meh .. ALP advertisement, infomercial, whatever you want to call it.

Why is the ALP so worried that it has to put up attempted propaganda and attacks on the coalition?

What are they hiding?

rpg

The ALP is probably hiding much the same as the Liberals were when in power and indulging in "attempted propaganda and attacks on the coalition".

Both parties have forgotten that their role is to govern FOR Australia.

Thanks Fractelle, I know the defense mechanism of the ALP is to immediately attack the coalition, thus avoiding scrutiny and justifying their deceit.

This is media management at its best no doubt about it, instead of doing anything of substance, the immediate response is to draw attention to the Coalition, mention that the Liberals in government never did this or that, and by the way it was raining gold bars the whole time. If necessary point out what the Liberals/coalition didn't do while in government, depending on the reaction required from the media i.e. no infrastructure was built at all during their watch, here's one example - the Darwin to Alice Springs railway.

Do they mention the states have some infrastructure responsibility, well no because it's not convenient, that excuse is for different circumstances, and wouldn't have the desired effect of attacking the federal opposition.

Our problem is that the system doesn't product governments that understand that they are there for basic services which are not optional but mandatory, water, roads, hospitals and education.The media report constantly what the governments want them to report not what is actually going on, both party structures are guilty of it but the ALP have developed it into a polished art form. Mind you, eventually people will wake up and not believe anything they say regardless of it being true or not, such will be the reaction to the constant deceit and assumption the community are stupid.

We get puff pieces like this with zero substance as a mark of "doing something", what utter rubbish. The stupid ALP mantra of "doing something is better than doing nothing" has no validity when the doing something is just hot air and propaganda.

Pls note the following criticisms of Labor:

"Labor’s stimulus does not - in fact - go far enough"

"the figure of $22 billion (on “nation-building” projects) doesn’t only refer to new spending,"

"interest on the debt would be only 0.6 per cent of GDP”."it raises the question of why Labor is not providing bolder and more assertive leadership."

"these measures are not sufficient to eliminate or even meaningfully mitigate poverty among some of the most vulnerable Australians."

"Labor could make a greater investment in renewable energy."

There is more - but I think this should suffice to make my point.

While - as a social democrat/liberal socialist - there are more points of difference against the conservatives - I do not shy away from criticising Labor.

To conclude: this is an honest paper, which is openly critical of Labor on the points that the author disagrees with. I urge people to read the entire article through - and to see this for themselves.

Oh here we go: advice on how to run capitalism – from Marxists, those economic wunderkinder!

Tristan’s prescriptions might make sense if government got its funding from a moonbeam.

But only if we assume that there is an abundance of capital that can be (forcibly) taken at no cost to anyone or the environment, can the whole ignorant mindset make sense.

1.
On the one hand their greatest desideratum is full employment on a high wage. On the other hand they have nothing to offer but to persecute and penalise as a class the people whose risk and work provides the employment.

On the one hand, they make it illegal to employ people below an arbitrary made-up rate above the market rate, and put all the costs of their other pet projects onto employers. Then they blame the resulting unemployment on the capitalists.

Tristan, if an employer provides someone a job, the wage is responsible for the resulting rise in the employee’s living standards. But if an employer does not provide someone a job, the employer is no more responsible for his unemployment than you or me. Why don’t you employ someone at a loss, Tristan? Hypocrite.

Tristan, when an employer employs someone, he converts all the costs - wages, taxes, super, workers comp, OHS, industrial relations, maternity leave, and so on – into a grand total. If, after all that, the employee can bring in a market rate of profit, he employs him.

Thus all the on-costs that the socialists and interventionists impose are coming out of wages, not profit. Wages are that much lower as a result. Thanks, genius.

2.
We can create as many green jobs as we like if we don’t care how much resources we waste. Think of all the jobs for rickshaw drivers we could create by abolishing internal combustion engines.

That is the level of the socialists’ abysmal ignorance.

Not satisfied with murdering over 200 million people in the last 100 years, the socialists unashamedly identify themselves as such, still peddling exactly the same mixture of ignorance, fake moral superiority and planned chaos.

The author is an apologist for the labor party. All of this post is cut and paste from the official party line.

What is missing from the propoganda is:

80% of the spending is in labor consitituencies

virtually none is for major infrastructure that will promote future growth. (school buildings etc)

The stimulous package is too much, on the wrong things and is essentially a huge pay back to mates, that we will have to pay for for decades.