rechtub you can bank on it, no one would for second even think about challenging him on this issue.
Close look will find this is not his first foot in mouth statement.
His boots and all never mind about the truth is bringing his mob back.
However Rudd has 56% saying he is preferred PM , not a bad figure after some Labor foot swallowing.
I have a question, can any leader think that earner of $150.000 deserves our tax money?
If so, if we need kids that bad why not set up baby farms and pay mums full time to have money thrown at them, sorry kids., gee come to think of it we are doing that now

Dear Hasbeen,

Then who do you suggest?

The only reason I suggested Malcolm is -
who else is there to replace Abbott that
would be in with a chance at least?

Belly>>>I have a question, can any leader think that earner of $150.000 deserves our tax money?

Firstly, it is not 'our tax money', it is a special levy propossed by TA.

To the question, Yes, all mothers should be eligible for maternity leave if it is available, but at exactly the same rate, whether they are a checkout chick, sandwich maker, office clerk or the chief magistrate.

Foxy;
Perhaps Costelo! Sorry, just dreaming.

*he's practically identical to your bloke, just not as cunning.*

Hmm, on this occasion I am not so sure and will watch to see what
happens. I have seen too many elections swung by voters voting
through their wallets. Remember, it only takes a small swing, to
win an election.

By what I've read in terms of reader comments in the press, there
are already quite a few out there licking their lips at the
thought of 6 months off, on full pay, for them or their partner.

As the money is coming from big companies and they have few votes,
those licking their lips could well be enough to buy their votes
and swing an election.

As Keating said, "in the game of life, always back self interest"

He has a point. So we'll have to stay tuned, to see how it pans out.

Yes I was wrong rechtub.
However in the end it will be us who pay.
I am struck by the thought it is said we ALP voters are Socialists bent on throwing money away.
Howard however made baby bonuses pay for wide screen TV and we continue to pay for children left by parents who never wanted them.
Yes mothers should get some thing but this extreme act is truly wasteful.
As Labor moves into liberal country their are unsure if they want both extreme right and left in their paddock.
Yes hip pocket drives some but Abbott can only fool some of the people and only some of the time.
Election result remains ALP win slightly increased majority, Abbott leaves the Parliament before the following election.

Belly observes:



"Howard however made baby bonuses pay for wide
screen TV and we continue to pay for children
left by parents who never wanted them."



It should be noted from the reference I gave in my previous post, that in proposing this seemingly ill-conceived policy, Abbott has proposed the "roll back" of the baby bonus scheme introduced under Howard and as continued under the present government. My purpose in highlighting this is to draw attention to the fact that the offerring of financial incentives to persons other than such as might qualify for supporting mother's benefit (or whatever it might otherwise be called these days), has been a policy pursued by both previous Coalition governments and the present ALP government.

From this fact I conclude that there has been a belief in both major parties that there is a need for population growth by way of natural increase, as distinct from by way of immigration, in Australia. This belief may have come about by its being fostered by interests outside of the elective political structure that have an interest in such growth, or because both major parties see the prospect of gaining significant electoral support that they do not presently enjoy, from the proposal of such schemes.

Perhaps the latter prospect is now bi-partisanly seen as being not worth pursuing.

My first question is: Does this obviously lampoonable proposal constitute the first step in a retreat from the policy of offerring 'baby bonus' style incentives by the Opposition? And if so, how soon can we expect to see the present government also abandon or seriously modify existing policies?

Another question is: Has the apparently bi-partisan support for incentives for natural increase to date been a tacit recognition that the bi-partisan agreement not to discuss Australia's hitherto acknowledgedly 'elitist' migration policy is ultimately an unsustainable position in the face of increasing public opposition or uncertainty?

Which advisers promoted this proposal? Could Cornflower be correct? Is it part of a covert bi-partisan diversionary action designed to keep the population debate off the public agenda?