|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Oct 27, 2007 12:22:42 GMT 10
if you find something to laugh at in the election campaign, post it here! scare campaigns |
|
kevrenor
Moderator 
Keeping the 'surrounding regions' yellow since 2004 ... Be Mariners, be Yellow, be a Marinator!
Posts: 2,130
|
Post by kevrenor on Oct 27, 2007 16:15:01 GMT 10
if you find something to laugh at in the election campaign, post it here! Mate, there is nothing funny about living in Bennelong! It was funny to see that at Eastwood last Saturday that John Howard got up to speak, all camera angles were filled with purple Maxine McKew balloons. Some minder sacked for that I suppose. (ie. Howard's seat) (At least we were redistributed out of Berowra - the grey ghost, Philip Ruddock's seat). |
|
|
|
Post by bakery5 on Oct 29, 2007 21:52:53 GMT 10
IMO voting for labor is a vote for high interest rate and a government with the ability to stuff up the economy.
Just have a look at New South Wales economy and policy of using the Future Fund to pay some high speed broadband plan. The aim of the fund to provide health care for the ageing population in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Oct 29, 2007 22:24:18 GMT 10
IMO voting for labor is a vote for high interest rate and a government with the ability to stuff up the economy. Just have a look at New South Wales economy and policy of using the Future Fund to pay some high speed broadband plan. The aim of the fund to provide health care for the ageing population in the future. if you're going to troll, at least do it right. the initial stated aim of the future fund is to provide for 'unfunded' public sector super liabilities (the defined benefit pension schemes that go to retired public servants). the thing is that the future liability is known and can be and has been funded directly from budget expenditure. the real aim for the future fund is to create a 'locked box', partly to keep the grubby mitts of the pork-mad nationals off it. investing a small portion of it in infrastructure to boost the productive capacity of the nation, with returns on the investment to return to the fund, is a perfectly sensible and economically responsible thing to do. while we're playing, feel free to explain why labor will lead to increased interest rates as well, in 500 words or less. extra credit for explaining how the howard government has kept interest rates at 'record lows' or '30 year lows'. if you plan on referring to a centralised industrial relations system causing wages breakouts, points will be given for a) explaining where in the ALP policy it says that wages will be centrally determined and b) explaining why the last wages breakout in this country was when a certain J.W Howard was treasurer. |
|
|
|
Post by bakery5 on Oct 29, 2007 22:40:19 GMT 10
IMO voting for labor is a vote for high interest rate and a government with the ability to stuff up the economy. Just have a look at New South Wales economy and policy of using the Future Fund to pay some high speed broadband plan. The aim of the fund to provide health care for the ageing population in the future. if you're going to troll, at least do it right. the initial stated aim of the future fund is to provide for 'unfunded' public sector super liabilities (the defined benefit pension schemes that go to retired public servants). the thing is that the future liability is known and can be and has been funded directly from budget expenditure. the real aim for the future fund is to create a 'locked box', partly to keep the grubby mitts of the pork-mad nationals off it. investing a small portion of it in infrastructure to boost the productive capacity of the nation, with returns on the investment to return to the fund, is a perfectly sensible and economically responsible thing to do. while we're playing, feel free to explain why labor will lead to increased interest rates as well, in 500 words or less. extra credit for explaining how the howard government has kept interest rates at 'record lows' or '30 year lows'. if you plan on referring to a centralised industrial relations system causing wages breakouts, points will be given for a) explaining where in the ALP policy it says that wages will be centrally determined and b) explaining why the last wages breakout in this country was when a certain J.W Howard was treasurer. big man |
|
|
|
Post by texasmariner on Oct 30, 2007 1:47:14 GMT 10
As I understand it, most of Australians vote for one particular party in the house, and another in the senate to ensure proper debate?
|
|
|
|
Post by serious14 on Oct 30, 2007 5:25:29 GMT 10
Climate Change in itself is pretty funny, because quite frankly it's nought but a cyclical process that has been overhyped beyond all sensibilities for some reason that I am yet to comprehend, most likely economic ones, or so the Greens can continue to try and justify an existence that lost all meaning 20 or so years ago....... so listening to any party (particularly the Greens) crap on about it day after day sickens me to the point of changing the channel when the words "climate change" are even mentioned. Not sure if that's the kind of funny you're after Dibo. Okay - proper funny: Peter Garrett's political credibility. A HA, A HA. Wait, that's not funny either, that's a myth!!!! He never had any to start with, and his "let's make our own kind of Kyoto agreement, but we don't _have_ to include India or China" effort yesterday was the final nail in an already brittle coffin. Shit, that's not funny either, that's just dangerous electoral points scoring attempts gone wrong. That video that someone made comparing Labour to the Chinese Communist Party was pretty damn funny though. I had a solid laugh too when those "THIS PERSON USED TO BE A UNIONIST" brochures landed in my mailbox a couple of days ago. C'mon Liberal, "former receptionist for the Fire Brigade Union 20 years ago", that's not threatening, that's just........ funny??  |
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Oct 30, 2007 8:02:53 GMT 10
As I understand it, most of Australians vote for one particular party in the house, and another in the senate to ensure proper debate? not all that much - when one party's numbers are strong in the house they tend to be strong in the senate. we do have minor parties who win seats because of the system of proportional representation.* so normally it's hard for a major party to gain a majority unless they win more than 50% of the vote outright. this leaves the democrats, the greens or family first sitting on the 'balance of power' - their votes can either make or break a bill. at the moment though the ruling liberal/national coalition have a majority and can pretty much do as they please - our senate doesn't have as many checks and balances as yours does and party discipline rules out the more spectacularly mutinous acts we sometimes see over there. * each state elects an alternating 6 of their senators at a typical election, and the number of senators each party gets is in proportion to their vote, after preferences are distributed. |
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Oct 30, 2007 8:03:25 GMT 10
no need to delete your account, chuckles. |
|
|
|
Post by Adz on Oct 30, 2007 15:19:49 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by thesandman on Oct 30, 2007 23:04:18 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by midfielder on Oct 30, 2007 23:54:44 GMT 10
Both parties to similar can't make up my mind.
However the first party to publicly say they will put Socceroos on free to air sports protected list can have my vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by curious on Oct 31, 2007 7:26:52 GMT 10
Both parties to similar can't make up my mind. However the first party to publicly say they will put Socceroos on free to air sports protected list can have my vote. Labor has said in the past it should be on the list, while libs have refused a number of requests. Libs are backed by Murdoch, the owner of Fox, so that may give you an idea of the chances of the libs ever adding the Socceroos. The IR laws & Iraq should be a big enough difference to help you make up your mind. |
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Oct 31, 2007 8:24:47 GMT 10
Both parties to similar can't make up my mind. However the first party to publicly say they will put Socceroos on free to air sports protected list can have my vote. |
|
|
|
Post by curious on Oct 31, 2007 9:24:16 GMT 10
Both parties to similar can't make up my mind. However the first party to publicly say they will put Socceroos on free to air sports protected list can have my vote. Well there's the reason "midfielder" was looking for. In Government, Labor would amend the anti-siphoning list to include Socceroos matches. as opposed to Football fans will be forced to pay $600 a year to watch the Socceroos' qualifying matches for the 2010 World Cup and fixtures in the 2007 and 2011 Asian Cup.
John Howard has to take some responsibility for this outcome. For five years his Government has ignored the advice of the Australian Broadcasting Authority that Socceroos matches should be included on the anti-siphoning list. |
|
|
|
Post by midfielder on Nov 4, 2007 11:04:21 GMT 10
Well there's the reason "midfielder" was looking for. In Government, Labor would amend the anti-siphoning list to include Socceroos matches. as opposed to Football fans will be forced to pay $600 a year to watch the Socceroos' qualifying matches for the 2010 World Cup and fixtures in the 2007 and 2011 Asian Cup.
John Howard has to take some responsibility for this outcome. For five years his Government has ignored the advice of the Australian Broadcasting Authority that Socceroos matches should be included on the anti-siphoning list.Maybe Curious but I wrote away to the ALP and asked for a copy of their policy which they sent copied below. Do you have a link, is it offical policy or just statement that in power throw up hands and say look contract between Fox & Football can not broken come back in six years when contract is finished. I also wrote to Maxine Mac my local member and askes for Socceroo statement no reply as yet. Anyway the ALP offical policy apart from a closing remark about the world cup there is no reference to Football, or the Socceroos. Yet the press release was after the world cup. Further the press release does not talk about Socceroo matches nor does it provide what action the Labour party would take if it won office given there is currently a pay TV contract between Football Australia & Fox Sports. Not to be totally one sided I acknowledge the Libs will not even talk about it, just I am saying ALP statement on the run maybe is not worth that much unless it becomes policy. So I do not know if they plan to put Socceroos on list but here is ALP policy anyway F**** both parties they will say anything to get into power. MEDIA STATEMENT Senator Stephen Conroy Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Shadow Minister for Communications and IT FREE TO AIR SPORT AT RISK UNDER COONAN PLAN The 'use it or lose it' guidelines released by Senator Coonan today fail to provide viewers or broadcasters with any certainty about how the scheme will be implemented in practice. Sports fans face a nervous wait to see what events Senator Coonan intends to cull from the anti-siphoning list. It is clear however that events like matches at the Australian Open Tennis, Olympic sport, AFL and NRL matches are at risk of migrating exclusively to pay TV. Under the Minister's guidelines, a fixture that is broadcast more than 1 hour after the commencement of the event could be regarded as not being 'used'. Sports fans will not thank Senator Coonan if they are forced to pay $600 a year to watch a football match that they currently see free with a two-hour delay. Under the Minister's criteria, events that are not broadcast to 50 per cent of the population will also breach the guidelines. AFL matches played in South Australia and Western Australia commonly do not meet this criterion and are in danger of becoming the sole property of pay TV. The previous Labor Government introduced the anti-siphoning regime to prevent events that had traditionally been shown on free-to-air television from migrating exclusively to pay TV. The scheme gives free-to-air broadcasters the first opportunity to acquire sporting events of major importance to Australians such as the AFL and NRL, Ashes Test cricket, the Melbourne Cup and the Australian Open tennis. The list maximizes the likelihood that major sport is accessible to all Australians not just those that can afford pay TV. Labor supports the principle of 'use it or lose it' in relation to anti-siphoning. Free to air broadcasters should not be able to 'hoard' sport and deny viewers access. However the guidelines released today go beyond this principle; they threaten the ability of Australians to watch the sporting events that are central to our national identity. In an outrageously cynical move, the Government has deferred the release of the first report containing recommendations on which sports should be removed from the list until after the next election. Sports fans are entitled to wonder what the Minister has got to hide. Senator Coonan cannot be taken on trust on this issue. In 2004 the Government removed the World Cup Soccer from the anti-siphoning list claiming that it was not an event of national importance. Only sustained outrage from soccer fans forced them to back down. Labor will continue to vigorously defend the need for a comprehensive and effective anti-siphoning list. Further information: Stephen Conroy 0418 383 965 or Mark Tapley 0418 420 065 Wednesday, 20 December 2006 |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder on Nov 4, 2007 14:00:36 GMT 10
if you find something to laugh at in the election campaign, post it here! Mate, there is nothing funny about living in Bennelong! It was funny to see that at Eastwood last Saturday that John Howard got up to speak, all camera angles were filled with purple Maxine McKew balloons. Some minder sacked for that I suppose. (ie. Howard's seat) (At least we were redistributed out of Berowra - the grey ghost, Philip Ruddock's seat). Now if only here could be redistributed out of Berowra, not that Ruddock has been seen anywhere in the electorate. (praise the lord) |
|
|
|
Post by alicia on Nov 23, 2007 9:28:26 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by djebella on Nov 23, 2007 19:33:03 GMT 10
|
|
