Talking Politics

[an_oxford_man]

The Labour Party have moved so far on so many policies that they no longer representant a textbook leftist party. They are now a soft right or what the Libs were a long time ago. THis has allowed the Libs to push further right.

Rudd needs to push away from this IR battle, he cannot win on that platform.

Agree on the first bit, totally disagree on the second.

Won't be on that alone though. Liberals being ideologically driven, backwards looking and extreme on big issues like working conditions, education and especially the environment, has given the ALP plenty to work with.

Everyone's got a quid at the moment, TS. The economy is what will win or lose Labor the election. Maybe the fact that Rudd looks a tight arse accountant rather than a thug or a marshmellow may help the ALP's economic credentials to the swinging voters.

 

[Tigerdog]

I keep hearing news reports about record unemployment. But IIRC, the definition of 'employed' was changed by the Howard government. Whereas before 'employed' was considered to be working at minimum 24-26 (maybe it was 20?)hours a week. Now, if I am not mistaken, the definition of 'employed' means someone who works a minimum of 10-12 hours a week.
Can anyone clarify this for me please?
If it is true, it is an example of 'spin'. But the ignorant majority believe it because it was on the news, or in the paper. It must be true.

 

[mld]

This is simply the Labor party getting back to its socially conservative roots. The Catholic church in particular has always been a very strong force within the union movement.

 

[jb03]

I keep hearing news reports about record unemployment. But IIRC, the definition of 'employed' was changed by the Howard government. Whereas before 'employed' was considered to be working at minimum 24-26 (maybe it was 20?)hours a week. Now, if I am not mistaken, the definition of 'employed' means someone who works a minimum of 10-12 hours a week.
Can anyone clarify this for me please?
If it is true, it is an example of 'spin'. But the ignorant majority believe it because it was on the news, or in the paper. It must be true.

IT doesn't really matter by what measure you use TD as under Howards reign it is relative. The fact is unemployment rates under Howard have dropped and further, they have dropped since the introduction of Workchoices.

I know we all like to kick Little Johnny but this is one area where he shouldn't be.

 

[jayfox]

I would love to know the percentage of Labour voters verses Liberal voters on PRE as I believe that it would be significantly in favour of the former. Funnily enough this is not an indication of the voting habits of the greater Australian population over the past decade. Maybe it says something about the people who post on internet football sites? Maybe we should start a poll to see what the breakdown actually is?

 

[mld]

While I mostly approve of the IR changes, it is worth not getting carried away by keeping in mind that the job increases are in a large part due to the mining boom. Job growth has been in Qld and WA whereas the IR laws have been Australia wide, if the IR laws were responsible for our job growth we would see more jobs in all states and territories. Of course, we haven't seen the 'mass sackings' etc predicted by the union movement.

Of course none of that won't stop Howard claiming all the credit and it won't stop the unions running a scare campaign.

 

[Anduril]

I keep hearing news reports about record unemployment. But IIRC, the definition of 'employed' was changed by the Howard government. Whereas before 'employed' was considered to be working at minimum 24-26 (maybe it was 20?)hours a week. Now, if I am not mistaken, the definition of 'employed' means someone who works a minimum of 10-12 hours a week.
Can anyone clarify this for me please?
If it is true, it is an example of 'spin'. But the ignorant majority believe it because it was on the news, or in the paper. It must be true.

You are counted in the employment figures if you work for 1-2 hours per week.
We now have a group known as the "working poor".

 

[Liverpool]

The Labour Party have moved so far on so many policies that they no longer representant a textbook leftist party. They are now a soft right or what the Libs were a long time ago. THis has allowed the Libs to push further right.

Rudd needs to push away from this IR battle, he cannot win on that platform.

This move to the Right has been happening for years. Its one of the reasons why the Greens have polled well in recent fed elections. They fill the void left by the centre moving ALP.

Tend to agree more with Scoop, Pesto. The ALP aren't centre moving. They have already passed that. :'(

Green for me. I refuse to vote for Another Liberal Party.

C'mon fellas....if the ALP has seen the light, and realised that what the Libs have been doing for years is the right way to go, and what this country wants...then surely you lot should start opening your eyes a bit too?

Like I stated....Rudd is too smart to be an ALP man, and why the ALP followers are now running to the Greenies for salvation..... :hihi

Even more Ruddy and Johnny agreeing on an issue in the article below.

(P.S: A new tact by Hilali/Trad now.....its usually been the "he was misinterpreted" excuse, however, now its "comments borne out of frustration" excuse. :


PM, Rudd gang up on mufti
April 13, 2007 - 11:34AM

Labor leader Kevin Rudd has urged the Federal Government to review Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali's Australian citizenship after his latest remarks declaring himself more Australian than Prime Minister John Howard.
And Mr Howard today again called for Auysralian Muslims to dump their mufti, who he said brought ridicule on their community.
In an uncharacteristic defence of the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd blasted the controversial Islamic cleric, saying: "As you know, I'm not a natural supporter of the Prime Minister, but Mr Howard is as Australian as I am".
"The sheikh is out there, I think, just seeking crazy publicity, as he seems to do on a daily basis."
The Muslim cleric declared himself "more Aussie than Howard" in an interview with a News Limited newspaper, in which he called the Prime Minister a dictator.
"It's a disgrace for the leader of a democratic country to be picking on religious people, especially one who is practising a form of dictatorship that could almost be Saddam Hussein-like," the sheikh told the paper.
"I respect Australian values more than he does."
This week, Iranian media quoted the mufti as urging Australian Muslims "to stand in the trenches with the Islamic Republic of Iran which possesses the might and the power".
Mr Rudd said the comments bordered on violating Australia's counter-terrorism laws because Iran supports the "global terrorist organisation" Hezbollah.
Mr Howard sais that, while the sheikh's comments should be treated as a joke, "there is still a serious issue with this man".
"He's still holding a position of some influence and responsibility in the Islamic community and it remains important, as I've said repeatedly, for that community to remove him from any position of influence in their own interests because he is bringing ridicule upon them and I don't like that occurring,'' Mr Howard told Southern Cross Broadcasting.
Federal Industrial Relations Minister Joe Hockey, appearing with Mr Rudd on the Seven Network's Sunrise program, said Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock should review the mufti's Australian citizenship.
"My call to Mr Ruddock is to formally review whether or not Australia's counter-terrorism laws are in any way violated by these sorts of statements by the sheikh," said Mr Rudd.
Mr Hockey said the mufti was using his position to turn Australian Muslims against the non-Muslim community.
"Yet again, he's trying to make a headline by saying something outrageous," he said.
"But, of course, he's trying to elevate his position to create an 'us-versus-them mentality' in the Islamic community. That won't work.
"The great bulk of members of the Islamic community want to get rid of him.
"I'm absolutely confident that Philip Ruddock will be looking at every comment made by the mufti."
Meanwhile, Sheikh al-Hilali's spokesman Keysar Trad has said the mufti's comments were born of frustration.
"To make these comments about John Howard, I think, indicates nothing more than the frustration that many people in the (Muslim) community are feeling about the way we were regularly placed in the spotlight," he told Southern Cross Broadcasting.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pm-rudd-gang-up-on-mufti/2007/04/13/1175971307248.html

 

[evo]

I keep hearing news reports about record unemployment. But IIRC, the definition of 'employed' was changed by the Howard government. Whereas before 'employed' was considered to be working at minimum 24-26 (maybe it was 20?)hours a week. Now, if I am not mistaken, the definition of 'employed' means someone who works a minimum of 10-12 hours a week.
Can anyone clarify this for me please?
If it is true, it is an example of 'spin'. But the ignorant majority believe it because it was on the news, or in the paper. It must be true.

You are counted in the employment figures if you work for 1-2 hours per week.
We now have a group known as the "working poor".

Will be interesting to see if the ALP change the definition back.

 

[tigersnake]

I keep hearing news reports about record unemployment. But IIRC, the definition of 'employed' was changed by the Howard government. Whereas before 'employed' was considered to be working at minimum 24-26 (maybe it was 20?)hours a week. Now, if I am not mistaken, the definition of 'employed' means someone who works a minimum of 10-12 hours a week.
Can anyone clarify this for me please?
If it is true, it is an example of 'spin'. But the ignorant majority believe it because it was on the news, or in the paper. It must be true.

IT doesn't really matter by what measure you use TD as under Howards reign it is relative. The fact is unemployment rates under Howard have dropped and further, they have dropped since the introduction of Workchoices.

I know we all like to kick Little Johnny but this is one area where he shouldn't be.

yes they have, but it really was just a continuation of momentum of the previous 7 or 8 years, I dunno, doesn't really wash with me. An ecomomy is a bit like an aircraft carrier in terms of momentum. You could equally argue the old system was partly responsible for the lon boom in certain ways, like job security, but having said all that the unfair dismaissal laws would have had some impact I'd reckon. I'd like to knopw more about the detail of the effect, how many workers have been taken on that wouldn't have been otherwise then flourished in their job? How many are being paid *smile* wages and conditions? It would be an interesting and complex picture.

 

[jb03]

I really like Rudd. One of the few politicians that I can remember that acknowledges the opposition do have some good ideas or at least, the opposition are not 100% bad/evil as most leaders try to have you believe of the opposition party.

 

[an_oxford_man]

I really like Rudd. One of the few politicians that I can remember that acknowledges the opposition do have some good ideas or at least, the opposition are not 100% bad/evil as most leaders try to have you believe of the opposition party.

Defeats the purpose of the two party system if the policies are bi-partisan.

 

[evo]

I really like Rudd. One of the few politicians that I can remember that acknowledges the opposition do have some good ideas or at least, the opposition are not 100% bad/evil as most leaders try to have you believe of the opposition party.

Defeats the purpose of the two party system if the policies are bi-partisan.

agree Gypsy.A merging of ideology is not a democraticlly healthy thing.

it's no wonder the democrats a dieing a slow death.The middle is so crowded.

 

[Michael]

I really like Rudd. One of the few politicians that I can remember that acknowledges the opposition do have some good ideas or at least, the opposition are not 100% bad/evil as most leaders try to have you believe of the opposition party.

I agree with you JB,i to find this aspect of Ruddy refreshing.
At this stage he seems to have avoided the gratuitous head kicking.

 

[evo]

I agree with you JB,i to find this aspect of Ruddy refreshing.
At this stage he seems to have avoided the gratuitous head kicking.

Yeah,he's been fairly statesman like since becoming leader.Probably a good chance to win.The plan seems to be let the Libs hoist themselves on their own petard.

 

[Legends of 2017]

I keep hearing news reports about record unemployment. But IIRC, the definition of 'employed' was changed by the Howard government. Whereas before 'employed' was considered to be working at minimum 24-26 (maybe it was 20?)hours a week. Now, if I am not mistaken, the definition of 'employed' means someone who works a minimum of 10-12 hours a week.
Can anyone clarify this for me please?
If it is true, it is an example of 'spin'. But the ignorant majority believe it because it was on the news, or in the paper. It must be true.

You are counted in the employment figures if you work for 1-2 hours per week.
We now have a group known as the "working poor".

Will be interesting to see if the ALP change the definition back.

I was thinking the same thing recently. The more I thought about it, the more I doubt they will. Can you imagine the headlines and the Libs, with unemployment figures going up, even though nothing realistically has changed?

 

[Michael]

I agree with you JB,i to find this aspect of Ruddy refreshing.
At this stage he seems to have avoided the gratuitous head kicking.

Yeah,he's been fairly statesman like since becoming leader.Probably a good chance to win.The plan seems to be let the Libs hoist themselves on their own petard.

I like the petard reference.
Had to look it up, very good and so appropriate for Bonsai

 

[Tigerdog]

I keep hearing news reports about record unemployment. But IIRC, the definition of 'employed' was changed by the Howard government. Whereas before 'employed' was considered to be working at minimum 24-26 (maybe it was 20?)hours a week. Now, if I am not mistaken, the definition of 'employed' means someone who works a minimum of 10-12 hours a week.
Can anyone clarify this for me please?
If it is true, it is an example of 'spin'. But the ignorant majority believe it because it was on the news, or in the paper. It must be true.

IT doesn't really matter by what measure you use TD as under Howards reign it is relative. The fact is unemployment rates under Howard have dropped and further, they have dropped since the introduction of Workchoices.

I know we all like to kick Little Johnny but this is one area where he shouldn't be.

But is it a fact? Or is it just the playing with of figures?
If what Anduril said is true and you are regarded as being 'employed' even if you only work one hour a week, what would the figures look like if calculated in the old way of measuring 'employment' status.
Of course they would be quite different. Maybe still marginally improved in a real sense.
But the point remains the same. Most people don't know that the employment figures are calculated differently now and so believe the Government's spin and think 'they must be doing a great job'.
Why Labor doesn't make more of an effort to have things like this countered in public in an effort to educate the voting population, I will never know.

 

[Anduril]

Don't really think it would register if Labour did try and highlight it TD. Most people wouldn't pay any attention anyway even if it was reported in the media. (Although I hear it quite a bit in the media, but I guess it depends what media you're using)
It's well documented that a lot of what we hear in the news comes from Govt press releases.

 

[mld]

I'm not sure the method for calculating unemployment has actually changed a great deal from under Keating. However, the method is flawed. A good alternate source for unemployment numbers is the Roy Morgan unemployment estimate, which shows a current rate of 7.2%.