to be an improvement under WorkChoices (heaven forbid) so at 35 days accrual your employer would have no right to direct that leave be taken (unless they are not a company and thus covered by the State Industrial Relations Act 1999).

last edited by infi at 15:02:28 26/Nov/07

See our workplace would be the opposite.

Previously everyone after their initial contract or possibly 2 was made permanent (I had a 12 month with 6 month review, then a 3 year, then permanent).
Now everyone is on contracts. Even if you do a sport coach job its a contract with a letter of appointment (instead of being classed a hobby).

And infi to me the fundamental question is why did over 50% of AWAs fail the government's own fairness test ? because over 50% of the bosses will take as much as they can from employees (it is their job to).

Employers employ as many people as needed, all the IR laws did was make it easier to take advantage of their employees. Potentially people no longer got paid what something was worth, but what an employer could find someone to half ass it for. And some employers will happily accept the half assed job right up until it causes a problem.

Shrug, if you're a valuable employee, your employer won't let you go and they'll look after you - unless they're retards

In a Newtonian world perhaps.
In the real world, employers are people, and people make mistakes. Employers do all sorts of stupid things, and in my experience usually because an accountant/salesperson somewhere showed how they could make a paper profit. But I have also seen a number of weird choices made because someone was someone's mate/friend/interest, ie. nothing to do with experience or ability.

eg.
All of our cleaners got fired 2 weeks before xmas with no warning, and outsourcing brought in. Funnily enough the out sourcers offered to re-hire many of them, but at lower rates.
Out sourcers did only what was in the contract (eg. windows weren't in the contract), end result was it ended up costing them a lot more, because the in sourced cleaners did the job whatever it took, when contractors did what was in the contract. So the contract was not renewed, but as a result lost what had been a good group of workers. Now we have gone back to in sourcing and they are still trying to find good staff.

Potentially people no longer got paid what something was worth,

In a truly free market, the parties determine what their goods and services are worth, not a government pay scale book.

Can we ban some fat bastard?

lol, another closet Costello.

His anti-liberal rhetoric is way worse than anything infi has ever spewed upon the labor party.

Lol, infi-tesimal hasn't acquired the refined skills yet. He will with the long road ahead in opposition.

At least infi seems kind of sane

Debatable, but then again if you believe fridge magnets hold all the clues then I can see why you think he's sane.

where as some fat bastard sounds like that f***ing mental union guy who kept refusing to leave.

Never been in a Union DW. Funny though posters can write whatever crap you like as long as it targets Labor/Greens/Dems etc yet No, you can't pick on your beloved Liberal Party. What a bunch of "all tip and no iceberg" Costellos, whom are not out of touch, just never were in touch.



last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 15:18:40 26/Nov/07

What a classic collection of cliches.

What a classic collection of cliches.

Get used to it infi-tesimal, that's what you build up on in opposition, cliches. By the time you guys get back in you should have a bucketload.

In a truly free market, the parties determine what their goods and services are worth, not a government pay scale book.

it was actually a labor government, that removed centralised wage structures... next argument please..


heard a good one yesterday

Q: How do you spell liberal
A: M E

it was actually a labor government, that removed centralised wage structures... next argument please..

and replaced it with the Accord - another quasi-centralised structure. Are you being deliberately ignorant?

which lead to EBAs which in turn had the greatest effect on productivity this country has ever seen which is what the liberal party has been riding on the back of until saturday.

So deregulating to the enterprise level is ok, but deregulating to the individual level is bad. What hypocrisy.

individuals dont have the skills, resources or legal knowledge to effectively bargain with massive multinational corportations with teams of lawyers versed in the laws of the land.

whats wrong with a union who does have the above mentioned to bargain on your behalf, to collectively achieve a better outcome for all ?

its not hypocracy. its achieving a balance between social responsibility and fair remuneration. employers proved they can't, hence the fairness test.

as i said

how do you spell liberal ?

m e

Man what a boring thread.

sounds like that f***ing mental union guy who kept refusing to leave.

I never said that you were in a union or supported unions, I said you were like the guy. Irrationally angry, extremely rough and not very pleasant to interact with at any level.

And what about all those employees who want to make an individual agreement (assuming they are one of the few apparently remaining sane and competent people that can do paid work in australia and has an idea of what they want to be paid). What are THEIR rights. Well they have to the right to join a union and be part of a collective agreement.

This tired paternalistic attitude is the exact danger we are now facing. "Some people may be taken advantage of if the rules are deregulated, so we will keep the regulation up for EVERYONE."

In a truly free market, the parties determine what their goods and services are worth, not a government pay scale book.

While I agree, most of the time. Particularly for "professional" positions.
Generic jobs, usually unskilled or low skilled should not require 2 parties to individually come up with something. Even entry level professional jobs, or "generic" professional jobs eg. nurses, coppers, teachers should not be on a case by case. At the very least it should state a minimum, if employers offer more, great!

why ?
1. because its a massive waste of time, if people are being treated fairly
2. because an employee and employer should not have an adversarial relationship they should be working together to get best for the business, and if they have to bargain its an adversarial relationship.


eg.
A checkout chick is a checkout chick is a checkout chick.
Why shouldn't there be a minimum acceptable level of entitlements (pay, overtime, leave etc) for that job ?
If an employer wishes to go above and beyond to reward their staff in an effort to retain them great! (bet they won't)


To take your argument to the nth (silly) degree.
Why can't a parent send their 10 year old child off to work for $50 a week doing 15hour days picking fruit ? Its an agreement between the legal guardian and the employer, why should the government be involved ?

individuals dont have the skills, resources or legal knowledge to effectively bargain with massive multinational corportations with teams of lawyers versed in the laws of the land.

see the problem is i don't believe that unions (atleast in a lot of cases) are interested in the collective individual, rather they are just interested in maintaining the collective. take a look at the waterfront dispute back in the late 90s, the unions there had wielded so much power for so long they had dragged down the productivity of the waterfront to the point it was one of the worst in the world.

the companies involved (with howards support) broke the back of the unions by bringing in non-union labour (and sacking every union employee - unfairly to boot haha, but thats another story). faced with having no presence at all on the water front and essentially become obsolete they bowed to a majority of the companies' demands. thousands of workers eventually became redundant, pay was reined in, they gave up various conditions, productivity went through the roof, etc.

what did they trade all that for? all stevedores now have to be card wielding unionists. they saved their own arse from obsoletion.

typical liberal, me me me me me me me. you sound like a liberal voting colleague of mine who was complaining about having to pay tax for public hospitals, because he can afford private cover why should he have to pay for anyone else. why he thought a train line to redcliffe was a stupid idea because he could afford to drive his car.

f*** everyone else ill cut me own deal jack ill be right.

me me me f***ing me

if u want your own deal contract yourself for what you feel youre worth.

The individual is worth nothing now. It's all about the collective. Now we are getting to the heart of the issue.

what i'm saying is that 2 parties negotiating is likely to find the best compromise for both parties involved.

having a 3rd party with its own agenda negotiating on my behalf is redundant at best. and please, don't make it out like labor voters aren't looking out for themselves. the whole campaign was about workchoices and how it hurts the individual.

just because theres no u or i in the word labor doesn't make it so with their policies.

workchoices went too far in my opinion.

individuals dont have the skills, resources or legal knowledge to effectively bargain with massive multinational corportations with teams of lawyers versed in the laws of the land.

i've done exactly that for the last 9 years. a tender goes out, I apply for it and state my hourly rate. we then quibble about contract conditions and sign on the line.

it doesn't take an industrial relations lawyer to look over the boilerplate contract and see that they can end the contract immediately but I have to give 4 weeks notice. hey buddy, u choose either there's no notice for both or 4 weeks. the contract is amended.

oh u now want me to come in on weekends and be on call? since the contract doesn't cover after hours an amendment is made after fair negotiation. it is fair or I won't sign. why would u work weekends and not be paid for it?

u don't need to be a lawyer or accountant for employment negotiations. you just have to read basic english. if you don't understand tell them you don't understand.

if u are not happy where you are... move on.

congrats youre a contractor, not a full time staff member working under an eba like most australians.

so if contractors can somehow negotiate fair and reasonable employment conditions without a law degree, why can't a normal person?

Contractors charge buckets more ?

u don't need to be a lawyer or accountant for employment negotiations. you just have to read basic english. if you don't understand tell them you don't understand.

Vote #1 natslovR PM

congrats youre a contractor, not a full time staff member working under an eba like most australians.

If all potential employees refuse to sign up for s*** conditions, then surely the employers are going to have the change the way they operate, right? I mean, you'd be an idiot to sign any full time employment agreement that only gave you one week holiday, unless you were compensated for it fairly in other ways.

I dunno what it's like in other industries but when we were hiring recently, if we'd tried to play funny buggers with employment contracts the guys we offered positions to would have laughed in our face and then gone to take one of the other million software development jobs there are out there at the moment. In fact, one or two actually did when they decided the terms didn't match what they wanted.

Seriously, no matter what sort of anti-liberal whiner you are and how much you love rudd's directionless agenda, you can't argue that our economy is in this position because of anything other than the economic policies of the last 10 years. All we have to look forward to now is uncertainty, which PISSES ME OFF because things were going dandy for everyone. Sure, maybe it'll end up better, but f***, at some point when you're talking trillions of dollars and millions of lives surely you've gotta think "if it ain't broke..."

Contractors charge buckets more ?

So they're more capable of reading english? I don't see what this has to do with s***

Labor at local, Labor at state and Labor at federal.. and here I was thinking it was just bad weed on Saturday that made the world spin out.

I think the alternative suggestion is that people need protecting from themselves. I mean it's such a weak pathetic argument it's not funny.

These same people are signing up to car loans and white goods hire purchase agreements with radio rental, racking up debt on credit cards and taking out home loans, HOWEVER they are too vulnerable and unintelligent to negotiate their own individual rate of pay.

f*** what could be harder, dealing with a bank/finance company, or dealing with your boss.

Apparently the Business Council of Australia welcomes the new Rudd's government

Business welcomes reform

BUSINESS in Australia has welcomed the election of a Rudd Labor Government as a new chance for significant reform, particularly in improving the dysfunctional condition of federal-state relations.

The new head of the Business Council of Australia, Greig Gailey, said the BCA wanted to work closely with Labor in helping to lay the foundations for the future.

"Many of the items on the BCA agenda have been flagged by the incoming Government as immediate priorities ... that is incredibly positive," he said.

So we'll just have to wait and see what K.Rudd will do. I must say I'm a bit nervous about what they'll do....

And then this one:

IR changes coming soon

"The real issue for us now is how do we work with the incoming government to ensure that the workplace policy that we do have is one that continues to deliver increased productivity and prosperity for this country," Business Council of Australia president Greig Gailey said on ABC Radio.

He said it was important that business was consulted on the new laws.

"We're very keen to sit down as soon as it is appropriate to do so with the Government and work through what transition actually means in practice and how does it work."

Ms Gillard promised business would have a say in the new workplace changes.

"We obviously have our policy documents and in the process of turning them into legislation we will be consulting with a business advisory group," she said.

Other industrial relations stakeholders including unions also would be consulted, she said.

Mr Gailey said he was not concerned at the prospect of working with a government with such strong trade union influences.

"We've worked successfully with Labor governments in the past and I don't see any issues in terms of the people that will be part and parcel of that government and that we won't be able to work with them.

"We'll have disagreements, but gee whizz, we've had disagreements with the coalition and that's part of life."

So on the face of it, it _should be_ ok. But time will tell ........ /me waiting....

Edit: fixing the links

last edited by Opec at 17:31:30 26/Nov/07

anyone ever considered a lot of employers dont offer contracts or awas ?

what of the employees in those industries ? f*** them its their own stupid faults for choosing that for a career ? thats the liberal attitude.

i still cant understand why some people cant see a correlation between australias prosperity and chinas demand for our resources. seriously what has howard actually done? has he invested in education... ? health... ? infrastructure... ? he shuffled the budget to maintain a 1% surplus, done by robbing peter to pay paul.

was howard the white knight whose gracious presence caused all ills to be stripped away from this country and we've all turned into millionares ? people have seen through him and his lies for long enough and have given labor a shot at the title. if the collective of this country dont like it, they can choose another pm in 3 years time. game over libs for 3 years you lost. unions boogy boogy rarr are coming to eat your first borns rarr and steal your moneys from the economiiess

Apparently the Business Council of Australia welcomes the new Rudd's government

There's a surprise, big business wanting to make the new boss feel welcome. From the BCA site:

The Business Council of Australia is an association of CEOs of 100 of Australia’s leading corporations, which together have a combined national workforce of almost one million people.

last edited by trog at 17:42:51 26/Nov/07

what of the employees in those industries ? f*** them its their own stupid faults for choosing that for a career ? thats the liberal attitude.

that's an extremely arrogant thing for you to say. they are working on arrangements that obviously must work for them. everyone has their lot in life, but shouldn't people have the freedom and liberty to arrange their own affairs?

Labor in fact advocates restricting the number of legal working arrangements to either the award or a collective agreement. They are going to make individual agreements (AWAs) illegal now.

They will be removing choice from the entire labour system, regardless of whether some employees wanted it or not. When Labor got into power in NZ, the first thing they did was keep individual agreement. WA Labor kept its individual agreements. KRudd is going to scrap his. Insanity.

I don't like the idea of EBA's as the crap employees get paid the same as the good ones. People should be paid their Market Worth. nothing more, nothing less.

and I just don't like to see my tax dollars spent on welfare. Call me self centred - proud.


and finally

PRIME Minister-elect Kevin Rudd says his government will make a formal apology to indigenous Australians early in its first term.

Get f***ed KRudd. This generation has done nothing wrong, unless giving out money for nothing is something wrong.

These same people are signing up to car loans and white goods hire purchase agreements with radio rental, racking up debt on credit cards and taking out home loans, HOWEVER they are too vulnerable and unintelligent to negotiate their own individual rate of pay.

f*** what could be harder, dealing with a bank/finance company, or dealing with your boss.

We have things in this country called consumer protection laws enacted by the likes of the Dept of Fair Tading and the ACCC to protect the consumer. So in fact you're analogy is a poor one. Even banks are regulated to the extent that there are laws to protect the consumer.

they are working on arrangements that obviously must work for them. everyone has their lot in life, but shouldn't people have the freedom and liberty to arrange their own affairs?

Yes they should, but the guy you are replying to is saying that these agreements are not available to everyone. The option is not available.

Let's face it, they can tell you they don't like your face anywhere. They'll just chalk it up to something else that you can't really prove/disprove.

So in fact you're analogy is a poor one.

I disagree because the basis of the analogy is that these INDIVIDUALS are entering into significant contracts on their own steam. If they can enter into those they can enter employment agreements too.

I disagree because the basis of the analogy is that these INDIVIDUALS are entering into significant contracts on their own steam. If they can enter into those they can enter employment agreements too.

Yeh, it's a good point I reckon. People often go into much longer contracts with much more paperwork than a mere employment agreement! You ever read the s*** you've agreed to when you install the average piece of software?

Most people don't give a s*** about anything and will happily agree to whatever you put in front of them for an easily identifiable short-term benefit. See: credit card debt. As long as they have some basic rights you don't want the government in stepping all over s*** trying to nanny people. If people are going to sign up a credit card and then buy a heap of expensive s*** they can't afford, that shouldn't be the governments problem, right?

i still cant understand why some people cant see a correlation between australias prosperity and chinas demand for our resources. seriously what has howard actually done? has he invested in education... ? health... ? infrastructure... ? he shuffled the budget to maintain a 1% surplus, done by robbing peter to pay paul.

Humm... I don't know about that cainer:

Credit where it's due, please

Who instigated the economic reform process in Australia is a matter for argument. It is true that most of the reforms started after the election of the Hawke government in March 1983. However, as the former Reserve Bank governor Ian Macfarlane pointed out in his 2006 Boyer Lectures, The Search for Stability, the introduction of the tender system for the sale of Treasury notes and Treasury bonds "was second only in importance to the float of the Australian dollar in 1983". These changes were introduced in 1979 and 1982 respectively, when Howard was treasurer.

In any event, from Opposition, Howard supported the economic reform agenda of the Hawke and Keating governments covering the exchange rate, financial deregulation, the winding back of protection and initial workplace reform. After defeating Keating in March 1996, Howard and his Treasurer, Peter Costello, continued the reform process - focusing on industrial relations and tax reform, along with privatisation.

The results of the reform process soon became evident. Australia was able to withstand the effects of the 1997 Asian economic downturn, the 1998 global financial crisis, the US recession of 2001 and the worst domestic drought in a century. Without the economic reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, one or more of these events would have caused a recession. All this was achieved before China's insatiable demand started the resources boom, which resulted in Australia experiencing its most favourable terms of trade since the Korean War in the early 1950s.

The economic reforms, of both Labor and the Coalition, made it possible for Australia to withstand the international shocks which occurred between 1997 and 2001 while the economy grew at about 3 per cent with relatively low inflation and declining unemployment. The very same reforms have made it possible for Australia to benefit from the current resources boom.

There was a resources boom in the early '70s. But, in its pre-reformed condition, the Australian economy could not have adapted. Certainly China and India want to purchase Australia's mineral resources. But only because Australia is an efficient and reliable supplier, where industrial relations disputes are the lowest in recorded history. The Australia of the '70s would not have been able to meet the demand and resource-hungry nations would have purchased their requirements elsewhere.

Then there was the centralised wages system, much beloved by the Industrial Relations Club. In the '70s and into the '80s, booms invariably resulted in recessions, as wage increases in thriving industries passed through the centralised system and had to be paid by profitable and non-profitable companies alike. Consequently, prosperity in one part of the economy invariably resulted in sackings in another.

The effect of the economic reform process was well analysed by the Treasury Secretary, Ken Henry, in a speech delivered on August 14. Henry focused on the independence of the Reserve Bank to set interest rates, along with flexible labour markets, as factors in Australia's good employment outcomes during the current boom. On the effect of labour market reform, Henry commented: "We can see evidence of flexibility in both differences in wages growth across industries and in the speed with which employment is growing where demand is strongest. For example, mining and construction wages have been growing at around 5 per cent, well ahead of wages in other sectors of the economy."

That's just the way it should be. Industrial relations reform has made it possible for Australia to enjoy the benefits of the minerals boom without distorting the rest of the economy. Consequently, employment growth is widespread.

O'Brien and his 7.30 Report researchers should check the facts before implying that, but for the grace of China, there would be scant prosperity Down Under. Certainly Australian Bureau of Statistics figures demonstrate that the strongest growth in employment over the year to September 2007 occurred in Western Australia (plus 3.5 per cent) and Queensland (plus 3.3 per cent). However, NSW (2 per cent) and Victoria (2.4 per cent) have also done well - without any direct impact from China.

Moreover, job growth has not been confined to mining and related industries. According to the bureau, the industries with the largest jobs growth over the year to August 2007 were retail trade (19.5 per cent of total new jobs), followed by education (17.5 per cent) and accommodation/restaurants (14.5 per cent). The figure for mining was 2.6 per cent.

In March 2006 the academic Judith Brett told the Fabian Society in Sydney that Australia's prosperity was all due to China. Last week O'Brien ran much the same line when interviewing Howard. The fact is that the first-rate economy is due to the political initiatives of Labor and Coalition governments over two decades and the majority of Australians who supported their policies. Without this, China's boom would have had little beneficial long-term effect in Australia.