Labor and big business. (1 Viewer)

[thorrnydevil]

I was looking through Senator Kerry Nettles website earlier and came across this quote:

In the past four years, the NSW ALP has taken a staggering $20 million in corporate donations. This surprisingly exceeds the $12 million raised by the traditional friend of big business, the Liberal Party.

It makes you think, is the ALP really for the "working man," or is it a front to steal votes? And at the same time get donations from big business...who they say they are against (well, some of them).

http://www.kerrynettle.org.au/300_campaigns_sub.php?&deptItemID=32

Comments?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The labor party chooses only to reward people who fit into their category of what a hard working australian is.

They believe that everyone under 52,000 is a hard worker. They believe that manufacturing workers are hard workers... while labourers are not...

If you also believe this, go ahead and vote labor. Labor has done a good job of setting out exactly who they believe deserves more and who deserves less.

 

[Generator]

They believe in fairness for all, not just fairness for those with quite a bit of money.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Even if they believe in fairness for all, they do not deliver fairness for all.

They choose who deserves what which often to some people doesn't seem fair at all,
if you don't fit into their view of who is being treated 'unfairly' then you will get nothing.

 

[thorrnydevil]

They believe in fairness for all, not just fairness for those with quite a bit of money.

Oh, so thats why they took money from private schools, even though their parents pay taxes.

 

[Ziff]

Oh, so thats why they took money from private schools, even though their parents pay taxes.

They took money from 67 of the richest private schools so they could redistribute the money to other, poorer non-government and government schools.

It's easy to change the facts when you decide to omit relevent parts of the policies...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

They took money from 67 of the richest private schools so they could redistribute the money to other, poorer non-government and government schools.

It's easy to change the facts when you decide to omit relevent parts of the policies...

Yes... and some may not say that was fair, hows about they found another way to fund the public schools some more eh?

Maybe one day you will be on the other side of their 'fairness'.

 

[thorrnydevil]

They took money from 67 of the richest private schools so they could redistribute the money to other, poorer non-government and government schools.

It's easy to change the facts when you decide to omit relevent parts of the policies...

What are you on about?

 

[thorrnydevil]

What are you on about?

Change the facts? Omit relevant parts of the policy? So, do you believe in fairness, or public funding going to a certain school sector. Your beliefs are flawed and go against everything you believe in.

 

[ohne]

It makes you think, is the ALP really for the "working man," or is it a front to steal votes? And at the same time get donations from big business...who they say they are against (well, some of them).

If you think the ALP is for the "working class" or the "working man" then take a look at their treatment of forestry workers in Tasmania.

The NSW Branch of the ALP is notorious for taking donations from business (especially property developers) and then returning favours. The most clear example of this is helping out Westfields by closing down the Orange Grove shopping centre in Liverpool and taking away the jobs of around 500 people.

So much for "working" people!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

lol Ohne change ur signature, it's hard to take u as someone who isn't just totally anti-labor with that image, as it is with asqui's howard images.

 

[thorrnydevil]

If you think the ALP is for the "working class" or the "working man" then take a look at their treatment of forestry workers in Tasmania.

The NSW Branch of the ALP is notorious for taking donations from business (especially property developers) and then returning favours. The most clear example of this is helping out Westfields by closing down the Orange Grove shopping centre in Liverpool and taking away the jobs of around 500 people.

So much for "working" people!

Thats exactly what I'm saying. They claim to be, but they don't do anything for them.

 

[leetom]

The Tasmanian logging workers are just getting huffy and puffy because Latham is setting about changing the way things are done down there. Everybody is scared of change, but Latham has promised that not a single job will be lost. That's a pretty big promise but I trust Latham with Tasmanian logging jobs as much as you trust Howard with the economy.

Should Latham be elected and he breaks that promise and jobs are lost, it won't be easily forgotten.

What are the differences between Howard's forest policy and Latham's?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I don't know...
I don't think you make many friends towards labor with your huge propaganda signature either tho..

As a side note...who gives a crap about the trees over these people's jobs? If i had to choose between those tree's and those people's jobs i would pick those people's jobs every time.

What is the difference between those forests and any other forest which we cut down? Because they're old?

I believe that the majority of people care more about people's jobs than tree's..
What John Howard has said is that we will save a significant ammount of the forest but your jobs are more important if push comes to shove..

Latham has said that the forest is more important than those people's jobs... so that later on kids wont have to wonder 'i wonder what those tree's looked like'...

maybe they can just go to any one of the national parks which we have set up and see some tree's, i don't know many kids that care about tree's.

This is a situation of labor taking the position that the small group of people that care more about tree's are the ones that need to be treated 'fairly'.

 

[paper cup]

oh look thorny's back. sorry, no time will edit 2moro. stupid maths. spamming, me bad.

 

[spell check]

haha do you expect them to refuse donations just because they come from a large business?

 

[thorrnydevil]

haha do you expect them to refuse donations just because they come from a large business?

You missed my point. I'm saying that they say they represent the working class when they are actually more aligned with big businesses than the Liberal Party.

 

[Nick]

You missed my point. I'm saying that they say they represent the working class when they are actually more aligned with big businesses than the Liberal Party.

just because they receive more donations does not mean they are more aligned with big business

isn't it possible that businesses are more likely to donate money to the Party that holds power and will likely continue to hold power

why would they give money to the NSW liberal party when Labor is so strong in NSW

it has nothing to do with "alignment", more just businesses being practical

 

[leetom]

The Carr Government is extremely developer friendly, if you have people who know other people.

 

[meshy]

Oh, so thats why they took money from private schools, even though their parents pay taxes.

Change the facts? Omit relevant parts of the policy? So, do you believe in fairness, or public funding going to a certain school sector. Your beliefs are flawed and go against everything you believe in.

I hope thorrnydevil is above most of us and having a laugh at his irony-riddled posts

I believe that the majority of people care more about people's jobs than tree's..
What John Howard has said is that we will save a significant ammount of the forest but your jobs are more important if push comes to shove..

Well the only figure that's been published so far is that 90% of Australians support the protection of Tasmania's forests.

As a side note...who gives a crap about the trees over these people's jobs? If i had to choose between those tree's and those people's jobs i would pick those people's jobs every time.

Latham has said that the forest is more important than those people's jobs... so that later on kids wont have to wonder 'i wonder what those tree's looked like'...

maybe they can just go to any one of the national parks which we have set up and see some tree's, i don't know many kids that care about tree's.

This is a situation of labor taking the position that the small group of people that care more about tree's are the ones that need to be treated 'fairly'.

Do you think it's in the Australian economy's best interest to sustain the 'woodchip industry'? Do you think that this sort of industry is sustainable in the long term?

Where do you think the loggers jobs will go when the trees are gone? As Dr Couser said in the smh today, Latham appears to be Tasmania's only chance to break free from this unsustainable, insatiable industry.

Don't you think it's a bit short-sighted to use up resources to the extent that future generations won't be able to use them?