Jump to content
Rocket Salad

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

I'm not saying it shouldn't exist. I'm saying why is the government propping it up? If it is not an economically viable sector, why is it so popular for businesses to get in to?  The industry makes over $1B in profits annually, and the landlords that own the centres (many of whom are tangibly connected to the actual centres (eg Peter Dutton owned properties & his wife owned centres) attract around 7% returns on top of any capital gain on the property.

Maybe it should be run the same as schools, a fully not-for-profit sector. Then I'd have less issues with the government funding it, because at the moment much of the funding just goes into the pockets of the big businesses and equity funds that run them.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if the industry died, what would happen to ask the working sector that can't get by without it?  People can't get by on I've income like they did in the 70's.

Not that I understand all this shit, but I could see turning it into a govt entity like public schools as being the go.  But it's too late for that now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, goughy said:

People can't get by on I've income like they did in the 70's.

Families need two incomes because they over-commit before they have kids, thinking of whether they can afford it now and not how they will be if/when they decide to grow the family or something happens to the earning capacity of one partner.  That might mean that they rent instead of buy (or just get a modest house with kids sharing a room), have an older car that they use until it dies, cook dinner and take lunches to work or keep the kids in a public school.  If young couples earned two wages but lived like they earned one then they would find that saving a deposit for a house or investing in their future would be easy and they wouldn't struggle when kids came along or there were financial emergencies.

Our parents did this.  Some of us did this.  Sure it's not always easy or pleasant but so what?  The expectation that life should be fair or comfortable is a very new concept and one that is bound to disappoint.

As for childcare wages, my ex-wife worked in the industry and they are certainly not paid what their jobs are worth.  The way to fix that though is not a government subsidy, it's by raising the award and having users pay what the appropriate cost is.  If that makes staying at home for one parent (not necessarily the mother) more economically viable for the family then see above.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that would be an ideal place to spend the money that Bill is proposing to give as a wage subsidy.  If the money is being spent to allow a sole parent to be in work or to improve their job prospects through education then we should be supporting it as much as we can.  At the moment a lot of government childcare money goes indirectly into allowing someone a bigger mortgage, more useless crap, overseas holidays or giving a stay-at-home parent some non-kid time.  It's middle-class welfare that just makes people less responsible for their own choices.  I blame Howard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stikman said:

Families need two incomes because they over-commit before they have kids, thinking of whether they can afford it now and not how they will be if/when they decide to grow the family or something happens to the earning capacity of one partner.  That might mean that they rent instead of buy (or just get a modest house with kids sharing a room), have an older car that they use until it dies, cook dinner and take lunches to work or keep the kids in a public school.  If young couples earned two wages but lived like they earned one then they would find that saving a deposit for a house or investing in their future would be easy and they wouldn't struggle when kids came along or there were financial emergencies.

Our parents did this.  Some of us did this.  Sure it's not always easy or pleasant but so what?  The expectation that life should be fair or comfortable is a very new concept and one that is bound to disappoint.

As for childcare wages, my ex-wife worked in the industry and they are certainly not paid what their jobs are worth.  The way to fix that though is not a government subsidy, it's by raising the award and having users pay what the appropriate cost is.  If that makes staying at home for one parent (not necessarily the mother) more economically viable for the family then see above.

It is more often the mother. Resulting in worse life time employment outcomes for working mothers. Super, wages, promotion.

Someone is making money out of childcare, maybe we can look at its not too far or hard to see who that is:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/who-profits-from-australias-childcare-system-20161111-gsnkfi.html

The corporate owners and lords. Also as they motivation is profit they will build kroe cntres for the 200 dollar per day Sydney types in the Mercs than they will Single Incomes under 60 K in Rooty Hill.

Many of us have faced the decision do we step out of the work force for ten years. You are basically retiring at that point, you won't work again in any meaningful capacity, so its rich telling people stay at home, be frugal.

Also agree while the subsidies don't help much just like home owners grants they get absorbed in the price. The providers don't set the price and wage on what is fair, they set it on what is fair for them, that is as much as they can get from you and as little as they can give to the worker.

Maybe some thing as important as the care of children could be serviced by a system better than the one hat saw children in mines as low value commodity Labour. economics proven not to work 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they have it right or is Shorten just pulling at the heartstrings of people who work in childcare and those that send there kids to childcare..... and the rest of the population then go all sympathetic.

Who says childcare workers are under paid. I know of a girl who left school last year with no child care experience/education and has a job at a large child care facility. She gets well over $1k per week. That’s the equivalent of $52k a year. Unskilled labour..and from memory it’s not even for a full week.

i think the bigger issue is both governments keep giving subsidies in these areas and the operators of these facilities keep putting the rates up which hurts the people send there kids there. What happens next.... more subsidies and then the fees will go up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IronmanFoz said:

Do they have it right or is Shorten just pulling at the heartstrings of people who work in childcare and those that send there kids to childcare..... and the rest of the population then go all sympathetic.

Who says childcare workers are under paid. I know of a girl who left school last year with no child care experience/education and has a job at a large child care facility. She gets well over $1k per week. That’s the equivalent of $52k a year. Unskilled labour..and from memory it’s not even for a full week.

i think the bigger issue is both governments keep giving subsidies in these areas and the operators of these facilities keep putting the rates up which hurts the people send there kids there. What happens next.... more subsidies and then the fees will go up again.

Establish more centres to increase supply.

Maybe give Childcare the same exemptions as the church

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, IronmanFoz said:

 

Who says childcare workers are under paid. I know of a girl who left school last year with no child care experience/education and has a job at a large child care facility. She gets well over $1k per week. That’s the equivalent of $52k a year. Unskilled labour..and from memory it’s not even for a full week.

 

That girl you know is on a good wicket. Cut & pasted from Open Colleges job stats page

Childcare positions in Australia earn an average of $800 per week at full-time hours. Part-time they can expect to earn $614 per week within Australia. The average pay for Childcare Assistants (with five years' experience, working in Sydney) is around$41,600 per year. 

That's with a Cert3 or Diploma in early childcare. An entry level Childcare Assistant position with no qualification is paid considerably less.  

Edited by Mike Del

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we can say, stay home mum and look after the kids, those mother's will fall behind in Super, income and job experience.  With the divorce rate what it is, there are going to be more of those mother's who have taken short in all those areas and will struggle more in retirement.  When one parent was staying home with kids, those parents knew they were getting an aged pension.  Now we don't know that!  And over the years support payments have fallen behind inflation or whatever.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

52 k will buy a lot

Is managing the economy about no growth in wages falling asset prices and rising debts. In the big pie if you keep giving even more pie to grossly fat people and cutting to really skinny people.

Eventually the skinny people get very annoyed or the system collapses and society reorganises.

The problem is one of inequality. This election is about that at least both leaders are honest enough to put heir positions forward.

Shorten believes in more equal society through fairer redistribution. Is Shorten to close to the greens

Morrison also wants this, he is from the church of build the bigger pie through setting favourable conditions for enterprise, primarily private.

Is Morrison to much under the sway of the far rights, Benardi, Abbott and Iron Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, goughy said:

While we can say, stay home mum and look after the kids, those mother's will fall behind in Super, income and job experience.  With the divorce rate what it is, there are going to be more of those mother's who have taken short in all those areas and will struggle more in retirement.  When one parent was staying home with kids, those parents knew they were getting an aged pension.  Now we don't know that!  And over the years support payments have fallen behind inflation or whatever.  

Yep, I had a role to look at this at a big department and the stats show the women get poor outcomes from electing to stay at home. Mate who led the policy development under the LNP said if you are working we are happy to give you some subsidy. The people who rail against the 7500 subsidy seem to forget the working parent pays tax and providing in theory and valued service.

10 or more years without super, check compound interest formula. Then check how interested employers are in your stay at home skills.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, goughy said:

While we can say, stay home mum and look after the kids, those mother's will fall behind in Super, income and job experience.   

Which is a key consideration when deciding to have kids

Same goes for stay at home dads too, or course 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, goughy said:

While we can say, stay home mum and look after the kids, those mother's will fall behind in Super, income and job experience.  With the divorce rate what it is, there are going to be more of those mother's who have taken short in all those areas and will struggle more in retirement.  When one parent was staying home with kids, those parents knew they were getting an aged pension.  Now we don't know that!  And over the years support payments have fallen behind inflation or whatever.  

Happy to be proven wrong but isn't a man's Superannuation taken into account when working out financial settlements in divorces?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

It is more often the mother. Resulting in worse life time employment outcomes for working mothers. Super, wages, promotion.

True, I guess it depends on what you value whether it's worth it and what choices you make.  If the long-term view is that it's not worth the cost to your lifestyle then you pay for childcare for the few years until your child is ready for kindy/pre-school.  If you were already living off one wage then having the other go almost completely to fees might be tough to stomach but doable.  My point was just about the statement that many parents make that their partner "had to go back to work" financially.  In most cases that is as a result of earlier personal lifestyle choices, not any inherent need.

But I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't subsidise childcare to keep people in paid employment (and as you rightly say, it affects women more).  The lost years to child raising don't just affect the person in question, it also costs the broader community their skills and the benefit of the experience they would have gained in that time and perhaps even more government benefits in their later years through lower assets.  The public subsidising care for that purpose is money well spent in my opinion.

On the other hand my daughter went to childcare a couple of days a week and her mum wasn't working.  We did it because we felt that the social development it provided was important and her mum didn't engage in parenting groups that might otherwise have provided it.  The government subsidised all of that and while we were happy to take it because we were entitled to it, it wasn't really needed or of much benefit to the wider community.  You hear plenty of other instances like Ex's neighbour above who do similar.

As for the consequences of family break-up in single-income families with respect to super there are options that deal with this.  https://www.industrysuper.com/media/super-and-divorce-or-separation/

5 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

The industry makes over $1B in profits annually, and the landlords that own the centres (many of whom are tangibly connected to the actual centres (eg Peter Dutton owned properties & his wife owned centres) attract around 7% returns on top of any capital gain on the property.

It's a $13bn a year industry, I don't know that $1bn profit is that profligate.  Likewise a 7% ROI plus capital gain for property.  Context is always important.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor old One Nation, Steve is caught in serious situation with the NRA gets defended as good guy. Has a good time in a strip club and gets kicked out.

Beggars belief that they stood by him when he should have been sacked and then they kick him out when going about his evening out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucky for all those ON supporters, they've got another nutcase in CP to vote for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

 

Who says childcare workers are under paid. I know of a girl who left school last year with no child care experience/education and has a job at a large child care facility. She gets well over $1k per week. That’s the equivalent of $52k a year. Unskilled labour..and from memory it’s not even for a full week.

 

I call absolute BS on that kids pay. She has either done a Cert 3 while at school or doing a traineeship and on the way to a Diploma. If it is legit let me know which franchise I'm sending my wife there.

It is anything but unskilled labour. Early childhood educators and teachers have to do the same level of lesson planning, paperwork as primary school teachers. Early childhood teachers' Uni Degree qualifies  them to teach infants at the local primary school. The choice to teach preschool or long day care costs them thousands of dollars a year, the pay disparity is immense. Uni course same, pay less just because the kid is 1 year younger and not in a primary school.

Parents expect their kid to get 1 on 1 supervision, school readiness (basically teach them to read and write and add up before school starts) from 3-5 years old as well as manage behaviour and developmental issues as well as safety. They send 3 year olds off in nappies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mike Del said:

That girl you know is on a good wicket. Cut & pasted from Open Colleges job stats page

Childcare positions in Australia earn an average of $800 per week at full-time hours. Part-time they can expect to earn $614 per week within Australia. The average pay for Childcare Assistants (with five years' experience, working in Sydney) is around$41,600 per year. 

That's with a Cert3 or Diploma in early childcare. An entry level Childcare Assistant position with no qualification is paid considerably less.  

I was mowing the lawn and started thinking I might have those figures wrong, so I checked with my wife who heard the same conversation from the girls mum..... 

So.... my correction here is she gets approx $1k...not well over...... but still not bad for a casual (from November - March when Uni started). 

Agree...... maybe the answer is in supply and demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

i think the bigger issue is both governments keep giving subsidies in these areas and the operators of these facilities keep putting the rates up which hurts the people send there kids there. What happens next.... more subsidies and then the fees will go up again.

I think anytime the government is paying contractors a subsidy or to do something the government doesn't want to supply, dodgy operator will always come in and try to scale things to make a non-ethical buck. Local builder did this when batts scheme was on, stopped carpentry and hired kids to chuck batts in roof and took government money knowing it wa a rort. Openly laughed about how easy the money is. RTO's giving out laptops and signing people to courses they'll never do or exploiting young or international students would be exhibit 2 (at the expense of a TAFE system).  health, allied health and NDIS is another massive can of worms where private operators are lining their pockets at the governments expense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Parkside said:

I call absolute BS on that kids pay. She has either done a Cert 3 while at school or doing a traineeship and on the way to a Diploma. If it is legit let me know which franchise I'm sending my wife there.

I’ll check with my daughter tonight on the Cert 3 thing. Never thought of that as my daughter did a nursing via TAFE as one of her HSC subjects ....so it’s entirely plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Parkside said:

I think anytime the government is paying contractors a subsidy or to do something the government doesn't want to supply, dodgy operator will always come in and try to scale things to make a non-ethical buck. Local builder did this when batts scheme was on, stopped carpentry and hired kids to chuck batts in roof and took government money knowing it wa a rort. Openly laughed about how easy the money is. RTO's giving out laptops and signing people to courses they'll never do or exploiting young or international students would be exhibit 2 (at the expense of a TAFE system).  health, allied health and NDIS is another massive can of worms where private operators are lining their pockets at the governments expense.

Agree...... glad I aren’t implementing/managing all these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Parkside said:

I call absolute BS on that kids pay. She has either done a Cert 3 while at school or doing a traineeship and on the way to a Diploma. If it is legit let me know which franchise I'm sending my wife there.

It is anything but unskilled labour. Early childhood educators and teachers have to do the same level of lesson planning, paperwork as primary school teachers. Early childhood teachers' Uni Degree qualifies  them to teach infants at the local primary school. The choice to teach preschool or long day care costs them thousands of dollars a year, the pay disparity is immense. Uni course same, pay less just because the kid is 1 year younger and not in a primary school.

Parents expect their kid to get 1 on 1 supervision, school readiness (basically teach them to read and write and add up before school starts) from 3-5 years old as well as manage behaviour and developmental issues as well as safety. They send 3 year olds off in nappies. 

I'm confused. Surely early childhood education (E.g  kindergarten) is seperate to childcare? With seperate requirements.  (I know there is long day care which includes a kindergarten component, but let's keep it simple)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I reckon (no, I haven't had any drinks).  I'm not talking about kindy, or those C&K places etc where your kids only go a few times a week during school hours.  They're a different bag baby.

Childcare goes govt run.  Available for all working families when there will be no one staying at home (both parents working or single parent working).  Available to cover the parent with the least working hours, even if it's casual and part time.  Doesn't matter if it's the mother or the father.  If one parent does decide to go the stay at home route, they can't access childcare until the child is two years of age, and then they get one day, purely as socialisation for the child.  Not free care, but following a similar model for costing.  Cept because it's govt run, there isn't a daily rate that is subsidised by percentages, but just a varying rate model.

Cut the rates of all govt funding (federal and state) to private schools, so no private school gets more than 50% of the govt funding per child that state schools get.

{Mic drop}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel free to ask me any question, but don't expect any answers that make any more sense than what I just thought up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, goughy said:

This is what I reckon (no, I haven't had any drinks).  I'm not talking about kindy, or those C&K places etc where your kids only go a few times a week during school hours.  They're a different bag baby.

Childcare goes govt run.  Available for all working families when there will be no one staying at home (both parents working or single parent working).  Available to cover the parent with the least working hours, even if it's casual and part time.  Doesn't matter if it's the mother or the father.  If one parent does decide to go the stay at home route, they can't access childcare until the child is two years of age, and then they get one day, purely as socialisation for the child.  Not free care, but following a similar model for costing.  Cept because it's govt run, there isn't a daily rate that is subsidised by percentages, but just a varying rate model.

Cut the rates of all govt funding (federal and state) to private schools, so no private school gets more than 50% of the govt funding per child that state schools get.

{Mic drop}

Have you been door-knocking & handing out your "How to vote" cards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dazaau said:

I'm confused. Surely early childhood education (E.g  kindergarten) is seperate to childcare? With seperate requirements.  (I know there is long day care which includes a kindergarten component, but let's keep it simple)

No there are no “licensed” child care centres that are exempt from proving an education program as outlined in the Early Years Learning Framework (see wife I do listen) 

In other words there are none that provide “just babysitting” 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Have you been door-knocking & handing out your "How to vote" cards?

I'm assuming you lot will just tell everyone you know, and then all of ya's will just write my name down on your ballot papers.  That should work shouldn't it?  That should cover most of the country shouldn't it?  You lot know everybody don't ya's?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

I’ll check with my daughter tonight on the Cert 3 thing. Never thought of that as my daughter did a nursing via TAFE as one of her HSC subjects ....so it’s entirely plausible.

Checked with my daughter. No Cert 3 or anything. It turns out she is family friend of owner and works more hours than others hence the pay. 

So this is a bad example. In this topic.

Parkside... thanks for the push to find out a little more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IronmanFoz said:

Checked with my daughter. No Cert 3 or anything. It turns out she is family friend of owner and works more hours than others hence the pay. 

So this is a bad example. In this topic.

Parkside... thanks for the push to find out a little more.

Well now we know you aren’t cut out for politics :lol:

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, roxii said:

Well now we know you aren’t cut out for politics :lol:

 

Or as a investigative reporter.

oh and what about today’s debacle of the Australian cricketer who used the word boyfriend in his post..... media went stupid without questioning and verifying. We all make mistakes. But it’s not my job ;)

Edited by IronmanFoz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How interesting was the Pauline Hanson interview. I never watch ACA but saw a snippet and went online to see the whole thing.  While I would rather it does not, I reckon that interview will help put her back on the right track, came across as very, very upset but also passionate and genuine which will appeal to her base I think, and some others. She really has consistently surrounded herself with idiots people who let her down! 

The problem is even if you agree with her policies you never know if you are going to accidentally elect another complete moron on her ticket - even the ones she likes and trusts are nuts - I can't believe Malcolm Roberts has made it back to no 1 on her senate list. And surely Ashby would have to be a liability about now....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a brief and private chat last couple of weeks with someone who has occupied one of the top 3 federal pollie jobs. 

My last question was off the record so that’s why I am being a bit cagey here.

Asked if Barnaby was a nutter.

Certified was the answer.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My predictions.

ALP/Greens to take office though starting to look less likely as the days go by. I put $50 on the libs at $4.50 last week. ( that's now the kiss of death for them)

Both the major parties will have their lowest percentage of the vote in living memory. Independent and minor parties will wield huge power and influence.

George Soros funded Get Up backed Greens will lose ground. 

One Nation is farked with a huge number of their supporters jumping on the Fraser train. ( huge backfire there Al Jazeera ) Anning will be a lot bigger than you all think after the election.

Not sure if Clive will be as big as news polls say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dazaau said:

How interesting was the Pauline Hanson interview. I never watch ACA but saw a snippet and went online to see the whole thing.  While I would rather it does not, I reckon that interview will help put her back on the right track, came across as very, very upset but also passionate and genuine which will appeal to her base I think, and some others. She really has consistently surrounded herself with idiots people who let her down! 

The problem is even if you agree with her policies you never know if you are going to accidentally elect another complete moron on her ticket - even the ones she likes and trusts are nuts - I can't believe Malcolm Roberts has made it back to no 1 on her senate list. And surely Ashby would have to be a liability about now....

 

Lets anyone forget how nuts Malcolm is - he sent this to Julia, when she was PM. 

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/AffidavitGillard.pdf

It claims (among many other things) that the Commonwealth of Australia is a listed entity on the US stock exchange and includes a contract for Julia to sign that requires $10,000 in payment for each of the questions he asks that she fails to answer. 

not to mention referring to himself as a living soul about 100 times...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Di Natale is calling for a 2010-style marriage between the ALP and Greens

I wonder if he'll get as much out of Lyin' Bill as Bob got out of Julia 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dazaau said:

Lets anyone forget how nuts Malcolm is - he sent this to Julia, when she was PM. 

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/AffidavitGillard.pdf

It claims (among many other things) that the Commonwealth of Australia is a listed entity on the US stock exchange and includes a contract for Julia to sign that requires $10,000 in payment for each of the questions he asks that she fails to answer. 

not to mention referring to himself as a living soul about 100 times...

This is the major problem with small parties and above the line voting in the senate. No one knows who the hell the senate candidates will be sitting in parliament signing off or blocking legislation. These nutters have never been heard from until they get pushed up the order and thrown into the senate. Unfortunately once they get there they receive undue publicity and get too much influence, egging on the nutjob fringes in society and the media

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, dazaau said:

How interesting was the Pauline Hanson interview. I never watch ACA but saw a snippet and went online to see the whole thing.  While I would rather it does not, I reckon that interview will help put her back on the right track, came across as very, very upset but also passionate and genuine which will appeal to her base I think, and some others. She really has consistently surrounded herself with idiots people who let her down! 

The problem is even if you agree with her policies you never know if you are going to accidentally elect another complete moron on her ticket - even the ones she likes and trusts are nuts - I can't believe Malcolm Roberts has made it back to no 1 on her senate list. And surely Ashby would have to be a liability about now....

 

At least Pauline is passionate about what she believes in. You can’t say that about Shorten.

Also this strip club thing happened in September....... why did it come to the fore now..... suspicious  sabotage I say.

And didn’t Rudd get found out in a strip club too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, IronmanFoz said:

And didn’t Rudd get found out in a strip club too.

He didn’t inhale though 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or is PH just so frustrated that her presence is being eaten away by all the shit that goes on and around her party?  Just take a look at the number of people elected to positions under ON that then quit her party to become independents, join country party, or Palmer etc.  It must be about 80+% of her members quit or got booted for citizenship issues!  Now I think she's a nutcase, and crazy encourages more crazy!

Strip club antics are too much for her, but wanting to water down our gun laws, gain funding from the NRA and other nra supporting companies, punch ups, dodgy plane deals, etc are all ok?

She is pissed as hell that her party is faltering under her, with Palmer likely picking them up, only 3 weeks from the election.  It's a massive ego hit.

By the way, I don't think the egos of many other pollies are that different these days.  Too much money on the line for it to be about Civic duty for the majority.  BS should accept he is the biggest drawcard for the LNP and put someone else up for the leadership.  Even if they win, I believe he will cost them some seats.

Peter Dutton wanting to be leader was nothing more than ego; he knows how unpopular he is yet he still tried.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, goughy said:

Or is PH just so frustrated that her presence is being eaten away by all the shit that goes on and around her party?  Just take a look at the number of people elected to positions under ON that then quit her party to become independents, join country party, or Palmer etc.  It must be about 80+% of her members quit or got booted for citizenship issues!  Now I think she's a nutcase, and crazy encourages more crazy!

Strip club antics are too much for her, but wanting to water down our gun laws, gain funding from the NRA and other nra supporting companies, punch ups, dodgy plane deals, etc are all ok?

She is pissed as hell that her party is faltering under her, with Palmer likely picking them up, only 3 weeks from the election.  It's a massive ego hit.

By the way, I don't think the egos of many other pollies are that different these days.  Too much money on the line for it to be about Civic duty for the majority.  BS should accept he is the biggest drawcard for the LNP and put someone else up for the leadership.  Even if they win, I believe he will cost them some seats.

Peter Dutton wanting to be leader was nothing more than ego; he knows how unpopular he is yet he still tried.  

She has chosen her allies poorly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She reminded me of a decorator I used to do work for years ago.  Used to go through staff, even store managers, like no tomorrow!  Was bitching one day about it and how she couldn't find good people these days.  She was a outright bitch though, and I wanted to scream at her, "look in the mirror of you wanna see the problem!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just opened my postal vote envelope.  What lovely friggin choices I have here!

Labor, greens, LNP, uap, on, Fraser Anning.  

Not that my vote counts for much, but feeling like I have to preference the LNP 3rd out of 6!  **** a duck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, goughy said:

Just opened my postal vote envelope.  What lovely friggin choices I have here!

Labor, greens, LNP, uap, on, Fraser Anning.  

Not that my vote counts for much, but feeling like I have to preference the LNP 3rd out of 6!  **** a duck.

I feel as though I may need wine whilst making my selections.......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting article of the sitting LNP Senator in Qld that has been relegated to an unwinnable 4th spot on the LNP ticket. He was dropped back after a newcomer Gerard Rennick got the 3rd place. Coincidently Rennick, who'd never donated to the LNP before, managed to donate over $30k leading up to the pre-selection, but hasn't been able to put through much more than $1k in the 10 months since.

With all the furore over factionalism, personally, I'd prefer the factions deciding who gets in rather than just who donates money. If it works for pre-selection voting, you'd have to think it carries on to the real decisions in parliament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

An interesting article of the sitting LNP Senator in Qld that has been relegated to an unwinnable 4th spot on the LNP ticket. He was dropped back after a newcomer Gerard Rennick got the 3rd place. Coincidently Rennick, who'd never donated to the LNP before, managed to donate over $30k leading up to the pre-selection, but hasn't been able to put through much more than $1k in the 10 months since.

With all the furore over factionalism, personally, I'd prefer the factions deciding who gets in rather than just who donates money. If it works for pre-selection voting, you'd have to think it carries on to the real decisions in parliament.

30 to buy a 200 k plus job for 8 years plus lots of allowances and this is democracy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

An interesting article of the sitting LNP Senator in Qld that has been relegated to an unwinnable 4th spot on the LNP ticket. He was dropped back after a newcomer Gerard Rennick got the 3rd place.

I don't really understand what 4th spot on the LNP ticket means - I thought you either got preselection or you didn't and the ticket was the how to vote for preference of other candidates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pete said:

I don't really understand what 4th spot on the LNP ticket means - I thought you either got preselection or you didn't and the ticket was the how to vote for preference of other candidates?

There are six senate seats in each state up for grabs (12 senators per state in total, as only half the senate is up for re-election each 3 years as there are 6 year terms). You need 14.3% of the vote to get a seat Usually lib and labour are guaranteed 2 seats, and may get 3 or 4. They are elected in order of the preferences outlined by the party, so 1t on the ticket is guaranteed, 3rd has a good chance and 4th is unlikely in some situations. Hope that makes sense. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...