Matriarch
0 likes
Rudd has to be some improvement on the wooden John Howard surely?
Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
Congratulations Aussies on a new Prime Minister
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
I'll admit he has a flashier public relations person - however, his ideology leaves a lot to desired as does his honesty (based on past events). Howard wasn't much as a PR person, but he kept his word when given, he knew it was all he had in the political scene - Rudd cares only for power and his political ideology.
During the 1950s - 1960s - 1970s we had a lot of industrial unrest due to unions pushing political agenda and insisting on the 'one size fits all employees and workplaces' approach to work. In the 1980s, Prime Minister Hawke started a series of industrial reforms, the biggest on being to allow the workers in an individual work place to negotiate and establish their won work conditions. This led to greater improvements in local work conditions and higher employee satisfaction with their work place. He then started to extend this to allowing people to negotiate individual work conditions. (Note: Hawke was an ex union boss and belonged to the ALP, the same party as Rudd - Howard belonged to the party at the other end of the political spectrum). After he was in office a while, Howard found Hawke's full agenda and started to push it forward again. Because he supported it, the ALP suddenly hated it.
Rudd is out to return to the single union boss industrial relations process. This is going to have an adverse affect on employment in the medium to long term - but being an ex union boss, Rudd really wants the power back where his political bosses want is. The ALP is the political wing of the union movement and the policy decision come from the central union headquarters, and have for most of the ALPs existence, Hawke was the only ALP leader with enough power in both areas to make some decisions of his own.
Over the years I've seen how tight union boss control of the work place stifles employment and adversely affects the economy overall, I don't want that to return, but a lot of new voters who haven't seen what I've seen, have fallen fro Rudd's slick PR campaign. I just hope that other factors stop him from enforcing a lot of his socialist policies before he can be replaced.
But we now have to wait and see.
Personally I'd rather a block of wood than a Stalin or Lennin type, or a Hoffa type.
During the 1950s - 1960s - 1970s we had a lot of industrial unrest due to unions pushing political agenda and insisting on the 'one size fits all employees and workplaces' approach to work. In the 1980s, Prime Minister Hawke started a series of industrial reforms, the biggest on being to allow the workers in an individual work place to negotiate and establish their won work conditions. This led to greater improvements in local work conditions and higher employee satisfaction with their work place. He then started to extend this to allowing people to negotiate individual work conditions. (Note: Hawke was an ex union boss and belonged to the ALP, the same party as Rudd - Howard belonged to the party at the other end of the political spectrum). After he was in office a while, Howard found Hawke's full agenda and started to push it forward again. Because he supported it, the ALP suddenly hated it.
Rudd is out to return to the single union boss industrial relations process. This is going to have an adverse affect on employment in the medium to long term - but being an ex union boss, Rudd really wants the power back where his political bosses want is. The ALP is the political wing of the union movement and the policy decision come from the central union headquarters, and have for most of the ALPs existence, Hawke was the only ALP leader with enough power in both areas to make some decisions of his own.
Over the years I've seen how tight union boss control of the work place stifles employment and adversely affects the economy overall, I don't want that to return, but a lot of new voters who haven't seen what I've seen, have fallen fro Rudd's slick PR campaign. I just hope that other factors stop him from enforcing a lot of his socialist policies before he can be replaced.
But we now have to wait and see.
Personally I'd rather a block of wood than a Stalin or Lennin type, or a Hoffa type.
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
How does that work in Aussie? Is the Prime Minister like the new President in the states?
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
It's a kind of mix of the Speaker in the House and the President. The executive powers are exercised by the Ministers in Cabinet - they, as a group, have almost equivalent power to the USA President. The Prime Minister is the head member and has the day to day executive power for most things, and is supposed to be the general policy decider. He ISN'T elected separately, the members of the House of Representatives are elected, and then the party with more than 50% of the seats gets to select the Prime Minister, usually their current party leader. They can have a change of internal allegiances and the PM can change over night in mid term, happened to Hawke when he was PM, he lost the support of a couple of the internal power brokers and was replaced by Keating over night in the middle of a term.
When PM Holt went missing, he was replaced without any hassles as well. The PM MUST be a sitting member of the House of Representatives, that's about the only requirement. Technically, it's legal for them to appoint a PM from the opposition or an independent, if they want to.
When PM Holt went missing, he was replaced without any hassles as well. The PM MUST be a sitting member of the House of Representatives, that's about the only requirement. Technically, it's legal for them to appoint a PM from the opposition or an independent, if they want to.
Matriarch
0 likes
Well let's hope the reds in the beds don't surface, and he does what Blair did for England.
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
Oh, they'll surface all right, it's a question of how high and how much. We had a very good health system with thousands of hospitals built and owned by local communities, until the last lot of ALP socialists changed a few laws and stolen a few billion dollars worth of property, introduced a huge bureaucracy of administrators (mostly union members) and started wasting most of the money destined for the health system, and now it's a terrible system that hardly works. We have lots of cases where hospitals don't have a enough operating funds to deliver needed services, yet the administrative HQ's in the state capitals always have enough money for new office furniture and decor changes every few years.
The last ALP government changed laws to allow an almost overnight increase of mortgages from around 6% to 16%. they gave us double digit unemployment figures and the Aussie dollar against the USA dollar dropped by 20 cents in a matter of weeks. They did great things for the economy, if you regard trying to destroy it as great. Within a few months of taking office, they increased the basic sales tax from 15% to 22.5% without saying a word to anyone, they also increased the range of goods it applied to; all the rates increased by similar margins.
Decades ago, the federal government introduced regulatory laws on savings bank that protected the savings of the individual and provide mortgages at low rates. This was done to make a repeat of all the bank closures during the Great Depression impossible, the last ALP government removed all those protections, and within a few years we had some cases of billion dollar collapses, several banks were about to close due to the heavy loses - they didn't because the state governments propped them up. The very circumstances the regulations had been put in place to stop ever happening again. And people wonder why us older people worry about what's happening.
The last ALP government changed laws to allow an almost overnight increase of mortgages from around 6% to 16%. they gave us double digit unemployment figures and the Aussie dollar against the USA dollar dropped by 20 cents in a matter of weeks. They did great things for the economy, if you regard trying to destroy it as great. Within a few months of taking office, they increased the basic sales tax from 15% to 22.5% without saying a word to anyone, they also increased the range of goods it applied to; all the rates increased by similar margins.
Decades ago, the federal government introduced regulatory laws on savings bank that protected the savings of the individual and provide mortgages at low rates. This was done to make a repeat of all the bank closures during the Great Depression impossible, the last ALP government removed all those protections, and within a few years we had some cases of billion dollar collapses, several banks were about to close due to the heavy loses - they didn't because the state governments propped them up. The very circumstances the regulations had been put in place to stop ever happening again. And people wonder why us older people worry about what's happening.
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
Just been looking at the Electoral Commission web site http://vtr.aec.gov.au/ There are some interesting stats there.
Of the 13.6 million voters, only 12,463 voted - the government changed hands due to about 670,000 roughly 2.8% of the votes made - 484,000 or 3.88% were informal - nearly 1.2 million didn't vote 3.55%.
In other words, the actual voter swing that resulted in the change of government was less than half that of the informal votes and less than half of the number of those who failed to vote - I won't even try to guess how things had gone if they all actually registered real votes. But it's a frightening thought, the non votes are nearly five times what it takes to change the government.
Of the 13.6 million voters, only 12,463 voted - the government changed hands due to about 670,000 roughly 2.8% of the votes made - 484,000 or 3.88% were informal - nearly 1.2 million didn't vote 3.55%.
In other words, the actual voter swing that resulted in the change of government was less than half that of the informal votes and less than half of the number of those who failed to vote - I won't even try to guess how things had gone if they all actually registered real votes. But it's a frightening thought, the non votes are nearly five times what it takes to change the government.
Rookie Scribe
0 likes
What is really scary is that we now have the same party in state as well as federal, the unions are going to have a hey day.
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
that they will, as they decide the ALP IR policy. But the biggest concern is Rudd's already shown he cares more for 'looking good for the current voter demographic' than what's best or what's right. he's claiming a landslide (oops sorry, a Ruddslide) victory, yet on the 2 party preferred he has less than 53% of the total vote, and only 43.38% of the total first preference votes. yes, that more than the 41.79% of coalition first preferences, but not a mandate.
The real frightening thing is that the GST rate can only be changed by agreement between the feds and all states together, the ALP now have all - will they change the GST, and if so, which way and how much?
Last time the ALP got in at the federal level, it was Hawke and Keating, the main federal revenue source was the Sales Tax that the GST replaced (amongst others) and the first thing Keating did after taking office was to up the general rate from 15% to 22.5%. Yet, during the election campaign Hawke said he wouldn't increase taxes. It's a worry.
The real frightening thing is that the GST rate can only be changed by agreement between the feds and all states together, the ALP now have all - will they change the GST, and if so, which way and how much?
Last time the ALP got in at the federal level, it was Hawke and Keating, the main federal revenue source was the Sales Tax that the GST replaced (amongst others) and the first thing Keating did after taking office was to up the general rate from 15% to 22.5%. Yet, during the election campaign Hawke said he wouldn't increase taxes. It's a worry.
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
Just a quick word on the latest stats from our last election - 94.76% of the actual vote counted
Two party preferred - ALP 52.78%, Coalition 47.22%
Actual first preference figures of votes made - ALP 43.38%, Coalition 41.77%, Informal 3.95%
No Vote 5.24% (remember voting is compulsory here).
Seats - ALP 82, Coalition 63, Independent 2, still to be decides 3
Now lets look at the first preference as a % of the total of electors of 13,645,073
ALP 5,388,259 = 39.49%
Coalition 5,188,827 = 38.03%
Informal 510,381 = 03.74%
No shows 714,400 = 05.24%
So the current government is only directly representing 39.49% of the population. yet they claim to have a mandate from the whole country - no wonder I doubt their ability to think straight, they don't know that a mandate requires better than 75% of the primary vote to be a valid statement.
Two party preferred - ALP 52.78%, Coalition 47.22%
Actual first preference figures of votes made - ALP 43.38%, Coalition 41.77%, Informal 3.95%
No Vote 5.24% (remember voting is compulsory here).
Seats - ALP 82, Coalition 63, Independent 2, still to be decides 3
Now lets look at the first preference as a % of the total of electors of 13,645,073
ALP 5,388,259 = 39.49%
Coalition 5,188,827 = 38.03%
Informal 510,381 = 03.74%
No shows 714,400 = 05.24%
So the current government is only directly representing 39.49% of the population. yet they claim to have a mandate from the whole country - no wonder I doubt their ability to think straight, they don't know that a mandate requires better than 75% of the primary vote to be a valid statement.
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
Don't blame me!
I didn't vote for 'em.
Let's wait and see what the figures for unemployment, inflation and interest rates are this time next year. I really do fear for the poor younger people trying to pay for a home.
There were so many lies and half truths in labor advertising during the election I demanded to have the remote (poor Dave) so I could skip away from the bullshit, though often enough the same crap was on 2 or 3 channels at the same time.
I'll be interested to see how many more nurses will flood back into the NSW hospital system... LMAO!
I didn't vote for 'em.
Let's wait and see what the figures for unemployment, inflation and interest rates are this time next year. I really do fear for the poor younger people trying to pay for a home.
There were so many lies and half truths in labor advertising during the election I demanded to have the remote (poor Dave) so I could skip away from the bullshit, though often enough the same crap was on 2 or 3 channels at the same time.
I'll be interested to see how many more nurses will flood back into the NSW hospital system... LMAO!
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
Why should they, most can get better pay as assistant shift leaders at McDonalds or Pizza Hut. I know one nurse who went back into the Army as a medic, she gets nearly triple the money, and thats while still, on base in Australia, nearly five times when posted to a danger zone. 