Underdog antics? I fail to see how he should not to be considered the 'underdog' in the face of consistent polling conveying widespread unpopularity, a vast array of controversial issues and as he is the head of a government that has been in power for 11 years.Nebuchanezzar said:I sure hope the electorate has wisened up to Howard's underdog antics over the years.
...I'm not saying that he's not the underdog, I was simply voicing my cynisism regarding this fairly obvious attempt at increasing his underdog status. It's an advantage for him, he wants more of it.frog said:Underdog antics? I fail to see how he should not to be considered the 'underdog' in the face of consistent polling conveying widespread unpopularity, a vast array of controversial issues and as he is the head of a government that has been in power for 11 years.
Seriously Frog, the Liberals aint gonna loose. Relax. Early polls, like these, mean sweet FA and the Labor party knows it.frog12986 said:Underdog antics? I fail to see how he should not to be considered the 'underdog' in the face of consistent polling conveying widespread unpopularity, a vast array of controversial issues and as he is the head of a government that has been in power for 11 years.
The opposition has the ascendency, and the mood for change is rife. If this doesn't translate into favourtism, nothing will..
That is why 2007 unique. Despite positive economic times, there is a distinct mood for change that extends beyond curiosity for a new, vibrant opposition leader.wheredanton said:Seriously Frog, the Liberals aint gonna loose. Relax. Early polls, like these, mean sweet FA and the Labor party knows it.
I'd say a great proportion of the electorate make up their minds on who to vote for on their way to the polling both. Most people are employed and are driving nice shiny new cars. Such a combination rarely results in a change of government.
You're right frog12896- there are some people who have mood changes and perhaps to them, if not most people, economic growth is not everything.frog12986 said:That is why 2007 unique. Despite positive economic times, there is a distinct mood for change that extends beyond curiosity for a new, vibrant opposition leader.
Either way, we'll find out soon enough..
Doesn't the Flourescent have nasties such as mercury inside them?JFK said:I know a lot of people think that, but remember the small things add up. I actually thought, while it was obvious posturing, that it was quite genius, reduce costs/reduce electrical bills/ reduce consumption on quite a large scale.
MATHS TIME!
Average Flourescent Bulb = 25W for equiv 100W Incandescent.
Okay so automatic saving of 75W per bulb.
Number Crunching time. Average house has say, 5 rooms, all with one bulb. For statistics sake let's say that each was a 100W incandescent that has been replaced by a Flourescent.
500W versus 125W - Extrapolating this further
Say they're both on for 10 hours a day, for sanity's sake
Incandescent = 5 kW Hours
Flourescent = 1.25 kW hours
Massive difference. I know it's not energy standards for appliances and that, but it does multiply out nicely and show a MASSIVE saving
Imagine if a million people did this similar scenario
Incandescent = 5 MILLION kilowatt hours a day
Flourescent = 1.25 MILLION kilowatt hours.
You see it does actually multiply out nicely over time, it's simple yet efficient... so the engineer in me finds it elegant *embarassed*
Raginsheep said:Question: If Rudd doesn't win this election where does he stand? Do you see him having the ability to go another 3 years and take on possibly Turnbull?