2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Rudd? (2 Viewers)

[Iron]

Pig's arse. Politics and politicians are about leadership. There's a point where you don’t follow every inane habit of an apolitical and selfish people, and actually tell them what's right - to shut up and be wrong and do what they're told.
Bold and risky decisions should be encouraged in politics. We encourage corporations to make them all the time, otherwise they go under.
We shouldn't elect politicians who remind us of ourselves. We should elect them because they're superior beings - hopefully much more so than some of the dicks here.
I mean, Howard sent us to war for god's sake - a hopeless war which undermines our independence and credibility. But here we are arguing about petty, sexist bygone shit.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Frog12896, you're an imbecile. There are thousands of people out there without children. If you're one who believes that this is at all an issue (and it isn't), then it's more than acceptable for Gillard to be representative of those people.

Honestly...

 

[frog12986]

Frog12896, you're an imbecile. There are thousands of people out there without children. If you're one who believes that this is at all an issue (and it isn't), then it's more than acceptable for Gillard to be representative of those people.

Honestly...

It's interesting how, yet again, there's always a comment about the poster.

It's also interesting that this was in fact made an issue by the ALP and media alike, when Sophie Panaopolous was dubbed 'unsuitable for parliament' by the ALP candidate for Indi in 2004, because she was single, and had no children.

I think the most pertinent issue here, clouded by Heffernans idiocy, is that Gillard is once again a liability. The issues with business and the ALP IR Policy are definitely Mumble (.com.au) makes an extremely valid point in relation to this..

The trouble with Julia

A fellow by the name of Mark Latham, you may recall, used to reckon that you can't win an election if you don't stand for anything: the mob wants to see some gumption. After delivering the worst opposition result since 1977, the message was tweaked to: what's the point of winning government if you don't stand for anything?
I reckon Julia Gillard is still caught in the first story, she thinks inside the political narrative and plays to the gallery. Perhaps she attends a lot of branch meetings, where the tough talk no doubt goes down well.

 

[Sparcod]

This country needs a variety of credible, talented and capable politicians so that the major parties are able to present a diverse and vibrant front (and, one would hope, the substance to match such an image). Though your 'representative of the majority' argument may be viewed favourably by many, I personally don't see what a parliament full of bland suburban hacks would achieve.

They're supposed to represent diversity anyways. That's why this country is broken up into electorates and each of them elect their own LOCAL MP to represent them. I do agree with the point you're trying to make. Parties shouldn't be homogeneous anyways.

I hate to state the obvious, but politicians have advisors for a reason.

One of the funniest things in politics.

 

[withoutaface]

Cadman's gonna get shafted.

I for one welcome our new Young Liberal overlord.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I believe your signature has picked up dirt. Especially around "MAKE IT HAPPEN" it appears to have black smudged around it.

They're emphasising the gritty nature of the next election? Either that, or the letters they send me are rubbed in mounds of earth before they get to me.

It's interesting how, yet again, there's always a comment about the poster.

Take that for what you will then.

 

[Sparcod]

Budget could look at tax cutshttp://au.news.yahoo.com/070505/23/13ct3.html

Those in the know think Treasurer Peter Costello is preparing to hand out a fresh round of tax cuts in Tuesday's federal budget.
For the last three years the Treasurer has coughed up tax cuts on budget night and in this election year it is a sure bet he will do it again.

With a whopping $13 billion surplus, modest tax relief is tipped to go to everyone.

Shadow Treasurer, Wayne Swan, said Labor will not stand in the way of responsible tax cuts.

"Provided they don't put upward pressure on inflation and upward pressure on interest rates," he said.

The Reserve Bank has effectively given the green light for tax cuts after its positive inflation outlook.

But welfare groups say the money could be better spent

Hmmmmm.....the budget.....in 3 days....

It's also an "election year" budget too.
In my opinion good chance that this'll be Costello's last budget either because:
-Labor wins the next election.
-John Howard retires and someone needs to replace him.
-or Howard loses in Bennelong and someone needs to replace him (whether or not it's Peter Costello but he could be moved elsewhere within the ministry).

I can't really tell if all three of the above will happen.

 

[ZabZu]

I saw Johnny Howard on the TV on friday saying that he didnt want employees to not be compensated for the loss of award conditions such as penatly rates and overtime. This is an absolute lie. He allowed it to happen because he wanted to entice employers to employ workers on AWAs. He was disappointed that at the start of 2006 only 2% of employees were on AWAs. If Howard didnt want employees to lose conditions without being compensated he would have kept the 'no-disadvantage' test.

 

[frog12986]

I saw Johnny Howard on the TV on friday saying that he didnt want employees to not be compensated for the loss of award conditions such as penatly rates and overtime. This is an absolute lie. He allowed it to happen because he wanted to entice employers to employ workers on AWAs. He was disappointed that at the start of 2006 only 2% of employees were on AWAs. If Howard didnt want employees to lose conditions without being compensated he would have kept the 'no-disadvantage' test.

The no disadvantage test undermines the notion of flexibility that comes with the workplace reforms. The new 'fairness' test, is much less stringent in monetary terms and is obviously open to greater interpretation. So whilst it provides a mechanism from which an employee can ensure it is not completely screwed over, it doesn't place inflexible burdens on the employer..

The biggest issue in relation to AWA's is not that employee's aren't signing them, but rather, employers have yet to fully embrace them. Come the election and between 1 and 2 million employees will be covered by the AWA's making it an important issue. However, it will take a number of years before it makes any significant inroad into the workplace.

 

[Sparcod]

The biggest issue in relation to AWA's is not that employee's aren't signing them, but rather, employers have yet to fully embrace them. Come the election and between 1 and 2 million employees will be covered by the AWA's making it an important issue. However, it will take a number of years before it makes any significant inroad into the workplace.

How many workers are on AWAs? What proportion of them are satisfied?

I'm thinking that the progress of AWAs is slowed down by the Labor state governments who oppose it and won't do it to their public servants. I don't know much on this so I'll have to check it up.

This is an absolute lie.

Is that John Howard being himself again?

 

[frog12986]

How many workers are on AWAs? What proportion of them are satisfied?
I'm thinking that the progress of AWAs is slowed down by the Labor state governments who oppose it and won't do it to their public servants. I don't know much on this so I'll have to check it up.

The state public service is far too small to hinder the progress of AWA uptake. The thing with AWA's is they must be analysed individually. The collective figures fail to represent the benefits afforded to employees and the specific arrangements that have been made.

It's not as easy to implement AWA's as the ALP purport, and as such the vast majority of employers have not adopted them as yet.

 

[Sparcod]

OK. On the topic of the benefits of AWAs, I have seen newspaper ads promoting the use of AWAs.

I quote from today's paper here.

Since changes to the workplace relations system were introduced in March 2006, more than 276,000 new jobs have been created....

There's also a reference to the growth of real wages.

Can you justify this?

Firstly, I thought that the AWAs look good because their "launch" has coincided with the growing mining sector that has been going on for the past year or two.

Secondly, is it really the upper end (the highest-paid workers) who are getting the most out of AWAs whereas the low-income earners are losing? If this is happening, that definitely explains what they mean by "growth of real wages" because the upper-end's gains is bigger than the lower-end's losses. I also understand that inflation affects real wages and if inflation is low, typically real wages should be higher. Is it true that inflation is restrained because business costs are going down? because of cutting wage costs?

frog12986- what's you say?

 

[frog12986]

Well I don't profess to be an expert on them, however the 'fairness' test was introduced to address the concerns of lower income earners.

In relation to the employment figures, and real wage growth figures, I'm not sure of the breakdown of those figures. However, as I said the other day, if the related indicators were negative the ALP and the Unions would attribute them to the 'draconian laws'. This approach has allowed the government to directly take credit for positive figures..

The ALP continually raves about the 'mining-boom' however as the affiliated economics forecaster (Access Economics) says, the increases in revenue this year have stemmed from individuals, not companies:

CHRIS RICHARDSON: I think this boom has very much reached almost a democratic stage if you like. It's spreading into the suburbs. If you compare Access Economics' forecast, compared to the current Treasury, the current official forecasts of the economy and the budget, where the surprises are, we're getting more people in jobs, wage growth is higher than the official forecasts have had it, that's combination says it is, it's the ordinary Joes, Mr and Mrs Suburbia who are spending more, and therefore ending up as paying greater amounts of tax than than Government expected. It's not company tax - yes, that's growing fast off the back of the China boom - but not as fast as the budget expected it to.....http://legacy.ten.com.au/library/documents/MTP0605.doc

The resource boom has played a role over the last couple of years, however attributing the prosperity wholly to that boom is a political cop out.

 

[ZabZu]

The no disadvantage test undermines the notion of flexibility that comes with the workplace reforms. The new 'fairness' test, is much less stringent in monetary terms and is obviously open to greater interpretation. So whilst it provides a mechanism from which an employee can ensure it is not completely screwed over, it doesn't place inflexible burdens on the employer.

Pre-WorkChoices AWAs provided plenty of flexibility. Penalty rates, overtime, public holidays, etc could be traded away in exchange for a higher hourly rate. When I was on an AWA I a year ago my wage on a monday afternoon was the same as it was on a sunday night or a public holiday.

Why is it that the no-disadvantage test is inflexible while this 'semi' no-disadvantage test (fairness test) isnt? This semi no-disadvantage test tries to strike a balance between encouraging employers to use AWAs and trying to improve the image of the contracts.

 

[Sparcod]

The ALP continually raves about the 'mining-boom' however as the affiliated economics forecaster (Access Economics) says, the increases in revenue this year have stemmed from individuals, not companies.

The resource boom has played a role over the last couple of years, however attributing the prosperity wholly to that boom is a political cop out.

Surely, the growing demand for our minerals isn't all responisble for the economic growth and low unemployment rates. I do believe that there is a mining boom (that some Liberals deny). The reason being is that W.A enjoys a higher economic growth rate and a lower unemployment rate than the rest of us.

I remember someone (it could possibly have been you), who stated that Rudd has been criticised because his plans are thought to be ones that'll 'kill off' today's strong economic growth. I still think that AWAs 'work' at the moment because it's a boom period and typically, real wages overall rise. Perhaps the increase in wages contributed to the rise in tax revenue earnt by the government.

Say that the economy turns sour and that Chinese demand weakens and a global recession occurs. If the unemployment rate goes back up to 10% or even more, will AWAs be as good as they used to be for both employees and employers?

 

[frog12986]

Say that the economy turns sour and that Chinese demand weakens and a global recession occurs. If the unemployment rate goes back up to 10% or even more, will AWAs be as good as they used to be for both employees and employers?

Thats a central issue here, and I've said it before. A flexible workplace system is possible in an economy such as Australia, as we are going to continue to see the size of the labour market shrink. Medium to long term, labour supply issues will haunt Australian governments, as well as business...

What is also important to remember is that if Australia ever did recede back to the conditions of years gone by, there is nothing to suggest that the government of the day could not reinstate or restructure the workplace relations system to suit those conditions..

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

So whilst it provides a mechanism from which an employee can ensure it is not completely screwed over

No, it doesn't. That's the problem.

 

[frog12986]

No, it doesn't. That's the problem.

And you are basing that on the rantings of Wayne Swan and Julia Gillard..?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

No, I'm basing that off what I'm told in the Herald. Not that greatest source, but I do challenge you to, you know, prove me wrong.

Also, you're not a politician, no-one here is going to be fooled by shitty attacks on Wayne Swan and Julia Gillard that are meant to be targetted from the media towards uninformed, swinging voters. It's time to stop playing your silly games and stop acting like a wannabe psuedo-politician.

 

[frog12986]

Also, you're not a politician, no-one here is going to be fooled by shitty attacks on Wayne Swan and Julia Gillard that are meant to be targetted from the media towards uninformed, swinging voters. It's time to stop playing your silly games and stop acting like a wannabe psuedo-politician.

I apologise for voicing my thoughts oh venerable one.

As the most learned person on the forum, I would appreciate it if you could enlighten us as to the detail of how the fairness test doesn't satisfy its purpose. Until that occurs, then there is really nothing to discuss about the issue..

It is a mechanism that has been established to ensure that conditions are not removed without some form of recompense. Until it has been practically applied to specific situations and agreements, I fail to see how you can assess its effectiveness and overall ability to satisfy its purpose..

Oh, and the chip I spoke about some time ago, its still there plain for all to see..