No chance, he can't keep his mouth shut for 5 minutes. :lol:

But you have to consider that academics choose an ideological career rather than a practical one, and that perhaps their ideologies resonate more so with the social and egalitarian principles of the Greens and Labor more so than the fiscal, economic and capitalist principles of the Liberals. There is probably an over-represenation of the intellectual people in business who support the conservative economic policy (notwishtstanding social issues) to balance out the over-representation of leftists in academia. I don't think you can compare voting Liberal in Australia with voting Republican in the US, after all the last US government to deliver a true budget surplus was in 69 and our economy is far more mixed than the US's. Even most Liberal voters can see the benefits of universal healthcare and superannuation. A vote for Liberal isn't a vote for a poverty, a strong economy is the cornerstone of a greater (albeit uneven) wealth distribution.

The first call came in at two minutes past seven on Monday morning. The ABC's Sydney radio station, 702, wanted to know what I thought about the Daily Telegraph's front page.
Virtually all of it was devoted to one sentence: ''Finally, you now have the chance to KICK THIS MOB OUT''.
Murdoch's always liked to think of himself as an anti-establishment radical. But these days he's just another grumpy old American Republican billionaire.

No one who has even been glancing at the Daily Telegraph over the past year or so could have been surprised. Ever since Paul ''Boris'' Whittaker took over as editor, the Tele has been going for the Gillard government, boots and all.
Target: Kevin Rudd.
Target: Kevin Rudd. Photo: Getty Images
But to lead off its election coverage with so savage an editorial kick at the Prime Minister's head is going it a bit, even for Boris. Especially as the PM is not Julia Gillard, whom most of the Tele's readership long ago decided it couldn't stomach, but Kevin Rudd, for whom many in Sydney still have a soft spot.
Advertisement
Maybe, the cognoscenti have been speculating, it's Col Allan at work. According to the Financial Review's James Chessell and Anne Hyland, the legendary former Tele editor, now editor of The New York Post, had been on holiday in Australia and was unimpressed by the News tabloid's front pages.
''Boring'' is the word Allan is said to have used to Rupert Murdoch and the chief executive of the new News Corporation, Robert Thomson, when he got back to New York.
But whether Monday's front page was shaken by Col or stirred by Boris, what's not in doubt is that the Telegraph's partisanship matters. The election will be won or lost in marginal seats in Queensland and western Sydney. And, as always, the voters that make the difference are not the political tragics who watch Lateline on the ABC and read the polibloggers and the proliferating fact-check websites.
As that old Coalition warrior Grahame Morris put it in The Australian on Monday, these floating voters are ''often uninterested in politics … But they do still watch television. They do listen to morning radio and in many cases they do read the popular newspapers.''
The actual newspapers, not the tablet apps and the websites.
So the tabloid front pages still have an effect - especially the Daily Telegraph's in western Sydney. They matter in their own right, and because Sydney's talkback radio hosts bark out the Tele's stories like Pavlov's dogs.
But what's in it for Rupert? What deals has he cut with Tony Abbott in return for his newspapers' support?
On the very day that Kevin Rudd called the election, Fairfax columnist Paul Sheehan suggested it's all to do with Labor's national broadband network. ''News Corp views this as a threat to the business models of its most important asset, Foxtel.''
Well, the network certainly poses an existential threat to pay TV - but as the Coalition's communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull pointed out, its NBN-lite is no better, from Foxtel's point of view, than Labor's more expensive version.
Both will make it possible for the NRL to pipe live games direct to the public, rather than through an intermediary like Foxtel. Both have ample bandwidth to allow outfits like Netflix and Apple TV to sell us movies direct to our internet-linked smart TVs.
In fact, Turnbull's fibre-to-the-node system may be a more serious threat to Foxtel, because he's promising to get it into our homes faster.
One thing News can be sure of: an Abbott government will not be renewing Stephen Conroy's attempt to force stricter regulation on the news media and to prevent further media takeovers and mergers.
But then, nor will a future Rudd government. Press regulation is off the agenda for at least a decade.
I reckon the attempt to identify an obvious quid pro quo is misconceived. In his 2011 book, Rupert Murdoch: An Investigation of Political Power, David McKnight persuasively argued that the traditional view of him is wrong: he doesn't just back winners, or play politics solely to benefit his commercial interests. On the contrary, he has frequently supported losing ventures - like The New York Post, which hasn't made money for decades - because they give him political clout.
Murdoch, argues McKnight, plays politics from conviction. And as he grows older - especially now he has parted ways with Wendi and her lefty Hollywood friends - his convictions are growing more curmudgeonly than ever.
He's always liked to think of himself as an anti-establishment radical. But these days he's just another grumpy old American Republican billionaire funding right-wing think-tanks and bleating about evil labor unions.
The difference is that this particular American billionaire has the wherewithal to influence the outcome of an Australian election - and a legion of eager minions willing to help him do it.
Back in 1975, in the final week of the post-Dismissal election campaign, the staff of The Australian went on strike rather than continue to provide what they saw as the outrageously one-sided coverage that their proprietor, Rupert Murdoch, was insisting on. Imagine that.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/slanted-coverage-has-one-asking-whats-in-it-for-murdoch-20130806-2rdbv.html#ixzz2dpgf8kbL

but Gillard can have pay rises and its all ok

Fiona Scott #-o #-o #-o #-o

batfink would be an ideal Liberal party candidate.

batfink would be an ideal Liberal party candidate.

you talk such fucken shit

you talk such fucken shit

:lol: :d

Is that the look of anger, anxiety or embarrassment?

While this isn't my area, I'm fairly sure most experts view the stimulus packages, and the BER & Pink Batts builds as keeping the nation out of a recession.

If the Coalition was in power we'd have been given the same savage austerity that ravaged Europe.

=d> =d> =d> =d>

Same thing people wonder about the Stage Government Libs like Campbell Newmann and his pay rises.

-PB

We wouldn't have had austerity because our debt (or lackof) was at a manageable level, unlike those who were eventually hit the with austerity stick. The coalition supported the initial round of stimulus measures, spending to stimulate the economy is what all good governments should do. But $250 billion of profligate spending later and no significant rise in GDP you have to question what the government is doing with our money.

We wouldn't have had austerity because our debt (or lackof) was at a manageable level, unlike those who were eventually hit the with austerity stick. The coalition supported the initial round of stimulus measures, spending to stimulate the economy is what all good governments should do. But $250 billion of profligate spending later and no significant rise in GDP you have to question what the government is doing with our money.

I don't agree with your take on the economy. Under Labor the economy strengthened and whilst there is national debt, to say debt indicates an unhealthy economy is simplistic and naive. Personal debt is down under Labor and the gap between cost of living and personal income has actually grown (yes, the cost of living has increased, but so has personal wealth- and by more.) Unemployment has not moved in any appreciable statistical amount one way or the other. Yes there are people who have it rough at the moment but there are people who have it rough under every government. Statistically there are less now than there were under Howard. It can be hard to fathom when you are the one struggling, and hard to remember if it has never been you, but it is the cold truth of it all.

What Labor did very, very badly economically was try and sugar coat their projections and costings. They were rightly called out on it and made to look incompetent with each revision. They decided, in what is my opinion a very arrogant and patronising move, that it was impossible to explain to Joe Public how national debt and budget deficit isn't a bad thing if it is managed long term for national benefit and instead tried to make the numbers look small.

It is fallacious to say that Australia survived the GFC only due to Howard/Costello, just as it is fallacious to say that Rudd did it all himself. Costello was a frankly superb treasurer but he had very little working against him. He made use of this period of stability to steady the ship, however a steady ship still sinks if a tidal wave hits. Labor navigated away from the tidal wave through prudent fiscal management and that has indeed left us with debt, but it is (for want of a better word) good debt.

While this isn't my area, I'm fairly sure most experts view the stimulus packages, and the BER & Pink Batts builds as keeping the nation out of a recession.

If the Coalition was in power we'd have been given the same savage austerity that ravaged Europe.

Just vote Liberal mate. Adequate, low risk fiscal policy is what saved our hides from the GFC, nothing Rudd did. Most Asian countries were fine during the GFC, it was really only our debt ridden European brothers and the US who were the most affected and of course it's politically expedient to benchmark our performance with those countries rather than those closer to home like China and New Zealand.

I fail to see anything Labor did that proved them as "Sterling economic managers". Our GDP has been stable, we just added $250 billion of net debt. Yet there was NO great reward for our investment, the cost of living is going up and unemployment rising. Most of our investment has been in waste and social programs leaving a black hole of debt with no serous long term benefits to the economy. Not saying Labor did a terrible job but when you promise a surplus and deliver first a $11 billion deficit, followed by $18 billion deficit, followed by a $30 billion deficit it proves you are fiscally incompetent and can't be trusted on any aspects of your platform.

Just vote Liberal mate. Adequate, low risk fiscal policy is what saved our hides from the GFC, nothing Rudd did.

How well will katters australian party do?

How well will katters australian party do?

Policy isn't where Labor are falling down this election, its coherency. If they weren't so disorganised and individually self-promoting the LNP would be on the other end of the whitewash talks.

If the ALP had united after the first spill and spent the following years deflecting all the criticism of their economic management with the cold hard facts (ie: that they somehow managed to do a sterling job, regardless of all the talk to the contrary) and actually uniformly backed their policies with conviction they'd be in for a long dynasty in power. As it stands, the public as a whole has bought into the story that the ALP are wrecking Australia on the back of the interpersonal struggles that have been made so evident.

The LNP hasn't had a capable treasurer (or shadow treasurer) since Costello, yet they are being touted as the saviours of the economy. They will likely gain power and claim they have done this due to no work of their own (the pessimist in me says the LNP will in fact cause harm to our economy.) And as for rocknerd's comment about Abbott hiding behind party lines, he has to do this as it has been shown that when he speaks freely and openly the public revile him. Abbott has previously shown who he is, but as an astute politician in a united party wisely slid the mask over his face and let time dull memories of his flaws (yet he still gets caught out seemingly weekly.)

The policy platform laid out by the LNP is not effective. It is adequate; low risk for low reward, geared towards the benefit of white collar Australians (which I am fortunate enough to be counted in) and developmentally stagnant. I can't vote for their platform, I don't believe in it, but equally I can't throw my support behind another government hamstrung by squabbles across the floor and within their own seats. It is increasingly looking like informal voting is the only logical choice, but I don't feel an informal vote adequately sends the correct message for the reasoning behind it.

My below the line vote is sorted, but I imagine I will continue to be having a long hard think even as I walk up to the ballot box on Saturday.

Rudd has to look to the future because the present obviously stinks. It's great to look to the future and all that visionary stuff but you need to take care of the present as well. The cost of living is high and people are struggling, businesses are struggling, unemployment is rising and the economy is shrinking. If you don't take care of the immediate needs of the society those problems are going to grow and grow and you won't be able to execute your future visions. Rudd isn't Nostradamus he really can't see into the future by a day let alone ten years, no one predicted the GFC, economical circumstances can change quickly and you need to prepare for future and immediate threats as well as opportunities. You can't pin the entire economy on some half baked plan for the future.