While union adverts flood our radio waves and TV screens full of tales of fear and woe about events that seem to be purely a figment of the unions own worst nightmares rather than reality in the typical fear campaign we are used to seeing every election, labor is also ging down the same path with their adds also telling us of the dread we should all feel if we don't vote them in.
I hate negative advertising to be honest, I want to see what they intend to do, in detail, I want to make an informed decision about how well the party i chose to validate with my vote will represent the best intents of my wishes.
I want to see what you will do not how scared you are of the opposition.
There is one ad that caught my (and in fact almost everyones ) attention, the "kevin O lemon" add it was novel, humourous, and ironic and a mirror of the truth we all know,and it was the final straw that sealed Rudds fate: well it's back, with some changes, but just as funny.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
The Greens ; Environmental warriors or extreemists in disguise.
When most people think of the Greens they would associate them with saving trees and Koalas and their habitat, and that going to probably be the majority of their supporters and candidates too, right?
I wonder how many of the candidates actually have gone through all the policies that the Greens stand for? because I'm damned sure the public almost knows none of them except for saving the environment and I think that's exactly the way the Greens want it to be too.
Population growth in Queensland and the resulting prosperity can be attributed to one thing almost above all others and that is the dumping of a draconian policy of taking from the dead by means of death taxes or death duties.
When they were abolished in Queensland retirees and older workers who wanted to leave their hard earned savings and assets to their chosen beneficiaries began moving into Queensland in their droves, they bought homes, they lived their life and they spent their money here in Queensland.
One of the policies in the Greens little known arsenal is the reintroduction of death taxes, sure they may claim to have some safeguards to the family home or farm and they may have a thresh hold at which the tax comes in that may mean those with little are not taxed, but it's still the most abhorrent, repugnant and divisive tax ever.
In the days of old it was required that an audit of a deceased persons asserts be taken, and the duty calculated and then by any and every means paid or a ghoul form the tax department would come to the home and do it and even order a sell up to retrieve the duty owed, as if those left behind after a death need that.
One wonders how they came up with some of the hair brained policies like reintroducing death duties, and not only cutting funding to private schools at Federal level but controlling the hiring and firing of staff and teachers there as well.
The only explanation is that the greens are not who they say they are (or deliberately allow you get the impression they are) which is the saviours of our environment, but rather they are the extreme left of labor, the ultimate Communist party and a sounding board for radical and extreme new policy.
I have a lot of time for those out there doing the hard yards in a one sided fight against progress which simply destroys our planet little by little, but I now believe the Greens have hoodwinked the majority of members and supporters and even some candidates by carefully and deliberately not coming out into the public with some of their policies.
Think twice before you put the greens into the balance of power in the senate because once that door is open, anything could go through it, even a return to death duties.
I also just want to add that anyone who thinks it's ok because it will only apply to the rich, think again because once that door is opened it's pretty easy to open it wider, also once you force those peoples relatives to sell up to pay the tax, what happens to the business they used to run now its' sold off, the people who worked there, and the future for the beneficiaries.
What happens to the self funded retirees, those who had no super, or none that has its' contributions doubled up the government, their families who are dependents on the income produced from a business or investments?
The greens have not thought this through, at all.
I wonder how many of the candidates actually have gone through all the policies that the Greens stand for? because I'm damned sure the public almost knows none of them except for saving the environment and I think that's exactly the way the Greens want it to be too.
Population growth in Queensland and the resulting prosperity can be attributed to one thing almost above all others and that is the dumping of a draconian policy of taking from the dead by means of death taxes or death duties.
When they were abolished in Queensland retirees and older workers who wanted to leave their hard earned savings and assets to their chosen beneficiaries began moving into Queensland in their droves, they bought homes, they lived their life and they spent their money here in Queensland.
One of the policies in the Greens little known arsenal is the reintroduction of death taxes, sure they may claim to have some safeguards to the family home or farm and they may have a thresh hold at which the tax comes in that may mean those with little are not taxed, but it's still the most abhorrent, repugnant and divisive tax ever.
In the days of old it was required that an audit of a deceased persons asserts be taken, and the duty calculated and then by any and every means paid or a ghoul form the tax department would come to the home and do it and even order a sell up to retrieve the duty owed, as if those left behind after a death need that.
One wonders how they came up with some of the hair brained policies like reintroducing death duties, and not only cutting funding to private schools at Federal level but controlling the hiring and firing of staff and teachers there as well.
The only explanation is that the greens are not who they say they are (or deliberately allow you get the impression they are) which is the saviours of our environment, but rather they are the extreme left of labor, the ultimate Communist party and a sounding board for radical and extreme new policy.
I have a lot of time for those out there doing the hard yards in a one sided fight against progress which simply destroys our planet little by little, but I now believe the Greens have hoodwinked the majority of members and supporters and even some candidates by carefully and deliberately not coming out into the public with some of their policies.
Think twice before you put the greens into the balance of power in the senate because once that door is open, anything could go through it, even a return to death duties.
I also just want to add that anyone who thinks it's ok because it will only apply to the rich, think again because once that door is opened it's pretty easy to open it wider, also once you force those peoples relatives to sell up to pay the tax, what happens to the business they used to run now its' sold off, the people who worked there, and the future for the beneficiaries.
What happens to the self funded retirees, those who had no super, or none that has its' contributions doubled up the government, their families who are dependents on the income produced from a business or investments?
The greens have not thought this through, at all.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The greens have irrevocably shown their ties to Labor
The Greens leader Bob Brown has been in the media telling of his abhorrence for preference deals, and almost in the same sentence announcing a broad base deal to give preferences to Labor.
It's no secret that the greater majority of voters also believe there is no difference between Labor and the Greens as far as policy or ideology.
There is also a school of thought that the Greens are a product of the Labor brand as a tool to position radical policy elements in front of the community and a marketing bonanza to capture the widely growing environmental awareness among voters.
Personally I believe that Green candidates stand with all good intentions, they are more that likely environmentally aware, proactive and work in their various communities on real solutions to issues at a local level.
The real issue is that the Greens are a cast net designed to grab the votes of people who don't want to vote for a continuation of what the two major parties offer and would like to see real change to government that is for the betterment of Australia as a whole and in turn our planet, they want a government perhaps that can be an example of lower impact environmentally to governments across the world.
Unfortunately that's never going to happen whilst the current crop of leaders in the Greens continue to tie themselves to Labor nationally, because it does very little to give them credibility as a true independent party.
Of course the idea of the vote deal is to try to gain the balance of power in the senate, and to that end we see some now, very confident Greens candidates getting about the place telling us all sorts of radical policies.
So getting to the point, In the seat of Hinkler around Harvey Bay, the Greens candidate appears to have quit the party over the recent preference deal, and seems intent on running as an independent.
Adrian Wone, is probably not alone among candidates who may prefer to allow voters to chose their own preference choice, in fact I know there are others but the party structure and the Australian system does not reward individuals who stand up for their principles they are marginalised with "not a team player", "radical" and "loner" tags by a system that pays Parties very well for votes.
I commend Adrian Wone for his action, I'm not against a candidate giving preferences in a certain direction, but to make a national deal is certainly not in the best interests of people where they are suffering under the pressure of labor policy.
In my opinion, if the Greens want seats, get real policy. If they want the balance of power do it on their own , campaign hard on local issues and campaign all the time not just 5 weeks before the election. Consider the majority, not the minority in general policy, e.g. the Greens claim it's unfair for the federal government to fund Private schools, they have nothing to back that up and ignore some very compelling evidence to continue. Private schools take a huge number of kids out of the state funded system (yes, all schools are funded, and private schools get ZERO funding from the states,)and that means they don't have to build more and more schools, pay more and more teachers, supply more and more facilities. The fact is that this is a policy from the Greens that is illconcieved, uninformed, socialist and detrimental to peoples freedom of choice to school their children in the manner they wish.
A Greens senator, who gets the seat on the back of Labor preferences is beholding to Labor, they owe Labor, they are effectively part of Labor. Giving the Greens the balance of power in the senate is giving Labor control of the senate.
It's no secret that the greater majority of voters also believe there is no difference between Labor and the Greens as far as policy or ideology.
There is also a school of thought that the Greens are a product of the Labor brand as a tool to position radical policy elements in front of the community and a marketing bonanza to capture the widely growing environmental awareness among voters.
Personally I believe that Green candidates stand with all good intentions, they are more that likely environmentally aware, proactive and work in their various communities on real solutions to issues at a local level.
The real issue is that the Greens are a cast net designed to grab the votes of people who don't want to vote for a continuation of what the two major parties offer and would like to see real change to government that is for the betterment of Australia as a whole and in turn our planet, they want a government perhaps that can be an example of lower impact environmentally to governments across the world.
Unfortunately that's never going to happen whilst the current crop of leaders in the Greens continue to tie themselves to Labor nationally, because it does very little to give them credibility as a true independent party.
Of course the idea of the vote deal is to try to gain the balance of power in the senate, and to that end we see some now, very confident Greens candidates getting about the place telling us all sorts of radical policies.
So getting to the point, In the seat of Hinkler around Harvey Bay, the Greens candidate appears to have quit the party over the recent preference deal, and seems intent on running as an independent.
Adrian Wone, is probably not alone among candidates who may prefer to allow voters to chose their own preference choice, in fact I know there are others but the party structure and the Australian system does not reward individuals who stand up for their principles they are marginalised with "not a team player", "radical" and "loner" tags by a system that pays Parties very well for votes.
I commend Adrian Wone for his action, I'm not against a candidate giving preferences in a certain direction, but to make a national deal is certainly not in the best interests of people where they are suffering under the pressure of labor policy.
In my opinion, if the Greens want seats, get real policy. If they want the balance of power do it on their own , campaign hard on local issues and campaign all the time not just 5 weeks before the election. Consider the majority, not the minority in general policy, e.g. the Greens claim it's unfair for the federal government to fund Private schools, they have nothing to back that up and ignore some very compelling evidence to continue. Private schools take a huge number of kids out of the state funded system (yes, all schools are funded, and private schools get ZERO funding from the states,)and that means they don't have to build more and more schools, pay more and more teachers, supply more and more facilities. The fact is that this is a policy from the Greens that is illconcieved, uninformed, socialist and detrimental to peoples freedom of choice to school their children in the manner they wish.
A Greens senator, who gets the seat on the back of Labor preferences is beholding to Labor, they owe Labor, they are effectively part of Labor. Giving the Greens the balance of power in the senate is giving Labor control of the senate.
A contribution from a local.
There is only one record to break for Julia
Julia Gillard has made history as the first female Prime Minister of Australia, that will be her claim to fame, not how she got there and not as many believe for being the shortest serving PM in Australia’s history if the gamble of cutting her own leaders throat, with the backing of faction leaders and Union Power Brokers, goes awry and she is voted out.
For Julia to have been the shortest serving PM in Australia’s history, she would have to have been removed from her post any time before the early hours of July 2nd, 2010.
If she loses this election, she will become the 5th shortest serving Prime Minister.
Julia’s job has to be to convince the electorate that she is not the conniving backstabber who coldly executed PM Kevin Rudd, gave him the Judas kiss in a late night meeting which saw him not even contest the vote from the caucus in less that 24 hours and instead saw him blubber in front of media and his whole immediate family.
Julia also has been quick to use Rudd as the scapegoat (as expected) for all that ails in the vote winning process despite it being well known that she was one of the gang of four who with Rudd and swan made policy , publicized it and then handed press releases to the relevant Minister along with the media. What Rudd was, so was Gillard.
Julia will no doubt attempt to use the agreement with the miners, brokered through back downs in the new tax which served her masters in the unions who feared the loss of jobs in the mining sector to offshore operations and continue with the assertion that without her government in power we will get work choices returned by the current opposition.
Julia’s public announcement on calling the election for August 21 was very much lacking in substance, but I think we all got the campaign slogan, “Moving Forward” since she repeated it many times and spoke slowly as usual, interesting also was her appearance, a little smoother in the face (Botox maybe?) and with a fresh bright red shock and with highlights in the hair colour, her face and mouth barely moving during the delivery of the entire speech.
Julia went on the attack too, claiming knowledge about what is going to be policy from her opposite number Tony Abbott, and claiming that she knows what would have happened in an alternate reality with him as leader during the GFC where our big four made profit while the rest of the developed worlds banks lost, sometimes very heavily and that is to have our country in recession.
Julia actually looks to me to be a Star trek fan, so her claim makes perfect sense, that there could be a way of seeing into an alternate reality where the opposition didn’t support the stimulus packages in the senate, and allow Labor to claim the kudos for it and in fact be the government and not introduce it at all, in fact I can imagine Julia translating all her speeches into “Klingon” as a memory improving exercise.
Julia will probably get a big slice of the women’s vote because there is a large percentage of women who will vote for a woman just because it’s a woman, that’s in her favour, big time and she will, very much like Joh Bejelke Peterson feed the chooks and be of great interest to the various media scrums simply because she is the new kid in town.
Julia is like Joh in many ways, she talks differently almost like she is talking to first graders and her accent is broad and ockerish and almost unladylike more suited to an older country singer than a PM, she also repeats a lot sometimes more than once in case we are too slow to get it the first time.
It’s going to be a long 5 weeks.
BTW, the shortest serving PM was Francis Michael Forde, 8 days.
Earl Page 20 days, John McEwen 23 days and Arthur Fadden 40days.
Julia Gillard has made history as the first female Prime Minister of Australia, that will be her claim to fame, not how she got there and not as many believe for being the shortest serving PM in Australia’s history if the gamble of cutting her own leaders throat, with the backing of faction leaders and Union Power Brokers, goes awry and she is voted out.
For Julia to have been the shortest serving PM in Australia’s history, she would have to have been removed from her post any time before the early hours of July 2nd, 2010.
If she loses this election, she will become the 5th shortest serving Prime Minister.
Julia’s job has to be to convince the electorate that she is not the conniving backstabber who coldly executed PM Kevin Rudd, gave him the Judas kiss in a late night meeting which saw him not even contest the vote from the caucus in less that 24 hours and instead saw him blubber in front of media and his whole immediate family.
Julia also has been quick to use Rudd as the scapegoat (as expected) for all that ails in the vote winning process despite it being well known that she was one of the gang of four who with Rudd and swan made policy , publicized it and then handed press releases to the relevant Minister along with the media. What Rudd was, so was Gillard.
Julia will no doubt attempt to use the agreement with the miners, brokered through back downs in the new tax which served her masters in the unions who feared the loss of jobs in the mining sector to offshore operations and continue with the assertion that without her government in power we will get work choices returned by the current opposition.
Julia’s public announcement on calling the election for August 21 was very much lacking in substance, but I think we all got the campaign slogan, “Moving Forward” since she repeated it many times and spoke slowly as usual, interesting also was her appearance, a little smoother in the face (Botox maybe?) and with a fresh bright red shock and with highlights in the hair colour, her face and mouth barely moving during the delivery of the entire speech.
Julia went on the attack too, claiming knowledge about what is going to be policy from her opposite number Tony Abbott, and claiming that she knows what would have happened in an alternate reality with him as leader during the GFC where our big four made profit while the rest of the developed worlds banks lost, sometimes very heavily and that is to have our country in recession.
Julia actually looks to me to be a Star trek fan, so her claim makes perfect sense, that there could be a way of seeing into an alternate reality where the opposition didn’t support the stimulus packages in the senate, and allow Labor to claim the kudos for it and in fact be the government and not introduce it at all, in fact I can imagine Julia translating all her speeches into “Klingon” as a memory improving exercise.
Julia will probably get a big slice of the women’s vote because there is a large percentage of women who will vote for a woman just because it’s a woman, that’s in her favour, big time and she will, very much like Joh Bejelke Peterson feed the chooks and be of great interest to the various media scrums simply because she is the new kid in town.
Julia is like Joh in many ways, she talks differently almost like she is talking to first graders and her accent is broad and ockerish and almost unladylike more suited to an older country singer than a PM, she also repeats a lot sometimes more than once in case we are too slow to get it the first time.
It’s going to be a long 5 weeks.
BTW, the shortest serving PM was Francis Michael Forde, 8 days.
Earl Page 20 days, John McEwen 23 days and Arthur Fadden 40days.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Back up, . . . to Edwards Bridge.
After my previous post which indirectly pointed a finger at Logan council for not wanting to spend money on much needed infrastructure below the old ( pre amalgamation ) boundary, rather they spend it wastefully on cosmetic improvements like entrance statements and other such rubbish when pot holes that can break suspension and bridges fall into such a state of disrepair that they have to put a load limit on them.
So, Edwards Bridge, falls into this category, it is in a desperate condition and I have done a little research on it's current state and it's scary.
Edwards bridge is at Greenbank, Queensland on Old Goodna Road, near Ison Road intersection, and spans a creek which can during rain carry considerable water but is quite low during dry spells.
The Bridge, if I recall correctly from Beaudesert Shire Council discussions was constructed in about 1975 (or thereabouts ) to replace a single lane one which may have been (partially) washed away.
Its construction was typical of its day, timber, what amounts to big telegraph poles were used for the abutments, to hold the span (in the middle of the creek) and for the platform. The majority of those poles are still there.
In the late 80's the platform was upgraded, off came the pole platform and bitumen topping and after a layer of metal sheeting (it resembles shed siding) as a permanent formwork concrete was poured and again a bitumen topping applied.
As of right now the bridge supports are stuffed, simple, it needs replaced right now, YESTERDAY !!!
When trucks traverse that bridge, it is a scary sight from below, you wouldn't remain under there for long as it look like splitting posts and bearers are ready to give up at any moment.
This bridge came up for discussion after heavy rains in around 1996 when some bridges constructed in a similar fashion were washed away, and it was put into a list for further investigation due to its condition being bad for its age.
Later, during the last term of the Beaudesert Shire Council, a survey of all the wooden bridges revealed that Edwards Bridge needed urgent replacement. And then we were amalgamated with Logan by force, and Logan doesn't want to spend the money.
This bridge is on a main thoroughfare, and although it's not heavily used in comparison to nearby Teviot Road, peak hours see it full and it's the shortest way to and from either end, by far.
The question I put to Council is, does someone have to get hurt, seriously hurt before you guys accept that you have to spend money below the old Logan Boundary?
Come on Logan, before there is disaster, get off your butt and do something.
So, Edwards Bridge, falls into this category, it is in a desperate condition and I have done a little research on it's current state and it's scary.
Edwards bridge is at Greenbank, Queensland on Old Goodna Road, near Ison Road intersection, and spans a creek which can during rain carry considerable water but is quite low during dry spells.
The Bridge, if I recall correctly from Beaudesert Shire Council discussions was constructed in about 1975 (or thereabouts ) to replace a single lane one which may have been (partially) washed away.
Its construction was typical of its day, timber, what amounts to big telegraph poles were used for the abutments, to hold the span (in the middle of the creek) and for the platform. The majority of those poles are still there.
In the late 80's the platform was upgraded, off came the pole platform and bitumen topping and after a layer of metal sheeting (it resembles shed siding) as a permanent formwork concrete was poured and again a bitumen topping applied.
As of right now the bridge supports are stuffed, simple, it needs replaced right now, YESTERDAY !!!
When trucks traverse that bridge, it is a scary sight from below, you wouldn't remain under there for long as it look like splitting posts and bearers are ready to give up at any moment.
This bridge came up for discussion after heavy rains in around 1996 when some bridges constructed in a similar fashion were washed away, and it was put into a list for further investigation due to its condition being bad for its age.
Later, during the last term of the Beaudesert Shire Council, a survey of all the wooden bridges revealed that Edwards Bridge needed urgent replacement. And then we were amalgamated with Logan by force, and Logan doesn't want to spend the money.
This bridge is on a main thoroughfare, and although it's not heavily used in comparison to nearby Teviot Road, peak hours see it full and it's the shortest way to and from either end, by far.
The question I put to Council is, does someone have to get hurt, seriously hurt before you guys accept that you have to spend money below the old Logan Boundary?
Come on Logan, before there is disaster, get off your butt and do something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)