The Federal Erection

[Smile on Impact]

I also can't believe how the Hawkes/Keatings are still such poor losers (as seen/heard on the media), and that they are still so vocal on how bad the Libs were. Pity they put this country in some severe economic stress, and that its taken the Lib Govt about 10 years to fix.

This is 100% MYTH.
When Hawk took over Power after JH Was treasure. Inflation was at 11% and interest rates were at 13%. The Economy was a MESS.
Labor were the ones that had to make the BIG calls in order to get us back on tracks. It's a very slow process. Labor Floated the Australian dollar for the first time. Created massive trade with Asia. Invested in Infrastructure that we still use today.
All the Liberal party has done is Cut funding to Universities, sold off some assets and Created a situation where Australians are up to their EYEBALLS in Debt.
when rates where at their 'worst' under labor, the percentage of take home pay that was paid in Home loan interest, was 8%. Now it's 17% and we all live in pretty much the same houses.
Australians have borrowed massive $$ and guess what. That stimulates the economy. But at some point we have to pay it back.!
Libs good economic managers ???
Pfft..
They are irresponsible, irrational, stock brokers, Gambling with borrowed time..

GOOD RIDDANCE !

[system]

I have a feeling that Turnbull with his background could have possibly isolated sections of the Australian Community when it came to re-election (seems like he's part of the toorak society scene to me.)

unlike fraser and menzies?

[same o]

Except for work choices. This was probably one of the more progressive policies of the previous government. It did have some issues which could have been solved with some adjustment, but overall I think an excellent policy which was unfortunately given bad press by organisations with other agendas.

lol, anything which gets me fired for being off work sick for a week i think is a load of shit.

I also can't believe how the Hawkes/Keatings are still such poor losers (as seen/heard on the media), and that they are still so vocal on how bad the Libs were. Pity they put this country in some severe economic stress, and that its taken the Lib Govt about 10 years to fix.

and lol and what smile on impact said..

[Sustain]

I have a feeling that Turnbull with his background could have possibly isolated sections of the Australian Community when it came to re-election (seems like he's part of the toorak society scene to me.)

unlike fraser and menzies?

dont forget costeloo huhu

[ShiKung]

Big ups the Green Representative coming 2nd in the Melbourne electorate and it looks like with preferences coming within 6% of winning the vote overall! That would make it a Marginal seat.

ALL MEMBERS OF MB.com MOVE INTO THE MELBOURNE ELECTORATE by 2010!! Sway the vote!

[mixtress]

Big ups the Green Representative coming 2nd in the Melbourne electorate and it looks like with preferences coming within 6% of winning the vote overall! That would make it a Marginal seat.

ALL MEMBERS OF MB.com MOVE INTO THE MELBOURNE ELECTORATE by 2010!! Sway the vote!

When we vote you have a way with me
Stay with me, sway with me

[db]

Every day of the week.

what has howard done though in his 11 years ??????
i personally think that anyone who ignores and issue like global
warming should not be in office..

Yeah cause it's ALL about global warming isn't it...

People voting needed to look at the bigger picture, they didn't and look who is now running the country. Shit house.

Why change things when they are working? Who cares if Peter Costello was taking over in 2 years. ITS THE SAME PARTY!!! SAME IDEALS!!!

He is THE BEST candidate next to JH for the job! Undoubtably.

Rudd is a spanker. NO EXPERIENCE, NO BALLS and he eats his own ear wax.

For gods sake Australia... What were you thinking (Or not)

[marcus]

I also can't believe how the Hawkes/Keatings are still such poor losers (as seen/heard on the media), and that they are still so vocal on how bad the Libs were. Pity they put this country in some severe economic stress, and that its taken the Lib Govt about 10 years to fix.

This is 100% MYTH.
When Hawk took over Power after JH Was treasure. Inflation was at 11% and interest rates were at 13%. The Economy was a MESS.
Labor were the ones that had to make the BIG calls in order to get us back on tracks. It's a very slow process. Labor Floated the Australian dollar for the first time. Created massive trade with Asia. Invested in Infrastructure that we still use today.
All the Liberal party has done is Cut funding to Universities, sold off some assets and Created a situation where Australians are up to their EYEBALLS in Debt.
when rates where at their 'worst' under labor, the percentage of take home pay that was paid in Home loan interest, was 8%. Now it's 17% and we all live in pretty much the same houses.
Australians have borrowed massive $$ and guess what. That stimulates the economy. But at some point we have to pay it back.!
Libs good economic managers ???
Pfft..
They are irresponsible, irrational, stock brokers, Gambling with borrowed time..

GOOD RIDDANCE !

Valid points. I looked more at trends over time then at particular points to form my opinion, will have a look at % pay paid in Int Rates later.

I suppose that we could get into a discussion with stats (of which I have) but at the end of the day it depends how you interpret them. Overall I think you could say that fiscal policy over the past ten years has seen a reduction in net govt debt, which rose to significant levels during the Hawke/Keating years, and overall employment has continued to fall since the the previous govt came into power.

I have a feeling that Turnbull with his background could have possibly isolated sections of the Australian Community when it came to re-election (seems like he's part of the toorak society scene to me.)

unlike fraser and menzies?

dont forget costeloo huhu

Maybe I deliberately excluded him? It's unfortunate he wasn't PM during the Republic vote.

Don't think he would have been a good choice, Rudd is leagues above him. In any case, it is just my opinion. Wasn't around during the Menzies/Fraser era, so can't really say much about them.

lol, anything which gets me fired for being off work sick for a week i think is a load of shit.

As I said mate, it wasn't perfect and needed adjustments - nothing is ever going to be effective the first time you try it. From a high level it looks as though it has the potential to be a very effective workplace policy and to assist in making IR more flexible.

[deviant]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipvdBnU8F8

[fooishbar]

Yeah cause it's ALL about global warming isn't it...

People voting needed to look at the bigger picture, they didn't

[FoundationStepper]

Every day of the week.

what has howard done though in his 11 years ??????
i personally think that anyone who ignores and issue like global
warming should not be in office..

Yeah cause it's ALL about global warming isn't it...

People voting needed to look at the bigger picture, they didn't and look who is now running the country. Shit house.

Why change things when they are working? Who cares if Peter Costello was taking over in 2 years. ITS THE SAME PARTY!!! SAME IDEALS!!!

He is THE BEST candidate next to JH for the job! Undoubtably.

Rudd is a spanker. NO EXPERIENCE, NO BALLS and he eats his own ear wax.

For gods sake Australia... What were you thinking (Or not)

The reasons people vote against the coalition are many and varied - and well documented. They range from moral standpoints, to perspectives on social (and economic) inclusion, to frustration or anger at deceit and corruption, tto shocking use of public funds for party benefit, to apathy, to a lack of future vision, to concerns about the (evermore gutted) infrastructure and future capacities of australia, to decisions founded on rational, well considered economic understanding...

Rather than asking people why they voted against the coalition, how about trying to justify the reasons to vote for them, framed in terms of the many specific grievances people have against them. After all, proponents of minority views need to work harder to be clearly heard

(geez, even The Australian recommended a vote for labor)

[FoundationStepper]

I'd venture that the socially divisive nature of their policies aside, the coalition have delivered necessary taxation and market reform but have squandered an enormous amount of mining wealth and failed to put it into improving the long term productive capacities, and public services of the country.

They seem to have no ability to look beyond the idea of (non means tested) cash handouts anymore and are in denial about the need to better service people at the lower end of the scale, through public services in education and health. although, yes, state governments manage these services, they do so with funding from both sides of government. and there simply isnt enough coming in (a reduction in the overall proportion of commonwealth funding to public health over the last few years for exmple).

They have successfully shifted politics to the right and have made tough reform calls for australia's benefit. but take thier ideology too far, at the expense of those on the fringes.

a line that to me sums up peter costello, when in last years budget he was asked why he gave $2 a week back to taxpayers rather than improve public services. he responsed along the lines of "well we looked at health and everything seems OK, it doesnt need more funding, so tax breaks are the better way to go"

[deviant]

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=18321290664

[marcus]

I'd venture that the socially divisive nature of their policies aside, the coalition have delivered necessary taxation and market reform but have squandered an enormous amount of mining wealth and failed to put it into improving the long term productive capacities, and public services of the country.

Yep. It would have been nice to see this money go into some type of investment fund to pull from in the future, instead of giving meagre tax breaks to the public.

[Lephrenic]

Why change things when they are working?

Working? For who? Employers, industry and the financial sector perhaps, but people? Seems to me the only people who were better off under Howard are the people who DON'T NEED looking after.

Who cares if Peter Costello was taking over in 2 years. ITS THE SAME PARTY!!! SAME IDEALS!!!

What ideals are you referring to, Ash?

Howard said there'd never ever be a GST and then gives us one. He campaigned heavily against native title and the Wik decision, then later says he seeks reconciliation. We're talking about a man who consistently changed his tune to suit the moment and gain the advantage. You be hard pressed to say that Howard ever represented any solid ideal.

[same o]

Yeah cause it's ALL about global warming isn't it...

It basiclly is all about global warming.
Think about the millions of refugees from waters rising.
Can't be good for any economy, and well that's what JH basiclly campaigned with, his so called good economic management. To bad he hasnt put any of this tremendous wealth away for future investments.

People voting needed to look at the bigger picture, they didn't and look who is now running the country. Shit house.

Ummmm i think people for once did look at the bigger picture. Rudd has plenty of experiance within state goverments
People hated him cuz he was a tight ass with economic management, he was basiclly like a good Jeff Kennet (if there is such a thing).

Why change things when they are working? Who cares if Peter Costello was taking over in 2 years. ITS THE SAME PARTY!!! SAME IDEALS!!!

He is THE BEST candidate next to JH for the job! Undoubtably.

Rudd is a spanker. NO EXPERIENCE, NO BALLS and he eats his own ear wax.

For gods sake Australia... What were you thinking (Or not)

What exactlly is working? Sending our troops to war? Ignoring Global warming? Not changing with the times?
I dont understand this. Howard has just ridden the mining boom.
Any way I think for the first time in a long time Australia has looked at where they want to be, rather than go if it aint broke dont fix it.

and Marcus i completeley disagree with ur view on the IR laws but hey we will just agree to disagree.

[Direkt]

Politics, people... is there a point arguing who is the "better" candidate?

There is no right or wrong - only perspective and perception.

The election is done. The people have spoken (well, at least I believe they have).

[FoundationStepper]

yeah, but arguing hopefully challenges other peoples perception and good debate can shift someone elses view through evidence and analysis

[same o]

yeah, but arguing hopefully challenges other peoples perception and good debate can shift someone elses view through evidence and analysis

[Direkt]

PS: in regards to Howard joining Bush's coalition of the willing in the "war on terror", aren't we required to by some Aus-USA mutual agreement where we support the USA in military endeavours, and they in turn support us?

Tough call, but losing the support of the USA with the world biggest Muslim population as our closest neighbours is risky business.

As is angering the global Muslim community by going to war against Islamic countries with what turned out to be baseless allegations of WMD's.

[fooishbar]

PS: in regards to Howard joining Bush's coalition of the willing in the "war on terror", aren't we required to by some Aus-USA mutual agreement where we support the USA in military endeavours, and they in turn support us?

no.

[Direkt]

Hang on... you've said no and then provided a link that supports my statement.

The Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS or ANZUS Treaty) is the military alliance which binds Australia and New Zealand and, separately, Australia and the United States to cooperate on defence matters in the Pacific Ocean area, though today the treaty is understood to relate to attacks in any area.

...the treaty no longer applies between the United States and New Zealand, but is still in force between either country and Australia, separately.

The ANZUS treaty's provisions for assistance when a member nation comes under threat were officially invoked for the first time by Australia, to justify the Australian commitment in Afghanistan.

Am I missing something? I must be...

[same o]

The ANZUS treaty's provisions for assistance when a member nation comes under threat were officially invoked for the first time by Australia, to justify the Australian commitment in Afghanistan.

Am I missing something? I must be...

Afghanistan and Iraq never attacked America.
Terrorists did

[Direkt]

It doesn't say they did attack America anywhere Pete.

Just that the ANZUS treaty requires "Australia and the United States to cooperate on defence matters"

[same o]

Just that the ANZUS treaty requires "Australia and the United States to cooperate on defence matters"

[almax]

That is a bit ambiguos in the term "defence". It could be perceived as defence against a country or people in that country. I would have thought that defence is staying at home defending your country, but i guess attack is a form of defence

[Direkt]

Defence force still fights overseas innit?

Not forgetting that the war on terror was supposedly in defence of America's perceived threat to homeland security.

[same o]

The way the ANZUS treaty works is if ur attacked we will help..
The reason why NZ arnt in it ny more is because US wanted to put nuclear subs in NZ waters.
It is a treaty where we will if US is attacked will help, and if we are attacked we will get help from them. US was never attacked by Afgahnistan or Iraq..
yah get me..

[Direkt]

I repeat:

The ANZUS treaty's provisions for assistance when a member nation comes under threat were officially invoked for the first time by Australia, to justify the Australian commitment in Afghanistan.

PS: the USA was attacked, according to them, by terrorists, supported by the 'Axis of Evil', which includes/included Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

PPS: maybe Wikipedia is wrong. I'm only going off what I read.

[same o]

I repeat:

Wikipedia wrote:
The ANZUS treaty's provisions for assistance when a member nation comes under threat were officially invoked for the first time by Australia, to justify the Australian commitment in Afghanistan.

PS: the USA was attacked, according to them.

They were attacked by al qaeda. Not afgahnistan hence war on terror.
we have justified attacking Iraq and afgahnistan on that.
We did ANZUS in year 12 polotics, and basiclly came to the conclusion that
we dont need to be in either countries, well especially not iraq, Afgahnistan is easier to justify though cuz they were attacked by an orginisation based within Afgahnistan

[Direkt]

Once again, I give up Pete.

That's like saying that John Howard's Liberal/National coalition attacked Afghanistan - not Australia.

Al Queda was the Afghan Government at the time.

We didn't intentionally wage war on the Afghan people mate - it was to oust Al Queda and "liberate" Afghanistan. Supposedly.

[same o]

No Al Queda wernt taliban were.

[Direkt]

My bad.

Taliban supported Al Queda.

Weren't Al Queda operating out of Afghanistan with the approval of the Taliban? I'm not sure...

Regardless - they were still identified as sponsoring/endorsing the terrorists, and where therefore targetted as a terrorist organisation and a threat.

Still, doesn't change what was written about the ANZUS treaty in Wiki.

Hairs, I'll let you split them.

[almax]

the young chap is correct Spies, get some schooling, Taliban were the government, Al'Queda are a terrorist organisation perceived by the US to be backed by the Taliban

[Direkt]

Sorry Pete - I was confusement and wrong on the Al Queda/Afghan tip (although as you said, the two are related).

But, that ANZUS clause still stands yeah?

Wether we agree with it or not, as long as we are still part of that treaty we jump in with the States in any military endeavours yeah?

If America thinks that the "war on terror" includes organisation such as Al Queda, and Governments such as the Taliban - then we're there yeah?

If we opt not to go, then we reneg on the agreement and exit the treaty, ala NZL.

[Friday]

my understanding of anzus was that it only applied to attack on homeland... ie if we were attached in aust or the us were attacked on their land.

if you look at the full text of the anzus treaty that what it says...

http://australianpolitics.com/foreign/a ... eaty.shtml

Article IV

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article V

For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.

[nic]

couldn't say really
ANZAC BISCUITS AND GUNS ALL ROUND

[Direkt]

Doesn't blowing up the World Trade Centre and attempting to blow up the Pentagon constitute an attack on the homeland?

This was the catalyst for the war on terror, to be waged on terrorist organisations and pro-terrorist Governments.

Right or wrong - that was the beginning of the USA's latest crusade.

I by no mean agree with it... but didn't the USA justify the invasion of Iraq as a pre-emptive strike? Meaning, that they believed they were going to be attacked with Weapons of Mass Destruction and instigated a "preventative" and pre-emptive invasion?

[same o]

Doesn't blowing up the World Trade Centre and attempting to blow up the Pentagon constitute an attack on the homeland?

This was the catalyst for the war on terror, to be waged on terrorist organisations and pro-terrorist Governments.

Right or wrong - that was the beginning of the USA's latest crusade.

I by no mean agree with it... but didn't the USA justify the invasion of Iraq as a pre-emptive strike? Meaning, that they believed they were going to be attacked with Weapons of Mass Destruction and instigated a "preventative" and pre-emptive invasion?

yes that is how they justified it..

[ShiKung]

The reason why NZ arnt in it ny more is because US wanted to put nuclear subs in NZ waters.

Im not having a gripe but this isnt 100% true. The reason that NZ is no longer in ANZUS is because we are nuclear free. The US has a policy that it will not confirm or deny if a warship is using Nuclear power or Nuclear arms and since NZ is Nuclear free that means ALL usa warships arent allowed in our harbours which makes our participation practically nil therefore our role in the treaty towards the US was nullified!

Which is great! The first country to deny US military protection! And to tell them that what they were doing was wrong! They actually changed trade aggreements as well! Coz of this we could say that what Israel is doing is wrong and we didnt have to go to war!

[same o]

The reason why NZ arnt in it ny more is because US wanted to put nuclear subs in NZ waters.

Im not having a gripe but this isnt 100% true. The reason that NZ is no longer in ANZUS is because we are nuclear free. The US has a policy that it will not confirm or deny if a warship is using Nuclear power or Nuclear arms and since NZ is Nuclear free that means ALL usa warships arent allowed in our harbours which makes our participation practically nil therefore our role in the treaty towards the US was nullified!

Which is great! The first country to deny US military protection! And to tell them that what they were doing was wrong! They actually changed trade aggreements as well! Coz of this we could say that what Israel is doing is wrong and we didnt have to go to war!

yeah i was giving a brief explanation of why..
i wish that we had this policy aswell. nuclear is teh shitest

[FoundationStepper]

i wanted to share this, a nice samper of the australian poticical animations of the past year

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/op ... 15,00.html

love the keating verbal attacks, spot on. the honeymoon scene is funny also

[witty_pseudonym]

gold.

[FoundationStepper]

hopefully not in the youtube thread already

this is a pisser

corey delaney's other party

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kij2UrQxEEc

poor liberals, love it