What influences your vote...?

[HappyHammer]

When I see Kevin Rudd being interviewed, I'm just not convinced. He always sounds as though he is reeling off a pre-prepared comment. There's something a bit contrived in the way he talks. Maybe it's just the way he is.
This is my view as well sounds wooden like he's reading from a script...

Unlike Costello when he stumbled over "That means more money in peoples pockets..that's good."

HH.

[Gra]

I don't deal with the details, so not really sure what it was all about. All I know is that she has to tell them how much my salary is expected to be and from that they determine the amount of the payment. One year we got it wrong and had to pay some back. Maybe it was something else, but definitely child-related.

Yeah if you guess you income incorrectly they make you pay some back... We solved the issue by claiming it as part of our tax return. It means you get a lump sum at the end of the year:2tsup:

[silentC]

That's OK if you have the spare cash to pay the child care throughout the year!

[HappyHammer]

It's all changed now anyway and in the future you have to claim it from the Family Assistance Office rather than as part of your tax return. This can be as a lump sum or as a monthly payment.

HH.

[q9]

They are a bad thing when people lose their houses because of them.


I still don't understand why we are so tuned to owning our own home as the be all and end all of life?

Anyhow, I find it amusing that we shower the government of the day with either horse dung or praises over the handling of the "economy", when most aspects of the modern Australian economy are independant of the government.

Government policy can influence interest rates, but generally only very slightly. The boom in resources which is driving the current good economic cycle would have happened if Wayne Goss's dog was PM :) Similarly the recession of the 90's was a world wide event, yet we were supposed to be immune for some reason?

I also find it funny some people are getting excited about getting some more tax cuts - basically rewarding the government for overtaxing them in the first place :2tsup:

Ah...it's a funny old world.

[silentC]

I still don't understand why we are so tuned to owning our own home as the be all and end all of life?
It's not. But it sure beats lining someone else's pocket. Having rented for about half of my adult life, the only good thing I can say about it is that you don't have to pay to fix the hot water heater when it blows up.

Arguments over whether a home is a good investment or not aside, the problem is that people do take out mortgages that are only marginally affordable to them, and so when interest rates go up, those people lose their houses. The only people who benefit from that are banks and real estate agents. Someone who is still paying off interest after 5 or 6 years can walk away with nothing - I suppose one way of looking at it is that they are no worse off than had they been renting.

On the upside, there will be plenty of cheap houses going for those who can afford to invest.

[masher]

It's not. But it sure beats lining someone else's pocket. Having rented for about half of my adult life, the only good thing I can say about it is that you don't have to pay to fix the hot water heater when it blows up.

The only way you can get ahead when renting is to invest the difference that you'd pay between rent and a mortgage.

Say average rent is $1000/month and the average mortgage is $2000/month. As long as you invest that $1000 difference, you should be OK.

or at least, that is what I saw on the TV...

[silentC]

My fortnightly mortgage repayments would barely cover a week's rent in Sydney!

[SilentButDeadly]

My fortnightly mortgage repayments would barely cover a week's rent in Sydney!

Same here!! Mind you...my mortgage repayments are half that of a typical monthly rent in my town anyway.

See.......living in a tin humpy in the back of beyond is not all bad!

[astrid]

can i lay this old cheese re rich/ poor suburbs and drug use.
I live in one of those leafy green suburbs with loads of money and private schools.
some parents are known to
a} supply their 14yo kids with alcohol and dope when there having a few friends over.
b) give their 14yo kids $100 perday pocketmoney. what do they spend it on??

the drug problems at these schools are well published.
the local 7/11 and service station get regularly knocked over by local kids.
ever get tailgated by a 18yo in a landcruiser?
too many people here think thier kids are safe because they are visiting the homes of "nice people"

dont you believe it

Astrid

[Andy Mac]

Have I changed my vote since the election campaign started ...no, but I wasn't likely to!:wink: I can't stomach the fear mongering ads, whoever puts this tripe together doesn't deserve a paid job. How about putting out something positive, something upbeat to inspire voters, not pander to our negative side?!
I think that's why (on top of all the swerving, broken promises and downright lying we've endured) I can't warm to the guy...as said by someone before, he is no statesman. There is no bigger vision than lining your pockets in the short term, and the best that can be said he is a clever political animal.
As for the alternative, yes Kev does seem to come across as a bit wooden, I'm trying to think of it as a bid not to put a foot wrong, at whatever cost! After all, the shadow of Latham lays across his path. No doubt he's inexperienced at this level, his first campaign as leader. I keep coming back to one of the coalition's criticisms of him a week or so back, saying he lacked experience. That surely is a moot point, how can you get experience if you don't have a go, or do the job? Did our Johnny have experience before he started? Don't see too many other people with PM experience lining up!
Anyway, what influences my vote now...still the same thing. Someone with a vision would be good, but I'll be content with a breath of fresh air.
Regards the fear of interest rate rises, I think they are well out of our Federal govt control: bigger players overseas, and our market responds accordingly...apparently to the eternal damnation of whoever's in power here at the time.
As the sole bread winner for a family with 3 kids, buying a house (and working partime at that), do I want a tax cut as an election softener? NO..I'd prefer to see the huge tax surplus, reaped from us, to go to fixing the health & education systems, water and roads. No ifs, no buts, just bl**dy well spend the money we give you- for our benefit.:2tsup:

But can I watch the box anymore...? The ads are driving me crazy:rolleyes:

[Sebastiaan56]

Did our Johnny have experience before he started? Don't see too many other people with PM experience lining up!

and

But can I watch the box anymore...? The ads are driving me crazy:rolleyes:

Johnny was in the Fraser cabinet. The only one to oppose allowing the Vietnamese fleeing the commos coming to the country. Only five weeks of torture to go.....

[pawnhead]

Just for fun:

[Axis of Awesome] Rudd vs Howard

[jerryc]

One of the issues of this election is economic management. In part that will determine my vote. Only in part as there are many other issues needing attention.

The fact that Costello of the big smirk and smart ???? comment has built a reputation as an economic manger is a trifle baffling.

The reason we pay taxes is so the Government can use the money it collects to benefit the population in infrastructure and services. Surely it's bad economic management either to take too much money or not to use what it has taken in areas where it is needed.

Any company that salted away profit to be sprayed out as massive dividends around annual report time would not be considered a good economic manager. Each company looks carefully at what it has to do with with profit. How much to give as a dividend and how much to reinvest in the company. Anything over six percent return begins to border on suspicious .

Here we have a government that calls itself a good economic manager, but for three years of its term overtaxes that is in effect, it takes money out of circulation, then pours it back into the economy, not at a time of the country's need but for it's own political expediency.

Jerry

[Notsquare]

Governments of either side don't have much of a say anymore. The economy drives itself, and both sides pretend they are in charge. Not anymore. I would vote for the party that pushed the idea of fixed terms, e.g. 4 years at a fixed date, and similar to the US, the PM job can only be held for 8 years. Otherwise, even the most levelled person gets tickets on themselves and cannot see that others around them could do a better job.

[Studley 2436]

Governments still have a big part in the Economy. It is not as if they are the only player though.

As long as the Howard Government has been I have been less than satisfied with Howards leadership and thought that the whole thing hung on how well Costello was managing Treasury.

We have finally got back what Gough Whitlam cost us or perhaps that was Jim Killen's work as treasurer either way one labor government cost Australia 30 years. Do I want to risk having them in charge again NO but that is my choice after all.

So far as the tax system goes we are paying too much. Our best and brightest leave Oz and go elsewhere to benefit from better tax rates because they can. They call it churn money is taxed government gives it back but suffers costs along the way I believe it would be much better to have much less tax and much less welfare, largely middle class welfare such as child care benefits. The old dry arguement of smaller government and less tax still rings true I doubt Rudd Labor will give it to us, a Costello led government might, the Howard Government hasn't but that is politics after all. Menzies himself said "we are all socialists now" but he governed as the people would let him that was his genius. Perhaps Howard is the same although he lept ahead with Work Choices. The Business community was saying when he brought it out that he had really taken it a bit far. People have to accept it after all. Being able to sell your policies is crucial and they didn't sell that one all that well. Should have left it with knackering the IRC making it legal for individuals to negotiate without the Union's say so and remove the Unions right to entry on any workplace they chose. Then if the Unions complained the Government could just say well they had a priveledged position and they are upset about losing it.

Studley

[jerryc]

studley
I am at a loss to follow this comment about labor responsibility in the Whitlam years

"Jim Killen's work as treasurer" . Are you saying he was the treasurer responsible for whatever dire results you refer to?

Problem I have is, that to the best of my knowledge, SIR Jim Killen was liberal member for Moreton. I could be wrong in this but as you seem to have a definite view about the results of economic management in that period I am willing to be corrected.

Jerry

[Studley 2436]

My mistake that old lefty Jim Cairns was Whitlam's Treasurer.

The problem was that they felt they had their hands on the keys to treasury and could buy anything they wanted. This was OK until the OPEC oil shock of 73 when they were forced to ramp up the spending to prevent recession. Had they pursued a conservative policy with the treasury to that time there would have been no harm done but this vast Government pump priming sent inflation up to unheard of levels and unemployment went up in concert.

Prior to that time there was the assumption that Inflation and Unemployment were at two ends of the see saw. One was high the other low but under Whitlam they both became high. This was something Economists describe as the Phillip's Curve. It all went wrong as Whitlam and Keynes pursued a Keynesian philosophy.

Through this time the Monetarist philosophies of Hayek and Friedman were discredited apart from a few brave or larrikinistic types who railed against Keynes and his socialistic notions.

Keynes boiled down was largely have as much deficit as you want it doesn't matter and the Monetarists felt that balancing the budget was important. Today the Monetarists have been proved right. We are today in Boom times that make the post war boom of the 50's look thin. Should we go back to the centralist philosophies of the past? I say not. You should never forget that popular ideology in the Labor party is that people don't know what is good for them, they need us to look after them. I think that people know much better than Government how to spend their money and should be allowed to do so.

That is something of a potted history, however everytime that Rudd comes out with something about fixing say petrol prices it sends alarm bells off with me. The fact is he could regulate and make petrol cheaper but the cost to the rest of the economy would be too much. Likewise remember that most ot the cost of petrol is Tax either to the Federal or State Governments.

People accuse the Howard Government of being a do nothing Government however the fact is that Government and Bureaucracy are not ment to do anything but gum up the works. If they don't dampen the exuberance of the Market the whole thing will fly off the rails like a roller coaster that isn't fixed tight under the rails. Reach a corner and just keep going straight unimpeded.

Labor has a history of gaining government and with ideas of equity and fairness mucking the whole thing up. The crucial difference is equity of opportunity or outcome. You can legislate for equal outcomes and tax the successful out of existence for the sake of the less tallented and everyone ends up poor. The other option is to say equal opportunity (so much as is possible rich kids always will get a better run at life) and then use some of the greater wealth to provide a welfare safety net for the less successful.

Studley

[Sebastiaan56]

Hi Studley,

Part of the issue for me is that they actually believe that have to continue doing stuff, for me less government is better government.

Now, parts of the country are broken, water is overallocated, educational standards are slipping, hospitals are underresourced, aboriginal people live in poverty and our bravest are being killed off overseas for no sensible reason. The world as a whole lives unsustainably and we are leaders in that respect.

But, and here is the big BUT, the economy by and large works, people are better off than before. Still the tax laws are now volumes large spawning a whole parasitic industry of tax accountants, financial planners and the like. The Workplace laws passed last year are over 500 pages long. All these buggers are doing is behaving like rock stars and create over large volumes of laws to keep their mates (irrespective of political persuasion) in a job trying to unravel the crap that they wrote.

The Moniterist / Keynesian argument has been settled worldwide as Australia was not the only country caught up in the zero unemployment philosophy. Moniterism is now conventional wisdom. It too will get knocked off when a new crisis hits. The Government of the day will then be the pariah to future generations. And still we will live unsustainably.

I pity future generations as none of the current lot of candidates have the balls to make real decisions. eg renewable energy vs non renewables, water allocation and reuse, habitat destruction and worldwide loss of species, pollution etc. Future generations will live in a world bereft of resources, in an ever more hostile environment.

Meanwhile the arguments revolve around how to spend the surplus, and who has a more righteous moral character, who did / said what 5 or ten years ago, its pathetic really.....

Sebastiaan

[Studley 2436]

So far as the water "crisis" goes I think it could be solved by the market. Letting people have water rights is foolish really and growing rice in Hay is just ludicrous. Rice is meant to be in tropical paddys.

So if there were a market the government would only have to decide how much can be pumped Australia wide and put it to market. It would then be bought by traders by conglomerates and so on. Water would be priced according to it's true value for everyone from the cotton farmers in QLD to the suburbs of our towns and cities. It would then be used and treated as a valuable commodity

Studley

[jerryc]

I did say economic management was only one issue on which I will shape my vote.
Another is of course climate.
Here I have a problem. Every time I hear Little Johnny talking on climatic responsibility I get this absurd mental image. His face slowly blends into Kermit the Frog singing "It's not easy being green.,"

Don't know why I should worry however. I live in Victoria and my representative in Canberra is Kevin Andrews. It's a terrible irony that my vote will count for nothing.

Jerry

[astrid]

so vote kermit in the senate
astrid

[Studley 2436]

Today's Australian made the point that there is a vast amount of benefit in properly insulating houses and putting in better hot water services.

There would me a few hundred million saving to the economy by doing this. Also a great reduction in Green House Gasses. If you believe that gumpf. Personally I look at all the houses that have been going up for years and notice that none of them have eaves. The roof just ends at the walls and the gutters are stuck on the wall! Talk about bad design, houses that will require a lot of energy to keep cool. Builders and developers are trying to get decent sized houses on small blocks of land. The reason they do this is the looney lobby wants us all to live close together in small houses and ride busses to work walk to the shops etc etc etc. Well they got us onto small blocks of land but the public transport never happened people want to go to big shopping centres that will never be on every corner. Which just goes to show that the chattering class is contradictory by nature and has no interest in getting the details right beyond having a warm fuzzy feeling about manipulating the rest of us into a corner.

Studley

[astrid]

sad
astrid

[Studley 2436]

being connected with reality is not sad Astrid.

We are back to the old wet v dry spray that went on way back when

Studley

[astrid]

being cx with reality hmmm
cockroaches in melb
melting glaciers
huge tsunami
floods
46 degrees in europe
global warming sceptic are stuck in the sand or there bank accounts
astrid

[Studley 2436]

Sorry there is evidence that the earth has in fact cooled these past 7 years

But I am not denying climate change of even global warming, it appears to be happening however what it is caused by is a moot point.

Al Gore and friends ignore some important facts of science. The little ice age for one. Of course you must ignore the Viking habitation of Greenland. They were growing grapes and wheat there back then too cold for that now. Actually they ignore that in history and during the warm and cool periods the earth was only a few degrees different in temp the seas only a few feet different in level.

One pearler we have at the moment is that we are in the midst of the worst drought in 1000 years!!!!!! I remember a the terrible drought of 80-83. Two years in the middle of that without a drop of rain. The federation drought also is up there and I think there was one around the 30's or 40's that was up there too. This current drought is a peanut compared to those most of the current drought is about state government mismangement to suit their own short term objectives. Drained the whole damn thing dry absolute shocker.

But was always thus and always thus would be. Liberal governments build the country then Labor Governments come along and wreck the lot. Every single time how on earth can anyone consider having a Labor Government ever again anywhere?

Studley

[astrid]

so your saying that we should be blue for ever and ever and ever
I think thats called a dictatorship
and less about "the chattering class" please
this is just one of the put downs on people who think

astrid

[Studley 2436]

*LOL* group think is not intellectual consideration

All the great thinkers ever have been liberals or conservatives. Any thing else is just emotional clap trap that gets on the 6 o'clock news but has no weight whatsoever.

Bells and whistles who needs it? Looks good sounds good but when the rubber hits the road there has just been no thought given to the details or the reality of it all. That is all too hard for the chattering mob, but at the end of the day it is only the hard grind to get the details right and get the thing to work in the real world that matters.

Studley

if you are not a socialist when you 20 you don't have a heart. If you are not a conservative by the time you are 40 you don't have a brain.

[astrid]

i could give you a list of great names but i wont bother
keep up your principals and we will see an end to kids down t pit one day
astrid
ps i see you did not address my comment re democracy
pps dont pinch quotes without quoting sources

[Studley 2436]

No it is democracy we vote Labor is corrupt and only there to serve itself so it will never deserve to be elected and it will democratically be on the sideline forever.

I believe the quote was Churchill, you are getting so tetchy though Astrid for someone I thought was good to have around and a lot better than some of the sticks in the mud you get around the place that I am starting to remember a famous quote of Menzies

Studley

[astrid]

i am not tetchy more amused
i am working class through and through
father housepainter
mother seamstress
grandfathers coal miners and railway workers
grandmothers housemaids and barmaids
family name wedgwood
what a laugh
am ex union rep
why does this make me a "stick in the mud"

i really think you should broaden your views on people generally
not all liberals are idiot private schoolboys
and not all labour are union thugsl
take tim and peter costello
I wonder what christmas is like at their place

astrid:)

[astrid]

ps the actual quote is
"if youre not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time youre 35, you have no brain"

astrid

[Gingermick]

The reason they do this is the looney lobby wants us all to live close together in small houses

In my experience designing these subdivisions, the reason is the smaller the block, the larger the lot yield, the more money for the developer.

[Andy Mac]

Geez studley,
haven't heard anyone so bigotted and one-eyed for a long time!:D All Liberal good, all Labour bad...must be refreshingly easy living in such a simple world.
Anyone that expresses a concern about the environment is anti progress, possibly a loon, and should be howled down.
I really don't think there is much difference between the Coalition and what is left of Labour now. One builds up (ie. good in the eyes of supporters) for the other to tear down...seems like a perfectly balanced democracy, works equally for both sides of the electorate. To many, studley, the Coalition has let the people down, as hard as that may be for you to comprehend.
About the election campaign, all I can see at the moment are the two sneering patronizing schoolboy bullies masquerading as adult politicians, in the front row during the "great" debate. To think one that of these (####) could end up as our leader, by default, is beyond me.:C

Cheerio!

[Studley 2436]

Fair point Mick. Either way if there was more land available people would be able to live a bit differently and have eaves on their houses. State Governments bear part of the responsibility for this.

Never called you a stick in the mud Astrid.

I am a Fitter and Machinist

recession we had to have saw me sacked to avoid redundancy payment. My Union was nowhere to be found when I needed them.

Became a pot washer as engineering was in such a hole it was the only job I could get. Ended up with a chef's ticket as well.

My Father is a carpenter who still believes that Gough Whitlam is God. Being broke and on the dole while the Union was enjoying it's offices and priveledges made me take a serious look at life and led me to discard my idealistic daydreams. At the end of the day the only interest is self interest. The ALP has been very successful at selling an idea that they are interested in looking after people, which I find very very cynical. Really they are about looking after big business and big unions. By doing that they get looked after themselves. The little guy does not enter their consideration.

All said whoever we vote for we will only get a politician and there is not one of them you can count on that much. That is the result of democracy and the various checks and balances in the system in addition to the many demands made on elected officials. For me the glory of Howards Prime Ministership has been Peter Costello's running of the treasury. Howard had too many handouts too much tax too few times he stepped up to the plate and stood up for individual rights. However this is the fact of politics, Howard realises that getting re-elected means he can't rush out in front of the electorate. Shame that he didn't get out a bit more often to my mind but who can say for sure?

Liberal to my mind is really just a moderate just to the right of centre. It is about individual rights and liberties. The labor arguement for equality of outcome in my mind leads to a bloated government and much less opportunity for ordinary people. I would argue strongly for equality of opportunity that everyone has the chance to make something of themselves. Philosophically I am against welfare but because brains talent and luck are spread around entirely unequally there is obviously a need for some kind of safety net. The safety net needs some care in it's construction so that it doesn't become a poverty trap. That is the line the government must walk and difficult to stay on it.

I don't like middle class welfare such as childcare benefits. I think it would be much better to tax people less and give less benefits. I believe the individual is far more capable of managing their affairs to their own betterment than any government. Actually stuff that grinds me are thing like the regulation of childcare that stifles competition in the sector. Pharmacy regulation likewise is about benefitting Pharmacists and serves no benefit other than making our health care more expensive.

I think I walk the middle. I seem extreme because I don't go for emotional stuff. Call me dry but not heartless.

Studley

[Studley 2436]

Andy when I talk "Liberal" for the most part I am speaking of a Liberal philosophy. This differs from the Coalition and it's policies. The Nationals to me seem to be socialist which is far from where I stand. The water crisis has much to do with National vote buying in NSW with the allocation of water rights. I would much rather have a single water market and leave government only to decide how much water can be taken from the entire system in each year. Doubt it would happen due to various vested interests however the market will always do it better than government.

Major events in my life, well major traumas that cost me personally were Goughs recession (Australia has taken 30 years to return to where we were when Gough came in) Keating's recession. If you want the arguement of best manager this was the one time in Australia's history we led the world into recession. Every other time Australia followed the world in due to loss of demand for our primary products. Hawke Keating did follow a liberal policy in some ways with the floating of the dollar etc. Basically it is conforming to the Liberal Philosophy that got Australia back into such a strong position. This differs from the Liberal Coalition which has it's moments.

The only difference is that Coalition Governments for all their stumbles manage to avoid messing up completely. Labor governments due to their capture by various causes manage to muck up everytime. Sometimes to monsterous extremes such as Gough.

I suppose I am passionately against emotional clap trap. It has cost me hugely.

Studley

[Metal Head]

Well I'm voting Liberal because they can guarantee (via the RBA) :oo: a 7% interest rate early in the New Year. This I suppose would interest most members here who are either semi or fully retired:wink:. It is better (and safer) than most of the yields on the ASX atm.

MH

[Clinton1]

Studley,
Not having a go mate, but your comments in post 118 have been bugging me for a while now, and I've had no net access to post a reply.

Its been bugging me as your comments on the economic management credentials (or lack thereof) seem to perhaps need a little bit of "macro focus".

It should be noted that the Phillips curve was disregarded by just about all economists, and that it ultimately led to the fall of quite a few governments when low unemployment was chased without regard to inflationary effects.
'Cause of my lack of net time, I have not been able to get the references and check a few facts, but I think that the time you are referring to saw "Stagflation' run unchecked due to the lack of mechanisms in the economicist's toolbox to allow manage economies.

I think there was a change of government in the USA, Australia, the UK and a few European countries... without checking.
It took (forget his name) a spectacular economist in the USA Reserve Bank to correct their run-away inflation... and that needed a clear message to the public that the Reserve Bank had become independant in order to allow the necessary space 'free of govt interference' to run the needed correction.

Because such hard measures were needed, it caused a few of the governments to be changed... most of the Stagflation (or stagnant economies and high inflation) changed goverments were in power for a short time only.
i.e. Stagflation helped governments to be changed, the economic correction process led to a lot of those new governments to loose power in a short time.
Didn't it go Liberal Holt, McMahon, Gorton (total 49-71), Labour Whitlam (72-75), Liberal Fraser for 2 terms only, Labour Hawke for 13 years?
In the US, the Republican administrations of Nixon (69-74) Ford (74-77), Democratic Carter (77 - 81), Republican Reagan (81-89).

This occurred in all Western and developed economy's, notably the Northern European, USA, Canada, England and Australia (& I think quite a few of the Commonwealth countries) .... to name a few without looking any further.

Important lessons learned, after a long hard experience in recession by many countries, resulted in such things as independant Central Banks, less micromanagement of the economy by governments, floating currencies, issuing bonds at instutionally determined yields and so forth.

The governments caught by stagflation didn't have all that radically different economic policies to the preceeding governments that rode out the boom years after WWII... boom years which were a result of war governments determined to keep economies growing to head off the economic influences which lead to WWII in the first place.

The reason it bugs me is that I think laying the blame on governments for something that needed the science of economics as a whole to learn a new approach, is taking things out of context.

The developed and Western nations at the time followed what was thought of as 'best practice', however 'best practice' was later shown to be in need of a serious overhaul.

If we look at the terms of the Aus and USA governments... and their economic policies... the same ecomomic 'rules' were practiced by the previous governments as by the ones caught out by the Stagflation event... pointing to a circumstance which needed the science to change and accomodate the reality... not really economic mismanagement, just economic misunderstanding by all concerned.

As I said, not having a go at you... just that I think that a little widening of perspective is needed.

Finally - after talking out my a$$e for too long.. and I hope someone pulls me up on any of this as I'd like to see a different opinion:
It is interesting to see the current PM talking about low/no unemployment, as if it is actually possible and would not affect inflation.
I'd like to hear how he intends to achieve that.

[Sebastiaan56]

Hi Clinton,

I think your point is well made. Each of these governments were simply following the best economic advice available to them, the "conventional wisdom". The implication is of course that the economists did it. The political parties are another matter.

Both front benches are filled with appara-chicks (tee hee), whether from the union movement or from party offices. They are beholden to the organisations/people that pay for the media that gets them in. It is a testament to the power of advertising that the blame has stuck to past leaders. Curiously Fraser led one of the most "Liberal" governments ever, human rights moved forward a long way, under Hawke we set up "Detention Centers". Interest rates were higher under Labour Governments but because of the relationships with the Unions economic reform was commenced. Australia would have been strike bound if Fraser had tried it.

Our pollies are managers. They need to take advice because their expertise is inherently limited, we all take advice, its the best thing about this forum. Completely severing the RBA from the process is a long term wise strategy as the party political process is fundamentally flawed. Its called the "Agency Problem".

Yesterday's absurdity, Grandparents leave of 1 week per year, C'mon not even Whitlam in his heyday would have proposed that! And how do you make it work?!? Similarly, full employment, this can lead to only one outcome - rampant inflation as demand outstrips supply. Sounds like Menzies, without the post war environment to support him. I didnt catch young Kev's rantings, Im sure that it was just as absurd.

2 and 1/2 weeks to go, they will then go on a XMAS break and for the first time this year we will not be assailed by their attempts at bribery and manipulation, cant wait... Whoever wins will get the politically poisoned pill of increasing interest rates. Meanwhile species disappear, forests get chipped, oil runs out, etc, etc

Hi Studley,

Im agree about the need to manage water much better, the market is probably the best mechanism we currently have. Then there will be a black market (I got it from this little old lady's water tank in Huon Valley...) increased enforcement and water terror. I agree the base price must however be set as markets tend to devalue commodities. Problem will come if we get good rain for a couple of years,

Sebastiaan