The Australian politics thread

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by Craig

I'll take that as a compliment

But I don't know about where you live, but some of the state politics are a sham. The Gold Coast's water supplies were starting to run lower then Brisbane's so the council made efforts with water restictions and the State Government fiddled until Brisbane's supplies started to drop at a rapid rate and then stepping in and taking whole control of water and trying to fix a problem once the horse had bolted. Public transport and with regards to the trains can be a bit dire. I know you won't hold much creditibility in the Daily Telegraph, but I saw it on the front page yeasterday about public transport critising Morris lemma's Government.

State politics IS a sham. Trust me, the state government in NSW is no friend of mine, it virtually ripped the guts out of my profession, meaning I've had to change jobs and all.
As for the trains, I've caught trains since 1982 - first to school, then uni now work. Whenever there's a stuff up, I always take solace in the bad old days.
The big problem with our public transport here is lack of planning over the years by govts of all forms. Part of that stems from the piece-meal way Sydney grew, so that lines are patched together as the city grows, which leads to flow-on problems. As things stand, because of the way the lines are set up, if a train breaks down at North Sydney it affects people travelling to Parramatta, Penrith etc. which is ridiculous, but I imagine it would be pretty hard to modify a system as old as ours without putting in new lines everywhere and taking people's homes off them.
The planning though, even now, is horrible. The Hills area in Sydney has exploded in recent years, yet there is no train line out there - why htey didn't put one in when they first released the land I will never know.
Still, I think it's safe to say that the train on the Harbour Bridge on Thursday didn't break down because of the ACTU, as much as Joe Hockey might want to put it down to union bosses.

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

The fact that we don't have a nationwide train system is a bit of a joke.

One of the least palatable side-effects of a federal system, that one.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by archie mac

Well it makes more sense, first it was weapons of mass destruction than it changed to SH being a Dictator, I never believed any of them, at least oil would make sense. And that piece you link to has so many holes in it

The central point the link makes - that it's an unsustainable leap in logic to suggest that was said the other day by the Government and that defence report, means that we went to war because of oil - is pretty much unarguable.

As for the claim by the Left that we went to war based on a lie, that's just rank revisionism and itself a lie. If you cast your mind back, Kevin Rudd back then said it was an 'empirical fact' that Iraq had WMDs - a point the Labor Party agreed with.

The argument back then was not whether Iraq had WMDs (there was bi-partisan acceptance that they did) rather the argument was whether we should join the U.S without a UN Security Council resolution.

[Dasa]

You'd do well not to stereotype the 'Left' as one, nor to assume Labor represents the left....many of those who identify with the left didn't believe the reports of WMDs, and with good reason.

[Burgey]

Newspoll today. Howard's rating up, but no move in two party preferred - still 56-44 Labor.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by howardj

The central point the link makes - that it's an unsustainable leap in logic to suggest that was said the other day by the Government and that defence report, means that we went to war because of oil - is pretty much unarguable.

As for the claim by the Left that we went to war based on a lie, that's just rank revisionism and itself a lie. If you cast your mind back, Kevin Rudd back then said it was an 'empirical fact' that Iraq had WMDs - a point the Labor Party agreed with.

The argument back then was not whether Iraq had WMDs (there was bi-partisan acceptance that they did) rather the argument was whether we should join the U.S without a UN Security Council resolution.

Russia invades Afghanistan and we do nothing (just one example, I could give a dozen), Iraq invades Kuwait and we go to war, tell me why? I will tell you OIL

The fact remains they invaded when they were told by the UN not to, and at the time the Labor party was against invading. Why did they invade, when Iraq was cooperating with the inspectors?

Proud to say I marched against that invasion

And facts are never unarguable, and I can't understand how people could not see the Oil connection?

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by howardj

The central point the link makes - that it's an unsustainable leap in logic to suggest that was said the other day by the Government and that defence report, means that we went to war because of oil - is pretty much unarguable.

As for the claim by the Left that we went to war based on a lie, that's just rank revisionism and itself a lie. If you cast your mind back, Kevin Rudd back then said it was an 'empirical fact' that Iraq had WMDs - a point the Labor Party agreed with.

The argument back then was not whether Iraq had WMDs (there was bi-partisan acceptance that they did) rather the argument was whether we should join the U.S without a UN Security Council resolution.

The fact that Nelson is at odds with his own leader, or is perceived as being at odds with him, suggests that the government cannot make up its own mind as to why we went there, why we're staying and for how long. The fact that the comment by Nelson has been siezed upon so vigorously also indicates that people have long thought oil was the reason we went there. Frankly, if the coalition had said they were going there to secure their oil suppiles, they would have likely scored points for honesty at least.

Originally Posted by Dasa

You'd do well not to stereotype the 'Left' as one, nor to assume Labor represents the left....many of those who identify with the left didn't believe the reports of WMDs, and with good reason.

Correct. It's not just the "left" who thought the war was wrong. Frankly, you can't group together people with diverse views on an abundance of issues under one umbrella. The government has been very good at doing that over the years, but people are tired of it. It's like "union bosses", "union bosses" - it's all we here for God's sake. Tell the mother of that kid who died on his third day on a construction site because the companies he was working with didn't even have safety harnesses that unions have no place in this country. Tell the long distance truckies whose union is fighting for realistic timetables so they don't fall asleep at the wheel and kill people that they have no place. Tell the poor buggers who work at Chillis that they have no place. Ask the miners at Beaconsfield about the place of unions and how irrelevant they allegedly are.
As for Labor representing the left, there's a left wing of the party but it's subservient to the right, and will continue to be. There are as many factions in the libs as there are in labor - have a look at the preselection biffo going on in NSW at the moment. You may rest assured that "the left", whoever they may be, weren't real happy about floating the dollar, deregulating the financial services of the country, bringin in enterprise bargaining and selling off government assets, which were all things the Labor Party did.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Burgey

The fact that Nelson is at odds with his own leader, or is perceived as being at odds with him, suggests that the government cannot make up its own mind as to why we went there, why we're staying and for how long. The fact that the comment by Nelson has been siezed upon so vigorously also indicates that people have long thought oil was the reason we went there. Frankly, if the coalition had said they were going there to secure their oil suppiles, they would have likely scored points for honesty at least.



Correct. It's not just the "left" who thought the war was wrong. Frankly, you can't group together people with diverse views on an abundance of issues under one umbrella. The government has been very good at doing that over the years, but people are tired of it. It's like "union bosses", "union bosses" - it's all we here for God's sake. Tell the mother of that kid who died on his third day on a construction site because the companies he was working with didn't even have safety harnesses that unions have no place in this country. Tell the long distance truckies whose union is fighting for realistic timetables so they don't fall asleep at the wheel and kill people that they have no place. Tell the poor buggers who work at Chillis that they have no place. Ask the miners at Beaconsfield about the place of unions and how irrelevant they allegedly are.
As for Labor representing the left, there's a left wing of the party but it's subservient to the right, and will continue to be. There are as many factions in the libs as there are in labor - have a look at the preselection biffo going on in NSW at the moment. You may rest assured that "the left", whoever they may be, weren't real happy about floating the dollar, deregulating the financial services of the country, bringin in enterprise bargaining and selling off government assets, which were all things the Labor Party did.

That is one hell of an emotional rant...

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by Craig

That is one hell of an emotional rant...

Sure is. Almost as hysterical as the "union bosses" bleating.

[Johnners]

Big lol at the Peter Garrett/Drugs thing. It'll be the biggest farce if this twit ever makes decision that will affect the future of Australia.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by Clapo

Big lol at the Peter Garrett/Drugs thing. It'll be the biggest farce if this twit ever makes decision that will affect the future of Australia.

Why's that mate? Bill Clinton smoked dope and was US President for 8 years.

[Johnners]

Good on him, i just have a poor opinion of Peter Garrett tbh.

[Mister Wright]

Originally Posted by Clapo

Good on him, i just have a poor opinion of Peter Garrett tbh.

No....Really? Never would have guessed.

[Johnners]

haha, thought i'd kept it secret tbh

[Mister Wright]

Don't see what the issue is tbh. Need some more rock 'n' roll in politics. I reckon if they all sat around having a session then they'd get a lot more done than arguing like primary school kids in question time. Certainly would make for more interesting viewing and deeper conversation. And the opposing parties might actually agree on something.

[Burgey]

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...001021,00.html