General Chat

Yes, and Australian agricultural land :-(

China is one of the biggest Investors, but India is not far behind

so you're also outsourcing ownership of Australian resource companies :-(

I believe that Griffin want to cancel the current Enterprise Bargaining Agreement to reduce costs.

Since 2011 Griffin Coal has been owned by Lanco, an Indian company which has done its best to reduce wages etc. In the five years Griffin Coal has been in the ownership of Lanco there have been a series of industrial disputes. Lanco also has a history of not paying on-site contractors

43% - what is their underlying purpose I wonder, because they'll know the unions would never stand for that?

we're almost the same as you ....... Federal election last October, provincial election May next year

"Electioneering" by the party in power began a year before the Federal election ........ didn't call it that obviously because that's not allowed. But I don't know what else to call the type of "government advertising" that we got

The PM in power was kicked out :-D :-D


"electioneering" by the provincial party in power began over a year ago .............. I can but hope that the same thing happens to the Premier in power :-D :-D :-D

Well I've enjoyed this election so much that I'm jumping at the chance to do it all over again next March, when we have a State Election in WA.

I'm also looking forward to reading Rollo's cutting edge comments on the results, and how he sees, no matter which party wins, why the Election was won or lost on social economic and financial grounds.

Co-incidentally, Rollo has touched on one area of policy which may be a factor in the State Election, coal.

One of the largest miners in WA, Griffin Coal, is currently trying to cut the workforce pay by 43%. Also WA does not export any coal, all production is used for Electricity generation within the South West.

well, we in this country, and many below the line, are NOT diplomatic about that election!

Sylvia, by using the words 'transparent' and 'strict' I was trying to be as diplomatic as I could be. :-D

"believed they were not as transparent"

it was downright rigged!!!! :-D

not only that, but there was the "hanging chad" dispute!

and the US ended up with Bush .......... usually called Dubya

and the world ended up getting involved in the second Iraq War, an attempt to complete Bush Sr. desire to force American "civilization" in the Middle East.

It was interesting to be in San Francisco during the Bush/Gore election.

Early in the morning the television announced the winner as Gore.

A little later and a few queries in Florida (Jed Bush's state) and G W Bush was declared the winner.

We believed that things were not as transparent and strict enough as they ought to have been. In fact we thought 'Gore wuz robbed.'

I believe that the only thing about the Oz system that is better than that in the UK is that Oz uses the proportional representation system.

The worse thing about it is compulsory voting.

In the UK one can judge by the percentage of non-voters how little the electorate believes or has faith in politicians. Although ruined ballot papers in Oz can be an indication of the same lack of faith, it is impossible to come to a more precise percentage because of the donkey vote - 1, 2, 3, straight down the paper. Such papers are counted as valid.

Rollo ........

In my humble opinion

you are talking out of the back of your hat!

Once you have lived in a country, been there through an election period, and really know that country, THEN and only THEN can you say that you know the situation.

So far as I know, you have NOT lived for extended periods in Australia, Canada, or the US, nor have you voted in any of those countries, or at the very least been there during an election period and really paid attention to what is happening.

On the other hand, I have voted in the UK and in Canada, and lived in Australia and the US for extended periods. We were in both the latter countries during particularly interesting elections, and made every effort to understand what was happening, what the rationale was for the way they voted, and how the system then worked after a new government was elected.

Not only that, but I participated actively in elections in the UK in the 1960s, I even campaigned for a particular candidate in one of those elections.

You're like so many armchair experts!

Know a lot in theory and know nowt in practice!

In what way is the Oz electoral system successful?
Why in a democracy is it necessary to take the unusual step of forcing people to vote?

The fabulous quality of the Oz members of parliament and especially the PMs?
The enmity not far off hatred between some states and others?
The appalling state of the environment the greed and grab system has produced?
An economic system entirely dependent on the export of coal and minerals mainly to Chjina while domestic production eg cars has disappeared.
Most affordable housing in Sydney is so far out from the coast that a visit to Bondi beach involves and overnight stay.

An economy almost totally dependent on the the Chinese market and the USA to defend it from its main market might just be up the billabong without a paddle.

Maybe it is because many Ozzies have a dismal opinion of the politicians that they have to be forced to vote otherwise the v low turnout would show up the squalid mess for what it is.

"Up rode the squatter, mounted on his thoroughbred
Down came the troopers, one, two, three
Whose is that jumbuck you've got in your tucker bag?
You'll come a-waltzing, Matilda, with me.
Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda
Who'll come a-waltzing, Matilda, with me
And he sang as he watched and waited 'til his billy boiled
Who'll come a-waltzing, Matilda, with me?

Up jumped the swagman, leapt into the billabong,
You'll never catch me alive, said he
And his ghost may be heard as you pass by the billabong
Who'll come a-waltzing, Matilda, with me.
Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda
Who'll come a-waltzing, Matilda, with me
And he sang as he watched and waited 'til his billy boiled
Who'll come a-waltzing, Matilda, with me?"

The Australian system does work ............ and I'm afraid much better than the UK system does.

And ours also works, despite the usual low voter turnout.

Bu then both Australia and Canada are Federations where the state or province has an incredible amount of power over many of their own laws. I'm sure that makes a difference.

did I say anything at all defending the UK make do and muddle system?
Just stuck to the subject, Oz.
It doesn't work by the way.

Meanwhile, the UK has.....?

By and large the Aussie system at least works.

And the Aussie Public, as with all other countries, just ignore it and continue with their everyday lives as best they can

By and large countries have political systems which suit the nature of the country whether it be Australia, NZ, Russia or the UK. The only important exception I can think of is North Korea - the South has taken to democracy like a duck to water.

Australia is, to say the least, a country riven by disagreement and so for a long time now real power has been a very transient phenomenon. That whoever grabs it have as their first instinct to put the boot in on the other lot ( though only after doing a Gove on their mates ) and advance their pet causes and sycophants hardly helps.

So get used to it ... yet another Australian election stand off.
(yawns)

I have no idea how things have gone in Oz but I do think compulsory voting is a waste of people's time.

Why bother counting ruined ballot papers and why muddy the waters with donkey votes?

I love the piece about your OH, Sylvia.

One of my colleagues in Oz had jumped ship and declared himself when an amnesty was in effect. Surprisingly, before and after his declaration, he was working in enforcement and was a union rep, into the bargain. He was allowed to stay, of course, but I believe he voted before we all knew about him.

:-D :-D :-D

sounds about the same as here :-D


I maintain, if you don't vote you have no right to complain

we raised our daughter in that belief .............. her husband was 27 when they married, and had never voted before that. She dragged him to the next election in the town where they were living ..... at least, that is what he claims!

both of them now vote in every election :-D :-D