Alan Austin,
These figures can not be argued with on face value but & a very definite but it is, they do not reflect realistic standards of living for those on the standard wage. We could say for argument's sake that Australia is really well off because some country just gave someone in Australia a huge sum of money for iron ore etc. for many millions of Dollars. And, yes it does sound great but does this money filter down through the sieve of economy ? No it doesn't because it goes to multinational companies first & the rest is filtered off when it hits the public service sorting tray. It stops at the $150,000/year level.
Things may look pretty rosy on your level but down here where I am it does look bleak believe me. I spoke with a pensioner mate today & he told me that at age 72 he has a real battle to cope with daily life on $600 a fortnight & up here he doesn't have heating expenses. I really can't see how they do it down South.
When you do your surveys you really should only knock on doors with no car in the
driveway to get real figures.

Alan,

can you explain, if what you claim is correct then why are 70% of Australians rejecting Gillard and Swan and the labor
party?

How can the majority of us be getting it so wrong?

Must be something other than money that is shifting our attitudes, eh?

Hi Keith,

Happy to respond. But first, can you answer these, please?

1. During the infamous 2009-10 Pink Batts Disaster Shambles, did the rate of fires, injuries and deaths:

(a) rise to ten times the rate in the insulation industry during the Howard years
(b) rise to only four times the Howard years rate
(c) stay at the same rate as during the Howard years
(d) drop to one quarter of the Howard years rate

2. The MP forced to resign from federal Parliament following allegations of criminal conduct during the current term was a:

(a) Liberal MP
(b) Labor MP
(c) an independent
(d) none of the above. Didn’t happen.

3. In January, Tony Abbott told the National Press Club “the rest of the world was not going anywhere near carbon taxes or emission trading schemes ...”

That was untrue and insulting to Australia’s allies – almost all of whom now have hard-won abatement schemes.

In the weeks since, the number of reports on this bizarre lie in Australia's mainstream media – Murdoch, Fairfax and the ABC – has been:

(a) about twenty across all media
(b) only about ten
(c) just the one
(d) none

4. There have been two extraordinarily costly blunders by treasurers in Australia’s history. Both well-kept secrets.

One was $4.5 billion in Australia’s reserves lost gambling on foreign exchange markets.

The second, selling most of Australia’s gold reserves at near rock bottom prices just before spectacular price rises – giving more billions to speculators overseas.

That hapless treasurer was:

(a) John Howard
(b) Paul Keating
(c) Peter Costello
(d) Wayne Swan

5. Shortly before the 1996 election shadow treasurer Peter Costello was “burning with a cold anger” at the Keating Government when the Aussie dollar fell to 74 US cents.

A weak dollar, he said, "impoverishes every Australian".

In September 2001, after Costello had been treasurer for more than five years, had the Aussie dollar

(a) risen 10% to 81 US cents
(b) risen 33% to 98 US cents
(c) dropped 33% to 49 US cents.
(d) stayed at the same level

Thanks, Keith.

Hi Alan

My answers to your desperate questions.

1 Don't care.

2 Don't care.

3 Don't care.

4 Don't care.

5 Don't care.

So Alan

A. Can you explain, if what you claim earlier is correct then why are 70% of Australians rejecting Gillard and Swan and the labor
party?

B. How can the majority of us be getting it so wrong?

C. Must be something other than money that is shifting our attitudes, eh?

Hi Keith,

Hmmmm. From earlier discussions we have had, I'm not sure it is true that you don't care about these matters.

Are you sure you don't care? Or perhaps you are not sure of the answers?

It seems there are two Australias. One is reasonably informed about the world and knows the Rudd-Gillard period has had the best record of ministerial integrity in the Westminster world since 1820, that many social reforms have been implemented, that the Australian economy is now healthier than it has ever been, that it is now the healthiest economy in the world by far, that taxes, interest rates and unemployment are lower now than during the Howard years, that the rate of deaths in the insulation industry during the stimulus implementation fell to a quarter of the rate of the Howard years, and that the only MP to be forced from Parliament as a result of criminal conduct in the current term is a Liberal.

The other Australia believes the Howard years were the good old days, the PM is a serial liar, that climate change is a hoax, Labor has destroyed Australia’s economy, the stimulus spending was a fiasco, that Peter Slipper is a corrupt Labor MP – because that is what they are told to believe daily by Fairfax, Murdoch, the ABC and Macquarie Radio.

And on actual facts and figures, they either don't know or don't care.

Opinion polls measure this divide to some extent. The election outcome will depend on which group is larger come September.

Cheers, AA

It seems there are two Australias.
Alan Austin,
Finally you got something right but only partially because the Rudd/Gillard years are far worse than the Howard years. Also if you think the Labor Governments of Rudd/Gillard had integrity you need to seek help urgently.
Wikipedia doesn't agree with you either.
Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy,[1] in that integrity regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs.