Rstuart,

Prior to the last elections I was appalled with Abbots refusal to allow the approval of the abortion drug and his blocking of stem cell research and said so.

However, for the last couple of years Labor has had an almost exclusive control over the state and federal government, and having almost exclusive power over implementation means that the c*ck ups are exclusively theirs. Their short history is littered with broken election promises, dubious economics and failed policies.

I am some what sceptical that there have been no safety incidents in the last 50 years, however, that foil insulation prior to this program made up only about 2% of roof insulation in Aus, and this programme has installed more foil insulation than in the last 50 years might have something to do with it,

With all the news chaff of the recent events I am struggling to find any history of foil installation prior to this year in Aus, but have found many instances of electrocutions in NZ, Canada and the USA in very similar instances. If you have evidence it would be useful to provide the link.

It remains that there was plenty of prior evidence globally of the dangers of foil, and it is interesting that Garrett has yet to release the risk assessment done for the program, and the senate enquiry should be interesting.

Who stands to gain by Garrett's demise?
Antiseptic,
most likely the whole country !

Shadow Minister: "If you have evidence it would be useful to provide the link."

Sorry, I don't have one. I recall hearing it from someone who sounded like they would know on the radio.

I did go looking for accident rates myself for that "one building site accident week" statistic I quoted. That was from a newspaper article. I was hoping for something more authoritative like ABS stats, but as you say with the chaff around all you get in the top 20 hits is the same news story, almost word for word, repeated over and over again. And of course, as is typical of the newspapers there are no citations you can follow up. They really are dinosaurs in some ways.

I guess we will part ways on the Rudd performance. Labour has done its fair share of things I think are brain dead, like the internet filter and Rudd's fanning the flames in the Henson saga. But they are perhaps minor in the scheme of things. His openly stated stance on population is far more serious, but the only difference I can see is has actually said it whereas Howard had the good sense to keep his trap shut on the subject.

So there has been nothing stellar, but nothing disastrous that would not also be done by the Libs. You of course think they have done horrible things financially. I don't necessarily agree with what they did, but they did follow what seemed to be the majority advice from the experts and really that is all I ask. Pity they aren't doing the same thing on the Internet filter, for example. Or Euthanasia. Or lots of other things. But either they aren't too serious, or I suspect the Libs would have the same policy.

As for broken promises - they all break promises. What's new? In fact Rudd seems to be doing more than usual to keep to promises - even making lists, ticking items off, and publicaly saying what hasn't been done and why. Again, what more could you ask?

RS

Rudd has been very specific in which promises he broke.

Until recently labor's approval ratings were so high that he felt he was bullet proof (as Howard did in 2005) and felt he no longer needed the support of the wealthier progressive votors and reneged on the promise not to introduce a means test on the private health tax rebate, and others, which while pandered to the union base, brings in little revenue and leaves a large chunk of voters feeling excluded (myself being one)

Then he goes overhoard with the fiscal stimulus which alienates those who believed his promise to be fiscally responsible.

He then proceeds to demolish the immigration policy that was so effective in stopping the boats (which had an 80% approval rating mostly amongst the working class)

Now finally, we have Garrett who was parachuted into a labor ministry and whose inexperience has handed the coalition "proof" that labor is careless with the lives of young employees, which with their domination of the senate, they are going to publically crucify Garrett, and by extension labor.

The coalition is building up another classic wedge for labor. Rudd can either show that his ministers are accountable and worker safety is important by dumping Garrett (and his umbilical cord to the greens) or be portrayed as paying lip service to workers well being.

The 2010 election was labor's to lose, and the way the polls are presently, it looks as though they are shooting themselves in the foot with both barrels.

Shadow Minister: "The 2010 election was labor's to lose, and the way the polls are presently, it looks as though they are shooting themselves in the foot with both barrels."

You have said this a couple of times before. Once was when that rouge poll said the Libs were running ahead of labour, and the other was when the Oceanic Viking was in the news. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but both seemed as gleeful a pronouncement on Labour's imminent demise as this one is.

The press have already grown tired of the Garret issue. It is gone from the front pages. Unless the current inquiry yields something contentious it is gone for good. It is unlikely to yield something contentious because OH&S is simply not Garret's responsibility. This is pretty much what Abbott said initially until they decided there might be votes in it.

I have got to give you guys some credit of course. As soon as Abbott did his u-turn you die hard Liberal supporters were onto the issue like the baying hounds from hell. Fortunately for Rudd, you will forget it and go silent just as quickly as the newpapers have.

Antiseptic I am a rough diamond, an old but bold one.
Never[still] walked away from a fight.
But never started one.
You and I at first did not cross swords every time we came across each other.
We played on the same side of a few issues.
your rudeness, insults to my union are noted.
Do you understand they mean nothing.
That you show lack of understanding with every word.
The CFMEU would like to control such installation, sure given the very real danger electrical training took place.
that union will climb on any ant hill to be heard but how could they cover that industry.
you use the insults they throw at me often, but do not understand my membership is often refugees from them.
I will not be silenced on the issue, in my opinion my personal and private one they do more harm than good.
Garrett has nothing to answer for, in my view he never should have got his seat, a far better man did not get his local members did not get the seat and member they wanted, but your disjointed attempts to throttle him are silly insult away but ask your self this, will you pretend your views are right after con men installers badly trained kids and lack of understanding bought about these workplace deaths
do you know how many die on construction sites needlessly every year?