Ms Gillard has become Australia's first female prime minister after Kevin Rudd stood aside at the last minute before this morning's historic leadership ballot.
She was elected unopposed, making her the nation's 27th prime minister and its first female leader. She has chosen Treasurer Wayne Swan to be her Deputy Prime Minister.
It is an astonishing fall from grace for Mr Rudd, who has been through a rollercoaster of highs and lows during only one term in office.
He took a dramatic dive in the polls two months ago, dragging Labor's support down with him.
So yeah, the party had some disputes and now Gillard is the first female PM of Australia (although not elected by the people) and the red haired jokes have been exploding through the internet and such facebook groups like "I'm gonna be PM in the morning, LOL JKS I'm Kevin Rudd" etc etc.
Pretty crazy 12 hours or so, saw it as breaking news last night while watching England vs Slovenia.
On June 24 2010 13:52 Subversion wrote: How is she going to rule a country from the kitchen?
this is honestly not cool... especially because there are a lot of woman on this site. Ban?
Yeah but the truth is there are going to be sooo many of these jokes this week + big nose jokes + ranga jokes. I'm just surprised out of all the ones I've heard, I hadn't heard that one yet.
On June 24 2010 14:12 theron[wdt] wrote: She was unelected unopposed?
lol, fixed that, I copied it straight from the article. And yeah, Rudd didn't even end up running in the ballot this morning, so she had to win unopposed, it's kind of misleading.
On June 24 2010 14:12 theron[wdt] wrote: She was unelected unopposed?
lol, fixed that, I copied it straight from the article. And yeah, Rudd didn't even end up running in the ballot this morning, so she had to win unopposed, it's kind of misleading.
On June 24 2010 14:12 theron[wdt] wrote: She was unelected unopposed?
lol, fixed that, I copied it straight from the article. And yeah, Rudd didn't even end up running in the ballot this morning, so she had to win unopposed, it's kind of misleading.
why was that? and what was the ballot for?
Well it was planned that Rudd (ex-PM) and Gillard (new PM) would be in the ballot to choose who would be the new leader of the Labor party (party in power). This morning when it actually happened, Rudd chose not to be entered in the ballot, so Gillard was the only option to vote for.
She seemed so cool, collected and confident during her press conference and right throughout Question Time today. It was a really smart move to axe Rudd at this stage now that the Coalition is seriously gaining ground on Labor. They can now dump all the shit that has happened in the past and move on to comfortably secure a win in this year's election.
I really like her as a leader, and I definitely want to see Labor triumph over Liberal at the upcoming election if for nothing else but to see Abbot and his extreme-right buddies (who want to cut health, education and infrastructure spending (INCLUDING AUSTRALIA's National Broadband fibre optic network) get crushed.
In response to Masamune's question, no she won't be attending the G20, she is sending the deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan (treasurer).
People of Australia voted for Mr Rudd, not for Gillard, it's very disappointing move both from Labor and Gillard. I've lost all faith in Labor now. He resqued Australia out of recession and this is the reward he gets. It looks like the mine giants have won. To me super profits tax made much sense.
On June 24 2010 14:33 riptide wrote: We're talking about the unelected leader of a country. If you cant bring some semblance of respect into this thread then please don't post.
On June 24 2010 14:33 riptide wrote: We're talking about the unelected leader of a country. If you cant bring some semblance of respect into this thread then please don't post.
fixed
That's odd, I could have sworn that Julia Gillard is a member of Parliament.
On June 24 2010 14:33 riptide wrote: We're talking about the unelected leader of a country. If you cant bring some semblance of respect into this thread then please don't post.
fixed
That's odd, I could have sworn that Julia Gillard is a member of Parliament.
On June 24 2010 14:33 riptide wrote: We're talking about the unelected leader of a country. If you cant bring some semblance of respect into this thread then please don't post.
fixed
That's odd, I could have sworn that Julia Gillard is a member of Parliament.
On June 24 2010 14:37 dethrawr wrote: I really like her as a leader, and I definitely want to see Labor triumph over Liberal at the upcoming election if for nothing else but to see Abbot and his extreme-right buddies (who want to cut health, education and infrastructure spending (INCLUDING AUSTRALIA's National Broadband fibre optic network) get crushed.
Well, she hasn't led just yet, she was very competent in her role as deputy. We shall see if the leadership position will pile pressure on her as well. It seems like only yesterday that K-Rudd was so popular that he looked a sure thing for many years to come. I think it's a good move so that Labor can move on from all the undelivered election promises made by K-Rudd, not to mention the heavy falls in opinion polls. I doubt the Libs have a chance at next year's election. But then again, Labor has 10 months to screw themselves up.
On June 24 2010 14:33 riptide wrote: We're talking about the unelected leader of a country. If you cant bring some semblance of respect into this thread then please don't post.
fixed
That's odd, I could have sworn that Julia Gillard is a member of Parliament.
So if we were discussing whether she was elected as a MP then the answer would be yes. If we were discussing whether she was elected as a PM then the answer is no. Of course you could argue that no PM is elected but when you vote for a party in a general election that can be read as an endorsement of the leader as PM.
This was a palace coup, not an election. She is not an elected PM but rather an elected MP.
On June 24 2010 14:12 stroggos wrote: we had female prime ministers for 12 years before john key O.o
yea, but jenny wasn't elected PM either kinda ironic that that's how australia and nz got their first women PMs
Honestly thats the only way i think a woman would be able to get that position in Australia, chauvanism can run pretty deep. Also think this result exemplifies how often in democracy, big business rather than the people form the gov.
my degree is based around climate and environment and abbot notoriously doesn't give a fuck about the climate and environment but i'd rather see him PM than gillard, i think she is out of her depth and i cant imagine how she will run the country (not because shes female) i think labor was stupid to do this now, its gonna massively fuck up their support by the way VOTE GREEN
Is she married? Because sometimes, the pm's or president's husband runs a big part on her decision making skills.. if she's not married very good
Our country sucked ass due to the first gentleman, he has literally corrupted millions (or billions) of pesos in their reign of terror. Well, at least Australia won't been as corrupt as ours yours truly.
On June 24 2010 14:37 dethrawr wrote: I really like her as a leader, and I definitely want to see Labor triumph over Liberal at the upcoming election if for nothing else but to see Abbot and his extreme-right buddies (who want to cut health, education and infrastructure spending (INCLUDING AUSTRALIA's National Broadband fibre optic network) get crushed.
Well, she hasn't led just yet, she was very competent in her role as deputy. We shall see if the leadership position will pile pressure on her as well. It seems like only yesterday that K-Rudd was so popular that he looked a sure thing for many years to come. I think it's a good move so that Labor can move on from all the undelivered election promises made by K-Rudd, not to mention the heavy falls in opinion polls. I doubt the Libs have a chance at next year's election. But then again, Labor has 10 months to screw themselves up.
Election is this year. At the latest probably in October.
And yeah, Libs (hopefully) have no chance
Rudd flip-flopped on so many issues, and is sliding so much in free-fall, what do you people want..Rudd to contest a dangerous election and risk Abbott gaining power, or Gillard winning with a landslide?
On June 24 2010 15:10 eSen1a wrote: my degree is based around climate and environment and abbot notoriously doesn't give a fuck about the climate and environment but i'd rather see him PM than gillard, i think she is out of her depth and i cant imagine how she will run the country (not because shes female) i think labor was stupid to do this now, its gonna massively fuck up their support by the way VOTE GREEN
How the hell is she "out of her depth"? She has been Deputy Prime Minister for two and half years. That experience would easily make her the most qualified replacement for Kevin Rudd.
im glad kevin rudd is gone. we had a 20 billion surplus when liberal were in power. now its gone and we are at negative 300 billion. (a good chuck of this done prior to the economy went bonkers). gillard has been trying to sell of as much crap as possible ever she was the 2IC.
CYA ruddy boi.... bring back john Howard and peter Costello.. then well start making money again.
oh yeah one last thing ... KEVIN RUDD DIDNT SAVE AUSTRALIA FROM RECESSION .. it was the 10 years of saving that howard and costello did... enough of my rant
edit.. im obviously aware that peter costello and john howard are retired.. and wont be coming back.
On June 24 2010 15:10 eSen1a wrote: my degree is based around climate and environment and abbot notoriously doesn't give a fuck about the climate and environment but i'd rather see him PM than gillard, i think she is out of her depth and i cant imagine how she will run the country (not because shes female) i think labor was stupid to do this now, its gonna massively fuck up their support by the way VOTE GREEN
A vote for the greens is basically eventually a vote for labor. Your arguments are invalid and your post is absolutely terrible.
On June 24 2010 15:30 ayababa wrote: im glad kevin rudd is gone. we had a 20 billion surplus when liberal were in power. now its gone and we are at negative 300 billion. (a good chuck of this done prior to the economy went bonkers). gillard has been trying to sell of as much crap as possible ever she was the 2IC.
CYA ruddy boi.... bring back john Howard and peter Costello.. then well start making money again.
oh yeah one last thing ... KEVIN RUDD DIDNT SAVE AUSTRALIA FROM RECESSION .. it was the 10 years of saving that howard and costello did... enough of my rant
edit.. im obviously aware that peter costello and john howard are retired.. and wont be coming back.
Do you have any idea how the economy works? Generally speaking, being at a surplus is BAD. Being at a deficit is GOOD. Saving too much money = Recession. Spending money (in the right ways) = Fixing the recession.
On June 24 2010 15:30 ayababa wrote: im glad kevin rudd is gone. we had a 20 billion surplus when liberal were in power. now its gone and we are at negative 300 billion. (a good chuck of this done prior to the economy went bonkers). gillard has been trying to sell of as much crap as possible ever she was the 2IC.
CYA ruddy boi.... bring back john Howard and peter Costello.. then well start making money again.
oh yeah one last thing ... KEVIN RUDD DIDNT SAVE AUSTRALIA FROM RECESSION .. it was the 10 years of saving that howard and costello did... enough of my rant
People like to quote numbers out of context.. but the truth is if Liberal was in power we would have never escaped from the recession with only a slight damage we have today. I don't know where you get the figure but the gross debt is $127.982 billion not 300 billion as of March 2010. The figure you're quoting is the 2014 estimated figure. It's also significantly less than compared to what other Major economy had to spend in attempt to escape the recession.
On June 24 2010 15:30 ayababa wrote: im glad kevin rudd is gone. we had a 20 billion surplus when liberal were in power. now its gone and we are at negative 300 billion. (a good chuck of this done prior to the economy went bonkers). gillard has been trying to sell of as much crap as possible ever she was the 2IC.
CYA ruddy boi.... bring back john Howard and peter Costello.. then well start making money again.
oh yeah one last thing ... KEVIN RUDD DIDNT SAVE AUSTRALIA FROM RECESSION .. it was the 10 years of saving that howard and costello did... enough of my rant
edit.. im obviously aware that peter costello and john howard are retired.. and wont be coming back.
Howard and Costello enjoyed the mining boom in WA just as much as Rudd has. I don't see how they could have possiblly done any better =="
On June 24 2010 15:30 ayababa wrote: im glad kevin rudd is gone. we had a 20 billion surplus when liberal were in power. now its gone and we are at negative 300 billion. (a good chuck of this done prior to the economy went bonkers). gillard has been trying to sell of as much crap as possible ever she was the 2IC.
CYA ruddy boi.... bring back john Howard and peter Costello.. then well start making money again.
oh yeah one last thing ... KEVIN RUDD DIDNT SAVE AUSTRALIA FROM RECESSION .. it was the 10 years of saving that howard and costello did... enough of my rant
edit.. im obviously aware that peter costello and john howard are retired.. and wont be coming back.
You have no clue about the Australian economic climate. You run a deficit budget during downturns in the economy, and a surplus in upswings. Costello's management of the australian economy was acceptable, but Rudd/Swan's has been perfectly fine.
Anyway, this leaves Australia with two unstable parties as the real options for election, and this troubles me deeply. That being said, my vote will probably still go to Labor, as a conservative Christian who cannot separate church and state would make a terrible PM.
edit: The 08-09 budget was projected as a surplus, but only became a deficit after adjustments made due to the GFC. It's absurd to blame the Australian government for the GFC, and a large stimulus package was necessary to avoid recession.
On June 24 2010 15:30 ayababa wrote: im glad kevin rudd is gone. we had a 20 billion surplus when liberal were in power. now its gone and we are at negative 300 billion. (a good chuck of this done prior to the economy went bonkers). gillard has been trying to sell of as much crap as possible ever she was the 2IC.
CYA ruddy boi.... bring back john Howard and peter Costello.. then well start making money again.
oh yeah one last thing ... KEVIN RUDD DIDNT SAVE AUSTRALIA FROM RECESSION .. it was the 10 years of saving that howard and costello did... enough of my rant
edit.. im obviously aware that peter costello and john howard are retired.. and wont be coming back.
Do you have any idea how the economy works? Generally speaking, being at a surplus is BAD. Being at a deficit is GOOD. Saving too much money = Recession. Spending money (in the right ways) = Fixing the recession.
You need to take economics 101 or something, because you are clearly demonstrating a lack of economic knowledge here. Oversimplification + bullshit = your post.
Yes, his right-wing liberal wang-stroking post wasn't accurate either, but yours was even worse.
On June 24 2010 14:42 prOxi.swAMi wrote: Hopefully she sacks Stephen Conroy ASAP.
This is what I'm REALLY looking for in this whole fiasco. I'm planning to vote Liberal in the upcoming election purely because of Stephen Fucking Conroy. Sack that piece of shit and I'll rethink Labor!
Well, with a cabinet shuffle up, I think Gillard may revert back to convention and elect members of different Labor Factions to have factional representation in her cabinet. Hopefully this will see a large boot given to Conroy's ass.
On June 24 2010 15:16 Licmyobelisk wrote: Is she married? Because sometimes, the pm's or president's husband runs a big part on her decision making skills.. if she's not married very good
On June 24 2010 14:42 prOxi.swAMi wrote: Hopefully she sacks Stephen Conroy ASAP.
This is what I'm REALLY looking for in this whole fiasco. I'm planning to vote Liberal in the upcoming election purely because of Stephen Fucking Conroy. Sack that piece of shit and I'll rethink Labor!
I think a lot of people are hoping this, I certainly am. You might be interested in this link also
Kind of sucks that Rudd will go down as the first PM who was dumped before he finished his term. I don't think he deserved this. It was quite brutal. I like Gillard, I think she will do well, but I like her a little less now from this back stab.
On June 24 2010 15:30 ayababa wrote: im glad kevin rudd is gone. we had a 20 billion surplus when liberal were in power. now its gone and we are at negative 300 billion. (a good chuck of this done prior to the economy went bonkers). gillard has been trying to sell of as much crap as possible ever she was the 2IC.
CYA ruddy boi.... bring back john Howard and peter Costello.. then well start making money again.
oh yeah one last thing ... KEVIN RUDD DIDNT SAVE AUSTRALIA FROM RECESSION .. it was the 10 years of saving that howard and costello did... enough of my rant
edit.. im obviously aware that peter costello and john howard are retired.. and wont be coming back.
Do you have any idea how the economy works? Generally speaking, being at a surplus is BAD. Being at a deficit is GOOD. Saving too much money = Recession. Spending money (in the right ways) = Fixing the recession.
Being at a deficit means not only do you have money to repay but part of your tax revenue is going towards paying interest on that deficit. There are situations where it is necessary to spend more than your budget in a given year but I wouldn't describe it as good.
On June 24 2010 14:42 prOxi.swAMi wrote: Hopefully she sacks Stephen Conroy ASAP.
This is what I'm REALLY looking for in this whole fiasco. I'm planning to vote Liberal in the upcoming election purely because of Stephen Fucking Conroy. Sack that piece of shit and I'll rethink Labor!
I think a lot of people are hoping this, I certainly am. You might be interested in this link also
Yeah I'm really, really hoping Kate Lundy replaces Stephen Conroy, she's pretty on top of what the industry wants/needs and importantly wants opt-in for all the filtering, monitoring and censorship stuff Conroy has been trying to introduce.
On June 24 2010 16:13 Hyde wrote: Kind of sucks that Rudd will go down as the first PM who was dumped before he finished his term. I don't think he deserved this. It was quite brutal. I like Gillard, I think she will do well, but I like her a little less now from this back stab.
To save seats Labor had to do it. It's a pity Rudd was used essentially as a scapegoat. Labor tried to put the ETS through government 3 times and it was blocked everytime. They really should have gone to an early election over that and avoided all of this mess. I loved the direction malcolm turnbull was taking the liberal party. With him in the backbench I'm a bit apprehensive about an Abbot led government, just because of their climate change policies (which are still fairly sound if you ignore the fact they don't have an ETS or cabon tax proposal). Still the way things are unfolding lately the coalition could break up soon and who knows what would happen.
Anyway, Julia Gillard is more than capable of being PM. You just don't get that high in a political party in Australia without knowing what you're doing. Deputy PM for two years makes her more than qualified.
To people bitching about "not voting for her" get real. If all you base your voting decisions on is the man at the top then you're not voting in your best interest. Vote based on who your local candidates are and their individual policies. I don't mean to not take into account overall party policies. It's just they will essentially be the same regardless of who is running the party.
On June 24 2010 14:42 prOxi.swAMi wrote: Hopefully she sacks Stephen Conroy ASAP.
This is what I'm REALLY looking for in this whole fiasco. I'm planning to vote Liberal in the upcoming election purely because of Stephen Fucking Conroy. Sack that piece of shit and I'll rethink Labor!
Ummm, hate conroy obviously, but don't think Abbott wouldn't be up for the same thing, and on top of that, he wants to scrap the NBN. So at the moment if you're voting on internet based criteria, Labor is the better choice.
Glad they elected Gillard, I thought they should have let her run for the last election tbh, but maybe she wasn't ready and this is the best transition after all. Imo, Turnbull good/Abbott bad and Gillard good/Rudd ok.
Rudd got thrown out because he had very few friends inside Labor. They only tolerated him because of his good polling numbers. When his ratings dropped, there was no reason to keep him. Sure Labor had a 52% two-party-preferred, but that's appalling when you consider that Abbott/Bishop are who you're up against. The opposition ticket is so awful that they deserve to get thrashed in the polls and at the ballot box.
I'm just glad we've got someone from the Labor Left faction in charge now. Hopefully that means a change in social policy (I'm looking at you, internet filter).
Julia is most definitely married. It's just that the guys a hairdresser who isn't a public figure like Therese Rein was so nobody really knows about him.
Julia Gillard on Question Time today had serious balls of steel. Paul Keating levels of destruction on Julie Bishop...just amazing. Honestly, she's a hell more manly and interesting than Abbott or Rudd right now...Rudd has never really been definite in anything and Abbott is basically running with "lol Rudd sux" for a long time.
She seems a million times more ideologically stable than Rudd ever was, which is a huge plus for people in general and the labour party since she'll won't be thrown under the bus by her own party before finishing a single term. Whether she'll be good, who knows but she'll probably achieve more than Rudd will ever achieve.
On June 24 2010 15:16 Licmyobelisk wrote: Is she married? Because sometimes, the pm's or president's husband runs a big part on her decision making skills.. if she's not married very good
She's not married.
She's married. Just no kids. Not that it honestly means anything.
This whole thing was a big sudden surprise for me this morning. That said I quite like Gillard, she's incredibly now-nonsense and she's had more than enough experience running the place when Rudd went around diplomat-ing.
As much as I hate the Labor stance on the net, I'm probably still going to vote for her, largely because she isn't Tony Abbot. I know I shouldn't vote based on the person, and if Turnbull was still the head Lib honcho, i'd consider him, but seriously; Tony Abbot. Seriously.
On June 24 2010 16:30 Ludrik wrote: To people bitching about "not voting for her" get real. If all you base your voting decisions on is the man at the top then you're not voting in your best interest. Vote based on who your local candidates are and their individual policies. I don't mean to not take into account overall party policies. It's just they will essentially be the same regardless of who is running the party.
This. It's essentially going to be business as usual with a Labor government, whether it's Rudd or Gillard at the helm. It never ceases to amaze me how many people of voting age in this country envisage the Prime Minister as something far more important than they actually are. They're a mouthpiece, a figurehead, and are supposed to represent the unified consensus of the party/caucus; policy-making is the last thing they're responsible for.
Having said that, I'm hoping that Gillard can disquiet any concerns people have over the recent direction of the Labor party, and swing public favour back squarely where it belongs. I'll be voting Green (a friend of mine is running), but be quite glad to see the preferences go to Labor.
On June 24 2010 16:30 Ludrik wrote: To save seats Labor had to do it. It's a pity Rudd was used essentially as a scapegoat. Labor tried to put the ETS through government 3 times and it was blocked everytime. They really should have gone to an early election over that and avoided all of this mess. I loved the direction malcolm turnbull was taking the liberal party. With him in the backbench I'm a bit apprehensive about an Abbot led government, just because of their climate change policies (which are still fairly sound if you ignore the fact they don't have an ETS or cabon tax proposal). Still the way things are unfolding lately the coalition could break up soon and who knows what would happen.
Anyway, Julia Gillard is more than capable of being PM. You just don't get that high in a political party in Australia without knowing what you're doing. Deputy PM for two years makes her more than qualified.
To people bitching about "not voting for her" get real. If all you base your voting decisions on is the man at the top then you're not voting in your best interest. Vote based on who your local candidates are and their individual policies. I don't mean to not take into account overall party policies. It's just they will essentially be the same regardless of who is running the party.
Whats wrong with that? People vote based on promises most of which come from the leader of the party, i would put down the win of kevin rudd in 07 due to him saying that he'd scrap work choices. Some one is more likely going to vote for a party due to those major promises that can seriously detract from or lift up someones way of life rather than local policies like "oh we'll make the parks bigger and add more car parks" which is all that can really be promised at local governement level.
On June 24 2010 16:30 Ludrik wrote: To people bitching about "not voting for her" get real. If all you base your voting decisions on is the man at the top then you're not voting in your best interest. Vote based on who your local candidates are and their individual policies. I don't mean to not take into account overall party policies. It's just they will essentially be the same regardless of who is running the party.
This. It's essentially going to be business as usual with a Labor government, whether it's Rudd or Gillard at the helm. It never ceases to amaze me how many people of voting age in this country envisage the Prime Minister as something far more important than they actually are. They're a mouthpiece, a figurehead, and are supposed to represent the unified consensus of the party/caucus; policy-making is the last thing they're responsible for.
Having said that, I'm hoping that Gillard can disquiet any concerns people have over the recent direction of the Labor party, and swing public favour back squarely where it belongs. I'll be voting Green (a friend of mine is running), but be quite glad to see the preferences go to Labor.
Uh no clearly its not, you want to know why she's PM right now? Labour was doubted by most of those in labour power to rewin an election based on the way they are traveling at the moment, especially under kevin rudd. They took him out because he wasnt doing the job they needed, they put julia in because she can now scrap shit like the mining tax and other decisions that make labour unpopular. Have you done any study on the law making process? The only bills that are going to get pass house of reps and become law are goverment bills because of MPs voting on party lines, government bills are drafted by cabinet and follow along polices that the cabinet have made, and *gasp* who's the leader of the cabinet? Thats right, the PM. They are fucking important to the law making process. Their main responsobility is policy making and thier main role is policy making and drafting bills. If not that what are they responsible for?
On June 24 2010 16:30 Ludrik wrote: To save seats Labor had to do it. It's a pity Rudd was used essentially as a scapegoat. Labor tried to put the ETS through government 3 times and it was blocked everytime. They really should have gone to an early election over that and avoided all of this mess. I loved the direction malcolm turnbull was taking the liberal party. With him in the backbench I'm a bit apprehensive about an Abbot led government, just because of their climate change policies (which are still fairly sound if you ignore the fact they don't have an ETS or cabon tax proposal). Still the way things are unfolding lately the coalition could break up soon and who knows what would happen.
Anyway, Julia Gillard is more than capable of being PM. You just don't get that high in a political party in Australia without knowing what you're doing. Deputy PM for two years makes her more than qualified.
To people bitching about "not voting for her" get real. If all you base your voting decisions on is the man at the top then you're not voting in your best interest. Vote based on who your local candidates are and their individual policies. I don't mean to not take into account overall party policies. It's just they will essentially be the same regardless of who is running the party.
Whats wrong with that? People vote based on promises most of which come from the leader of the party, i would put down the win of kevin rudd in 07 due to him saying that he'd scrap work choices. Some one is more likely going to vote for a party due to those major promises that can seriously detract from or lift up someones way of life rather than local policies like "oh we'll make the parks bigger and add more car parks" which is all that can really be promised at local governement level.
On June 24 2010 16:30 Ludrik wrote: To people bitching about "not voting for her" get real. If all you base your voting decisions on is the man at the top then you're not voting in your best interest. Vote based on who your local candidates are and their individual policies. I don't mean to not take into account overall party policies. It's just they will essentially be the same regardless of who is running the party.
This. It's essentially going to be business as usual with a Labor government, whether it's Rudd or Gillard at the helm. It never ceases to amaze me how many people of voting age in this country envisage the Prime Minister as something far more important than they actually are. They're a mouthpiece, a figurehead, and are supposed to represent the unified consensus of the party/caucus; policy-making is the last thing they're responsible for.
Having said that, I'm hoping that Gillard can disquiet any concerns people have over the recent direction of the Labor party, and swing public favour back squarely where it belongs. I'll be voting Green (a friend of mine is running), but be quite glad to see the preferences go to Labor.
Uh no clearly its not, you want to know why she's PM right now? Labour was doubted by most of those in labour power to rewin an election based on the way they are traveling at the moment, especially under kevin rudd. They took him out because he wasnt doing the job they needed, they put julia in because she can now scrap shit like the mining tax and other decisions that make labour unpopular. Have you done any study on the law making process? The only bills that are going to get pass house of reps and become law are goverment bills because of MPs voting on party lines, government bills are drafted by cabinet and follow along polices that the cabinet have made, and *gasp* who's the leader of the cabinet? Thats right, the PM. They are fucking important to the law making process. Their main responsobility is policy making and thier main role is policy making and drafting bills. If not that what are they responsible for?
Seriously do people know how government works?
PM doesn't typically make government bills, the PM is a front for the government and it's departments. Their main role is policy advocacy.. you do realise that the concept of a prime minister is based on convention? We don't even have the MENTION of a PM in our constitution.
And as for drafting bills, again the PM isn't really involved..they have parliamentary lawyers that do that.
I work for the biggest media intelligence company in Australia, Media Monitors... My Friday is going to be hell tomorrow So is Monday.
I do like the change though, hopefully she'll dump Conroy and we'll get rid of the idiotic net-filtering idea.
Edit: Scara mate do you really think they will fully scrap the RSPT? A lot of content that went across my desk today was that they might cut it up a little, but they won't totally destroy it. I dunno.
If your constitution is at all like ours then the PM has immense power. As leader of the party she can force her MPs, which are in the majority, to follow party lines and pass her policy. She can appoint her cabinet and she can decide policy. A British PM is a dictator restrained only by tradition and the desire to look good.
On June 24 2010 16:30 Ludrik wrote: To save seats Labor had to do it. It's a pity Rudd was used essentially as a scapegoat. Labor tried to put the ETS through government 3 times and it was blocked everytime. They really should have gone to an early election over that and avoided all of this mess. I loved the direction malcolm turnbull was taking the liberal party. With him in the backbench I'm a bit apprehensive about an Abbot led government, just because of their climate change policies (which are still fairly sound if you ignore the fact they don't have an ETS or cabon tax proposal). Still the way things are unfolding lately the coalition could break up soon and who knows what would happen.
Anyway, Julia Gillard is more than capable of being PM. You just don't get that high in a political party in Australia without knowing what you're doing. Deputy PM for two years makes her more than qualified.
To people bitching about "not voting for her" get real. If all you base your voting decisions on is the man at the top then you're not voting in your best interest. Vote based on who your local candidates are and their individual policies. I don't mean to not take into account overall party policies. It's just they will essentially be the same regardless of who is running the party.
Whats wrong with that? People vote based on promises most of which come from the leader of the party, i would put down the win of kevin rudd in 07 due to him saying that he'd scrap work choices. Some one is more likely going to vote for a party due to those major promises that can seriously detract from or lift up someones way of life rather than local policies like "oh we'll make the parks bigger and add more car parks" which is all that can really be promised at local governement level.
On June 24 2010 17:41 Bael wrote:
On June 24 2010 16:30 Ludrik wrote: To people bitching about "not voting for her" get real. If all you base your voting decisions on is the man at the top then you're not voting in your best interest. Vote based on who your local candidates are and their individual policies. I don't mean to not take into account overall party policies. It's just they will essentially be the same regardless of who is running the party.
This. It's essentially going to be business as usual with a Labor government, whether it's Rudd or Gillard at the helm. It never ceases to amaze me how many people of voting age in this country envisage the Prime Minister as something far more important than they actually are. They're a mouthpiece, a figurehead, and are supposed to represent the unified consensus of the party/caucus; policy-making is the last thing they're responsible for.
Having said that, I'm hoping that Gillard can disquiet any concerns people have over the recent direction of the Labor party, and swing public favour back squarely where it belongs. I'll be voting Green (a friend of mine is running), but be quite glad to see the preferences go to Labor.
Uh no clearly its not, you want to know why she's PM right now? Labour was doubted by most of those in labour power to rewin an election based on the way they are traveling at the moment, especially under kevin rudd. They took him out because he wasnt doing the job they needed, they put julia in because she can now scrap shit like the mining tax and other decisions that make labour unpopular. Have you done any study on the law making process? The only bills that are going to get pass house of reps and become law are goverment bills because of MPs voting on party lines, government bills are drafted by cabinet and follow along polices that the cabinet have made, and *gasp* who's the leader of the cabinet? Thats right, the PM. They are fucking important to the law making process. Their main responsobility is policy making and thier main role is policy making and drafting bills. If not that what are they responsible for?
Seriously do people know how government works?
PM doesn't typically make government bills, the PM is a front for the government and it's departments. Their main role is policy advocacy.. you do realise that the concept of a prime minister is based on convention? We don't even have the MENTION of a PM in our constitution.
And as for drafting bills, again the PM isn't really involved..they have parliamentary lawyers that do that.
The pm is key when making polices which laws are then drafted on, i understand its the lawyers that draft the bills but the ideas from which they are formed are made by cabinet which is lead by the pm, in the end he has the final say on policy
On June 24 2010 19:00 KwarK wrote: If your constitution is at all like ours then the PM has immense power. As leader of the party she can force her MPs, which are in the majority, to follow party lines and pass her policy. She can appoint her cabinet and she can decide policy. A British PM is a dictator restrained only by tradition and the desire to look good.
THIS. This is why people are saying its annoying that she didn't get voted in
Voting greens, then as many parties as possible before liberal then labour last. If Rudd stayed in I would have voted for labour, I didn't vote for Gillard, and labour would still have had a pretty good chance to make the next election and then get the mining tax through and the new hospital system and the ETS through (if they gain more control of the senate). Also I would much rather Rudd handle international relations than Gillard.
The "cash splash", the new hospital system, the ETS were all decisions made (and created) by Rudd which would not have happened under Beazly.
Yeah I hate Abbot more than anything but I'm pissed off at labour. Only problem is if labour loses they will blame it on Rudd rather than figure out how many people are going to be pissed at this change.
On June 24 2010 15:34 dethrawr wrote: A vote for the greens is basically eventually a vote for labor.
Not sure exactly what you mean by that.
It's only if I vote above the line on the Senate ballot paper that my Green vote could possibly trickle down to Labor in the end, and last I heard the Greens still hadn't decided Senate preferences for the coming election anyway.
In every other way, people can decide where their Green votes goes in the end. If I vote 1. Green 2. Liberal 3. Labor and the Green candidate doesn't win, then the Liberal candidate will get my vote. Simple as that. I choose where my vote goes.
Attention everyone in Australia: Please don't vote Liberal, PLEASE. They want to scrap the NBN (National Broadband Network) project. I wants better internets, it's the way of the future.
Julia is most definitely married. It's just that the guys a hairdresser who isn't a public figure like Therese Rein was so nobody really knows about him.
On June 24 2010 16:52 Subwoofermate wrote: Julia Gillard on Question Time today had serious balls of steel. Paul Keating levels of destruction on Julie Bishop...just amazing. Honestly, she's a hell more manly and interesting than Abbott or Rudd right now...Rudd has never really been definite in anything and Abbott is basically running with "lol Rudd sux" for a long time.
She seems a million times more ideologically stable than Rudd ever was, which is a huge plus for people in general and the labour party since she'll won't be thrown under the bus by her own party before finishing a single term. Whether she'll be good, who knows but she'll probably achieve more than Rudd will ever achieve.
On June 24 2010 15:16 Licmyobelisk wrote: Is she married? Because sometimes, the pm's or president's husband runs a big part on her decision making skills.. if she's not married very good
She's not married.
She's married. Just no kids. Not that it honestly means anything.
She is not married, you can google it or check out her personal life in wiki. They've also been saying it on the news.
On June 24 2010 14:42 prOxi.swAMi wrote: Hopefully she sacks Stephen Conroy ASAP.
This is what I'm REALLY looking for in this whole fiasco. I'm planning to vote Liberal in the upcoming election purely because of Stephen Fucking Conroy. Sack that piece of shit and I'll rethink Labor!
I think a lot of people are hoping this, I certainly am. You might be interested in this link also
Yeah I'm really, really hoping Kate Lundy replaces Stephen Conroy, she's pretty on top of what the industry wants/needs and importantly wants opt-in for all the filtering, monitoring and censorship stuff Conroy has been trying to introduce.
On June 24 2010 16:13 Hyde wrote: Kind of sucks that Rudd will go down as the first PM who was dumped before he finished his term. I don't think he deserved this. It was quite brutal. I like Gillard, I think she will do well, but I like her a little less now from this back stab.
Gough Whitlam?
Good point, maybe the first PM to be dumped before his first term ended by his own team then?
Uh no clearly its not, you want to know why she's PM right now? Labour was doubted by most of those in labour power to rewin an election based on the way they are traveling at the moment, especially under kevin rudd. They took him out because he wasnt doing the job they needed, they put julia in because she can now scrap shit like the mining tax and other decisions that make labour unpopular. Have you done any study on the law making process? The only bills that are going to get pass house of reps and become law are goverment bills because of MPs voting on party lines, government bills are drafted by cabinet and follow along polices that the cabinet have made, and *gasp* who's the leader of the cabinet? Thats right, the PM. They are fucking important to the law making process. Their main responsobility is policy making and thier main role is policy making and drafting bills. If not that what are they responsible for?
Seriously do people know how government works?
I never questioned that the reason they dropped Kevin Rudd was to assuage public opinion about the Labor party. What I'm trying to point out is that public opinion is flawed, in the sense that you can't really blame the Prime Minister for the performance of the Government. In terms of actual law-making the Prime Minister barely does anything; sure, they're appointed head of the cabinet, but inter-party politics and factions basically determine party policy long before cabinet is even convened. In the case of the ALP, a National Conference is held every 3 years to determine party policy from the states-on-up. You can't argue with the party, and remain a member for very long.
Within the cabinet room the Prime Minister has very little say in what is decided. You mentioned the mining tax; it's not as though one day Rudd walked into the cabinet room and announced 'tomorrow, we're going to have a big mining tax!' These kinds of policy decisions stem from a whole host of different places, but I can't think of a single instance where they'd come from the mouth of the PM themselves. 'Head' of the cabinet is a bit of a misnomer, because if the PM decided to set off on a policy agenda that wasn't in line with that of the party, he wouldn't be PM for long. Indeed, if the PM ever began to underperform, or not do the job that the party sets him, at the risk of the party losing office, they'd be replaced in an instant by someone who can. Just ask Kevin Rudd.
It's not the role of the Prime Minister to be a visionary, to generate policy, and have a solid plan for the future of the nation. Like I said earlier, their responsibilities boil down to being a mouthpiece, a way for your average Aussie to identify and personalize what the government is doing; a figurehead more than a position of power. The office of the PM isn't mentioned in the Constitution, and most of their 'power' comes from being able to request the Governor-General to do things; which, unless the party tells them to, they won't do.
Because if they do something the party doesn't like, they won't be PM for long. Do you see the pattern here?
Uh no clearly its not, you want to know why she's PM right now? Labour was doubted by most of those in labour power to rewin an election based on the way they are traveling at the moment, especially under kevin rudd. They took him out because he wasnt doing the job they needed, they put julia in because she can now scrap shit like the mining tax and other decisions that make labour unpopular. Have you done any study on the law making process? The only bills that are going to get pass house of reps and become law are goverment bills because of MPs voting on party lines, government bills are drafted by cabinet and follow along polices that the cabinet have made, and *gasp* who's the leader of the cabinet? Thats right, the PM. They are fucking important to the law making process. Their main responsobility is policy making and thier main role is policy making and drafting bills. If not that what are they responsible for?
Seriously do people know how government works?
I never questioned that the reason they dropped Kevin Rudd was to assuage public opinion about the Labor party. What I'm trying to point out is that public opinion is flawed, in the sense that you can't really blame the Prime Minister for the performance of the Government. In terms of actual law-making the Prime Minister barely does anything; sure, they're appointed head of the cabinet, but inter-party politics and factions basically determine party policy long before cabinet is even convened. In the case of the ALP, a National Conference is held every 3 years to determine party policy from the states-on-up. You can't argue with the party, and remain a member for very long.
Within the cabinet room the Prime Minister has very little say in what is decided. You mentioned the mining tax; it's not as though one day Rudd walked into the cabinet room and announced 'tomorrow, we're going to have a big mining tax!' These kinds of policy decisions stem from a whole host of different places, but I can't think of a single instance where they'd come from the mouth of the PM themselves. 'Head' of the cabinet is a bit of a misnomer, because if the PM decided to set off on a policy agenda that wasn't in line with that of the party, he wouldn't be PM for long. Indeed, if the PM ever began to underperform, or not do the job that the party sets him, at the risk of the party losing office, they'd be replaced in an instant by someone who can. Just ask Kevin Rudd.
It's not the role of the Prime Minister to be a visionary, to generate policy, and have a solid plan for the future of the nation. Like I said earlier, their responsibilities boil down to being a mouthpiece, a way for your average Aussie to identify and personalize what the government is doing; a figurehead more than a position of power. The office of the PM isn't mentioned in the Constitution, and most of their 'power' comes from being able to request the Governor-General to do things; which, unless the party tells them to, they won't do.
Because if they do something the party doesn't like, they won't be PM for long. Do you see the pattern here?
-_- The pm isnt just a figgure head, policy isnt decided way before cabinet is formed. You do know the pm picks their own cabinet, and they do give the final say before a bill is intoduced into parliment? or have you not studied this? Im not saying that it was rudd that walked in and was like "ive got this awesome idea for a mining tax" and thats how all bills are drafted, but i am saying that the pm has a major influence on what bills end up in parliment and isnt just a "mouthpiece" as you say
On June 24 2010 20:16 Dozle wrote: Why are people so sensitive to the sexist jokes. They are jokes and this is the internet after all.
You know, TeamLiquid has standards. I don't want to read a thread full of rehashed lame sexist jokes. If you're going to make a joke, at least be creative about it.
The new mining tax was becoming a huge problem for Labor. Qld and WA have quite a few marginal seats and rely heavily on mining to boost their economies. Labor stood to lose many seats, and possibly the next election, as dissent against the tax grew in the electorate.
Rudd could not back down as it would have been another sign of massive weakness like the ETS back down. Labor knew the only way to save face and change the mining tax would be to oust Rudd. His position became untenable regardless of what he did with the mining tax. With Gillard as leader, they can now make a fresh start and have another go at getting the tax right without losing as much credibility with the electorate had Rudd been in charge.
Not much will actually change within the Government, I suspect. This was more of a brand refresh for Labor in the lead-up to an election they looked like losing under Rudd.
On June 24 2010 20:16 Dozle wrote: Why are people so sensitive to the sexist jokes. They are jokes and this is the internet after all.
My suggestion is to keep these jokes between you and your friends who will know that you are just joking...
BTW I didn't know she was an immigrant. Though wiki says she came over from Wales at like 5 years old so she is Aussie. Kind of ironic that she had to come to a warmer climate because of her illness but is a redhead so probably should have stayed in a less sunny climate
On June 24 2010 20:10 youngminii wrote: Attention everyone in Australia: Please don't vote Liberal, PLEASE. They want to scrap the NBN (National Broadband Network) project. I wants better internets, it's the way of the future.
I don't get this, NBN is gonna be outmatched by our ISPs anyway... I don't know why we need to have a substandard money sink.
On June 24 2010 20:10 youngminii wrote: Attention everyone in Australia: Please don't vote Liberal, PLEASE. They want to scrap the NBN (National Broadband Network) project. I wants better internets, it's the way of the future.
I don't get this, NBN is gonna be outmatched by our ISPs anyway... I don't know why we need to have a substandard money sink.
Because it sounds really good, "hey guys theres gonna be these cables that connect EVERYONE, it'll be AWESOME"
On June 24 2010 13:47 Megaman703 wrote: Canada's first Female PM got into power the same way (current PM stood down)
Same thing in Croatia.
I don't mean to sound offensive, but I have a feeling a big reason these women got selected vice-primeministers was to bring popularity thru sense of justice and gender equality to the candidate(i.e. women's votes). And then they end up prime ministers.
On June 24 2010 21:19 Ramsing wrote: Won't last. Seems like Kim Campbell 2.0, but because I'm nice I'll say this one will last for 6 months (2 more then Campbell!).
Campbell was thrown in as a scape-goat. Mulroney put in the tax, and she had to support it due to party loyalty, which basically meant that she had no way to get re-elected.....
Chretien, of course, promised to get rid of that tax. Instead, he used the money to get rid of the deficit (which was one of the purposes of the tax). He'll be remembered for Mulroney's work.....
On June 24 2010 22:39 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: different leader , same lame-o policies people turned off Krudd because of policies like internet filtering mining tax illegal immigrants
Gillards stance on these is the same as Rudds , her popularity will decline pretty quickly.
she hasnt said anything about the filter, she is willing to negotiate on mining taxes, and she is going to consult about asylum seekers..
I think she could as easily win it as lose it. Time will tell and I'm certain that Australia will still be worse off with these politician swine + Show Spoiler +
Julia Gilliard will win this election, Kevin Rudd probably would have won it too. Whilst he was getting dragged in the polls, he was still way ahead of the Tony Abbott. Howard suffered similar drops in popularity before his second term, and he governed for over 10 years. It's pretty much unheard of society not to give government a second term.
Gilliard has been in office for one day, and already making some good moves. The Resource Tax, in principal is good economic reform, its just that the way it was implemented without consultation with the industry, and even rudd's cabinet pissed alot of people off of the wrong people off (ie the factional leaders of labor). he needed to be flexible in terms the retrospective aspect of the tax, and the tax rate. Resources are innately different to other industries due to their finite nature, therefore they to overcome these market failures, this had to be implementated. A flat resource rent tax is simply not appropiate for this industry. Rudd was forced to tax so highly and not negotiate to fund his return to budget surplus in 3 years, which was never really possible. You cant really save that money, when you have spent in many times over (ie infrastructure in WA/QLD, NBN network, and even back to the miners themselves in times of hardship).
On the other hand, shelving the ETS tax was good reform , because an ETS is extremely bad economic reform, it has innate first mover disadvantage. It's only effective if taken up on a global scale, if Australia implements an ETS without the rest of the world coming along, only our manfacturers will get hurt. A carbton tax that taxes consumption (hits imports not just local production) calculated in a similar fashion to GST promotes positive climate change. Producers and consumers will benefit through the decreased cost of climate friendly products as opposed to unfriendly products. Whilst these taxes are anti-competitive, they are WTO compliant.
Gillard will win the election, she is also very switched on, she use to be a partner of a major international law firm. However, she wont be calling the shots in the future, the labour caucas and unions the likes of Bill Shortern (sp?) are essentially using her as a puppet, (they probably would of preferred someone from there own right faction but there was no one suitable) .
I'm a liberal fan myself, but im glad to see kevin rudd the smug bastard out of power, even if means we won't have a chance to make government until the next election.
On June 24 2010 16:30 Ludrik wrote: To people bitching about "not voting for her" get real. If all you base your voting decisions on is the man at the top then you're not voting in your best interest. Vote based on who your local candidates are and their individual policies. I don't mean to not take into account overall party policies. It's just they will essentially be the same regardless of who is running the party.
This. It's essentially going to be business as usual with a Labor government, whether it's Rudd or Gillard at the helm. It never ceases to amaze me how many people of voting age in this country envisage the Prime Minister as something far more important than they actually are. They're a mouthpiece, a figurehead, and are supposed to represent the unified consensus of the party/caucus; policy-making is the last thing they're responsible for.
God, I know, right. He's just one man, he can't possibly be personally responsible and involved with every policy decision made by the party. I mean honestly it seems like they (the PM) spend half their time meeting international figureheads for lunch and dinner or other public relations type activities anyway
British PMs with a working majority bully their cabinet terribly. They are appointed and dismissed at the will of the PM and the PM can sum up the feeling of a cabinet meeting without any direct vote or outside decision. Margaret Thatcher, who was also a female PM, was particularly infamous for handbagging her cabinet. Her line was the party line and if you didn't like it you weren't on the ticket at the next election.
Unless the majority is extremely narrow or a particular cabinet minister can override the party whip and sway a significant portion of the MPs the PM can do pretty much what they like within their party. To call them a figurehead voicing the opinion of the cabinet is extremely ill informed. The PM is their employer and they serve at his or her pleasure with no power save what is granted to them.
The Australian political system is largely based on the British which in turn draws its roots from monarchy. The powers of the PM are the royal prerogatives wrested from the monarchy in the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. In short, the power of the PM draws directly from rule by divine right. She's no mouthpiece.
On June 24 2010 22:45 dethrawr wrote: she hasnt said anything about the filter, she is willing to negotiate on mining taxes, and she is going to consult about asylum seekers..
where are you getting these things from?
LoL , Rudd said he would negotiate on the mining tax and consult about asylum seekers as well.If you can find me an article claiming Gillard will scrap the filter please link it now , her not saying anything about the filter means it is business as usual.
We need to bring back Howards policy on asylum seekers , process them offshore instead of using WA mining towns to keep them.Already there is a new camp inland at Leonora , you probably don't hear these things over East.
It's Abbott all the way with me , Labor has decided to destroy the mining industry with the new profits tax and the incoming emissions trading tax.Labor is dead in WA and QLD.
On June 24 2010 22:45 dethrawr wrote: she hasnt said anything about the filter, she is willing to negotiate on mining taxes, and she is going to consult about asylum seekers..
where are you getting these things from?
LoL , Rudd said he would negotiate on the mining tax and consult about asylum seekers as well.If you can find me an article claiming Gillard will scrap the filter please link it now , her not saying anything about the filter means it is business as usual.
We need to bring back Howards policy on asylum seekers , process them offshore instead of using WA mining towns to keep them.Already there is a new camp inland at Leonora , you probably don't hear these things over East.
It's Abbott all the way with me , Labor has decided to destroy the mining industry with the new profits tax and the incoming emissions trading tax.Labor is dead in WA and QLD.
The super profits tax would not destroy or even impact in any significant way upon the mining industry. You see the copious amounts of advertisement by these mining companies in the newspapers, on TV etc, and don't stop to question the message or even consider how on earth these poor vulnerable mining companies have the cash on hand to invest in a huge ad campaign? They are rich. Being slightly less rich is fine. What is wrong with asylum seekers being allowed onto mainland Australia? They deserve to be here as much as you do, and keeping them in crowded conditions offshore is barbaric.
On June 24 2010 14:24 Masamune wrote: As Bill Maher said, women don't change politics; politics change women. They are no different than men. Cool nonetheless.
Is she gonna be coming to the G20 summit in Toronto?
You really believe that? Have you ever been in a relationship? The physical parts ain't the only difference.
On June 25 2010 18:45 Lurgee wrote: The super profits tax would not destroy or even impact in any significant way upon the mining industry. You see the copious amounts of advertisement by these mining companies in the newspapers, on TV etc, and don't stop to question the message or even consider how on earth these poor vulnerable mining companies have the cash on hand to invest in a huge ad campaign? They are rich. Being slightly less rich is fine. What is wrong with asylum seekers being allowed onto mainland Australia? They deserve to be here as much as you do, and keeping them in crowded conditions offshore is barbaric.
So because something is profitable you should thus tax it until it collapses? Why not levy a super tax on the banks instead of the miners? Why should illegal immigrants be housed in air conditioned rooms with free TV , internet , CIGARETTES , food etc whilst we have homeless people sleeping on our own streets? Offshore processing is barbaric , thus we should send them back where they came from.
It's not worth arguing with you , you are a dyed in the wool socialist like Rudd and his offspring.
Also tell me how taxing the mining industry will cause it to collapse? It won't suddenly collapse and suddenly disappear due to the tax but it'll definitely ultimately collapse some time in the future since mining a destructive industry that will have diminishing returns as time goes on. Less stuff to dig out etc.
Just because its booming doesn't mean you basically tell the mining industry to keep digging shit at full speed. If the tax puts some restraint on the miners, then it'll probably have some long term benefits in the future. No doubt the tax will damage Australia in the short term (even then, who really suffers from it but the miners?) but in the long term its not a such bad idea since a mineral market crash caused by the currently booming industry would simply cause hellfire to fall from the sky.
As long as the government is able to give keilor some semblence of a fast-and-affordable internet package (Telstras the only provider giving ADSL2+/Cable access here), i really don't care who runs the country .. as long as it aint Kim Jong Il .. or George bush ..
Ill worry about the state of the country once i get my go0d internetz!!
On June 25 2010 19:50 haduken wrote: ^ Because it's a commitment Australia made to the United Nation. Australia is a first world country and it needs to act like one.
I just think that taxpayer dollars should be spent elsewhere and these 'refugees' should apply for entry legally like regular immigrants.
If they can afford the $10,000 cost of the boat trip then they're already better off than a massive number of people in the world anyhow.
On June 25 2010 18:45 Lurgee wrote: The super profits tax would not destroy or even impact in any significant way upon the mining industry. You see the copious amounts of advertisement by these mining companies in the newspapers, on TV etc, and don't stop to question the message or even consider how on earth these poor vulnerable mining companies have the cash on hand to invest in a huge ad campaign? They are rich. Being slightly less rich is fine. What is wrong with asylum seekers being allowed onto mainland Australia? They deserve to be here as much as you do, and keeping them in crowded conditions offshore is barbaric.
So because something is profitable you should thus tax it until it collapses? Why not levy a super tax on the banks instead of the miners? Why should illegal immigrants be housed in air conditioned rooms with free TV , internet , CIGARETTES , food etc whilst we have homeless people sleeping on our own streets? Offshore processing is barbaric , thus we should send them back where they came from.
It's not worth arguing with you , you are a dyed in the wool socialist like Rudd and his offspring.
It's not by any means taxing them until they collapse. The only people who will be seeing less money are the execs etc, I doubt it will even slow down resource exploration. Are you so ignorant as to not understand that asylum seekers are in fact seeking asylum, and thus deserve our help? Do you object to Australians helping hurricane Katrina victims 'while we have homeless people sleeping on our own streets'? As a relatively well off nation, it is our responsibility to help those whom are less fortunate than us, or if you are too pigheaded to see this then consider that a typical asylum seeker would be very grateful and hardworking if allowed to begin a new life free of oppression in Aus, and would thus be likely to contribute effectively to society. You are confusing socialism with having a sense of compassion. Australia is not an anarchy, which seems to be the type of society you desire. Levying a tax on banks would be idiotic, as they would raise interest rates in order to attempt to maintain profit margins. This would decrease investment spending/economic growth which is exactly what we do NOT want to be doing at this time. A tax on mining will be met with pretty much no significant response.
I'm seriously contemplating voting for Labor now instead of just voting Greens all the time. Gillard seems to be competent and her speech was really well done. But really I just don't want an extremist right wing nutcase like Abbot in charge of our country.
On June 25 2010 20:43 Lurgee wrote: It's not by any means taxing them until they collapse. The only people who will be seeing less money are the execs etc, I doubt it will even slow down resource exploration. Are you so ignorant as to not understand that asylum seekers are in fact seeking asylum, and thus deserve our help? Do you object to Australians helping hurricane Katrina victims 'while we have homeless people sleeping on our own streets'? As a relatively well off nation, it is our responsibility to help those whom are less fortunate than us, or if you are too pigheaded to see this then consider that a typical asylum seeker would be very grateful and hardworking if allowed to begin a new life free of oppression in Aus, and would thus be likely to contribute effectively to society. You are confusing socialism with having a sense of compassion. Australia is not an anarchy, which seems to be the type of society you desire. Levying a tax on banks would be idiotic, as they would raise interest rates in order to attempt to maintain profit margins. This would decrease investment spending/economic growth which is exactly what we do NOT want to be doing at this time. A tax on mining will be met with pretty much no significant response.
Sure , help people less fortunate.Send them food aid (although this does not actually help their countries since it undermines local food producers but the do gooders won't listen).Don't resettle them here , we have enough people here , heard of something called the water shortage? They don't call this the driest continent on earth for no reason.
I don't see how you could say wanting to return to Howard era policies means i support anarchy but whatever.Raising interest rates is not always 'bad' , just like dropping interest rates is not always 'good' - banks will continue to increase profit margins regardless of whether a banking tax is implemented or not.Banking execs will continue seeing more and more money i assure you.
Labors emissions trading tax would hurt economic growth and investment far more by creating more red tape and jacking up fuel prices adding to inflation.
On June 25 2010 18:45 Lurgee wrote: The super profits tax would not destroy or even impact in any significant way upon the mining industry. You see the copious amounts of advertisement by these mining companies in the newspapers, on TV etc, and don't stop to question the message or even consider how on earth these poor vulnerable mining companies have the cash on hand to invest in a huge ad campaign? They are rich. Being slightly less rich is fine. What is wrong with asylum seekers being allowed onto mainland Australia? They deserve to be here as much as you do, and keeping them in crowded conditions offshore is barbaric.
So because something is profitable you should thus tax it until it collapses? Why not levy a super tax on the banks instead of the miners? Why should illegal immigrants be housed in air conditioned rooms with free TV , internet , CIGARETTES , food etc whilst we have homeless people sleeping on our own streets? Offshore processing is barbaric , thus we should send them back where they came from.
It's not worth arguing with you , you are a dyed in the wool socialist like Rudd and his offspring.
Because the banks hold most of our overseas debt, 500 bill if i remember correctly The mining tax is taxing what is deemed to be a super profit, its like income tax, for the first lot of money they earn they only get taxed 30c of the dollar, over the super profit its the normal company tax and like half aswell, iirc its about 54c of the dollar, and you think thats taxing something so it will make it collapse? We do have this major debt from kruddy spending 50bill to get us out of recession, are we just going to leave that and not do anything about it? netteles you needa study some more economics man
On June 24 2010 14:24 Masamune wrote: As Bill Maher said, women don't change politics; politics change women. They are no different than men. Cool nonetheless.
Is she gonna be coming to the G20 summit in Toronto?
You really believe that? Have you ever been in a relationship? The physical parts ain't the only difference.
I'm fairly sure this post was more about women needing to turn into male politicians to be given a shot at political power rather than women turning into men personality wise. Basically women politicians are no different from male politicians due to the "boys club" patriarchy found in many governments around the world.
On June 25 2010 23:34 Scaramanga wrote: Because the banks hold most of our overseas debt, 500 bill if i remember correctly The mining tax is taxing what is deemed to be a super profit, its like income tax, for the first lot of money they earn they only get taxed 30c of the dollar, over the super profit its the normal company tax and like half aswell, iirc its about 54c of the dollar, and you think thats taxing something so it will make it collapse? We do have this major debt from kruddy spending 50bill to get us out of recession, are we just going to leave that and not do anything about it? netteles you needa study some more economics man
LoL i know enough economics to know that you need to cut taxes to boost investment and growth not raise them like Labor seems hell bent on doing.Cut Government spending , get out of Afghanistan for starters we will never 'win' that war.
I don't think you guys have any idea how much it costs to get a mine operational and how much risk there is involved.Have you done any research into why Ravensthorpe nickel mine was really shut down? The Chinese invented a new cheaper kind of nickel , nickel pig iron , dirtier to manufacture but cheaper that is satisfying some 30% of Chinese nickel demand at the moment and rising.
Anyhoo back to Labor - why roll out a high speed broadband network and then apply an internet filter to slow it all down again? If they screw up a simple insulation fitting scheme why do they think they can manage the health system in all the states?
No , i can't see myself voting Labor this time round.I doubt i will change your guys mind just like you won't change mine.
On June 25 2010 20:43 Lurgee wrote: It's not by any means taxing them until they collapse. The only people who will be seeing less money are the execs etc, I doubt it will even slow down resource exploration. Are you so ignorant as to not understand that asylum seekers are in fact seeking asylum, and thus deserve our help? Do you object to Australians helping hurricane Katrina victims 'while we have homeless people sleeping on our own streets'? As a relatively well off nation, it is our responsibility to help those whom are less fortunate than us, or if you are too pigheaded to see this then consider that a typical asylum seeker would be very grateful and hardworking if allowed to begin a new life free of oppression in Aus, and would thus be likely to contribute effectively to society. You are confusing socialism with having a sense of compassion. Australia is not an anarchy, which seems to be the type of society you desire. Levying a tax on banks would be idiotic, as they would raise interest rates in order to attempt to maintain profit margins. This would decrease investment spending/economic growth which is exactly what we do NOT want to be doing at this time. A tax on mining will be met with pretty much no significant response.
Sure , help people less fortunate.Send them food aid (although this does not actually help their countries since it undermines local food producers but the do gooders won't listen).Don't resettle them here , we have enough people here , heard of something called the water shortage? They don't call this the driest continent on earth for no reason.
I don't see how you could say wanting to return to Howard era policies means i support anarchy but whatever.Raising interest rates is not always 'bad' , just like dropping interest rates is not always 'good' - banks will continue to increase profit margins regardless of whether a banking tax is implemented or not.Banking execs will continue seeing more and more money i assure you.
Labors emissions trading tax would hurt economic growth and investment far more by creating more red tape and jacking up fuel prices adding to inflation.
High interest rates now would be VERY BAD. Also, ROFL at your 'undermines local producers', are you joking? We send them the food as they can't produce enough after natural disasters etc, else to Africa where due to civil unrest etc many people are in poverty.
edit: Australia is nowhere near it's holding capacity, and bringing more people in who have a strong desire to live and work in a democratic environment would be good for our economy.
High interest rates now would be VERY BAD. Also, ROFL at your 'undermines local producers', are you joking? We send them the food as they can't produce enough after natural disasters etc, else to Africa where due to civil unrest etc many people are in poverty.
edit: Australia is nowhere near it's holding capacity, and bringing more people in who have a strong desire to live and work in a democratic environment would be good for our economy.
High interest rates would be good if you were saving for a new home , if you are a pensioner living off money accrued via interest (My grandparents are doing it tough in the UK right now) , if you have a large amount of savings , if you are an importer of goods.If people overextended themselves with housing loans in the midst of a housing bubble they should have read up on history a little more.
No , im not joking.It's pretty basic economics - if you were offered a foodstuff for free or the same foodstuff that cost you either money or barter you would pick the free one. The Food Trade and Nutrition coalition agrees with me on the topic of WTO food dumping and aid : http://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/ngo_e/posp47_dumping_food_aid_e.pdf
3. Food aid in developing countries:producers and consumers (see annex Synopsis of Ethiopia study at page 24 ) Long-term dependency on food aid in kind, sold on local markets, shows different kinds of problems that will send the country into a downwards spiral. National prices will collapse, local food production fall, and local markets and incentives to improve local infrastructure will be disrupted. The incentive to produce food for the following seasons is taken away when farmers know that cheap food imports and food aid in kind will flood their markets.
As for the holding capacity are you aware of the acidification of the Murray river Basin? Due entirely to too much water being sucked out.It's pretty hard to find a job if you can't talk English like alot of these illegals , and if they don't want to assimilate into our society then they really are not welcome here as far as i'm concerned.Do-gooders will have a differing opinion of course but how many is too many? 100,000 illegals a year? 1 million??
High interest rates now would be VERY BAD. Also, ROFL at your 'undermines local producers', are you joking? We send them the food as they can't produce enough after natural disasters etc, else to Africa where due to civil unrest etc many people are in poverty.
edit: Australia is nowhere near it's holding capacity, and bringing more people in who have a strong desire to live and work in a democratic environment would be good for our economy.
High interest rates would be good if you were saving for a new home , if you are a pensioner living off money accrued via interest (My grandparents are doing it tough in the UK right now) , if you have a large amount of savings , if you are an importer of goods.If people overextended themselves with housing loans in the midst of a housing bubble they should have read up on history a little more.
No , im not joking.It's pretty basic economics - if you were offered a foodstuff for free or the same foodstuff that cost you either money or barter you would pick the free one. The Food Trade and Nutrition coalition agrees with me on the topic of WTO food dumping and aid : http://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/ngo_e/posp47_dumping_food_aid_e.pdf
[/QUOTE]
That isn't wrong, but it's completely irrelevant. High interest rates make loans more expensive to pay off, which makes businesses less inclined to borrow money to finance expansion etc. In case you didn't notice, recently Australia's economy narrowly avoided recession. We're doing quite well now but are still recovering. To increase interest rates would be to shoot ourseves in the foot, as they would slow economic growth. Your grandmother who is doing it tough is not as important as the whole economy, and I'm truley sorry if you're too short sighted to see why we can't just place a supertax on banks, causing an increase in interest rates. The rest of your arguments do not warrant a responce.
Basically what you want is more debt fueled growth. You really have no grasp on how the world came to be in this horrible economic situation do you?
You seem to be of the opinion what we have experienced over the past 10 years has been normal.It's been a debt fueled monster that will keep going so long as the Chinese bubble economy keeps going.A typical 2 bedroom 1 bathroom apartment goes for $274,000 (Thats USD) in Beijing , 22 times average income.How can you say this is normal and will continue without serious consequences?
When the bubble in China collapses mining will suffer a massive shock as demand collapses.
In the past a few years, with a large number of families and investors into the real estate market, including Beijing, Shanghai and major cities, including prices have doubled in length. cite a typical example: a 2 room, a satellite of the 93 square meter apartment in Beijing, the price for the 274,000 U.S. dollars, which is an ordinary Beijingers 22 times annual income.
On June 24 2010 14:20 3clipse wrote: MORE LIKE PMS RITE GUYS
User was temp banned for this post.
I have to admit, that made me laugh.
But, out of curiosity, was she named PM after he stood down, or was there actually a formal election where you could only vote for her? seems strange to me if there was, when this happened in canada, there was an election 6 months later in which she was humiliated, simply because she made some very poor decisions (combined with an unhappy populace with the ruling party. Who knows, she could be the next german chancellor!
On June 24 2010 15:30 ayababa wrote: im glad kevin rudd is gone. we had a 20 billion surplus when liberal were in power. now its gone and we are at negative 300 billion. (a good chuck of this done prior to the economy went bonkers). gillard has been trying to sell of as much crap as possible ever she was the 2IC.
CYA ruddy boi.... bring back john Howard and peter Costello.. then well start making money again.
oh yeah one last thing ... KEVIN RUDD DIDNT SAVE AUSTRALIA FROM RECESSION .. it was the 10 years of saving that howard and costello did... enough of my rant
edit.. im obviously aware that peter costello and john howard are retired.. and wont be coming back.
Do you have any idea how the economy works? Generally speaking, being at a surplus is BAD. Being at a deficit is GOOD. Saving too much money = Recession. Spending money (in the right ways) = Fixing the recession.
This is absolutely retarded. You're completely wrong.
Generally speaking, being at a surplus is good; being at a deficit is bad.
Since a counter-cyclical fiscal policy helps smooth the economic cycle, spending more money (and possibly going into a fiscal deficit) during a downturn can be a good thing; but running a fiscal deficit 'generally speaking' will lead your country into financial collapse, default, or massive inflation. Ask Zimbabwe, Greece or Argentina how their deficits worked for them.
Generally speaking, being at a surplus is good; being at a deficit is bad.
Not to have a go, but you probably realise that this is an over-simplification of Keynesian economics (the principles on which most Western governments run).
So, to be a hypocrite, let's simplify!
When the economy is experiencing strong growth, a government will run a big surplus. Essentially, the government isn't putting as much money back into the economy as they're receiving, which is intended to slow growth slightly - preventing the boom from being too big, as to avoid ...
The bust, when an economy is experiencing negative growth. (If an economy has negative growth over two quarters, this is classified as a recession.)
To manage a bust, governments run up deficits to try and promote growth, counter unemployment or whenever a recovery is slow to take hold.
But don't believe me - believe Wikipedia, TEH SOURCE OF THE INTERWEBZ~
Keynes′ theory suggested that active government policy could be effective in managing the economy. Rather than seeing unbalanced government budgets as wrong, Keynes advocated what has been called countercyclical fiscal policies, that is policies which acted against the tide of the business cycle: deficit spending when a nation's economy suffers from recession or when recovery is long-delayed and unemployment is persistently high—and the suppression of inflation in boom times by either increasing taxes or cutting back on government outlays. He argued that governments should solve problems in the short run rather than waiting for market forces to do it in the long run, because "in the long run, we are all dead."
Thanks for joining Macro Economics 101 with dippa. Next week, Micro 101 Asian Tigers style!
On June 26 2010 21:43 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Basically what you want is more debt fueled growth. You really have no grasp on how the world came to be in this horrible economic situation do you?
You seem to be of the opinion what we have experienced over the past 10 years has been normal.It's been a debt fueled monster that will keep going so long as the Chinese bubble economy keeps going.A typical 2 bedroom 1 bathroom apartment goes for $274,000 (Thats USD) in Beijing , 22 times average income.How can you say this is normal and will continue without serious consequences?
When the bubble in China collapses mining will suffer a massive shock as demand collapses.
In the past a few years, with a large number of families and investors into the real estate market, including Beijing, Shanghai and major cities, including prices have doubled in length. cite a typical example: a 2 room, a satellite of the 93 square meter apartment in Beijing, the price for the 274,000 U.S. dollars, which is an ordinary Beijingers 22 times annual income.
If China suddenly stops growing, India won't, SEA probably wont, Chile won't. Debt fueled not-falling-into-a-recession is good, but as you're clearly just some right wing redneck, there is no point attempting to educate you about economics, go troll elsewhere.
On June 26 2010 21:43 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Basically what you want is more debt fueled growth. You really have no grasp on how the world came to be in this horrible economic situation do you?
You seem to be of the opinion what we have experienced over the past 10 years has been normal.It's been a debt fueled monster that will keep going so long as the Chinese bubble economy keeps going.A typical 2 bedroom 1 bathroom apartment goes for $274,000 (Thats USD) in Beijing , 22 times average income.How can you say this is normal and will continue without serious consequences?
When the bubble in China collapses mining will suffer a massive shock as demand collapses.
I eagerly await your "responce".
Here's a "response". Your basic argument seems to be that the world is in this horrible economic situation because some flat prices in shanghai are not normal. This is such a retarded oversimplification it hardly bears response. Simultaneously accusing others of not grasping the situation just makes you look like an ignorant Howard fanboy playing at economics expert.
Debt fuelled growth is not a bad thing, it depends alot on how it is managed and how much growth it induces.
Your previous comment about "illegals" (aka refugees/immigrants) and having no space in Aus for them due to the Murray dying is Howardesque racist bullshit. The Murray is dying due to farmers taking too much water for agriculture, particularly cotton. A larger population would not affect the Murray basin problem.
On June 27 2010 12:42 Scarecrow wrote: Here's a "response". Your basic argument seems to be that the world is in this horrible economic situation because some flat prices in shanghai are not normal. This is such a retarded oversimplification it hardly bears response. Simultaneously accusing others of not grasping the situation just makes you look like an ignorant Howard fanboy playing at economics expert.
Debt fuelled growth is not a bad thing, it depends alot on how it is managed and how much growth it induces.
Your previous comment about "illegals" (aka refugees/immigrants) and having no space in Aus for them due to the Murray dying is Howardesque racist bullshit. The Murray is dying due to farmers taking too much water for agriculture, particularly cotton. A larger population would not affect the Murray basin problem.
Debt fueled growth is never a good thing. Look at this graph , maybe do some research on the great depression? We are headed for the biggest (worldwide) crash in history thanks to Greenspan and his bubble making policies.
As for the illegals it's all part of Labors 'Big Australia' policy ; 35 million living here by 2050.How can adding 13 million have no impact on the environment? Sure it's a big country but noone really wants to live in the desert last time i checked , it'll just mostly be population increases in the cities.Higher water use is inevitable.
We're talking about Australia here, not the US. They are in fact different countries, believe it or not. Also, what relevance does living in a city or not have on the environment?
Sigh.... Here's a related article and a graph , as you can see Australia is now ahead of the US in household debt to GDP ratio.Low interest rates have destroyed the Western economies , that much is pretty obvious.You cannot solve a debt crisis by creating more debt.
BORROWERS have set a new record: for the first time we owe more in household debt than the entire Australian economy earns in a year.
Reserve Bank figures show mortgage, credit card and personal loan debts now stand at $1.2 trillion, up 71 per cent from just five years ago and equating to $56,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.
Our spending binge, fuelled most recently by the Government's First Home Owner Grant, means personal debt now totals 100.4 per cent of Australia's annual GDP - one of the highest ratios in the developed world.
My comment about the environmental impact of living in the cities as opposed to the 'desert' was more based on the land clearing.You don't really clear bush in the middle of the Simpson desert.The more living in a city the worse the environment becomes , the more degraded the remaining bush becomes , the dirtier and more algae infested the rivers become.
Somehow moving to the desert doesn't seem like the solution, and intuitively I'd say it would be worse for the environment. Obviously there are environmental implications whenever you increase population but the fact it's in a city won't make a significant difference.
To be honest I think people get a little too focused on economy, GDP, etc. and don't really stop to think that if you're happy who cares what the price of houses in Shanghai is or whether you have a better GDP than someone in Romania. Quality of living is more important imo and though we probably could support more people I'd not sacrifice what identity and culture we have for the sake of a nice GDP lol.
The real problem is in the two big city of Melbourne and Sydney. Infrastructure is absolutely shit, having more people there just don't make any sense what so ever.
Other cities can easily support more people. Then there are central coastal towns and regional towns which should receive more funding and attractive policies so people would go live there and develop them.
I also find it strange that people think that having immigrants will some how dilute or replace Australian culture.
It's not like it's the first time Australia's receiving mass wave of immigrants. The Greeks, the non anglo Europeans, the Vietnamese, Chinese... In 2 or 3 generations, the immigrants would've integrated and society would've moved on.
On June 27 2010 16:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Sigh.... Here's a related article and a graph , as you can see Australia is now ahead of the US in household debt to GDP ratio.Low interest rates have destroyed the Western economies , that much is pretty obvious.You cannot solve a debt crisis by creating more debt.
looooooooool. You don't even understand what that graph means mate. Stop posting.
On June 27 2010 13:02 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Debt fueled growth is never a good thing. Look at this graph , maybe do some research on the great depression?
What's with the massive oversimplifications? Debt fuelled growth is bad cause of 'this graph' (lol) and the 'great depression' and high flat prices in shanghai. Excessive A caused B therefore A is ALWAYS bad. You really need to work on your logic, post less graphs (yes, debt is high, understood) and actually write something that shows you understand basic economics. I see you've heard of the great depression, impressive!
I don't know much about politics in australia, but if the labor party is what I think it is, she got my sympathies so far, simply because I think that conservative and free-market liberal parties mainly consist of jerks who don't even know what the term "empathy" means. Socialy oriented parties at least have a basis of people who can understand that.
"We're heading towards a double-dip recession," said Chris Whalen, a former Fed official and now head of Institutional Risk Analystics. "The party is over from fiscal support. These hard-money men are fighting the last war: they don't recognise that money velocity has slowed and we are going into deflation. The only default option left is to crank up the printing presses again."
"The US recovery is in imminent danger of stalling," said Stephen Lewis, from Monument Securities. "Growth could be negative again as soon as the fourth quarter. There is no easy way out since fiscal stimulus has already been pushed as far as it can credibly go without endangering US credit-worthiness."
On June 24 2010 13:44 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote: would hit it
User was warned for this post
Awsome.. i loved some of the reply's seeing as they where hilarious. neway its awsome how race/sex isnt really a "big" deal nemore in country's in the west.
On June 26 2010 08:42 hejakev wrote: Women leaders seem to keep cleaner, more peaceful countries. I think it's great.
Assumption! Add prove or examples here~~~
Finally we have a backstabbing PM in our country. Wait... We had Howard before, too. Sighz
Good job looking like a dick in a casual conversation.
Examples: Queen Elizabeth II of the UK (though she has little political influence), Halonen of Finland, Queen Margarethe of Denmark, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, and I think even the president of Argentina is a female. Have any of them show any aggression ever? I know there are tons of other female leaders out there, but name one of them who has ordered an attack on anything. It's a generalization, but it's true: The majority of female leaders are peaceful.
EPT
kinda ironic that that's how australia and nz got their first women PMs
![[image loading]](http://www.biocrawler.com/w/images/7/79/Jenny_shipley.jpg)
So is Monday.![[image loading]](http://img526.imageshack.us/i/65181424.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/4004/76703765.png)
![[image loading]](http://lakeweb.com/money/Total%20U.S.%20Debt%20to%20GDP.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/image002.gif)
