The Australian Politics thread: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese


The Australian Politics thread: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese

Author
Message
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
433 wrote:
I'm more concerned about the Thatcher part. :lol:

Thatcher left England stronger?
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
433
433
World Class
World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K, Visits: 0
afromanGT wrote:
433 wrote:
I'm more concerned about the Thatcher part. :lol:

Thatcher left England stronger?

The fact that Abbott emulates Thatcher is a worry, a sign of things to come?

Edited by 433: 26/8/2013 10:14:49 PM
Edited
9 Years Ago by 433
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
433 wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
433 wrote:
I'm more concerned about the Thatcher part. :lol:

Thatcher left England stronger?

The fact that Abbott emulates Thatcher is a worry, a sign of things to come?

Edited by 433: 26/8/2013 10:14:49 PM

Socially, most probably.
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
Joffa
Joffa
Legend
Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K, Visits: 0
Margaret Thatcher
No ordinary politician

Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s prime minister from 1979 to 1990, died on April 8th at the age of 87. We assess her legacy to Britain and the world
Apr 13th 2013 |From the print edition


SEVERAL prime ministers have occupied 10 Downing Street for as long as, or even longer than, Margaret Thatcher. Some have won as many elections—Tony Blair, for one. But Mrs Thatcher (later Lady Thatcher), Britain’s only woman prime minister, was the first occupant of Number 10 to become an “-ism” in her lifetime. She left behind a brand of politics and a set of convictions which still resonate, from Warsaw to Santiago to Washington.

What were those convictions? In Mrs Thatcher’s case, the quickest way to her political make-up was usually through her handbag. As she prepared to make her first leader’s speech to the Conservative Party conference in 1975, a speechwriter tried to gee her up by quoting Abraham Lincoln:

When he had finished, Mrs Thatcher fished into her handbag to extract a piece of ageing newsprint with the same lines on it. “It goes wherever I go,” she told him.

And it was a fair summation of her thinking. Mrs Thatcher believed that societies have to encourage and reward the risk-takers, the entrepreneurs, who alone create the wealth without which governments cannot do anything, let alone help the weak. A country can prosper only by encouraging people to save and to spend no more than they earn; profligacy (and, even worse, borrowing) were her road to perdition. The essence of Thatcherism was a strong state and a free economy.

For Mrs Thatcher, her system was moral as much as economic. It confronted the “evil” empires of communism and socialism. Many things caused the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, but the clarity of Mrs Thatcher’s beliefs was a vital factor.

Her beliefs were fine-tuned in the political struggles of the 1970s and 1980s. But in effect they changed little from what she imbibed at her home in Grantham, a provincial town in eastern England, where she was born in 1925. The most important influence in her life was her father, Alfred Roberts, who ran the grocer’s shop above which she was brought up.

He was a member of the respectable middle classes, the petite bourgeoisie of Marxist derision. As a town councillor for 25 years, Alderman Roberts, a devout Methodist, preached the values of thrift, self-help and hard work. Young Margaret, ever earnest, was inspired by his example.

A clever girl and a hard worker, she took a degree in chemistry at Oxford, where she began to be active in Conservative politics. In order to get on in what was then a rather grand, aristocratic party, she started to distance herself from her humble origins, marrying a successful businessman, Denis Thatcher, who financed her political career. Training as a lawyer and shopping around for a safe seat, she dressed and spoke as required: as a conventional upper-middle-class woman, with a nice house in the country and the children at posh public schools. She entered Parliament in 1959 for the safe seat of Finchley in north London, and quickly became a junior minister in 1961.

Just as she left Grantham well behind, so the new post-war Britain was leaving its old values and politics far behind as well. The country shifted significantly to the left during the second world war, leading to a landslide victory for Clement Attlee’s Labour Party in 1945. Building on the forced collectivism of the war years, the Attlee government embarked on industrial nationalisation and introduced the welfare state. To a generation of politicians scarred by the mass unemployment of the 1930s, full employment became the overriding object of political life.

Mrs Thatcher, like almost all ambitious politicians of her age, went along with this. But to keep employment “full”, successive governments, Labour and Conservative, had to intervene ever more minutely in the economy, from setting wages to dictating prices. In doing so, they crowded out the private enterprise and economic freedoms that Conservatives were supposed to stand for. It was, as Mrs Thatcher’s favourite intellectual guru, Friedrich Hayek, had warned in 1944, “the road to serfdom”.

A few intellectuals and politicians, Enoch Powell and Keith Joseph among them, rallied to Hayek’s cause. But they were derided as dangerous mavericks, and Mrs Thatcher, for her part, contented herself with climbing the greasy pole. She was made education secretary in Edward Heath’s government of 1970-74. Heath tried at first to inject a more free-market approach into economic management, but he was forced into a humiliating U-turn as unemployment passed the 1m mark. The government then went on such a huge spending binge to bring unemployment down that by 1975 inflation had reached 25% and people began to hoard food.

It was then that Mrs Thatcher became a Thatcherite. She was led there by Joseph, who argued that only a free-market approach would save the country. These policies, extremely daring for 1975, became her agenda for the next 15 years.

Mrs Thatcher, a great patriot, had been hurt and bewildered by Britain’s precipitate decline since 1945. Not only had Britain lost an empire; it was, by the mid-1970s, no longer even the leading European power. Joseph’s critique seemed a way to halt, and even reverse, that decline. What Britain now needed was an urgent return to the values of enterprise and self-help.

Thus Mrs Thatcher was reborn as a Grantham housewife. Out went the grating voice, hats and pearls of the aspiring Tory grande dame; in came the softer voice, kitchen photo-opportunities in her apron, and endless homilies about corner-shop values and balancing the books. She read her Hayek (which she was also prone to produce from her handbag), but it was her new populist style that made her a winner.

The Lady’s not for turning
Mrs Thatcher won the Conservative Party leadership election of 1975, defeating Heath by a fair margin. A woman had never held any of the highest posts in British politics before. With her twin children, a boy and a girl—even that was done efficiently—her job and her energy, she seemed to be the very “Superwoman” of Shirley Conran’s bestseller of that year. The Russians tried to mock her as “the Iron Lady”. It backfired; she loved it, and used it to her own advantage.

But she was also cautious. Well aware that most of her party, let alone the rest of the country, did not support her new policies, she proceeded slowly, appointing her supporters to a few key posts, but otherwise doing little to suggest a radical break with the past. She relied more on the mounting unpopularity of the Labour Party, unable to control the trade unions during the “winter of discontent” of 1978-79, to win the election of 1979.

Once in power, however, she revealed her true colours. Government spending was curbed to control the money supply, exchange controls were abolished and the currency was allowed to continue to float (rather than joining the new European Monetary System)—all decisive breaks with post-war orthodoxies. Industrial subsidies were cut, sending many firms to the wall. Against the background of a world recession, the result was a sharp rise in unemployment. By 1981, when joblessness stood at 2.7m, police were battling Molotov-cocktail-throwing protesters on many city streets in Britain.

This was Mrs Thatcher’s low-water mark. She was, for a time, the most unpopular prime minister on record. Most of her colleagues expected her to retreat, but instead she ploughed on. “U-turn if you want to, the Lady’s not for turning,” she had cried the year before. She sacked all those ministers, the “wets”, who wanted to change course, and stocked her cabinet with ideological fellow-travellers. The 1981 budget contained more spending cuts, further depressing demand, in the teeth of the recession; 364 economists condemned her policies in a letter to the Times.

This, more than anything, saw the birth of her reputation for ruthless decisiveness. With the economy still at a low ebb, her political fortunes were turned by the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands in April 1982. Shocked and angry, Mrs Thatcher launched a task force to re-take the islands, 8,000 miles away in the South Atlantic. Her arguments—that she was going to defend the islanders’ choice to be British, and that she would not “appease” the Argentine dictatorship—resonated strongly with a British public disheartened by years of defeatism and retreat.

This, and the haplessness of the Labour Party under Michael Foot, won her a landslide second general-election victory in 1983, which allowed her to press ahead with core structural adjustments to the economy. In 1984 began the great round of privatisations, in which behemoths such as British Telecom, British Gas and British Airways were sold off. Individuals were encouraged to buy shares, thus creating the image, at least, of “popular capitalism”.

After vanquishing the enemy in the South Atlantic, she rounded on the “enemy within” at home: in the BBC; the universities; and in local government, much of which she simply abolished. But her first target was organised labour, which had made the country ungovernable—in particular the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), led by Arthur Scargill.

The NUM had cowed Heath’s government with its militant tactics. The inevitable showdown came when the NUM went on strike in 1984-85. Mrs Thatcher outlasted the miners, arguing that it was a battle for the right of management to manage over the arbitary use of union power, and her victory broke the unions for good. From a British perspective, it was the most important thing she ever did.

Shoulder to shoulder
At the same time, she had not lost her talent for pragmatism. The Irish Republican Army (IRA) brought out the iron in Mrs Thatcher’s soul: she was unmoved by members of the movement starving themselves to death over their demand to be treated as political prisoners, and similarly undaunted when in 1984 the IRA retaliated by blowing up the hotel where the Tory Party was holding its annual conference, almost killing her. Yet in 1985 she put her feelings aside and signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, devolving some power to Northern Ireland and preparing the way for a later peace settlement.

That year was perhaps the apotheosis of Mrs Thatcher’s premiership. The success of her policies at home and abroad made her, together with Ronald Reagan, the most distinctive advocate of a revived capitalism in the world. Under her, the Anglo-American special relationship was an exercise in mutual adoration. She was a staunch cold-war warrior, lauded wherever she went behind the Iron Curtain as a herald of freedom, which she often was.

An act of regicide
The third term culminated in personal humiliation, though not at the hands of the British electorate. At home Mrs Thatcher set about reforming the welfare state, attempting to introduce competition among health and education “providers” and to hand day-to-day decision-making to schools, hospitals and family doctors (thereby sidelining hated local-government bureaucrats). Abroad she was confronted with the “European problem”—the fact that the European Common Market (which she had embraced) was becoming an ever-closer European Union.

Mrs Thatcher’s domestic reforms pitted her against much wilier opponents than Mr Scargill. Middle-class trade unions like the National Union of Teachers and august professional bodies like the British Medical Association argued that Mrs Thatcher was hell-bent on dismantling the welfare state even as real spending on the public sector rose. Many middle-of-the-road voters were now nervous, as well as rank-and-file Tory MPs. Suddenly “their people” were complaining about “that woman”. And their nervousness was increased by ever-sharper divisions in the party between Europhiles and Eurosceptics, which could no longer be papered over.


Adding to all this was Mrs Thatcher’s increasingly imperial style. After her third victory she became inclined to refer to herself as “we” and to ride roughshod over any opposition. She used a clique of fellow-believers to design policy and sidelined backbench MPs. And she habitually asked colleagues whether they were “one of us”. Even the Tory Sunday Telegraph accused her of “bourgeois triumphalism”.

In October 1989 Nigel Lawson, her chancellor, resigned, infuriated that she was trying to undermine his policy of shadowing the Deutschmark. She lumbered her party with a “poll tax” which required both dukes and dustmen to pay exactly the same for their local-government services—a tax so unpopular that her Tory successor rescinded it. She addressed the European question with increasingly high-octane rhetoric, as in Bruges in 1988: “We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain only to see them re-imposed at a European level.”

This led to a rapid succession of tactical mistakes that eventually persuaded her own party to sack her, an act of regicide that deeply shocked her and took the party a generation to get over. In November 1990 Geoffrey Howe, the last remaining giant from her 1979 Cabinet, resigned as deputy prime minister over her refusal to agree on a timetable to join a single European currency. As he left, he summed up in the Commons the difficulty of trying to work with her: “It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease only for them to find, the moment the first balls are bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain.”

Michael Heseltine, her most charismatic foe from the left of her party, immediately mounted a leadership challenge. Mrs Thatcher won the first ballot, but not easily enough to avoid a second one. Her cabinet ministers eventually persuaded her to take a bullet for the good of the party.

A long shadow
Judged from the grand historical perspective, Mrs Thatcher’s biggest legacy was the spread of freedom—with the defeat of totalitarianism in its most vicious form in the Soviet Union, and with the revival of a liberal economic tradition that had gone into retreat after 1945.

Her combination of ideological certainty and global prominence ensured that Britain played a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union that was disproportionate to its weight in the world. Mrs Thatcher was the first British politician since Winston Churchill to be taken seriously by the leaders of all the big powers. She was a heroine to opposition politicians in eastern Europe. Her willingness to stand shoulder to shoulder with “dear Ronnie” to block Soviet expansionism helped to promote new thinking in the Kremlin. But her readiness to work with Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader, also helped to end the cold war.

Mrs Thatcher’s privatisation revolution spread around the world. Other EU countries followed her example, if not her rhetoric: in 1985-2000 European governments sold off some $100 billion-worth of state assets, including national champions such as Lufthansa, Volkswagen and Renault. The post-communist countries embraced it heartily: by 1996 Russia had privatised some 18,000 industrial enterprises. India part-dismantled the licence Raj, and unleashed a cavalcade of successful companies. Across Latin America governments embraced market liberalisation. Whether they did this well or badly, all of them looked to the British example.

At home, her legacy was more complicated. Paradoxes abound. She was a true-blue Tory who marginalised the Tory Party for a generation. The Tories ceased to be a national party, retreating to the south and the suburbs and all but dying off in Scotland, Wales and the northern cities. Tony Blair profited more from the Thatcher revolution than John Major, her successor: with the trade unions emasculated and the left discredited, he was able to remodel his party and sell it triumphantly to Middle England. His huge majority in 1997 ushered in 13 years of New Labour rule.

She was also an enemy of big government who presided over a huge expansion of it. Her dislike of the left-wing councils that dominated many British cities was so great that she did more than any other post-war prime minister to bind local governments into an ever tighter net of restrictions. She had no time for the idea of elected mayors who united real power with real responsibility. Britain became much more like highly centralised France than gloriously decentralised America.

Yet her achievements cannot be gainsaid. She reversed what her mentor, Keith Joseph, called “the ratchet effect”, whereby the state was rewarded for its failures with yet more power. With the exception of the emergency measures taken after the financial crisis of 2007-08, there have been no moves to renationalise industries or to resume a policy of picking winners.

Thanks to her, the centre of gravity of British politics moved dramatically to the right. The New Labourites of the 1990s concluded that they could rescue the Labour Party from ruin only by adopting the central tenets of Thatcherism. “The presumption should be that economic activity is best left to the private sector,” declared Mr Blair. Neither he nor his successors would dream of reverting to the days of nationalisation and unfettered union power.

The Lady still casts a long shadow. She was a divisive figure, and the issues that she addressed continue to confront and divide. The British state has gone on expanding after a period of continence. Deficits have exploded. The relationship between some companies (this time banks rather than manufacturers) and government has become too close. Margaret Thatcher and the -ism that she coined remain as relevant today as they were in the 1980s.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21576081-margaret-thatcher-britains-prime-minister-1979-1990-died-april-8th-age

Edited by Joffa: 26/8/2013 10:26:15 PM
Edited
9 Years Ago by Joffa
macktheknife
macktheknife
Legend
Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K, Visits: 0
Essential poll had it at 50/50 tpp.

The election is at the moment, far closer than the murdoch media (which includes owning Newspoll) is reporting.
Edited
9 Years Ago by macktheknife
notorganic
notorganic
Legend
Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K, Visits: 0
I need to vote early because I'll be away on the 7th.. My electorate is an absolute shambles when it comes to candidates haha

http://www.aec.gov.au/election/vic/mcmillan.htm

Might be voting Greens again, by the looks of it.
Edited
9 Years Ago by notorganic
notorganic
notorganic
Legend
Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K, Visits: 0
Actually, this guy. He's what I imagine Batfink is like.

http://www.kattersaustralianparty.com.au/our-people/david-amor

"McMillan started in 1949 after the Second World War and times are tuff almost as bad as back then."



Edited by notorganic: 26/8/2013 11:26:55 PM
Edited
9 Years Ago by notorganic
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
notorganic wrote:
I need to vote early because I'll be away on the 7th.. My electorate is an absolute shambles when it comes to candidates haha

http://www.aec.gov.au/election/vic/mcmillan.htm

Might be voting Greens again, by the looks of it.

13 candidates? That's a lot.

I've only got 9 in my electorate. But we're well represented by the flat earth society with the Stable Population Party, Rise Up Australia Party, DLP, Family First, Palmer United...after those loons the Liberal party looks...well...Liberal :lol:
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
notorganic
notorganic
Legend
Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K, Visits: 0
The ALP candidate is pretty experienced, I reckon.

Quote:
Anthony grew up on his family’s poultry farm in Bunyip and attends La Trobe University where he is studying an Arts Degree. He also works at the Warragul Woolworths and on a rabbit farm in Yarragon.

Edited
9 Years Ago by notorganic
imonfourfourtwo
imonfourfourtwo
Pro
Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.9K, Visits: 0
433 wrote:
I'm more concerned about the Thatcher part. :lol:

Haha well maybe Katter is more up your alley, he's is the absolute personification of a protectionist. Say what you want but watching him at the press club today he's bloody passionate about his electorate and the working man...although socially he's lost the plot.
Edited
9 Years Ago by imonfourfourtwo
notorganic
notorganic
Legend
Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K, Visits: 0
[quote]Leigh Gatt, Independent
LEIGH Gatt believes it’s time someone stood up for the people of McMillan and he’s the man to do it.
The 30 year old sign writer from Moe is standing as an independent.
He did so at the 2010 election, lamenting, “Even the invalid votes beat me last time.”
This election he’s planning to get out more to make himself better known.
He said he’s decided to nominate because a few issues are upsetting him.
One is the high cost of water, gas and electricity. Legalised robbery he calls it and he thinks something should be done so we can all afford to stay warm.
Unemployment is another issue that needs tackling, with tax incentives or subsidies to encourage business to provide ongoing work.
He would like to see a review of where government money is spent, believing too much is being wasted and we aren’t all being treated equally.
Leigh is really upset about the asylum seeker issue. His view is Australia should deal with its own unemployment and homelessness crises (his words) before welcoming refugees to our midst.
He suggests anyone arriving by boat should be flown home and the boats kept here so they can’t be re-used.
Edited
9 Years Ago by notorganic
notorganic
notorganic
Legend
Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K, Visits: 0
Family First candidate isn't even on their website.
Edited
9 Years Ago by notorganic
imonfourfourtwo
imonfourfourtwo
Pro
Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.9K, Visits: 0
notorganic wrote:
[quote]Leigh Gatt, Independent
LEIGH Gatt believes it’s time someone stood up for the people of McMillan and he’s the man to do it.
The 30 year old sign writer from Moe is standing as an independent.
He did so at the 2010 election, lamenting, “Even the invalid votes beat me last time.”
This election he’s planning to get out more to make himself better known.
He said he’s decided to nominate because a few issues are upsetting him.
One is the high cost of water, gas and electricity. Legalised robbery he calls it and he thinks something should be done so we can all afford to stay warm.
Unemployment is another issue that needs tackling, with tax incentives or subsidies to encourage business to provide ongoing work.
He would like to see a review of where government money is spent, believing too much is being wasted and we aren’t all being treated equally.
Leigh is really upset about the asylum seeker issue. His view is Australia should deal with its own unemployment and homelessness crises (his words) before welcoming refugees to our midst.
He suggests anyone arriving by boat should be flown home and the boats kept here so they can’t be re-used.

Maybe a run at state parliament would be more effective?
Edited
9 Years Ago by imonfourfourtwo
notorganic
notorganic
Legend
Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K, Visits: 0
Quote:
Norman says he has never had political ambitions, but that in his 73 years in Australia he has witnessed a vast change, especially in the morals and patronage of the nation. He has been offered an opportunity to do what he can to resist the downward spiral in morals, corruption, and the real threat of the internal takeover of Islam.

Norman Baker is a Candidate for Rise Up Australia Party in the Electorate of McMillan.

Edited
9 Years Ago by notorganic
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
notorganic wrote:
The ALP candidate is pretty experienced, I reckon.

Quote:
Anthony grew up on his family’s poultry farm in Bunyip and attends La Trobe University where he is studying an Arts Degree. He also works at the Warragul Woolworths and on a rabbit farm in Yarragon.

:lol::lol:
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
macktheknife
macktheknife
Legend
Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K, Visits: 0
Think I might go vote early tomorrow. I'll be in the area where one of the local AEC offices is.
Edited
9 Years Ago by macktheknife
Roar_Brisbane
Roar_Brisbane
Legend
Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K, Visits: 0
By the look of it only six candidates in my electorate.
Edited
9 Years Ago by Roar_Brisbane
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
notorganic wrote:
Actually, this guy. He's what I imagine Batfink is like.

http://www.kattersaustralianparty.com.au/our-people/david-amor

"McMillan started in 1949 after the Second World War and times are tuff almost as bad as back then."



Edited by notorganic: 26/8/2013 11:26:55 PM



lol.....how???
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
Joffa
Joffa
Legend
Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K, Visits: 0
Abbott will need to cut deep: experts

The Coalition will have to make swingeing cuts to government programs if it is to implement Tony Abbott's 10-year economic plan promising smaller government but massive new spending for defence, paid parental leave and the private health insurance rebate, economists say.

Unveiled at the Coalition's campaign launch on Sunday, many of the initiatives in the plan were not costed but the commitment to raise defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP within 10 years will cost $35.5 billion in extra outlays alone over the decade to attain, according to the budget expert at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Mark Thomson.

By 2023-24, the annual defence budget would be $50 billion for the year to meet the 2 per cent of GDP goal, he said, compared with $24 billion currently.

Abolishing the means testing of the private health insurance rebate - which Mr Abbott said would occur ''within a decade'' - would cost $833 million a year in current dollars, and substantially more if implemented in the future.

The paid parental leave scheme, meanwhile, will cost $5.5 billion a year once it is up and running, two or three years after its introduction in July 2015.

Combined with Mr Abbott's undertaking to create smaller government and deliver a surplus of 1 per cent of GDP, also made at the campaign launch, Mr Thomson said an Abbott government would have to take an axe to other programs.

''It's entirely possible they could do it,'' Mr Thomson said. ''But there will have to be a lot of people receiving transfer [welfare] payments, handouts and research grants and the like who are going to have to lose out to make it happen.''

Mr Thomson's remarks echo those of Treasurer Chris Bowen on Monday, who claimed big cuts to health, education and family payments would be required to deliver the promises.

''Now without the magic pudding, without fairy dust, there's only one way all those things can be true - and that is real and significant cuts,'' he said.

Saul Eslake, chief economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said the Coalition's fiscal objectives should be viewed as only an ''aspirational goal'' that would only be achievable if the economy began growing rapidly.

''[Otherwise] there's not a lot of scope for them to find these sacks of money that are going to deliver them the savings they need,'' he said.

The opposition will reveal some of its savings this week, with the full costings not expected to be unveiled until the last week of the campaign.

Meanwhile, Fairfax Media has learned the Coalition has prepared a detailed 30-page dossier of policies that will form a blueprint for its first term should it win government.

Described by one Liberal Party insider as the work of an internal ''razor gang'', the document has been ready for almost two years, although it keeps getting refined ''endlessly'', largely due to repeated blowouts in the budget.

''It's a 30-page policy document,'' Coalition finance spokesman Andrew Robb said. ''We have 30 areas of policy and we have done a lot of work on it.''

Mr Robb said ''all of our spending … all of our cuts'' would be released before the election.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/abbott-will-need-to-cut-deep-experts-20130826-2sma5.html#ixzz2d774x8yH
Edited
9 Years Ago by Joffa
Joffa
Joffa
Legend
Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K, Visits: 0
Why we should not trust Tony Abbott
Date
August 27, 2013

Tim Colebatch
Tim Colebatch is The Age's economic editor

It's hard to have faith in a politician who plays with the truth and won't tell us how he will make us pay for his promises.

''We will be a no surprises, no excuses government … You could trust us in opposition and you will be able to trust us in government … This election is all about trust.''
- Tony Abbott, policy speech, Sunday

OK, we can't trust Kevin Rudd. But should we trust Tony Abbott? Could we trust him in opposition? Will we be able to trust him in government?

Abbott has set the bar high. ''We will be a no surprises, no excuses government,'' he declares. He has ruled out any tax increases - although on a rare interview with Fran Kelly on Radio National, he refused to rule out bigger spending cuts than those to be (eventually) outlined in the campaign.

Advertisement
It's a message of reassurance, aimed at blunting comparisons with the Howard government and Campbell Newman's government in Queensland. Howard said he would cut 2500 public service jobs, then wiped out 30,000 of them. Newman promised no public service cuts, then cut 14,000 jobs. With the honourable exception of Ted Baillieu, recent Coalition governments have treated campaign promises as something you use to win elections, then discard once you're in power.

In pledging to repair ''the trust deficit'', Abbott is aiming at Kevin Rudd's weakest point. Last week's Age/Nielsen poll found only 36 per cent of Australians see the PM as trustworthy; 59 per cent view him as untrustworthy.

But most Australians also distrust Abbott. Only 43 per cent consider him trustworthy, and 53 per cent as untrustworthy. The least trusting are women of childbearing age; they are also the most hostile to his paid parental leave policy, perhaps because most would get far less than the $75,000 payouts that well-off women will receive.

Trust is a big call. In my experience, politicians on both sides tend to work out what's in their interest, then tell us that they're doing it just for us. What drives them is the politics of the issue, not its merits. Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott are typical.

An example: Abbott's frequent claim, repeated in his policy speech, that Australia has ''20,000 more public servants than in 2007''.

We have three data sources. The number of public servants is tracked by the Australian Public Service Commission. Between June 2007 and June 2012, it says, public service numbers grew by just 13,156. A third of that growth was in 2007-08, under the Howard government's last budget. From 2008 to 2012, they grew by just 8840.

The Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Finance track government employment, which includes the Defence forces and military reserves. The bureau says that grew by 17,800 between June 2007 and June 2012. Of them, 4700 were added in 2007-08, and just 13,100 since June 2008.

The Finance Department estimates that between June 2007 and June 2013 total staff grew by 18,753. But 8150 of that growth was in the military and defence contractors.

Take them out, and the rest grew by 10,603. Of that, 7934 was in 2007-08, but just 2669 since, with a net 4305 jobs wiped out since 2011 as Labor has cut agencies' budgets.

There never were 20,000 extra public servants, and Abbott knows it. It is a line that goes down well with the focus groups, so he keeps repeating it. But it is untrue.

Take climate change. As David Marr recounts in Political Animal: the Making of Tony Abbott, Abbott supported an emissions trading scheme, if erratically, until Nick Minchin persuaded him that ''the only way to avoid a catastrophic split inside the Coalition was to reject the ETS''. Four months after writing an op-ed piece to support emissions trading, Abbott challenged and overthrew Malcolm Turnbull because he refused to abandon it.

''Abbott positioned himself … with enough wiggle room to put the science aside and only play the politics,'' Marr writes of his transformation to crusader against a carbon price.

Soon Abbott was telling us that a carbon price ''will make every job less secure … play havoc with household budgets … hit every Australian's cost of living … ''

Could we trust that? No. Treasury forecast that the carbon tax would raise prices by just 0.7 per cent, and Westpac economists estimate the reality was even less. Inflation in 2012-13 was just its usual level, 2.4 per cent. Most households received more compensation than they paid in extra cost.

Nothing has worked better for Abbott than his success in persuading Australians that the carbon tax would make them worse off. But it was a phoney scare campaign, nothing more.

Refugee policy is outside my beat, fortunately, because I see no solution that does not break one or other cardinal principle of policy. Either we turn our backs on people with good reason to flee their country, or we surrender control of immigration policy.

Father Frank Brennan believes there is a solution but it will take time, patience and quiet diplomacy. In his recent Barry Marshall lecture at Trinity College (on the ABC's religion webpage), he argues:

''The only way to stop the boats ethically is to negotiate a regional agreement with Indonesia and Malaysia … this would take a considerable period of time, a good cheque book, and a strong commitment to detailed backroom diplomatic work avoiding the megaphone diplomacy which has marked this issue of late.''

Abbott has recognised this by declaring that, as prime minister, his first overseas trip would be to Jakarta - and it's obvious why. Whatever new policies the Coalition tries, they will work only if Indonesia co-operates.

I hope he understands that Indonesia has 10 times Australia's population, a bigger economy, and a future as one of the key countries in the world. We need it more than it needs us. We can't tell it what to do.

The real disappointment of Abbott's campaign is that he doesn't trust us. Economists estimate the funding gap in the Coalition's promises at $30 billion to $35 billion over the next four years. But Abbott won't tell us how he will close that gap until the final days, fearing we would be less likely to vote for him if we knew what he plans to do.

How can we trust anyone who won't tell us how he will make us pay for his promises? Let buyers beware.

Tim Colebatch is economics editor of The Age.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/why-we-should-not-trust-tony-abbott-20130826-2sm4q.html#ixzz2d77jzwnT
Edited
9 Years Ago by Joffa
thupercoach
thupercoach
World Class
World Class (8.4K reputation)World Class (8.4K reputation)World Class (8.4K reputation)World Class (8.4K reputation)World Class (8.4K reputation)World Class (8.4K reputation)World Class (8.4K reputation)World Class (8.4K reputation)World Class (8.4K reputation)World Class (8.4K reputation)World Class (8.4K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K, Visits: 0
Gee the Fairfax media are doing their best, aren't they?
Edited
9 Years Ago by thupercoach
rusty
rusty
World Class
World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K, Visits: 0
Quote:
Refugee policy is outside my beat, fortunately, because I see no solution that does not break one or other cardinal principle of policy. Either we turn our backs on people with good reason to flee their country, or we surrender control of immigration policy.


It's not turning your backs on asylum seekers, it's turning your back on people smugglers.
People can still come here through the appropriate channels, without having to take a treacherous life threatening boat journey, that also risks our Navy personnel and compromises our border security. If people weren't such histrionic bleeding hearts they could clearly see turning around the boats is the most practical, humane, beneficial policy for all concerned.
Edited
9 Years Ago by rusty
Scoll
Scoll
Semi-Pro
Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K, Visits: 0
rusty wrote:
Quote:
Refugee policy is outside my beat, fortunately, because I see no solution that does not break one or other cardinal principle of policy. Either we turn our backs on people with good reason to flee their country, or we surrender control of immigration policy.


It's not turning your backs on asylum seekers, it's turning your back on people smugglers.
People can still come here through the appropriate channels, without having to take a treacherous life threatening boat journey, that also risks our Navy personnel and compromises our border security. If people weren't such histrionic bleeding hearts they could clearly see turning around the boats is the most practical, humane, beneficial policy for all concerned.

Yeaaaahhhhhh, it's not as easy as you make it out to be. You can't just hop a flight with no passport or visa. On top of this, most of these refugees are leaving institutionalised oppression and give everything they own to these people smugglers to get them to Australia. This is often more than it would cost to immigrate via the "appropriate channels", but in most legitimate cases they would be arrested or worse if they tried to leave their countries through official means. They are already 'unapproved' immigrants to Indonesia when they hop on the boat to get here.

This is not, by any means, an easy problem to solve. You can't just "stop the boats", without throwing out border protection and opening up charter trips to all comers (obv. disastrous), but that line plays well with the masses. Whilst there is still turmoil in neighbouring countries the boats will still come regardless of how many we turn around, how many smugglers we catch (or even if we somehow luck out and nab a kingpin.) There is no risk too great to outweigh the financial reward smugglers get out of asylum seekers.
Edited
9 Years Ago by Scoll
paulbagzFC
paulbagzFC
Legend
Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K, Visits: 0
thupercoach wrote:
Gee the Fairfax media are doing their best, aren't they?


Irony.

-PB

https://i.imgur.com/batge7K.jpg

Edited
9 Years Ago by paulbagzFC
rocknerd
rocknerd
World Class
World Class (5.7K reputation)World Class (5.7K reputation)World Class (5.7K reputation)World Class (5.7K reputation)World Class (5.7K reputation)World Class (5.7K reputation)World Class (5.7K reputation)World Class (5.7K reputation)World Class (5.7K reputation)World Class (5.7K reputation)World Class (5.7K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.6K, Visits: 0
Personally I'm happy with the PNG solution, I think it's fine to relocate Asylum Seekers to and safe country. However the important thing here is that in return for PNG and other Island nations need to be compensated by way of Employment for the local people and investment in infrastructure. PNG hospitals cannot handle their own ill and pregnant people, they need to be assured that when the large amount of Asylum seekers land on their shores they can deal with all the health and security needs of the new migrants.

However there are a few legal laws that need to be addressed in regards to homosexuality and immunisation of Pregnant women, and children that need to be resolved before I give it my 100% tick of approval.

Also the Boat buy back initiative is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Or is Tony Funding safer vessels for People Smugglers? there by ensuring that the boats are not likely to sink before they're scuttled by the crew on sighting the navy.
Edited
9 Years Ago by rocknerd
paulbagzFC
paulbagzFC
Legend
Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K, Visits: 0
What stops someone who has immigrated to PNG then immigrating to Australia?

-PB

https://i.imgur.com/batge7K.jpg

Edited
9 Years Ago by paulbagzFC
rusty
rusty
World Class
World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K, Visits: 0
Scoll wrote:
Yeaaaahhhhhh, it's not as easy as you make it out to be. You can't just hop a flight with no passport or visa. On top of this, most of these refugees are leaving institutionalised oppression and give everything they own to these people smugglers to get them to Australia. This is often more than it would cost to immigrate via the "appropriate channels", but in most legitimate cases they would be arrested or worse if they tried to leave their countries through official means. They are already 'unapproved' immigrants to Indonesia when they hop on the boat to get here.

This is not, by any means, an easy problem to solve. You can't just "stop the boats", without throwing out border protection and opening up charter trips to all comers (obv. disastrous), but that line plays well with the masses. Whilst there is still turmoil in neighbouring countries the boats will still come regardless of how many we turn around, how many smugglers we catch (or even if we somehow luck out and nab a kingpin.) There is no risk too great to outweigh the financial reward smugglers get out of asylum seekers.


This simply isn't supported by the statistics. We turned the boats back around under Howard and the boats slowed down to a trickle. We removed the barriers to entry under Rudd and the boats started flooding back in. No great mystery here. The line "stop the boats" plays well with the masses because they know it works. If it worked back then it can work now. You will still need a suite of policies (i.e. TPV's) but none of this can be achieved by taking a soft approach to enforcing border controls. The people smugglers know this which is why they have no problem ignoring whatever Rudd does because they know he's too temperamental to follow through any of his "threats".

As for asylum seekers they're not forced to come to Australia. They often take multiple modes of transport en route, passing UNCHR signatory countries along the way, choosing the lifestyle and freedoms a country like Australia offers, a pragmatic choice rather than one motivated purely by fear and desperation. Our only obligation is to take 20,000 based on who has the greatest need rather allowing people smugglers to determine who gets resettled and who continues to rot.
Edited
9 Years Ago by rusty
Scoll
Scoll
Semi-Pro
Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.6K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K, Visits: 0
rusty wrote:
Scoll wrote:
Yeaaaahhhhhh, it's not as easy as you make it out to be. You can't just hop a flight with no passport or visa. On top of this, most of these refugees are leaving institutionalised oppression and give everything they own to these people smugglers to get them to Australia. This is often more than it would cost to immigrate via the "appropriate channels", but in most legitimate cases they would be arrested or worse if they tried to leave their countries through official means. They are already 'unapproved' immigrants to Indonesia when they hop on the boat to get here.

This is not, by any means, an easy problem to solve. You can't just "stop the boats", without throwing out border protection and opening up charter trips to all comers (obv. disastrous), but that line plays well with the masses. Whilst there is still turmoil in neighbouring countries the boats will still come regardless of how many we turn around, how many smugglers we catch (or even if we somehow luck out and nab a kingpin.) There is no risk too great to outweigh the financial reward smugglers get out of asylum seekers.


This simply isn't supported by the statistics. We turned the boats back around under Howard and the boats slowed down to a trickle. We removed the barriers to entry under Rudd and the boats started flooding back in. No great mystery here. The line "stop the boats" plays well with the masses because they know it works. If it worked back then it can work now. You will still need a suite of policies (i.e. TPV's) but none of this can be achieved by taking a soft approach to enforcing border controls. The people smugglers know this which is why they have no problem ignoring whatever Rudd does because they know he's too temperamental to follow through any of his "threats".

As for asylum seekers they're not forced to come to Australia. They often take multiple modes of transport en route, passing UNCHR signatory countries along the way, choosing the lifestyle and freedoms a country like Australia offers, a pragmatic choice rather than one motivated purely by fear and desperation. Our only obligation is to take 20,000 based on who has the greatest need rather allowing people smugglers to determine who gets resettled and who continues to rot.

You are missing the context that sits behind those figures. Howard presided over a time where a large chunk of global refugee displacement was a direct result of ongoing conflict (ie: the peak of Afghanistan and Iraq) during which time neighbouring countries opened their borders to accept the displaced refugees. However, we are the closest and most accessible nation that has a commitment to accepting refugees- none of the SE Asian nations do. With foreign involvement in the middle east more of a 'keeping the lights on' presence at the moment, the exceptional circumstances for mass displacement are less present and as such neighbouring countries not compelled to take refugees have reduced their uptake. The trip here is far easier and less dangerous (as frightening as that is) than trying to make it to a European nation that would accept them.

I'm certainly not advocating a come one, come all open border policy. Comparing last decade to this decade is not a good basis for policy though. The most effective means of reducing the appeal of people smuggling is to increase the appeal of settling in SE Asia, which we really have little control over. We have no right to dictate how other nations manage domestic policy, yet we have to somehow persuade our neighbours to improve. It is a ridiculously complex problem that is far too dumbed down by the "stop the boats" rhetoric.
Edited
9 Years Ago by Scoll
macktheknife
macktheknife
Legend
Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K, Visits: 0
I don't need a long article to know why I shouldn't trust Tony Abbott. I only need his own fucking words, where he says you can't trust him!
Edited
9 Years Ago by macktheknife
paladisious
paladisious
Legend
Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K, Visits: 0
[youtube]jmD-uFgcvbU[/youtube]
Edited
9 Years Ago by paladisious
GO


Select a Forum....























Inside Sport


Search