Yes Australian sex party I want to vote them as well. Unfortunately they are only in Queensland. The Gillard camp is not doing well at the polls at the moment. Seems like there are more supporter of Abott now. Its fun with the TV program on ABC now, gruen transfer and Yes we CANberra, was so much fun to watch. I really wish we have no change of govt come AUG 21st.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
political debate
- Thread starter fishbuff
- Start date
Yes Australian sex party I want to vote them as well. Unfortunately they are only in Queensland. The Gillard camp is not doing well at the polls at the moment. Seems like there are more supporter of Abott now. Its fun with the TV program on ABC now, gruen transfer and Yes we CANberra, was so much fun to watch. I really wish we have no change of govt come AUG 21st.
Unfortunately they are directing preferences to the Greens... a definite no-no for me 
Unfortunately they are directing preferences to the Greens... a definite no-no for me
Pity.
No Greens and no Labor!
No Sex Party candidate.
And that means that I am still not voting for Stephen Smith .
this is further to my earlier comment:
http://www.theage.com.au/business/in-praise-of-stimulus-20100808-11q8e.html
In praise of stimulus
JOSEPH STIGLITZ
August 9, 2010
THE great recession of 2008 reached the furthest corners of the earth. Here in Australia, they refer to it as the GFC - the global financial crisis. Kevin Rudd, who was prime minister when the crisis struck, put in place one of the best-designed Keynesian stimulus packages of any country.
He realised it was important to act early, with money that would be spent quickly, but that there was a risk the crisis would not be over soon. So the first part of the stimulus was cash grants, followed by investments, which would take longer to put into place.
Rudd's stimulus worked: Australia had the shortest and shallowest of recessions of the advanced industrial countries. But, ironically, attention has focused on the fact that some of the investment money was not spent as well as it might have been, and on the fiscal deficit that the downturn and the government's response created.
Of course, we should strive to ensure that money is spent as productively as possible, but humans, and human institutions, are fallible, and there are costs to ensuring that money is well spent. To put it in economics jargon, efficiency requires equating the marginal cost associated with allocation (both in acquiring information about the relative benefits of different projects and in monitoring investments) with the marginal benefits. In a nutshell: it is wasteful to spend too much money preventing waste.
While the focus for the moment is on public-sector waste, that waste pales in comparison to the waste of resources resulting from a malfunctioning private financial sector, which in America already amounts to trillions of dollars. Likewise, the waste from not fully utilising society's resources - the inevitable consequence of not having had such a quick and strong stimulus - exceeds that of the public sector by an order of magnitude.
For an American, there is a certain amusement in Australian worries about the deficit and debt: Australia's deficit as a percentage of GDP is less than half that of the US; its gross national debt is less than a third.
Deficit fetishism never makes sense - the national debt is only one side of a country's balance sheet. Cutting back on high-return investments (such as education, infrastructure and technology) just to reduce the deficit is truly foolish, but especially so in the case of a country such as Australia, whose debt is so low. Indeed, if one is concerned with a country's long-run debt, as one should be, such deficit fetishism is particularly silly, since the higher growth resulting from these public investments will generate more tax revenue.
There is another irony: some of the same Australians who have criticised the deficits have also criticised proposals to increase taxes on mines. Australia is lucky to have a rich endowment of natural resources, including iron ore. These resources are part of the country's patrimony. They belong to all the people. Yet in all nations, mining companies try to get these resources free - or for as little as possible.
Of course, mining companies need to get a fair return on their investments. But the iron ore companies have received a windfall as iron ore prices have soared (nearly doubling since 2007). The increased profits are not a result of their mining prowess but of China's huge demand for steel.
There is no reason that mining companies should reap this reward for themselves. They should share the bonanza of higher prices with Australia's citizens, and an appropriately designed mining tax is one way of ensuring that outcome. This money should be set aside in a special fund, to be used for investment. The country will inevitably become poorer as it depletes its natural resources, unless the value of its human and physical capital increases.
Another issue playing out Down Under is global warming. If not a climate-change denier, the previous Australian government, led by John Howard, joined George Bush in being a climate-change free-rider: others would have to take responsibility for ensuring the planet's survival.
This was especially strange, given that Australia has been one of the big beneficiaries of the Montreal convention, which banned ozone-destroying gases. Holes in the ozone layer exposed Australians to cancer-causing radiation. The international community banded together, banned the substances, and the holes are now closing.
Nevertheless, the Howard government, like the Bush administration, was willing to expose the entire planet to the risks of global warming, which threaten the very existence of many island states.
Rudd campaigned on a promise to reverse that stance, but the failure of the climate-change talks in Copenhagen last December, when President Barack Obama refused to make the kind of commitment on behalf of the United States that was required, left Rudd's government in an awkward position. The failure of US leadership has global consequences.
Citizens should consider the legacy they leave their children, part of which is the financial debts they will pass down. But another part of our legacy is environmental. It is two-faced to claim to care about the future and then fail to ensure that the country is adequately compensated for the depletion of its resources, or ignore the degradation of the environment. It is even worse to leave our children without adequate infrastructure and the other public investments needed to be competitive in the 21st century.
Every country faces these issues. Sometimes, one can see them with greater clarity by observing how others are confronting them. How Australians vote in their coming election may be a harbinger of things to come. Let's hope - for their sake and for the world's - that they see through the rhetorical flourishes and personal foibles to the larger issues at stake.
Joseph Stiglitz is a professor at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate in economics.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/in-praise-of-stimulus-20100808-11q8e.html
In praise of stimulus
JOSEPH STIGLITZ
August 9, 2010
THE great recession of 2008 reached the furthest corners of the earth. Here in Australia, they refer to it as the GFC - the global financial crisis. Kevin Rudd, who was prime minister when the crisis struck, put in place one of the best-designed Keynesian stimulus packages of any country.
He realised it was important to act early, with money that would be spent quickly, but that there was a risk the crisis would not be over soon. So the first part of the stimulus was cash grants, followed by investments, which would take longer to put into place.
Rudd's stimulus worked: Australia had the shortest and shallowest of recessions of the advanced industrial countries. But, ironically, attention has focused on the fact that some of the investment money was not spent as well as it might have been, and on the fiscal deficit that the downturn and the government's response created.
Of course, we should strive to ensure that money is spent as productively as possible, but humans, and human institutions, are fallible, and there are costs to ensuring that money is well spent. To put it in economics jargon, efficiency requires equating the marginal cost associated with allocation (both in acquiring information about the relative benefits of different projects and in monitoring investments) with the marginal benefits. In a nutshell: it is wasteful to spend too much money preventing waste.
While the focus for the moment is on public-sector waste, that waste pales in comparison to the waste of resources resulting from a malfunctioning private financial sector, which in America already amounts to trillions of dollars. Likewise, the waste from not fully utilising society's resources - the inevitable consequence of not having had such a quick and strong stimulus - exceeds that of the public sector by an order of magnitude.
For an American, there is a certain amusement in Australian worries about the deficit and debt: Australia's deficit as a percentage of GDP is less than half that of the US; its gross national debt is less than a third.
Deficit fetishism never makes sense - the national debt is only one side of a country's balance sheet. Cutting back on high-return investments (such as education, infrastructure and technology) just to reduce the deficit is truly foolish, but especially so in the case of a country such as Australia, whose debt is so low. Indeed, if one is concerned with a country's long-run debt, as one should be, such deficit fetishism is particularly silly, since the higher growth resulting from these public investments will generate more tax revenue.
There is another irony: some of the same Australians who have criticised the deficits have also criticised proposals to increase taxes on mines. Australia is lucky to have a rich endowment of natural resources, including iron ore. These resources are part of the country's patrimony. They belong to all the people. Yet in all nations, mining companies try to get these resources free - or for as little as possible.
Of course, mining companies need to get a fair return on their investments. But the iron ore companies have received a windfall as iron ore prices have soared (nearly doubling since 2007). The increased profits are not a result of their mining prowess but of China's huge demand for steel.
There is no reason that mining companies should reap this reward for themselves. They should share the bonanza of higher prices with Australia's citizens, and an appropriately designed mining tax is one way of ensuring that outcome. This money should be set aside in a special fund, to be used for investment. The country will inevitably become poorer as it depletes its natural resources, unless the value of its human and physical capital increases.
Another issue playing out Down Under is global warming. If not a climate-change denier, the previous Australian government, led by John Howard, joined George Bush in being a climate-change free-rider: others would have to take responsibility for ensuring the planet's survival.
This was especially strange, given that Australia has been one of the big beneficiaries of the Montreal convention, which banned ozone-destroying gases. Holes in the ozone layer exposed Australians to cancer-causing radiation. The international community banded together, banned the substances, and the holes are now closing.
Nevertheless, the Howard government, like the Bush administration, was willing to expose the entire planet to the risks of global warming, which threaten the very existence of many island states.
Rudd campaigned on a promise to reverse that stance, but the failure of the climate-change talks in Copenhagen last December, when President Barack Obama refused to make the kind of commitment on behalf of the United States that was required, left Rudd's government in an awkward position. The failure of US leadership has global consequences.
Citizens should consider the legacy they leave their children, part of which is the financial debts they will pass down. But another part of our legacy is environmental. It is two-faced to claim to care about the future and then fail to ensure that the country is adequately compensated for the depletion of its resources, or ignore the degradation of the environment. It is even worse to leave our children without adequate infrastructure and the other public investments needed to be competitive in the 21st century.
Every country faces these issues. Sometimes, one can see them with greater clarity by observing how others are confronting them. How Australians vote in their coming election may be a harbinger of things to come. Let's hope - for their sake and for the world's - that they see through the rhetorical flourishes and personal foibles to the larger issues at stake.
Joseph Stiglitz is a professor at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate in economics.
Hardly the most impartial article at hand.
The Age is well known to be a left-leaning newspaper (like the ABC and most of the Australian press), and Stiglitz is of the left as well, not to mention one of the most fervent Keynesians - the advocates of government stimulus.
Sure, some of the stimulus (e.g BER) money may have actually been put to good use. But that is a red herring - it is not the issue here.
It doesn't forgive the overwhelming evidence that in many cases ridiculous amounts of money have been wasted. Or that it conviniently helped to prop up Labor allies like the construction and building industries and unions.
You are right in that Turnbull would probably have ramped up the stimulus as well. But I seriously doubt a multimillionaire merchant banker with vast business experience would have been so inefficient in his implementation.
To be honest, I'm sure many citizens, including myself, share the Left's concern for a more equitable society and the lofty visions which they aspire to.
But for many of us, the problem with the Left is that all too often they tend to be ivory tower intellectuals who are blinded by idealogy.
Here's a great example. Remember when KRudd first tried to introduce the first mining tax? The big three miners were against it because they claimed that they wouldn't be able to finance their mining projects. The banks would not lend against a mere guarantee from the government that it would pay up its 40% stake; they wanted to see the government's money in their coffers before they would cough up the rest of the dough.
What was so amusing about the entire episode was that the Government proceeded to claim that this wasn't the case; that the miners were just trying to beat down the tax, when the bankers themselves had publicly stated this was not the case.
Imagine that. Government bureaucrats with absolutely no business experience telling senior executives and bankers how their businesses are run, despite clear evidence to the contrary.
Another example. Stiglitz himself has admitted that resource prices are cyclical (go up and down). Well, during the lean years we didn't see the Government stepping in and helping the companies to survive. That can be attributed to the combined efforts of management and shareholders who did the hard yards, pumped in additional capital of their own, whatever it took.
So now when prices have recovered, the good times are finally rolling and the company is finally making some money, do you think it is fair that the Government can come around, cap in hand and say "there is no reason that mining companies should reap this reward for themselves?"
Three words - fair weather friends.
The article is full of red herrings and false assertions. I'll just supply a taste of them for now, but if you are interested in more let me know. Think about it - what the hell does an American know about the local situation in Australia?
There is no contradiction here. The resources sector is the engine of the Australian economy. Imposing mining taxes will inevitably damage the economy - in fact, the Chinese have already expressed their concerns.
Stiglitz conviniently ignores that there are other ways to reduce deficits - like reducing wasteful spending.
This is rubbish and hyperbole. They may "try" to get it for free, but they won't. Mining companies already pay royalties to the state for access to mineral deposits.
A red herring to confuse the unwary. The cause of the soaring prices is totally irrelevant. Mining companies pay the states royalties for the right to exploit minerals. Therefore, they are entitled to any profits derived from these minerals.
The exact conditions under how these profits are derived is irrelevant. For example, they may choose to stockpile steel until the price of steel rises, and then sell it for a larger profit then.
Think of it as outsourcing a tax farming operation, or a master tenant sub-letting out rooms. The first guy pays the landlord and then tries to recoup his costs and a profit from the others. How he does so is irrelevant.
Mining companies already do not "reap this reward" for themselves. They already pay company tax of 30% and state royalties for the right to access mineral deposits for a total tax rate of about 40%, depending on state.
Most people overlook the fact that, while buried in the ground, these minerals are worthless to the Australian public. Mining companies invest billions of dollars in the technology, infrastructure and skills to turn raw mineral deposits from their worthless form into a processed, marketable product. From another perspective, the Australian public is getting a good deal... they are getting returns out of these deposits, rather than getting nothing at all.
For a player who has no money in the game and no skin to lose if it all falls over, don't you think 40% for doing absolutely nothing is a bit rich?
And they are now asking for more?
Last edited:
u'll hv to excuse me, after a lifetime of suffering under an ultra right wing PAP, au is a refreshing change, thus i tend to gravitate towards the left...
Hardly the most impartial article at hand.
The Age is well known to be a left-leaning newspaper (like the ABC and most of the Australian press), and Stiglitz is of the left as well, not to mention one of the most fervent Keynesians - the advocates of government stimulus.
Sure, some of the stimulus (e.g BER) money may have actually been put to good use. But that is a red herring - it is not the issue here.
It doesn't forgive the overwhelming evidence that in many cases ridiculous amounts of money have been wasted. Or that it conviniently helped to prop up Labor allies like the construction and building industries and unions.
You are right in that Turnbull would probably have ramped up the stimulus as well. But I seriously doubt a multimillionaire merchant banker with vast business experience would have been so inefficient in his implementation.
To be honest, I'm sure many citizens, including myself, share the Left's concern for a more equitable society and the lofty visions which they aspire to.
But for many of us, the problem with the Left is that all too often they tend to be ivory tower intellectuals who are blinded by idealogy.
Here's a great example. Remember when KRudd first tried to introduce the first mining tax? The big three miners were against it because they claimed that they wouldn't be able to finance their mining projects. The banks would not lend against a mere guarantee from the government that it would pay up its 40% stake; they wanted to see the government's money in their coffers before they would cough up the rest of the dough.
What was so amusing about the entire episode was that the Government proceeded to claim that this wasn't the case; that the miners were just trying to stymie the tax, when the bankers themselves were against them.
Imagine that. Government bureaucrats with absolutely no business experience telling senior executives and bankers how their businesses are run.
Another example. Stiglitz himself has admitted that resource prices are cyclical (go up and down). Well, during the lean years we didn't see the Government stepping in and helping the companies to survive. That can be attributed to the combined efforts of management and shareholders who did the hard yards, pumped in additional capital of their own, whatever it took.
So now when prices have recovered, the good times are finally rolling and the company is finally making some money, do you think it is fair that the Government can come around, cap in hand and say "there is no reason that mining companies should reap this reward for themselves?"
Three words - fair weather friends.
The article is full of red herrings and false assertions. I'll just supply a taste of them for now, but if you are interested in more let me know. Think about it - what the hell does an American know about the local situation in Australia?
There is no contradiction here. The resources sector is the engine of the Australian economy. Imposing mining taxes will inevitably damage the economy.
Stiglitz conviniently ignores that there are other ways to reduce deficits - like reducing wasteful spending.
This is rubbish and hyperbole. They may "try" to get it for free, but they won't. Mining companies already pay royalties to the state for access to mineral deposits.
A red herring to confuse the unwary. The cause of the soaring prices is totally irrelevant. Mining companies pay the states royalties for the right to exploit minerals. Therefore, they are entitled to any profits derived from these minerals.
The exact conditions under how these profits are derived is irrelevant. For example, they may choose to stockpile steel until the price of steel rises, and then sell it for a larger profit then.
Think of it as outsourcing a tax farming operation.
Mining companies already do not "reap this reward" for themselves. They already pay company tax of 30% and state royalties for the right to access mineral deposits for a total tax rate of 40-50%, depending on state.
For a player who has no money in the game and no skin to lose if it all falls over, don't you think 50% for doing absolutely nothing is a bit rich?
And they are now asking for more?
No worries, I supported Kevin07 too. I think it is a general trend that young people start out Left and as one gets older you tend to drift away from the Left. It was Generation Y which delivered Kevin07 the last election.
In western societies the newspapers and media are still biased. The thing is that most people know which side each paper leans and form their opinions accordingly.
The Age + ABC = left.
The Australian = centre-right.
Try reading the same event reported in different papers and you will see what I mean. Personally I try to get my news from across the entire spectrum.
Last edited:
I do not care much for the ultra-right Nationals/One Nation as long as they are contained within a centre-right Liberal because they are good for self-funded retirees and there are more financially literate people running the show. Lib is also not in a stranglehold relationship with the big businesses.
ALP, on the other hand, has to listen to their the union bosses. And unions are known for their dirty tricks, esp those from Sussex St, NSW where they defraud the polling papers, etc Also, under Fed ALP govt, the militant unions are really out to punish the businesses. That is how we get $100,000 part-time traffic controller at the worksites.
Bill Shorten is just about the only Labor minister with an MBA.
Even then, Julia Gillard is trying to spin everyone with a Economics 101 lesson on higher Corporate Tax will raise grocery prices.
(Hello Julia, that spin will work in Singapore but not here. Corporate Tax derived from profits - no corelation with prices!!!)
This is the most depondent voting I have seen. Neither party is addressing the real issues, such as productivity and coping with big cities. But under Tony Abbott, I believe that we will get a silent tax cut and they will cope better should the economy worsen, GFC Mark II.
At least in 2004, I enjoyed the campaign, esp. the humor in the 'L' plate Mark Latham campaign and Aussies had confident in Johnny. In 2007, hope was raised with a fresh government.
Telstra is the Lib's worst business decision. After selling Telstra all and sundry, internet prices just got more ridiculous and Telstra could get away with any lame excuse to raise wholesale prices. I would bet if not for the NBN, Telstra would raise prices for every sparrow's fart.
Back then, telstra will bitch and moan about the escalating cost of supplying internet, due to the remoteness in some parts of australia. But then, the centre of commercial activity is all happening in the capital cities, where business costs determines how competitive a company remains, not some redneck hick in the outback most likely to use the net to surf for the world's sexiest cow/sheep/emu/roo/dingo or an abo picketing over how copper wire encroached on his ancestral lands and dreamtime songs.
And for all that capitalist talk of ROI on the NBN. That's not even an applicable assumption to government spending. The role of the government is to SPEND taxpayers monies on infrastructure that would increase economic activity in the long or short term, i.e. - Increase GDP.
And funny how Liberal capitalists love to put corporate finance spins (IRR,ROI etc. etc.)in an attempt to show up Labor as socialistic financial retards (though they are sometimes), forgetting that if even physical infrastructures such as roads, when privatised, would end up in the same shit as what Sydney is facing now, i.e.- Private toll operators with no motivation to manage traffic flow, focus on maximising profits and provide the worst levels of maintenance they can get away with.
This makes the excuses that the telstra monopoly used to make sound so stupid; Imagine it "fair" that a hick deserves 6 lane well paved motorways all over the outback like city folks but accept the ban of road trains that carry his cattle to the cities in the same spirit of fairness?
Better yet, why not extend underground train services from cities to the entire outback in the same token and increase fuel and transportation costs for city people to fund it's building?
This is why the NBN is essential. It is a massive "undo" of the mistake the Lib's made back then and ultimately, Governments must OWN essential infrastructure that facilitates industry, not corporations that are of no fault in the pursuit of profits and the increasing of stakeholder value.
As for the net filter, I'm pretty sure either the Libs would bash it all the way back into Labors asshole or a constitutional crisis that might just see the people vs. the government all the way to federal high courts.
One more term for Labor, after that, let the Libs come back and do what they do best; Take care of wealthy individuals like yours truly...
Not to mention I'll probably have a vote by then
Back then, telstra will bitch and moan about the escalating cost of supplying internet, due to the remoteness in some parts of australia. But then, the centre of commercial activity is all happening in the capital cities, where business costs determines how competitive a company remains, not some redneck hick in the outback most likely to use the net to surf for the world's sexiest cow/sheep/emu/roo/dingo or an abo picketing over how copper wire encroached on his ancestral lands and dreamtime songs.
And for all that capitalist talk of ROI on the NBN. That's not even an applicable assumption to government spending. The role of the government is to SPEND taxpayers monies on infrastructure that would increase economic activity in the long or short term, i.e. - Increase GDP.
And funny how Liberal capitalists love to put corporate finance spins (IRR,ROI etc. etc.)in an attempt to show up Labor as socialistic financial retards (though they are sometimes), forgetting that if even physical infrastructures such as roads, when privatised, would end up in the same shit as what Sydney is facing now, i.e.- Private toll operators with no motivation to manage traffic flow, focus on maximising profits and provide the worst levels of maintenance they can get away with.
This makes the excuses that the telstra monopoly used to make sound so stupid; Imagine it "fair" that a hick deserves 6 lane well paved motorways all over the outback like city folks but accept the ban of road trains that carry his cattle to the cities in the same spirit of fairness?
Better yet, why not extend underground train services from cities to the entire outback in the same token and increase fuel and transportation costs for city people to fund it's building?
This is why the NBN is essential. It is a massive "undo" of the mistake the Lib's made back then and ultimately, Governments must OWN essential infrastructure that facilitates industry, not corporations that are of no fault in the pursuit of profits and the increasing of stakeholder value.
As for the net filter, I'm pretty sure either the Libs would bash it all the way back into Labors asshole or a constitutional crisis that might just see the people vs. the government all the way to federal high courts.
One more term for Labor, after that, let the Libs come back and do what they do best; Take care of wealthy individuals like yours truly...
Not to mention I'll probably have a vote by then
Last edited:
Sex Party is kind of fun with sex as the main agenda.
They oppose internet censorship and storing of the people's internet browsing history and emails. So if they win, they will be no more censorship and no emails will be kept by the ISP.
One more term for Labor, after that, let the Libs come back and do what they do best; Take care of wealthy individuals like yours truly...
Not to mention I'll probably have a vote by then
We didn't get to enjoy under the Labor govt.. they gave $900 to us.. but by tax time, they took it away.. and requested more money to be deducted..
This time I'm with Liberal for sure ! plus wifey's vote !
I totally agree with you on the Telstra issue, and that governments should, as much as possible, own + control infrastructure instead of privatising/selling it because private operators won't give a damn.
That's why I'm opposed to the recent sale of rail and port assets by the QLD government.
The main problem with the NBN, and I think I have mentioned this before, and I'm glad someone in the mass media has finally picked this up, is that it won't increase internet speeds when accessing overseas sites - which make up the majority of cases.
See : http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/ultra-fast-broadband-will-be-slow-on-overseas-links/story-fn59niix-1225904654804
Right now the bottleneck isn't inside the country, it's our overseas links. The cities already have high speed broadband anyway; all the NBN will do is extend that capability to the boonies - which frankly, for 43 billion dollars, is not worth it.
The money would be better spent on building additional undersea cables and expanding our overseas bandwidth. But then again, these people are bureaucrats and not IT professionals; what the hell do they know about IT when they create policy?
There is no mistaken in the right-wing THE WEST Paul Murray calculation of the cost of NBN
Th $43bil NBN is just a forecast cost, and it will cost more when it is ever finished.
The broadband project cost per person
South Korea $25
Singapore $200
Australia, under Coalition $300
NZ $330
Australia, under ALP $2000
Implemented NBN in Tasmania $2500
REMEMBER, LABOR ALWAYS ASSUME THE TAXPAYERS AS A SOURCE OF INFINITE SOURCE OF FUNDS.
And if Labor do not dare to raise taxes, they will print money out of thin air. Ever wonder why everything seems to cost more?
isnt this the very same assumption that investors have been relying on when investing in us treasuries and the usd? how else should any govt fund their expenditure?
Nothing to do with funding their expenditure. But everything to do with how govt spends other people's money.
Want to bet for tax increases within the next 3 years?
Want to bet for NBN budget overrun and delayed delivery?
i sure hope you are not insinuating that this is unique to au's labor party...cos it's no fun for me to quote a dozen other examples 
i sure hope you are not insinuating that this is unique to au's labor party...cos it's no fun for me to quote a dozen other examples
the same happened to the uk's labour party as well.
basically, alp consists of mainly union organisers who have never run a business before. there are some really militant union leaders like cfmeu's joe macdonalds who never done an honest day work. these unions are dictating to the labor govt how to run the economy.
i joined an aussie union before and deeply regretted the experience. they also conduct a course on lobbying and campaigning, and all their dirty tricks.
that is why it is always important to check on a labor govt to make sure they are managing projects properly.
Similar threads
