Federal Election

[Psyber]

No problem, Psyber.
I'm certainly biased to one side, as most of us are, but in this case only one side is hammering a slogan "Stop the boats".
It's not idealism to bemoan that trend, only disappointment (with both sides).

I share your disappointment both that parties do not espouse principles and that voters generally don't buy them.
Ideally I'd like a system with more room for independents and small parties representing a diversity of views, forcing decisions to be reached by compromise and consensus.
But neither major party wants that, as it excludes the hope of obtaining absolute power for a time.

When I sang bass in the Adelaide Uni Choral Society for a while, during the Hawke/Keating era, one of my colleagues was a full time ALP organiser.
We often talked politics and rarely disagreed on principles, just on what method was best to achieve them - he favoured the stick and I favoured the carrot!

Re: "Stop the boats".
Julia has espoused a Timor Sea Solution - a not quite Pacific Solution - which while not quite hammering "Stop the boats", is close.

But not only one side is using fear and lies as some suggest.
The "He'll bring back Work Choices!" campaign is equally fear based, and more deceitful.
I do believe Abbot, having given his word, will not make such a move in his first term, even if he would like to - I'm not so sure about Gillard keeping her word.
If he were lying he could have easily taken the extra step of excluding any tinkering around the edges too.

Best wishes to you and dedja - I'd better go and have brunch - it's nearly time for the Port match on TV - I still barrack for them against Victorian teams!

[Leaping Lindner]

I wish somebody had stopped the boat Abbott and his family came out on in the 60s.

[southee]

No problem, Psyber.

I'm certainly biased to one side, as most of us are, but in this case only one side is hammering a slogan "Stop the boats".

It's not idealism to bemoan that trend, only disappointment (with both sides).

Yes, one side saying "stop the boats" the other using "a sustainable Australia"........same deal!!!

[redandblack]

[bulldogproud2]

Admittedly, Abbott stated yesterday during his election launch that stopping the boats does not work. If it did, he would not need to impose harsh penalties on 'people-smugglers' coming into Australia as they would not arrive!
The only thing that stopping the boats does is put the lives of our defence forces at risk. Once our defence personnel have gone on board, Australia actually has a responsibility to look after the asylum seekers (as we should anyway) or find a country that will look after them - not going to happen!
Cheers

[Gozu]

"Claims of stimulus waste were greatly exaggerated":

Media reporting and opposition politicking have left many people with the impression much, if not most, and maybe even all of the billions spent on school buildings under the Rudd government's stimulus package has been wasted.

News focuses on the unusual not the usual, the bad news not the good, the contentious not the widely accepted. (That's why climate change-denying scientists get a degree of media publicity out of proportion to the relevance of their qualifications or how representative they are of scientific opinion.)

The taskforce was established to receive and investigate complaints about the school building program and to determine whether schools are achieving value for money. So far it has received complaints affecting 254 schools, representing only 2.7 per cent of all schools involved in the program.

So the impression of widespread waste the media and people with axes to grind have left us with is greatly exaggerated.

Ross Gittins is economics editor.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/claims-o ... 11qdj.html

[bulldogproud2]

The Liberal Party are greatly exaggerating many things, not just the waste.
For instance, the level of debt. Whilst it may sound very large in dollar terms, net government debt is only 4% of Gross Domestic Product, making it equivalent to a person earning $100 000 a year taking out a $4 000 loan. Most developed nations have Government Debt/GDP levels around 90 - 100%. Australia has extremely low government debt levels yet the Liberal Party try to hoodwink people to thinking the opposite. The taking on of this debt (small as it was) actually saved Australia from going into a recession that Abbott said was 'unavoidable no matter how much the stimulus package would be'. Only one other OECD avoided going into recession (Poland). Economists are unanimous in saying that Australia did the right thing in taking on this debt.
Additionally, you would think that Australia has a lot of asylum seekers come by boat. We rank very lowly on a global list when it comes to asylum seekers, with only about 5 000 per year coming by boat. Compare this to the Liberal Fraser government years when we took in 150 000 asylum seekers who travelled by boat from Indo China each year.

[Gozu]

I think only 3-4% of our refugees come here via boat but the Liberal Party like to try and beat that up using words like an "armada" and "flotilla" of boats. What a lot of people don't know or don't understand is that under Howard the vast majority of refugees that were "intercepted" were taken to offshore processing ended up back here yet prople still swallow the "we stopped the boats" spin.

[bulldogproud2]

True, Gozu. In fact, once the defence forces (at great risk to themselves) get involved, Australia accepts responsibility for resettling the asylum seekers, either in Australia itself or in another country.
'Stopping the boats' actually achieves nothing.

[dedja]

Correct ... someone should ask the Mad Monk how many people on the Tampa were eventually afforded asylum.

[Gozu]

Check out this "New Australians, 2009" graph, "armada" indeed:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/07/08/cri ... thematics/

[bulldogproud2]

Interesting story on the ABC's 7:30 Report just then. At least one Liberal candidate in a multicultural part of Sydney has deleted the 'Stop the Boats' from his election leaflets.
There appear to be divisions in Liberal ranks re this issue.

[Leaping Lindner]

Interesting story on the ABC's 7:30 Report just then. At least one Liberal candidate in a multicultural part of Sydney has deleted the 'Stop the Boats' from his election leaflets.
There appear to be divisions in Liberal ranks re this issue.

Wait until you see Media Watch on reporting of the matter.

[Squawk]

True, Gozu. In fact, once the defence forces (at great risk to themselves) get involved, Australia accepts responsibility for resettling the asylum seekers, either in Australia itself or in another country.
'Stopping the boats' actually achieves nothing.

Actually it does. Forget all the usual arguments for and against the issues being debated.

Stopping the boats would save Australia a truck load of money and resources that are currently directed towards Australia's north west area. There is a huge effort going in to this, and in reality, there is probably already a LOT of boats that are being stopped. And a lot of people being discouraged from making their way to places of disembarkation. And a lot of money being given to foreign countries to pay more attention to the issue, or house detainees.

I'm waiting for the FOI claim to be put in to ask how much the deterrent and response activities are costing Australia, per successful boat arrival. Then compare that to the cost per "successful" airline arrival or common visa overstayer.

[Psyber]

The Liberal Party are greatly exaggerating many things, not just the waste.
For instance, the level of debt. Whilst it may sound very large in dollar terms, net government debt is only 4% of Gross Domestic Product, making it equivalent to a person earning $100 000 a year taking out a $4 000 loan. Most developed nations have Government Debt/GDP levels around 90 - 100%.

Building up even "small" deficits is not a good idea in a climate where the "developed" nations manufacturing economies are declining as it all moves to the developing nations where labour is cheap.
In time the "developed" nations will be recognised as the "declining" nations, and we should build up reserves and maintain our essential infrastructure while we still can..

Already a number of the major "developed" nations have a debt burden they may never be able to pay off and so we shouldn't see having less debt than them as evidence that where we are going is sound. Australia has to some extent been protected from this current economic decline by its mineral wealth, and its reserves built up in recent years on the back of this local advantage.
However, we can't go on building up debt on the assumption that this economic advantage will go on forever and that we will be able to pay off whatever debt we have "when necessary".
[That's what Don Dunstan said when he admitted spending state superannuation funds. Later when it was necessary the Bannon government couldn't pay it back.]

That sort of thinking lead to the financial crisis of 1987-88, when state governments, particularly SA and Victoria, counted on the J-curve to cover the spent superannuation funds, and fix the neglected infrastructure, when the good times the federal government promised were just around the corner came. A forced sell off resulted, because the infrastructure was in poor shape and the superannuation liability insurmountable.
[Which the companies who bought this infrastructure are now discovering.]

[bulldogproud2]

However, our current Government Debt/GDP is extremely low being only 4%. It is equivalent to a person on $100,000 a year taking out a $4 000 loan.
This borrowing saved millions of jobs. Remember that Tony Abbott declared in May 2009 that a 'deep prolonged recession with double-digit unemployment for years was inevitable'. We managed to avoid the recession and at no stage did unemployment go above 6%. The debt was a small price to pay as it would have involved much more government spending on social welfare, together with less revenue coming in in the form of business and personal tax if we had gone down a different road.
We will back in surplus by 2012/13. The debt is a very minor issue. Compare this to the US where the Government Debt/GDP ratio is 100% and they are urging further stimulus spending.

[bulldogproud2]

You may well be right, Squawk, but at what cost? We have already seen members of the immigration department lose their lives as a result of 'turning the boats back' (as evidenced by the story on page 9 of today's Advertiser). Additionally, my understanding is that once our government or defence officials get involved, Australia has a responsibility to look after the resettlement of these asylum seekers.

True, Gozu. In fact, once the defence forces (at great risk to themselves) get involved, Australia accepts responsibility for resettling the asylum seekers, either in Australia itself or in another country.
'Stopping the boats' actually achieves nothing.

Actually it does. Forget all the usual arguments for and against the issues being debated.

Stopping the boats would save Australia a truck load of money and resources that are currently directed towards Australia's north west area. There is a huge effort going in to this, and in reality, there is probably already a LOT of boats that are being stopped. And a lot of people being discouraged from making their way to places of disembarkation. And a lot of money being given to foreign countries to pay more attention to the issue, or house detainees.

I'm waiting for the FOI claim to be put in to ask how much the deterrent and response activities are costing Australia, per successful boat arrival. Then compare that to the cost per "successful" airline arrival or common visa overstayer.

[redandblack]

I'm watching the Liberal policy announcement on a broadband network.

I don't know much about the technology of broadband, but this announcement is a train wreck. Summing up, it seems to be a policy that will allow a farmer in his ute to get 12mbs (?) and nothing changes for anyone on ADSL2(?). They'll think about upgrading speeds in 7, yes 7, years

My understanding is that the Liberals have an army of carrier-pigeons at the ready to spread this internet thingy around.

Ye gods, are they serious

[Q.]

I'm watching the Liberal policy announcement on a broadband network.

I don't know much about the technology of broadband, but this announcement is a train wreck. Summing up, it seems to be a policy that will allow a farmer in his ute to get 12mbs (?) and nothing changes for anyone on ADSL2(?). They'll think about upgrading speeds in 7, yes 7, years

My understanding is that the Liberals have an army of carrier-pigeons at the ready to spread this internet thingy around.

Ye gods, are they serious

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/356221/opinion_mr_turnbull_need_do_numbers/?fp=4&fpid=78268965

[redandblack]

Quite, Quichey.

I've followed politics for a long time.

I can honestly say I have never listened to such a shambles of a policy announcement than this one.

It's 10 times worse than the previous worst one. It's an embarrassment to the Liberal Party and to think Andrew Robb would be in charge of anything in a future government is disturbing.