We escaped Paul Keating's banana republic, although he did try hard to make us one.

Some will tell you that we were lucky to escape becoming a slave state under John Howard.

But surely none would deny that Julia Gillard has succeeded in turning us into a spaghetti western.

Yes, after her short burst as PM, & today's election, we appear to be heading for no distinct result.

Can we now look forward to the same sort of stable parliament that characterised that of Italy for so many years? I wonder if Clint Eastwood could be drafted to be our president, he was pretty good in those Italian westerns.

We got what we deserved! What was to be expected from a very immature electorate. The areas of SE QLD and western Sydney that put us here voted mostly on State issues, that leaves us in this state of limbo.
I would say that it is a grand opportunity for some unity and the chance for very accountable government but without question the major parties will be playing very dangerous games at every turn to cause another election. The independents will do what they have to to stay in the spot light as we have seen with the recent behaviour from the senate.
The only change will be with the Greens and whether they have the ability to develop real leadership and moderate their policies so as to allow what is a difficult situation to breath. Questionable i know.

I am here ready and waiting it is time to eat my humble pie.
5 months ago it would have been a victory cake.
I got it wrong, change nothing of my views but got it wrong.
I have saved some of my massive feed for some in my party Kevin 07.
Why the gutless back down on an ETS?
We will never get one now the Greens do not have the power to get it up.
Why no DD election.
Why the two faces.
Julia I remember Latham, you, Crean, Joel Fittsgibbons, thanks for the re run.
Yes a miracle could happen you may govern as a minority, not betting on it.
Both sides in this election now aren't free to get there promises up.
We will not have an NBN.
Our next twelve months will be fighting and a DD seems the only way out.
Put your star candidates back in the box, hand pick yes but talent not headliners who are dills.
If Crean ,gee the thing jerks me, must ride around in your pocket have him chant in your ear you are not a God.
Bill Shorten this country needs you.

I bleed I truly do, no I knew it would be bad but I know too like 1975 we the ALP helped make it so.
Party HQ will see a few NSW rabbits come out and say they will not be standing in March.
Not enough not near enough, stunned by this reality check NSW ministers locked away from unions will open their doors and explain why contractors have won contracts then under paid workers without being dumped.
Not enough not near enough.
NSW must feel the wrath for its damage to the fabric of the ALP.
DD election, it seems the only way out Labor has a chance to do to conservatives what they did to us stop legislation just because we can.
We must not do so, what ever side won yesterday was always not going to win the next one,let Abbott be Abbott he will win for us.
But pass bills in return for say the NBN we can still get something other than tin cans on a string out of it.

“Game on” – Julia Gillard, 24 June 2010.
“Game over!” – The Australian electorate, 21 August 2010.

Commiserations Belly –a small step backwards for the ALP but a big step forward for the country .

Hope your post 2007 election advice helps you through.

“Horus find a quite spot scream the pain away but never forget until Rudd voters took the best of two evils,never in love with Howard just little choice.
Now it is different policy's and a leader?
Your lost wasted mob holds the lord Mayor of Brisbane that is the highest position in this country.
Yet you blame the voters? hugely funny!
And if you wait for them to wise up not your party it will be a long wait.
I am wondering when the election in Brisbane is? may take some union thugs[joke bloke] up and see if we can help.
Now is the hour of conservatives discontent and boy are they showing it , next election? small swing to Labor!
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 16 December 2007 2:10:10 PM”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6763#101580

If we're not a Banana Republic, then why are we governed by monkeys?

Unfortunately, we're not any kind of republic.

Personally, I quite like the idea of a hung parliament - they could start with Abbott ;)

Seriously, Hasbeen - most economists acknowledge that it was Keating's reforms that prevented the Australian economy going the way of a 'banana republic', and paved the way for the Howard/Costello show.

It was a great election for the Greens :)

Australia has woken up to the fact that they cannot afford Labor.

What I can see in the Labor's future is s night of the long knives for the incompetents that brought Labor to its knees. For Julia as architect of the BER rort, a short walk to the knacker's yard.

What we need is to see how far down the rot has gone with Royal commissions into the BER and the insulation debacle.

CJMorgan, " most economists acknowledge that it was Keating's reforms that prevented the Australian economy going the way of a 'banana republic', and paved the way for the Howard/Costello show"

Yes, pro-Labor economists. It was the utterance of the term by Keating that put Australia on suddenly shaky ground. He inherited a AAA rating and ground that down. He deregulated banking, which has been further license for them to print money. He was his own greatest hero...he was a clock-sucker. (and if you know anything of Keating, you'll see the truth and humour of that).

Not wanting to divert your thread Hasbeen, but there is a bit of work required from all youse self-opinionated whingers on another thread to strike a blow for OLO and help it have an assured place on the shortlist for the Reinhard Mohn Prize. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3903

Youse can all get back to yer whingeing after youse have VOTED (yet again).

Although I am the opening poster on that thread, this is not meant as self-promotion: GrahamY only received notification of the closure of voting for the shortlist rather late himself, so this one is for OLO, and ultimately, for yourselves. ('Youseselves' doesn't look quite right, does it?)

GetDown! and VOTE online! NOW!

Massive protest vote. Abbott can wail all he likes, but no-one voted his government in any more than Labor - hence the 'hung parliament', duh.

Our political system needed a good shake up, now it has had one. Maybe what will result is a coalition (Labor/Greens) that governs for the future instead of being mired in the past (Lib/Nats).

Dear Mr Gump, I won't be voting for OLO. But good luck on yer spruikin'.

Interesting watching each seat being called; so many with only one or so percentage points dividing the major parties.

This zero-sum process in every electorate across the whole country decides who get to dictate terms and who must obey for the next three years.

And this is the great all-knowing god that rationalises all the so-called market externalities? It is nothing but mere snout-in-the-trough, unprincipled grabbing.

The one overwhelming impression is the absence of any ethical dimension. If a mere majority gives moral authority to take people's property, destroy people's livelihoods, stop people from using lightglobes or whitegoods in their own home, wipe out whole industries, and reduce food production when there are people going hungry in the world, why not to kill people? Oh that's right, the government is currently killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan. If a majority were in favour of rape, on the democratic rationale, that'd be 'the will of the people', 'the public interest', 'the national interest', the 'collective will', right?

Right?

So Julia has just managed to outlive Frank Fords (another socialist) listing as the shortest term prime minister in Australian history.

From a federal government and a single Liberal prime minister for around a decade, who oversaw policies of fiscal prudence, to a socialist government who seems to be as profligate with its leaders as it is with tax payer funds.

As John Rotten speaks the sour grapes of “but no-one voted his government in any more than Labor”

Australian electorates do not vote in new governments, the kick out the incumbent for want of a change.

Obviously the change they got 3 years ago with Krudd & Co (now Gizzards and the rabble) was woefully inadequate and not up to the challenge they faced

as the issued forth with:

Bad and wasteful Economics
Bad ETS (any ETS is Bad)
Bad (Deadly) Environmental policies
Bad Education Policies
Bad Social Welfare, which costs more and delivers less

And a general

Contempt for the Electorate

All round, “Bad”, “Bad”, “Bad” government

Now, the electorate are voting and even a hung parliament will eventually fall within a year to be followed by a re-election for Liberal government for :sanity" and against any of the socialist "stupidity"

Footnote…. Maxin McKew, television news reader (and almost a “personality”), who rode into parliament on a fluke, is not happy with Gizzards, saying of the labor party election campaign:

"clearly, it left a lot to be desired."

(aka: more recycled rhetoric and fear campaigning than ever before)

Well, that is one personality who will possibly be crawling up to Aunty for her old job back…

And I do consider issues of Gillards to Tony Abbotts fitness to lead the nation and his “lack of experience” omitted the key points that

The duration of both Tony Abbotts "Government Ministerial Career" and his "party leadership" extended well beyond the almost flash-in-the–pan briefness of Julia’s.

And Belly knows better than I, in the unlikely event she can cobble up a deal to retain government now, she will not be leading the labor party to the next election.

Seems to me that on the whole the electors in this country react more like panicky passengers on an unstable ship - running back and forth between port and starboard trying to keep the ship afloat. This time, owing to a dearth of talent and leadership, they have come to a huddled halt amidships.
With the paucity of inspiration on offer from both camps in this campaign, it's not surprising.

CJ, the last people you should listen to are economists. Tell me just one thing they have got right.

They are also the most likely of all disciplines, other than the so called environmental scientists, to fall for the global warming myth. This may be because they see a quid in it for themselves.

No mate, we don't have much to thank Keating for, unless you're a bank executive, or an importer.

SM,

You ARE joking, right? This campaign wasn't about issues, simply who could scare "the great unwashed" the most. Playing on Scaring people is hardly the most desired trait for any government.

CJ

Nah Belly would be upset at the loss of usable organs. Not the depleted brain (sleep deprived ?) of course

Based on the speech last night indicated the resurgence of the ALTER ego the Mad Monk over "TA the PM". TA's operation to surgically remove objectivity and humility etc.....was a success but the patient died.

Mind you, are you open to other nominees? In the words of G&S' Mikado "I have a little list...they never would be missed". ;-)

Very well said, Peter Hume:

"If a mere majority gives moral authority to take people's property, destroy people's livelihoods, stop people from using lightglobes or whitegoods in their own home, wipe out whole industries, and reduce food production"

We are all here by God's grace. If we need to thank any human for the time we spend on this planet, it is our parents. No one else has a right to rule over others, not even a majority, certainly not a self-appointed nanny.

Goverment's only authority, no matter which government it is and who voted for it, must be limited to managing public affairs: no government has a right to dictate to individuals what to do in their private affairs.

Sounds basic, sounds obvious, but this is currently not the case. The one political-party that stands for your individual rights is the LDP (Liberal-Democratic Party). We are likely to get another chance in the coming year to vote and assert our God-given freedom of choice.

One cannot be good unless one freely chooses to do good. Being coerced into making good-deeds, does not count!

It would be funny, if it weren't so hypocritical.

Examinator, you have been touting the greatest scare campaign in history. The global warming scare, developed, & perpetuated to try to force the entire western world to comply with the stupidity of a small click of lefty activists.

Then you have the hide to accuse others, of a scare campaign.

Take care mate, if you look in a mirror, it might just show a pile of something you may not like..

Hasbeen Horus Shadow Minister thanks
I got it wrong but the fact is you have all gone off too early.
A Labor minority government is the out come.
A Conservative high on the list of those who know yesterday full of happiness told me this
Quote, we needed this party polling said if we lost today it would take 12 years to get back in power?
Wonder what he knew?

Belly,
Quite frankly, if minority govt means a series of shady deals with some of the minnows it might be wiser to leave it to the ALP.
Better to sit on the sideline, preserve ones brand name, and watch them die the death of a thousand back flips.
Already in her interview this afternoon, Julia has revised her script : “there is no need for parliamentary reform” ,
which was her line just prior to the election, has suddenly become –“FRIENDS I am all for parliamentary reform”.

The Libs can wait for majority govt. We can get by for the moment on savouring the booting out of Maxine McKew from Bennelong.

PS: When all the rest of the labour fraternity had long faces –why was Kevin Rudd so happy last night (he was positively bubbling over with glee!). Are there some manoeuvrings going on behind the scenes already ? LOL

Examinator,

This election was lost by Labor more than it was won by the Libs. The main issue was competence in Financial management in which Labor got an "F". It didn't help that JG was one of the prime culprits.

The final nail in the coffin was that Labor had no conviction in what they said, and seldom did what they said.

Hassbeen Wrote:
::: It would be funny, if it weren't so hypocritical.

Examinator, you have been touting the greatest scare campaign in history. The global warming scare, developed, & perpetuated to try to force the entire western world to comply with the stupidity of a small click of lefty activists.

Then you have the hide to accuse others, of a scare campaign.

Take care mate, if you look in a mirror, it might just show a pile of something you may not like. :::

Hehehehe! Got a huge kick out of that one :)

In the last 5 yrs our private debt has increased by 71%.Our debt is now greater than our GDP of $1.2 trillion.

Paul keating betrayed all Australians when sold off the Commonwealth Bank.Net profit for the Commonwealth yr ended 30/6/10 was $6 billion.

Through the fractional reserve banking system banks can create in their computers an extra 12% new money in addition to their deposits.This new money is created as debt.

This new money respresents our GDP and inflation.I other words the private banks own your productivity and keep you in perpetual debt in addition to paying higher taxes.

$ 78 billion of new money to equal GDP + inflaton increases is created by our banking system,but much of it is borrowed from OS reserve banks who create it in their computers.Secret Banking business
have made us all debt slaves.

Arjay, I thought we had sorted this out.

>>Paul keating betrayed all Australians when sold off the Commonwealth Bank.Net profit for the Commonwealth yr ended 30/6/10 was $6 billion.<<

1. The Bank paid $2.27 billion to the government in tax. I can guarantee that the country did not have the benefit of that sort of cash while the Bank was nationalized.

2. They also paid $4.5 billion in shareholder dividends, 80% of which stays in Australia - much of it in Super Funds, I suspect.

>>This new money respresents our GDP and inflation.I other words the private banks own your productivity and keep you in perpetual debt in addition to paying higher taxes.<<

Not really. The "new money" has simply been borrowed from the Banks. If we didn't borrow, they wouldn't "make" any new money at all. It's not them. It's us.

If we try to borrow too much, of course, we will run up against the "stop sign", that is the Bank's lending limit - which is calculated as a multiple of their Tier One capital (that's what the "fractional" stuff is all about).

I thought we'd covered all this earlier.

There's no "Secret Banking business" that has "made us all debt slaves."

Pericles, "There's no "Secret Banking business" that has "made us all debt slaves."

I disagree...the deregulation of banking and much of business. We can thank Keating for the deregulation of banking.

Not sure of your thought process here, MindlessCruelty

>>...the deregulation of banking and much of business...<<

How does it indicate the presence of "Secret Banking business"?

How does it make us "debt slaves"?

Deregulation has been generally beneficial to our economic growth. Is that what you are upset about?

Pericles, "secret banking business"...I'm sure there is, just as there are many secrets in all kinds of business. Whether any of their secrets have made us slaves, I don't know, but I believe the deregulation of banking has further enslaved us.

I'm sure you understand that credit is a false economy...we're spending money that has not been made yet.

Okay, it's impossible to keep this brief, though one only requires primary school maths to understand the economics, you also need to have a bit of an understanding of business in general, the stock markets, and in particular, the finance/banking/insurance industries. They're different businesses, but they function very similarly.

Prior to the deregulation of banking there was very little in the way of "variable interest" rates on mortgages. Mortgages were fixed interest for the term of the loan. You could plan your expenditure and use of credit, and as your income went up, you could either live better, or put more into your mortgage. Now that banking is deregulated, we have both fixed, but mostly, variable interest rates that since 1980 have fluctuated from around 8%, to a peak in 1991 of about 18.5%, possibly 19%. The only reason that they have come down to what they are currently, is because of the Sub Prime Loan fiasco, and the Global Financial Crisis is maintaining them at that current low level.

Ergo, how can you plan your incomes and outgoings when you don't know what the banks are going to do with your mortgage interest rates. I can borrow today at 7.5%, but there's nothing preventing them from returning to 18%. I am at the whim of the banks and their pressure to return profits to their share-holders.

Fiscal policy is based upon how much disposable income I'm allowed to have, and that is determined by my mortgage interest rates. When we are spending too much money on commodities, particularly foreign ones, they increase our interest rates, taking our money from us to give to a bank?!?
TBC…

Why not increase the excise on the commodity to slow down expenditure on it? Why do I have to donate my money to a bank, and not have the choice to buy something different, or save my money?

The Reserve Bank that represents all of the banks, is the advisor to the Federal Government, who in turn determines fiscal policy based upon advice given to them by the Reserve. We don’t elect economists as politicians. We elect lawyers, businessmen, unionists and schmucks.

How then, are we NOT slaves to the banks?

Even our governments are slaves to the banks...Gough Whitlam tried to borrow money from a private individual instead of the banks...this was known as the Kimlani Affair. Many believe that this had more to do with his dismissal than anything else, and I would be one of those people.

The second major thing that has happened since deregulation, is that banks and insurance companies are now listed on the Stock Exchange...most insurance companies were what were known as "mutual societies"...meaning that the profits were shared amongst the investors, which happens to be the policy-holders. Now they are able to list on the stock exchange, so they are pressured to show a return to their investors that are NOT policy-holders, hence the distribution of profits and the focus of those profits has shifted from policy-holder, to investors from shares.

This has happened with banks also, yet why would they NEED to list on the stock exchange when again, they are literally cash-rich? Both insurance companies and banks invested on the stock exchange, but now they are virtually all listed there as well. And we wonder why we get 4% interest from our deposits, pay double that in interest rates for our mortgages, and they show profits in the billions for their investors from the stock market, their share-holders.

TBC...

Prior to the deregulation of banking and finance, these things did not happen, making borrowed money far more predictable, whereas it has become far more volatile. Plus it has downgraded the depositor and the policyholder, for now the primary concern is the shareholder, and the policy-holder and depositor have become the market to the shareholder and the administrators of the banks.

Insurance companies, banks and finance companies should not be allowed to list on the stock market, for they create a conflict of interest between interested parties that do business with those institutions, and the shareholders, but the share-holders get favoured.

Traditionally, why did companies list on the stock exchange? They list to gain funds for expansion, usually to do with manufacturing or mining a resource. They do this instead of borrowing money from banks, and so instead of paying interest on loans to banks, they provide shares in the company to investors, the share-holders, and those shares then give a return, and hopefully, increase in value over time also. They also do this because they are not cash-rich...most of their assets are tied-up in property, buildings, staff, infrastructure within the company.

So then you must ask yourself this...why does an insurance company or bank which by definition are cash-rich, for they have a continuous stream of incoming monies from policy-holders, depositors and investors, doesn't manufacture anything and no R&D, require to list onto the stock market? An insurance company merely sells the concept of receiving money in the event of a mishap, written on a piece of paper. It only requires a place of business and staff. It buys nothing, makes nothing, and just has cash coming in, with a small percentage going out. A bank just holds your money or allows you to also invest in it. So why would they NEED to list when they HAVE money?

TBC...

The answer, is profits from increased access to monies to invest on the behalf of others (the stock market), and also, fund managers are paid a salary plus a bonus on the return of investment of the funds they manage, based upon a percentage of the size of the fund they are managing, and with the larger the fund, the larger the dollar value of that percentile...1% of $1,000 is a lot more than 1% of $100. But from hundreds of millions, overnight they went to billions, because now they have the monies of shareholders from the stock market to invest on the behalf of, as well as their conventional clients.

Finally, one could then argue that the Sub Prime Loan fiasco wouldn't have been anywhere near as dramatic and widespread as it is, if banking and finance was still regulated. For the reason that it is so widespread, is that all of these institutions are now listed on the stock markets, and so spread the bad money globally, and competed with each other over it. If they weren't listed on the stock markets, that might not have been able to develop as much as it did, and the banks wouldn't have been competing against each other over the bad money on behalf of shareholders, for that is what now drives them.

They used to be driven by good business practice from a conservative grounding, only lending money to those that could afford it. But the Sub Prime Loan fiasco is exactly the opposite...it was money lent to people who definitely couldn't afford it, and that loan then on-sold to another investor, and then to another. This was started by Wall Street, but the banks took it on, and here we are.

I’ve side-tracked a little, but it’s a bigger picture than the household budget.