If Latham wins ........you are finished !!!

T. Anderton · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 6

The consequences of a Latham victory in November will be as follows:

1) America, the cornerstone of our security, may well turn its back on
us, because Labor is an anti-America party. Americans bitterly
resented Latham's insulting remarks about Bush.

2) Australia will become a socialist republic, with a left-wing
president.

3) Tens of thousands of boat people will pour in; the bleeding hearts
of the ALP will insist that they stay. The country will be in chaos.

4) Interest rates will rise.

5) Unemployment will get much worse.

6) To cover their enormous deficits, Labor will privatise Telstra.

7) Labour will abolish the private health insurance subsidy; public
hospitals will become chaotic.

Cool

Most Labor politicians are exunion bosses. Union ballots are
sometimes rigged. With every government Labor, can we feel confident
of above-board elections?

9) Labor will have awesome power; they will control both houses and
every state.

10) Any criticism of homosexuality will be banned, as in NSW.

11) We will say sorry to the Aborigines.

12) Gay marriages will be legalised.

13) Heroin injecting rooms will be encouraged.

14) Union bosses will be able to walk into any business and make
demands.

15) The unions and the Greens will run Australia.

Finally, we are waging a life-and death struggle against the
terrorists. We need steady experienced hands on the tiller. A year ago
Mr Latham was known as an incompetent shadow treasurer with a penchant
for gutter language. Won't it be rather a risk electing him ?

Archived from group: aus>students

Morris Syzlak · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

"T. Anderton" wrote in message@posting.google.com...
> The consequences of a Latham victory in November will be as follows:
>
> 1) America, the cornerstone of our security, may well turn its back on
> us, because Labor is an anti-America party. Americans bitterly
> resented Latham's insulting remarks about Bush.
>

*In a slow American drawl* Wuts a Latham?

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 4/06/2004

A Mate · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

Cross posted garbage!!!!

The soc.culture groups are dangerous places!!

"T. Anderton" wrote in message@posting.google.com...
> The consequences of a Latham victory in November will be as follows:
>
> 1) America, the cornerstone of our security, may well turn its back on
> us, because Labor is an anti-America party. Americans bitterly
> resented Latham's insulting remarks about Bush.
>
> 2) Australia will become a socialist republic, with a left-wing
> president.
>
> 3) Tens of thousands of boat people will pour in; the bleeding hearts
> of the ALP will insist that they stay. The country will be in chaos.
>
> 4) Interest rates will rise.
>
> 5) Unemployment will get much worse.
>
> 6) To cover their enormous deficits, Labor will privatise Telstra.
>
> 7) Labour will abolish the private health insurance subsidy; public
> hospitals will become chaotic.
>
> Cool

Most Labor politicians are exunion bosses. Union ballots are
> sometimes rigged. With every government Labor, can we feel confident
> of above-board elections?
>
> 9) Labor will have awesome power; they will control both houses and
> every state.
>
> 10) Any criticism of homosexuality will be banned, as in NSW.
>
> 11) We will say sorry to the Aborigines.
>
> 12) Gay marriages will be legalised.
>
> 13) Heroin injecting rooms will be encouraged.
>
> 14) Union bosses will be able to walk into any business and make
> demands.
>
> 15) The unions and the Greens will run Australia.
>
> Finally, we are waging a life-and death struggle against the
> terrorists. We need steady experienced hands on the tiller. A year ago
> Mr Latham was known as an incompetent shadow treasurer with a penchant
> for gutter language. Won't it be rather a risk electing him ?

B J Foster · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 52

T. Anderton wrote:
> The consequences of a Latham victory in November will be as follows:
>
> 1) America, the cornerstone of our security, may well turn its back on
> us, because Labor is an anti-America party. Americans bitterly
> resented Latham's insulting remarks about Bush.

Not anti-America, anti-Bush. Yes, you have a point, the truth can be
slanderous in Australia.

>
> 2) Australia will become a socialist republic, with a left-wing
> president.

Socialism is by definition the transfer of private assets to the public
purse. We have never had a higher taxing government than the current
one, nor have we ever had so much vote-buying middle-class welfare.

>
> 3) Tens of thousands of boat people will pour in; the bleeding hearts
> of the ALP will insist that they stay. The country will be in chaos.

While Ruddock was distracting us with the refugee non-problem, skilled
migration was ramped up from from 35k to 65k pa. No IT professional or
middle manager will vote Liberal again. Worse, they allowed thousands of
Indian IT pros to come here on temporary visas and put Australians out
of jobs.

>
> 4) Interest rates will rise.

And so they should. The money supply is increasing at around 20% pa.
What do you think that does to our national wealth?

>
> 5) Unemployment will get much worse.

ROTFL.

>
> 6) To cover their enormous deficits, Labor will privatise Telstra.

Yeah, apart from an airport, the Liberals haven't privatised anything.
Keating started the ball (of capitalism) rolling and the current (by any
definition socialist) government has failed to continue the momentum.
The current relative prosperity is largely due to the micro-eocnomic
reforms implemented by Keating.

>
> 7) Labour will abolish the private health insurance subsidy; public
> hospitals will become chaotic.

Rises in premiums have already eliminated the subsidy AND we're
compelled to join at the risk of penalty premiums. Clearly, John Howard
has zero understanding of how *markets* operate - also evident from the
first home buyers subsidy. Subsidy, subsidy, subsidy, doesn't sound very
market-oriented to me.

>
> Cool

Most Labor politicians are exunion bosses. Union ballots are
> sometimes rigged. With every government Labor, can we feel confident
> of above-board elections?

Slippery slope argument - has Labor rigged the AEC?

>
> 9) Labor will have awesome power; they will control both houses and
> every state.

Nope - NSW Labor for instance will get the flick. We'll do the usual
flip-flop.

>
> 10) Any criticism of homosexuality will be banned, as in NSW.

So what?

>
> 11) We will say sorry to the Aborigines.

Aw gee, what an awful blow to the pride.

>
> 12) Gay marriages will be legalised.

They are now. Anyone can sign a contract. Dissect this and it amounts to
protection via legislation.
(No we're scraping the bottom of the barrel it seems)

>
> 13) Heroin injecting rooms will be encouraged.

Since John Howard and his mate Tony Blair liberated Afghanistan, heroin
exports from that country have gone up 20x, yes that's 2000%. Imports
into Australia have risen 4-5x and violent crime has increased by over
50%. The biggest single factor causing violent crime? Heroin.

>
> 14) Union bosses will be able to walk into any business and make
> demands.

Rot

>
> 15) The unions and the Greens will run Australia.

Yeah, like Wilkie (ex ONA intelligence officer) standaing for the Greens
(and the truth) in Bennelong. ROTFL.

>
> Finally, we are waging a life-and death struggle against the
> terrorists. We need steady experienced hands on the tiller. A year ago
> Mr Latham was known as an incompetent shadow treasurer with a penchant
> for gutter language. Won't it be rather a risk electing him ?

Rot. 22,000 people die from drugs every year. Not one person has dies
from terrorism on Australian soil. Our principles and values are the
best possible defence against terrorism, hmmm, like truth for instance.

Reasons to flick Howard:
1. When Americans flick Bush, you don't want to be his ally
2. To abolish socialism & particularly middle-class welfare
3. Halt the flood of skilled migrants
4. So that we don't have to hear any more lies about the refugee non-problem
5. Insurance incompetence: Small business will remember the fall of HIH
after John Howard put Hockey's legislation on the back-burner. The
informed amongst us will take note of who profited most from HIH (and
which seat he will be 'contesting')
6. Elimination of market distorting subsidies. Well, maybe not
eliminatuion but at least an end to the expansion.
7. Informed, expert policy based on input from professionals and
evidence from successful trials overseas (Heroin trials).
8. Consultative leaders, who listen to the electorate get input from
experts and THEN form policy (heroin, euthanasia, guns, and many other
issues)
9. An end to the lies, which undermine our democracy and principles.

B J Foster · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 52

B J Foster wrote:
>
>
> T. Anderton wrote:
>
>> The consequences of a Latham victory in November will be as follows:
>>

>>
>> 3) Tens of thousands of boat people will pour in; the bleeding hearts
>> of the ALP will insist that they stay. The country will be in chaos.
>
>
> While Ruddock was distracting us with the refugee non-problem, skilled
> migration was ramped up from from 35k to 65k pa. No IT professional or
> middle manager will vote Liberal again. Worse, they allowed thousands of
> Indian IT pros to come here on temporary visas and put Australians out
> of jobs.

The reality:
"11,000 jobs may go: ACS"
(http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9708562%255E15317,00.html)

The government's response:
"THE Federal Government has opened the door to ICT-skilled migrants,
granting more permanent visas in the first eight months of the 2003-4
financial year than in the whole of 2002-3. According to figures from
the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs,
up to February 29 this year 6313 permanent visas, or 34 per cent of all
permanent visas approved under the General Skilled Migration category,
were issued to ICT applicants"
(http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9708574%255E15317,00.html)

11,000 people who won't vote for Howard.

>

Lionheart · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 19

"Morris Syzlak" wrote in message@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "T. Anderton" wrote in message
> @posting.google.com...
> > The consequences of a Latham victory in November will be as follows:
> >
> > 1) America, the cornerstone of our security, may well turn its back on
> > us, because Labor is an anti-America party. Americans bitterly
> > resented Latham's insulting remarks about Bush.
> >
>
> *In a slow American drawl* Wuts a Latham?
>
A "Latham" is a nightmare

shaon · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

It's always good to have a balanced point of view. While T. Anderton
claims a lot (whether one agree's or not) he/she seems to lack evidence
in supporting his/her views. The truth lies in the facts, thanks B J.

B J Foster wrote:

>
>
> B J Foster wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> T. Anderton wrote:
>>
>>> The consequences of a Latham victory in November will be as follows:
>>>
>
>
>>>
>>> 3) Tens of thousands of boat people will pour in; the bleeding hearts
>>> of the ALP will insist that they stay. The country will be in chaos.
>>
>>
>>
>> While Ruddock was distracting us with the refugee non-problem, skilled
>> migration was ramped up from from 35k to 65k pa. No IT professional or
>> middle manager will vote Liberal again. Worse, they allowed thousands
>> of Indian IT pros to come here on temporary visas and put Australians
>> out of jobs.
>
>
> The reality:
> "11,000 jobs may go: ACS"
> (http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9708562%255E15317,00.html)
>
> The government's response:
> "THE Federal Government has opened the door to ICT-skilled migrants,
> granting more permanent visas in the first eight months of the 2003-4
> financial year than in the whole of 2002-3. According to figures from
> the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs,
> up to February 29 this year 6313 permanent visas, or 34 per cent of all
> permanent visas approved under the General Skilled Migration category,
> were issued to ICT applicants"
> (http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9708574%255E15317,00.html)
>
> 11,000 people who won't vote for Howard.
>
>>
>
>

AlanS · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

On 7 Jun 2004 04:50:27 -0700, in aus.students
spookyrahul2000@yahoo.com (T. Anderton) spewed forth the
following in message

>The consequences of a Latham victory in November will be as follows:
>
>1) America, the cornerstone of our security, may well turn its back on
>us, because Labor is an anti-America party. Americans bitterly
>resented Latham's insulting remarks about Bush.
>
>2) Australia will become a socialist republic, with a left-wing
>president.
>
>3) Tens of thousands of boat people will pour in; the bleeding hearts
>of the ALP will insist that they stay. The country will be in chaos.
>
>4) Interest rates will rise.
>
>5) Unemployment will get much worse.
>
>6) To cover their enormous deficits, Labor will privatise Telstra.
>
>7) Labour will abolish the private health insurance subsidy; public
>hospitals will become chaotic.
>
> Cool

Most Labor politicians are exunion bosses. Union ballots are
>sometimes rigged. With every government Labor, can we feel confident
>of above-board elections?
>
>9) Labor will have awesome power; they will control both houses and
>every state.
>
>10) Any criticism of homosexuality will be banned, as in NSW.
>
>11) We will say sorry to the Aborigines.
>
>12) Gay marriages will be legalised.
>
>13) Heroin injecting rooms will be encouraged.
>
>14) Union bosses will be able to walk into any business and make
>demands.
>
>15) The unions and the Greens will run Australia.
>
>Finally, we are waging a life-and death struggle against the
>terrorists. We need steady experienced hands on the tiller. A year ago
>Mr Latham was known as an incompetent shadow treasurer with a penchant
>for gutter language. Won't it be rather a risk electing him ?

unmitigated scare-mongering rubbish from beginning to end.

AlanS
--
Sin: A system devised by the sadistic to manipulate the brainless

Brock Ulfsen · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

T. Anderton wrote:
> The consequences of a Latham victory in November will be as follows:

> 1) America, the cornerstone of our security, may well turn its back on
> us, because Labor is an anti-America party. Americans bitterly
> resented Latham's insulting remarks about Bush.

Hmmm, and we will be immediately invaded by who? China? India? The UK,
oh, already too late, Australia were invaded by the UK about 230 years ago.

> 2) Australia will become a socialist republic, with a left-wing
> president.

President? Where? And Socialism is bad because of what. Seems to do OK
in the UK.

> 3) Tens of thousands of boat people will pour in; the bleeding hearts
> of the ALP will insist that they stay. The country will be in chaos.

Tens of thousands of taxpayers to fund the retirement benefits and
nursing homes for the aging population.

> 4) Interest rates will rise.

Why Oh, yeah, because Johy's Mate George is raisng his.

> 5) Unemployment will get much worse.

Yes, because they'll stop counting 15 hours a week at $7.50 an hour as a
full time job...

> 6) To cover their enormous deficits, Labor will privatise Telstra.

Er, you get more money by continuing to reap dividends from Telstra.

> 7) Labour will abolish the private health insurance subsidy; public
> hospitals will become chaotic.

The private health insurance subsidy is a bloody stupid idea.

> Cool

Most Labor politicians are exunion bosses. Union ballots are
> sometimes rigged. With every government Labor, can we feel confident
> of above-board elections?

Well, they could always follow the lead of the US and use their
techniques...

> 9) Labor will have awesome power; they will control both houses and
> every state.

Hmmm, but that would be OK under Howard?

> 10) Any criticism of homosexuality will be banned, as in NSW.

Along with criticism of religion race and other things.

> 11) We will say sorry to the Aborigines.

Can't do that, afterall they are inferior mudpersons.

> 12) Gay marriages will be legalised.

Dogs and Cats will live together...

> 13) Heroin injecting rooms will be encouraged.

People will no longer be shooting up in parks and alleys anything like
as often, the risk of needle stick injuries to the urban poor will be
reduced.

> 14) Union bosses will be able to walk into any business and make
> demands.

Employees will be able to collectively bargain.

> 15) The unions and the Greens will run Australia.

Hmmm, didn't seem to happen under Hawk/Keating...

> Finally, we are waging a life-and death struggle against the
> terrorists. We need steady experienced hands on the tiller. A year ago
> Mr Latham was known as an incompetent shadow treasurer with a penchant
> for gutter language. Won't it be rather a risk electing him ?

And John Howard couldn't even keep track of the Children Overboard on
Iraqi funniest digital photo scandals. Nor can he find the WMD in Iraq.

Not to mention that our contribution of troops to the War on terror is
one (1) guy in Afghanistan, as most of our budget is commetted to Iraq.

....Brock.

T. Anderton · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 6

You are absolutely right !!!!

NoALP · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

"Brock Ulfsen" wrote in message@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> T. Anderton wrote:
> > The consequences of a Latham victory in November will be as follows:
>
> > 1) America, the cornerstone of our security, may well turn its back on
> > us, because Labor is an anti-America party. Americans bitterly
> > resented Latham's insulting remarks about Bush.
>
> Hmmm, and we will be immediately invaded by who? China? India? The UK,
> oh, already too late, Australia were invaded by the UK about 230 years
ago.

One invasion does not preclude future ones. And do you think that the prior
invadees, given a chance, would prefer they'd been able to prevent such an
invasion?

And why must security strategy be predicated on an "immediate" threat? Isn't
that more about tactics than strategy? Surely security/military alliances
are about longer-term strategic imperatives?

> > 2) Australia will become a socialist republic, with a left-wing
> > president.
>
> President? Where? And Socialism is bad because of what. Seems to do OK
> in the UK.

Blair's party is hardly Socialist. He even had the commitment to 'socialism'
(i.e. public ownership of the means of production, distribution and
exchange) removed from the party's charter. His father was even a
Conservative politician!

Britain is doing well precisely because Blair learned how to play the game:
cherish and promote values but simultaneously ensure the economics are
sound. Latham and Crean et al have shown no evidence of the latter.

Besides, we cannot make an informed decision because the ALP refuses to
release any policy details (costings etc.) in the hope that Australians will
vote for motherhood statements and for the unknown rather than for
incumbency. Scary.

> > 3) Tens of thousands of boat people will pour in; the bleeding hearts
> > of the ALP will insist that they stay. The country will be in chaos.
>
> Tens of thousands of taxpayers to fund the retirement benefits and
> nursing homes for the aging population.

Neither of you make a cogent argument. The ALP position on 'boat people' is
substantially the same as that of the government: ensure only those with
valid claims to refugee status are granted entry, deport the rest.

Australia already accepts a very large (and increasing) number of refugees,
relative to our population, and immigration intakes are at historical highs
too.

> > 4) Interest rates will rise.
>
> Why Oh, yeah, because Johy's Mate George is raisng his.

Assuming the initial poster meant that interest rates will rise *more* under
a Latham/Crean ALP than they would if the government were returned, the
reason is likely to be poor(er) economic management. Latham and Crean may
well take a leaf out of Whitlam's book and lose control over government
spending, which would almost certainly push up interest rates. Their refusal
to provide any transparency of ALP policy details (assuming the ALP even
*has* policies) and the fact that Whitlam was Latham's mentor and Crean's
father his Treasurer make this a reasonable proposition.

> > 5) Unemployment will get much worse.
>
> Yes, because they'll stop counting 15 hours a week at $7.50 an hour as a
> full time job...

No, because the present ALP show no awareness of, nor commitment to,
policies needed to generate sustainable employment growth. The present
government's record on employment growth, regardless of how one feels about
any other shortcomings they may have, is excellent (and that includes
full-time as well as casual and part-time work).

Unions create unemployment and the ALP remains beholden to Union interests.

> > 6) To cover their enormous deficits, Labor will privatise Telstra.
>
> Er, you get more money by continuing to reap dividends from Telstra.

On what do you base this claim? If I hold shares in a dividend paying
company and I sell those shares, the price I receive is the present value of
those future dividends. If I am the government, I receive that present value
*plus* I tax those dividends in future, so I am likely to receive *more*
money by selling than by keeping the shares. Also, any debt held by Telstra
is funded at commercial rates, so the government is essentially paying an
interest premium on this debt whilst it remains a shareholder. And this is
to say nothing of any possible efficiency gains experienced due to the
removal of constraints surrounding State ownership (strategic, financial,
political or otherwise), nor the sensibility of exposing Australian citizens
to an undiversified portfolio of shares in a single large telecommunication
company (e.g. Australians have already lost around $17bn due to the
inability to sell *all* of Telstra in T2, when the share price was
substantially higher).

Latham, in a populist knee-jerk, has suggested he will not sell the rest of
Telstra. The original poster is probably correct that he will likely break
this promise in future as he runs out of money to fund unrealistic policies.
What he fails to acknowledge is that the rest of Telstra *should* be sold,
regardless of who's in government.

> > 7) Labour will abolish the private health insurance subsidy; public
> > hospitals will become chaotic.
>
> The private health insurance subsidy is a bloody stupid idea.
>
> > Cool

Most Labor politicians are exunion bosses. Union ballots are
> > sometimes rigged. With every government Labor, can we feel confident
> > of above-board elections?
>
> Well, they could always follow the lead of the US and use their
> techniques...

Ad Hominem. What about the claim of an aversion to transparency and
propriety in Union/ALP ballots? You have said nothing about that?

Also, the recent Peter Garrett affair revealed the extent to which the ALP
cares about grass roots democracy, which is to say not much. The ALP ignored
the desires of local members in favour of a carpet-bagger who might deliver
a few more Green preferences.

> > 9) Labor will have awesome power; they will control both houses and
> > every state.
>
> Hmmm, but that would be OK under Howard?

How does, or would, Howard control the (ALP) State governments?

The original poster is correct to note that a Latham ALP election win would
see the ALP in a position of substantially unchecked power in this country.
Any party wielding this sort of unchecked power is surely a cause for
concern?

> > 10) Any criticism of homosexuality will be banned, as in NSW.
>
> Along with criticism of religion race and other things.
>
> > 11) We will say sorry to the Aborigines.
>
> Can't do that, afterall they are inferior mudpersons.
>
> > 12) Gay marriages will be legalised.
>
> Dogs and Cats will live together...
>
> > 13) Heroin injecting rooms will be encouraged.
>
> People will no longer be shooting up in parks and alleys anything like
> as often, the risk of needle stick injuries to the urban poor will be
> reduced.
>
> > 14) Union bosses will be able to walk into any business and make
> > demands.
>
> Employees will be able to collectively bargain.

Employees can already collectively bargain. The problem under a Latham/Crean
government is that bargaining will once again be dragged away from the
workplace and vested in the Industrial Relations Club centred around the
AIRC. 'One-size-fits-none' will replace tailored flexibility (and rising
living standards we have enjoyed in recent times as a consequence of that
flexibility).

> > 15) The unions and the Greens will run Australia.
>
> Hmmm, didn't seem to happen under Hawk/Keating...

The poster is not talking about Hawke and Keating. He is talking about
Latham and Crean.

> > Finally, we are waging a life-and death struggle against the
> > terrorists. We need steady experienced hands on the tiller. A year ago
> > Mr Latham was known as an incompetent shadow treasurer with a penchant
> > for gutter language. Won't it be rather a risk electing him ?
>
> And John Howard couldn't even keep track of the Children Overboard on
> Iraqi funniest digital photo scandals. Nor can he find the WMD in Iraq.
>
> Not to mention that our contribution of troops to the War on terror is
> one (1) guy in Afghanistan, as most of our budget is commetted to Iraq.

The claims are:
1. We are fighting a 'life & death struggle' against militant Islamist
terrorists
2. The best strategy for coping with such a struggle is a 'steady,
experienced hand on the tiller'
3. Latham is both volatile and inexperienced
4. Latham has displayed a harsh and inappropriate communication style

As a result, the conclusion drawn is:
5. Electing Latham is a risky proposition at a time when Australia needs to
control/reduce risks.

You have not addressed the claims, so the conclusion should stand.

Rifty · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 5

You should be in politics (maybe you are!) because you sound convincing
but make a series of unsupported assertions. I have snipped less
relevant statements for the sake of as much brevity as possible in an
already long posting.

NoALP wrote:

> Blair's party is hardly Socialist. He even had the commitment to 'socialism'
> (i.e. public ownership of the means of production, distribution and
> exchange) removed from the party's charter. His father was even a
> Conservative politician!

> Britain is doing well precisely because Blair learned how to play the game:
> cherish and promote values but simultaneously ensure the economics are
> sound. Latham and Crean et al have shown no evidence of the latter.

Assertion No. 1 in the last sentence. So I'll make one too - they have
shown clear evidence that they know what they will do economically when
in government.

> Besides, we cannot make an informed decision because the ALP refuses to
> release any policy details (costings etc.) in the hope that Australians will
> vote for motherhood statements and for the unknown rather than for
> incumbency. Scary.

Assertion No. 2. Each party has attacked the economic policies of the
other; the government will full assistance from its civil servants and a
bottomless pit of advertising funded by us, in the guise of public
education - a luxury that Labor doesn't have.

> Assuming the initial poster meant that interest rates will rise *more* under
> a Latham/Crean ALP than they would if the government were returned, the
> reason is likely to be poor(er) economic management.

Assertion No. 3. No evidence.

> No, because the present ALP show no awareness of, nor commitment to,
> policies needed to generate sustainable employment growth.

Assertion No. 4. No evidence.

> Unions create unemployment and the ALP remains beholden to Union interests.

It has an interest in an economy where the balance is between
profitability and sensible social welfare. This government has allowed
the latter to run down substantially and made things very comfortable
for the rich.

> > Er, you get more money by continuing to reap dividends from Telstra.

> On what do you base this claim? If I hold shares in a dividend paying
> company and I sell those shares, the price I receive is the present value of
> those future dividends. If I am the government, I receive that present value
> *plus* I tax those dividends in future, so I am likely to receive *more*
> money by selling than by keeping the shares.

He was speaking about "you" the country, not you, the [apparently]
wealthy manipulator of shares. It is obvious that if the country does
not own the profit-making organisations, it is at the mercy of those
whose only concern is profit.

> Latham, in a populist knee-jerk, has suggested he will not sell the rest of
> Telstra. The original poster is probably correct that he will likely break
> this promise in future as he runs out of money to fund unrealistic policies.
> What he fails to acknowledge is that the rest of Telstra *should* be sold,
> regardless of who's in government.

Assertion No. 5. Good for the shareholders, bad for the country. The
shareholders have only a second-hand stake in the country; their
interest is the profits of the organisation they control.

> > > 7) Labour will abolish the private health insurance subsidy; public
> > > hospitals will become chaotic.

> > The private health insurance subsidy is a bloody stupid idea.

Assertion No. 6. No evidence.

> > > Cool

Most Labor politicians are exunion bosses. Union ballots are
> > > sometimes rigged. With every government Labor, can we feel confident
> > > of above-board elections?

> > Well, they could always follow the lead of the US and use their
> > techniques...

> Ad Hominem. What about the claim of an aversion to transparency and
> propriety in Union/ALP ballots? You have said nothing about that?

Non sequitur. The parliamentary election system in this country has
nothing to do with that of unions.

> Also, the recent Peter Garrett affair revealed the extent to which the ALP
> cares about grass roots democracy, which is to say not much. The ALP ignored
> the desires of local members in favour of a carpet-bagger who might deliver
> a few more Green preferences.

So you say. The consequences of Garrett's preselection remain to be
seen.

> The original poster is correct to note that a Latham ALP election win would
> see the ALP in a position of substantially unchecked power in this country.
> Any party wielding this sort of unchecked power is surely a cause for
> concern?

Assertion No. 7. Every political party in answerable to the electorate.
The statement that this is "substantially unchecked power" is fear
mongering on no evidential basis. One could assert that the present
government has been able to use "substantially unchecked power" on just
as little or as much evidence.

> Employees can already collectively bargain. The problem under a Latham/Crean
> government is that bargaining will once again be dragged away from the
> workplace and vested in the Industrial Relations Club centred around the
> AIRC. 'One-size-fits-none' will replace tailored flexibility (and rising
> living standards we have enjoyed in recent times as a consequence of that
> flexibility).

Assertion No. 8. The IR scene has changed very dramatically since Labor
was last in power. Any such predictions are based on entirely false
premises.

> > > 15) The unions and the Greens will run Australia.

> > Hmmm, didn't seem to happen under Hawk/Keating...

> The poster is not talking about Hawke and Keating. He is talking about
> Latham and Crean.

Either way, it was a silly assertion and has no evidence at all to
justify it.

> The claims are:
> 1. We are fighting a 'life & death struggle' against militant Islamist
> terrorists

This is histrionics at best. We are also facing a life and death
struggle against disease. Terrorism certainly needs a fresh approach
from what we are being served up by John Howard, which will lead to acts
of terrorism within this country.

> 2. The best strategy for coping with such a struggle is a 'steady,
> experienced hand on the tiller'

Smoke and mirrors when such a "struggle" was abetted by the
short-sighted policies of this government, and Howard in particular.

> 3. Latham is both volatile and inexperienced

He's also a fast learner. (Two can play at the assertion game).

> 4. Latham has displayed a harsh and inappropriate communication style

Recently? Nonsense.
>
> As a result, the conclusion drawn is:
> 5. Electing Latham is a risky proposition at a time when Australia needs to
> control/reduce risks.

There is at least as great a risk returning a government to office which
has no conception of the danger their actions have brought Australia and
Australian nationals abroad.

> You have not addressed the claims, so the conclusion should stand.

Some claims are so spurious, they don't deserve it.

Rifty
--
Academic and Computing Help
http://rifty.net

NoALP · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

"Rifty" wrote in message%rifty@tpg.com.au...
> You should be in politics (maybe you are!) because you sound convincing
> but make a series of unsupported assertions. I have snipped less
> relevant statements for the sake of as much brevity as possible in an
> already long posting.

All citizens are (or should be) "in politics". I am no different. As for the
support I do or do not afford my assertions, posting size (as you note -
although I do notice a certain subjectivity in what you claim to be "less
relevant" in your editing) and the nature of this forum constrain such
considerations. I will make a few comments in reply to your criticisms
below:

> NoALP wrote:
>
>
> > Blair's party is hardly Socialist. He even had the commitment to
'socialism'
> > (i.e. public ownership of the means of production, distribution and
> > exchange) removed from the party's charter. His father was even a
> > Conservative politician!
>
> > Britain is doing well precisely because Blair learned how to play the
game:
> > cherish and promote values but simultaneously ensure the economics are
> > sound. Latham and Crean et al have shown no evidence of the latter.
>
> Assertion No. 1 in the last sentence. So I'll make one too - they have
> shown clear evidence that they know what they will do economically when
> in government.

As evidenced by what costed policies? A policy is not just a 'commitment' to
a vague idea. It should spell out *details*. Not just "we will do X better"
but rather "we will do X better by implementing A, B, and C actions, which
will cost $D and this will be funded by $E + $F generated from savings G and
H". The ALP *still* has not put any of these details on the table! As I
said, they have shown no evidence that their economic management credentials
are sound.

> > Besides, we cannot make an informed decision because the ALP refuses to
> > release any policy details (costings etc.) in the hope that Australians
will
> > vote for motherhood statements and for the unknown rather than for
> > incumbency. Scary.
>
> Assertion No. 2. Each party has attacked the economic policies of the
> other; the government will full assistance from its civil servants and a
> bottomless pit of advertising funded by us, in the guise of public
> education - a luxury that Labor doesn't have.

Advertising has nothing to do with it (though I agree that in some, but not
all, cases the advertising spend has been inappropriate). The government has
released their *costed policies* (www.budget.gov.au). The ALP has not. The
ALP, believe it or not, has had extensive access to relevant government
bureaucrats to assist in their policy costings. The problem is most likely
that the intitial numbers failed to add up and they have resorted to either:
a. making up 'policy' on the run
b. pursuing a 'small target' strategy (by essentially having *no policies*).

Besides, there are plenty of other people in this country able to do policy
costings and the ALP has complete access to many of these people. Too many
commentators confuse vague ideas with actual *policy*. You seem to do the
same by suggesting that the government has "attacked the economic policies"
of the ALP. Perhaps you could give some examples of these supposed ALP
"economic policies"?

> > Assuming the initial poster meant that interest rates will rise *more*
under
> > a Latham/Crean ALP than they would if the government were returned, the
> > reason is likely to be poor(er) economic management.
>
> Assertion No. 3. No evidence.

Exactly. No evidence. If they won't release costed policies, does that mean
they have something to hide? In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm
afraid the smartest assumption is that the ALP's credentials are weak in
this respect. The financial problems at the Liverpool Council under Latham's
mayorship do little to assuage these fears.

> > No, because the present ALP show no awareness of, nor commitment to,
> > policies needed to generate sustainable employment growth.
>
> Assertion No. 4. No evidence.

You catch on quickly. No evidence. If the ALP has evidence to the contrary,
let them put it on the table for all of us to see.

> > Unions create unemployment and the ALP remains beholden to Union
interests.
>
> It has an interest in an economy where the balance is between
> profitability and sensible social welfare. This government has allowed
> the latter to run down substantially and made things very comfortable
> for the rich.

That spin's a bit tired and sounds awfully like the motherhood statements
being passed off as actual policy by Latham/Crean et al. This government has
overseen record expenditures on social welfare, including almost $20 billion
recently in new money for families and a total social welfare spend of
around $100 billion annually! Are you suggesting that the ALP will spend
even *more* than this?! If so, where's the money going to come from?

Profitability also means higher superannuation returns for all workers.
Besides, real wages have grown across *all income deciles* subsequent to
implementation of the economic reform program (NATSEM: 2001). A key outcome
of the reform agenda has been reduced trade union influence. The largest
proportional growth has been in the bottom decile, largely because of better
employment outcomes. These are unlikely to be unrelated phenomena.

The ALP spin may well be "sensible social welfare" rather than
"profitability". Those prepared to question such spin will more likely see
the obvious influence of the unions on the ALP and signs of the consequent
winding back of reforms. Such poor economic management would be likely to
reduce employment in the longer term.

> > > Er, you get more money by continuing to reap dividends from Telstra.
>
> > On what do you base this claim? If I hold shares in a dividend paying
> > company and I sell those shares, the price I receive is the present
value of
> > those future dividends. If I am the government, I receive that present
value
> > *plus* I tax those dividends in future, so I am likely to receive *more*
> > money by selling than by keeping the shares.
>
> He was speaking about "you" the country, not you, the [apparently]
> wealthy manipulator of shares. It is obvious that if the country does
> not own the profit-making organisations, it is at the mercy of those
> whose only concern is profit.

My analysis was from the perspective of the government, not a "wealthy
manipulator of shares". The government (i.e. the Australian people) stand to
make more money from selling Telstra than keeping it. Efficiency gains that
almost inevitably follow privatisations mean more tax dollars as resources
tend to be used more efficiently. And the lump-sum received via the sale
proceeds reflects the value of the company discounted to its present value.
And the government stops effectively holding debt via Telstra on which it is
paying corporate bond rates in excess of government borrowing costs. And the
people of Australia no longer have an inefficiently undiversified exposure
to a single large telecommunications company (which exposure collectively
cost Australians many billions of dollars when telco company shares were
downgraded globally *after* the last attempt to sell down the rest of
Telstra). All of which argues strongly for the need to sell the remaining
50.1% of Telstra. This logic renders as irrelevant partisan politics.
Keating would have recognised this and done the right thing. Latham will
wait until he is forced to do something, although has painted himself into a
corner to appease certain sectional interests.

The only reason for keeping Telstra in government hands is to facilitate the
ongoing opaque taxation and redistribution arrangements whereby governments
can secretly tax city phone users and redistribute the funds by stealth to
rural consumers. I would prefer a more transparent system of taxation and
expenditure whereby government finances are not transferred 'off balance
sheet' like this. Australian voters should be able to make more informed
decisions about taxation and redistribution policies.

> > Latham, in a populist knee-jerk, has suggested he will not sell the rest
of
> > Telstra. The original poster is probably correct that he will likely
break
> > this promise in future as he runs out of money to fund unrealistic
policies.
> > What he fails to acknowledge is that the rest of Telstra *should* be
sold,
> > regardless of who's in government.
>
> Assertion No. 5. Good for the shareholders, bad for the country. The
> shareholders have only a second-hand stake in the country; their
> interest is the profits of the organisation they control.

Your argument (and I am being generous in so describing it) contains a false
dichotomy: if it's good for shareholders it must be bad for the country.
This is not neccessarily the case (unless a firm pursues anti-competitive
behaviour in order to secure said shareholder gains to the detriment of the
economy - but competition can be (and is) secured by regulatory means and
having the same entity as simultaneously the majority shareholder and the
regulator is hardly a wise prescription if this goal is to be achieved). You
don't seem to understand the economic and financial logic behind asset sales
generally, so it's probably not worth labouring this point (excuse the pun).

> > > > 7) Labour will abolish the private health insurance subsidy; public
> > > > hospitals will become chaotic.
>
> > > The private health insurance subsidy is a bloody stupid idea.
>
> Assertion No. 6. No evidence.

Actually I didn't write that. It was the previous posters. I didn't feel it
worth commenting on, probably for the same reason you did.

> > > > Cool

Most Labor politicians are exunion bosses. Union ballots are
> > > > sometimes rigged. With every government Labor, can we feel confident
> > > > of above-board elections?
>
> > > Well, they could always follow the lead of the US and use their
> > > techniques...
>
> > Ad Hominem. What about the claim of an aversion to transparency and
> > propriety in Union/ALP ballots? You have said nothing about that?
>
> Non sequitur. The parliamentary election system in this country has
> nothing to do with that of unions.

The claim I made did not mention parliamentary elections. Nor indeed did the
original post. The original post mentioned "elections", of which there are
many that fall in the non-parliamentary category. I specifically mentioned
Union and ALP ballots as but 2 examples. The principle of an apparent
aversion by the Unions/ALP to transparency, in any event, remains
unanswered.

> > Also, the recent Peter Garrett affair revealed the extent to which the
ALP
> > cares about grass roots democracy, which is to say not much. The ALP
ignored
> > the desires of local members in favour of a carpet-bagger who might
deliver
> > a few more Green preferences.
>
> So you say. The consequences of Garrett's preselection remain to be
> seen.

I am talking about means and you are talking about ends. The Garrett
pre-selection showed an ALP aversion to grass-roots democracy, as the wishes
of local party members was ignored by the Federal ALP executive. Whether or
not it delivers the desired green preferences does little to change the
appearance of a party short on principle, but long on a yearning for power.

It is also interesting to note that bookmaker odds for the upcoming election
swung heavily in favour of the Coalition around the time of the Garrett
incident, so it appears to be something others apart from me also say.

> > The original poster is correct to note that a Latham ALP election win
would
> > see the ALP in a position of substantially unchecked power in this
country.
> > Any party wielding this sort of unchecked power is surely a cause for
> > concern?
>
> Assertion No. 7. Every political party in answerable to the electorate.
> The statement that this is "substantially unchecked power" is fear
> mongering on no evidential basis. One could assert that the present
> government has been able to use "substantially unchecked power" on just
> as little or as much evidence.

Q: How many times since Federation have we seen the same party in power in
every State government and at Commonwealth level?
A: None!

Liberal-democracy is a complex beast and requires checks and balances to
maintain balance. Having a constitutional separation of powers between the
States and Commonwealth is one substantial means of achieving this (and
arguably the main point of the Australian Constitution). If one party
controls both levels of government, one significant source of those checks
and balances is substantially eroded. That's not fear mongering, it's
Constitutional reality.

> > Employees can already collectively bargain. The problem under a
Latham/Crean
> > government is that bargaining will once again be dragged away from the
> > workplace and vested in the Industrial Relations Club centred around the
> > AIRC. 'One-size-fits-none' will replace tailored flexibility (and rising
> > living standards we have enjoyed in recent times as a consequence of
that
> > flexibility).
>
> Assertion No. 8. The IR scene has changed very dramatically since Labor
> was last in power. Any such predictions are based on entirely false
> premises.

How so? Can you be specific as to which premises are false?

Recall it was Keating that began the move towards enterprise bargaining and
away from the IR Club. And it is the Latham/Crean ALP that seems hell-bent
on taking us back to the bad old days of AIRC-centred disputation. And for
what? More likely than not it's simply to deal their trade unions buddies
back in at the expense of economic efficiency and rising living standards.

> > > > 15) The unions and the Greens will run Australia.
>
> > > Hmmm, didn't seem to happen under Hawk/Keating...
>
> > The poster is not talking about Hawke and Keating. He is talking about
> > Latham and Crean.
>
> Either way, it was a silly assertion and has no evidence at all to
> justify it.

I didn't make the original claim, I merely pointed out the fallacy in the
response to it. But just for starters, how about these:

1. The Latham/Crean ALP push to increase union power by re-centralising
industrial relations.
2. The stubborn refusal by the Latham/Crean ALP to back the US FTA, probably
driven by a desire to appease the dogmatic AMWU.
3. The willingness by the Latham/Crean ALP to ignore grass-roots democratic
principles in order to attract Green preferences via the Garrett
carpet-bagging incident.

> > The claims are:
> > 1. We are fighting a 'life & death struggle' against militant Islamist
> > terrorists
>
> This is histrionics at best. We are also facing a life and death
> struggle against disease. Terrorism certainly needs a fresh approach
> from what we are being served up by John Howard, which will lead to acts
> of terrorism within this country.

Histrionics? Perhaps the next large-scale terrorist attack will update your
perspective on this issue - an issue that substantially pre-dates Howard,
Bush, Blair etc.

> > 2. The best strategy for coping with such a struggle is a 'steady,
> > experienced hand on the tiller'
>
> Smoke and mirrors when such a "struggle" was abetted by the
> short-sighted policies of this government, and Howard in particular.

Regardless of your (or my) personal opinion on the matter, my point was
merely to make explicit the underlying logic of the argument advanced by the
original poster and the unwillingness of the 2nd poster to attack that
logical structure.

As for whether present government policy has "abetted" the global struggle
against militant Islamists, I suspect that is far too rich a topic for a few
lines in a Newsgroup, as I'm sure you'll agree.

> > 3. Latham is both volatile and inexperienced
>
> He's also a fast learner. (Two can play at the assertion game).

So is my new puppy. Shall we make *her* the PM?

My assertion is uncontroversial and based on Latham's
actions and words that are on the public record. Yours is presumably based
on the fact that he has gone a whole 6 months without saying anything
extremely offensive, nor punching anyone? If that is the low standard by
which you want to judge a Prime Ministerial candidate, imagine the possible
candidates we could together come up with?!

IMO, Latham needs (at least) a full term as Opposition leader to learn the
ropes and become a more wise and stable Prime Ministerial candidate. That is
not to say that he will not *one day* make a good PM, just that to hand him
the job now is a very risky proposition indeed.

> > 4. Latham has displayed a harsh and inappropriate communication style
>
> Recently? Nonsense.

He has consistently used vulgarities, insulted the incumbent leadership of
our close friend and ally, been involved in violent physical altercations
over petty disputes, and put forward ill-considered policy ideas that have
had to be immediately negated by others in his own party! A mere 6 months of
reasonable behaviour a character doth not make. If a serial murderer had not
killed in 6 months, would you feel comfortable leaving your family in his
care? (Not that I am suggesting Latham is a murderer, of course, just that
the gravity of his potential Prime Ministerial position means we should all
reasonably expect a little more than 6 months to be convinced that this
leopard has changed his spots).

> > As a result, the conclusion drawn is:
> > 5. Electing Latham is a risky proposition at a time when Australia needs
to
> > control/reduce risks.
>
> There is at least as great a risk returning a government to office which
> has no conception of the danger their actions have brought Australia and
> Australian nationals abroad.

Now who is making unsubstantiated assertions? 8?D
Why on earth would you presume that the government has no conception of the
impact of their policy choices? Do you presume to possess a unique
understanding of the complexity of foreign policy that no-one in government
could possibly possess?

> > You have not addressed the claims, so the conclusion should stand.
>
> Some claims are so spurious, they don't deserve it.

Indeed.