Eden-Monaro swings back to Labor

Truth, the inconsistency for me is the apparent contradiction between the first premise – that personal debt burdens and high rents – combined with the second – a rise in unemployment – will impact upon the third – peoples ability to pay their mortgage.

In my way of thinking, there would be a relatively small pool of people who rent that also have a mortgage and whilst unemployment may rise, you’d imagine that it would have to be the people with mortgage’s that need to be unemployed before there’s a big impact – I just don’t see the strong link.

Ingeegoodbee – maybe I am just a little slow, but I don’t get your point (I am operating on a total of 10 hours sleep over the past two nights- so be gentle)

Mate … “And most importantly the general population is heavily in debt and rents are higher – so a rise in unemployment will have a huge impact on people ability to pay their mortgage.”

I broadly agree with what you’re trying to say but read that bit slowly … dosn’t make sense does it?

Just to make sure I was not talking through my hat I thought I would look up the Greens policies (particularly the IR stuff).

Anyone that runs a business would see the greens with the balance of power as a nightmare senario. You just have to check it out (look through the motherhood statements that very few would disagree with).

http://greens.org.au/election/policy.php?policy=48

The things that get me are:

“ensuring that workplace and union-led bargaining is the primary tool for obtaining industrial outcomes by putting in place a sufficient threshold before any party can refer a dispute to conciliation and arbitration.”

“abolish the requirement for secret ballots before industrial action.” – in my mind you can only want open ballots if you want to intimiate people into group think.
“legislate for a mandatory minimum of five weeks paid annual leave for all employees.”
“limit the tax deductibility of any executive salaries to 25 times the minimum full-time adult wage.” – yes they actually want to reach in and limit what private individuals can pay their own staff!!!!
“restore unions’ right of entry to recruit members, inspect for and remedy breaches of occupational health and safety provisions, breaches of the Workplace Relations Act and relevant awards or agreements, and other activities relating to strengthening workers’ organisations”

I see old labor policy in the greens – Rudd will appear to stand up to the unions, but he will not be able to stand up to the greens, because most of the labor party agrees with them.

The difference is that the greens have always been more extreme than the dems – who have now been wedged. And most importantly the general population is heavily in debt and rents are higher – so a rise in unemployment will have a huge impact on people ability to pay their mortgage.

We have been borrowing in an environment of ever increasing prospertity – that growth stops then the crunch.

The world would likely no more end that it was going to when Meg Lees screwed up an otherwise simple plan for GST.

We’ll move on and if it gets too outrageous they’ll get kicked in the bum – they now that too.

Must say the labor / green government is going to be interesting. The preference deal that will be struck means that Rudd is giving balance of power to the greens in return for suring up a labor house of reps victory. labor would never have won a majority in the senate.

I do wonder what it means in terms of fiscal conservativism – greens will not pass legislation without more spending in social programs (at the expense of defence and industry). But more curiously Brown has said that the labor IR laws don’t go far enough. So I can easily see that Rudd will wind it back even more and then blame the greens OR keep much of work chioces (with a different name) and again blame the greens and the Libs for not passing their more balanced versions.

Australia has never seen the greens in Government (which they will effectiv

the sample size is appaling small, and the lib polling apparently shows the sitting member to be ‘competitive’… front page news? hrmmph!

Mike Kelly seems to be a serious, earnest bloke who wants to do the job, change things. He’s got form for that, too.
I’m not voting 1 for him though. The Labor stuff about “working families” plastered everywhere annoys me. If you’re not adding to the overpopulation, apparently you can pay your taxes and shut up.
So I’m voting 1 Greens in both houses, and 2 Labor. That way the greens have more chance of getting some money (they need X proportion of 1 votes), but my vote exhausts at Labor.

I am a bit concerned about this campaign being so heavily influenced by style over substance. The after debate commentary was dominated by the stylists the tie chioce, Alan Pease and his counting fingers, Howard saying my fellow Australians blah pap blah. Now a marginal seat (and Government) could hinge on facial hair.

I am hearing very little about were we are actually going (other than bumper sticker stuff – new leadership, fairness and balance, working families, education revolution).

An old saying is that you get the goverment you deserve – I sense that has been the case (straight and narrow) and will continue (fluff and bubble)