Hello, I'm new to this posting game, and I'm wondering what the etiquette is. Am I ment to comment on all the comments to a post I make. Do other people post to the main page or do I just keep throwing ideas out there? A little guidance please.
To-days question is Did you vote labour in or the Liberals out?
Personally I voted them out therefore I'm quite happy to see the senate making governing so difficult for Labour. If you voted them in then I can see how you would feel upset, at the trouble Labour is having implementing their policy.
To-days idea is select half the parliament randomly from the electoral role, like you get picked for Jury duty. This would put a lot more people with varied outlooks into parliament and make it so you need a 75% vote to get legislation passed. This may make it hard to govern but it might safe massive stuff ups like the insulation scheme getting started. Just an idea.
The problem with global warming is it's happening to slowly. All the idiots in power and 50% of voters will be dead before the full effects are felt and it will be their grand children learning how to tread water and this allows the Liberals to tell us that all we need to do is plant trees and Labor to give the power stations a couple of billion to work on "Clean Coal"-an oxymoron if ever I've heard one! and the Greens are lost in the static.
Global Warming is the big non issue of the century, the people who it will effect can't vote and therefore don't count and the people who could make a difference have too much to loose. Look what happened in Copenhagen, blatant self interest easily out-trumped global good, short termism and faith in technology will allow every body to keep growing and able to maintain profit growth. Sure someone accidentally hit the stop button but, I know where the play button is, so let's get this party rocking.
So let's stop worrying about about Global Warming and start trying to fix the urban environment which has a by product of reducing Global warming.
If you could get all the cars in the urban area converted to electrical, the air would be improved, and green house emmissions reduced, nice idea but it wont happen, remember the Volt, killed because it didn't need servicing, and I can just see the oil companies sitting still for a reduction in their profits, I can hear the cries of job loss already. Why does nobody ever ask how many jobs exactly? Let a political party put that idea up and see how quickly it gets buried.
I think the answer is to do your own preparation buy land on the top of a hill and install solar cells, and water tanks and open a swimming school.
Why is nobody talking about population and migration? I heard on the radio the other day talking about the Australian population of 40 Million in 2025. Where are all these people going to be living, drinking, eating? The WA mining industry estimates it will need an extra 80,000 workers by 2015? What's the rush? The stuff has waited 20 Million years it can surely wait a little longer and we can seriously look at how we want this country to develop.
I think it's all a con job by the real estate and housing industry and the retail sector which relies on continuing to sell more and more to more and more for the cheapest price and that's why nothing is made in Australia any more.
Do you remember how that load of bullshit was sold to us,"we would buy cheap cloths, tv's etc from overseas and they would buy expensive complex things from us". Surprise Surprise they didn't want any of our complex shit! They only want our minerals, and to educate and keep their kids. Australia the child care capital of the world.
Are we going to vote Mr Rudd back in or are we going to vote for Mr Abbott? No let's not get into the cult of personality, has Labor done well enough to get a second term, or do they get sent back to the salt mines and let the liberals have a go?
Personally I don't think they've done enough, but I don't think the liberals have anything to offer either.
I'm not happy with the climate change legislation, it tries to please to many and ends up pleasing none.
I'm not impressed with Mr Garrett, who's he think he is fooling in-fact now I think about it I haven't heard any Labor member say any thing intelligent.
Maybe it's time to vote the greens into power!
That would really piss off the born to rule arseholes in both parties.
Kevin Rudd has been our Prime Minister for almost 2 years now.
What do we think of his and his party's progress so far?
This is what passes for journalism at the right-wing newspaper, the Australian:Peter Garrett shifts from claim of 6m rise in sea levels
FEDERAL Environment Minister Peter Garrett has moved to water down his claim that sea levels could rise by 6m as a result of the melting of Antarctic ice.
Mr Garrett has also been forced to qualify his suggestion that ice across the whole of the Antarctic continent is melting.
The Weekend Australian reported that while some ice-shelf melting is under way on the peninsula and in other parts of west Antarctica that may be related to global warming, ice shelves in east Antarctica remain intact.
East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica.
At the same time, the area of sea ice around the continent is expanding, with sea ice growth in east Antarctica and the Ross Sea more than compensating for losses in west Antarctica. Contrary to public perceptions, parts of Antarctica have been cooling.
Mr Garrett claimed that ice was melting across the Antarctic continent. "I don't think there's any doubt that global warming is contributing to what we've seen both on the Wilkins ice shelf and more generally in Antarctica."
Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said Mr Garrett had been alarmist. "There is a need to take practical action to tackle global warming, but using alarmist and patently wrong information to back his case will do nothing to instil confidence in his arguments," hesaid.
"If Mr Garrett is going to get it so wrong on sea-level rises, how can people have confidence in comments he makes on glacier melts?"
James Cook University geophysicist Bob Carter said Mr Garrett's claims were typical of the political misinformation surrounding the global warming debate. "Like Al Gore and the other dark greens that they seek to mollify, politicians completely fail to comprehend that we live on a dynamic planet Earth," Professor Carter said.
In response to questions from The Australian, Mr Garrett said he had received advice suggesting the impacts of global warming in east Antarctica were "less pronounced" than in west Antarctica. "However, it remains critically important that we continue to work collaboratively with our international partners on the important scientific endeavours under way across the Antarctic."
Mr Garrett said through a spokesman that the suggestion of 6m sea level rises had been made by Lateline and not by him; he was commenting only that those "kinds" of predictions were consistent with IPCC forecasts.
A few facts:
* Though ice is growing in east Antarctica, and east Antarctica is larger than west Antarctica, that does not mean, as the article implies, that ice is growing over the majority of Antarctica. Ice is growing in parts
or Antarctica, the sea ice is spreading in certain places
around Antarctica. In other places, vast ice sheets are in danger of collapse.
* The Arctic is melting a lot faster than the Antarctic is freezing. The north pole is dropping about 4% of its ice cover per decade, the South Pole is gaining about 0.97%.
* This was a known, but not proven, phenomenon already, and is built into various climate change models.
* There's no ozone hole over Greenland, that is going to be a huge problem before long unless we can do something about it.
* Climate change is not about left vs right, and I sincerely doubt the qualifications of Bob Carter, as he seems unable to separate his obvious massive bias from any scientific opinion he might have. And Greg Hunt is a wanker who can't be trusted in any capacity over the environment for the same reason.
* The title of this article and its introduction are deliberately misleading. But who's going to read all the way to the bottom of the article?
The Australian Industry Group is crying about not being able to meet the date for the introduction for the Emissions Trading Scheme midway through next year. Because of the financial crisis of course. Major industry is doing it so tough at the moment, they're just like factory workers really.
The thing is, they've known this was coming since the mid 90s, and they've deliberately done nothing. They definitely knew it was coming in 2007 when Kevin Rudd was elected, and they've deliberately made no preparation (or so they say). This scheme was announced last year, when the financial crisis was still just starting, and now
they're saying they need two more years.
It's a paltry 5% reduction. A reduction that will be taken up almost entirely by ordinary households, leaving industry to do what it likes. And not only that, but industry is being heavily compensated, itself a ridiculous scheme. They should be cutting their emissions by far more than 5% just because they can and they'll screw up the whole damn planet if they don't. There's no justification for this whining. None. But no doubt they'll get what they want.Business 'not ready' for ETS
The Australian Labor Party was elected last year, partly on a promise to drop greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020. This was widely viewed as not nearly enough, but it was still substantially better that what the other party was offering (a kick in the testicles if I remember rightly).
Today, our prime minister, Kevin Rudd, stood up in front of the country, and the world, and said that we'd be cutting emissions by 5% of 2000 levels by 2020. Five per cent. I mean, why even bother? It seems to me that its going to hurt big business while infuriating everyone else, and yet doing pretty much nothing to save the world.
And also note the language. What does "5% of 2000 levels" mean? Australia's output of greenhouse gasses has risen by more than that since 2000 already, so are we going to introduce measures to make us slightly dirtier than we were eight years ago?
Mr Rudd has also said that we might go as high as 15% as long as the rest of the world does too. What is this, a Mexican Standoff? Just do the right thing and then worry about getting the others to follow. Note that Europe has already promised 20% cuts in the same period. The amount Mr Rudd originally promised, coincidentally enough.
This is ridiculous. I'd wish for Labor to be booted out on its ear next election, but that would just put their more conservative partners back in power, and they're even worse. I despair, I really do.
My boyfriend sent this letter regarding the proposed internet filter (mentioned previously on this community) to our local member here in Perth. The protest in Perth was not well-attended this past weekend unfortunately :S
This has been cross-posted to numerous Australian communities (so I'm sorry if you see this multiple times!)( LetterCollapse )
The Australian Government is pushing to implement an internet filter
that's aimed at censoring 'illegal' material on the internet. This filtered internet will be mandatory
to all Australians with a second more restrictive 'clean feed' filter to protect children from harmful content.
Such a mechanism has serious consequences for free speech and access to information. On a technical side, it will also drastically reduce internet speeds in a country that is already ridiculously behind other wired countries in the world, with some tests reporting network performance reductions between 20-75 percent.
Currently, the only other countries in the world that have implemented such government
censorship of the internet are places like Burma/Myanmar, China and North Korea. Australia is a peaceful fully functioning democracy. A filtered internet goes against our principles and is complete overkill for a problem that should be addressed through education and parents.Electronic Frontiers Australia
The AFP has finally admitted that there's not enough evidence to make a case against Mohammed Haneef. Or to put it in more honest terms, he's not guilty of anything. The AFP spent $8000000 trying to find something, anything to hang on this poor bloke. Who's $8000000? Ours of course. There's a lot of public good eight million could buy, instead it was wasted by fools too proud to admit they were wrong. And that's not counting the compensation payout the doctor is almost certain to get.
The AFP is only partly to blame of course. They were just following orders and they, and their government bosses were caught by changes in public opinion. Maybe a year earlier the Australian public would have been howling for Mr Haneef's blood and damn his innocence. But sanity had already returned and this Liberal party PR stunt backfired on them.
There should be more than an apology, people should be hung out to dry over this one. Remember then Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews deporting Mr Haneef after his initial release? How Mr Andrews claimed he had evidence that Mr Haneef was guilty, he just couldn't tell anyone what it was? Disgusting behaviour that needs to be punished in my opinion.
Freedom of speech is alive and well in Australia, right? We thought so - until this weekend.The Australian said it best yesterday: "Nothing has sucked the air from the lungs as much as Seven's decision to drop an advertisement by GetUp... In a democracy, where freedom of speech is a given, Seven's craven self-censoring efforts represent a gold-medal act of moral cowardice."*
Ordinary Australians donated to put an ad to air featuring a Tibetan women asking the Prime Minister to raise the issue of Tibet when in China. The ad was booked, paid for and confirmed to air on either side of the Opening Ceremony - but it never showed. -- GetUp
"Channel 7 needs to explain. Our Tibet ad - which was booked and paid for - was not screened by Channel 7 in the scheduled slots last Friday night and Saturday morning. The ad was pulled at the last minute. It seems to us that in highlighting free speech issues in Tibet, we've run up against some serious ones of our own at home." -- GetUp blog
"At least Australia has media freedom, right? Regardless of whether Seven took this decision under its own direction or were pressured into this by someone else (such as the IOC, as has been postulated elsewhere), this raises huge questions about media freedom - not just in China, but right here in Australia." -- ish's blog
It's interesting to consider that Kevin Rudd is arguably far more conservative than his Liberal counterpart.
The idea of left and right wing politics is a bit outdated these days. Maybe we should say capitalist and socialist? Except that this conjures images of Stalin of course.
What say you?
Can someone please tell me what the hell is so wrong with the 2020 Summit?
All week long and into this morning I've been reading as the Liberals and their sympathizers opine, blog and generally whinge about something that they seem to have little understanding of in the first place.
Brendan Nelson called the first day a "shermozzle." Thats right, the guy who can't get his own party to support him - the guy whose public approval rating is below 10%. That guy!
Alan Ramsey decided the best way to lampoon this "expensive wankery" was to publish the timetable of the event.
That'll show em Alan!
I think I know why the Liberals are against it - simple really, the 2020 summit flies directly in the face of what the right have worked so hard to build their platform on in the last 12 or so years, ie. that power, money and influence should be held by the powerful, rich and influential. The poor to middle class are obviously there because they don't work hard enough and thus never deserve a real voice in the hallowed halls of government - essentially perpetuating the class system which has supported them from time immemorial.
Public office that is passed from powerful generation to powerful generation along lines of family and influence does NOT a good governing body make. I'm sure there are some politicians who have done exceptional jobs having come from privileged positions but I dare say they are very much in the minority.
Don't think I'm letting the left off in this regard though - politicians who come from privilege is not a right wing invention - but they certainly have made it into an artform.
The lambasting of the 2020 summit shows an unwillingness to share and displays an unbending ear in the direction of possible great new ideas.
Just because an endeavour has no guarantees does not mean that it isn't worth it. It's called "trying new stuff" and the Liberal party is going to have to learn that concept if they even wish to exist, let alone have a chance at governance in the near future. I believe the result of the last Federal election was proof of that.
The idea that one should never join an enterprise that doesn't have a 99% chance of success is ridiculous in the extreme and leads directly and irreversibly to stagnation.
The plain fact of the matter is that the 2020 Summit may produce nothing of value whatsoever. Does that make it a pointless exercise? No, not in the least. It's something that should have been done a long time ago and I have a feeling it will provide at least something of value.
And as for "expensive wankery," I think that particular cake was taken when Howard's plans for a $500,000-plus renovation of the private dining room in his Parliament House offices was revealed, don't you think?
end of line
- Music:The Last Resort - Trentemoller
This is an interesting article, not so much because of the facts involved, but for the comments section below it. The consensus among the usual suspects seems to be to pretend the AWB scandal was a non-event blown out of all proportion by left-wing bogeymen. It's disturbing to see history rewritten in this way even as it is made.US judge throws out AWB corruption case
Though I'm sure he won points by putting Reagan and Thatcher on a pedestal, not to mention the old "liberal media" canard.
It's all a bit sad really, what he's been reduced to. Until you actually listen to what he's saying, then you realise it's not nearly reduced enough. Howard slams Rudd on IR, Iraq
Former prime minister John Howard has hit out at several of the Rudd Government's policies while giving a major speech in the United States.
Mr Howard has given an address at a gala dinner for the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, where he received the Irving Kristol Award.
He has told the audience that scrapping the WorkChoices laws is the first time in 25 years that a major economic reform has been reversed.
"That will be a mistake," he said.
"In particular, bringing back the old unfair dismissal laws will stifle employment growth amongst small businesses."
And he has described his disappointment at the moves to bring Australian troops home from Iraq.
Hi how are you all going,
I've made a mock livejournal for my marketing subject at university (this one!), and I'd really like to enlist some friends to complete polls, comment, and so that I actually have friends
on my userinfo!!! This way I can explain the concept of Livejournal much easier to the class for my presentation (eek)!
Don't worry I won't show anyone your livejournals if you're worried about privacy etc...
So my interests involve being a fence sitter (re:politics), being Australian, studying Journalism and Marketing at James Cook University in Queensland Australia. There are many more interests on my profile page, if you'd care to take a gander. I'm 22. And female. If that is of any relevance to you.
I also have a real LJ, and if you'd like to email me at email@example.com
I'd be more than glad to link you to it.
So add me!!!!!!
I am organising a festival for Alternative Parents and Parenting to be held in Melbourne, Australia. Time and Venue yet to be determined. For more information go to http://applefestival.makeforum.org
and please leave your input.
I was very excited today to read in the SMH about the summit that Rudd has proposed - this so called 2020 thing. It's an excellent idea and one of the first that has really made me happy he's in office (even though I helped vote him in, I voted to get Howard out - I realise this is a bad way of voting but hey... it helped get the prick out right?).
It's a summit discussing ten of the most pressing issues facing our country in the future and Rudd's inviting people based on thier merit as individuals, not as representatives of groups or corporations - again, fantastic strategy.
Rudd stated that the federal Opposition Leader, Brendan Nelson, premiers and state opposition leaders would be invited. To be expected really.
Now, this is the bit I was interested in. I think it demonstrates why the Liberal government was kicked into touch. It epitomises the small minded attitude that it is obvious will not change in what is now the opposition.
From the SMH:"Dr Nelson welcomed the summit, but would "wait and see" before deciding whether to attend. He urged Mr Rudd to ensure that it produced constructive results."
Personally, I think that's the height of partisan arragance. Nelson is presented with a (literally) forward-thinking idea and his response is to say he's not coming unless he's guaranteed it's going to work. Isn't that like saying you're not playing the soccer match unless you're guaranteed a win?
Wait and see? Jesus! I'd be champing at the bit to see what people come up with... 1000 of the best minds in Australia weighing in on how we should deal with the future??? I wonder why the previous government never came up with that.
Oh thats right! Because they knew best anyhow... sorry... I forgot.
end of line
- Location:Ralph Towers
- Music:Old School New Style Mix 2 - bside
It might be timely for the new parliament to formerly consider the shenanigans that pre-empted Kevin Andrews' hasty decision making processes.... well, other than the fact the guy is a complete bastard!!... Parliament can't do much about that.
See the article...
During the election, Kevin Rudd made himself out to be a crusader against climate change. He promised to immediately sign on to the Kyoto protocol. He's had his snout in the trough for a fortnight and what do we get? Dicking about. Sure he committed to the protocol, but he's now doing everything in his power to resist further steps which would involve Australia actually doing something about it. I know he's not Bob Brown, but come on!
This may change, he still has time to come through with the goods, after Ross Garnaut submits his report. But is Mr Rudd really going to end up any different to the old boss? Doesn't seem likely.
Peter Costello has refused leadership of the opposition
. This is a very clever move on his part. Despite John Howard's nomination as successor, there would almost certainly be at least one challenge for leadership. Without Mr Howard and without government, the party may well also suffer the internal strife and division that most opposition parties on the state and federal level suffer these days. The last thing Mr Costello wants is to be the next Kim Beazley.
So what will he do? Maybe he'll sit back as Joe Hockey and Alexander Downer and whoever else tear eachother down, safe from the mudslinging and relatively untarnished in reputation. Then in a few years he'll be poised to step in and finally take the leadership role as John Howard did before becoming prime minister. Or maybe he really has had a gutfull and he's content to serve out his term before going into the private sector to get his back scratched. God knows I would in his shoes.
Either way, it should be interesting to watch.
In the same article linked above, Mr Costello attempts to blame the media for his party's low poll result. Make of that what you will.
The election is today, and you better all vote ... unless you were going to select a crappy party, in which case feel free to drop your blank forms in the ballot boxes.
So, who are
you voting for?
I'd like to remind you that if you vote other than Greens or Democrats, you are telling the government that you think that a large portion of the population do not deserve the rights of full, first class, citizens.
This includes your friends, your relatives, your (future) children, your workmates and your neighbours. And it's more than a superficial ceremony, it's rights
; rights to marry for one, rights to guardianship of your children, financial rights (including taxes and inheritance), military placement rights, the right to visit a loved one in hospital (currently even if you've been their partner for the last 30 years their 'real family' can prevent you seeing them), make legal decisions on the behalf of your partner. These are not one-day-in-a-lifetime things, these are everyday rights of real importance.
Frankly marriage is one of my bottom priorities, I really care more about the right to look after my own children as everyone else can, when I have them, as well as being able to look after my partner.
No, putting the Greens (or Democrats) first on your House of Representatives ballot won't make them the leading party, and your vote will go to your second preference, but it shows whoever is in charge that they will get votes if they have more 'progressive' policies. They don't have these policies now because they think you wont vote for them, or that they don't need to, because you'll vote for them no matter what.
Voting 1 to the Greens or Democrats in the senate (white ballot) will however give them real power.
I'm not too concerned as to whether you vote Democrats or Greens, I feel my interests more expressed in the policies of the Greens, and feel they have a better chance of getting in, but who you choose is a matter of preference. However, if you're voting for a party that denies the rights of so many, including myself, that is highly offensive, and I would like to hear your justification for it.
Of course there are a multitude of other reasons to not vote for Liberal or Labor; They have similar work choices policy, they both support the infantilising treatment of aboriginals, they don't really care about the environment (and Peter Garret has no power) shown by their support of new coal mines, and continued uranium mining, the pulp mill, they want tax cuts rather than services, and don't really care about healthcare or education. They Greens aren't just a hippy dippy group for hugging trees, they do have excellent social policies.
The Greens are actually passionate about their policies
, and don't feel the need to lie. Who knows what Liberal or Labor will bring out when they're in power?
This is a nonpartisan 20 question questionaire which helps you to match your own priorities to those of your local candidates.
"How it works
We've asked every candidate in each electorate to answer twenty questions that cover a wide range of issues that are of interest to voters. Now you can answer the same quiz and compare your views to the people you are considering voting for."
This is a serious guide, not a fun meme, and it may well help you to break away from kneejerk partisan politics and direct your vote. I strongly urge everyone to do it before heading off to your polling booths today.
OK, the election is tomorrow. How do you predict the results?
I say the Coalition will have massive losses, either close to or actually less than 50% overall votes, but it will manage to stay in government with a very tiny majority of seats, three or less.
This will be trumpeted as a victory despite being probably the biggest swing against a government in Australian history.
Greens will have a small increase in seats, as will Family First. Democrats will be further eroded away.
I can't decide if Mr Howard will lose in Bennelong. Probably not, but I really hope so just for the humour factor.
Anyone else feeling a bit Nostradamusy?
Thank god the election is almost here. Being constantly exposed to all these ads, something has become extremely clear. There is no a single ad coming from the Liberal party that is positive. Every last one is fear and smear. They have nothing to say about themselves. Of course, in previous elections both sides have given a smearing, but this one stands out especially because it is only the Liberals doing it (though the Labor ad about Costello taking over and there being "nothing we can do about it" comes close).
And this negative approach of course has trickled down to their supporters. Cars and homes have been vandalised for sporting Labor posters. Fraudulent letters were sent out in Bennelong supposedly by Maxine McKew thanking people for their support but asking them to take down the Labor posters because there has been violence against people with the posters. And of course there's the letter drop supposedly by a group of Islamic extremists urging people to vote for Labor.
Of course this isn't directly the inner party's actions. John Howard isn't attacking cars with cans of dog food. But it is the consistently negative message that is urging this behaviour on. Hate the opposition. They are less important than you. It is OK to play dirty tricks on them. Fear the future and fight it any way you can.
The conservative movement used to be staid and respectable. That hasn't been the case since Malcolm Fraser retired.
From last week's Newstopia, glad someone stuck it on YouTube.
Just something I found amusing
A WOMAN was knocked out during a shopping centre appearance by Prime Minister John Howard in west Sydney today.
Mr Howard was walking through the food court of the Penrith Plaza shopping centre when the woman was knocked to the ground and hit her head.
A member of Mr Howard's security team and local police stayed with the woman until she regained consciousness a few seconds later.
She was led, crying and rubbing her head, to a nearby store.
Earlier, a 29-year-old man was spoken to by police after he declined to shake the Prime Minister's hand.
The man, identified only as Alex, put his hand out as Mr Howard approached him but then whipped his hand away.
"I'm not a fan," he said later.
Alex was spoken to by police before being allowed to leave. SourceLol...
Why are the police speaking to someone who denies to shake Howard's hand? Since when is that something that is their business? I get that it was a prank but so what, I would be more concerned about the people who did shake his hand.
For some reason this reminds me of that guy who got tazered by the police in Florida for yelling questions at John Kerry
Gen Y registers Kevin’s really on a roll
CAREFUL what you wish for in politics. Labor types have worried all year that the big swings they have been detecting in the youth belt might not translate on polling day because the electoral rolls closed one week earlier than previous elections.
"The early closure will actively lock out hundreds of thousands ... John Howard is responsible for this disenfranchisement,” thundered GetUp executive director Brett Solomon last week.
Let’s assume the conspiracy theory is correct, that the Government did intend to lock out Labor-leaning young ‘uns when it used its Senate numbers to bring forward the closing of the rolls.
Turns out the Government’s generation-mander failed, big time. Rather than discouraging the young from registering, the regime has swelled their ranks.( Read moreCollapse ) Source with comments
On Insiders this morning, they were talking about how the Liberal party message is all over the place. Mr Costello is both promising continuing future prosperity under the coalition, but also warning of an economic tsunami soon to hit. Various sources have promised real wage rises due to Workchoices, but also warn that wages will rise under Labor, triggering inflation.
And then I read this:"What matters is precisely what happens in the future," he [Mr Howard]said.
Coming from a man entire election campaign so far is almost entirely based on fearmongering over the union history of various Labor members.
Luckily for them, people don't tend to pay attention.
What did everyone think of the great debate tonight?
I missed the first half hour, so maybe you people can help me. It is something I am very curious about, something I believe is of great importance to the level of political discussion in the Australian community.
How many times did Kevin Rudd use the phrase "Working Families"?
As a young single person living alone on about $60k a year, do I count as a "working family"?
I've seen all sorts of dates being quoted for close of rolls... so I thought I'd spam LJ with the correct dates...
Just to be clear:
“If you’re not on the electoral roll and you’re entitled to enrol, you must fill in an enrolment form immediately and return it to an AEC office by 8pm, Wednesday 17 October,”
“If you’re already on the roll but still need to update your address details, to ensure your vote you must complete an enrolment form and return it to an AEC office by 8pm Tuesday 23 October,”
—Electoral Commissioner Ian Campbell
As per: http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Media_releases/10_14.htm
For those of you that are 17 and will turn 18 between the day after the issue of writs1
and election day2
(inclusive) then the deadline is 8pm, three working days after the day the writs for the election are issued (so get your forms to the AEC by 8pm, Tuesday 23rd October 2007)
In addition there's no need to worry about how to get your forms in; as forms3
can then be faxed or mailed to your nearest Divisional Office4
of the AEC (reply paid envelopes are provided at Australia Post shops/offices), or scanned and emailed to firstname.lastname@example.org
The biggest problem I foresee some of the youngins having is finding a witness to sign their forms.1. Issue of writ: Wednesday 17th October 2007
2. Election day: Saturday 24 November 2007
3. Enrolment and Change of Name/Address forms: http://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Update_enrolment.htm
4. Nearest Divisional Office: http://apps.aec.gov.au/eSearch/divisiondetails.aspx
Other forms: http://www.aec.gov.au/footer/Forms.htm
We're having an election and you're invited!
When: Saturday 24th of November, 8:00am-6:00pm
Where: Your local school or church hall
RSVP by 8:00pm Monday 15th October to the AEC
Kevin Andrews announced recently that the number of Sudanese refugees, as well as other African people, will not be accepted into Australia as easily as other nationalities because they are having difficulties assimilating.
In other words, these people are coming from a country so ravaged by war, poverty, and civil strife that most of an average 21st century society is alien to them. Such everyday things as electricity are a mystery to many of them. They have been left by the horrors of life in Sudan without even the basic tools to cope with modern society.
So obviously it is our duty make sure they can't leave that horrible place.
Mr Andrews apparently does not understand his portfolio. The idea of taking on refugees is to help people most in need, not to gather more model citizens. If these people aren't assimilating properly, we need to put extra effort into helping them to assimilate. These people need help, and Mr Andrews is doing his best to ensure they don't get any.
And the bottom line is, there is no evidence to suggest that the percieved problems with Sudanese immigrants are actually true. Mr Andrews certainly hasn't produced any actual evidence to show that Sudanese people are in more trouble with the law than anyone else.
On the other hand New England MP Tony Windsor says a large number of Sudanese refugees have settled in his electorate, and have been able to integrate into the community.
"You can't expect them to be modelled, balanced citizens, when they've come from the backgrounds that some of these people have come from," he said.
And Queensland premier Anna Bligh says The highest proportion of Sudanese immigrants in Queensland is in Toowoomba.
Citing police data, Ms Bligh said Sudanese refugees are not involved in crime any more frequently than any other sector of the Australian community.
"Those Sudanese refugees are actually under-represented in the crime statistics," she said.
"What that tells me is that these people are law-abiding citizens, by and large that they are not committing crimes at a rate any higher than the average citizen from any other part of the world."
But Pauline Hanson said refugees carry disease and escalate crime.
"Do you want to see increased crime on our streets? Do you want to see increased violence?" she said.
"Do you want to see your daughter or a family member end up with aids or anyone for that matter?"
At the core of the problem is that Sudanese people are so easily identifiable, being so tall, thin, and unusually dark-skinned. That makes them stand out as different. Thirty-three per cent of Australia's Sudanese population lives in Melbourne - many in the outer south-eastern suburb of Noble Park.
The suburb straddles two federal seats, both held by Labor: Bruce and Isaacs.
At the last election in 2004, Labor suffered swings against it of 3 per cent and 5 per cent respectively. Isaacs is a marginal seat for Labor, which holds it by 1.5 per cent.
Yesterday, federal Justice Minister David Johnston was campaigning alongside the Liberal candidate for the seat, right outside Noble Park's train station.
A police van was set up there on Saturday after the bashing death of 18-year-old Sudanese refugee Liep Gony. The van is staffed 24 hours a day.
Looks like more cynical votes grabbing by a government that has never been afraid of a bit of racial profiling to get ahead. Howard's Liberal has won government before by targeting individual seats, allowing them to win a majority of seats even though the majority of votes nationally are against them. There's little doubt that this is more of the same. Playing with peoples' lives just to get a little bit more power.
Although I'm living in Japan at the moment, I am still required to, and of course want to vote in the coming Federal election back home (Australia). Now I always vote the same way and I probably always will; I know who the lesser of the two evils is for a guy in my shoes, and that right there is the problem.
While I know who I'm voting for, I've still been following the media campaign, and though it's a little more difficult to read, hear and see it all from here, it seems to be the same as usual; why not to vote for the other guy. I can think of many reasons why not to vote for either party, but every year it gets more and more difficult to think of reasons why I would, or should, vote for any.
Mr Howard, Mr Rudd, I'm choosing you to represent me. I'm expecting you to understand the needs and wants of me and mine. I'm writing you into the history books and providing you with a pension that far exceeds what I'll earn in my entire working life. If I vote for you, I'm am doing you a very big favour.
So what are you gonna do for me?
Wouldn't it be better to win an election because the people admire you and your ideas, rather than because they fear and hate your opponent more?
Just saw this on a story online from the abc news site Mr Howard is predicting wins for Geelong and Manly, but Mr Howard is tipping Port Adelaide and the Melbourne Storm.http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/29/2046833.htm
They may have updated it by the time anyone else looks but yeah, all i can say is typical johnny, trying to have two bob each way... LOL
John Howard has announced that he will retire some time after the election, handing the leadership presumably to the long suffering Peter Costello. What will this do for their election chances? Well at least they can say that Mr Howard treated Mr Costello fairly in the end, makes him a bit less of an arsehole. But Mr Costello doesn't exactly scream leadership.
Beside that, it's a remarkably, characteristically, dishonest thing to do. Why not retire now like everyone wants, it's the perfect time for him to step down, rather than a couple of years down the track when we have no say on who the leader will be. I suppose, once again, Mr Costello doesn't scream leadership. He probably couldn't win an election.
It's a perfect situation for Mr Howard. With the global economy and national education being what they are, and the sheer number of short-term investments made at the cost of long-term prosperity, the dream run enjoyed by Liberal is quickly coming to an end. So Mr Howard will get to blame somebody else, whether it be Labor or Mr Costello, when it all goes to crap. And chances are he'll get to break that record of longest-running PM that he's had his eye on.
We now know pretty much exactly what happened in that meeting Liberal held. Johnny made a deal to save his skin.
Every opinion poll has Labor well ahead of the coalition. The problem is, John Howard has won before while at the same time getting a minority of the votes overall. Part of Liberal's success is their ability to influence marginal electorates and cement their lead in electorates they hold. So if only 40% of the population votes Liberal/National after preferences, but those 40% are concentrated in 51% of the electorates, then the coalition will still win even if not a single person voted for them in all the other electorates.
So looking at overall percentages means very little to the actual outcome of the election. Especially considering just how many seats Labor needs to win back (and even then the coalition still controls the lower house).
So my question is, do these weekly polls we keep hearing about break down by electorate, for a better picture of what will happen when the election is finally held?
Or what? Australia is not laying the groundwork for an early withdrawal, honest, so what are these threats about? What weight do they hold? Or is this just more LIberal party buck passing?
Bearing in mind that the entirity of the current mess in Iraq is our fault, and that it is our moral and legal obligation to fix it.Nelson to Iraq: don't test our patience
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson is writing to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to warn him that the patience of the Australian people over the war should not be "excessively tested".
Dr Nelson has arrived in Washington after a meeting in Baghdad with top US commander General David Petraeus and US ambassador Ryan Crocker.
Dr Nelson says Australia "will continue to do what it believes is right", adding that it has a "moral responsibility not just to Iraqis", but to its American and British allies.
The Defence Minister did not get a chance to meet Mr Maliki, but says he is now preparing to set down his concerns in a letter.
The letter will warn the Iraqi leader that the "patience of open-hearted Australians should not be excessively tested".
(more in link)
John Howard has been meeting with the Exclusive Brethren again
The Exclusive Brethren are a cult, devoted to a fundamentalist lifestyle, and are actively anticipating Armageddon, to the point, it is said, of actually attempting to bring it about. They are well known to participate in cruel and unusual punishments of their own wayward members such as "seperation" and "shutting up". More here.
The Exclusive Brethren also refuse to vote or actively participate in the political process or their nation as a whole. Nevertheless, they have, in recent years, been strong political lobbyists in Australia and the US (they also get major government funding for their exclusive schools in Australia). During the last federal election, the Brethren launched a disinformation campaign in Tasmania in relation to the Greens, advertised for the Liberal party, and are currently under federal investigation for suspicious donations
to the Liberal party. What's more, the group has been accused of spying on politicians in New Zealand and possibly Australia.
So an important question must be asked. Why does a tiny and potentially dangerous cult have the power to meet with our Prime Minister without notice? Why are we allowing this? If you or I tried to meet with him, we couldn't even get an appointment.
And do we really want a government that is endorsed by a doomsday cult?
Kevin Rudd got maggot in a strip club! Finally a prime minister with a bit of life to him. We haven't had that sisnce Bob Hawke.