NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a tribute thread to the greatest Prime Minister of all time.

We need you again, Eddie!

http://whitlam.alp.org.au/bio.html

This is a tribute thread to the greatest Prime Minister of all time.

We need you again, Eddie!

http://whitlam.alp.org.au/bio.html

BOOOOO!

This is a tribute thread to the greatest Prime Minister of all time.

We need you again, Eddie!

http://whitlam.alp.org.au/bio.html

Eddie ???

The great man was always known as "Gough".

Crikey.

Gough made Australia great.

There is no two ways about it. He is a truly great man.

His eyebrows inspire me.

This is a tribute thread to the greatest Prime Minister of all time.

We need you again, Eddie!

http://whitlam.alp.org.au/bio.html

BOOOOO!

-Destruction of a corrupt government
-Destruction of pervasive racial discrimination
-cutting back of tariffs
-Free education
-Universal healthcare
-Death penalty abolished
-inspiring eyebrows
-Smacked France on nuclear testing
-Boosted the arts
-Amalgamated extensive bureaucracy into one defense department and Telecom and Australia Post
-Conscription abolished
-Other great great things.

If you don't think Whitlam made Australia great, you're either a corrupt official from the previous government or a barbarian.

This is a tribute thread to the greatest Prime Minister of all time.

We need you again, Eddie!

http://whitlam.alp.org.au/bio.html

BOOOOO!

-Destruction of a corrupt government
-Destruction of pervasive racial discrimination
-cutting back of tariffs
-Free education
-Universal healthcare
-Death penalty abolished
-inspiring eyebrows
-Smacked France on nuclear testing
-Boosted the arts
-Amalgamated extensive bureaucracy into one defense department and Telecom and Australia Post
-Conscription abolished
-Other great great things.

If you don't think Whitlam made Australia great, you're either a corrupt official from the previous government or a barbarian.

I agree with some of the things he did but wasn't it his mismanagement of the budget that subsequently led him to be sacked?

Some would argue that it was his economic mismanagement, others that it was a downturn in the global economy. I'm inclined to beleive it was a bit of both, but nonetheless I think he's bleeping excellent :) He really modernised Australia in a sense. Now lets hope Mark Latham can win this next election and give health & education the funding it so desperately needs.

Increasing inflation, support for the anti democratic USSR, total disregard for financial management ("free" services which plunged Australia into heavy debt), increasing unemployment and the failure of his big buy back aussie business rot (costing australia big bucks)...

sure, the greatest PM ever... :roll:

Hmmm why then did he get dismissed I wonder...why did Australia vote for Fraser afterwards if Whitlam was so great?

Some would argue that it was his economic mismanagement, others that it was a downturn in the global economy. I'm inclined to beleive it was a bit of both, but nonetheless I think he's bleeping excellent :) He really modernised Australia in a sense. Now lets hope Mark Latham can win this next election and give health & education the funding it so desperately needs.

Yes...health and education...right, and how does he afford that?

Perhaps he will raise taxes...or support heavy borrowing like Keating ($90 billion debt accumulation within a period of 5 years) - leaving future generations to pay back his big ideological mistakes.

Whenever Labor gets in, Australia suffers high unemployment, high interest rates and a massive downturn in the economy (Whitlam, Hawke and Keating).

Gough? The greatest PM ever? Nah... Deakin all the way, mate. But seriously, my good mate John Howard's the best Prime Minister we've had in 50 years.

Gough made Australia great.

If by "great" you mean:

High unemployment
Increasing Inflation and Interest Rates
Heavy debt
Big Welfare
Economic degeneration

...

I'd sure hate to see your definition of "bad".

Increasing inflation, support for the anti democratic USSR, total disregard for financial management ("free" services which plunged Australia into heavy debt), increasing unemployment and the failure of his big buy back aussie business rot (costing australia big bucks)...

sure, the greatest PM ever... :roll:

Hmmm why then did he get dismissed I wonder...why did Australia vote for Fraser afterwards if Whitlam was so great?

Those services are necessities. No civilized country can do without them. It seems that labour traditionally looks after the Australian people, at the cost of the economy, and the liberals look after the economy, at the cost of society as a whole.

And for the same reason that they've voted for Howard, the Australian people are masochists.

The libs have exactly last place on my ballot, I might add.

All hail Latham.

You bugger up his taxi trip, he breaks your arm.

Gough made Australia great.

If by "great" you mean:

High unemployment
Increasing Inflation and Interest Rates
Heavy debt
Big Welfare
Economic degeneration

...

I'd sure hate to see your definition of "bad".

Looking after the Australian people is a must. Top priority.

I'd loathe to see your dystopic definition of "good."

Those services are necessities. No civilized country can do without them.

And, Australia spends massive amounts on both education and health each year...

however, we must remember that hospitals, medical centres, medical capital and state schools are the primary responsibility of state governments.

BUT WAIT! :shock:

Labor currently governs every state government and territory government.

Geez...if they cannot manage the states, how can latham manage Australia?

What's your definition of "good"? Starving the public health system of funds by funding private health insurance? The illogical pumping of more money into private schools than public schools and universities? Gluing the collective lips of Australia onto America's arse?

Sounds good to me, Gnool. :wink:

Sounds like the exact dystopic vision I see happening under howard, actually.

Those services are necessities. No civilized country can do without them.

And, Australia spends massive amounts on both education and health each year...

however, we must remember that hospitals, medical centres, medical capital and state schools are the primary responsibility of state governments.

BUT WAIT! :shock:

Labor currently governs every state government and territory government.

Geez...if they cannot manage the states, how can latham manage Australia?

The state's primary source of income is the federal government. Blind Freddy can see that the massive shortage of funding in health and education is caused by incessant cut backs by the federal "Liberal" government.

Sounds good to me, Gnool. :wink:

Remind me not to vote for you the next time you run for office :D

Oh, fiddlesticks. Now Mr. Howard will beat me, and make me sit in the same room as Costello.

~Downer

No, not really. But doesn't that sound just like him?

What's your definition of "good"? Starving the public health system of funds by funding private health insurance? The illogical pumping of more money into private schools than public schools and universities? Gluing the collective lips of Australia onto America's arse?

The public health system is receiving more this financial year than last.

Need I remind you that the public health system is the responsibility of state governments, not federal (we seem to forget this fact)

Private schools got $4.7 billion from the federal government, yet public schools got total national funding of $16 billion (state + federal govt).

Yes...underfunded public schools...riiiight.

Do not forget...the USA saved our butts in WW2 - 1 million men under Macarthur saved us from the Japanese. It is our alliance with America that protects us from foreign aggressors (do not pretend like there are not countries wanting to take us over) and to think we could defend ourselves is laughable.

Our cultural ties with America are also strong. Regardless of your views on Iraq, America and Australia are good friends. Who knows, in a year or so we may need to ask America's help in defending East Timor from pro Indonesian militants. Should we turn our backs on a friend of over 100 years, it would be very bad for all those nations around us who rely on our protection (beefed up with american might).

What really does sicken, though, is the Liberal politicians gutting our universities got their degrees under Whitlam's fair system.

*grumble*

Abolish HECS, abolish full fees.

What's your definition of "good"? Starving the public health system of funds by funding private health insurance? The illogical pumping of more money into private schools than public schools and universities? Gluing the collective lips of Australia onto America's arse?

The public health system is receiving more this financial year than last.

Need I remind you that the public health system is the responsibility of state governments, not federal (we seem to forget this fact)

Private schools got $4.7 billion from the federal government, yet public schools got total national funding of $16 billion (state + federal govt).

Yes...underfunded public schools...riiiight.

Do not forget...the USA saved our butts in WW2 - 1 million men under Macarthur saved us from the Japanese. It is our alliance with America that protects us from foreign aggressors (do not pretend like there are not countries wanting to take us over) and to think we could defend ourselves is laughable.

Our cultural ties with America are also strong. Regardless of your views on Iraq, America and Australia are good friends. Who knows, in a year or so we may need to ask America's help in defending East Timor from pro Indonesian militants. Should we turn our backs on a friend of over 100 years, it would be very bad for all those nations around us who rely on our protection (beefed up with american might).

Every cent of that $4.7 billion belongs in the public schools and universities.

And if you think America has any reason to help us on East Timor, you're pretty blind.

Oh, fiddlesticks. Now Mr. Howard will beat me, and make me sit in the same room as Costello.

~Downer

No, not really. But doesn't that sound just like him?

I think Mr. Howard endorses canings actually.

The state's primary source of income is the federal government. Blind Freddy can see that the massive shortage of funding in health and education is caused by incessant cut backs by the federal "Liberal" government.

The state's glean a great deal of money from the GST (a tax to supplement the state coffers).

State treasuries have never seen a fall in revenue...for example:

NSW has had record billion dollar increases in stamp duty, the new billion dollar pokie tax (which is supposed to all go to health - we shall see), let's not forget the latest mini budget...and the $3.3 billion waste by the NSW Labor Government.

In fact this year, the NSW treasury is expecting more than a billion dollars increase in its revenue. It is not a matter of money (there is ample)...it is where it is spent (or in Labor's case - wasted)

Geez, and there isn't enough money for health and education...perhaps Labor in NSW could stop wasting my money and put it to good use.

Do not forget...the USA saved our butts in WW2

And that matters because?

Yanks say "We saved your butts in WWII!" in some sort of attempt to culturally guilt trip them to be allies.

The state's primary source of income is the federal government. Blind Freddy can see that the massive shortage of funding in health and education is caused by incessant cut backs by the federal "Liberal" government.

The state's glean a great deal of money from the GST (a tax to supplement the state coffers).

State treasuries have never seen a fall in revenue...for example:

NSW has had record billion dollar increases in stamp duty, the new billion dollar pokie tax (which is supposed to all go to health - we shall see), let's not forget the latest mini budget...and the $3.3 billion waste by the NSW Labor Government.

In fact this year, the NSW treasury is expecting more than a billion dollars increase in its revenue. It is not a matter of money (there is ample)...it is where it is spent (or in Labor's case - wasted)

Geez, and there isn't enough money for health and education...perhaps Labor in NSW could stop wasting my money and put it to good use.

Australia will never ever have a GST.

Your precious Libs both double-crossed us, and double-dipped us.

:?

I prefer to think of it as... bending the truth. We certainly weren't coming the raw prawn.

I prefer to think of it as... bending the truth. We certainly weren't coming the raw prawn.

We don't want them in Australia, they throw their children overboard!

Every cent of that $4.7 billion belongs in the public schools and universities.

And if you think America has any reason to help us on East Timor, you're pretty blind.

America would help Australia in East Timor if we needed them. Should we tell them off, they more than likey would tell us to deal with it ourselves.

First it would be East Timor, then PNG would fall and oh wow, no buffer zone left for Australia (if you think that cannot happen, then you are blind).

Oh so every cent of that $4.7 billion belongs to universities and public schools. Well, amazing...you know parents who send their children to private schools also pay taxes. Since parents pay most of their child's private education, they in fact save the country money. Perhaps you should whinge about the state government's wasting money that would be better spent in public schools (like NSW waste of $3.3 billion)

Oh but don't worry, Labor has always funded private schools too, oh and under Whitlam private school funding rose. We must remember that since 1901 the state governments were to look after public education and the Federal government to look after private.

Look, I'm not at liberty to discuss these matters. But we have photographic evidence of Mark Latham taking part in people smuggling operations, and also that nasty Mr. Reith was to blame for those awful lies about us.

I prefer to think of it as... bending the truth. We certainly weren't coming the raw prawn.

We don't want them in Australia, they throw their children overboard!

Filthy queue jumpers; not getting visas and passports from their oppressive government that seeks to murder them.

This is a tribute thread to the greatest Prime Minister of all time.

We need you again, Eddie!

http://whitlam.alp.org.au/bio.html

i am gay :wink:

Australia will never ever have a GST.

Your precious Libs both double-crossed us, and double-dipped us.

:?

You expect politicians to be 100% honest?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh pulease, what dimension are you living in?

Can we remember PM Hawke and his no child shall be living in poverty by 1990? Oh yeah, sure, that happened right? Instead we got two recessions, back to back, 11% unemployment, 17% interest rates and a $90 billion debt within the space of 5 years! Yeah, most of us hard working Aussies remember those days.

Meanwhile, it takes every state and territory government + the federal government to agree unanimously to raise the GST.

If Latham wins, then Labor will govern all states, all territories and the Commonwealth. They could easily raise the GST if they wanted to...

Oh and with all their big spending promises, raising the GST will look easy and a good way to get a quick buck...

Justify it on the grounds of higher GST's in other countries...easy!

Look, I'm not at liberty to discuss these matters. But we have photographic evidence of Mark Latham taking part in people smuggling operations, and also that nasty Mr. Reith was to blame for those awful lies about us.

HAHAHA :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Funny!

Australia will never ever have a GST.

Your precious Libs both double-crossed us, and double-dipped us.

:?

You expect politicians to be 100% honest?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh pulease, what dimension are you living in?

Can we remember PM Hawke and his no child shall be living in poverty by 1990? Oh yeah, sure, that happened right? Instead we got two recessions, back to back, 11% unemployment, 17% interest rates and a $90 billion debt within the space of 5 years! Yeah, most of us hard working Aussies remember those days.

Meanwhile, it takes every state and territory government + the federal government to agree unanimously to raise the GST.

If Latham wins, then Labor will govern all states, all territories and the Commonwealth. They could easily raise the GST if they wanted to...

Oh and with all their big spending promises, raising the GST will look easy and a good way to get a quick buck...

Justify it on the grounds of higher GST's in other countries...easy!

I don't expect politicians to be 100% honest, but I do expect them to have told the truth at least once, something that Honest Johnny is actually physically incapable of doing.

And I look forward to Latham's win.

"America saved us in WW2". Yes they did, and I'm very grateful for that. That doesn't mean we should be subserviant to them and follow them into every war they choose to pick (before war in Iraq broke out I was actually not sure whether I supported the war or not, but I don't think John Howard's "America does, Australia does" mindset is good at all). I'm not from NSW so I can't comment on what goes on there, but I know that despite the fact that a huge proportion of the state government budget is taken up by health, it's still not enough. If it was enough, you wouldn't see "my relative died in a hospital hallway while waiting for a bed" stories on the news every week.

Oh, now see here... what about those Weapons of Mass Destruction? My buddy, John, he was right on target about them. There are plenty of places the Iraqis might have hidden them.

And don't you talk like that about Mr. Latham. He's a people smuggler, and he gives people drugs!



( :wink: )

Oh, now see here... what about those Weapons of Mass Destruction? My buddy, John, he was right on target about them. There are plenty of places the Iraqis might have hidden them.

And don't you talk like that about Mr. Latham. He's a people smuggler, and he gives people drugs!



( :wink: )

Oh, don't forget, Saddam killed all those people at Bali!

(Damn, was that a cynical attempt of Johnny.)

Now I may not be university educated or old enough to remeber times of great strife (14 years old) but I do beleave I know the folowing things:

1: America is not our friend on a level playing field, i.e they would not help us in any major local emegency that did not threaten anything they owned or were interested in.

2: Howard is a blind old codger.

3: Private schools don't need no governement funding.

4: If things keep going the way they are we're going to be buried in shit.

Bye.

Terra Aus

If it was enough, you wouldn't see "my relative died in a hospital hallway while waiting for a bed" stories on the news every week.

Oh I would say $9 billion a year in NSW for hospitals is adequate, but the problem is how and where the money is spent...not the overall amount. There are clearly administrative matters that need clearing up.

Now I may not be university educated or old enough to remeber times of great strife (14 years old) but I do beleave I know the folowing things:

1: America is not our friend on a level playing field, i.e they would not help us in any major local emegency that did not threaten anything they owned or were interested in.

2: Howard is a blind old codger.

3: Private schools don't need no governement funding.

4: If things keep going the way they are we're going to be buried in shit.

Bye.

Terra Aus

And you're not going to get a university education either, unless you're Kerry Packer's boy, if Howard has his way.

Now that is a dirty lie. Mr. Howard has nothing but the highest respect for the working class battler. You are the grit that holds this country together. Now, I'm sure you're all very alarmed about education, but we assure you that this is for your own good. We want to instill in you a work ethic!

Not like that people-smuggling, drug-dealing, boot-licking Mr. Latham. He'd make it so that you're all weak and pathetic.

And you're not going to get a university education either, unless you're Kerry Packer's boy, if Howard has his way.

Hmmm well from what I have seen, the most expensive degree under the 25% increase in HECS is medicine...which costs $36,000 all up.

Now considering most doctors are earning at least $90,000 to $100,000 a year, well Id say $36,000 for a degree is a fair deal (since in many countries it costs triple that).

All these claims of paying $100,000 for a degree applies to Full Fee Paying students (the majority of which can afford to - rich kids).

HECS is not the massive burden...what is are the ludicrously high housing prices and increasing state indirect taxes (thank you Labor for taxing me more)

And you're not going to get a university education either, unless you're Kerry Packer's boy, if Howard has his way.

Hmmm well from what I have seen, the most expensive degree under the 25% increase in HECS is medicine...which costs $36,000 all up.

Now considering most doctors are earning at least $90,000 to $100,000 a year, well Id say $36,000 for a degree is a fair deal (since in many countries it costs triple that).

All these claims of paying $100,000 for a degree applies to Full Fee Paying students (the majority of which can afford to - rich kids).

HECS is not the massive burden...what is are the ludicrously high housing prices and increasing state indirect taxes (thank you Labor for taxing me more)

Full fees for Australian students should not exist at all. Takes up room for people who earned their way into university.

The problem with HECS, is that it doesn't give the uni student a good start. A full time university student does not, and cannot have a full time job to pay for it. So you come out of university massively in debt, which will take you donkeys years to pay off unless you instantly land yourself the perfect job. You also get turned down on home loans, and the like if you have an outstanding HECS debt, which contributes to the social problem of a too-large percentage of people in their 30s(!!) living with mum and dad. Also, if you don't get your degree, you still have your massive HECS debt. Which is good incentive for getting your degree first time, but still. It's a form of social engineering against higher education.

So the university educated peeps gets screwed over, while the brickies who inexplicably earn more dance about on their plebian manual labour. Better is to lump the burden on the taxpayer, and those with the university educations and thus high incomes pay the bulk of it. As do the brickies, but manual labour related injuries go for the healthcare, obviously.

Education and Healthcare are rights, not priviledges; and the ludicrously high housing prices are NOT the fault of Labor. Market forces determine the price of housing.

[Edit: quick look says housing prices are dropping a bit in NSW, it seems. Huh.]

Education and Healthcare are rights, not priviledges; and the ludicrously high housing prices are NOT the fault of Labor. Market forces determine the price of housing.

[Edit: quick look says housing prices are dropping a bit in NSW, it seems. Huh.]

Interesting, and I gather you do not believe people should pay for a university education either?

Fact is, education is an expense. Somebody has to pay for it (even Labor knows this, thus they introduced HECS in 1989). Right or not, there is a matter of expense.

Oh and, I should note that more university students are staying at home, while working part time (average 16 hours a week) and doing full time university. Now, HECS debts are not out of control once leaving university.

A free education is simply not feasible (whitlam's trial proved that).

Housing prices have dropped? A couple of thousand dollars do nothing to ease the burden of the average $500,000 house price in NSW.

Education and Healthcare are rights, not priviledges; and the ludicrously high housing prices are NOT the fault of Labor. Market forces determine the price of housing.

[Edit: quick look says housing prices are dropping a bit in NSW, it seems. Huh.]

Interesting, and I gather you do not believe people should pay for a university education either?

Fact is, education is an expense. Somebody has to pay for it (even Labor knows this, thus they introduced HECS in 1989). Right or not, there is a matter of expense.

Oh and, I should note that more university students are staying at home, while working part time (average 16 hours a week) and doing full time university. Now, HECS debts are not out of control once leaving university.

A free education is simply not feasible (whitlam's trial proved that).

Housing prices have dropped? A couple of thousand dollars do nothing to ease the burden of the average $500,000 house price in NSW.

On the contrary, not only is it feasable, it'd only cost that "burger and chips" tax cut. And since Whitlam left, ALP has meant Another Liberal Party. Plus, I'm living that part time job-full time education thing. It keeps me alive, and rawkin, but certainly does absolutely nothing for my HECS.

Never said it's made a difference, I said it dropped. The thingy I read on that also said that housing is still "55% overvalued." But it was market forces that got it there, and it's market forces that's gonna even it out. Eventually. We hope. Or at least, I hope; few years I'm gonna be lookin for a proper place of my own. Flat or somethin with a mate prolly. meh

Education and Healthcare are rights, not priviledges; and the ludicrously high housing prices are NOT the fault of Labor. Market forces determine the price of housing.

[Edit: quick look says housing prices are dropping a bit in NSW, it seems. Huh.]

Interesting, and I gather you do not believe people should pay for a university education either?

Fact is, education is an expense. Somebody has to pay for it (even Labor knows this, thus they introduced HECS in 1989). Right or not, there is a matter of expense.

Oh and, I should note that more university students are staying at home, while working part time (average 16 hours a week) and doing full time university. Now, HECS debts are not out of control once leaving university.

A free education is simply not feasible (whitlam's trial proved that).

Housing prices have dropped? A couple of thousand dollars do nothing to ease the burden of the average $500,000 house price in NSW.

What about uni students who can't live at home, such as myself? We just have to tough out do we? Tell me, do you know what it is like to full time student who lives out of home now?

Whitlam, bring him back. Since when has Latham been a drug smuggler, people smuggler etc? Thats just stupid hate. I'm no fan of Johny "Give it too me, Dubya, I'll sqeel like a piggy if you want me too" Howard but I'm not going to make outragous claims like that. Alexander Downer, now there's a pompus prick, a shudder when I think he represents me and all Australians at an international level.

Free education - it's feasible, just an extra dollar of tax a week (or something like that, I don't have thew report with me so I can't back it up 100%) and there we go, free education for all. Most of the current politicans, such as Costello, got their degrees for free, why can't we?

If Johny is such a friend of the Aussie battler, why is the rich - poor divide increasing?

Go Latham, some taxi drivers piss me off too.

Education and Healthcare are rights, not priviledges; and the ludicrously high housing prices are NOT the fault of Labor. Market forces determine the price of housing.

[Edit: quick look says housing prices are dropping a bit in NSW, it seems. Huh.]

Interesting, and I gather you do not believe people should pay for a university education either?

Fact is, education is an expense. Somebody has to pay for it (even Labor knows this, thus they introduced HECS in 1989). Right or not, there is a matter of expense.

Oh and, I should note that more university students are staying at home, while working part time (average 16 hours a week) and doing full time university. Now, HECS debts are not out of control once leaving university.

A free education is simply not feasible (whitlam's trial proved that).

Housing prices have dropped? A couple of thousand dollars do nothing to ease the burden of the average $500,000 house price in NSW.

What about uni students who can't live at home, such as myself? We just have to tough out do we? Tell me, do you know what it is like to full time student who lives out of home now?

Whitlam, bring him back. Since when has Latham been a drug smuggler, people smuggler etc? Thats just stupid hate. I'm no fan of Johny "Give it too me, Dubya, I'll sqeel like a piggy if you want me too" Howard but I'm not going to make outragous claims like that. Alexander Downer, now there's a pompus prick, a shudder when I think he represents me and all Australians at an international level.

Free education - it's feasible, just an extra dollar of tax a week (or something like that, I don't have thew report with me so I can't back it up 100%) and there we go, free education for all. Most of the current politicans, such as Costello, got their degrees for free, why can't we?

If Johny is such a friend of the Aussie battler, why is the rich - poor divide increasing?

Go Latham, some taxi drivers piss me off too.

Pssst...Roania was making fun of Downer.

To provide a free education at university level it would cost the taxpayer an extra $10 billion a year (money better spent elsewhere). To go further and cut funds for private schools, there would be the added expense of approximately $4 billion...more like $6 billion after the money has been mismanaged at a state level.

I can think of a lot more uses for some $14 billion a year.

Education is not a right, it is a privelage...be grateful you are being funded by the taxpayer for the majority of your studies. When you are the taxpayer in 30 years time, perhaps you will understand.

It is not free anyway...be grateful...hard working Australians pay for most of your degree. Stop being such selfish brats.

Whitlam's policy of a so-called free education (of which the taxpayer forked out for) cost Australia too much. It simply wasn't feasible.

Society does not owe you a living. You think you have it bad, then read up on your ALP history

PM Paul Keating - Two recessions, 11% unemployment, 17% interest rates, 18% inflation, $90 billion debt accumulation in the space of 5 years.

See how good it would be under Latham who is a staunch follower of Keating and Hawke. You will be whinging more when you cannot get a job because Labor cannot manage an economy. Under previous Labor governments the highest unemployment was seen in those with degrees - white collar workers suffered most.

You are perhaps too young to remember this.

Like 1989, with the introduction of HECS, Labor will more than likely be forced to increase HECS above 25% if in power because they stuffed up.

Let us also not forget that Labor's election promises have already blown any possible budget, with a Republic costing in the vicinity of $10-$30 billion (a lot involved in forging a republic).

What about uni students who can't live at home, such as myself? We just have to tough out do we? Tell me, do you know what it is like to full time student who lives out of home now?

Free education - it's feasible, just an extra dollar of tax a week (or something like that, I don't have thew report with me so I can't back it up 100%) and there we go, free education for all. Most of the current politicans, such as Costello, got their degrees for free, why can't we?

An extra dollar a week will not pay for a "free" education.

For those student's doing it tough, there is government assistence. If you have not applied for it, then do. It is a dilemma for those roughing it at university, however hopefully at the end of your degree you will be able to find a high paying job (assuming of course that the ALP isn't in government given its track record).

Take no offence, but if you "can't back it up" why say it? Fact is, universities cost a lot of money to run. They are social goods and therefore cost, without making money in its own right.

Why should a university education be free for the student when the student will on average gain a great deal from their degree? Why shouldn't a medical student pay $36,000 for a degree when their average yearly earnings range from $90,000-$100,000 +?

Also, what about public school teachers? $15,000 for a degree and the yearly earning after 8-10 years of teaching is $63,000! I think that is a fair price to pay, especially when the average wage earner receives $40,000 a year.

Education is not a right, it is a privelage...be grateful you are being funded by the taxpayer for the majority of your studies. When you are the taxpayer in 30 years time, perhaps you will understand.


Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Pardon?

To provide a free education at university level it would cost the taxpayer an extra $10 billion a year (money better spent elsewhere). To go further and cut funds for private schools, there would be the added expense of approximately $4 billion...more like $6 billion after the money has been mismanaged at a state level.

I can think of a lot more uses for some $14 billion a year.

Education is not a right, it is a privelage...be grateful you are being funded by the taxpayer for the majority of your studies. When you are the taxpayer in 30 years time, perhaps you will understand.

It is not free anyway...be grateful...hard working Australians pay for most of your degree. Stop being such selfish brats.

Whitlam's policy of a so-called free education (of which the taxpayer forked out for) cost Australia too much. It simply wasn't feasible.

Society does not owe you a living. You think you have it bad, then read up on your ALP history

PM Paul Keating - Two recessions, 11% unemployment, 17% interest rates, 18% inflation, $90 billion debt accumulation in the space of 5 years.

See how good it would be under Latham who is a staunch follower of Keating and Hawke. You will be whinging more when you cannot get a job because Labor cannot manage an economy. Under previous Labor governments the highest unemployment was seen in those with degrees - white collar workers suffered most.

You are perhaps too young to remember this.

Like 1989, with the introduction of HECS, Labor will more than likely be forced to increase HECS above 25% if in power because they stuffed up.

Let us also not forget that Labor's election promises have already blown any possible budget, with a Republic costing in the vicinity of $10-$30 billion (a lot involved in forging a republic).

My dad has worked all his life as a tradesman, what you'd call 'a hard working Australian' and he fully supports free education for all. He'd rather have his money spent on education than supporting Bushs, sorry, Howards, foriegn policy. What was the cost of the war in Iraq?

Education is the future of a nation, where 'can the money be better spent elsewhere'?

I've been working since I was 16 and geuss what? I've been paying taxes since I was 16, and I haven't got it all back so don't even bother brining that up. I'll be happy to pay for education in 30 years time too.

I don't think Australia owes me a living, I work hard to make ends meet and I'm a volunteer firefighter, I strongly believe in contributing to this country so don't accuse me of being 'a selfish brat'. When was the last time you gave up a weekend to serve your community?

Education is not a privledge, it's a right.

No offence taken, I put it in becasue I rember reading a report last year sometime but I don't remember it exactly and I don't have a copy of it currently. I wish did. I know that's not the best way to make a point.

What do you mean by this? "To go further and cut funds for private schools, there would be the added expense of approximately $4 billion" It makes absolutely no sense.

Ok that's nice and I will have you know that I constantly serve my country - kindly do not try and make yourself out to be some sort of saint.

Well, private schools save the taxpayer money, because most of private education funding comes from the parents. Take away the government help however and you will see a flood of students back into the public system. It will cost the taxpayer more this way (especially because public education has voluntary fees, rather than compulsory).

Basically, it costs the taxpayer less to assist private schools than it would if that funding was taken away.

Why should a university education be free for the student when the student will on average gain a great deal from their degree? Why shouldn't a medical student pay $36,000 for a degree when their average yearly earnings range from $90,000-$100,000 +?

Also, what about public school teachers? $15,000 for a degree and the yearly earning after 8-10 years of teaching is $63,000! I think that is a fair price to pay, especially when the average wage earner receives $40,000 a year.I don't know how correct your stats are, but if the average graduate gets 90-100k and the average teacher gets 63k AFTER 8-10 years, then why would they want to be teachers?

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Pardon?

Unfortunately for your argument, no country actually abides by that declaration. When it was forged it was done as a symbolic gesture...like the UN and international law - nobody actually abides by the guidelines.

It is nice to think that a piece of paper means something, but in reality nobody cares. It is like Iraq. The UN said no, yet the coalition went in anyway.

You can use your civil liberty argument but it doesn't hold up in reality - that piece of paper is not enforced.

[quote=Benicius]I don't know how correct your stats are, but if the average graduate gets 90-100k and the average teacher gets 63k AFTER 8-10 years, then why would they want to be teachers?

My stats are quite correct thank you (considering I have been looking at these issues lately which is quite handy in this thread :) ).

Well, good point and there is a national teacher shortage because of the pay structure. Of course it needs to be fixed up and a lot of other things in terms of quality of education.

Ok that's nice and I will have you know that I constantly serve my country - kindly do not try and make yourself out to be some sort of saint.

Well, private schools save the taxpayer money, because most of private education funding comes from the parents. Take away the government help however and you will see a flood of students back into the public system. It will cost the taxpayer more this way (especially because public education has voluntary fees, rather than compulsory).

Basically, it costs the taxpayer less to assist private schools than it would if that funding was taken away.

If the private schools cannot compete on their own ground, they shouldn't. And they definatly should not have the taxpayer's money. Giving the taxpayers' money to private business causes a lot of that waste we all loathe.

Ok that's nice and I will have you know that I constantly serve my country - kindly do not try and make yourself out to be some sort of saint.

Well, private schools save the taxpayer money, because most of private education funding comes from the parents. Take away the government help however and you will see a flood of students back into the public system. It will cost the taxpayer more this way (especially because public education has voluntary fees, rather than compulsory).

Basically, it costs the taxpayer less to assist private schools than it would if that funding was taken away.

I'm not saying I'm a saint, I have plenty of vices, but to call me (and other people of my generation) 'selfish brats' was way out of line. How do you 'constantly' serve this country?

Good, I'd rather see more funds go into public schools anyway. Having more people in a better funded public school system would also help even ENTER scores out making entrance to university fairer, more on merit than money. Not saying private school students are stupid, they just get a bit of a leg up how the current sysytem is structured.

I agree with some of the things he did but wasn't it his mismanagement of the budget that subsequently led him to be sacked?

No It was the CIA. And I got the live eyewitnesses to back it up :twisted:

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Pardon?

Unfortunately for your argument, no country actually abides by that declaration. When it was forged it was done as a symbolic gesture...like the UN and international law - nobody actually abides by the guidelines.

It is nice to think that a piece of paper means something, but in reality nobody cares. It is like Iraq. The UN said no, yet the coalition went in anyway.

You can use your civil liberty argument but it doesn't hold up in reality - that piece of paper is not enforced.

That the government is currently not protecting our rights does not actually disqualify our rights from being rights.

Alright?

Believe me, it would be fantastic if we could all get a free education and 100% free health, however we must deal with reality.

Somebody has to pay - the taxpayer so it is never really free. The costs of "free" services is too great on society. That is a fact.

As for the Gulf War 2, that cost $1.3 billion - a small cost in comparison to the budget for one year (heck Labor wasted $3.3 billion in NSW alone).

I do not believe the issue is we need more funds. I see it as a matter of we need better management. The greatest waste is coming from the state Labor governments (like NSW). That needs to end.

You would find there would be a lot more money available for education and health if politicians (of all political factions) stopped wasting taxpayer dollars. However, at the moment it seems the states (under Labor) are wasting, though I am certain that the $75 billion put towards welfare by the Commonwealth is too much e.g. $2.1 billion proposal to give every aboriginal student one on one tutoring - major waste considering there will be very very little gain made. Better off investing that into public schools so all Australian students can benefit.

Also, the whole milkshake and a sandwich tax cut I agree is stupid. I would prefer to see a $4 billion surplus put into national projects like building up industry to provide jobs.

So, You pay Taxes, yet you dont want to spend them back on things for the community. For all that writing I think you shot yourself in the foot.

Good, I'd rather see more funds go into public schools anyway. Having more people in a better funded public school system would also help even ENTER scores out making entrance to university fairer, more on merit than money. Not saying private school students are stupid, they just get a bit of a leg up how the current sysytem is structured.

No it won't make a different to ENTER scores. Private school students are given less government funds than public schools. The rest os made up in private fees.

Now, if it is a matter of wealth, then rich children will get tutored. Poorer students cannot. The wealthy will always have an advantage in education and no policy will end that.

More students in public schools would naturally mean more funds...that doesn't mean it would be "better".

As for the brat remark, that is how you were acting:

Basically - give me a free education, I want, I want, I want.

If society doesn't owe you a living, then you would not be asking for your education on a silver platter.

So, You pay Taxes, yet you dont want to spend them back on things for the community.

Nobody is saying that here...in fact that situation you describe is how governments pay off national debt...it is called a surplus budget.

Benicus - I'm off to bed and I wasn't saying 'give me give me give me', that's just taking things the wrong way. That was still way out of line to call me a selfish brat, personal attacks get you nowhere. My point was why should Costello (plus other MP's) have gotten their degrees for free and we shouldn't?

I'd like to keep going with this, it has been interesting but I would have rathered keep it to facts and values, rather than mud slinging

Believe me, it would be fantastic if we could all get a free education and 100% free health, however we must deal with reality.

Somebody has to pay - the taxpayer so it is never really free. The costs of "free" services is too great on society. That is a fact.

As for the Gulf War 2, that cost $1.3 billion - a small cost in comparison to the budget for one year (heck Labor wasted $3.3 billion in NSW alone).

I do not believe the issue is we need more funds. I see it as a matter of we need better management. The greatest waste is coming from the state Labor governments (like NSW). That needs to end.

You would find there would be a lot more money available for education and health if politicians (of all political factions) stopped wasting taxpayer dollars. However, at the moment it seems the states (under Labor) are wasting, though I am certain that the $75 billion put towards welfare by the Commonwealth is too much e.g. $2.1 billion proposal to give every aboriginal student one on one tutoring - major waste considering there will be very very little gain made. Better off investing that into public schools so all Australian students can benefit.

Also, the whole milkshake and a sandwich tax cut I agree is stupid. I would prefer to see a $4 billion surplus put into national projects like building up industry to provide jobs.

The thing is though, it's not impossible, and it's not infeasable. Look at Sweden, for one; they are champions of the mixed economy, have the highest standard of living in the world, and at a comparable population.

We've done it before, we can do it again. No one has ever claimed that it's truly free, we all accept that the taxpayer foots the bill; I just think that since the Australian people are the ones who pay the tax, that the tax should be spent on the Australian people.

So, You pay Taxes, yet you dont want to spend them back on things for the community.

Nobody is saying that here...in fact that situation you describe is how governments pay off national debt...it is called a surplus budget.

Well The Neocons that Mr Howard is so freindly With thinks that Surplus budgets are the tool of the devil.

We've done it before, we can do it again. No one has ever claimed that it's truly free, we all accept that the taxpayer foots the bill; I just think that since the Australian people are the ones who pay the tax, that the tax should be spent on the Australian people.

Yes we did it before - for a period of time. We realised that it cost too much! Hence Labor introduced HECS in 1989. The blowout in national debt and rising taxation made so called free services impossible if we wanted to prevent our debts from going up even more. Australia's debt and taxes blew out massively when we offered such "free" initiatives.

The taxpayer says: "Oh yes, free education is nice"

The government says: "It will cost you more, I am raising taxes"

The taxpayer says: "Let those kids pay for it themselves...I am already over taxed"

That is the mentality. It applies to all Western economies. You will never change that mentality.

Benicus - I'm off to bed and I wasn't saying 'give me give me give me', that's just taking things the wrong way. That was still way out of line to call me a selfish brat, personal attacks get you nowhere. My point was why should Costello (plus other MP's) have gotten their degrees for free and we shouldn't?

I'd like to keep going with this, it has been interesting but I would have rathered keep it to facts and values, rather than mud slinging

There was no mud slinging, merely point a fact. You were behaving as a brat. You demand a free education - that is a very "gimmie gimmie gimmie" attitude.

Anyway, I am off to bed. (also can you stop editing your posts because I have copies of what you wrote originally anyway - you cannot change what you said to make yourself appear warm and fuzzy)

Benicus - I'm off to bed and I wasn't saying 'give me give me give me', that's just taking things the wrong way. That was still way out of line to call me a selfish brat, personal attacks get you nowhere. My point was why should Costello (plus other MP's) have gotten their degrees for free and we shouldn't?

I'd like to keep going with this, it has been interesting but I would have rathered keep it to facts and values, rather than mud slinging

There was no mud slinging, merely point a fact. You were behaving as a brat. You demand a free education - that is a very "gimmie gimmie gimmie" attitude.

Anyway, I am off to bed. (also can you stop editing your posts because I have copies of what you wrote originally anyway - you cannot change what you said to make yourself appear warm and fuzzy)

Yeah, I agreed with something you said earlier but by the time I posted you had siad somethind else I disagreed with so it would have looked confusing

Stop being such a 'so and so' about it, I m not all warm and fuzzy, just trying to end on a positive note. But if you want to end to like that, fair enough. Yeah, now I'm off to bed and not being all warm and fuzzy. It's not gimmie gimmie gimme if you're willing to put back into society, such as fund others higher education.

Hey, no need for swearing. Best that you edit that post methinks, or the mods will hunt you down (Ive seen it, it aint pretty).

Look we all disagree in practice, but not in theory. That's how it is. But please, don't swear and I am not old thanks :lol:

Oh yeah people if there are other issues, raise them.

Social engineering is actually very effective in changing mentalities, and I haven't liked the change I've seen the past decade because of it.

And there is no need for incivilities.

Look we all disagree in practice, but not in theory.

Isn't perspective fun?

Reading through what everyone has had to say here is my o-so-Enlightened summary. [Yes, yes that was a dose of famous Australian sarcasm]

Whitlam shouldn’t become the next Prime Minister because he is an old man who should be allowed to enjoy his retirement. Although if he put himself on the ballet I would vote for him, perhaps Governor General is a more appropriate position (smirk).

As for Labor’s economic policy, Australia’s market is founded on third commodities (agriculture and mining) and as such is a “price-taker”. In other words our own economy, especially in the 70’s was heavily dependant on the inflow of foreign investment and achieving high prices for our exports. What happened in the 70’s a cyclical downturn in the economy of the economic boom that had been going since the 1940s. Both this and the oil crises withdrew investment funds for Australia and reduced our exports because of the cost of transporting them around the world thanks to oil prices.

Within the greater scheme of things lets not forget that most of the other industrialised capitalist nations also went into inflation and budget deficits (and imagine how much worse it was for the third world!) Assuming that this was the complete fault of Labor is like blaming the Great Depression on Scullin. Whitlam was in a really shitty position because he had promised so much and had so much enthusiasm and zeal for the job. I think his popularity and personal ideals pushed him too far, in fiscal matters, but like I said, it was a really unfortunate position to be in.

Personally I think Whitlam should be admired for carrying out his brilliant reform agenda, in spite of Senate difficulties and the fact that if he was a ‘good PM’ his reforms would have been drastically reduced because changing things in government costs lots and lots of shallots. However he wasn’t all sunshine, he was well aware of Indonesia’s annexation plans for East Timor but failed to intervene and that’s probably the biggest shame of his regime.

It’s also interesting to note that Frasier who was a bit of a conservative bulldog during his reign has really mellowed out in his old age and spouts of a lot of formally Left Labor ideology.

As for Universal Education, that’s a right for every Australian. Universal University education at least is feasible. Noticed that in recent decades as % funding for education has diminished % funding for the military has increased? I’m not saying we’re being militaristic, it’s just an observation. Just like how universities across Australia have been upping HECs the government has spent something around ONE BILLION dollars on 10 second hand tanks from Yankeeland.

Even before the latest round of cuts, public education funding in Australia trailed the world average and contributed only 40% of university operating costs, compared with 90% in 1980. The thing is, if Australia is becoming progrtamming richer in Real GDP terms, why is still so unaffordable to fund Public education and Free University education?

And just touching on Labor again. The Liberals have moved right of centre while Labor has trailed to the centre right to snatch left-Liberals and try and maintain it’s leftist staple backing. However this fundamental shift has left the political spectrum unbalanced, developing a political vacuum on the Left.

[color=green]Vote Greens![/green]

I think, you got that exactly right.

Yes. Yes you did.

The Greens however I agree with on most aspects, but their stance on biotechnology has me put Labor in first place instead. Which is a mighty pity really.

Noticed that in recent decades as % funding for education has diminished % funding for the military has increased? I’m not saying we’re being militaristic, it’s just an observation.

Really? Funny how Military expenditure in Australia has dropped from 2.3% of GDP in 1990 to 1.9% today.

Education as a percentage of GDP in 1991 was 5.1% and this has fallen to 4.4% in 2003.

Both have fallen.

A defence force is equally vital as an educated society. However, someone explain then as to how we provide a "free" education for all?

Does this involved letting anyone into university because they want to go, and can somebody find the extra $14-$16 billion in the national budget to pay for such a program?

If you would suggest cutting defence, then you are just being ridiculously out of touch. I am asking a serious question here and while I do not expect any of you to actually have read the Federal Budget, by all means give it a shot. Where can we find a spare $14 billion a year?

Noticed that in recent decades as % funding for education has diminished % funding for the military has increased? I’m not saying we’re being militaristic, it’s just an observation.

Really? Funny how Military expenditure in Australia has dropped from 2.3% of GDP in 1990 to 1.9% today.

Education as a percentage of GDP in 1991 was 5.1% and this has fallen to 4.4% in 2003.

Both have fallen.

A defence force is equally vital as an educated society. However, someone explain then as to how we provide a "free" education for all?

Does this involved letting anyone into university because they want to go, and can somebody find the extra $14-$16 billion in the national budget to pay for such a program?

If you would suggest cutting defence, then you are just being ridiculously out of touch. I am asking a serious question here and while I do not expect any of you to actually have read the Federal Budget, by all means give it a shot. Where can we find a spare $14 billion a year?

Only allowing in those who earn their way into university. A Whitlam-style meritocratic university system would add a $4-6 billion price tag to what we have now. Giving up that tax cut mentioned earlier would have done it.

[Edit: Never mind on the 2.3, thinking in 1996 terms. Blame the Libs.]

Well it is a alot more than $6 billion a year especially when you remember the hundreds of thousands of students at universities each year. It is closer to $10-$14 billion (closer to the latter). Where would we find such money? Nobody seems to be able to answer this rationally. Please do try.

Australia is not a meritocracy (no society is even though you should be rewarded on merit)

A meritocracy (first propounded by Plato in Ancient times) is theoretical at best. It hasn't actually been applied as it should. Take for instance Progressive income tax...you get penalised for a better wage (hardly a meritocracy, but it is necessary you would agree).

Education serves the business sector. People seek higher education to get a higher paying job and business sinks a lot of money into some Universities to obtain qualified workers.

Whether you like this fact or not (even Hawk and Keating akcnowledged education works for business) you cannot have too many students either. If everyone had a degree, then the value of a university education would plummet, as would the chance you had of getting a job amid many others with the same qualifications (see the fate of the IT sector - now wages are falling overall).

With the planned increase of 24,000 new university places under the current government, that adds to the cost of providing a very reduced student cost education.

Students pay a fair price for their degree. The taxpayer, when told how much a "free" education would cost them ($10-$14 billion a year) they would quickly tell students to stop whinging. But, where would we get these funds?

Okay, I edited out the 'naugthy' words. Sorry, that was stupid of me. Just thought I'd say it. But really, Benicus, that 'warm and fuzzy' plus 'selfish brat' remark was stupid too.

Perhaps we can have a civil thread everyone? I don't mind if people havn't got the cold hard facts...but please don't fudge numbers! (that's not aimed at anyone directly btw).

Any other issues...Labor vs Liberal...?

Oh I know.

Should we bring the troops home from Iraq and why/why not?

Good topic. I say we shouldn't have been there in the first place and we should get out of there before we get into a situation like Japan is in. Don't want the same thing to happen here as it did in Spain too.

Good topic. I say we shouldn't have been there in the first place and we should get out of there before we get into a situation like Japan is in. Don't want the same thing to happen here as it did in Spain too.

Ok, fair point.

Could you explain this:

Osama Bin Laden and all his cronies claimed that it was Australia's involvement in East Timor that has caused us to become a terror target. Should we then pull our troops out of East Timor?

Also, having pulled out of Iraq, what happens when terrorists strike us anyway? (the old Dr Evil trick of "even when they pay me the money I'm still going to melt the world with liquid hot magma"). These people care about causing fear and suffering. What had America done directly to bring on September 11? If terrorism is all about specific events, then why the WTC?

After the new Spanish government was elected and promised to pull out, it was not long before another bombing was in the works (thankfully the terrorists were hit before they had the chance to second the Madrid tragedy). It is clear that policy doesn't work.

Also what about France? They opposed the war and have had bombs placed on railway lines plus many threats...it is clearly not about Iraq, although that is the throw away line.

I am also concerned that if we all pull out of Iraq now, the entire country will plunge into chaos and within a short time the pro Irani shiites will take over. What we do not need is another Iran in the middle east.

And also...if we withdraw now...then the terrorists will get bolder, knowing they can blackmail us. What next, when they ask us to leave East Timor will we submit and do so?

To pull out now would only appease these terrorist cowards. We know from history with Hitler that once you submit, the enemy grows bolder and takes and takes until there is nothing left.

Terrorists are certainly no Hitler, but the way they are going about things is identical. The fundamentalists have one goal: to forge a global Islamic state. We know this because they remind us on every video tape they send the West.

Are you prepared to accept a life of servitude and convert to Islam? I am not and nor are the majority of Australians. So why support the withdrawal of troops when these terrorists will not uphold their end of the deal? We cannot be blackmailed.

Good topic. I say we shouldn't have been there in the first place and we should get out of there before we get into a situation like Japan is in. Don't want the same thing to happen here as it did in Spain too.

Ok, fair point.

Could you explain this:

Osama Bin Laden and all his cronies claimed that it was Australia's involvement in East Timor that has caused us to become a terror target. Should we then pull our troops out of East Timor?

YES WE HAVE NO BANANAS:
Never heard that before, might fail my degree if I don't check that out

BENICUS:
Also, having pulled out of Iraq, what happens when terrorists strike us anyway? (the old Dr Evil trick of "even when they pay me the money I'm still going to melt the world with liquid hot magma"). These people care about causing fear and suffering. What had America done directly to bring on September 11? If terrorism is all about specific events, then why the WTC?

YES WE HAVE NO BANANAS:
11/9 - Some many reasons, so little time. US support of corrupt regiemes, such as the House of Saud in Sadi Arabia, has pissed off a fair number of people. US interference in the workings of the Middle East, such as supporting Isreal (not exactly the most loved state by Muslims the world over). Well, to answer this question properly I'll have to go on for ages and I can't be botherd but to put it this way people don't fly planes into buildings without a good reason.

BENICUS:
After the new Spanish government was elected and promised to pull out, it was not long before another bombing was in the works (thankfully the terrorists were hit before they had the chance to second the Madrid tragedy). It is clear that policy doesn't work.

YES WE HAVE NO BANANAS:
I haven't been able to pay enough attention to the news lately so I can't comment on this.

BENICUS:
Also what about France? They opposed the war and have had bombs placed on railway lines plus many threats...it is clearly not about Iraq, although that is the throw away line.


I am also concerned that if we all pull out of Iraq now, the entire country will plunge into chaos and within a short time the pro Irani shiites will take over. What we do not need is another Iran in the middle east.

YES WE HAVE NO BANANAS
I don't think our contribution is that great, if we withdrew, Iraq wont fall into an abyss of chaos. In the case of Iran, if the US hadn't destablised the it in the first place (getting rid of an elected government and installing unpopular people dose that) the Ayatollah wouldn't have been able take power in the first place. But theoretically, if the majority of Iraqi's want a fundamentalist Islamic government, who are we to stop them? Just a point

BENICUS
And also...if we withdraw now...then the terrorists will get bolder, knowing they can blackmail us. What next, when they ask us to leave East Timor will we submit and do so?

YES WE HAVE NO BANANAS
That's why we should get out now, the government could claim it was internal domestic pressures. Not fool proof, admitedly, but better than wanting for a worse situation.

BENICUS:
To pull out now would only appease these terrorist cowards. We know from history with Hitler that once you submit, the enemy grows bolder and takes and takes until there is nothing left.

YES WE HAVE NO BANANAS:
That's a bit far fetched, but I have heard that arguement before.

BENICUS:
Terrorists are certainly no Hitler, but the way they are going about things is identical. The fundamentalists have one goal: to forge a global Islamic state. We know this because they remind us on every video tape they send the West.

YES WE HAVE NO BANANAS:
They want a Middle Eastern Fundamentalist state, not global. Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipines want their own Islamic state, not global. Supporting secular nationalist, such as Saddam, kept them in check but now that avenue is no longer open to. History shows democratic socailist, such as Nasser, have had more domestic support than his religous extremist rivals. But foriegn intervention in the region tipped this balance to the extremists favour. The more we do there, the more trouble we are causing.

Are you prepared to accept a life of servitude and convert to Islam? I am not and nor are the majority of Australians. So why support the withdrawal of troops when these terrorists will not uphold their end of the deal? We cannot be blackmailed.

I'll just leave that alone. Nice emotional ending though. Ever considerd writting for the Herals Sun? I still haven't worked this thing out properly so my rebuttal is in your quote. New possibilties are opening up . . . .

Ok well I can see your argument in my quote.

Note: people his argument is in my quote.

Never heard that before, might fail my degree if I don't check that out

And...

I haven't been able to pay enough attention to the news lately so I can't comment on this.

Well if your degree has anything to do with politics, you must keep up-to-date on domestic and international developments. Just a suggestion.

That's why we should get out now, the government could claim it was internal domestic pressures. Not fool proof, admitedly, but better than wanting for a worse situation.

Problem is that if we get out now, then the terrorists will know they can blackmail us time and time again. It is a bad move.

To end however, the fundamentalists in countries like Indonesia and Iran do want a global Islamic state. They say it constantly and what is worse is some people follow them *shudders*.

We cannot bow down to terrorist demands and we must not cut and run. Latham's policy of withdrawing is what got all of us into trouble last time. We cut and ran from Iraq in 1991 and this time around the people were not as supportive. What kind of message will that send our regional neighbours?

There are some in Indonesia who want East Timor back. Knowing they can win by blackmailing us, don't you think they would threaten to blow something up unless we withdrew from the Pacific altogether?

We must stand up to these cowards.

Nice emotional ending though. Ever considerd writting for the Herals Sun?

Journalism would be great, but at least in the near future I will stick to what I am presently doing :D (and that is private)

Never heard that before, might fail my degree if I don't check that out

And...

I haven't been able to pay enough attention to the news lately so I can't comment on this.

Well if your degree has anything to do with politics, you must keep up-to-date on domestic and international developments. Just a suggestion.

That's why we should get out now, the government could claim it was internal domestic pressures. Not fool proof, admitedly, but better than wanting for a worse situation.

Problem is that if we get out now, then the terrorists will know they can blackmail us time and time again. It is a bad move.

To end however, the fundamentalists in countries like Indonesia and Iran do want a global Islamic state. They say it constantly and what is worse is some people follow them *shudders*.

We cannot bow down to terrorist demands and we must not cut and run. Latham's policy of withdrawing is what got all of us into trouble last time. We cut and ran from Iraq in 1991 and this time around the people were not as supportive. What kind of message will that send our regional neighbours?

There are some in Indonesia who want East Timor back. Knowing they can win by blackmailing us, don't you think they would threaten to blow something up unless we withdrew from the Pacific altogether?

We must stand up to these cowards.

I do pay proper attention when I'm in Australia but in the last few weeks I have been mostly in hospital. Before that I was too busy with work over here, but I do admit, my knowledge of current affairs has dropped to an alarming level. Trust me, keeping abreat of politics is easier said than done here. I do use the internet, but I get distracted too easily. Yes, a character flaw.

Fundamentalist in Indonesia - They don't have that broad a support base there, I think we can rely on the Indonesian government to keep a lid on that anyway. They have as much to fear from them as we do. They stopped a precieved communist threat in the 50's, didn't they? I think all this talk of 'Islamic global domination' is just a re-run of 'Communist global domination' and the 'domino' theory. Indonesia realise they can't get East Timor back now, people in in 19th England (such as Cecil Rhodes) wanted all of North Americia back, but they knew it just wasn't going to happen. I think that is the case in Indonesia.

The fact we are not directly being blackmailed now is why we should pull out now, before we are. Still, if we didn't invade in the first place we wouldn't have this problem.

That's all I have time for, got to get ready for class (I teach English here). Be back in a few hours.

Perhaps we can have a civil thread everyone? I don't mind if people havn't got the cold hard facts...but please don't fudge numbers! (that's not aimed at anyone directly btw).

Any other issues...Labor vs Liberal...?

Both Labor and Liberal protect my interests in Biotechnology, more or less. The Libs are currently pouring some $300m/a in grants into the biotechnology sector, which could be more, but does quite rule from my perspective at least. Labor offers similar incentives, plus a boost via legistlature. The Greens on the other hand are luddites, and lost my vote on that alone.

Any party that promises to gut ethics committees and support freedom of research almost automatically wins my vote. Unfortunatly for them I'm unaware of one. Oh well, cest la' vie.

Indonesia realise they can't get East Timor back now.

Is that so. I won't speak much on it because I am not allowed, but I will say this. The can and have been trying. Add PNG to the list as well.

That's all on that nation.

Any party that promises to gut ethics committees and support freedom of research almost automatically wins my vote. Unfortunatly for them I'm unaware of one. Oh well, cest la' vie.

Freedom to research what exactly?

This is a tribute thread to the greatest Prime Minister of all time.

We need you again, Eddie!

http://whitlam.alp.org.au/bio.htmlThe greatest Prime Minister would have fired the Governor General before being fired himself.

This is a tribute thread to the greatest Prime Minister of all time.

We need you again, Eddie!

http://whitlam.alp.org.au/bio.htmlThe greatest Prime Minister would have fired the Governor General before being fired himself.

Too right!

The greatest PM in history I believe has yet to come...but will come in the near future :D

This is a tribute thread to the greatest Prime Minister of all time.

We need you again, Eddie!

http://whitlam.alp.org.au/bio.htmlThe greatest Prime Minister would have fired the Governor General before being fired himself.

Too right!

The greatest PM in history I believe has yet to come...but will come in the near future :D

Hahaha, yes, and your incompetent governing will open the way for the greatest, which will of course be me :p

Any party that promises to gut ethics committees and support freedom of research almost automatically wins my vote. Unfortunatly for them I'm unaware of one. Oh well, cest la' vie.

Freedom to research what exactly?

Freedom of scientific inquiry. As per freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the like. I doubt it's a popular position, but I happen to agree with it.

Practically, however, freedom of research into all aspects of the medical and industrial strands of biotechnology, specifically. Unrestricted research in fields including but not limited to applications in pharmeceuticals, agriculture, fertility, longevity, theraputic cloning & stem cell technology, diagnostics, immunology, and any number of hundreds of other aspects that it has an advanced impact on.

Basically fix the bizzare precedent of Israel being the most progressive country in the world on biotechnology. Put us there, instead.

This is a tribute thread to the greatest Prime Minister of all time.

We need you again, Eddie!

http://whitlam.alp.org.au/bio.htmlThe greatest Prime Minister would have fired the Governor General before being fired himself.

Too right!

The greatest PM in history I believe has yet to come...but will come in the near future :D

Hahaha, yes, and your incompetent governing will open the way for the greatest, which will of course be me :pAh yes, but think how much greater the greatest will look next to these baffons. Or how great he would have to be to become great surrounded by these gits.

Students pay a fair price for their degree. The taxpayer, when told how much a "free" education would cost them ($10-$14 billion a year) they would quickly tell students to stop whinging. But, where would we get these funds?

Thats $700 per person, maximum. Add corporate taxes into it, and you could substantially reduce the amount.

And after doing that, we would still be one of the least heavily taxed nations in the OECD.

It wouldn't be popular, but it is possible through taxation. Thats just one of the ways, and there are many, i'm sure.

Was that the answer you were waiting for for your pre prepared rebuttal?

Students pay a fair price for their degree. The taxpayer, when told how much a "free" education would cost them ($10-$14 billion a year) they would quickly tell students to stop whinging. But, where would we get these funds?

Thats $700 per person, maximum. Add corporate taxes into it, and you could substantially reduce the amount.

And after doing that, we would still be one of the least heavily taxed nations in the OECD.

It wouldn't be popular, but it is possible through taxation. Thats just one of the ways, and there are many, i'm sure.

Was that the answer you were waiting for for your pre prepared rebuttal?

No, sorry but increasing tax on business has a negative effect on the economy and well frankly higher unemployment is bad - especially if you are a university graduate seeking a new job with your degree. Increasing taxes to pay the $14 billion is a way but it would be fiscally irresponsible and downright political suicide.

However I do feel that since corporations benefit from skilled workers that they should contribute a little more. But increasing taxes always has a negative effect - the consequences are not worth it.

Any fiscally and economically feasible options?

Practically, however, freedom of research into all aspects of the medical and industrial strands of biotechnology, specifically. Unrestricted research in fields including but not limited to applications in pharmeceuticals, agriculture, fertility, longevity, theraputic cloning & stem cell technology, diagnostics, immunology, and any number of hundreds of other aspects that it has an advanced impact on.

Can you increase the human lifespan? Can you make us live to 200 years of age +? If so, I'd find the money!

Practically, however, freedom of research into all aspects of the medical and industrial strands of biotechnology, specifically. Unrestricted research in fields including but not limited to applications in pharmeceuticals, agriculture, fertility, longevity, theraputic cloning & stem cell technology, diagnostics, immunology, and any number of hundreds of other aspects that it has an advanced impact on.

Can you increase the human lifespan? Can you make us live to 200 years of age +? If so, I'd find the money!

From what I've read, it seems that the human aging process actually stops of it's own accord late in life, 'round the 80ish mark; further deterioration is through wear and tear then on. It is strongly related to telomeres and telomerase.

So, isolate what triggers the cutoff on degeneration due to aging, and trigger it about 25-30. Or hell, 50 or 60, still effective, if not as much so. Use advances in medicine due to theraputic cloning to treat the wear and tear that you accumulate, and barring accidents, terminal illness or violence, one gets to see if Star Trek:TNG is as good a guess as was 2001: A Space Odyssey.

This isn't as far away as it sounds, either. a matter of a decade or two.

Oh! Incidently, biological and chronological age are not the same thing.

Someone who's body is wearing out from excess weight and poor cardiovascular fitness at 50 is every bit as old as a fit 100yrold.

So eat right and exercise.

Oh! Incidently, biological and chronological age are not the same thing.

Someone who's body is wearing out from excess weight and poor cardiovascular fitness at 50 is every bit as old as a fit 100yrold.

So eat right and exercise.

Will do! :D

Also what do people think about Howard's $2.1 billion to give personal tutoring to every Aboriginal student. I think it is an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars. That $2.1 billion would be better spent building a massive steel works (10,000 jobs created) or other national works or even still into the public education system so all may benefit!

Students pay a fair price for their degree. The taxpayer, when told how much a "free" education would cost them ($10-$14 billion a year) they would quickly tell students to stop whinging. But, where would we get these funds?

Thats $700 per person, maximum. Add corporate taxes into it, and you could substantially reduce the amount.

And after doing that, we would still be one of the least heavily taxed nations in the OECD.

It wouldn't be popular, but it is possible through taxation. Thats just one of the ways, and there are many, i'm sure.

Was that the answer you were waiting for for your pre prepared rebuttal?

No, sorry but increasing tax on business has a negative effect on the economy and well frankly higher unemployment is bad - especially if you are a university graduate seeking a new job with your degree. Increasing taxes to pay the $14 billion is a way but it would be fiscally irresponsible and downright political suicide.

However I do feel that since corporations benefit from skilled workers that they should contribute a little more. But increasing taxes always has a negative effect - the consequences are not worth it.

Any fiscally and economically feasible options?

Heh, i got the feeling that you were waiting for SOMEONE to say that :) I did mention that it would be unpopular and I know it would cause economic damage.

You could counterbalance the increased business taxes with reduced tariffs to increase economic growth, but this will cause future problems as we will be entirely at the whim of foreign corporations. (Oh, wait a minute...lol)

But better,

You could *gradually* decrease HECS rather than an all out free education policy. Over 10 years, the gradual increases in funding could keep pace with economic growth, and eventually it could become free. I think that would be the best, most economically responsible option.

Students pay a fair price for their degree. The taxpayer, when told how much a "free" education would cost them ($10-$14 billion a year) they would quickly tell students to stop whinging. But, where would we get these funds?

Thats $700 per person, maximum. Add corporate taxes into it, and you could substantially reduce the amount.

And after doing that, we would still be one of the least heavily taxed nations in the OECD.

It wouldn't be popular, but it is possible through taxation. Thats just one of the ways, and there are many, i'm sure.

Was that the answer you were waiting for for your pre prepared rebuttal?

No, sorry but increasing tax on business has a negative effect on the economy and well frankly higher unemployment is bad - especially if you are a university graduate seeking a new job with your degree. Increasing taxes to pay the $14 billion is a way but it would be fiscally irresponsible and downright political suicide.

However I do feel that since corporations benefit from skilled workers that they should contribute a little more. But increasing taxes always has a negative effect - the consequences are not worth it.

Any fiscally and economically feasible options?

Heh, i got the feeling that you were waiting for SOMEONE to say that :) I did mention that it would be unpopular and I know it would cause economic damage.

You could counterbalance the increased business taxes with reduced tariffs to increase economic growth, but this will cause future problems as we will be entirely at the whim of foreign corporations. (Oh, wait a minute...lol)

But better,

You could *gradually* decrease HECS rather than an all out free education policy. Over 10 years, the gradual increases in funding could keep pace with economic growth, and eventually it could become free. I think that would be the best, most economically responsible option.

You could *gradually* decrease HECS rather than an all out free education policy. Over 10 years, the gradual increases in funding could keep pace with economic growth, and eventually it could become free. I think that would be the best, most economically responsible option.

But this still costs money, especially when by 2040 Australia's economy is anticipated to be in decline because of an ageing population and a skills shortage. Pensions, not education, will take centre stage. Although no political party has bothered to address this major issue.

Since economic growth is set to slow considerably, a gradual reduction of HECS fees is impossible unless we are prepared to go into massive deficits (an old favourite of the ALP) without care for future generations.

Views on an Australian republic?

Views on an Australian republic?

A big yes yes yes.

Constitutional monarchy is all very well and good, but I definatly consider it degrading for our figurehead to be another country's Queen.

If she were Australian it would be a whole different kettle of fish.

Ok...

Where do we find the $20 + billion dollars to become a Republic?

Why should we also become a Republic when nothing changes except we get a politician as the figure head rather than someone above political squabbling?

Ok...

Where do we find the $20 + billion dollars to become a Republic?

Why should we also become a Republic when nothing changes except we get a politician as the figure head rather than someone above political squabbling?

Before I answer that first question, is the $20b a one time thing, or p.a.?

Secondly, though, we should become a republic because it demonstrates to the world that we are truly independent; not just a part of the Commonwealth. As I said, it is demoralising and degrading for our figurehead to be the Queen of England.

Though I didn't like the particular form of republic that Johnny proposed. Moot point though, as I couldn't vote at the time.

Johnny didn't propose the Republic (If you hadn't noticed he is a staunch Monarchist)

Well the $20 billion is more like $30 or $40 billion in the end (possibly more) when you consider the expense in changing everything (there is a lot).

But, ok the world couldn't care less if Australia is a Republic or a Commonwealth nation. We still have treaties, trade deals, alliances, 20 million people, a strong economy, same health system etc...nothing changes but the title. Don't you think we have more important things to deal with than becoming a Republic which will cost a lot more than an arm and leg?

Views on an Australian republic?

A big yes yes yes.

Constitutional monarchy is all very well and good, but I definatly consider it degrading for our figurehead to be another country's Queen.

If she were Australian it would be a whole different kettle of fish.

Nobody cares. Thats why Australia is a republic. Australians arent generally the patriotic type in the traditional sense.

Johnny didn't propose the Republic (If you hadn't noticed he is a staunch Monarchist)

Well the $20 billion is more like $30 or $40 billion in the end (possibly more) when you consider the expense in changing everything (there is a lot).

But, ok the world couldn't care less if Australia is a Republic or a Commonwealth nation. We still have treaties, trade deals, alliances, 20 million people, a strong economy, same health system etc...nothing changes but the title. Don't you think we have more important things to deal with than becoming a Republic which will cost a lot more than an arm and leg?

I thought he wanted to be remembered as the PM who did it. I must be mistaken, oh well. As I said, I couldn't vote at the time.

In any case I agree there are more pressing matters to attend to, but I think that the republic should be on the agenda as well.

The way I see Australian politics, we need a Gough Whitlam every few terms, and the Libs to clean up the economy afterwards. Gough all the time would drive our economy into the ground, and the Libs all the time would turn us into a Dickens-style laissez faire dystopia.

The way I see Australian politics, we need a Gough Whitlam every few terms, and the Libs to clean up the economy afterwards. Gough all the time would drive our economy into the ground, and the Libs all the time would turn us into a Dickens-style laissez faire dystopia.

Well I have a very different idea...instead of going back and forth all the time, we need strong leadership, a man who will take Australia forward and do great things. That day is soon upon us and I am glad for it.

The way things are now cannot go on forever...Labor and Liberal always changing...we need someone who will not get complacent (and Latham isnt the man for the job)

Am I the first non-Aussie to post here? (Sorry I haven't read all the thread)

This debate mirrors a never-ending national debate we have in Canada over one of our PMs - the late Pierre Trudeau.

Like Whitlam, Trudeau was the most striking different and divisive PM in our history. In the 1970s and early 80s' Trudeau almost singlehandedly re-shaped Canada in his image - *forever*.

Canadians either love Trudeau and his legacy, or loathe them to our very core. There is no middle ground about the man - debating him in a pub can lead to fistfights.

You could *gradually* decrease HECS rather than an all out free education policy. Over 10 years, the gradual increases in funding could keep pace with economic growth, and eventually it could become free. I think that would be the best, most economically responsible option.

But this still costs money, especially when by 2040 Australia's economy is anticipated to be in decline because of an ageing population and a skills shortage. Pensions, not education, will take centre stage. Although no political party has bothered to address this major issue.

Since economic growth is set to slow considerably, a gradual reduction of HECS fees is impossible unless we are prepared to go into massive deficits (an old favourite of the ALP) without care for future generations.

"Ageing population and skills shortage"

You have raised a very good point there, but consider...with the amount of students undertaking tertiary education inevitably set to decline as fees gradually increase, education will be very important to ensure the economic survival of Australia (Not to mention every first world nation.)

If we don't have the skilled labour, our economy will indeed contract.

And the question is, what will be a bigger burden on the economy, a nearly entirely unskilled manual labour workforce, or free education?

Think of it, the science and engineering sectors of the economy would collapse...Unless people are indeed willing to work until they're 70, perhaps even older... Not to mention we would probably end up in a situation where the elderly use their pensions/superannuation to help their grandchildren through university.

I don't think we can answer the question or tell what is really going to happen at this time. But the government should certainly start thinking about it a lot more.

Am I the first non-Aussie to post here? (Sorry I haven't read all the thread)

This debate mirrors a never-ending national debate we have in Canada over one of our PMs - the late Pierre Trudeau.

Like Whitlam, Trudeau was the most striking different and divisive PM in our history. In the 1970s and early 80s' Trudeau almost singlehandedly re-shaped Canada in his image - *forever*.

Canadians either love Trudeau and his legacy, or loathe them to our very core. There is no middle ground about the man - debating him in a pub can lead to fistfights.

I've heard of him. What were the main things he did to reshape Canada?

This debate mirrors a never-ending national debate we have in Canada over one of our PMs - the late Pierre Trudeau.

I've heard of him. What were the main things he did to reshape Canada?

Whew that's a tough one but heres a few:

- Created Canada's first home-made Constitution, and negotiated our near-total independence from Britain.
- Made Canada officially bi-lingual (25% of Canadians speak French)
- Legalized homosexuality, contraception and abortion
- Ended the death penalty
- let our currency float, which devalued it a lot but skyrocketed our exports
- tried to nationalize the oil industry but failed to
- increased immigration enormously and made it mostly non-European
- Made Canada a world player and got us into the G7


There are many, many other changes to Canada that Trudeau oversaw but these are the main ones which come to mind.

"Ageing population and skills shortage"

You have raised a very good point there, but consider...with the amount of students undertaking tertiary education inevitably set to decline as fees gradually increase, education will be very important to ensure the economic survival of Australia (Not to mention every first world nation.)

If we don't have the skilled labour, our economy will indeed contract.

And the question is, what will be a bigger burden on the economy, a nearly entirely unskilled manual labour workforce, or free education?

Think of it, the science and engineering sectors of the economy would collapse...Unless people are indeed willing to work until they're 70, perhaps even older... Not to mention we would probably end up in a situation where the elderly use their pensions/superannuation to help their grandchildren through university.

I don't think we can answer the question or tell what is really going to happen at this time. But the government should certainly start thinking about it a lot more.

Well history has shown that tertiary participation rates have risen significantly since the introduction of HECS in 1989. Truth is, that people realise you have a better chance of getting an above average paying job if you obtain a degree. In america degrees cost triple that of here and people still pay. Cost will not force participation down.

Of course, addressing the skills shortage is not as simple as more university places (we don't want to flood the market place).

Actually believe it or not, but nations such as China have a very high level of unskilled workers (true they are in poverty) and they are the best performing economy in the world. Now as for engineering in Australia, that is all but defunct (thanks to Labor in the 1980's) and it will take a visionary and fiscally responsible government to turn things around.

This will not come under Labor, but I believe under a future Liberal government (not the current one or under Costello). The current generation of politicians do not appear interested in the future, but merely now. Sad really.

This debate mirrors a never-ending national debate we have in Canada over one of our PMs - the late Pierre Trudeau.

I've heard of him. What were the main things he did to reshape Canada?

Whew that's a tough one but heres a few:

- Created Canada's first home-made Constitution, and negotiated our near-total independence from Britain.
- Made Canada officially bi-lingual (25% of Canadians speak French)
- Legalized homosexuality, contraception and abortion
- Ended the death penalty
- let our currency float, which devalued it a lot but skyrocketed our exports
- tried to nationalize the oil industry but failed to
- increased immigration enormously and made it mostly non-European
- Made Canada a world player and got us into the G7


There are many, many other changes to Canada that Trudeau oversaw but these are the main ones which come to mind.

Heh, he sounds alright...
I was thinking of going to Canada, probably Quebec, on an exchange program with my university next year, as I can speak both French (Well, not really well, but i'm getting there :)) and English.

Benicius, i'll post an indepth reply to your post later, I don't have a lot of time right now.

The way I see Australian politics, we need a Gough Whitlam every few terms, and the Libs to clean up the economy afterwards. Gough all the time would drive our economy into the ground, and the Libs all the time would turn us into a Dickens-style laissez faire dystopia.

Well I have a very different idea...instead of going back and forth all the time, we need strong leadership, a man who will take Australia forward and do great things. That day is soon upon us and I am glad for it.

The way things are now cannot go on forever...Labor and Liberal always changing...we need someone who will not get complacent (and Latham isnt the man for the job)

Who then, is?

(And Latham is no Gough Whitlam.)

The way I see Australian politics, we need a Gough Whitlam every few terms, and the Libs to clean up the economy afterwards. Gough all the time would drive our economy into the ground, and the Libs all the time would turn us into a Dickens-style laissez faire dystopia.

Well I have a very different idea...instead of going back and forth all the time, we need strong leadership, a man who will take Australia forward and do great things. That day is soon upon us and I am glad for it.

The way things are now cannot go on forever...Labor and Liberal always changing...we need someone who will not get complacent (and Latham isnt the man for the job)

Who then, is?

(And Latham is no Gough Whitlam.)

I'd have to say that man has yet to step onto the political stage, but I am sure he will emerge in the near future. I cannot see the current generation of politicians doing anything great.

The way I see Australian politics, we need a Gough Whitlam every few terms, and the Libs to clean up the economy afterwards. Gough all the time would drive our economy into the ground, and the Libs all the time would turn us into a Dickens-style laissez faire dystopia.

Well I have a very different idea...instead of going back and forth all the time, we need strong leadership, a man who will take Australia forward and do great things. That day is soon upon us and I am glad for it.

The way things are now cannot go on forever...Labor and Liberal always changing...we need someone who will not get complacent (and Latham isnt the man for the job)

Who then, is?

(And Latham is no Gough Whitlam.)

I'd have to say that man has yet to step onto the political stage, but I am sure he will emerge in the near future. I cannot see the current generation of politicians doing anything great.

The best bet for good politician in my opinion was Natasha, but she got eaten alive. "Good" is negatively selected in politics. At the very least our current politicans need to step off the stage for some new blood.

Of course Johnny would retire, but he's scared of what he did to the pensioners. (Not that he has cause to worry, mind.)

The best bet for good politician in my opinion was Natasha, but she got eaten alive. "Good" is negatively selected in politics. At the very least our current politicans need to step off the stage for some new blood.

Of course Johnny would retire, but he's scared of what he did to the pensioners. (Not that he has cause to worry, mind.)

If Natasha was the best, she wouldn't have caved in. I have seen much of this "new blood" and I am still not entirely satisfied.

Too many self interested people in politics.

Well history has shown that tertiary participation rates have risen significantly since the introduction of HECS in 1989. Truth is, that people realise you have a better chance of getting an above average paying job if you obtain a degree. In america degrees cost triple that of here and people still pay. Cost will not force participation down.

Ah, but since the 1996 HECS changes (Which included fee increases and a large downsizing of the amount of population eligible for financial support), according to a government paper titled "HECS and Opportunities in Higher Education" since then, demand for higher education has reduced by 9000 school leaver students, 17000 mature age students, and persons from a low socio-economic background have reduced by 38%.

Of course, addressing the skills shortage is not as simple as more university places (we don't want to flood the market place).

Is there a better way that you can think of to fix a skills shortage? Aside from immigration, which most Australians think is a no-no...

Unskilled labour will have to increase in proportion to increases in skilled labour, true. Unless automation of industries reaches a new technological high in the next 20-30 years.
Actually believe it or not, but nations such as China have a very high level of unskilled workers (true they are in poverty) and they are the best performing economy in the world.

They are the fastest growing economy in the world, but remain an undeveloped nation. The fast growing is a result of former agricultural workers becoming involved in industrial activities. China is in the transition stage where skilled labour is not as important as unskilled labour. Once China reaches a certain point in it's economic development, its growth will slow down considerably as further development and a projection of the economy on a world scale will depend on a heavily educated workforce.

To contrast the two nations, China's GDP in terms of purchasing power parity lies at $4700 per capita (A figure that seems very high to me, because two years ago the figure was under $1000...but the higher figure nonetheless illustrates my point), compared to Australia, which sits on around $27,000.

By the way, for an example of developed nations with a skilled labour shortage, look at Eastern Europe. Not doing too well in terms of economic growth, are they?

Now as for engineering in Australia, that is all but defunct (thanks to Labor in the 1980's) and it will take a visionary and fiscally responsible government to turn things around.

I'm not fully aware of the situation of the engineering sector, but going by the amount of non-overseas university students studying engineering disciplines, it appears to be in a state of growth, or at least high potential growth (Especially in the mining sector, which is whether or not you think it should be, the cornerstone of the Australian economy).

This will not come under Labor, but I believe under a future Liberal government (not the current one or under Costello).

If this future Liberal government means resorting to the US "User Pays" System of healthcare and higher education, I won't be impressed regardless of whether it turns things around. Personally anyway, I cannot see the Liberal party creating a visionary leader anytime before the economy is suffering negative effects.

The current generation of politicians do not appear interested in the future, but merely now. Sad really.

The same could be said about most of the public.

The best bet for good politician in my opinion was Natasha, but she got eaten alive. "Good" is negatively selected in politics. At the very least our current politicans need to step off the stage for some new blood.

Of course Johnny would retire, but he's scared of what he did to the pensioners. (Not that he has cause to worry, mind.)

If Natasha was the best, she wouldn't have caved in. I have seen much of this "new blood" and I am still not entirely satisfied.

Too many self interested people in politics.

True enough.

Though, I would say the chance of Australia's socio-economic messiah coming from the liberal party is fairly slim. Wherever it comes from though, the last thing we need is for things such as "user pays" and further privatization sabotaging more of our essential services.

Well history has shown that tertiary participation rates have risen significantly since the introduction of HECS in 1989. Truth is, that people realise you have a better chance of getting an above average paying job if you obtain a degree. In america degrees cost triple that of here and people still pay. Cost will not force participation down.

Ah, but since the 1996 HECS changes (Which included fee increases and a large downsizing of the amount of population eligible for financial support), according to a government paper titled "HECS and Opportunities in Higher Education" since then, demand for higher education has reduced by 9000 school leaver students, 17000 mature age students, and persons from a low socio-economic background have reduced by 38%.

Of course, addressing the skills shortage is not as simple as more university places (we don't want to flood the market place).

Is there a better way that you can think of to fix a skills shortage? Aside from immigration, which most Australians think is a no-no...

Unskilled labour will have to increase in proportion to increases in skilled labour, true. Unless automation of industries reaches a new technological high in the next 20-30 years.
Actually believe it or not, but nations such as China have a very high level of unskilled workers (true they are in poverty) and they are the best performing economy in the world.

They are the fastest growing economy in the world, but remain an undeveloped nation. The fast growing is a result of former agricultural workers becoming involved in industrial activities. China is in the transition stage where skilled labour is not as important as unskilled labour. Once China reaches a certain point in it's economic development, its growth will slow down considerably as further development and a projection of the economy on a world scale will depend on a heavily educated workforce.

To contrast the two nations, China's GDP in terms of purchasing power parity lies at $4700 per capita (A figure that seems very high to me, because two years ago the figure was under $1000...but the higher figure nonetheless illustrates my point), compared to Australia, which sits on around $27,000.

By the way, for an example of developed nations with a skilled labour shortage, look at Eastern Europe. Not doing too well in terms of economic growth, are they?

Now as for engineering in Australia, that is all but defunct (thanks to Labor in the 1980's) and it will take a visionary and fiscally responsible government to turn things around.

I'm not fully aware of the situation of the engineering sector, but going by the amount of non-overseas university students studying engineering disciplines, it appears to be in a state of growth, or at least high potential growth (Especially in the mining sector, which is whether or not you think it should be, the cornerstone of the Australian economy).

This will not come under Labor, but I believe under a future Liberal government (not the current one or under Costello).

If this future Liberal government means resorting to the US "User Pays" System of healthcare and higher education, I won't be impressed regardless of whether it turns things around. Personally anyway, I cannot see the Liberal party creating a visionary leader anytime before the economy is suffering negative effects.

The current generation of politicians do not appear interested in the future, but merely now. Sad really.

The same could be said about most of the public.

You made some interesting points. However with 24,000 new HECS places provided by the Higher Education Reform Package, the first point is rather irrelevent.

Also, mining is rural, not engineering. Australian manufacturing is slowly dying out. It shouldn't be so. The problem with mining is it is an unstable market...prices fluctuate greatly, whereas ETM's do not. We are experiencing a big boom at the moment in mining as the world plunges into a steel shortage (China is buying it all up). Australia over the next decade would be wise to invest in steel making again. Manufacturing provides stable wealth.

As for user pays...you will always find the basic medical and education provisions under a Liberal government. It is just they encourage private offshoots too (although they help fund those too, which brings into question the meaning of "private")

Though, I would say the chance of Australia's socio-economic messiah coming from the liberal party is fairly slim. Wherever it comes from though, the last thing we need is for things such as "user pays" and further privatization sabotaging more of our essential services.

Don't count your chickens until they've hatched.

Though, I would say the chance of Australia's socio-economic messiah coming from the liberal party is fairly slim. Wherever it comes from though, the last thing we need is for things such as "user pays" and further privatization sabotaging more of our essential services.

Don't count your chickens until they've hatched.

The liberal party traditionally denigrates the prefix socio- in socio-economic.

Though, I would say the chance of Australia's socio-economic messiah coming from the liberal party is fairly slim. Wherever it comes from though, the last thing we need is for things such as "user pays" and further privatization sabotaging more of our essential services.

Don't count your chickens until they've hatched.

The liberal party traditionally denigrates the prefix socio- in socio-economic.

Australia isn't a welfare state...I think it is fair to tax less and let people pay most of their own way.

Though, I would say the chance of Australia's socio-economic messiah coming from the liberal party is fairly slim. Wherever it comes from though, the last thing we need is for things such as "user pays" and further privatization sabotaging more of our essential services.

Don't count your chickens until they've hatched.

The liberal party traditionally denigrates the prefix socio- in socio-economic.

Australia isn't a welfare state...I think it is fair to tax less and let people pay most of their own way.

That infringes on the rights of those who cannot pay, and puts an enormous, undue burden on the majority who only just can. Education, healthcare, none of these grow on trees. They're far too expensive for most people to foot the bill for directly. That's why we share the load.

The Americans have the best facilities, but the worst system to operate them with, and they pay for it in more ways than one.

I did not mean make them pay for everything - just wean people off welfare a bit (there is a growing welfare mentality on Australia - the state owes you nothing)

Personally I see the need for assistence for all, but when welfare reaches 42% of the annual federal budget, there is something terribly wrong.

Less welfare and greater emphasis on stable, full time employment and better managed services is the key.

Work hard and prosper should not be a dream.

I did not mean make them pay for everything - just wean people off welfare a bit (there is a growing welfare mentality on Australia - the state owes you nothing)

Personally I see the need for assistence for all, but when welfare reaches 42% of the annual federal budget, there is something terribly wrong.

Less welfare and greater emphasis on stable, full time employment and better managed services is the key.

Work hard and prosper should not be a dream.

The State owes you the protection of your rights, and that's about it.

Aside from that, however, you're quite right, but I disagree on the stripping back taxes. They're fine at their current levels, but there needs to be massive reforms as to where they are being spent.

(Though that welfare is quite necissary in many cases...although I'm quite alright and I don't get welfare, there are many fellow students who don't actually know if they're eating or not each night, centerlink or not. Bout a quarter of the student population actually.)

I did not mean make them pay for everything - just wean people off welfare a bit (there is a growing welfare mentality on Australia - the state owes you nothing)

Personally I see the need for assistence for all, but when welfare reaches 42% of the annual federal budget, there is something terribly wrong.

Less welfare and greater emphasis on stable, full time employment and better managed services is the key.

Work hard and prosper should not be a dream.

The State owes you the protection of your rights, and that's about it.

Aside from that, however, you're quite right, but I disagree on the stripping back taxes. They're fine at their current levels, but there needs to be massive reforms as to where they are being spent.

(Though that welfare is quite necissary in many cases...although I'm quite alright and I don't get welfare, there are many fellow students who don't actually know if they're eating or not each night, centerlink or not. Bout a quarter of the student population actually.)

People are being taxed to the bone. Frankly, the superannuation surcharge tax should be abolished eventually and I support the Liberals on the proposal back during the GST hype to raise the top tax bracket to $75,000 + rather than $50,000 (currently $62,500). Labor would have us all believe that if you earn over $50,000 you are rich...hardly.

Also I support income splitting...

e.g. in terms of benefits and superannuation - one partner earns $20,000 and the other $60,000, are worse off than a couple where both partners earn $40,000 each.

It is the same family income, but the high/low couple are hit harder.

Something the Liberals have looked at in the past (heavy opposition by left wing politicians)...yet Labor seems content with letting the inequity continue.

Well how annoying...an abusive moderator deleted my nation because I waged war on a friend of theirs.

Anyway, we seem to have veered off Whitlam.

I'm not fully aware of the situation of the engineering sector, but going by the amount of non-overseas university students studying engineering disciplines, it appears to be in a state of growth, or at least high potential growth (Especially in the mining sector, which is whether or not you think it should be, the cornerstone of the Australian economy).

Also, mining is rural, not engineering. Australian manufacturing is slowly dying out. It shouldn't be so. The problem with mining is it is an unstable market...prices fluctuate greatly, whereas ETM's do not. We are experiencing a big boom at the moment in mining as the world plunges into a steel shortage (China is buying it all up). Australia over the next decade would be wise to invest in steel making again. Manufacturing provides stable wealth.

Dont forget that Labour under, notably, Whitlam tried to expand Australian manufacturing but failed.

And yes, I did try to state the fact that our economy relies on raw materials...

But the point i was originally trying to make is that Mining has a very important engineering component...engineering in itself is split up among many different sectors, but I would imagine that mining engineering is the most important.

I'm not fully aware of the situation of the engineering sector, but going by the amount of non-overseas university students studying engineering disciplines, it appears to be in a state of growth, or at least high potential growth (Especially in the mining sector, which is whether or not you think it should be, the cornerstone of the Australian economy).

Also, mining is rural, not engineering. Australian manufacturing is slowly dying out. It shouldn't be so. The problem with mining is it is an unstable market...prices fluctuate greatly, whereas ETM's do not. We are experiencing a big boom at the moment in mining as the world plunges into a steel shortage (China is buying it all up). Australia over the next decade would be wise to invest in steel making again. Manufacturing provides stable wealth.

Dont forget that Labour under, notably, Whitlam tried to expand Australian manufacturing but failed.

And yes, I did try to state the fact that our economy relies on raw materials...

But the point i was originally trying to make is that Mining has a very important engineering component...engineering in itself is split up among many different sectors, but I would imagine that mining engineering is the most important.

Fair enough. Whitlam may have tried, but as we both say, he failed. The idea is to succeed. Then came Hawke's "clever country" and the entire "Working Nation" - biggest flop of all time...Keating leaving Australians with five years accumulated $90 billion in debt.