Where did Labor spend all the money exactly?

TheEnd said:
'Under Labor electricity has increased 90%'......Ouch that ones really hurts!
Click to expand...

You think that's bad?

Cyclone Yasi damaged large parts of Queensland under Labor.

And that's on top of the floods a few months earlier.
 
TheEnd said:
'Under Labor electricity has increased 90%'......Ouch that ones really hurts! I think this is the 'main' reason things are so bad at the moment.....No one can afford the power bills, especially businesses......and they have to pass on the extra costs to the consumers to cover the costs of the power bills?

Its like when petrol hits 1.60 or more every now and then......EVERYTHING goes up accordingly!
Click to expand...

See http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-566451.html#p566451.

Most of the cost increase is actually a result of state govts and the regulators not the Australian Government which is responsible for:
- the carbon tax (added about 10% compared to 2012),
- MRET/LRET (with was both parties but was ramped up thanks to the Greens) and SRES (which has added about 0.5-0.75c/kWh in total)
 
Big A.D. said:
TheEnd said:
'Under Labor electricity has increased 90%'......Ouch that ones really hurts!
Click to expand...

You think that's bad?

Cyclone Yasi damaged large parts of Queensland under Labor.

And that's on top of the floods a few months earlier.
Click to expand...
+1. ALP causes big floods while the Coalition causes big droughts (100% correlation over past 2 decades ;) ).
 
but the difference is the ALP flexes their socialist muscles when there is a flood and makes the whole country pay for it with a levy. Why should home owners too retarded to take out an insurance policy be bailed out by bob that lives in WA? ALP loves their wealth redistribution.
 
Reckon you could afford a 300% increase in your insurance cost's ? One fella up this way was slugged $300 for a Tsunami excess on his home insurance, He lives 400 mt above sea level.
Think they might be taking things a bit far there.
 
Why cant there be a levy for the beaches on the gold coast to be fixed rather than my rates going up. surely everyone can chip in for that, fair's fair. As for the 300% increase, one would say the insurance companies need a boot up the ass. No money used from the levy to address those crooks was there? I guess that's the price to pay for living in a flood zone, so many places here that went under in the 60's that will go under again one day. People seem to forget after a while, the insurance companies didn't make them live there they just don't want to pay for the fools that chose to live there themselves.
 
Thankfully Tony Abbott will win the election and pass a law to abolish floods so we won't have to deal with them until Labor gets in again.
 
Abotts going to be on ABC 1 'Insiders' tmrw morning at 9.00am for Fathers Day....Can't wait to see what he says he's going to do for us!
 
The Pirate Party has no history of Drought, Flood or fiscal malfeasceance... vote for the Pirate Party :cool:



p.s.

the sex party causes hurricanes :(
 
The flood levy was nothing to do with private property - it was to pay for the uninsured public infrastructure the Labor state government had neglected to insure.
 
TheEnd said:
Abotts going to be on ABC 1 'Insiders' tmrw morning at 9.00am for Fathers Day....Can't wait to see what he says he's going to do for us!
Click to expand...

As always he will pander to the ignorant older wannabe rich xenophobes.

Heres what to expect:

-Labor bashing; lots and lots of labor bashing. Blaming the GFC on labor and all that fun stuff
-Lots of "no"
-Talk about abolishing the carbon tax that is already gone and blaming cost of living increases on labor, not thilthy old greedy c*nts like himself.
-Blank staring while rapidly nodding and not saying a word
-Something something labor=bad
-Selling the liberals pathetic excuse of an NBN
-More pandering to older conservative "I got mine so f*ck everyone else" type people
 
metalzzz said:
^^^ dont vote for either morons and the weather will be fine :D
Click to expand...
I agree
If the Laboral Party are not re elected Australia will be be completely safe from all natural disasters!
11420_image.jpg

This is my Guarantee* as safe as a house in a flood plain.
(Guarantee subject to terms and conditions.)
 
Has either party mentioned the Trans Pacific Partnership at all? It looks like it has the potential to really turtle us all, but I haven't heard a peep from anyone in the media or politicians about it.

Read this and see one reason to vote Labor... If the liberals get in we are definitely turtled on this point http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/trade-talks/4689004

The TPP is a multinational trade deal involving 12 countries including the US and Australia. If finalised it'll account for 40 per cent of the global economy.

The trade talks are heavily shrouded in secrecyand critics are concerned the TPP will benefit multinational corporations at the expense of existing labour and social protections....

One of the key sticking points is Australia's opposition to the US push for an investor-state dispute settlement clause.

An investor-state dispute settlement clause gives a multinational company which believes its investment has been harmed by a government decision the right to sue a state in an international arbitration tribunalwhich would have the power to overrule local laws.
 
Maybe the Economist is on to something then.

The Economist has hesitantly thrown its support behind Kevin Rudd as the nation gears up to head to the polls next week, declaring that the Labor Party's "decent record" in recent years makes it the best party to face the challenges of the future.

While acknowledging that the Liberal-National coalition is the natural home of The Economist's vote, the magazine says in an editorial due to be published on Saturday that it has broken with tradition and endorsed Mr Rudd, although "the choice for voters, frankly, is not great".

"The choice between a man with a defective manifesto and one with a defective personality is not appealingbut Mr Rudd gets our vote, largely because of Labor's decent record," The Economist writes, describing the parties' respective leaders as "Daggy Abbott and rude Rudd".
Advertisement

The editorial, entitled "Lucky no more: Kevin Rudd just about deserves a second turn", says that much of the lucky country's recent prosperity came from exporting commodities to China.

But that luck might be about to turn, it says, with the Chinese boom fading and commodity prices slumping.

The magazine then analyses which leader would be best positioned to handle this tricky future.

Liberal leader Tony Abbott "does not seem an instinctive fan of markets", the editorial says, and had not explained how he would pay for a federal scheme for paid parental leave, one of the few key policies he has announced.

"His social conservatism does not appeal to us: he opposes gay marriage and supports populist measures against Afghans, Sri Lankans, Vietnamese and others who have attempted to get from Indonesia into Australia in rickety craft that have drowned thousands in recent years. Indeed his promise to 'turn back the boats' seems to be his only foreign policy," The Economist says.

The magazine's chief criticism of Labor also centres around the asylum seeker issue.

"The main mark against Labor's policy card is that it has shifted a long way towards Mr Abbott's position on asylum-seekers. Aside from that, it has a reasonable record," the editorial says, pointing to Labor's management of the economy and introduction of popular social programs including the national disability insurance scheme and the national broadband network.

However the editorial outlines two problems plaguing Labor: its internal strife which "makes the Chinese Communist Party look harmonious", and questions over the character of Mr Rudd.

But with deficits approaching, "his numbers look more likely to add up than Mr Abbott's", The Economist says.

"Despite his high-handed style, Mr Rudd is a Blairite centrist," it says.

"A strategic thinker about Asia, he has skills that will be useful, especially as Australia has to balance its economic dependence on China with its security dependence on America. It would be nice if he revived his liberal approach to asylum-seekers. And, who knows, he may even live up to his promise to be less vile to his colleagues."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...second-turn-20130830-2svda.html#ixzz2dYK7CnNq
Click to expand...
 
JulieW said:
Maybe the Economist is on to something then.

The Economist has hesitantly thrown its support behind Kevin Rudd as the nation gears up to head to the polls next week, declaring that the Labor Party's "decent record" in recent years makes it the best party to face the challenges of the future.

While acknowledging that the Liberal-National coalition is the natural home of The Economist's vote, the magazine says in an editorial due to be published on Saturday that it has broken with tradition and endorsed Mr Rudd, although "the choice for voters, frankly, is not great".

"The choice between a man with a defective manifesto and one with a defective personality is not appealingbut Mr Rudd gets our vote, largely because of Labor's decent record," The Economist writes, describing the parties' respective leaders as "Daggy Abbott and rude Rudd".
Advertisement

The editorial, entitled "Lucky no more: Kevin Rudd just about deserves a second turn", says that much of the lucky country's recent prosperity came from exporting commodities to China.

But that luck might be about to turn, it says, with the Chinese boom fading and commodity prices slumping.

The magazine then analyses which leader would be best positioned to handle this tricky future.

Liberal leader Tony Abbott "does not seem an instinctive fan of markets", the editorial says, and had not explained how he would pay for a federal scheme for paid parental leave, one of the few key policies he has announced.

"His social conservatism does not appeal to us: he opposes gay marriage and supports populist measures against Afghans, Sri Lankans, Vietnamese and others who have attempted to get from Indonesia into Australia in rickety craft that have drowned thousands in recent years. Indeed his promise to 'turn back the boats' seems to be his only foreign policy," The Economist says.

The magazine's chief criticism of Labor also centres around the asylum seeker issue.

"The main mark against Labor's policy card is that it has shifted a long way towards Mr Abbott's position on asylum-seekers. Aside from that, it has a reasonable record," the editorial says, pointing to Labor's management of the economy and introduction of popular social programs including the national disability insurance scheme and the national broadband network.

However the editorial outlines two problems plaguing Labor: its internal strife which "makes the Chinese Communist Party look harmonious", and questions over the character of Mr Rudd.

But with deficits approaching, "his numbers look more likely to add up than Mr Abbott's", The Economist says.

"Despite his high-handed style, Mr Rudd is a Blairite centrist," it says.

"A strategic thinker about Asia, he has skills that will be useful, especially as Australia has to balance its economic dependence on China with its security dependence on America. It would be nice if he revived his liberal approach to asylum-seekers. And, who knows, he may even live up to his promise to be less vile to his colleagues."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...second-turn-20130830-2svda.html#ixzz2dYK7CnNq
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I don't know Julie Rudd just got caught out again the other day after trying to claim Libs have blown 10 Billion.... Did'nt look to happy about it on t.v either...... Labor are the ones that are no good with money!
 
The Economist just shot its cred, such as it was, down in flames.

Must have been speaking to 'Euromoney'.


OC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top