-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
mld said:
Next to Bernardi and Morrison and Brandis and Bernardi-lite(The PM) of course Malcolm looks moderate.
The ex member for Kooyong Petro Georgiou decided a few years ago to stand up and be counted on the asylum seeker issue against his party and his reward was being dumped from the next election and replaced by another Liberal party parrot. I am sure there are examples on the ALP side as well, it's not a Liberal Party alone issue.KnightersRevenge said:
[youtube=560,315]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8pnnVwcPUU[/youtube]
Well that's a slip-up if I ever heard it!
Well that's a slip-up if I ever heard it!
Extract from an article in The Age:
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has warned Russian President Vladimir Putin to "back off" from invading neighbouring Ukraine.
I'm sure Vlad's scared to death after hearing that. :hihi
Let's see how tough Obama really is in this case.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has warned Russian President Vladimir Putin to "back off" from invading neighbouring Ukraine.
I'm sure Vlad's scared to death after hearing that. :hihi
Let's see how tough Obama really is in this case.
Interesting article, especially as it is from someone who I remember giving Labor a fair whack when in power. While there is some 'straw grabbing', with regards to the figures, it is still interesting and shows the other side of what is going one... beyond the Lib's rubbish spin.
Lost jobs cost budget $600m
Date
March 11, 2014
Mark Kenny
Chief political correspondent
Large job losses since the Abbott government came to power could cost taxpayers more than $600 million in extra dole payments and income tax not paid.
And there could be further costs, too, such as lower GST revenue and a greater call on healthcare and other essential services at concessional rates.
Research by the Parliamentary Library, at the request of Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, has shone a light on the hidden cost of factory closures, putting the cumulative bill for post-election announcements as high as $616 million.
The figure quantifies for the first time the other side of the Abbott government's ''end of the age of entitlement'' policy, which labels company assistance as ''corporate welfare'' and dictates that taxpayer funds should not be used to protect jobs.
The modelling assumes the newly unemployed had been earning average weekly income in the private sector of $57,200 a year, and that they will take 12 months on average to find other work. The figures assume each worker has two children. The losses amount to $35 million per 1000 employees displaced. It also aggregates jobs already axed with the thousands more slated to end in the future.
These include major employers in the manufacturing and resources sectors from Electrolux, Forge, Alcoa, Rio Tinto, and Qantas, to Holden and Toyota.
The government argues that propping up dying industries and poorly managed firms only rewards bad practices and delays the inevitable.
Many economists agree, with Deloitte Access director Chris Richardson, backing the short-term cost of redundancies over what are usually long-term costs from industry support. But the costs of allowing large numbers of workers to fall into unemployment has not been prominent in the political argument until now.
Mr Shorten said the government had not been upfront about the impact of the decisions to leave car workers and others to their own devices in a worsening labour market.
''This government promised a million new jobs over five years but all we've seen since it was elected is jobs going overseas,'' he said.
''It's bad enough these jobs are going, but it's even worse that the government hasn't even put up a fight for them.
''This government was elected to fight for Australian jobs - but the only fight they've been willing to have is to send Qantas and other jobs overseas.''
Some economists work on the so-called ''thirds'' theory after big factory closures, arguing a third of the displaced workforce - usually the younger employees - turn out to have readily transferable skills and pick up work quickly. Another third take a lot longer to find work and even then may not earn as much, and the final third - often the older employees - never secure paid work again.
Australian National University economics professor Bob Gregory said quantifying the costs either to the budget or to individuals displaced was extremely ''tricky'' because of a plethora of situational factors.
These included where and when someone was made unemployed, and what their personal circumstances were, including age, mobility, savings, assets and the income of their partners.
This made predicting the aggregate cost of unemployment benefits problematic because a surprisingly large number of the jobless do not qualify for the dole.
He said the impact on income tax revenue foregone by the Commonwealth was easier to predict.
Charles Darwin University economics professor Bill Mitchell said economists agreed that spending public dollars to keep companies afloat was usually a waste of money but said the problem was allowing people to become unemployed at a time of worsening unemployment.
He said the $600 million figure was not significant in the context of the fiscal envelope and called for more money to be spent on work programs.
Other economists say the short-term cost to the budget does not make the policy of ending corporate welfare wrong.
Dr Richardson said: ''There are costs to the budget, but they don't last long.
''What tends to last are the costs of subsidising businesses. Chances are that in the long term, the budget is healthier if people work for companies that don't need government subsidies to stay in business.''
Lost jobs cost budget $600m
Date
March 11, 2014
Mark Kenny
Chief political correspondent
Large job losses since the Abbott government came to power could cost taxpayers more than $600 million in extra dole payments and income tax not paid.
And there could be further costs, too, such as lower GST revenue and a greater call on healthcare and other essential services at concessional rates.
Research by the Parliamentary Library, at the request of Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, has shone a light on the hidden cost of factory closures, putting the cumulative bill for post-election announcements as high as $616 million.
The figure quantifies for the first time the other side of the Abbott government's ''end of the age of entitlement'' policy, which labels company assistance as ''corporate welfare'' and dictates that taxpayer funds should not be used to protect jobs.
The modelling assumes the newly unemployed had been earning average weekly income in the private sector of $57,200 a year, and that they will take 12 months on average to find other work. The figures assume each worker has two children. The losses amount to $35 million per 1000 employees displaced. It also aggregates jobs already axed with the thousands more slated to end in the future.
These include major employers in the manufacturing and resources sectors from Electrolux, Forge, Alcoa, Rio Tinto, and Qantas, to Holden and Toyota.
The government argues that propping up dying industries and poorly managed firms only rewards bad practices and delays the inevitable.
Many economists agree, with Deloitte Access director Chris Richardson, backing the short-term cost of redundancies over what are usually long-term costs from industry support. But the costs of allowing large numbers of workers to fall into unemployment has not been prominent in the political argument until now.
Mr Shorten said the government had not been upfront about the impact of the decisions to leave car workers and others to their own devices in a worsening labour market.
''This government promised a million new jobs over five years but all we've seen since it was elected is jobs going overseas,'' he said.
''It's bad enough these jobs are going, but it's even worse that the government hasn't even put up a fight for them.
''This government was elected to fight for Australian jobs - but the only fight they've been willing to have is to send Qantas and other jobs overseas.''
Some economists work on the so-called ''thirds'' theory after big factory closures, arguing a third of the displaced workforce - usually the younger employees - turn out to have readily transferable skills and pick up work quickly. Another third take a lot longer to find work and even then may not earn as much, and the final third - often the older employees - never secure paid work again.
Australian National University economics professor Bob Gregory said quantifying the costs either to the budget or to individuals displaced was extremely ''tricky'' because of a plethora of situational factors.
These included where and when someone was made unemployed, and what their personal circumstances were, including age, mobility, savings, assets and the income of their partners.
This made predicting the aggregate cost of unemployment benefits problematic because a surprisingly large number of the jobless do not qualify for the dole.
He said the impact on income tax revenue foregone by the Commonwealth was easier to predict.
Charles Darwin University economics professor Bill Mitchell said economists agreed that spending public dollars to keep companies afloat was usually a waste of money but said the problem was allowing people to become unemployed at a time of worsening unemployment.
He said the $600 million figure was not significant in the context of the fiscal envelope and called for more money to be spent on work programs.
Other economists say the short-term cost to the budget does not make the policy of ending corporate welfare wrong.
Dr Richardson said: ''There are costs to the budget, but they don't last long.
''What tends to last are the costs of subsidising businesses. Chances are that in the long term, the budget is healthier if people work for companies that don't need government subsidies to stay in business.''
This is a good one too... Yes, work is quiet today.
Federal government worked to scuttle New Zealand statement against nuclear weapons
Date March 10, 2014
Philip Dorling
"The argument 'to ban the bomb' may be emotionally appealing, but the reality is that disarmament cannot be imposed this way": Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
The federal government led secret diplomatic efforts to frustrate a New Zealand-led push for nuclear disarmament, according to documents released under freedom of information laws.
Declassified ministerial submissions, cables and emails from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade show Australian diplomats worked energetically against nuclear disarmament efforts by other countries, because ''we rely on US nuclear forces to deter nuclear attack on Australia''.
In October last year, following the election of the Coalition government, Australia refused a New Zealand request to endorse a 125-nation joint statement at the United Nations highlighting the humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons.
Australia objected to a sentence declaring that it is in the interest of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, ''under any circumstances''.
A group of 16 nations, including Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa and New Zealand have been working to highlight the humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons.
This diplomatic campaign is intended to lay the ground for negotiation of a convention that would prohibit nuclear weapons - putting them in the same category as chemical and biological weapons which are already prohibited under international law.
Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop argues this approach is simply counterproductive.
''[The] argument 'to ban the bomb' may be emotionally appealing, but the reality is that disarmament cannot be imposed this way,'' she said last month. ''Just pushing for a ban would divert attention from the sustained, practical steps needed for effective disarmament.''
However, declassified documents have revealed the government's primary concern is that a nuclear weapons ban would ''cut across'' Australia's reliance on US nuclear deterrence as part of its defence posture.
A Foreign Affairs and Trade department submission endorsed by Ms Bishop last October argued that a nuclear weapons ban ''conflicts with Australia's long-standing position that, as long as a nuclear weapons threat exists, we rely on US nuclear forces to deter nuclear attack on Australia''.
Foreign Affairs and Trade head Peter Varghese bluntly observed that the New Zealand-led humanitarian initiative ''runs against our security interests''.
Australia's diplomacy suffered a blow when Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida agreed that Japan would sign the New Zealand-led statement. Australian diplomats consulted closely with the US State Department. Email exchanges between Australian diplomats reveal Washington reprimanded Tokyo over its decision.
Anti-nuclear campaigners labelled Australia's intervention a ''weasel statement … a last-minute rival announcement … seemingly in an effort to undermine the efforts of pro-ban activists''.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/federal-government-worked-to-scuttle-new-zealand-statement-against-nuclear-weapons-20140309-34fe8.html#ixzz2vbuQAQHA
Federal government worked to scuttle New Zealand statement against nuclear weapons
Date March 10, 2014
Philip Dorling
"The argument 'to ban the bomb' may be emotionally appealing, but the reality is that disarmament cannot be imposed this way": Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
The federal government led secret diplomatic efforts to frustrate a New Zealand-led push for nuclear disarmament, according to documents released under freedom of information laws.
Declassified ministerial submissions, cables and emails from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade show Australian diplomats worked energetically against nuclear disarmament efforts by other countries, because ''we rely on US nuclear forces to deter nuclear attack on Australia''.
In October last year, following the election of the Coalition government, Australia refused a New Zealand request to endorse a 125-nation joint statement at the United Nations highlighting the humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons.
Australia objected to a sentence declaring that it is in the interest of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, ''under any circumstances''.
A group of 16 nations, including Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa and New Zealand have been working to highlight the humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons.
This diplomatic campaign is intended to lay the ground for negotiation of a convention that would prohibit nuclear weapons - putting them in the same category as chemical and biological weapons which are already prohibited under international law.
Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop argues this approach is simply counterproductive.
''[The] argument 'to ban the bomb' may be emotionally appealing, but the reality is that disarmament cannot be imposed this way,'' she said last month. ''Just pushing for a ban would divert attention from the sustained, practical steps needed for effective disarmament.''
However, declassified documents have revealed the government's primary concern is that a nuclear weapons ban would ''cut across'' Australia's reliance on US nuclear deterrence as part of its defence posture.
A Foreign Affairs and Trade department submission endorsed by Ms Bishop last October argued that a nuclear weapons ban ''conflicts with Australia's long-standing position that, as long as a nuclear weapons threat exists, we rely on US nuclear forces to deter nuclear attack on Australia''.
Foreign Affairs and Trade head Peter Varghese bluntly observed that the New Zealand-led humanitarian initiative ''runs against our security interests''.
Australia's diplomacy suffered a blow when Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida agreed that Japan would sign the New Zealand-led statement. Australian diplomats consulted closely with the US State Department. Email exchanges between Australian diplomats reveal Washington reprimanded Tokyo over its decision.
Anti-nuclear campaigners labelled Australia's intervention a ''weasel statement … a last-minute rival announcement … seemingly in an effort to undermine the efforts of pro-ban activists''.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/federal-government-worked-to-scuttle-new-zealand-statement-against-nuclear-weapons-20140309-34fe8.html#ixzz2vbuQAQHA
How low will this government go? Now nukes are in vogue. Can't believe my eyes and ears on this one. Something tells me this has more to do with Australia's uranium reserves than it has to do with world peace. Julie Bishop must get goose bumps when she watches Lords of War.
As for the spolier tactics, the LNP has been doing the same with climate change policy. All I can say is I've never witnessed such a bunch of thugs running the country. Their attitude to the environment and the common people is disgusting in the extreme. But as long as Rupert & Gina are happy then everything is hunky dory.
I also note that the Coalition want to abandon cross media ownership laws, seems like Rupert is finally getting his pay day. First 800 million in tax write-offs and now complete domination of all media. Isn't it great to live in such a wonderful democracy!
As for the spolier tactics, the LNP has been doing the same with climate change policy. All I can say is I've never witnessed such a bunch of thugs running the country. Their attitude to the environment and the common people is disgusting in the extreme. But as long as Rupert & Gina are happy then everything is hunky dory.
I also note that the Coalition want to abandon cross media ownership laws, seems like Rupert is finally getting his pay day. First 800 million in tax write-offs and now complete domination of all media. Isn't it great to live in such a wonderful democracy!
bullus_hit said:
Its all out of the conservative playbook Bully, although this particular mob do have a dearth of moderates. More than half our compatriots voted for 'em, knowing full well, who was cooking what on My Kitchen Rules on Wednesday night