grow up

You're naive if you don't think this is the case.

Look no further than their almost unanimous support of TPP if you want proof of this.

Ricecrakers MK.III: The Conspiracy Phase

All political commentary these days is a dig at the opposition. We literally have parties opposing new ideas because they didn't come up with it.

Anyone who thinks that any political party is here to serve the people is deluded.

What do the people want? Everything at no expense to themselves.

Who should pay for it? Rich people and big businesses.

Thee fact that any critism of the libs is still met with this "but labor" bullshit really makes me wonder.

LOL @ true believers

Howard and Costello were very good at doing that at the end of election cycles.

Oh and it would be nice if they did something for the 'plebs' (the people they are elected to serve) for once in their miserable political careers.

There was no budget emergency and overspending is worse under the current lot.

Go on.

Tony was in Townsville today and went up Castle Hill, the one day I don't go up.

Gah.

-PB

:lol: They're f*cking idiots.

Because the ALP has thoroughly made Australia weaker :roll:

the ideology isnt the issue

the issue is they're all crooks serving the interests of their mates in big business and couldnt care less about the electorate other than to get re-elected
this goes for Coalition, ALP and Greens alike.

6 half dozen of the other etc etc.

Bring back the democrats maybe? Something more "centrist".

-PB

So we can have Labour throwing more money around to keep the plebs happy?

No thank you.

85 broken promises in 88 weeks. The worst in modern history anywhere in the world.

Kick this mob out.

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/abbotts-budget-backflips-bring-broken-promises-tally-to-85,7722

Edited by fourfiveone: 18/5/2015 12:39:14 PM

Under Labor, Tony's first go at it, and now what they are planning this time around?

Labor PPL (also current policy since the Tone Gold scheme wasn't ever bought into law):
* Not available if you earn more than 150k. Must have worked 330 hours, out of 10 months in past 13. Minimum wage. 18 weeks to primary carer. Paid by employer, funded through general Govt spending. Partner gets 2 weeks. Payable in addition to existing entitlements in workers contract.

Tone's "Gold" PPL (not put through):
Same restrictions as above. Replacement of wage for 26 weeks, up to a maximum of 150,000. Funded by tax on business. Partner gets 2 weeks.

The proposed scheme from the current Government isn't really a new policy, as much as it changes the existing situation to mean that if the law passes, you can only get the government leave, or your employers leave. It will save $1 billion over 4 years. It will impact on any working families who have additional parental leave via their employer.

Despite the original law being intended to work with any workplace leave policy, it was described as a 'rort' (despite at least two of the current Government taking advantage of this 'rort'). Up to 80,000 parents will lose payments in part or full.

It is effectively a giant backflip from their PPL election policy.

Edited by macktheknife: 15/5/2015 06:34:35 PM

Alright, can someone please provide me with a no-BS, lazymans terms description of this paid parental leave thing?

How much? How long for? When starting/stopping? Who is for&against what?

If that's the case then I have no issue with it. What I would have an issue with is these ladies going in on top of the existing cohorts. The fact is we simply don't have the jobs to keep pumping out engineers and I'm sure your field is the same.

There's also the social issues of women in engineering. I have no problem with it. However tradies and the like don't always respect them or they objectify them. People can say how it doesn't happen in this day and age but they're ignorant and wrong. People can bitch about the 'cultural' problem all they want but realistically it's not going to change any time soon. It is how it is. You can't change people.

I know what you're saying and I work in IT where it's the same thing. There's definitely an aspect of creating a point of difference to the fact that the Liberals have been crushing the science and innovation sectors ever since they got into office.

I have an applied mathematics degree and the university offers a scholarship for women to do the course. It's not a full fee paying scholarship but it did work to attract some. What they're suggesting is essentially a full fee paying scholarship to attract even more. There's a limit to placements so as long as it attracts the best and brightest into the field I don't see much of an issue with it.

Was in reference to Joyce and Johnny Depp's dogs.

-PB

With positions reducing following mining slowdowns I don't see the need to 'boost' positions at all. University offerings should be in line with demand (where practical). Producing engineering graduates is expensive, especially when we're producing more graduates than there are positions. Boosting female positions is a stupid way of trying to prove that the opposition is all for equality. There's nothing wrong with females in engineering. There is a problem of wasting money trying to prove a point.

If the government wants to do this, they need to put the squeeze on male positions gaining entry to university courses, to prevent graduate engineers working in either part time jobs or in other fields.

I had something like 120 engineers in my cohort. About 3 in 4 had jobs out of uni in the middle of the mining boom. We had an undergrad who left us who said less than half his cohort had jobs. Why on earth would you boost funding to a sector that's over saturated?

Yes you're right, the government is going to pay for it because the exact reason you said. Look forward to the moaning when we can't build and develop infrastructure because people like you (who I'm sure is on the young end of the age scale) are all no longer capable of working.

All you've talked about are symptoms of the problem of a stagnating economy.

Shorten said that the government would pay for. The companies themselves aren't going to fund degrees.

1) The vast majority of engineering firms are holding/reducing professional staff levels.
2) Most (us included) firms have had to scale back undergraduate programmes because it's not cost effective to pay kids form minimal return these days.
3) Most engineering firms (us included) have scaled back graduate programmes because the work simply isn't there for them.

...or everybody

:idea: The 100,000 engineering and IT women and their employers :idea:

They have to put out whitepapers and other documentation on how they would fund that stuff in the comings weeks surely?

I want to know where these jobs are going to come from :lol:

-PB

He talked shit. I love how Labour always talk up what they're going to do without any means of paying for it. How are they going to pay for 100,000 engineering/IT women to go through uni? Who's going to get screwed to pay for it?