Bill Shorten for PM?

[MO]

Guys despite all the rhetoric....let history tell the story.

I doubt very much that Bill Shorten will even get elected let alone be PM....there is a very long queue of those who would be Labour leader let alone PM.

The reason I say this is because I feel that mainstream Oz is getting tired of the two main parties and is looking for an alternative.

And this is from a staunch unionist!!!!!

The Democrats are dead in the water...so who does this leave...the independants...hhmmmm..the greens...no thanks.....maybe given the current trend in politics and society the family first party just might have a following.

So what are your thoughts?

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by John McMaster

Guys despite all the rhetoric....let history tell the story.

I doubt very much that Bill Shorten will even get elected let alone be PM....there is a very long queue of those who would be Labour leader let alone PM.

The reason I say this is because I feel that mainstream Oz is getting tired of the two main parties and is looking for an alternative.

And this is from a staunch unionist!!!!!

The Democrats are dead in the water...so who does this leave...the independants...hhmmmm..the greens...no thanks.....maybe given the current trend in politics and society the family first party just might have a following.

So what are your thoughts?

Regardless of who gets voted in, they are all the same, they lie their teeth off and quite simply are not accountable. When something different comes along they shoot it down collectively. I cannot see any solution to our political system. And I used to be a member of one of our parties.

[Papa Smurf]

I don't know about PM but, he sure would add a little life into the LABORing party?

Mr Beazley, as good a man as he is? isn't what THAT party needs to win another election. Maybe it is time to have a LADY run that Party? and maybe Australia is ready for a, dare I say it.................... a LADY PM?

[MO]

Redrum, there is a solution we just have'nt found it yet.

Pap smurf this has long been on the agenda but who is it going to be...Labour J.Gillard?
Liberal ....well no one comes to mind the only one that might have cut it was Bishop but she got shafted for being too outspoken.

[Redrum]

Female or male PM, wont make any difference!!

[YuGoStaR]

Hrmm...maybe we should form our own party ?

So, who's the best lier around here ?

[FGX-351]

ShowStoPPa 4 prime minister.....i would look much better with a horse shoe bald spot then howard:P

[fmc351]

As said above, theyre all the same, at least once in power.

My old man has a saying, each are gonna do the same thing to ya, just one will use vaseline. You pick the one with vas.

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

To put it simply - yes (we currently redistribute more wealth to the poorest 20% of the population than almost any other country in the world but dont let the facts get in the way of a good yarn, right?)

If every other country distributes $1, and we distribute $1.10, that comment is still valid. Dont let real information get in the way of a good diversion, right?

Originally Posted by ESP

They said the exact same thing about Simon Creen more than 15 years ago and we all know how that story went !!!!!!!!

Johhny was up, and then dumped. Now look, 9+ yrs as PM

[ltd]

I swore I wasn't gonna enter the fray but anyway.

These comments about them all being the same is fanciful, farcical nonsense made to make the idiots feel good about not looking any further than their navels in deciding who to vote for.
On both a state and federal level the two sides have many distinguishing features so that even the most narrow minded troglodite can determine who is who.

Labor is a party that was originally the "working mans party"; withouit getting into factions it is basically made up of many members and former members of the ACTU. This means people who have little commercial nouse in the sense that they still believe every business small or large is harboring a multi millionaire employer. To secure votes the ALP typically panders to minority groups in order to secure their vote ie, the middle eastern people brought to Australia without prior skills testing through the Whitlam, Hawke and Keating years. Traditionally, the ALP when in government are poor financial managers and run resources down to the point of collapse. Look no further than NSW. Finally, when the ALP gets into government most of them have little yet retire as millionaires. Hawke, Keating, Carr, Egan, Knowles etc. Some of them go into their own companies (keating and the piggery, and the Aust Institute of Music), most just milk the system for as long as they can (fukWhitlam)

Liberal on the other hand sources their people primarily from the private sector, people like you and me who are working. Typically, they do not have career politicians who have spent all of their lives in politics; John howard was a solicitor, Malcolm turnbull was and still is a successful businessman; and they are aware of commercial realities such as those faced by all of us. They typically are very sound financial managers and tend leave the country/state in a better finaincial condition than when they first took office. When they leave politics most of them take up work in the private sector again.

In NSW for example huge property, business and payroll taxes have meant for the last year that NSW is having negative employment growth whereas every other state is having positive growth. This is coupled to the crippling disaster that is every state portfolio, and the trbling of the great beauracracy and the massive amounts of money required to fund it. Look no further than NSW labor to see what having incompetent politicians with no commercial sense can do.

So, my point is, they are not all the same. Some are very intelligent and work well, others have average intelligence and lie about it.

[4.9 EF Futura]

^ nice summary. Surely a thread ender tho?

I'd just like to add... how i find it suprising that many dead-keen ALP supporters struggle to spell the party's name correctly. Oh well. I'm not sure where the ALP gets the 'labor' spelling from but im sure there's a good story behind it.

[Yellow Fire]

You raise some good points ltd, in particular with regard to career politicians. To me a career politician is the same as a teacher who goes from school to uni back to school. They don't know how the real world works.

With regards to your comments about Libs vs ALP it doesn't seem that clear cut to me. You say NSW has the worst employment growth because of an ALP government, yet what about the ALP states with positive growth?

I'm no fan of the ALP. In fact unless they have some serious changes I doubt I'd ever vote for them again at the federal level, but following political parties like football teams seems very dangerous to me. To vote for one "team" because of tradition or what someone from the "other side" did 30+ years ago seems very strange.

I agree that they're not all the same, but letting either party know you'd vote for them no matter what just means they ignore you & target the "swinging voters".

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by ltd

I swore I wasn't gonna enter the fray but anyway.

These comments about them all being the same is fanciful, farcical nonsense made to make the idiots feel good about not looking any further than their navels in deciding who to vote for.
On both a state and federal level the two sides have many distinguishing features so that even the most narrow minded troglodite can determine who is who.

Labor is a party that was originally the "working mans party"; withouit getting into factions it is basically made up of many members and former members of the ACTU. This means people who have little commercial nouse in the sense that they still believe every business small or large is harboring a multi millionaire employer. To secure votes the ALP typically panders to minority groups in order to secure their vote ie, the middle eastern people brought to Australia without prior skills testing through the Whitlam, Hawke and Keating years. Traditionally, the ALP when in government are poor financial managers and run resources down to the point of collapse. Look no further than NSW. Finally, when the ALP gets into government most of them have little yet retire as millionaires. Hawke, Keating, Carr, Egan, Knowles etc. Some of them go into their own companies (keating and the piggery, and the Aust Institute of Music), most just milk the system for as long as they can (fukWhitlam)

Liberal on the other hand sources their people primarily from the private sector, people like you and me who are working. Typically, they do not have career politicians who have spent all of their lives in politics; John howard was a solicitor, Malcolm turnbull was and still is a successful businessman; and they are aware of commercial realities such as those faced by all of us. They typically are very sound financial managers and tend leave the country/state in a better finaincial condition than when they first took office. When they leave politics most of them take up work in the private sector again.

In NSW for example huge property, business and payroll taxes have meant for the last year that NSW is having negative employment growth whereas every other state is having positive growth. This is coupled to the crippling disaster that is every state portfolio, and the trbling of the great beauracracy and the massive amounts of money required to fund it. Look no further than NSW labor to see what having incompetent politicians with no commercial sense can do.

So, my point is, they are not all the same. Some are very intelligent and work well, others have average intelligence and lie about it.

I agree, a very well balanced overview of the two major parties!


ltd while I support your right to express whatever view you wish, one has to wonder why you find it neccessary to insult those with opinions different to your own.

Any critical analysis of your comments reveals they are sourced from the headlines in the right wing press. You really need to expand where you get your information from. That is if you wish to engage others in a discussion, and take you seriously.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

I agree, a very well balanced overview of the two major parties!


ltd while I support your right to express whatever view you wish, one has to wonder why you find it neccessary to insult those with opinions different to your own.

Any critical analysis of your comments reveals they are sourced from the headlines in the right wing press. You really need to expand where you get your information from. That is if you wish to engage others in a discussion, and take you seriously.

Whilst the comments were obviously skewed in one particular direction - the base of it was pretty much spot on. Look at the elite within the ALP - most of them got started politically at university and got heavily involved in some form of union movement. Not that there is anything wrong with this. The progression from university politics into the local/state/federal scene is quite natural.

Whereas the elite within the lib pty predominantly have legal/commerce/finance/economics backgrounds. Im certainly not saying they are better educated - heck, they've probably spent less time at university than most high ranking union officials - but the focus has been different. And, without tarring too many with the one brush - these professions (commerce focus) historically have bred conservative minded people and continue to do so (the 'government that regulates least regulates best' philosophy). Not that there's anything wrong with this.

And on the topic of engaging others in discussion WH... you say that stating facts which may have been printed in the right wing media like it is a bad thing? The left wing media is somehow more credible? I agree that a more balanced approach is needed - but not sure if such preachings are indeed practiced yourself?

[fmc351]

John Howard has been a politician well over 30yrs. If hes not a career politician I dont know what is.

Paul Keating was an economist. The arm breaker was an economist. Just off the top of my head.

As for turning growth into deficit, yeah, Keating brought down the US and Japanese economies at the same time. Malcolm Fraser had a part in our heavy dependence on foreign currencies. Forget being able to spell, 'Labor'. How about just being honest and actually follow the trail?

Liberals were founded by the man who said all Australians should starve before dishonouring their debt to England and Bond holders, the Right Dishonourable Robert Menzies. Of which he was one, and this was addressed to Diggers 10 yrs after WW1 at their time of need, the Great Depression. You can have a parade but thats the extent of our thanks. And those debts to England, were the loans we took to fight for England. They werent asking to shirk them, they asked to forgo the principle for a time and pay interest alone. Diggers at least wanted to feed the kids, the things they faught to defend. John Howard calls him his mentor, yeah great. Treasurer Theodore proposed a plan to ease the Depression, one opposed by Menzies at the time. Come WW2, Menzies implemented that exact proposal, we call it GDP. The country did well post WW2, strange that. Wonder why he never served in WW1? Wonder why his kids werent available for service, must have been that payment to get em out of it.

The problem with Libs is theyre all cowards (politicians). At least the arm Breaker stood up for himself, and called the ar5e licker an ar5e licker. I like anyone who calls a spade a spade, not an implement that someone else uses.

Google big 4, and big 6, Menzies. Again, dont let the facts get in the way of a good bash. Yeah its history, but its Johns mentor, and the foundation of that party. Diggers deserve far more respect than they got. Until they disavow themselves from that past, theyre ar5e lickers.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Look at the elite within the ALP

No such thing comrade

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

.

And on the topic of engaging others in discussion WH... you say that stating facts which may have been printed in the right wing media like it is a bad thing? The left wing media is somehow more credible? I agree that a more balanced approach is needed - but not sure if such preachings are indeed practiced yourself?

70% of newspapers in Australia are owed by News Corp. And there are plans to relaxing cross media ownership? I don't want to start any consipiracy theories but who in their right mind would cross Rupert?

Political discussion offer end up like sporting or religious discussion, ie who is best and why.

So before this thread turns again into "who is best ALP Vs Lib", (I didn't vote for either at the last election) may be we need to look deeper into the question. Who is best for who, for what? We hear statements like, "best for the country as a whole" or "the Australian way of life", "best for our future" etc. What does that really mean?

I think once we understand people are asking different questions, arguing about who has the correct answer seems a little pointless. So the discussion then becomes trying to change the questions people are asking. And the arguments continue.

The current system is not perfect, but I am yet to see a better system for working out who governs us. So we just work with this one to get the best outcomes as we see them.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

So before this thread turns again into "who is best ALP Vs Lib", (I didn't vote for either at the last election) may be we need to look deeper into the question. Who is best for who, for what? We hear statements like, "best for the country as a whole" or "the Australian way of life", "best for our future" etc. What does that really mean?

I think once we understand people are asking different questions, arguing about who has the correct answer seems a little pointless. So the discussion then becomes trying to change the questions people are asking. And the arguments continue.

The current system is not perfect, but I am yet to see a better system for working out who governs us. So we just work with this one to get the best outcomes as we see them.

Great post. The concept of the "best for the country/way of life etc" i guess deals with the shortcomings of the system which you've articulated very well.

Being an Australian means so many different things to so many different people. The concepts are so vast that its not even worth citing examples. I think a common want/need for many australians is the amount of change in their pocket. Fulfilling idealogical needs and wants is great but the importance of this probably slips behind if youre out of home and house. Both major parties have different approaches to getting those $$$ in your pocket... one by way of giving it away and mandating minimum earnings, the other by promoting an economic environment where people have the opportunity to maximise their income (but it doesnt come free... you need to fight for it and need to continually improve the way you go about it).

I guess this is how you wind up with a two party system like we have... the two parties represent most of the population with one having a slight majority over the other... the minor parties fill in the gaps...although would probably have a much better representation if people voted 'below the line'... as someone who cannot stand the prime minister or the leader of the opposition will often end up having their vote directed towards them...

I dont think that discussions like this are as evil as they're often made out to be

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Great post. The concept of the "best for the country/way of life etc" i guess deals with the shortcomings of the system which you've articulated very well.

Being an Australian means so many different things to so many different people. The concepts are so vast that its not even worth citing examples. I think a common want/need for many australians is the amount of change in their pocket. Fulfilling idealogical needs and wants is great but the importance of this probably slips behind if youre out of home and house. Both major parties have different approaches to getting those $$$ in your pocket... one by way of giving it away and mandating minimum earnings, the other by promoting an economic environment where people have the opportunity to maximise their income (but it doesnt come free... you need to fight for it and need to continually improve the way you go about it).

I guess this is how you wind up with a two party system like we have... the two parties represent most of the population with one having a slight majority over the other... the minor parties fill in the gaps...although would probably have a much better representation if people voted 'below the line'... as someone who cannot stand the prime minister or the leader of the opposition will often end up having their vote directed towards them...

I dont think that discussions like this are as evil as they're often made out to be

Mmmm it's Friday and I have to get some work done lol

So briefly, I disagree it's all about the money, that is right wing ideology. But nice attempt at setting the agenda, or deciding what question we are trying to answer.

I believe people are more content in jobs they enjoy and feel valued. And in jobs with security as opposed to endlessly chasing a few more dollars.

I understand anything remotely "collective" is like kryptonite to you 4.9 EF Futura. Some of us wish to live in a community : , not all be customers and share holders.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by ltd

I swore I wasn't gonna enter the fray but anyway.

These comments about them all being the same is fanciful, farcical nonsense made to make the idiots feel good about not looking any further than their navels in deciding who to vote for.
On both a state and federal level the two sides have many distinguishing features so that even the most narrow minded troglodite can determine who is who.

Labor is a party that was originally the "working mans party"; withouit getting into factions it is basically made up of many members and former members of the ACTU. This means people who have little commercial nouse in the sense that they still believe every business small or large is harboring a multi millionaire employer. To secure votes the ALP typically panders to minority groups in order to secure their vote ie, the middle eastern people brought to Australia without prior skills testing through the Whitlam, Hawke and Keating years. Traditionally, the ALP when in government are poor financial managers and run resources down to the point of collapse. Look no further than NSW. Finally, when the ALP gets into government most of them have little yet retire as millionaires. Hawke, Keating, Carr, Egan, Knowles etc. Some of them go into their own companies (keating and the piggery, and the Aust Institute of Music), most just milk the system for as long as they can (fukWhitlam)

Liberal on the other hand sources their people primarily from the private sector, people like you and me who are working. Typically, they do not have career politicians who have spent all of their lives in politics; John howard was a solicitor, Malcolm turnbull was and still is a successful businessman; and they are aware of commercial realities such as those faced by all of us. They typically are very sound financial managers and tend leave the country/state in a better finaincial condition than when they first took office. When they leave politics most of them take up work in the private sector again.

In NSW for example huge property, business and payroll taxes have meant for the last year that NSW is having negative employment growth whereas every other state is having positive growth. This is coupled to the crippling disaster that is every state portfolio, and the trbling of the great beauracracy and the massive amounts of money required to fund it. Look no further than NSW labor to see what having incompetent politicians with no commercial sense can do.

So, my point is, they are not all the same. Some are very intelligent and work well, others have average intelligence and lie about it.

Well put, a very balanced and broadly accurate assesment IMO.
Its a shame people don't take more interest in understanding the ideoligy of each Party and the total policies of each Party before voting.
Without trying to express a Political preference either way too many people vote purely on a single emotional issue, as payback, or retaliation to a perception about a issue without really giving consideration or taking the time to understand the much bigger picture.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

I understand anything remotely "collective" is like kryptonite to you 4.9 EF Futura. Some of us wish to live in a community : , not all be customers and share holders.

This assessment is a bit harsh - but i acknowledge this is how i come across and im often criticised in person and online for being too conservative. So... fair call

I guess i follow the conservative line in the (honest) belief that it provides freedom. Freedom for people like yourself to pursue their collective beliefs and freedom for people like myself to escape the "ceilings" which come with mandated or imposed collectivism. Empower people by giving them choice and flexibility.

I dont understand why people consistently cut me down for believing this. The world is an amazing place

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

... the other by promoting an economic environment where people have the opportunity to maximise their income (but it doesnt come free... you need to fight for it and need to continually improve the way you go about it).

This is how i want to live, im prepared to take a few risks to create opportunity for me and my family, i dont want to be told what the maximium amount i can earn is or be taxed to the eye balls because im successful, i don't like supporting bludgers and cheats through my tax's being handed out "robin hood" style and i don't want people telling me how to run my own business, how much i have to pay staff and who i can and cant employ.
As far as im concerned Its my money, my business, my risk, my stress and my choice and as long as i treat staff fairly and look after their safety and welfare then they have a choice of weather they work for me or not.
If i don't pay them enough they leave, if i do pay them enough and look after them they become loyal and valuable employees.
Democracy is great isnt it!

[MethodX]

What was the foreign debt when Howard was treasurer at the end of the Fraser government?

Wasnt it a record high?
So much for so sound economic management.

Anyway labor has been recruiting busines ppl too.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by ltd

I swore I wasn't gonna enter the fray but anyway.

These comments about them all being the same is fanciful, farcical nonsense made to make the idiots feel good about not looking any further than their navels in deciding who to vote for.
On both a state and federal level the two sides have many distinguishing features so that even the most narrow minded troglodite can determine who is who.

Labor is a party that was originally the "working mans party"; withouit getting into factions it is basically made up of many members and former members of the ACTU. This means people who have little commercial nouse in the sense that they still believe every business small or large is harboring a multi millionaire employer. To secure votes the ALP typically panders to minority groups in order to secure their vote ie, the middle eastern people brought to Australia without prior skills testing through the Whitlam, Hawke and Keating years. Traditionally, the ALP when in government are poor financial managers and run resources down to the point of collapse. Look no further than NSW. Finally, when the ALP gets into government most of them have little yet retire as millionaires. Hawke, Keating, Carr, Egan, Knowles etc. Some of them go into their own companies (keating and the piggery, and the Aust Institute of Music), most just milk the system for as long as they can (fukWhitlam)

Liberal on the other hand sources their people primarily from the private sector, people like you and me who are working. Typically, they do not have career politicians who have spent all of their lives in politics; John howard was a solicitor, Malcolm turnbull was and still is a successful businessman; and they are aware of commercial realities such as those faced by all of us. They typically are very sound financial managers and tend leave the country/state in a better finaincial condition than when they first took office. When they leave politics most of them take up work in the private sector again.

In NSW for example huge property, business and payroll taxes have meant for the last year that NSW is having negative employment growth whereas every other state is having positive growth. This is coupled to the crippling disaster that is every state portfolio, and the trbling of the great beauracracy and the massive amounts of money required to fund it. Look no further than NSW labor to see what having incompetent politicians with no commercial sense can do.

So, my point is, they are not all the same. Some are very intelligent and work well, others have average intelligence and lie about it.

At least they will be happy someone believes the they spin. I sure as hell don't. The system stinks. Labour, Liberal, Greens, Democrats they may all talk different rubbish but end of the day they get in and go back on promises, make a few bad decisions, maybe the odd good one, and the country moves on.

I think your write up may have been valid 20 years ago but now both main parties policies are so simliar in context and ideology that it is hard to pick the difference. Elections are won and lost via the news stand these days I think. Just like in Rome, the one who controls the masses...............

And despite my opinion I still do look in what all main parties put up, and always vote, and vote correctly. I would not consider myself an idiot. Not at least in the circumstances set out above. :

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

This is how i want to live, im prepared to take a few risks to create opportunity for me and my family, i dont want to be told what the maximium amount i can earn is or be taxed to the eye balls because im successful, i don't like supporting bludgers and cheats through my tax's being handed out "robin hood" style and i don't want people telling me how to run my own business, how much i have to pay staff and who i can and cant employ.
As far as im concerned Its my money, my business, my risk, my stress and my choice and as long as i treat staff fairly and look after their safety and welfare then they have a choice of weather they work for me or not.
If i don't pay them enough they leave, if i do pay them enough and look after them they become loyal and valuable employees.
Democracy is great isnt it!

Articulated beautifully.

The results of past elections would suggest we are not alone in our beliefs. I wont use the word majority, as our system is not that simple. But there's a lot of us.

[ltd]

redrum, i would not presume to call you an idiot.
I believe that the country is better off for having howard than any of the oppositions offerings. In this post someone has actually tried to defend Mark Latham; saying that he would have been good for the country. This man not only spectacularly self destructed, but carried on with policy that would do precisely what the nsw labor ideology represents, and that is throw not just the state but the whole country into a mess. There have historically been more scandals and misappropriations under labor; and the media you speak of is firmly against the liberals.

Cast your mind back to the 2004 poll where the major newspapers were all but celebrating victory for the ALP federally; with headlines such as "landslide" and "Our new PM". Is this a media that backs the government? No. What about TV journo's like Laurie Oaks who is a self titled "Labor man from way back"?

The foreign debt mentioned by someone else here was measured when the country was economically recovering from recession, and it was our balance of payments not governmental debt; which incidentally has been obliterated. The government could not guarantee our balance of payments at the time, meaning none of our trade partners particularly wanted to deal any further with us. Our governmental loans at the time had ridiculous terms, our credit rating was in the can. Additionally, we had a more significant manufacturing base 11 years ago than we do now. Now with the emergence of China as an economic powerhouse and their ability to undercut our own manufacturers we have a high balance of payments. Big whoop. This has stemmed from consumer demand for cheaper manufactured goods, and the proliferation of thousands of new importers. What did everyone think was going to happen?
Every other economic indicator has us way ahead of 11 years ago yet every bogan, shacka and westie harps on about the balance of payments because they heard collins class kim, manboobs mark or pixie rudd mention it on the news before the sport. Does not maketh for sound rational debate.

[robjg33]

Liberal on the other hand sources their people primarily from the private sector, people like you and me who are working. Typically, they do not have career politicians who have spent all of their lives in politics; John howard was a solicitor, Malcolm turnbull was and still is a successful businessman; and they are aware of commercial realities such as those faced by all of us. They typically are very sound financial managers and tend leave the country/state in a better finaincial condition than when they first took office. When they leave politics most of them take up work in the private sector again

LTD
are you joking?
i know many pollies on both sides in Victoria and it is fair to say Labor has a broader mix of SME owners and managers, workers, as well as those who come from big business.lets not forget teachers solictors etc compaerd to the Liberals.
to suggest that the Liberals are " like you and me who are working" well i didnt realise most people on here were "consultants/ solicitors/policy researchers in the private sector or an electorate officers and senior government adviser,oh and most started in student politics some even back when university education was free!
on the economy well its fair to say that to win you have to win on the main game, the economy, and you have to take the Government on on the main issues. What Keating left John Howard and Peter Costello was the golden circle of economics. 5 per cent per cent for wages, 3 per cent for productivity, leaving 2 per cent for inflation. When he left, trend productivity was twice the level of the previous 25 years. Now we're back to the previous 25 years. 1 or 1.25 per cent. How do we go now? It leaves 3.5 per cent or 4 per cent for inflation. The central bank governor Ian MacFarlane knows that, that's why he's got the screws on now. So here's a government that's been in office for a decade, and what's happened? Trend productivity has gone from 3 per cent to 1.5. Now the national debt - remember the debt truck they had running around in Keatings time. It had $199 billion written on the side of it. It's now $473 billion. It's now 51 per cent of GDP. Between 1999 and 2004 there was no investment in Australia, it all went into housing and consumption all borrowed on the current account. When Peter Costello runs around saying, "Oh we've paid off the debt." It's like the pea and thimble trick. The Government debt or the massive private debt abroad? It's continuing to grow. Australia, your call on savings goes beyond your domestic savings such that now 51 per cent of your economy is borrowed from abroad. With maturities less than 12 months." They're still going to continue to fund that current account with a margin close to US rates. It's not going to happen. In the end the economy is going to slow up, because fundamentally the Government's done nothing about the real debt. I don't mean the easy debt the one you pay off with Telstra sales. I don't mean that one. I'm talking about the real one.

rational debate doesnt include name calling infact i think it lessens your credibility

however on the original question Bill Shorten would make a good leader of the LABOR party in time

[fmc351]

Firstly, Id like to officially welcome you all to the Liberal Party circle jerk.

Originally Posted by ltd

In this post someone has actually tried to defend Mark Latham; saying that he would have been good for the country.

Ill assume that was me. And wow, what a misrepresentation. Youve really been paying attention to the lessons of Liberal tactics. I never said he would be the answer, nor productive economically or socially, I merely said he called a spade a spade, unlike any other politician currently. I dont know, call me mad I like honesty; a scary concept for anyone with an agenda.

[MO]

Some very incisive comment from some of you ...however how many ppl know that Keating and Howard shared budget and other policy stuff between themselves.

This was at a time when both were on the nose within their own parties.

In fact it was Howard who told Keating when he got the treasury....move your family to Canberra.

So from this what can we deduce... well the mind boggles...just how much do the parties collude.???

[Casper]

egg timer just ran out.....................