JC Political Thread - For all things political Part 2

You quoted Joe Hockey here:

I think it's pretty much beyond doubt that union funds were used to pay for hookers and the like yet you don't seem to see a problem with that.

Reaper

 

When comparing the percentages of renewable energy generation for other countries with ours, I feel a few important factors need to be considered, relating to size of land mass, distance between major population centres, and population. The distances between our major cities, and the number of people living in Australia who will actually have to pay for any major infrastructure, like power generation, MUST be considered before just quoting comparitive figures from Europe or Asia.

Consider these numbers.

Europe Area - 3.5 million square kilometres Population - 830 million+
Australia Area - 7.7 million square kilometres Population - 22 million

Distances between major centres

London to Berlin 970km
London to Athens 2389km

Perth to Sydney 4396km
Melbourne to Brisbane 1669km

Infrastructure such as electrical power networks has to physically link across the land mass between the generating source and the market. Our distances are enormous compared to Europe, yet we have a minuscule population to bear the cost of paying for the infrastructure. Distances between our major centres are huge and each requires its own power generation network. Europe can provide an EU grid, spanning the entire continent, much more simply than we can because of the far shorter distances involved. The amount of power required by a very small nation like Sweden, for example, could be much more readily met by alternative power schemes than a sparsely settled continent like Australia. Every one of the European countries listed above is tiny compared to us and would be much simpler to convert to renewable energy, so it's hardly surprising that their figures look so much better than ours.

We will eventually have a much greater percentage of renewable energy generation than we have at present, but comparision of our present levels with European nations is unrealistic.

 

LOL!!! LOVE that cartoon minux. Classic and SOOOO true!

 

The problem is that you jump to conclusions. The response you are alluding to was a direct response to this comment

Firstly addressing the media enquiry and then challenging the notion that there was a “blind eye turned to unions committing mass fraud and ripping off its members”. That is not the case as the two examples demonstrate. That is all.

The allegations were not found to be illegal no matter what other rules or agreements they may have transgressed. Nowhere, however, did I say I agreed with or condoned the individual’s actions. I made no judgment. On that question my view is using union credit cards for hookers is highly questionable and should be dealt with. It’s not entirely unlike the business world of course but union member’s expectations would be that their money was not used to fund such things.

You took a shot at this comment I made – Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said: "I just think there is no need for a media inquiry."
Obviously his phone didn’t get tapped..... ;-) with this -

which appeared to allude to the government having a “special” agenda for the enquiry based on their own treatment by the media despite there being a very real question over News Ltd actions on an international basis. Nevertheless that may be the case. Politicians can’t be trusted. I posted Hockey’s comment to again show this is not restricted to the Labour Party. Its ok in Joes eyes to "have general look at the handling of union member funds" ,coz Libs hate unions, but Tony ”just thinks there is no need for a media inquiry” coz its not on his parties personal agenda. Just pointing out the elephant in the room named hypocrisy and trying to keep the balance here in fantasy land. ;-)

 

'Get on the spouses' bus': NZ driver refuses Gillard entry

LMAO!!!

 

Could have been worse, he could have told her to go make him a sammich.

In other news,
'Difficult days': Gillard outlines her Labor vision

lol... this is news? We've known this for a long, long time now.

 

gold!!!!!!

 

HSU leaves the ALP

Today, the Health Support Union has disaffiliated from the ALP in NSW, VIC and the ACT.

After the Secretary delivered more documentation to NSW police very recently, a task force has been set up to investigate possible (probable?) past corruption within the Union leadership.

I congratulate the current Secretary, Kathy Jackson, for standing up for right even when faced with serious threats.

By breaking away from the ALP, the Union may now be able to resolve the issues without unwanted and unwarranted pressure from the Federal Government.

 

unions can serve a useful purpose, but are often just an excuse for people to obtain a position of power, without the aptitude or ethics that are normally a prerequisite. the HSU are nothing short of a disgrace.

 

Which position is that??? There have been so many it's hard to keep track.

Reaper

 

On top, evidently...

 

ROFL - touché.

Reaper

 

I'm amazed that show appears on the ABC. I thought the ABC was Labor's biggest fan club.

 

At the risk of bringing balance once more, is no one also slightly bemused by His Excellencies position? He is for offshore processing but only on the off shore of his choice. I guess he expects to be able to deal with the question of Nauru when he is voted in and expects he will hold enough seats to be able to drive it through.

Seriously there is no right or wrong in all this. It is a matter for the least worst solution and all points of view are highly subjective. Abbott is doing no more or less than any opposition politician would do with their foot on the throat of there rival of course. Which merely makes him like all the rest.

 

The issue of whether Nauru will be available to Abbott has me intrigued. Howard was able to craft a policy and legislation which made it legal and practicable to send the refugees to Nauru and that policy obviously worked because of the almost total abolition of boats which arrived over the last few years of his government.

Labor now says that Nauru is no longer viable, will cost "X" billion (derr, how much is the current "policy" costing us, stupid?) and that, even if Libs win the next election, there is no guarantee that they will be able to use Nauru because of the High Court judgement. The media also points out that Abbott will have to deal with a Senate remaining under the balance of power held by the Greens, which would most likely bar any actions to reinstate Nauru.

Two points about these statements need answers for me.

1. What changed about Nauru as a consequence of the High Court ruling, that would indicate the previous Howard policy failed to comply with the Immigration Act? I don't think the ruling changed anything - is it just Labor using that as a smokescreen to continue with Malaysia and not concede that Nauru was always a better policy, which should never have been abolished?

2. At each Federal election, half the Senate stands for re-election as full Senate terms are six years. Surely that means that the Greens senators who were installed in the 2007 election must now stand for re-election at the 2013 election (assuming it isn't held before then) and could be voted out, thereby (hopefully) eliminating their balance of power in the Senate. It is hard to imagine that the current situation pleases anybody but a Greens voter, so it's reasonable to assume that they won't get the voting percentage at the next election that they received last time round.