...P.S. Labor has never in opposition submitted its figures to treasury for costing

Now now SM, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Belly......Casualisation at first was of help to the few who wanted it workers not boss.

Utter crap!

Casualization was a bi product of unfair dismissal, as once business owners, the real world, gets their hands tied, they either find an alternative, or fail.

Another invention from labor is under employment.

Now as for my question being answered, Rudd is simply trying hard to pull a rabbit from his hat, that's why he hasn't called an election, because he's saving that recall of parliament he has up his sleeve.

It's just a pity we have to also be held in limbo while he chases a solution to our biggest problem, you know, the ONE HE CAUSED!

doog.....So that goes to show that treasury is not always right. So Hockey says.

Yes well, wasn't it they who predicted every single surplus for every single labor government, which of cause didn't eventuate.

They are too clever by Treasury predicts, on static figures, they can not factor in unforeseen circumstances.

Yes, a bit like relying on $26 ore ton for carbon, when the world price is more like $6.

Calculators are wonderful things.

Back on topic for a moment.

Does Rudd deserve to govern, lets put it another way.

If you were president of a school P&C association, would you dare give Ruddy the keys to the school tuck shop, & let him run it.

No I thought not.

Hasbeen, to answer your question, so long as he runs it on his own, no staff/Helpers.

So long as he has NO CONTROL over the funds.

And so long as he can't wake up one morning with another brain fart of an idea that he would like to test.

I seriously he could hold a job like that.

What can we say about Kevin and Labor?
A $20billion 'black hole' come to roost on the legendary 'heritage' socialization experiment in economic 'redistribution', with retrenchments abounding, and major industry shutdown and/or relocation 'offshore' everywhere one looks.
Surprise, surprise? Not really.

No-one can deny that there are many needy in our society, and many infrastructure deficiencies, but no responsible government can keep on throwing around resources it does not have, based on some false illusion of uncertain future growth or 'windfall'.

The 'experiment' has been based on too many false or unreliable assumptions and predictions, and has been undermined by decisions which have mitigated directly against fulfillment of the 'rosy' industrial future upon which many of those 'assumptions' were based.
But, instead of a re-think and a timely reeling-in of rampant expenditure, we have seen only 'it'll be right, mate', and full steam ahead.

You cannot borrow your way out of a business crisis if you stick with a defective business model, and even less so if you continue to add further unrealistic burden on that defective mechanism.

Mediocrity may be abounding in our body politik, providing little guidance for a disappointed and disenchanted constituency, and thus contemplation falls to evaluation of ideology, aspirations and policy 'direction'.
Does one trust to 'more of the same' with a model moving swiftly further off the rails, or does one take a hesitant step towards an ideology which has worked in the past and has therefore a reasonable chance at least of working in the immediate future (despite perhaps some reservations about the capacities of some of the individual characters involved)?

A slight step back, to consolidate and achieve breathing space;
or continue to ride the 'whirlwind' along an increasingly steepening and hazardous path?

Yes Saltpetre, it would be an interesting exercise to have an insolvency lawyer take a look at our business model, the Australian economy.

Now while I'm the first to admit that we're not broke, we most certainly fall into the category of 'assett rich, cash flow poor", a situation that is all too often the first step of a business failing.

If you take away the zeros and bring our numbers back to what most can contemplate, we are like a business that Ywent from having $20,000 in the bank, just six years ago, to now owing some $400,000 with less income coming in now and far greater expenses going out, with no real signs of improvement.

Not only that, but the $420,000 was spent either fixing things, or from being ripped off by con artists, our fault to some degree, or on failed ventures, so our assetts are no more than they were six years earlier.

We would also be facing major legal bills, defending our position as directors, due to the lives lost as a direct result of our il thought out business model.

In just three odd years we have seen an ETS squashed and a carbon tax introduced, only to be once again squaushed in favor of an ETS.

This on again off again changing of policy in it's self costs us millions and, if the libs win government it is likely to be squashed all together, again at a cost of millions no doubt.

I really would like to see our politicians paid a hell of a lot more, so we can attract better people, BUT!, THEY MUST HOLD PROFESIONAL INDEMITY INSURANCE so that we, the owners of these wasted billions don't get stuck with the losses. AGAIN.

rehctub wrote: "I really would like to see our politicians paid a hell of a lot more, so we can attract better people."

Dear rehctub,

I don't think we would attract better people if we paid them a lot more. We would attract more people whose primary aim is to make the big bucks. Three of the greatest American presidents were Washington, Lincoln and F. D. Roosevelt. Washington was the richest man in the colony at the time. Lincoln, although he was born in humble circumstances, was a very successful lawyer. FDR was quite wealthy. In Australia I think Malcolm Turnbull is the best qualified in the luminaries of either party to govern. None of the above needed to go into politics for the money.

I am not advocating that we be governed only by the rich. I think it was a good move to start paying parliamentarians so parliament was not restricted to the rich. However, there is an ideal of public service. The best of our politicians have that ideal, and I don't think we would get any better if we gave them more money.

We criticise government for imagining that problems can be solved by throwing money at them. I don't think we will get better politicians by throwing more money at them.