Jump to content


So who will be our next PM this time next week?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
154 replies to this topic

#101 El Mariachi

El Mariachi

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,193 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:13 AM

73-29? in favour of Gillard.

Guarantees a Libs win next election.



Gawd but I feel so fuking sorry right now for your country & countrymen.....

#102 dreadom

dreadom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,548 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:16 AM

73-29? in favour of Gillard.

Guarantees a Libs win next election.



Gawd but I feel so fuking sorry right now for your country & countrymen.....

Thanks, we always feel sorry for seppos.

#103 savoir

savoir

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,441 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:23 AM

Now they say 71 - 31

#104 El Mariachi

El Mariachi

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,193 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:33 AM

Now they say 71 - 31





Hope rings external....

#105 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:30 AM

Media has picked up on a new expression. Someone who must be a sailor has used it & they're all over it now. Heard it maybe 20+ times today. "Clear air".

#106 ease the sheet!

ease the sheet!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,156 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:30 AM

73-29? in favour of Gillard.

Guarantees a Libs win next election.



Gawd but I feel so fuking sorry right now for your country & countrymen.....


why?
we have low debt, low unemployment and a capacity to dig big holes in our back yard.

#107 ease the sheet!

ease the sheet!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,156 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:32 AM

Media has picked up on a new expression. Someone who must be a sailor has used it & they're all over it now. Heard it maybe 20+ times today. "Clear air".


more likely media space

#108 El Mariachi

El Mariachi

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,193 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:33 AM

73-29? in favour of Gillard.

Guarantees a Libs win next election.



Gawd but I feel so fuking sorry right now for your country & countrymen.....


why?
we have low debt, low unemployment and a capacity to dig big holes in our back yard.


Amazing, we have just the opposite here right now-----'cuz the Libs are running our country.....

#109 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,660 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:43 AM

You don't get it El, what they call a conservative wouldn't even qualify as a RINO here. Believe in socialistical heathcare and dealth panels and such, they do. Might as well just toss in the towel, if that's all you got.

#110 dreadom

dreadom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,548 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:44 AM

73-29? in favour of Gillard.

Guarantees a Libs win next election.



Gawd but I feel so fuking sorry right now for your country & countrymen.....


why?
we have low debt, low unemployment and a capacity to dig big holes in our back yard.


Amazing, we have just the opposite here right now-----'cuz the Libs are running our country.....

Rick you are a fucking Galah. Read a book or google this shit before posting.

The current government is a coalition of the Australian Labor Party, the Greens and three independents. Today's vote was for the leader of the ALP and by virtue of numbers the prime minister of Australia.

Labor = democrats
Liberals=conservatives

The vote today sees the current PM Julia Gillard, an atheist, unwed, trade unionist female remain in the top job. Despite all of Grumpy and JS's sooking it will state that way until the next election in 2013. Then the Libs (liberals = conservatives) can have another crack at winning the election.

#111 ease the sheet!

ease the sheet!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,156 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:46 AM

You don't get it El, what they call a conservative wouldn't even qualify as a RINO here. Believe in socialistical heathcare and dealth panels and such, they do. Might as well just toss in the towel, if that's all you got.


"death panels"
thats basic economics! non productive sectors of the economy should be euthanized!

#112 duncan (the other one)

duncan (the other one)

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,531 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:19 AM

the greens do have control! check the senate numbers!

will be funny watching Abbott when the senate blocks legislation put forward by a coalition government. (by the way, we already have a coalition government)

what are the odds of Abbott kowtowing to the greens? will he offer up his sphincter? bob might actually accept it!

He already knocked that back remember. He wouldn't give the greens & independents everything they wanted - Julia said (lied) that she would give them what they wanted, just to stay in power.



remember how he offered wilkie a billion dollars for hobart hospital?
remember how he said to windsor " I would sell my arse to be prime minister"
both said no, mainly based on how howard and abbott treated the independants when the libs were in power.

abbott is no better than kev or julia.

julia didnt lie, she just has core and non core independants!


Abbott just knocked back the possibility of dealing with the independents again.

What was that you were saying?

#113 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:54 AM

73-29? in favour of Gillard.

Guarantees a Libs win next election.



Gawd but I feel so fuking sorry right now for your country & countrymen.....


why?
we have low debt, low unemployment and a capacity to dig big holes in our back yard.


Amazing, we have just the opposite here right now-----'cuz the Libs are running our country.....

Rick you are a fucking Galah. Read a book or google this shit before posting.

The current government is a coalition of the Australian Labor Party, the Greens and three independents. Today's vote was for the leader of the ALP and by virtue of numbers the prime minister of Australia.

Labor = democrats
Liberals=conservatives

The vote today sees the current PM Julia Gillard, an atheist, unwed, trade unionist female remain in the top job. Despite all of Grumpy and JS's sooking it will state that way until the next election in 2013. Then the Libs (liberals = conservatives) can have another crack at winning the election.


Or any time over the next 18 months when a couple of independents realize all Julia's promises were lies. Pokies anyone?

#114 Bent Sailor

Bent Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,450 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 06:01 AM

the greens do have control! check the senate numbers!

will be funny watching Abbott when the senate blocks legislation put forward by a coalition government. (by the way, we already have a coalition government)

what are the odds of Abbott kowtowing to the greens? will he offer up his sphincter? bob might actually accept it!

He already knocked that back remember. He wouldn't give the greens & independents everything they wanted - Julia said (lied) that she would give them what they wanted, just to stay in power.



remember how he offered wilkie a billion dollars for hobart hospital?
remember how he said to windsor " I would sell my arse to be prime minister"
both said no, mainly based on how howard and abbott treated the independants when the libs were in power.

abbott is no better than kev or julia.

julia didnt lie, she just has core and non core independants!


Abbott just knocked back the possibility of dealing with the independents again.

What was that you were saying?


So Abbott changed his mind did he? Colour me shocked and surprised!

Of course, with Abbott you need to have it written down, carefully scripted, and cross-checked with the Pope to even get a 50/50 chance of him not changing his mind in the morning. You know, when "shit happens", Abbott lies through his teeth. The sad thing is, he has no hassles admitting that he does so... probably why he couldn't get the numbers in his coalition to beat that other coalition. ;)

#115 Evo

Evo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,961 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 06:05 AM

So Abbott changed his mind did he? Colour me shocked and surprised!

Of course, with Abbott you need to have it written down, carefully scripted, and cross-checked with the Pope to even get a 50/50 chance of him not changing his mind in the morning. You know, when "shit happens", Abbott lies through his teeth. The sad thing is, he has no hassles admitting that he does so... probably why he couldn't get the numbers in his coalition to beat that other coalition. ;)


and here is the kicker....how is that any different from Julia or Kev or Duckman?

TWWoTW says "I can assure you" a lot. no she can't....only reason she hasn't fallen flat on her face is how long is Pinocchio's nose and her natural born counterbalance?

it was great hearing Kevin07 saying how it was him the people voted for earlier today. just like new old times

and we vote for any of them...shame on us. lest we forget

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3FQwovIJw0

you guys are funny

#116 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 06:11 AM

Latest news is minister Mark Arbib (or whatever his name is) has resigned from parliament. A byelection now? Not confirmed, but not surprising.

edit. Appears he is/was in the senate. No byelection needed I think.

#117 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,660 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 06:55 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3FQwovIJw0

you guys are funny


God, that's lame. Beach Boys...on glue...

Here's some lame blues for ya.

http://www.myspace.c...40937517&ac=now

#118 Evo

Evo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,961 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 07:24 AM

God, that's lame. Beach Boys...on glue...

Here's some lame blues for ya.

http://www.myspace.c...40937517&ac=now


don't ever let anyone tell you that you miss irony by a long long way Mark....you do it pretty damn fast. onya :)

#119 ease the sheet!

ease the sheet!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,156 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:43 PM

So Abbott changed his mind did he? Colour me shocked and surprised!

Of course, with Abbott you need to have it written down, carefully scripted, and cross-checked with the Pope to even get a 50/50 chance of him not changing his mind in the morning. You know, when "shit happens", Abbott lies through his teeth. The sad thing is, he has no hassles admitting that he does so... probably why he couldn't get the numbers in his coalition to beat that other coalition. ;)


and here is the kicker....how is that any different from Julia or Kev or Duckman?

TWWoTW says "I can assure you" a lot. no she can't....only reason she hasn't fallen flat on her face is how long is Pinocchio's nose and her natural born counterbalance?

it was great hearing Kevin07 saying how it was him the people voted for earlier today. just like new old times

and we vote for any of them...shame on us. lest we forget

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3FQwovIJw0

you guys are funny




i cant believe you brought midnight oil into this!
Hypocrisy is not just limited to all leaders and would be leaders of political parties

#120 Evo

Evo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,961 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 12:23 AM

i cant believe you brought midnight oil into this!


why not?...that's their best work...not a peep out of Garrett

Hypocrisy is not just limited to all leaders and would be leaders of political parties


ya think?!!

#121 dreadom

dreadom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,548 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 12:47 AM

i cant believe you brought midnight oil into this!


why not?...that's their best work...not a peep out of Garrett

Hypocrisy is not just limited to all leaders and would be leaders of political parties


ya think?!!

Actually watched an interview with Peter Garrett on the ABC24 last week. ( think it was the breakfast show?) he didn't say much, stands by Pauline as PM blah blah blah. Sorry you missed it, maybe you should change the channel and stop ogling Karl.

#122 Evo

Evo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,961 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 12:52 AM

i cant believe you brought midnight oil into this!


why not?...that's their best work...not a peep out of Garrett

Hypocrisy is not just limited to all leaders and would be leaders of political parties


ya think?!!

Actually watched an interview with Peter Garrett on the ABC24 last week. ( think it was the breakfast show?) he didn't say much, stands by Pauline as PM blah blah blah. Sorry you missed it, maybe you should change the channel and stop ogling Karl.


...and dreads descends from a great height to discover the only time Ch9 get's a run in our house is if they have the footy on....he then floats serenely upward to the clouds on his created thermal still self satisfied and smug learning nothing.

love yer werk D

#123 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 02:02 AM

i cant believe you brought midnight oil into this!


why not?...that's their best work...not a peep out of Garrett

Hypocrisy is not just limited to all leaders and would be leaders of political parties


ya think?!!

Actually watched an interview with Peter Garrett on the ABC24 last week. ( think it was the breakfast show?) he didn't say much, stands by Pauline as PM blah blah blah. Sorry you missed it, maybe you should change the channel and stop ogling Karl.

Pauline? Well, he's easily confused. He has learned it's best that he says nothing in interviews.

#124 dreadom

dreadom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,548 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 02:15 AM

i cant believe you brought midnight oil into this!


why not?...that's their best work...not a peep out of Garrett

Hypocrisy is not just limited to all leaders and would be leaders of political parties


ya think?!!

Actually watched an interview with Peter Garrett on the ABC24 last week. ( think it was the breakfast show?) he didn't say much, stands by Pauline as PM blah blah blah. Sorry you missed it, maybe you should change the channel and stop ogling Karl.


...and dreads descends from a great height to discover the only time Ch9 get's a run in our house is if they have the footy on....he then floats serenely upward to the clouds on his created thermal still self satisfied and smug learning nothing.

love yer werk D

Fair call the footy and the cricket is the only time we tend to watch Ch9. That said i prefer it if I don't have to listen to rabbits, gus and fatty. Oh how I miss Roy and HG.
They even had Rabbits doing the commentary for the RWC! It was bloody aweful. Guess that was so the league fans knew when they should be excited.

#125 dreadom

dreadom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,548 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 02:25 AM

i cant believe you brought midnight oil into this!


why not?...that's their best work...not a peep out of Garrett

Hypocrisy is not just limited to all leaders and would be leaders of political parties


ya think?!!

Actually watched an interview with Peter Garrett on the ABC24 last week. ( think it was the breakfast show?) he didn't say much, stands by Pauline as PM blah blah blah. Sorry you missed it, maybe you should change the channel and stop ogling Karl.

Pauline? Well, he's easily confused. He has learned it's best that he says nothing in interviews.

Cold day on Hell JS. We agree.

Garrett has been a fucking joke. His celebrity status had some sway as the head of the Australian Conservation Foundation, but as a pollie he has been a major disappointment and failure.

I think the policy of subsidizing the public to insulate their homes and therefore decrease not only electricity costs, but also help reduce our carbon footprint was a brilliant idea. When it came to light that individuals were exploiting this, Garrett and Rudd should have come out swinging. Named, shamed and incarcerated those responsible. Garrett fell on his own sword and now as it stands the policy is considered a joke.

#126 Evo

Evo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,961 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 02:40 AM

let's not forget the shower head replacement scheme scam. what a bunch of dummies.

#127 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 02:50 AM

NBN will be the next big one. Due for completion at a cost of billions of $$$ by 2021. Outdated & redundant by 2015

#128 dreadom

dreadom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,548 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 05:01 AM

NBN will be the next big one. Due for completion at a cost of billions of $$$ by 2021. Outdated & redundant by 2015

My folks live five hours north of Sydney and they have dial up. The phone companies don't give a shit. At least with a comprehensive national fibre optic broadband system, my dad can check porn as fast as you.

#129 GRUMPY

GRUMPY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,507 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 05:26 AM

the greens do have control! check the senate numbers!

will be funny watching Abbott when the senate blocks legislation put forward by a coalition government. (by the way, we already have a coalition government)

what are the odds of Abbott kowtowing to the greens? will he offer up his sphincter? bob might actually accept it!

He already knocked that back remember. He wouldn't give the greens & independents everything they wanted - Julia said (lied) that she would give them what they wanted, just to stay in power.



remember how he offered wilkie a billion dollars for hobart hospital?
remember how he said to windsor " I would sell my arse to be prime minister"
both said no, mainly based on how howard and abbott treated the independants when the libs were in power.

abbott is no better than kev or julia.

julia didnt lie, she just has core and non core independants!


Abbott just knocked back the possibility of dealing with the independents again.

What was that you were saying?


Juliar lied a lot.

The first: Just a "part-time" typist


The Socialist Forum was a radical group that helped to bring former members of the Communist Party into the Labor Party.
In 2007, asked about her involvement, Gillard said "many a long year ago" - mostly when "I was a university student" - she'd merely done "part-time clerical and administrative work" for this "debating society".
In fact, she'd been on the forum's management committee, organising events and giving speeches. The parliamentary register of interests states she was still a member from 1998 to 2002.

The second: "I did not say that"


On July 6, 2010, Gillard announced she'd talked to East Timor's President about her plan for a detention centre for boat people.
Her Immigration Minister said our "unauthorised boat arrivals will be returned to East Timor".
On July 8, after East Timor's Prime Minister said "what plan?", Gillard rewrote history: "I did not say that ... I'm not going to leave undisturbed the impression that I made an announcement about a specific location."
On July 9, mocked for flip-flopping, she conceded: "I said in my speech that one possibility was a centre in East Timor."


The third: "There will be no carbon tax"


Days before the 2010 election, Gillard promised: "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead."
A year later, Parliament passed her carbon tax.


The fourth: Fooling Andrew Wilkie


In 2010, independent MP Andrew Wilkie agreed to make Gillard prime minister after she promised to make all poker machines have mandatory pre-commitment.
Last month, scared of the backlash, Gillard broke her promise.


The fifth: "A bit of a lark"


In 2010, ABC journalist Annabel Crabb told a story of deception that must have come from Gillard.
In 1994, Gillard was Labor's health spokeswoman, and "one night ...fired off a despairing text message to a friend, confessing exasperatedly that health was too confusing for her".
To her horror, she accidentally sent the message to Tony Abbott, then the health minister. Fearing he'd embarrass her, she arranged to talk to a regional radio station.
"During the interview she laughingly confessed to having sent tongue-in-cheek text messages to her opponent feigning frustration with the minefield of health reform.
"Had (her email) been raised in Parliament, she would musically have read aloud from the transcript, demonstrating that the whole thing was a bit of a lark."


The sixth: "The Marriage Act will stay unchanged"


Gillard before the 2010 election promised not to allow same-sex marriage.
"We have determined as a Labor Party the Marriage Act will stay unchanged," she said.
"And that's what you should expect to see from the Gillard Labor Government if we're re-elected."
A Labor MP this week introduced a private member's bill to allow same-sex marriage, which the Labor Party now supports.
Says Gillard: "The undertakings I gave to the churches are undertakings that I'm abiding by ... There won't be a government bill."


The seventh: I did not plot


Gillard yesterday said she'd never plotted to remove Kevin Rudd as prime minister.
"I made a decision to run for prime minister on the day I walked into Kevin Rudd's office and asked him for a ballot," she said.
But on Monday came her embarrassing exchange with Four Corners reporter Andrew Fowler.
Fowler: Did you know that people in your office, two weeks before Kevin Rudd was removed as prime minister, were preparing a (victory) speech that you subsequently delivered?
Gillard: Uh well, I did not ask for a speech to be prepared.
Fowler: My question was simply whether or not you knew.
Gillard: I heard your question and I've answered it.


My list does not include many of Gillard's broken promises or false claims about her "carbon tax".
No, I've listed only the seven deceptions I think damn her most.
So, is your Prime Minister a liar?
My link

#130 GRUMPY

GRUMPY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,507 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 05:48 AM

Garret did not fall on his sword Dreads. He was demoted by Rudd, he was lucky to have kept a job.


My link

#131 Bent Sailor

Bent Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,450 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 05:55 AM

All politicians lie. Abbott tries to make it a virtue whereas even Howard understood that it is somewhat underhanded and tried to pass off his porkies as "non-core promises".

Couple of things about Grumpy's list:
  • It's not a carbon tax, even though the transition phase does act like one. I refer, again, to the concept that child support & alimony can act like a tax (being a percentage or income, garnished from your wages by government arrangement, etc) without being one too.
    If she said there would be no action taken in making companies pay for their carbon emissions, there'd be a hook on which to hang the "lie" claim. She didn't, so at best you've got the possibility she was tricky in her wording.
  • Labor does not support same-sex marriage. A private members bill is not a government bill and is not supported by the party line.
    Personally, I wish they would support same-sex marriage. Not only because I think it is a good thing in terms of equality, but because it would at least reflect the majority will of their constituents. Like RU-486, we currently have the minority view overriding the majority one due to who has their hands on the legislative levers. Ignoring, for the time being, the obvious hypocrisy of an atheist in a de facto relationship telling the rest of us what constitutes an acceptable spousal relationship.
  • The text message "lark" could indeed be a lie. It also, on the face of the evidence, could be exactly what she says it was - a bit of a lark. If simply saying one doesn't believe her on the matter is enough proof, you could claim anything anyone said was a lie based solely on your opinion of them. Not the most objective foundation.
One the rest, I have no argument. Either because I don't know enough about the situation or don't care (such as her early days in a socialist organisation) or because I agree she did lie (pokies, Wilkie, nuff said)

#132 GRUMPY

GRUMPY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,507 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 06:05 AM

You can't have read it. From the last para.... "My list does not include many of Gillard's broken promises or false claims about her "carbon tax"."

Posted Image

#133 Bent Sailor

Bent Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,450 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 06:08 AM

The list you presented then - I couldn't care less where it came from, I was simply referring to it as the one I was taking issue with.

#134 GRUMPY

GRUMPY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,507 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 06:18 AM

There are no claims of lies about the carbon tax in the list. Read it.

#135 Battlecheese

Battlecheese

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,562 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 06:43 AM

NBN will be the next big one. Due for completion at a cost of billions of $$ by 2021. Outdated & redundant by 2015

Massive overkill for most consumers maybe, but there is not yet even any distant possibility that wireless can compete on speed or capacity. It is something Telstra should have started on decades ago.

The real tragedy for consumers is that they bought Telstra's backbone. Having two separate network companies, ie. being able to choose between copper or optical would have done amazing things to the size of your phone bill.

#136 Bent Sailor

Bent Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,450 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 06:46 AM

There are no claims of lies about the carbon tax in the list. Read it.


OK then, so how did this get into it?


...
The third: "There will be no carbon tax"

Days before the 2010 election, Gillard promised: "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead."
A year later, Parliament passed her carbon tax.
...



I seriously don't care where the list came from & whether or not you personally agree with it. The post from which the above snippet is taken explicitly claims Parliament passed "her carbon tax". It is not a tax, although (like many other things) it's transition phase is similar to one. This is what I am disagreeing with.



#137 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 07:27 AM

There are no claims of lies about the carbon tax in the list. Read it.


OK then, so how did this get into it?


...
The third: "There will be no carbon tax"

Days before the 2010 election, Gillard promised: "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead."
A year later, Parliament passed her carbon tax.
...



I seriously don't care where the list came from & whether or not you personally agree with it. The post from which the above snippet is taken explicitly claims Parliament passed "her carbon tax". It is not a tax, although (like many other things) it's transition phase is similar to one. This is what I am disagreeing with.



Only a died in the wool labour wanker would believe that spin.

#138 Bent Sailor

Bent Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,450 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 09:52 AM

Nope. Have no loyalty for any party, let alone Labor. Voted Liberal in the last state election and for an independent in the last federal one. Not everyone that disagrees with Tony Abbott is a Labor hack ;)

I simply read the details of what was passed rather than believe whatever the current radio shock-jock or political press release said about the matter. Feel free to show how the legislation itself indicates it is a tax. After all, it is the legislation that defines it, not our opinions on the matter.

#139 ease the sheet!

ease the sheet!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,156 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 11:09 PM

could be worse. we could be americans!

#140 GRUMPY

GRUMPY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,507 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 12:15 AM

:rolleyes:

Posted Image

#141 auscat

auscat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,459 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 06:18 AM

Anyone know how to cancell a bid on e-bay?I put in a bid on a cowboy outfit and now I'm 5min's away from owning the Labour party.

#142 Evo

Evo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,961 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 02:30 AM

Bob Carr? this lot are lower than a snakes belly.....the bloke who bankrupted NSW....now he's the Foreign Minister????

what the hell are they thinking?

#143 albanyguy

albanyguy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,699 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 04:21 AM

My question is who in NSW elected him to the Senate? Answer - Nobody.

Conclusion - Australia is now a Socialist Political Dictatorship. Hope Rudd, McLelland and Smith all resign from their seats in disgust at their treatment so then the people of those electorates can then tell Chairman Gillard what they think of her and her government and boot them out of office coz that's what they deserve.

It's an absolute disgrace!!! :angry:

#144 GRUMPY

GRUMPY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,507 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 04:26 AM

What a facking farce. :angry:

#145 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 04:27 AM

Bob Carr? this lot are lower than a snakes belly.....the bloke who bankrupted NSW....now he's the Foreign Minister????

what the hell are they thinking?


I thought the Premier of the state where the vacancy occured nominated the new senator.

Remember the shitfight that happened when Joh (QLD state Premier) appointed his wife Flo as a replacement senator?

And wasn't Gillard yesterday hotly denying that Carr was going to be FM or had even been asked?



edit.... McClelland has been dumped from the ministry. I think he's about to do a runner. What's that line about rats & ships?

Think the whole house of cards is getting a bit wobbly. Won't be long now.

#146 albanyguy

albanyguy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,699 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 04:48 AM

Bob Carr? this lot are lower than a snakes belly.....the bloke who bankrupted NSW....now he's the Foreign Minister????

what the hell are they thinking?


I thought the Premier of the state where the vacancy occured nominated the new senator.

Remember the shitfight that happened when Joh (QLD state Premier) appointed his wife Flo as a replacement senator?

And wasn't Gillard yesterday hotly denying that Carr was going to be FM or had even been asked?


The Senate is supposed to be the State's House so would've thought this would be the process but obviously the Socialist Political Dictatorship that we now have is ignoring this convention since Carr wouldn't have a hope in Hades of O'Farrell appointing him to the Senate.

#147 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 04:56 AM

Bob Carr? this lot are lower than a snakes belly.....the bloke who bankrupted NSW....now he's the Foreign Minister????

what the hell are they thinking?


I thought the Premier of the state where the vacancy occured nominated the new senator.

Remember the shitfight that happened when Joh (QLD state Premier) appointed his wife Flo as a replacement senator?

And wasn't Gillard yesterday hotly denying that Carr was going to be FM or had even been asked?


The Senate is supposed to be the State's House so would've thought this would be the process but obviously the Socialist Political Dictatorship that we now have is ignoring this convention since Carr wouldn't have a hope in Hades of O'Farrell appointing him to the Senate.

From Wikipedia....

"Casual Vacancies

Section 15 of the Constitution provides that a casual vacancy of a State senator shall be filled by the State Parliament. If the previous senator was a member of a particular political party the replacement must come from the same party, but the State Parliament may choose not to fill the vacancy, in which case Section 11 requires the Senate to proceed regardless."

So this might not be over yet.

#148 albanyguy

albanyguy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,699 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 05:06 AM

Stand up for your State's rights O'Farrell and not fill the seat!!!

#149 Bent Sailor

Bent Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,450 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 05:17 AM

My question is who in NSW elected him to the Senate? Answer - Nobody.


While I can't stand Bob Carr and think he is a poor choice to stick into Senate... if you don't like the way appointing a Senator works when one resigns - propose and lobby for a change to our Constitution. It has been by appointment, not election, for those leaving Senate since our first bloody Parliament. There were eighteen (to my recollection) such Senate appointments for the Liberal Party alone without election during the Howard years. Did that make Australia an "Authoritarian Political Dictatorship" during those years?

Come on, there is enough to complain about with the Labor government without making shit up to gripe on Posted Image

#150 albanyguy

albanyguy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,699 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 06:02 AM

My question is who in NSW elected him to the Senate? Answer - Nobody.


While I can't stand Bob Carr and think he is a poor choice to stick into Senate... if you don't like the way appointing a Senator works when one resigns - propose and lobby for a change to our Constitution. It has been by appointment, not election, for those leaving Senate since our first bloody Parliament. There were eighteen (to my recollection) such Senate appointments for the Liberal Party alone without election during the Howard years. Did that make Australia an "Authoritarian Political Dictatorship" during those years?

Come on, there is enough to complain about with the Labor government without making shit up to gripe on Posted Image


How many of those supposed 18 appointments was handed the plum position of Foreign Affairs Minister? Absolutely f#*k all I bet.

Just been reading that McClelland has said he's not going to step down. Another gagged member on the Government side. How many does that make it now?

I reckon Abbott should move a vote of no confidence in the PM coz it's clear the majority of MP's do not support her.

#151 punter

punter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,486 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 07:41 AM

This is the same Bob Carr who sold all the NSW public assets to Macquarie Bank? And then after he left politics became a consultant for the same said bank in the same year? Still believe that he is a consultant for this bank.

#152 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 03 March 2012 - 04:49 AM

I can't believe that no-one in the media hasn't yet picked up on the requirement that the NSW Premier has to put up a senator replacement - or not.

#153 dreadom

dreadom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,548 posts

Posted 03 March 2012 - 05:05 AM

I can't believe that no-one in the media hasn't yet picked up on the requirement that the NSW Premier has to put up a senator replacement - or not.

Federal senate not state. So no need for premier's approval.

#154 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 03 March 2012 - 05:14 AM

I can't believe that no-one in the media hasn't yet picked up on the requirement that the NSW Premier has to put up a senator replacement - or not.

Federal senate not state. So no need for premier's approval.


I think that any Federal Senate replacement has to come from the State premier of the state the original senator represents, and must be from the same party(Labour) OR the premier can choose to leave the position vacant.

I don't think the state upper houses are senates.

"Casual vacancies

Section 15 of the Constitution, as it was amended in 1977, provides that when a casual vacancy occurs in the Senate, through resignation or death of a senator, a new appointment is made by the Parliament of the state which that senator represented, or, in the cases of the territories, by their legislative assemblies. The 1977 amendment, however, provided for the inclusion of a condition, which had prior to that date been a convention only, that the vacant place should always be filled by a member of the same political party or group as the vacating senator. "

Link

#155 By the lee

By the lee

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,535 posts

Posted 03 March 2012 - 07:19 AM

Published on Friday, March 2, 2012 by Common Dreams

Crikey! Australia Shocks Corporate America on Trade
by Sarah Anderson

The Australian government doesn’t like it when global tobacco giants can sue them over public health laws. Corporate America finds this utterly unreasonable.

Thirty-one U.S. corporate lobby groups, from the Business Roundtable to the National Potato Council, sent a letter to President Obama this week, urging him to give Australia a good smackdown.

US President Barack Obama and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard (Photo: Agencies])
The Aussies’ offense? They have refused to accept trade rules that allow foreign investors to sue governments in international tribunals. Known as “investor-state” dispute settlement, these rules are in every U.S. trade agreement negotiated in the past 20 years – except the 2005 U.S.-Australia pact.

The Land Down Under stood up to U.S. corporate goliaths and their representatives in the U.S. Trade Representative’s office that time around. But the issue has come up all over again because the two countries are negotiating a new trade pact with seven others, called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Australia has reiterated its opposition to these so-called “investor rights” in this broader trade deal.

If anything, the government’s opposition has hardened since its last go-round with U.S. trade negotiators. That’s because Australia is now the target of a high-profile investor-state case. Philip Morris, of the Marlboro empire, filed a suit against Australia last year, demanding compensation for that country’s plain packaging laws for cigarettes. Oops – while Australia had kept investor-state out of the U.S.-Australia trade deal, it allowed it in some other treaties. Philip Morris simply used a subsidiary in Hong Kong to file the claim under a bilateral treaty between that nation and Australia.

In a statement surprisingly lacking in the usual bureaucratic mumbo jumbo, the Australians made clear they weren’t about to expand their vulnerability to such lawsuits by accepting investor-state in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Corporate America’s hair has been on fire ever since. In the lobby group’s letter to Obama, they warn ominously that “Australia’s rejection of investor-state dispute settlement is not only thwarting the ability of the TPP negotiations to produce strong enforcement outcomes, it is also having a corrosive effect on the level of ambition and other key aspects of the TPP negotiations. If Australia were able to extract such a major exemption, other countries would press forward to seek their own major exemptions from core commitments.”

Translation: they fear if the United States goes all soft on the Australians on investor-state, the other countries will smell blood and demand similar rules that are pro-public interest, but corporate-unfriendly. Several of the other governments are already attempting to stand up to U.S. pharmaceutical company proposals that would reduce access to affordable medicines.

Another hot-button issue is capital controls, which include various measures designed to manage the flow of volatile “hot money” across borders. More than 100 economists from TPP countries signed a statement this week urging negotiators to allow governments to use this proven tool for preventing and mitigating financial crisis. Seventeen corporate lobby groups have argued in another letter that permitting U.S. trade partners to support financial stability through the use of capital controls would undermine everything from U.S. jobs to national security. Despite growing consensus among economists that such controls are legitimate policy tools, it is standard U.S. trade policy to prohibit their use and allow investor-state claims against governments that violate these restrictions.

Besides the United States and Australia, others involved in the Trans-Pacific talks are: Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, Peru, New Zealand, Singapore, and Vietnam. Their 11th round of negotiations is taking place in Melbourne, Australia from March 1 to 9. Let’s hope the Australian team that is taking on Corporate America can make the most of their home turf advantage.

Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project of the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive multi-issue think tank, in Washington DC. She’s also the co-author of the IPS report, America’s Bailout Barons: Taxpayers, High Finance, and the CEO Pay Bubble.