The election thread - Medicare Vs cost of living Vs OMG China! Vs housing Vs I'm not Trump! Vs prehistoric fish Vs nuclear energy Vs tariffs Vs AUKUS

[Dene Dweller]

I think the big news for this week is the member for his self Craig Thomson. I am still shocked at how long it took to get to this stage. It really undermines our political system when this kind of thing is protected and the investigation delayed for so long. He should have been out on his arse a while back and is another reflection on how poor Gillard was as PM. I am looking forward to the Royal Commission delving deep into the AWU slush fund affair. There will be some interesting stories there.

The thing that stinks the most in this case is the then Labour government wouldn't allow his membership but permitted the acceptance of his vote in parliament so they could retain the balance of power. That's in addition to funding being made available for his legal bills by the NSW labour party to avoid potential bankruptcy. Absolute bullshit and this poor excuse for a human deserves everything coming to him. Such a sad state of politics from both major parties, please give me a leader with vision and conviction for Australia.

 

[johnny]

YEah, we've seen the character of both parties shine pretty bright of late. Labor with Craig Thompson and Eddie Obeid/Co. Liberal with the taking down of the good food website thing and the protection of self interest and connection to private industry. And of course, both parties continue to protect these people (not Eddie, though) regardless of how obvious their wrong doing is.

 

[Skydome]

Which really, brings into question as to why they are making it harder for smaller parties to get going.


In SA recently, both ALP and LNP joined forces, which passed a bill that would require a new party, for the upper house are now required to put up a bond of 3,000 dollars, up front from 450 dollars..

Are they afraid of new parties taking the polish of the major ones or something?

I really don't see any point in making it harder for parties to get going..

 

[driftking]

Which really, brings into question as to why they are making it harder for smaller parties to get going.


In SA recently, both ALP and LNP joined forces, which passed a bill that would require a new party, for the upper house are now required to put up a bond of 3,000 dollars, up front from 450 dollars..

Are they afraid of new parties taking the polish of the major ones or something?

I really don't see any point in making it harder for parties to get going..

Money grab, even if a smaller party was created its very hard for them to get the vote numbers to do any damage to the major parties, people would be very hesitant to let a minor party into power. Id think its purely a money grab like everything else.
We need a party worth voting for though. If we can take labors vision and use the coalition only for management we would have a pretty good government, good idea, fair choices and services and no BS spending.

Can we start a rotorburn party? pretty sure most people in this thread could run the country better than either party right now :laugh:

 

[dcrofty]

Which really, brings into question as to why they are making it harder for smaller parties to get going.

Cause A) they don't want to have more competition for votes and B) as a ruling party you don't want the headache of possibly having to deal with a ragtag bunch of fringe parties to pass legislation if you can avoid it.

I'm not a fan of the process either but find it pretty easy to see why they would do it.

 

[johnny]

Which really, brings into question as to why they are making it harder for smaller parties to get going.


In SA recently, both ALP and LNP joined forces, which passed a bill that would require a new party, for the upper house are now required to put up a bond of 3,000 dollars, up front from 450 dollars..

Are they afraid of new parties taking the polish of the major ones or something?

I really don't see any point in making it harder for parties to get going..

Pretty obvious if you ask me. Why would you think they'd be happy to see a desirable alternative to themselves?

 

[scblack]

Money grab, even if a smaller party was created its very hard for them to get the vote numbers to do any damage to the major parties, people would be very hesitant to let a minor party into power. Id think its purely a money grab like everything else.

But it's not a money grab. Its a Bond so the money is placed in Trust and is not available for anyone's use. Exactly the same as a rental bond when you rent a unit to live in.

I see the rules making it more difficult for a new party to start as a good thing. I do not mean I want anyone who wants to start a new party to be stopped from doing that. But by making it more difficult, it reduces the frivolous petty little micro one idea parties that have sprung up. Otherwise you have three blokes sitting at the pub, chip in $150 each and make up a party called the "Topless Barmaids Party". That's how easy it is now.

There's more than that required but this is for our state and federal Parliamentary process. Do you really want that sort of level of commitment shown by a new party? Coming up with $3,000 is a small amount of money for a group of people who genuinely want to contribute to our parliamentary state of affairs. If you are unwilling or unable to stump up $3,000 you really are not committed to your party or idea to begin with.

As I say being able to be a part of our democratic process is vital, but we should ensure the party's who want to participate have a genuine commitment to their cause and are not simply a couple of mates who decided to have a lash.

 

[brisneyland]

But it's not a money grab. Its a Bond so the money is placed in Trust and is not available for anyone's use. Exactly the same as a rental bond when you rent a unit to live in.

I see the rules making it more difficult for a new party to start as a good thing. I do not mean I want anyone who wants to start a new party to be stopped from doing that. But by making it more difficult, it reduces the frivolous petty little micro one idea parties that have sprung up. Otherwise you have three blokes sitting at the pub, chip in $150 each and make up a party called the "Topless Barmaids Party". That's how easy it is now.

There's more than that required but this is for our state and federal Parliamentary process. Do you really want that sort of level of commitment shown by a new party? Coming up with $3,000 is a small amount of money for a group of people who genuinely want to contribute to our parliamentary state of affairs. If you are unwilling or unable to stump up $3,000 you really are not committed to your party or idea to begin with.

As I say being able to be a part of our democratic process is vital, but we should ensure the party's who want to participate have a genuine commitment to their cause and are not simply a couple of mates who decided to have a lash.

I don't disagree with you in general but I don't think that money equates to commitment. If you believe in the purity of democracy then it shouldn't be about having a certain amount of money.

I'm not sure what the solution should be though.

 

[al_]

This is a fairly incredible new angle to the SPC/Toyota story, particularly given how unfounded and misguided the govs public attacks have been.

The Abbott government pressed SPC Ardmona to slash pay for workers by as much as 40 per cent under a radical bailout plan for the food processor.

 

[Skydome]

I don't disagree with you in general but I don't think that money equates to commitment. If you believe in the purity of democracy then it shouldn't be about having a certain amount of money.

I'm not sure what the solution should be though.

Was gonna say.

If you want the luxury of calling our political system "Democratic" and "Fair" you should not be making it harder and more expensive to get started as a party, and there should be no restrictions in naming apart from where party names overlap to prevent confusion, and before anyone potentially says anything, I don't think there's any confusions between Liberal Democratic Party and the Liberal National Party, people should know that the LNP are the main players and the LDP is the smaller party.

Anyway, the instant one makes it harder and more expensive to get going as a party and places restrictions on party naming, is the instant you cannot call our political system democratic and fair..

 

[Dene Dweller]

This is a fairly incredible new angle to the SPC/Toyota story, particularly given how unfounded and misguided the govs public attacks have been.

Yes and we all know that companies are bottomless wallets for the Unions to dip into.

SPC EBA:
- 28 days annual leave
- 20 days sick leave paid out when leaving the company
- 1 x RDO every month

The Unions and the companies need to start working together for the long term future and viability of industries of all types, if not we will continue to see companies continue disappearing. Also any increases in wage conditions should be linked to productivity gains. This is something that has lacked significantly in Australia however Germany seem to have achieved both. I have no time for asshole unions nor do I have any time for asshole employers.

 

[johnny]

jesus, that's a hell of a package. Basically 6 weeks holiday a year.

 

[scblack]

jesus, that's a hell of a package. Basically 6 weeks holiday a year.

I quoted the Financial Review a while back. Including all entitlements, seasonal close downs, RDO's etc it is over 9 weeks holiday per year.

Disclaimer - Fin. Review called it annual leave but that's wrong. However it is still 9 weeks not working.

 

[geoff_tewierik]

They doing a 24-7 3 shift rotating roster? Or is it just a 5 day week 9-5 job?

 

[al_]

Yes and we all know that companies are bottomless wallets for the Unions to dip into.

SPC EBA:
- 28 days annual leave
- 20 days sick leave paid out when leaving the company
- 1 x RDO every month

The Unions and the companies need to start working together for the long term future and viability of industries of all types, if not we will continue to see companies continue disappearing. Also any increases in wage conditions should be linked to productivity gains. This is something that has lacked significantly in Australia however Germany seem to have achieved both. I have no time for asshole unions nor do I have any time for asshole employers.

Was that what the Prime Minister said in the press conference? Your figures are closer to reality, but it is actually 20 days annual leave, and they are ADOs - not RDOs. There is also a cap on sick leave payouts which is fairly consistent with other industries.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/nrn-spc-pay-claims/5237440

Have you seen the latest wage growth figures? They show that this is a fabricated issue to justify workchoices mk2.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-19/abs-figures-show-annual-wages-growth-slowest-on-record/5269480

Unless we drop wages to Gina's prescribed $2 per day, we aren't going to compete. Australian workers will never be on a level playing field, so exposing our industries with free trade agreements is always heading down this path. Pretending that an EBA is the cause of the problem is insanity.

 

[al_]

I quoted the Financial Review a while back. Including all entitlements, seasonal close downs, RDO's etc it is over 9 weeks holiday per year.

Disclaimer - Fin. Review called it annual leave but that's wrong. However it is still 9 weeks not working.

Are you still talking about this? It was entirely disproved by SPC and the Liberal MP!

 

[John U]

Oh that's right. I remember now. Tony Abbott was lying through his arse.

 

[johnny]

Are you still talking about this? It was entirely disproved by SPC and the Liberal MP!

View attachment 284462

I don't know who is right or wrong here and neither do I care that much.

However, you say that this was disproved by SPC and some Liberal MP and the source you provide is actually something put forward by Labor.

 

[John U]

I don't know who is right or wrong here and neither do I care that much.

However, you say that this was disproved by SPC and some Liberal MP and the source you provide is actually something put forward by Labor.

You'd think that if you were going to take on your own party you'd have your facts straight wouldn't you? I guess the other option was it was a show to win Sharman Stone favour with her constituents, and to show the LNP as not being a pack of drones reading from the same script regardless of the garbage it contained.

 

[rednightmare]

This is pretty worrying.

Update: Abbott's government has confirmed they're getting ready to crack down on internet freedom to comply with the TPP -- including a "three strikes" provision that forces ISPs to monitor and police our activity online.

Tony Abbott's trade minister is about to sign a secret, global pact to allow corporations to sue the Australian government for billions -- just for passing laws to protect our health or the environment.

The secret meeting in Singapore is happening this week. Tony Abbott wants us to believe the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is all about getting a better deal for ordinary Australians. But the truth is that it could end up being one of the biggest corporate power grabs in a generation.

From here.