Dear AGIR,

I'm going to sound like a broken
record, however, I shall repeat to you
what I've stated before, and that is:
Consistency requires you to be as ignorant
today as you were when you first started
posting on this Forum. And, I understand that
you are, if nothing else, - consistent!

Just look at the mess Krud left behind, yet, he's on $600 grand a year for life +++.
rehctub,
.. times say, 30 more years that's roughly $18 mill. Multiply that a few times for Hawke, Keating & Howard & you get not a small amount at all. Then there's what we paid for the past 30 years fo Gough & Mal. Then there are quite a number of pollies who are on a $100,000 pension a year plus. No wonder they're worried about only one term in Government. That mightn't be enough time to ensure the safety of the nest egg.
I had to give up my defined Super when I was shifted into local Government & they talk about moving forward ? headlong into disaster more likely ! More education for a career for people on CDEP ? Wonderful stuff, yeah !

Congratulations, Rehctub, I enjoyed reading your comments.

We are facing a government that is contemptuous of individuals, especially those among us who take responsibility for their own lives.

An ever encroaching nanny-state, operating under the assumption as if they have a moral right to dictate what we must and must-not do in our lives.

Although the Liberals also hold similar attitudes, it is a matter of degree, and never been as bad before. The Liberals, for example, at least introduced some compromise called WorkChoices, to "allow" people, under certain circumastances, to decide on their own work-arrangements, but who are they to deny individual rights in the first place?

Two consenting adults have (so far, who knows what's coming next) the right to engage in an intimate relationship, and agree between them on its terms - but according to the government, they may not do the same when it comes to a working-relationship. What on earth gives the government a right to interfere?

Finally, don't forget the botched insulation scheme. Not just the operative failure, the fires, etc., but the whole concept in the first place of giving selective gifts to the less-responsible who had no roof-insulation. Two people brought home the same pay - the first used the money to buy drinks, while the second used it to insulate their roof in order to reduce their electricity-bill in the long term. According to government policy, the first got his drinks AND a reduced electricity bill, while the second got only a reduced electricity-bill, but no drinks. That is their idea of fairness! That is their idea of punishing people who care for themselves!

As far as I am concerned, we could go on and on about when labor did this and liberals did that until the cows come home.

No one is ever going to be fully happy with everything that politicians decide in Canberra.

We need to decide which party to vote for by checking out their policies for this coming election. That is all we really have to go on.

I will also consider voting for the leader/party that is least affected by any religious persuasion.
I guess that means Julia Gillard for now.

"I will also consider voting for the leader/party that is least affected by any religious persuasion."

Fair dinkum, but isn't socialism a religious persuation?

Well.....given the choices, this is going to be a difficult one. We do however have sufficient knowledge of past behavioural results, verbal and media statements and Parliamentary voting records to make a relatively informed decision.

PM Julia Gillard.
She has been Kevin Rudd’s deputy all along and so has been an integral participant in all of Rudd’s so called failed policies for which he was so ruthlessly relieved of duty. She can’t be quarantined from those failures and must shoulder her fair share and not imply that it was all Rudd.

She tends to use far too many words instead of being as succinct as possible and because of that I get the feeling of “plasticity”, of disingenuousness, of rehearsal which may be good or may be bad.

But most importantly of all, a full disclosure of what went on behind those closed doors immediately preceding Rudd’s removal, for that alone will ascertain her suitability for the high office of the Prime Minister of Australia.

D-PM Wayne Swan.
Not much to say here except he lacks any capacity to inspire anyone let alone a nation. He’s not leadership material but in all who can forget that he back stabbed his mate?

Alt-PM Tony Abbott.
Unfortunately Abbott is a vassal of the Vatican. When he was in gov’t as Health Minister for Howard, he demonstrated without qualms his inability to make decisions independent of his religion; he will always follow Vatican law and policy which puts him in conflict with the secularism of the Australian Constitution.

Would the Pope have a de-facto say in this country’s affairs via Abbott? Nothing to look forward to in that, given the organisations he actively participated in during WW2 and his demonstrated history of covering up for paedophile Priests by transferring them to other dioceses where they again re-established their psychosexual disorder on new fresh children with impunity