Who's Going to Run the Country???

Hi Koala man and welcome;

Agree that we shouldnt be so cynical. We gets what we asks for. Budget time is a classic. The media interviews all the community "groups" who whine that "there was nothing in it for us" etc.... so everyone gets a candy whether its good for the country or not

A couple of alternative views;
1. Workchoices. I dont like them, they have gone a bit too far, but, the opposite far left alternative where the pendulum swings completely to the workers is just as bad. And with the majority of Labor being ex union people there is little to suggest that it wouldnt go back that way. I dont think workchoices is really an issue that will sway them. With very little unemployment the horror stories that were predicted are just not there and those that are have tended to be isolated so there is very little groundswell. Thats not to say thats okay, its not, but unless there were wholesale layoffs its just not going to hit home with the swingers.

2. This is all history
There are other big minuses for Howard & Co, eg:
- the childern overboard
- locking kids up in desert camps for the crime of having parents who fled regimes so brutal we sends our troops to war against them
- erosion of civil liberties
- the horrible things the immigration department has done to people like Mr Tran
- the GST

Howard is definately tainted with this, as he should be, but the electorate, particularly the swingers, have moved on and IMO is not an issue that will effect this election.

The haneef case was not bungled, as I pointed out in a previous thread, and most people IMO think "there must have been something" to warrant what happened. Once again I dont think this has any resonance with the swingers.


3. proposing to hand over to Costello.

This is an interesting one. IMO there are a lot of coalition voters who justifiably dislike Howard and his policies, particularly re the US and the war amongst other things. Costello is a viable alternative. Other than his approval for workchoices there are really no other skeletons in the closet so to speak. Though he has obviously towed the party line he has distanced himself from a lot of the stuff that howard is linked to. This handover tactic is very clever. The disaffected coalition supporters who like the way the economy is going but not Howard are happy because they can see an end in sight and those that like Howard are happy because he will be leaving when he is ready etc...

4. Climate change

I think those with a real interest in this will vote green. The major parties are way too soft on climate change. Labor may pick up a little here but its not the election winner IMO. Will affect the senate I think as the greens will pick up at least two seats. Then again the Democrats are done so the greens will need to grab those.

5. I think it will come down to two things in the end.

a. Interest rates. Those who can remember the huge interest rates, or are scared by the libs advertising re them, will vote coalition. Of course anyone with a brain would have locked in thier rates by now.:)

b. Rudds team. I like Rudd, Swann seems okay, but after that there is very little substance. The shadow immigration bloke seems good too. If the voters go with the presidential style one man show election then that will be good for labor. If they go for a team then that will go bad for labor.

So in short I dont think there is enough to tip enough of the swinging voters to dislodge 16 seats, particularly when you add in the complexities of each seat and the local issues that effect them.

Having re read this I come across as a coalition voter which may be a little sad :rolleyes:. I am very much a swinging voter and out of the last four elections am even stevens so to speak.

My vote will probably go to the coalition based purely on my belief that interest rates will go up and effect the country due to international issues but will go up a lot more under a labor govt, if, to quote Dr Phil, "Past behaviour predicts future behaviour".

If the interest rates were stable and Howard was not handing over then I would vote Labor.

cheers

dazzler

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

3. proposing to hand over to Costello.

This is an interesting one. IMO there are a lot of coalition voters who justifiably dislike Howard and his policies, particularly re the US and the war amongst other things. Costello is a viable alternative. Other than his approval for workchoices there are really no other skeletons in the closet so to speak. Though he has obviously towed the party line he has distanced himself from a lot of the stuff that howard is linked to. This handover tactic is very clever. The disaffected coalition supporters who like the way the economy is going but not Howard are happy because they can see an end in sight and those that like Howard are happy because he will be leaving when he is ready etc...

---

There are 4 states (or is it 5) that have Premiers who were NOT elected but had the batten handed over to them. The outgoing premiers did not forewarn voters that this was what was going to happen. At least Howard has let the voting public know the game plan. Costello is looking a little better than he did a few years ago and has a good economic grounding.

Do you really know who will be PM if Labor are elected?

I reckon I could put money on this one. Julia Gillard's left wing mob are much stronger than the Rudd camp. Give it 12 months and Rudd will be out and Gillard will be in!

BTW, our voting poll is very close with Labor generally a touch ahead since the start of polling. I wonder if this will mirror the real thang?

prozac

I agree that interest rates are worrying a big chunk of voters, but I think what is missing is any indication that either party will do anything different to keep interest rates low.

In fact neither the Coalition federal or labour state govts have done anything to keep rates low. There have been no tax reforms to stimulate productivity or workforce participation, only tax cuts which drive inflation up, followed by interest rates. The big spending election will only serve to put further upward pressure on inflation, too.

So although interest rates are at the front of people's minds, I don't think it will be the decider for swingers ( like me).

I think it will come down to trust, and not of Johnny or Kevin, but of the party machines. Do you trust the coalition not to move Work Choices further, for instance? Or do you trust the ALP not to sit back in power and let the unions do what they're best at?

Sothe election won't be won on policy, or even campaigning, it'll be won on who the voters have most faith in. That makes it very hard to call, but at the end of the day, many people will say, better the devil you know...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prozac

There are 4 states (or is it 5) that have Premiers who were NOT elected but had the batten handed over to them. The outgoing premiers did not forewarn voters that this was what was going to happen. At least Howard has let the voting public know the game plan. Costello is looking a little better than he did a few years ago and has a good economic grounding.

Do you really know who will be PM if Labor are elected?

I reckon I could put money on this one. Julia Gillard's left wing mob are much stronger than the Rudd camp. Give it 12 months and Rudd will be out and Gillard will be in!

BTW, our voting poll is very close with Labor generally a touch ahead since the start of polling. I wonder if this will mirror the real thang?

prozac

---

I think this is silly argument! Voters surely understand that no leader stays forever! Some leaders (Tony Blair in the UK for instance) let voters know that they are going in the next term, but many pollies do not have the psychic powers to know berforehand that the time is right.

I think one of the few good things about the US system is the 2 term limit, as it gets rid of all the garbage spoken about 'Will they stay or will they go?'.

While we're on it, the other good thing about the US system is the 5 year terms. The three year terms here mean pollies have either just finished an election, or are about to start one.

That pushes them into only implementing short sighted policies - clean coal is a good example here. Even the 4 year terms I grew up with in the UK are too short.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhancock

I agree that interest rates are worrying a big chunk of voters, but I think what is missing is any indication that either party will do anything different to keep interest rates low.

In fact neither the Coalition federal or labour state govts have done anything to keep rates low. There have been no tax reforms to stimulate productivity or workforce participation, only tax cuts which drive inflation up, followed by interest rates. The big spending election will only serve to put further upward pressure on inflation, too.

So although interest rates are at the front of people's minds, I don't think it will be the decider for swingers ( like me).

---

That last point's a very important point one, Richard. Until now, the coalition has managed to maintain an image of economic competence and so other issues (Iraq, global warming, whatever) have not been the deciding factor.

Now there have been challenges to the coalition's economic credentials (unlike the last election where the ALP let Costello use them as a punching bag).

Whether or not the challenges are valid, the mere fact that those credentials are now seen as contested terrain seems to have allowed voters to revisit all those other matters that they'd unitl now been willing to overlook.

And there is an awfully long list of such matters covering a wide spectrum of the electorate. And for that reason I think a large swing (I mean larger than the 4% or so needed to oust the government and possibly even Howard from his own seat) is likely.

It will certainly be an interesting election.

At this point I was going to start drivelling on about what Alan Greenpan's book has to say about the outlook for global inflation and interest rates as the excess supply of cheap labour in China is used up - but then I remembered it's a woodwork forum so I'll just shut up now.

Gaz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhancock

I agree that interest rates are worrying a big chunk of voters, but I think what is missing is any indication that either party will do anything different to keep interest rates low.

In fact neither the Coalition federal or labour state govts have done anything to keep rates low. There have been no tax reforms to stimulate productivity or workforce participation, only tax cuts which drive inflation up, followed by interest rates. The big spending election will only serve to put further upward pressure on inflation, too.

So although interest rates are at the front of people's minds, I don't think it will be the decider for swingers ( like me).

---

That last point's a very important point one, Richard. Until now, the coalition has managed to maintain an image of economic competence and so other issues (Iraq, global warming, whatever) have not been the deciding factor.

Now there have been challenges to the coalition's economic credentials (unlike the last election where the ALP let Costello use them as a punching bag).

Whether or not the challenges are valid, the mere fact that those credentials are now seen as contested terrain seems to have allowed voters to revisit all those other matters that they'd unitl now been willing to overlook.

And there is an awfully long list of such matters covering a wide spectrum of the electorate. And for that reason I think a large swing (I mean larger than the 4% or so needed to oust the government and possibly even Howard from his own seat) is likely.

It will certainly be an interesting election.

At this point I was going to start drivelling on about what Alan Greenpan's book has to say about the outlook for global inflation and interest rates as the excess supply of cheap labour in China is used up - but then I remembered it's a woodwork forum so I'll just shut up now.

Gaz.

What it will come down to for the House of Reps is actually a handful of voters in a handful of electorates.

Keep going Gaz....more than welcome in this forum :2tsup:.

And your right Ern and whats the bet that Turnbulls will end in a court fight:D

Quote:

---

The Howard and Costello show bothers me since hes going to retire halfway through and slot Costello into the seat of power in this country and a more contemptuous arrogant jumped up little snide bastard of a pollie Ive not seen for many a year that that one... the thought of this person as the leader of our country fills me with dread.





Who will win? Either one or the other... better question would be... who will loose answer? you me and every other Aussie!

---

:~

Costello is lower than whale sh*t , anti worker ,and anti union to the core ,he will make radical changes to work choices when he gets into power .He is a member of the New Right and the HR Nichols Society where workchoices was concieved.
Costello has no balls ,if he did he would have challenged Howard long ago.
As far as I'm concerned he is "The Man who comes behind" ( read Henry Lawsons poem for the meaning ,first stanza below)

"THERE’S a class of men (and women) who are always on their guard—
Cunning, treacherous, suspicious—feeling softly—grasping hard—
Brainy, yet without the courage to forsake the beaten track—
Cautiously they feel their way behind a bolder spirit’s back."

Howard is a barefaced liar ,a bigger liar than Tom Pepper in fact .
He's told more lies in the last 11 years than I've had hot dinners .
We only know a small part of the lies he's told .
Niether of them is the the sort of person I would trust running the country .

I will vote Labor regardless ,I don't like liars period.
It takes a real man to stand up and admit a mistake or wrong doing, a liar in my opinion is lower than ,well.....whale sh*t .


But I agree with your last statement ,ordinary Aussies will be the loosers either way .
I just think Labor is the best of a bad bunch.

My two bobs worth .

Kev

I know this is a bit of a blokey formum, but to put my girly 2 cents in,
I dont think howard has bothered to recognise the 50% of voters who are mainly between 25-50.and dont usually play cricket.
-try to get kev on not controling T
Go Theresa!
-have a go at the "barren" red head
Go julia!
Howard really is out of touch with women who arn't Jannine
and he and his ministers have really Pssd a lot of us off
take the abortion pill , child care, extra subsidies for women who can afford to stay home, super top ups for stay at home spouses.

even if I was liberally inclined, Id feel very Pssd off
Just look at the support christine Nixon is getting in Vic from all sections ot the community

the likes of Howard, Abbot and that bloke from Tas have annoyed us mightily and we vote

Astrid

Hi Astrid. Wow!

Well if you like Julia then vote for Kevin. I don't think that she will let him sit atop the throne for long.

prozac

Bumbling Bureaucrats

My big worry is that when we have voted all the minor parties will give their preferrences to other parties. This means that some one will get the power to make changes which was not why they were voted for. I feel strongly that there should be no preferrences given to any party. If you vote for A then all the votes stay with A and so on. Have similar feelings about voting above the line. You should vote for the representative you feel can do some good for you, not the party as a whole. Vote below the line and make it count.

Well, I'll give Kevin points for fronting up on Rove. He's showing that he's willing to put himself out there and came up with some brilliant comebacks to Rove's questions.

Howard was given plenty of chances to do the same but has his head too far up his ???? to bother. There's a lot of people my age that didn't experience the last labor government and have only seen what the coalition have been doing recently and have had enough. Climate change is a big issue for the younger generation because we are the ones who could end experiencing the side effects. The current cost of housing hits us hard, a lot of older voters already have a house, so it doesn't effect them the same.

Go ahaed flame away, but I'm sick of working my ???? off and sick of listening to John Howard not side stepping questions all the time and even worse Peter Costello drivelling crap every time he opens his mouth and always taking cheap, cheap shots at every one else. Actually the Coalitions members in Queensland do the same. They ridicule everything Labour says but never offer a solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wood Butcher

Well, I'll give Kevin points for fronting up on Rove. He's showing that he's willing to put himself out there and came up with some brilliant comebacks to Rove's questions.
.

---

While he left his deputy to reply to detailed questions about policy on ABC Insiders. Only leader of a party to refuse to go on Insiders for the last 3 elections. Says something doesnt it?

Not saying Howard is any better....but Rove :?, whos pulling the wool over whose eyes :p

Who would you be gay for Kevin?......Yep, thatll help the country grow :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wood Butcher

The current cost of housing hits us hard, a lot of older voters already have a house, so it doesn't effect them the same.

---

Wood Butcher, without trying to be cynical here, I am one of those older voters that already has a house. You know how our generation achieved that? We saved and saved and went without till that goal was achieved.
What is more, we did that without a $14000 Govt grant (put in by the coalition BTW) but did it under our own steam.
Realistically, what can the govt, any govt, do to lower the cost of housing? Put in price control perhaps?
I am old enough to know that change for change sake can lead to very disappointing outcomes.
Looking for the govt, and I mean any govt, to help us achieve our goals in life is a bit akin to the cargo cult in PNG.

The frightening thing is that a lot of people are going to vote for Rudd because they hate John Howard.

Don't wish too hard for what you want, or you might get it - and if you get it - you might wish you'd never got it at all...

:)

sorry big shed, but which generation.?
people in the 50's had 5% fixed interest, poeple in the 80's had high interest (for a couple of years in the life of a loan, but had job security and protected wages.
People in the noughties have neither and the boomers (of which I am one)
have pushed prices sky high with their super investment.

This generation also starts off their life with a HEX debt, somthing that the
X gen and boomers like Costello never had to worry about. My partner included.

This youngest working generation has to worry a lot more about providing for their kids higher education as well as paying health insurance and a host of other stuff that used to be universally available through taxation.
All courtesy of Howard and Co (and ok, labour introduced HEX but it was controlled at a realistic level).

Astrid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

The frightening thing is that a lot of people are going to vote for Rudd because they hate John Howard.

Don't wish too hard for what you want, or you might get it - and if you get it - you might wish you'd never got it at all...

:)

---

Yep, just ask the people that voted for Whitlam, because "it was time".

Not one of the candidates in this current crop of Labor members has any government experience, and that includes Rudd.

The only one they had left was Beasley, but he couldn't win a popularity contest, so out he went.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by astrid

sorry big shed, but which generation.?
people in the 50's had 5% fixed interest, poeple in the 80's had high interest (for a couple of years in the life of a loan, but had job security and protected wages.
People in the noughties have neither and the boomers (of which I am one)
have pushed prices sky high with their super investment.

This generation also starts off their life with a HEX debt, somthing that the
X gen and boomers like Costello never had to worry about. My partner included.

This youngest working generation has to worry a lot more about providing for their kids higher education as well as paying health insurance and a host of other stuff that used to be universally available through taxation.
All courtesy of Howard and Co (and ok, labour introduced HEX but it was controlled at a realistic level).

Astrid

---

Astrid, I bought my first house in 1965, yes I had fixed interest (5.25%) for 5 years, after that it was market rates.
In those days we all had to pay private health insurance, there was no Medibank/Medicare or whatever scheme, and we had much better health care then than we have now.
The point I was making is that my generation and the one s before me, went without to achieve the ownership of our house. The current generation first of all expects far more in a house, 2-4 times the size for a start, it has to have all the carpets, fancy appliances, paving etc. Yes all that costs more, so why not crawl before you walk and build it up gradually?
It is no good blaming the govt (of whatever persuasion) for the choices you make in life, we are all masters of our own destiny.
I am just waiting for the next "recession we had to have"

The point is, it's the wrong reason to vote. You're basically saying that you want someone else to have a go, and anyone will do. The fact that we only have two parties to choose from means you really only have the choice between what we have now and something different - you don't get to choose what type of "different".

One of the mistakes (in my opinion) that people make is to judge Labor on it's track record in government. It's a bit like choosing a football team based on your opinion of players who left the game years ago. Everything is different now, so all bets are off. There is so little difference between Liberal and Labor now in terms of political alignment that it just doesn't matter. Boiled down, what most are doing when they vote Labor is voting against John Howard, not for Kevin Rudd.

The problem is that as a country we are actually doing quite well at the moment. Yes there are a few problems, but seriously how many people feel they aren't better off now than they were 20 years ago?

So the concerns are related to the environment and our interactions with the rest of the world. How certain are we that Labor will deliver to promise on these matters? Take Peter Garret for example. Ten years ago who could imagine him supporting a pulp mill? I think when ideals clash with reality, reality often wins.

I think I personally will be worse off under a Labor government. I think they will wind back some of the advantages that have accrued to people in my demographic. Whether that's a bad thing in general for the country remains to be seen.

It will be close but I think that a lot of people currently p'd off with Howard and co. will find it less clear cut when it comes time to put pen to paper. One thing about Howard, he's a survivor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by astrid

sorry big shed, but which generation.?
people in the 50's had 5% fixed interest, poeple in the 80's had high interest (for a couple of years in the life of a loan, but had job security and protected wages.
People in the noughties have neither and the boomers (of which I am one)
have pushed prices sky high with their super investment.

This generation also starts off their life with a HEX debt, somthing that the
X gen and boomers like Costello never had to worry about. My partner included.

This youngest working generation has to worry a lot more about providing for their kids higher education as well as paying health insurance and a host of other stuff that used to be universally available through taxation.
All courtesy of Howard and Co (and ok, labour introduced HEX but it was controlled at a realistic level).

Astrid

---

I bought my first house in 1978 at the age of 23. The bank rate at the time had a ceiling (Govt. regulated) of 11.75%. However the banks were only allowed to lend to 70k max (Govt. regulated). I ended up taking an interest only loan from a solicitor at 12.5% because the banks would not lend to me. Not long after Labor got in and rates went up a lot.

Now you can borrow as much as you feel you can risk, or get your hands on. This freely available money has helped fuel housing prices. So has cost of Labour. That's right, in 1978 the average wage was around $12,000 and tradies did not earn the proportional rates that they earn now. These days tradies live in all the best suburbs! Cost of materials has risen dramatically as well. As an example a car I bought new in 1979 for $12,500 had the lot, air con, tint, etc. Same sort of thing today would cost me $60'ish.

Cost of land. There are a number of taxes that add to the cost of providing land in the Labor state of NSW. Stamp Duty on the purchase, Developer Infrastructure Levy ($50,000), Section 94 Contribution (around $43,000), Sydney Water Infrastructure charge ($10,000), Interim Transport Infrastructure Levy (about $15,000).

Before you include the cost of the land itself the Labor state government charges, levies and taxes amount to around $130,000. I say Labor because most of these were added under Labor governments. Regardless these are State costs and have nothing to do with a Federal Government. It is drawing a very long bow to say that John Howard had anything to do with this situation.

When I started investing in real estate I bought where I could afford. This meant buying in suburbs that I did not grow up in, and buying property that required extensive work. It meant rolling up your sleeves and getting dirty. Today people in their mid-twenties are buying 5 bedroom McMansions as a first property. Then they furnish it on credit and complain when it all turns to ????. What's wrong with starting out small with 2nd hand furniture?

I'm getting off track but essentially the cost of housing is not the fault of the Federal Govt. Most of the costs related to developing land are slated back to state govt. Believe me it was a lot harder to buy property when the government regulated the maximum size of your borrowings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ernknot

My big worry is that when we have voted all the minor parties will give their preferrences to other parties. This means that some one will get the power to make changes which was not why they were voted for. I feel strongly that there should be no preferrences given to any party. If you vote for A then all the votes stay with A and so on. Have similar feelings about voting above the line. You should vote for the representative you feel can do some good for you, not the party as a whole. Vote below the line and make it count.

---

Ernknot, the system we have does not seem ideal. However having the party with the most votes win is not ideal either. If a party gets around 40% of the national vote then you say they should win right? This would disenfranchise the remaining 60% of the country who did not vote for them nor want them to win.

As you say though a party can win on preferences. These preferences may not fit with ideals of the winning party so you ask yourself if the preferences are being "prostituted" just to get a polie a job. Can't trust any of them.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER- 1px inset; BORDER- 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Today people in their mid-twenties are buying 5 bedroom McMansions as a first property. Then they furnish it on credit and complain when it all turns to ????. What's wrong with starting out small with 2nd hand furniture? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I hope that you mean that as a generalisation. I don't want to buy a McMansion not am I afraid of a bit of work to fix a house up. I am looking at a house of a decent standard so that my family won't freeze during winter and have at enough space for everyone. But even that is a struggle (For the record I can't get the first home owners grant). Small houses in crap condition are going for a lot of money. The mortgage repayments on a smallish house in a less than desirable part of toen will be almost twice what I pay in rent for a four bedroom house in a nice suburb with a rumpus room.

It is a dangerous thing stereotyping people and the supposed actions just because of their age.

Of course hes making a generalisation........

Thick skins required here gryf...:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gryphon

)Small houses in crap condition are going for a lot of money. The mortgage repayments on a smallish house in a less than desirable part of toen will be almost twice what I pay in rent for a four bedroom house in a nice suburb with a rumpus room.

It is a dangerous thing stereotyping people and the supposed actions just because of their age.

---

Gryphon, did I say that you bought a McMansion?

I am not saying that you give up your rental accomodation. Live where you enjoy living by renting. Buy an investment in an area where your research indicates a good rental return but also good growth prospects. This will get you on the roundabout and give you a credit history with lenders. I rented for 12 years after I bought my first property, and before I could afford to buy one to live in.

We are getting off-topic but I am happy to discuss off-line if you want to pm.

Point is, Howard didn't make housing unaffordable, but I think you will rue the day you get Kev into power...I mean Julia.

Silent, I think you have to see a party based upon it's history each time it was given the opportunity whether or not it is 2, 5, 10 or 15 years ago. I expect if Labor get in a repeat of history.

Personaly I have never been worse off financially than with the GST, but I have learnt to live with it. I can control my spending to manage with this tax where as a big hike in home loan interest is not an easy dodge - either way I am not over commited and will survive it - many won't and I think it will worry them.

Woodbutcher if you think Peter is a verbat prat, it is a shame you haven't the luxury of eloquence of the greatest from Bob and Keating who both found their dear wives past their used by dates shortly after losing the Prime Ministership - what gentlemen. The term "recoucertrant and scum of the earth" spring to mind - not sure why.

But everything has changed since then, not just the personnel. You can't expect Labor to come in and just roll back the clock to the pre-1996 way of doing things as if 'the Howard years' never happened. I think it's pointless comparing things like inflation and interest rates then to what you might expect them to be under a future Labor government. Both sides of the fence do that, but they are making assumptions based on conditions that existed over a decade ago.

No worries - I have a great memory - so in a couple of years time I will say "I told you so :D:p"

New front face doesn't make a new machine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wikipedia

From its formation until the 1950s Labor and its affiliated unions were the strongest defenders of the White Australia Policy, which banned all non-European migration to Australia. This policy was partly motivated by 19th-century theories about "racial purity" (shared by most Australians at this time), and partly by fears of economic competition from low-wage labour. In practice the party opposed all migration, on the grounds that immigrants competed with Australian workers and drove down wages, until after World War II, when the Chifley government launched a major immigration program. The party's opposition to non-European immigration did not change until after the retirement of Arthur Calwell as leader in 1967. Subsequently Labor has become an advocate of multiculturalism, although some of its trade union base and some of its members continue to oppose high immigration levels.

---

This is one example of how the same party can have a different face AND a different machine :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TEEJAY

No worries - I have a great memory - so in a couple of years time I will say "I told you so :D:p"

New front face doesn't make a new machine.

---

AND to quote a famous writer - see post 69 above - in a couple of years time I WILL say " I told you so :D:p" - if they get in

Two years,!!Being exceedingly generous aren't you:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prozac

Point is, Howard didn't make housing unaffordable, but I think you will rue the day you get Kev into power...I mean Julia.

---

The other day an economist was saying that the baby boomers are responsible for the blowout in prices due to high disposable incomes purchasing lots of investment properties and negative gearing before retirment.

Got no idea if he was right :?.

PS: He said it....he said it.....he said it......he said it......not me :wink: :p

I love all you baby boomers......your bloated beer bellies are so nice to cuddle

I would like to address the furpht that we are all better off.
I left my job in 1993 to raise start my family.
my salary at the time was 43,000.plus super, flex time, maternity leave (3 months) long service leave after 10 years.
have just returned to the same job, different employer, thats 14 years later
$40,000 pro rata inclusive of super!! on 3 month contracts, no security, no long service, no flex,
no overtime.no casual loadings.
they tell me I'm fortunate to get a job 3 days per week as they are rare.
This is the way they exploit return to work mothers on a work choices contract.
This would not have been legal 11 years ago
so please dont tell me we're better off

and if we dont reply nicely the mad axe weilder will lock this thread:U
and we are all being very polite and respectfull arnt we:U

Astrid
and PS this is one of austrailas biggest insurance companies

I didn't say we are all better off - I asked how many people seriously feel they are not better off now than they were 20 years ago.

So that's one. :)

Maybe at 43k 14 years ago you were overpaid, if you are doing the same job now for less. 14 years ago I was a senior computer programmer earning about $38k, working 5 days per week. I couldn't live on that now...

But the point I'm trying to make is that it's hard to argue that Australians as a whole have it tough. If you have a few bucks worth of loose change in the ashtray of your car, you are in the top 4% of the wealthiest people in the world. Or something like that. :)

So are you ready to risk that for a change of government?

It is getting close to being closed anyway.:wink:

Quick, close it now , I never get the last say :D

The thread had run its course.

For the record it was not me that closed but another mod.

Apologies will be accepted.

I neverever abuse my power on this board and I do not get upset by people having a dig at me about it.

Like I said, apologies will be accepted.:D