“Labor does not deserve to win the next election”

According to The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald weekend papers so it’s not only Murdoch papers that are reporting how useless this Labor government actually is, shock horror now even Fairfax journalist have awakened, by next week we might even hear it on the ABC.

Oh by the way did I mention that some betting agencies last week already paid out for the coalition to win the next election.

Holy shit there are educated people in Townsville after all!



-PB

I hope that's an editorial piece and not something they're trying to pass off as 'news'.

Nah that's a letter to the editor.

While I don't agree with the over the top pro-Labour chatter towards the end, they do make some very poignant points RE: Howard and the GST.

Was chatting to my Grandad yesterday bout old school politics, Bob Katter came up in discussion too and he said that BK was one of the best Indigenous Ministers this country has ever had.

-PB

Look, there's no denying that News Limited have been incredibly one-sided during this election. There is also no denying that the Fairfax media has been, as always, very much on Labor's side, just without the tabloid headlines.

There is also no denying that in 2007 News Limited came out strongly in support of Rudd, which isn't to say they are not a pro-Lib organisation the way that Fairfax are a pro-Labor organisation.

There is little difference in the two media giants' position, it's just that News has been more "tabloid-like" in its coverage.

As for Fairfax saying that Labor don't deserve to win it, it's just about keeping their readership up in the final week of the campaign.

Finally, whatever the leftie rusted-on will say, there can only be one winner in this campaign. Labor have looked tired, devoid of ideas and unable to stand on their record after 6 years in power. Labor's party machine's dumping of Gillard for Rudd, after they did the reverse three years ago, highlighted to the people that this isn't an organisation fit to run the country.

Much as I am a massive John Howard fan, I do agree that 6 years ago his government was showing signs of tiredness. Labor exploited the WorkChoices thing cleverly but in any event the people wanted a change, rightly or wrongly, after 13 years.

In fact, it is amazing that Labor just about lost the election after just 3 years - it's almost unheard of in Oz politics to be voted out after just one term. So they already were floundering and looking clueless as early as 2009, just 2 years after winning government.

Which means that this 6 years Australia has been run by a bad government, an awful government that has taken the piss and done things for its own self-perpetuation rather than the good of the nation. And a government that wavered on every issue for political expediency - even "core Labor issues" like environment and boat people. Which means that come 2013, people have no idea what Labor actually stand for.

John Howard, love or loath him, always took a position. He was what can be termed a conviction politician. People knew what he stood for and could form an opinion and vote for or against him. Abbott looks the same - again, love or loath him.

What does Rudd stand for? What did Gillard stand for? In fact, in 2013 what does Labor stand for today in this country?

Is Labor firm or soft on the boat people issue? They've been both.
Is Labor firm or soft on the environment issue? The "greatest challenge of our time" is now in the bin and Rudd now admits the carbon tax is a lousy idea.
Is Labor pro-"women's issues"? If so, why are they questioning the best and most generous scheme maternity leave scheme just because it's a Lib policy? Let's face it, it is the wettest Liberal policy in years.

And as for Rudd and Gillard, the electorate is now seeing Rudd for the sham that he is. Amazingly, going into the final week of the campaign it's Gillard who is looking better.

Which is why the media has given its verdict.

I did state Fairfax papers on the weekend but for you here is the article, but please do not chock on your Cornflakes.


SMH Editorials - Sydney Morning Herald
www.smh.com.au › Comment

Robbed by its own overreach of the ability to sell Labor's economic management ... Kevin Rudd does not deserve to win the federal election on Saturday. ... Australia

I have no issues with what you stated, this Labor government and last 6 years will go down as the worst ever in the Australian politics taking into account what they did to them self’s alone is enough to make me sick

yeah when i was there a month or so ago the guide was talking about that....but he said it wont make a difference they will continue to do it........the north is way worse in the south they dont care about the government much

in the north they still have the government propaganda on the speakers every morning and night

Thailand has lese majeste laws, but you can pretty much criticise anyone else.

I've already voted, I vote 1 above the line M.

A vote for Technology, for looking to the future not worrying about a little debt that is well below global averages, a vote for Equality, a vote for Education, for looking after the ill, and disabled, a vote to help grow the nation not ensure that we worry about what's going on now but what will happen if we allow ourselves to fall behind the rest of the world.

It's not the best vote, but it is the best vote to advance our nation and ensure that Tony doesn't get to give money to those who don't need it.

Australia, you don't know how good you've got it


While other countries fell into the global recession, Australia maintained strong economic growth, low government debt and a triple-A credit rating. With this record, you might expect the federal election to be focused on how to convert the strength of today's economy into resilience for the future. But instead the political spotlight has fallen on the perceived problem of government debt, with alarming proposals to bring austerity ''down under''.

For an American, Australia's anxiety about deficit and debt is a little amusing. Australia's budget deficit is less than half that of the US and its net debt is less than an eighth of the country's gross domestic product.

Most countries would envy Australia's economy. During the global recession, Kevin Rudd's government implemented one of the strongest Keynesian stimulus packages in the world. That package was delivered early, with cash grants that could be spent quickly followed by longer-term investments that buoyed confidence and activity over time. In many other countries, stimulus was too small and arrived too late, after jobs and confidence were already lost.

In Australia the stimulus helped avoid a recession and saved up to 200,000 jobs. And new research shows that stimulus may have also actually reduced government debt over time. Evidence from the crisis suggests that, when the economy is weak, the long-run tax revenue benefits of keeping businesses afloat and people in work can be greater than the short-run expenditure on stimulus measures. That means that a well-targeted fiscal stimulus might actually reduce public debt in the long run.

Australia may have successfully dodged the global crisis, but some politicians seem to have missed the lessons it taught the rest of the world. In this election, the conservative side of politics has foreshadowed substantial cuts to the government budget. This would be a grave mistake, especially now.

Recent experience around the world suggests that austerity can have devastating consequences, and especially so for fragile economies. Government cuts have helped push Britain, Spain and Greece's economies deeper into recession and led to widespread public misery.

The youth unemployment rate in Spain is above 50 per cent and the figure for Greece is above 60 per cent. Their tragic experience should be a warning to the world. But even seemingly healthy Germany was pushed into a recession from which it is just now emerging - but it is an economy that is still weaker than it was before taking the "dose" of austerity.

Proponents of austerity ignore the fact that national debt is only one side of a country's balance sheet. We have to look at assets - investments - as well as liabilities. Cutting back on high-return investments just to reduce the deficit is misguided. If we are concerned with long-run prosperity, then focusing on debt alone is particularly foolish because the higher growth resulting from these public investments will generate more tax revenue and help to improve the long-term fiscal position.

Proposals for substantial budget cuts seem particularly misplaced at this time given that Australia's economy is confronting new global challenges. Commodity prices are softening and growth is slowing in many key export markets. Australia is already facing declining mining investment. The slowdown in economic growth is not the result of flaws in government policy, but of an adverse external environment. It would be a crime to compound these problems with domestic policy mistakes.

Sharp cuts to public spending over the next few years will exacerbate these challenges. Withdrawing government spending as the economy weakens risks tipping Australia into recession and increasing unemployment.

Assuming standard multipliers, cutting public spending by $70 billion from an economy the size of Australia's over a four-year period could reduce GDP growth by around 2 per cent and cost up to 90,000 jobs.

Instead of focusing mindlessly on cuts, Australia should instead seize the opportunity afforded by low global interest rates to make prudent public investments in education, infrastructure and technology that will deliver a high rate of return, stimulate private investment and allow businesses to flourish.

I was in Australia during the last federal election and noticed then that the tone of the economic debate was both far too pessimistic about the current economy and far too complacent about the risks in the future. Three years later, the obsession with public debt continues to be a distraction from the more fundamental question of how to establish sustainable long-run growth.

Rather than look through the rear-view mirror at public debt, this election should look forward to the challenge of maintaining Australia's economic success for the future.

Joseph Stiglitz is a professor of economics at Columbia University and a recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/australia-you-dont-know-how-good-youve-got-it-20130901-2sytb.html#ixzz2dhG19Mxm

Australian voters in a nutshell:

[youtube]ag-mFowwGho[/youtube]

That's gotta be a parody.

Actually sounds pretty much the way most of the electorate decides on who to vote for. I doubt he even knows who his local MP is.

She's not a person! :shock:

I'm fairly sure it is satirical :lol:

Had a good catchup with a bunch of mates on the weekend, and f our close friends I have are either losing their jobs within two weeks or have lost them in the last week.

Something be wrong with the current government, I really can't see how this many people I know are out of work

On the double-dissolution if micro-parties/greens get a balance of power issue...


(I think my maths is right in this but I'm no Antony Green)

I guess while the comment that the required quota would go from 14.2% to 7.7% thus increasing chances for minor parties is true, what you'd probably also find is that the combined micro vote would still only be enough to get 1/12 candidates rather than 1/6.

Basically a 40% vote for Libs in the Senate only gets them 2/6 seats guarenteed and then maybe a chance for a third if they get preferences from Nationals or hold off the minor parties. In a double dissolution 40% will get them 5/12 seats plus a small chance for a sixth.

45% would give them a high chance at 6 seats, and 46-47% nationwide would confortably guarentee them 50% of the senate.

To get a guarenteed 3/6 seats in a regular election requires a primary vote of 43% which is less than that required for a DD, but factor in the media coverage of the chaos caused by the micro-parties PLUS probably more scrutiny of party ticket preference flows, I'd think the Libs might well back themselves in to do better in a DD than in the curren thalf-election.





More generally... I have no problem with a party getting in on 2% or less primary votes IF it genuinely reflects that a large number of people (1/6th) have indicated that they would prefer that party to Labor/Liberal/Greens... BUT I think in reality, the preference arrangements made between the micros means that people who vote for e.g. Wikileaks or Sex Party and would actually rather Libs than someone like the Christians or Nationals are going to unwittingly end up supporting those micros getting in ahead of the Lib candidate.

The problem is not with the preferencing system, it's with the party ticket system. Thus the solution is surely above-the-line preferencing so you can just order your preferred parties rather than picking one party and allowing them to choose where your preferences go. Also allowing partial preferencing would help (so if for example you only want to vote for the Democrats or no-one, you can give your votes to JUST the Democrats and if they are eliminated from a count your vote is simply discarded).




On six-year terms... one of my biggest problems with Austrlaian politics at present is that the lower house is only elected for 3 years. That's a year to complain about the mess the prior government left, a year to make a few small changes and a year to campaign for the next election. It's simply not enough time to actually put some long term vision into your term in government!

I'd be inclined to EXTEND HoR seats to be 5 or 6 years, rather than reduce Senate seats to 3 years.




If Clive Palmer gets anything over 5-10% of HoR votes, I'll A) be shocked, and B) be scared to think what he might achieve if he has a second go at an election campaign in 3 years time.

You only have to look at Newman to see what Abbott will do.

Do you mean the current state or the current federal? Government or private workers?

Also are they working in Government contracts to the Federal Government, State Government or private sector and are their fields of employment directly related to either Government contracts or based on private sector cutting employees due to a reduction in Work or lose of contracts?

Barry O'Farrell has a big sharp knife he loves to slash around cutting jobs and the like too.

yeah it's very sad, we had to let go 4 tradesmen last week......and it's dead quite not a stitch of work out there....very worrying times

Almost there...

Boat arrivals in August totalled 1,585, down from 4,236 in July, after announcement of 'PNG solution'

Gabrielle Chan, political correspondent
theguardian.com, Monday 2 September 2013 19.32 AEST

The number of asylum seekers arriving in Australia fell by more than half in the last month since the announcement of the government's "PNG solution", with the immigration minister, Tony Burke, saying that for the first time that the numbers of asylum seekers arriving on Christmas Island was declining.

Burke said 1,585 asylum seekers had arrived in Australia by boat in August, compared with 4,236 in July. The plan, announced on 19 July, stops all asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat from settling in Australia.

"The results speak for themselves," Burke said. "[We have seen] much less than half of the number of people arriving in the first month of operation."

"It is also been true that now for the first time we are seeing the population of [processing centre] Christmas Island start to fall rather than rise.

"The people-smuggling trade no longer has a product to sell and it is now fair to say that while there will be a few more boats that will test our resolve … we have broken the back of the people-smuggling trade."

Burke ridiculed the Coalition Indonesian boat buyback plan as "the most absurd thing", saying the PolitiFact website also described it as one of the "most ridiculous" of all the Coalition policies.

But the Coalition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, defended his scheme as just one of the "tools" for the Australian federal police and other agencies to use in the fight against people smugglers, as part of a $67m suite of policies for a regional deterrence.

"It's an operational measure, it's about giving the AFP and others the tools to do the job," Morrison said.

He said there was no "market day" for boats but rather it allowed agencies acting on intelligence regarding people smugglers' movements to move in and buy a boat if it was needed.

"In a tactical situation where intelligence has led to a particular village in a particular place, if those people on the ground running that operation believe that if they snatch that boat, they will disrupt that operation then they will do that," Morrison said.

"If they think there is another way to disrupt that operation, then they will do that."

Questioned on Sunday, Tony Abbott said it was possible that no boats would be bought under the policy, which has been criticised by the head of Indonesia's parliamentary commission for foreign affairs, Mahfudz Siddiq.

This is really a crazy idea, unfriendly, derogatory and it shows lack of understanding in this matter," Siddiq told the Australian Associated Press.

Burke said the drop in asylum seekers was a result of the government's communications policy – a policy that was criticised for using taxpayers' money during the caretaker period of the election campaign.

"Anybody who thought there was going to be a capacity problem, the numbers now speak for themselves that there will not be," he said.

"The impact of the policy and the communication of the policy is having the exact impact that we believed it would and we were determined that it would have."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/02/asylum-seeker-numbers-fall-tony-burke

See, I told you all that'd work. Clearly I should be Prime Dictator.

Im no fan of him...but Rudds defense of Gay Marriage on QandA tonight brought a tear to the eye.

Only in Australia could a person believe that Editorial = Journalism.

POW
[youtube]CdU3ooAZSH8[/youtube]