-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
Federal Election (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sathius005
- Start date
Menomaths
Exaı̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸lted Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2013
- Messages
- 2,373
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2013
Re: 2016 Federal Election
He got an average mark of 50.3 per cent in Bachelor of Business. He came first in Business Law and Ethics at UTS Law school with High Distinction. UTS Law is a top one per cent law school in the world. He is also the foremost sage of our era.
I believe Sathius005 will save us.
He got an average mark of 50.3 per cent in Bachelor of Business. He came first in Business Law and Ethics at UTS Law school with High Distinction. UTS Law is a top one per cent law school in the world. He is also the foremost sage of our era.
Sathius005
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2007
- Messages
- 716
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2008
- Uni Grad
- 2018
Re: 2016 Federal Election
As a conservative I oppose Gay Marriage. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
.
As a conservative I oppose Gay Marriage. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Sathius005
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2007
- Messages
- 716
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2008
- Uni Grad
- 2018
Re: 2016 Federal Election
Shorten’s Generational Change
Source: The Aust
Bill Shorten has promoted close supporters to key positions in his first frontbench and handed challenging portfolios to rising Labor stars as he announced a shadow ministry that he said produced "generational change".
Shorten’s Generational Change
Source: The Aust
Bill Shorten has promoted close supporters to key positions in his first frontbench and handed challenging portfolios to rising Labor stars as he announced a shadow ministry that he said produced "generational change".
soloooooo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 3,311
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
He's getting something correct by doing that.
I'm not a fan of the leadership team of Shorten, Plibersek, Wong and Conroy. Shorten and Conroy are absolute idiots.
Sathius005
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2007
- Messages
- 716
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2008
- Uni Grad
- 2018
Re: 2016 Federal Election
I think it is vital that every Australian understands their Bible proverbs.
I think it is vital that every Australian understands their Bible proverbs.
kaz1
et tu
isildurrrr1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,756
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Sathius005
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2007
- Messages
- 716
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2008
- Uni Grad
- 2018
Re: 2016 Federal Election
I think the federal Coalition is making a mistake in abandoning Integrated Marketing Communications including public relations strategy. The Liberals want to take politics off the front pages and are not obsessed about managing the 24 hour media cycle. I think the ALP strategy of solid governing and 24 hours News Cycle Management is a winning strategy. Abbott is getting himself into hot water over the expenses scandal. I watched the comedy that is the Coalition it was so bad it was a tragedy. I think the Abbott government is deteriorating before our eyes. Now the question is how big the Labor majority will be at the next federal election. In the NSW state electorate of Miranda there was a 25 per cent swing against the Liberals in the by election. The Liberals are toxic. Kick this Liberal mob out they are a bunch of incompetents who don't know what is a political expense that can be charged on the tax payer and what isn't. It's the same old Liberals, same old tricks and nothing gets fixed. The Liberals are big on idle talk and low on delivery.
I think the federal Coalition is making a mistake in abandoning Integrated Marketing Communications including public relations strategy. The Liberals want to take politics off the front pages and are not obsessed about managing the 24 hour media cycle. I think the ALP strategy of solid governing and 24 hours News Cycle Management is a winning strategy. Abbott is getting himself into hot water over the expenses scandal. I watched the comedy that is the Coalition it was so bad it was a tragedy. I think the Abbott government is deteriorating before our eyes. Now the question is how big the Labor majority will be at the next federal election. In the NSW state electorate of Miranda there was a 25 per cent swing against the Liberals in the by election. The Liberals are toxic. Kick this Liberal mob out they are a bunch of incompetents who don't know what is a political expense that can be charged on the tax payer and what isn't. It's the same old Liberals, same old tricks and nothing gets fixed. The Liberals are big on idle talk and low on delivery.
Last edited:
Sathius005
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2007
- Messages
- 716
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2008
- Uni Grad
- 2018
Re: 2016 Federal Election
I think that the science of climate change is absolute crap. The carbon tax is toxic. The climate change alarmist garbage fed by the Greens/ Fairfax and ABC is an absolute shocker. These organisations should have stayed away from this economy destructive policies. What is the greatest moral challenge of our time? It is the economy stupid. Without a strong economy our living standards will plummet. For a strong economy and our competitive advantage we need cheap energy. Bill Shorten as a Labor voter I think you are a disgrace. Labor has learn nothing from the 2013 federal election defeat.
I think that the science of climate change is absolute crap. The carbon tax is toxic. The climate change alarmist garbage fed by the Greens/ Fairfax and ABC is an absolute shocker. These organisations should have stayed away from this economy destructive policies. What is the greatest moral challenge of our time? It is the economy stupid. Without a strong economy our living standards will plummet. For a strong economy and our competitive advantage we need cheap energy. Bill Shorten as a Labor voter I think you are a disgrace. Labor has learn nothing from the 2013 federal election defeat.
Last edited:
Sathius005
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2007
- Messages
- 716
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2008
- Uni Grad
- 2018
Re: 2016 Federal Election
Centre – left political supporters are starting to say “Abbott and his Tea Party rednecks continue to vilify people escaping war and oppression. The KKK have taken over the government benches and will soon be reintroducing the White Australia Policy!”
Minister wants boat people called illegals
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ministe
Centre – left political supporters are starting to say “Abbott and his Tea Party rednecks continue to vilify people escaping war and oppression. The KKK have taken over the government benches and will soon be reintroducing the White Australia Policy!”
Minister wants boat people called illegals
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ministe
someth1ng
Retired Nov '14
Re: 2016 Federal Election
2. No, the carbon tax isn't toxic and we have seen its effects. It has been shown to reduce our carbon emissions with only a very, very small cost to everyone. LNP have exaggerated the impact of the carbon tax and have outright lied about climate change.
3. Yeah...no.
4. Well, not really. Your first priority is to keep the planet habitable - the deforestation and carbon emissions isn't exactly keeping the planet habitable.
5. Plummet? That's an exaggeration - climate change mitigation isn't going to make your living standard plummet and seriously? Are you that selfish? The moment your standard of living "plummets", you cry about it? Your living standard here are probably better than 99% of the world so I don't think you get the right to complain. Such arrogance.
6. Yeah, you also need one that will be enough in the long term - the only ones are the renewable sources and nuclear fusion.
1. You sound like Tony Abbott - a non-scientist trying to make judgement on science that he has no understanding of. If that's how you want to be, well, I can only feel terribly sorry for you. And no, the evidence is most definitely not crap.
2. No, the carbon tax isn't toxic and we have seen its effects. It has been shown to reduce our carbon emissions with only a very, very small cost to everyone. LNP have exaggerated the impact of the carbon tax and have outright lied about climate change.
3. Yeah...no.
4. Well, not really. Your first priority is to keep the planet habitable - the deforestation and carbon emissions isn't exactly keeping the planet habitable.
5. Plummet? That's an exaggeration - climate change mitigation isn't going to make your living standard plummet and seriously? Are you that selfish? The moment your standard of living "plummets", you cry about it? Your living standard here are probably better than 99% of the world so I don't think you get the right to complain. Such arrogance.
6. Yeah, you also need one that will be enough in the long term - the only ones are the renewable sources and nuclear fusion.
isildurrrr1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,756
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Re: 2016 Federal Election
Degrass tyson has a point.
Degrass tyson has a point.
Sathius005
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2007
- Messages
- 716
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2008
- Uni Grad
- 2018
Re: 2016 Federal Election
My advice to the ALP is not to preselect Deb O Neill for the NSW senator position in federal parliament. She is just plain toxic. She is a former school teacher and has no parliamentary aptitude i.e. she has never had a legal/ business education at a top five per cent business/ law school in the world. She is incompetent. Out out foul spot. Out out foul spot. Deb O Neill is a failed candidate in the 2013 federal election in the seat of Robertson. Deb O Neill you should have died of shame for losing the non loseable seat of Robertson, a seat once considered Labor heartland. If Labor preselects Deb O Neill it would be a day of shame for the Labor party.
My advice to the ALP is not to preselect Deb O Neill for the NSW senator position in federal parliament. She is just plain toxic. She is a former school teacher and has no parliamentary aptitude i.e. she has never had a legal/ business education at a top five per cent business/ law school in the world. She is incompetent. Out out foul spot. Out out foul spot. Deb O Neill is a failed candidate in the 2013 federal election in the seat of Robertson. Deb O Neill you should have died of shame for losing the non loseable seat of Robertson, a seat once considered Labor heartland. If Labor preselects Deb O Neill it would be a day of shame for the Labor party.
Last edited:
Sathius005
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2007
- Messages
- 716
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2008
- Uni Grad
- 2018
Re: 2016 Federal Election
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yARnFBMMPRg
Tony Abbott's Massive Debt Without Stimulus.
Tony Abbott should have died of shame for the misleading and deceptive statements that he made about debt and deficit. We do not have a national emergency/ debt crisis compared to other countries in the Western World.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yARnFBMMPRg
Tony Abbott's Massive Debt Without Stimulus.
Tony Abbott should have died of shame for the misleading and deceptive statements that he made about debt and deficit. We do not have a national emergency/ debt crisis compared to other countries in the Western World.
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Re: 2016 Federal Election
um thats not degrasse tyson that's clearly black science man
Sathius005
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2007
- Messages
- 716
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2008
- Uni Grad
- 2018
Re: 2016 Federal Election
What happened on 7 September?
Source: Mumble Blog
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...ralian/comments/what_happened_on_7_september/
WHY did the Labor government lose last month’s election?
A government bowing out after two terms in trying economic circumstances does not necessarily require much explanation, but this was a big defeat, against a lacklustre opposition led by a man most voters found unpalatable.
It certainly wasn’t Tony Abbott’s promise to repeal the “carbon tax” that did it. If anything this just got in the way of Australians’ task of voting for change. Apart from a couple of days in the final week of the campaign, that policy barely got a mention.
(If some Australians told exit-pollsters the “carbon tax” drove their vote, and those polling gurus took their rationalisations at face value, that’s the polling gurus’ business.)
On 7 September people voted to throw out the Labor Party—despite this action necessitating an Abbott prime ministership and likely cuts to government spending—because they thought it had been a very bad government. That’s bad in a very important way: it was sending the country broke with its reckless spending. And if the Coalition was being less than truthful about the harsh medicine that would be required, so be it.
That is, people’s belief in the Coalition’s debt and deficit story determined the election result.
It didn’t have to be that way, and after Kevin Rudd returned to the Labor leadership in late June it looked like it wouldn’t be.
Straight away Rudd challenged Abbott to a National Press Club debate on the economy and debt and deficits in particular. The opposition leader wisely declined but for the next few weeks Rudd continued hammering the theme.
On 8 August, five days after the election had been called, I wrote this post called “Why Labor will (probably) win”. Understandably, it’s been thrown back at me a few times since (although I did reverse the prognosis two weeks later).
I’d been overseas for two weeks and away from television exposure to the campaign and had assumed Rudd was continuing his incumbency-generation project.
But two days after that post I watched (online) my first Australian television in more than a fortnight, the formal Press Club debate between Rudd and Abbott, and was surprised, nay appalled, at the prime minister’s insipid performance.
That first debate was the only one with a large television audience and it had the potential to set the tone of the campaign. I had expected to see an incumbent prime minister exercising authority, demolishing the Coalition’s debt and deficits narrative at every opportunity.
Instead the viewer saw a wimpy wannabe, avoiding the topic, droning instead about GST increases under a Coalition government. What a loser; Rudd was running as an opposition leader, an insurgent, which I suppose is where he is most comfortable.
(This was my next post.)
Rudd returning to form was one important element in the result, but at a fundamental level the ALP never really tried to argue the debt and deficits story. Or at least never competently.
Labor and its supporters seemed determined to make the argument about the correctness of Keynesian economics; they wanted to convince people that they cushioned the effects of the downturn by going into deficit and the Coalition by contrast would have dragged the country in recession.
The problem with this is it implies they had a choice about going into deficit, which fuels the Coalition’s implicit (if not ever actually stated) argument that if they had remained in government there would have been no budget deficits.
The government had two simple sets of figures they could use: (1) Peter Costello’s four-year forward estimates of government revenue in his last budget 2007–8 and (2) actual government revenue in those years. The drop in receipts alone after the global financial crisis was enough to drive the budget into deficit.
(For elaboration see here.)
Only in fiction do single events in debates turn election outcomes, but imagine Rudd had called Abbott on that, perhaps forcing the Liberal leader to deny he had ever claimed a Coalition government would have delivered surpluses.
The Coalition was vulnerable on this and probably knew it but the ALP let them off. Here, for example, was new Treasurer Chris Bowen in debate with Joe Hockey on ABC’s Q&A in August, responding to a question from the audience:
“Well, let’s talk about debt. Yes, the Government increased expenditure during the Global Financial Crisis. Why? Because it was the right thing to do. It got us through without recession.
“You know, around the rest of the world, they don’t call it the Global Financial Crisis. They call it the Global Recession. We don’t call it that because we didn’t have one.
“And one of the reasons we didn’t have a recession was because we increased spending and, yes, we went into debt. But let’s look at the debt ...”
Hockey presumably couldn’t believe his luck. In truth any governing party would have racked up hundreds of billions of dollars in debt, but Labor couldn’t bring itself to make this point.
Amazing.
The thematic blunder of Rudd’s retreat on the economy was driven, I am told, by party “research”.
The second major reason for the Coalition’s big win was all Rudd’s doing: those flaky, quickly-thought-up feel-good announcements. They were so obvious they reminded voters that Kevin believes in nothing.
Because Australian elections are contests between two leaders, Rudd’s undignified behaviour during the campaign—his public stature was at rock-bottom by the end—made Abbott more prime ministerial.
(The public service heads’ intervention at the end of the second-last week was disastrous as well, but we’ll never know if it would have happened had the near-unanimous expectation of a change of government been absent.)
With the Abbott government having gone quiet about a “budget emergency”, Labor people are crying foul. But politicians have been telling whoppers about their opponents forever.
What happened on 7 September?
Source: Mumble Blog
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...ralian/comments/what_happened_on_7_september/
WHY did the Labor government lose last month’s election?
A government bowing out after two terms in trying economic circumstances does not necessarily require much explanation, but this was a big defeat, against a lacklustre opposition led by a man most voters found unpalatable.
It certainly wasn’t Tony Abbott’s promise to repeal the “carbon tax” that did it. If anything this just got in the way of Australians’ task of voting for change. Apart from a couple of days in the final week of the campaign, that policy barely got a mention.
(If some Australians told exit-pollsters the “carbon tax” drove their vote, and those polling gurus took their rationalisations at face value, that’s the polling gurus’ business.)
On 7 September people voted to throw out the Labor Party—despite this action necessitating an Abbott prime ministership and likely cuts to government spending—because they thought it had been a very bad government. That’s bad in a very important way: it was sending the country broke with its reckless spending. And if the Coalition was being less than truthful about the harsh medicine that would be required, so be it.
That is, people’s belief in the Coalition’s debt and deficit story determined the election result.
It didn’t have to be that way, and after Kevin Rudd returned to the Labor leadership in late June it looked like it wouldn’t be.
Straight away Rudd challenged Abbott to a National Press Club debate on the economy and debt and deficits in particular. The opposition leader wisely declined but for the next few weeks Rudd continued hammering the theme.
On 8 August, five days after the election had been called, I wrote this post called “Why Labor will (probably) win”. Understandably, it’s been thrown back at me a few times since (although I did reverse the prognosis two weeks later).
I’d been overseas for two weeks and away from television exposure to the campaign and had assumed Rudd was continuing his incumbency-generation project.
But two days after that post I watched (online) my first Australian television in more than a fortnight, the formal Press Club debate between Rudd and Abbott, and was surprised, nay appalled, at the prime minister’s insipid performance.
That first debate was the only one with a large television audience and it had the potential to set the tone of the campaign. I had expected to see an incumbent prime minister exercising authority, demolishing the Coalition’s debt and deficits narrative at every opportunity.
Instead the viewer saw a wimpy wannabe, avoiding the topic, droning instead about GST increases under a Coalition government. What a loser; Rudd was running as an opposition leader, an insurgent, which I suppose is where he is most comfortable.
(This was my next post.)
Rudd returning to form was one important element in the result, but at a fundamental level the ALP never really tried to argue the debt and deficits story. Or at least never competently.
Labor and its supporters seemed determined to make the argument about the correctness of Keynesian economics; they wanted to convince people that they cushioned the effects of the downturn by going into deficit and the Coalition by contrast would have dragged the country in recession.
The problem with this is it implies they had a choice about going into deficit, which fuels the Coalition’s implicit (if not ever actually stated) argument that if they had remained in government there would have been no budget deficits.
The government had two simple sets of figures they could use: (1) Peter Costello’s four-year forward estimates of government revenue in his last budget 2007–8 and (2) actual government revenue in those years. The drop in receipts alone after the global financial crisis was enough to drive the budget into deficit.
(For elaboration see here.)
Only in fiction do single events in debates turn election outcomes, but imagine Rudd had called Abbott on that, perhaps forcing the Liberal leader to deny he had ever claimed a Coalition government would have delivered surpluses.
The Coalition was vulnerable on this and probably knew it but the ALP let them off. Here, for example, was new Treasurer Chris Bowen in debate with Joe Hockey on ABC’s Q&A in August, responding to a question from the audience:
“Well, let’s talk about debt. Yes, the Government increased expenditure during the Global Financial Crisis. Why? Because it was the right thing to do. It got us through without recession.
“You know, around the rest of the world, they don’t call it the Global Financial Crisis. They call it the Global Recession. We don’t call it that because we didn’t have one.
“And one of the reasons we didn’t have a recession was because we increased spending and, yes, we went into debt. But let’s look at the debt ...”
Hockey presumably couldn’t believe his luck. In truth any governing party would have racked up hundreds of billions of dollars in debt, but Labor couldn’t bring itself to make this point.
Amazing.
The thematic blunder of Rudd’s retreat on the economy was driven, I am told, by party “research”.
The second major reason for the Coalition’s big win was all Rudd’s doing: those flaky, quickly-thought-up feel-good announcements. They were so obvious they reminded voters that Kevin believes in nothing.
Because Australian elections are contests between two leaders, Rudd’s undignified behaviour during the campaign—his public stature was at rock-bottom by the end—made Abbott more prime ministerial.
(The public service heads’ intervention at the end of the second-last week was disastrous as well, but we’ll never know if it would have happened had the near-unanimous expectation of a change of government been absent.)
With the Abbott government having gone quiet about a “budget emergency”, Labor people are crying foul. But politicians have been telling whoppers about their opponents forever.