This is an open thread as the title say, what annoys you in this election.

Your chance to get it off your chest so to speak.

One issue I am annoyed about is lack of debate about Aust's economic future, especially agriculture.

Have to say though, great that Aust public opinion is again turning against the dud. He was never up to it

‘morning Phillip S,

What do I dislike about this election?

It has gone on for far too long, thanks Julia.

Far too much focus on fringe issues that are not perceived by a majority of voters as significant.

Too much bile and personal attacks from commentators.

Too much “well, we might be bad but the others are worse”.

Too much focus on leader personality and not enough on capability, policies and track record.

Too much wedging and “gottya” trivia.

Too much significance paid to social media.

Too much polarization and media alignment.

Too much opinion and not enough balanced analysis.

Far too much fear campaigning.

Too little adult debate and too much “twitter” level discussion.

Too little real debate about debt, deficit, growth and jobs.

Far too much damage to the image and perceptions of all office holders.

This election seems to be setting new records in vilification, obfuscation, cheating, omissions, misdirection’s, divisiveness and bitterness.

Not a good look for Australia.

My gripe is that we look like heading back to making the idiotic mistakes of the Howard era.

Tony Abbott expects the electorate to ignore the distributive effects of his policies. All taxes are part of business costs. All businesses, to succeed, pass on costs in their prices, particularly when all businesses are affected by the same taxes. Who will pay the costs of the upper crust mothers who take the $75,000 new baby bonus? The consumers who use the products and services of the companies that are taxed to pay for the scheme. Consumers will be the sacrificial bunnies. Those whose incomes are large enough that much of it is saved won't pay much compared to their income.

Howard sold assets, wasted tax income from the sale of the country's capital assets (minerals and coal in the ground) and, by having budget surpluses, increased the debt levels of the private sector, both business personal substantially. Many consumers had to struggle to maintain their living standard and overused their credit cards.

When the Labor Government in December 2008 gave a cash handout to boost falling demand nearly 60% was saved (or used to pay of debt which is saving) in the first round. Why? Because they needed to!

Voters are being misled. Either Abbott and Hockey do not understand how money works in the economy or they are misleading the population.

As Professor Bill Mitchell has stated, Labor missed the boat when they didn't decide to educate the population in Modern Monetary Theory (updated Keynesian theory) when first in power in 2007. I credit that they understood MMT, and used it, to avoid the GFC but didn't trust the population enough to teach them the facts of monetary life.

Well done Foyle,

I thought the post was what annoys you about the election, not what annoys you about Tony Abbott?

Still, if the best you can offer is a party political broadcast on behalf of the ALP, go for it.

At least we know how many of my top 13 pet hates you fell into.

AbbottAbbottAbbottAbbottAbbottAbbottAbbott said the monkey to the chimp

All good point, will comment later when time permits.

Saw interesting program recommend people watch for a laugh.

On the ABC - look for " Gruen Nation 2013 " comical parts worth watching for comedy relief.

Foyle - Some of what you say is covered in the program.

spindoc - Remember Rudd said this will not be run negatively (something like that} did not take long to change. Watch the above show, will give a little humor to it.

spindoc,

Why are you so against twitter conversation?

It does give an opportunity for "ordinary folk" to have their say and to pass on and have access to information (many links are swapped on twitter) that would otherwise be kept under wraps, as opposed to having the media spin ad nauseam without challenge.

I do agree that I think we've hit rock-bottom as far as political discourse goes in this country. I suspect we'll have to lump it, bump along the base for a while - and hopefully recalibrate our sensibilities sometime not too far in the future.

Foyle, so what's the difference if any business has to fund anything, they all pass the costs on.

My gripe aout the election is that people just won't accept the fac that to every action, there's a reaction.

The action, labors huge debt, the reaction, cut back have to come in order to balance the books.

The real annoying part of this is that labors debt was accumulated during a mining boom, and the pay back, will most likely have to be done without the boom.

Add to this the unfunded policies, who knows where we will end up.

I am annoyed because what I think are the most important issues are glossed over or simply not discussed. Climate change, loss of biodiversity, uncontrolled population growth and the many other factors that affect the future viability of the planet are ignored. Inequities in resources, the struggle for water, the arms trade and other factors which promote conflict and suffering are not discussed.

Instead, secondary issues like the boat people and the personal characteristics of the party leaders are discussed ad nauseam.

david f.,

Interesting case in point.

On twitter these things are not glossed over. They are very much front and centre of discussion and information sharing.

It highlights, however, that MSM is determined not to address these issues, to basically adhere to the script of peripheral garbage pushed by the two majors.

Hay Foyle, just as well Ruddy & Julia understand how money works. If they didn't we might have ended up with a three hundred billion debt, don't you think.

And isn't it great there is no mention of Global warming, david f. It really does prove the greatest con, [oh sorry, moral issue] of our time is dead. All we have to do now is burry it, & the academic con men who have been using the fraud to rip off the public purse.

We can not afford to have dumb, or untrustworthy people in any senior position, & those who promoted global warming are one or the other.

The thing that annoys me most is those dumb lefty journalists who think they are being so clever in subtly pushing Rudd. Fellers & girls you are so obvious, & insulting expecting we can't see straight through you, that you have probably given Abbott a couple of points lift in the polls.

"We can not afford to have dumb, or untrustworthy people in any senior position..."

That's a laugh...have you been following Tony's gaffes lately?

In favour of welfare to rich ladies are we?

Dumb....Yes!

<< I am annoyed because what I think are the most important issues are glossed over or simply not discussed. Climate change, loss of biodiversity, uncontrolled population growth and the many other factors that affect the future viability of the planet are ignored. >>

Same here, davidf.

All these things need to be addressed as part of a strategy for a sustainable future.

The biggest thing for me is that there is not even a hint of discussion about sustainability in Australia, or its essential first step; a very big reduction in immigration.

Where’s Bob Carr? He was very strong on this stuff when he was premier and in the period before he joined the feds and became foreign minister.

Now, right at the time that the country really needs to hear all about this sustainability stuff, he is remaining completely quiet.

Damn pity that is!

Now wouldn’t it be great if Julia Gillard re-emerged and started really pushing the ‘sustainable Australia’ bit. If she did that, the MSM would presumably run with it and we’d get a meaningful debate happening.

Poirot,

I’m not against twitter conversation at all, each to his/her own jollies. My issue is as stated, “Too little adult debate and too much “twitter” level discussion>>.

The shear volume of twittertariat comment that is relayed in our media is disproportionate to its value, relevance, voting public interest or its intellectual merit.

By all means let the children have their fun but let’s get some adult air time for real issues rather than the more juvenile members of our society seeing political merit in “following Tony’s Gaffes”.

Grow up Poirot.

Tony Abbot and his mate our Premier want more freeways  oppose  the proposed Melbourne rail tunnel and  bicycle planning to improve access to railway stations. They ignore world Bike/train  commutes could   be used instead of cars for many long trips to the CBD be the link between radiating rail lines in Melbourne. which has an urgent  a need for more  secure bicycle parking at 200 stations. The same applies to other australian urban rail systems. Estimates using  police crime reports  indicate we need more secure bicycles parking, perhaps as many as the 30,000 cars parked at stations?

The Netherlands, Sweden and more recently Germany where more bicycles are parked at rail stations system wide than cars than cars but in Melbourne. Secure bike parking is low cost and five times as many are needed.

Estimates using Melbourne  police crime reports  indicate we need more secure bicycles parking, perhaps as many as the 30,000 cars parked at stations instead of around 4000.   Since  the 1990s there where 1000 bicycles thefts a year and they are still are increasing . Also many   local Council bicycle plans do not recommend or provide secure bicycle parking at  stations.

Meanwhile 2 million live within easy cycling distance (2.5 km) of a station. Only 500,000 homes are in easy walking distance (500 m). Indeed, Bike/rail commuting is a good form of  active transport that can improve health and reduce road  congestion and works well Europe. Secure bike parking is low cost and  five times as many are needed.

spindoc,

"The shear volume of twittertariat comment that is relayed in our media is disproportionate to its value, relevance, voting public interest or its intellectual merit."

As opposed to what?......OLO?

Some of us are selective in that which we choose to imbibe - ignoring much twitter chat, but noting pertinent comment.

Some of us don't like being force fed MSM garbage dictated by media barons and pollies.

Some of us prefer to think for ourselves.

Tony's gaffes are pertinent - he's not particularly bright. A nice little puppet, in fact...just like George Dubya.

(Grow up yourself, spindoc:)

Dear Poirot,

Isn’t that precisely what I just said?

You have your preferences and nobody is forcing you to follow MSM. Get a grip sweetie.

So you think “Tony’s gaffes are pertinent”, but to whom besides the twittertariat and yourself?

I thought you just described yourself as a thinker and Tony Abbot as “not very bright” Ooops!

I guess two degree’s; a Masters and Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University provide some evidence of that? My god you are a lost cause, take a look in the mirror, I think you might be turning into a Troll. What else could possibly make you so angry?

Just for public clarity, Tony Abbott is not very bright, Poirot is a thinker and she does that all on her own, she likes twitter, she does not like being forced to follow the MSM and likes following TA’s gaffes.

I rest my case, “Too little adult debate and too much “twitter” level discussion”.

Stop being so paranoid, the world really is out to get you and many thanks for making my point so eloquently Poirot.

"Labor missed the boat when they didn't decide to educate the population in Modern Monetary Theory (updated Keynesian theory) when first in power in 2007. "

Expecting Wayne or Penny to do this would be akin to taking pictures of pink elephants flying under the Harbour Bridge.

Neither has got their bottom-line budget estimate anywhere near right so far - no wonder when their original revenue estimate from the 'super profits' mining tax shrunk from $ 40bn to less than $ 1b and Rio is paying no tax whatever !

spindoc,

"I guess two degree’s; a Masters and Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University provide some evidence of that?"

Nup.

As I've mentioned before, George W. Bush had a degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard....

But he was still dumb as a brick.

Tony isn't quite in Georgie's dumb league, but he's definitely not the brightest spark.

Paranoid, You're the one sounding off about twitter - you know, ordinary people communicating without an interpretation via MSM

Who is intelligent and who is not is indeed subjective.

I agree with Poirot, degrees can mean little. After all, Rudd got one.

Yes traveloz, and you know the bit I find bizzar, is that they honestly think they have done a great job and, that we are in great shape.

As the old saying goes, if you tell yourself something often enough, you will eventually believe it, and nothing could be closer to the truth.

I just have to wonder how they will act in opposition, especially given they will have lost all credibility.

Here we go again, Australian navy going into Indonesian waters to bring the Economic invaders to Australia.

In the last few days at least 2 times we have gone into Indonesian waters to bring over 300 people here because they called Australia first.

BOTH parties need to tell Indonesia to stick the agreement Howard made that the country that gets the distress call has to pick them up.

According to AMSA over 2 years Australia has received more than 200 calls of those ONLY 8 were in danger.

If in Indonesian waters they should be returned to Indonesia.

My dilemma is to accept the fact that there are still citizens of this country supporting the gradual downfall of Australia.

One issue that has not been discussed is
the right to die. We have an aging population
and I know that this is a controversial topic
and we need to ensure that safeguards be put in
place to protect the vunerable elderly - but
people who are terminally ill and in great pain
and want to have a quiet peaceful, dignified
death - surely they should be allowed to make that
decision? And also people who have lost their
functional and mental independence and are in a
vegetative state - and the preservation of their
life serves no one - surely their doctors
should allow them to die in peace and serenity?

These are the sort of policies that I
would like to see discussed in an election
year. We have an aging population - why aren't
their needs getting more attention?

Lexi, I strongly support euthanasia as an option for those suffering both the physical pain of terminal illness and the indignity of life that those illnesses place on people. It is a personal decision and I don't feel I have the right to impose my view on others.
As you properly point out before such action stringent safeguards must be put in place to protect the vulnerable, but that in itself is not insurmountable, Euthanasia is something society should be able to debate freely and eventually come to an acceptable conclusion

Time for a little light entertainment.

This election has been full on snarky, etc....but my eleven year-old has come up with this music clip of our pollies. They're all there and appear to have cooperated to some extent to make the clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H7BTKTOwLE

Quite refreshing in the present political climate.

The LNP's PPL is annoying because it is one of the worst vote-buying exercises seen in this election, probably worse than Rudd's throwing money around during the GFC in the form of a payment to Australians to go spend their money. Ill-thought out and useless in the long term.

Someone is going to fund the LNP's largesse and it will come from the taxpayer or business (which ultimately means the consumer).

I am also annoyed about the lack of attention to the second rate tertiary education system. Merit has gone out in favour of commercial interests. There are more whistleblowers no doubt yet to come from that industry.

I am sick of subsidies for anything. I used to think some were a good idea but in recent years feel they work to push up prices with little benefit for the taxpayer.

Taxation reform is needed. I reckon once you pay tax that is it, the money goes towards infrastructure and to support those most in need rather than being used to prop up middle class welfare. The way to help families or business is via the taxation system not through paybacks. It would also cost less to administer. Maybe a re-think on free trade is also warranted.

Sustainable agriculture is ignored.

The generosity the LNP has with taxes to the wealthy and middle classes while generally ignoring the needs of the poorest citizens is beyond belief really.

The real problem is the furphy that economic growth and productivity are considered important status over any other benefits to social wellbeing. Everything is based around that premise hence the awful PPL scheme. Still nothing though for parents who choose to stay at home with their children. Income splitting for tax purposes would also help people who might choose to raise their children at home in the early years. But basically no party gives a rats about facilitating choices that go outside the economic agenda. It is basic social engineeing but to be fair I guess most policies fall into that category.

Rant finished. :)

Dear Pelican,

A positively delightful rant. I am happy we don't have rant control.

Thanks David
I felt much better too after that rant. Very cathartic. :)

Abbott has lost his memory.

Quote "$440 million border protection strategy outlined by Tony Abbott in Darwin today.
The scheme also includes millions of dollars to bolster Indonesia's search and rescue capacity"

Indonesia can't even find a boat 15Km from one of there main ports, wrong assessment in reality they do not want to find them they want Australia to find them and transport them to Australia.

For years we have been going hundreds of KM's into the Indonesian rescue zone and transporting them here, they have no naval vessels in the southern ocean because they DO NOT want to pickup or rescue the refugees.

Why give money for them to do something they will not do?

david f - Quote "A positively delightful rant. I am happy we don't have rant control"

This thread was put up so people could say anything that annoyed them regarding the election, to you it might be a "rant" to some but to the other person it is something they are concerned about and it is better to get issues out rather than suppress them.

pelican, well said. I'd add some stuff in about how partisan much of the commentary is but the bit's of that which bother me most seem to be very partisan.

In regard to your comments on tax, I would like to see a cap on the number of work ours wage earners can be taxed for. I don't know to do that for the self employed and investors but for wage earners it should be easy to set a cap on their financial responsibility to society based on hours worked.

I get your point about middle class welfare but their are an awful lot of other inequities in the system which don't seem to draw the same angst.

R0bert

I agree RObert. There are many issues and not enough room or time to do them justice on a forum.

Your idea about tax paid to a cap related to hours worked reminded me of a bit of conversation gleaned from the radio about the idea of putting a cap on the number of hours actually worked. Statistics show many people are working longer hours to get their work done while some people remain unemployed. Maybe instead of expecting more from fewer employees the 'right' amount of people can be employed. I understand that some jobs will always mean longer hours and are usually compensated in some way (but not always). A little different from your suggestion but a related topic.

I like the idea of cutting red tape on GST but it doesn't go far enough. IMO the GST should be eradicated but this will be difficult now given the States will get a say. The act of making business responsible for tax collection really irks me. It is an unfair burden on business, much more than some of the other more furphy topics that come up about business (like tax on super profits).

I thought the big payday policy from the Coalition where by millionaires would be paid $75,000 so they could maintain their lifestyle after bubs came along, something like the second car for mum can still be a new range rover to ferry the new bub around town. I seen that as a reward for Liberal supporters at the expense of the poor.
However the Coalition have now trumped themselves with an even dumber policy. Buy Boats from Indonesian fishermen so they can't sell them to people smugglers.
Mr Abbott rejected suggestions that his boat buyback scheme could stimulate Indonesia's boat-building industry, saying it was ''much more sensible to spend a few thousand dollars in Indonesia'' than to spend millions processing asylum seekers once they arrive in Australia. A few thousand Mr Abbott, Indonesia has some 750,000 such boats and in many cases they provide the livelihood for villages, is he going to buy the lot with a few beads and trinkets?
Immigration Minister Tony Burke described the Coalition's boat buyback scheme as ''simply crazy policy''.
''We are talking about a buy back scheme in a market of three quarters of a million boats,'' he said.
''Of all the mad ideas I have heard in immigration I think the boat buy back wins.''
I agree, simply a lunatic of an idea. What are these people going to be like in government, when this is their kind of policy?

Paul,

Hey, hey a boat buy back.....

Here's a blast from the past - http://www.aysii.com/img/dodgey-bros-large.jpg

"Have we got a deal for you!"

pelican, "Statistics show many people are working longer hours to get their work done while some people remain unemployed"

While some might support those sentiments, I also deal with contractors who are exasperated that they cannot recruit workers, especially for apprenticeships.

Honestly, ask anyone who owns or develops property how hard it is to get trades and what they are obliged to fork out for the pleasure of their attendance.

I am not just talking about unskilled labor, but skilled as well. For instance I am presently looking through quotes for a small kitchen made of chipboard, cupboards only, none on walls or higher than hip, and plain vanilla unexciting finishes. The cheapest quote so far is $11,000! Most wouldn't even visit to quote. A simple job, but the skills for even simple cabinet making are not available.

Where are all of those women who say they want $$? Even a pathetic job of laying cheap vinyl tiles on the small area of floor not covered by kitchen cabinets was quoted at $7,500. Are they joking? $75 a square metre supply and lay should deliver good profit. BUT, the workers are NOT available.

Again, where are all of those women who say they want good money? Because easy, brainless lino laying will deliver them more $$ and less stress than those clerical 'management' jobs their feckless school teachers and 'mentors' in the media encourage them to 'aspire' to. They get paid to learn too. There is NO 'glass ceiling'. A frustrated contractor would add that there would be no labour available to install one either.

I have been on here attacking what I see as bad policy by The Coalition. One. the excessive $75,000 payment to well off mums to maintain their lifestyle, and two the idiotic idea that in some way Australia could "stop the boats" with a boat buy back scheme operating in Indonesia. One policy is unjust and the other is stupid.
In fairness I want to point out a new Coalition policy I believe has merit and one I can support. Providing help to apprentices to complete their training with interest-free Trade Support Loans of up to $20,000.
Some points I agree with;
-Australian apprenticeship completion rates are far too low – one in two apprentices do not complete their apprenticeship.
-Australia’s future productivity and competitiveness depend on a skilled and trained workforce.
-Trade Support Loans will be repayable at the same thresholds as FEE-HELP loans for university students, so apprentices do not have to repay any money until they are earning a sustainable income.
-Apprentices who successfully complete their apprenticeships will receive an immediate 20 per cent discount on their Trade Support Loans.
This is the kind of policy I can support. Something some will disagree with is that I see it as necessary to maintain apprentice wages at a sustainable liveable level. I also want greater support to integrate trade courses through the schools system in conjunction with TAFE and use this as an incentive for employers to take kids on.
Maybe some of the money from that $75,000 payday scheme for rich mums could be better used on the baby when he or she is a little older like about 15 or 16.

Paul,

Maybe the government could use the money it's going to "gift to rich mothers" to give to apprentices to buy their tools.

Maybe the government could introduce a scheme of loans for rich mothers to pay for their maternity leave (I'll bet there wouldn't be too many takers because these mothers don't need the money for anything as urgent as "tools to learn their trade".....they are being given this money to continue their "lifetyles")

Poirot, "gift to rich mothers"

No it is not, but what a sly way you propose to undermine equal pay. Disgusting politics.

Next you will be arguing for 'rich' women to take any special leave, recreation leave and long service leave relating to fertility and child care on reduced pay. Might as well reduce their pay for anything to do with their plumbing eh?

It is well established in employment conditions and for donkey's years that when a man or woman employee avails him/herself of leave eg special leave to take care of a close relative his/her pay is NOT reduced.

As far as I am concerned any reduction in pay cuts at the long established and valued role of women in particular in being carers as well as workers. Honestly, how would the disabled, aged and infirm ever survive without the nuturing and care of women relatives? That is not putting down men's contribution, but it is necessary to underline the enduring role of women as pivotal in holding families and society together.

Regardless of one's position on this, whether there should be parental leave or not (and any modern State does have such provisions), if there is to be parental leave it must not discriminate. It must be fair and equitable. Cox and others are right.

It is astounding how sexist you are while always pretending to be the opposite. Or do you only despise women who are successful?

otb,

"It is astounding how sexist you are while always pretending to be the opposite. Or do you only despise women who are successful?"

Up for a round or two with Poirot, are you?

Sorry mate, but a "welfare" scheme where those who need it less are paid more, is a mockery.

Why isn't this scheme means tested?

These women and their spouses don't "need" welfare.

Why are they set to receive it?

Why are "upper middle-class" women being given government largesse at all?

I haven't met anyone from either side of the political fence in favour of this "pork-barrel"....have you?

You're right about one thing - it is "disgusting politics"!

Laura Tingle,

http://www.afr.com/p/national/politics/abbott_promises_trust_and_little_w1QmkvE36ztw2a7lb3dCPN

"In the 1972 movie The Candidate, a man with no hope of winning runs on the promise he can say whatever he likes.

But as the campaign goes on, the spectre of defeat and the lure of victory loom. The candidate gradually tailors his message into a more and more generic bit of political twaddle.

When he defies all expectations and wins, he pulls his mentor aside and asks: “What do we now?”

Abbott may well be asking his colleagues the same question 100 days after winning office."

Where's the detail, Mr Abbott?

Poirot,

So apart from your class war and jealousy you have no argument.

No wonder you never got ahead and are bitter. You're fired! LOL

Successful women have every right to fair and equitable treatment in their conditions of service. Why discriminate against them anyhow? It would be a very backward step.

otb,

Always entertained by your inability to debate without insulting your opponent.

So you're in favour of giving people who need it the least - a bigger share of the pie.

Okay.

Wouldn't it be more "equitable" to have a flat rate if we're going down the PPL path?

Of course, it wouldn't line the pockets of the wealthy to quite the extent that Abbott's largesse intends to.

"So apart from your class war and jealousy you have no argument."

My argument, deary, is that I know an extravagant pork-barrel when I see one.

Poitot,

LOL, you are such a tease, Old Fruit. But your sexist cranky pants are showing, or is it hems today?

Look, if you want to be accepted as a Lady (with a Child!) you cannot be so sarcastic and belittling about the achievements of women who have been successful enough to make it to the lower echelons of management or as moderately paid professionals.

Honestly, for comparison, do you realise that many tradies and semi-skilled workers scorch past $150,000 PA? You need to keep up. You have not been near employment for a very long time. My plumber wouldn't get out of bed for what you seem to think is the exorbitantly high income of the well off.

But then again, you probably don't get to move in circles where employed men are to be found, or they would set you right.

So no, it is not unreasonable to pay women the usual going rate for yhe leave they take, whether it be for recreation, special purposes, LSL or whatever. In fact it would as I have said earlier be unfair and discriminatory to pay them less. The labourer is worth HER pay, so to speak.

What you demand would be a revision to the sad times before Equal Pay, no less. However I have covered that ground earlier, here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5974&page=7
[26 August 2013 9:26:55 AM]

So yes, you do come across as narky and jealous of successful women who earn their status and keep. You probably resent their children as well. Tough luck, Dearie.

Sorry for the misspell, that should be "Poirot".

otb,

"So yes, you do come across as narky and jealous of successful women who earn their status and keep. You probably resent their children as well. Tough luck, Dearie."

Successful women who earn their status and their keep shouldn't be allowed to dip into the welfare bin to support their "lifestyles" when they decide to breed....and they certainly shouldn't expect any more than a universally applied flat rate.

This is what happens when "welfare" is extended to the middle and upper-middle classes as election pork-barrels. Eventually it becomes a conduit to funnel taxpayer's money directly into the pockets of the already wealthy.

Dearie.....

Poirot,

It is significant Old Fruit that you see parental leave as welfare and pork barreling and you would deny women employees their usual rate of pay for the leave.

You agree with the Big Four banks, who claim they will have to pass on costs despite their usual record profits.

Many of us can remember when equal pay was seen as welfare and crippling for business, but of course (sic). Maternity leave was a similar fight.

You obviously don't even realise that other workers (eg APS) have bargained pay increases for parental leave provisions. That would indicate to others reading this how uninformed and prejudiced you are when you scoff at the provision as 'welfare' and seek to shrink pay where it is approved.

Where parental leave is contemplated, it is grossly unfair and discriminatory not to pay it at the woman worker's normal rate of pay. That is Fifties stuff, Old Fruit. Why don't you limit their holiday pay too? Doing your broken record of "It's welfare" proves you are a complete fraud where women's (and parents') employment is concerned.

otb,

I'm not in favour of padding the wallets of the already wealthy because they decide to have a baby....so what?

...................

Here's your style of debate on the issue of PPL.

".....you are a complete fraud where women's (and parents') employment is concerned...."

".....this how uninformed and prejudiced you are ..."

"LOL, you are such a tease, Old Fruit. But your sexist cranky pants are showing, or is it hems today?"

"you cannot be so sarcastic and belittling about the achievements of women...."

"But then again, you probably don't get to move in circles where employed men are to be found, or they would set you right."

".... you do come across as narky and jealous of successful women who earn their status and keep. You probably resent their children as well. Tough luck, Dearie."

"No it is not, but what a sly way you propose to undermine equal pay. Disgusting politics."

"It is astounding how sexist you are while always pretending to be the opposite. Or do you only despise women who are successful?"

"So apart from your class war and jealousy you have no argument."

"No wonder you never got ahead and are bitter. You're fired! LOL"

................

And that's from a total of only four posts.

The only "fraud" around here is you, who pretends to debate the issue while gushing forth with insult and invective.

Back to your usual habit of homing in and firing off your grotty assumptions and imputations (usually "and notably" to women on this forum). Strange, don't you think, how Mr "I stand up for women's issues" is the one who likes to sink the boot into them when it pleases him to do so. You've tried it on with Lexi, Pelican and Suse as well.

You're an interesting case.(keep firing, buddy, and I'll keep sending them back:)

Even Conservative commentator (whatever that means) Tim Wilson from the IP deplores the Coalition's PPL scheme.

Also agreed with his comments about children being constantly portrayed by both sides of politics as some kind of 'burden'. And had to agree, in part, with some of his comments about Age of Entitlement although am sure on closer analysis would disagree on some aspects.

Pelican,

In any society where consuming is the name of the game, anything that impedes the ability to get out there and earn the bickies to buy the crap will be construed as a burden.

As you know, I'm not in favour of very young children being dumped into childcare at the earliest opportunity...also not in favour of the government paying rich people to stay at home and look after their own children, so they can keep up the lease on the BMW. (That's something they should do out of their own pockets)

Here's Minchin on Abbott's PPL:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-23/nick-minchin-predicts-senate-will-scupper-coalition-ppl-plan/4908872

"There is also disquiet in the Coalition ranks. One National MP was quoted in this morning's Australian Financial Review as calling the policy "a heap of sh!t"."

The PPL scheme is driving me nuts. By all means have one, but make it means tested! Makes my blood boil to think one family could benefit from $75,000 when my entire community could use that figure and put it into our school, or set up a child care centre, or after school care, the list goes on. My husband wouldn't be entitled to 6 months of maternity leave or PPL so why should anyone just because they are female and have a child?
Do you know why I'm not a "Successful women" earning ANY money? Because all child care centres within a 100km radis of me have a 8mth to 2yr waiting list!
Utter waste of money! And that is coming from a person that normally votes for the Coalition.

Yes. I agree all the way with that, Bec.

pelican, "Even Conservative commentator (whatever that means) Tim Wilson from the IP deplores the Coalition's PPL scheme"

While that might be the case it is a logical flaw and doesn't justify reducing the pay of a sector of the community. Why not reduce their pay for recreation leave for instance?

In fact, why not put a limit on the remuneration of women since they are likely to use more of certain types of leave?

If parental leave is to be approved at all it must be applied the same as any other form of leave. To not do so is to reintroduce the inequities of the past and not just for women.

Abbott and co are the first to cry that we have to "live within our means", and we can not afford the luxury of paying ourselves things that are unaffordable. With the state of our hospitals, schools infrastructure etc can anyone honestly support this grandiose welfare for the rich ploy. It is certain that a mother on a salary of $150k pa will be part of a household with an income far in excess of $150k. Should we not pay all an aged pension equal to the mean average wage, which is about $60K pa, certainly improve the lifestyle of the majority of pensioners. For those who cannot or choose not to have children, can we not recompense them with a special cash payment to ease their sorrow of being childless or as compensation for making the sacrifice for Australia of choosing to work rather than have children.
If you think about it there is a multitude of opportunists where we can apply welfare for all.

A bit of history and how times change,
The Lang (Labor) Government established the Widows' Pension Act 1926 (NSW), which provided pensions for widows with dependent children under the age of fourteen. The amount was 5 shillings a week (50c). The conservative side of politics derided widows pensions from two angles. Firstly there was the standard cry that it will send NSW bankrupt. Secondly there was derision on the grounds of how dare the state make payments directly to women. The conservatives seen this as attacking the moral fiber of woman, it was tantamount to making widows into "kept women" and who knows where that would lead to. Out having a good time on their 5 bob a week.
The second bit of history,
For a very short period in history Australia had a non means tested old age pension. in 1973 it was introduced that all persons aged 75 and over were entitled to a pension. Then in 1975 it was applied to all aged 70 and over. One who applied for and was granted the pension was none other that Sir Robert Menzies, founder of the Liberal Party, Sir Robert was already doing well from the state, but he was entitled to this benefit. There was such an outcry about Menzies getting this pension that the means test was reapplied in 1976.

"If parental leave is to be approved at all it must be applied the same as any other form of leave."

Paid for by the Employer and not Tax Payer?

Its a waste of money, pure and simple. Money that would be better off spent on our overcrowded child care systems or our schools, our hospitals A&E's...etc

Of course, the funny thing is that in order to contribute to this thread, we are all indulging in tap-tapping away electronically.

PC - smart phone, it's all part of the same phenomenon.

So the next time you walk past someone tapping on a smart phone - they could be posting a comment on OLO

(Bec, it's nice to see you've become a regular. You may have noticed that were a bit light on women around here)

Thank you Poirot, I am thoroughly enjoying the discussions as my family have got to rolling their eyes at me every time I "Start" with my "political Mumbo Jumbo". I have learnt heaps in my short time on the forum.

Sorry folks - wrong thread.

Bec_young mum of 2, "Its (Parental Leave) a waste of money, pure and simple. Money that would be better off spent on our overcrowded child care systems or our schools, our hospitals A&E's...etc"

You misunderstand me. I am not arguing for or against Parental Leave. Although I have noted that it is a common enough leave entitlement elsewhere. Probably because of the feminist lobby, which is led by and serves the interests of educated middle class career women.

What I contend is something else entirely, that if there is parental leave it must be universal and its conditions universal too. Shrinking the entitlements of women just because they are successful is grossly discriminatory. It is class warfare. It also allows for the pruning of other conditions, and examples could be youth and older workers. It is also possible to argue that adult wages (full wages) is 'welfare for (say) youth, new workers, aged workers and so on. Or that workers earning above a certain wage should be paid reduced wages for all forms of leave, eg long service leave.

The question you are posing is Parental Leave or not, which is fair enough if tat is what you really mean.

Those who argue it is welfare are probably only doing that to have some way of excluding the 'rich'. If they were honest is saying it is welfare, they would be including stay at home mothers, which they are not. Their argument is one of class spite, not welfare.

I can't agree with you there onthebeach, calling it leave is just another name, when it is welfare, & nothing else.

This should be available to all, at the same rate. The stay at home mother, who is probably doping a better job of mothering than the career lady should get the same baby subsidisy as the one still working. God knows she probably needs it more, even if her family do have a smaller mortgage.

Giving one woman 4 times the average pension, simply for doing what cones naturally is rather stupid, & totally counter productive.

Hasbeen,

When it suits their argument the Left refer to it as a condition of employment. Whereas when they want to wage class war, it suddenly becomes welfare, and should be restricted (and better denied) for the successful people they love to hate. A difficult picket fence to sit astride for the public bureaucrats who post on OLO and have enjoyed parental leave for yonks, and without salary barriers too!

If it is welfare it is grossly unfair, discriminatory, to restrict it to paid workers and not voluntary workers and stay at home mums.

If it is to be a work condition it is grossly unfair, discriminatory, to restrict it to women this lot believe do not (ought not?) vote for them.

I am pointing at the rather obvious hypocrisy, and the changes of spin are laughable. The left would cut off their own noses to spite their own faces. Being two-faced must make that even more painful. LOL

Thank you Hasbeen, if the Tax payer is funding it, it is welfare, if the employer is made to fund it then you can call it "Leave".
I suppose I have a bit of a bias here as I am one of the stay at home mums, not always by choice but through lack of childcare available, so it does get my dander up a little more then some.

Sorry for the incorrect/ taken out of context quote Onthebeach, I had my wires crossed.

Hasbeen,

"........ calling it leave is just another name, when it is welfare, & nothing else.

This should be available to all, at the same rate. The stay at home mother, who is probably doping a better job of mothering than the career lady should get the same baby subsidisy as the one still working. God knows she probably needs it more, even if her family do have a smaller mortgage.

Giving one woman 4 times the average pension, simply for doing what cones naturally is rather stupid, & totally counter productive."

I am in absolute agreement with your comment above.

Pregnancy is a self inflicted wound. In the main it is undertaken by parents of their own volition. Nobody forces them to have children.
Having said that I believe that the total responsibility for having and raising children should be on the shoulders of the parents and they should pay their own way.
Why the hell should I the boss, the taxpayer, the pensioner who can't get a decent pension, who can't get decent timely health care have to pay for women who choose to get pregnant.

Just when you think the PPL and the buying the boats back from criminals policy was the worst this election had to offer, now there is a plan to pay long term unemployed a bonus of approx $15,000 if they get a job after 12 months. Naturally there will be some sort of conditions (one hopes).

But how absurd. I am all for helping long term unemployed gain skills and confidence to enter the workforce including some work-for-the-dole as appropriate, however this policy is a nonsense. Welfare is about a safety-net and about providing assistance for people to become self-sustaining.

Can you imagine someone being offerred a job at 11 months unemployed thinking no better to wait so they can enjoy the bonus. And to top it off this payment has been phrased as a bonus. Not to mention those who have made efforts to get work before being unemployed for 12 months must be feeling miffed. A policy made for rorting even more than pink batts.

The Coalition is losing support from it's own on these issues in the ridiculous attempt to 'buy' support from a traditional labor base. But at what cost. Is winning all that matters no matter the dire outcomes. This is what politics has got to ...the bottom of the barrell policy on the run in efforts to outdo.

Abbott wins the Darwin award on these policies for sure.

pelican,
You may see this policy as a nonsense however when you realise it costs the public purse over $50,000 per long term unemployed in dole and contributory costs such as medical, optical and dental care (free if your on the dole)charity handouts (funded in part by the govt) wasted training and education costs for unemployed and a host of costs associated with drug, alcohol and criminal activities even you would have to agree that $15,000 paid to someone after 12 months in a tax paying job is not a bad investment.

pelican,

You might say that parental leave would qualify Abbott for a 'Darwin Award', but you are not criticising Labor for introducing maternity leave or unions for bargaining for and gaining parental leave. Maybe offence is in the eye of the beholder, Or more likely it depends on who is proposing the initiative.

To take it further, you would not object to the free jobs and assisted careers in the federal public service for women and indigenous, and more recently on multicultural grounds, although the taxpayer is paying for those 'initiatives'. There is no difference between such initiatives that you and others here have supported as 'justified', or even for what you contend is the (very dubious) advantage of the public service 'representing diversity' and the taxpayer stumping up the money for it. 'Progressives' got rid of 'traditional' merit in recruitment and selection.

Hue and cry that is a popular tool to discredit. You and others are using the tool here. The hope is that the voters the Left is trying to sway are the stupid 'punters' that Kevin Rudd is forever calling them. Simply amazing how the Left cannot trust the judgement of the very people they say they represent. But then the Left always presumes to know what is best for others anyhow.

Regarding the bonus for unemployed who get jobs, including moving for the same purpose, what costs are there in lost production, welfare payments and crime in NOT breaking the cycle and tradition of 'Houso' welfare? From police reports there are Houso families they are called to visit every week. Children are being raised in those houses and as teachers will attest, the adults present punish children who do well at school. You would oppose removal of the children, so what other solution do you have?

there is a lot of suss stuff going on..even as i watchthe softie press club/lunch 'debait'..between hokey/cream

from it

i understand..the libs are rolling back..
the private medic-insurance SUBSIDY..labor..rolled up

joe hockey just said..its mainly FOR*..the poor
[@..press-club]..if this is true..that explains the SCAM*

see if your sick..y
ou just show your medicare card
and its all free

but..if you claim..private
you..*must pay a percentage..of what often becomes..a huge bill..[on top of being sick]..plus maybe even HIGHER premium

[ie IF..you took joes..cash/splash]
which..crean says will soon cost 70%..medicare cost?

BUT..if you pay..PRIVATE*..[ie the joe/lib/poor..only..lol]
or the rich..only getting it in..name only..

to avoid punitive extra govt punitive costs

i feel..its a scam
what am i missing..?

[they ARE missing..informed consent]
or signing up for..just to get some free shoes?

or some other perceived advantage?
isnt it free..in medicare/compulsory super?

ITS ONLY TO BAILOUT THE INSURANCE/fat cats
the undrwritters..of junkbonds..needing yet more govt BAIL-out

by bailing-in..
the ignorant in with libertarian stooge spin

please explain?

OTB
I have been equally critical of Labor. Rather than criticising others' views why not declare your stance and the reasons for or against.

IMO the PPL is overly generous. That does not ipso facto mean I am against any sort of workplace entitlement. Politicians are always telling us it is about balance but it is one thing to preach about the Age of Entitlement (of which in part I agree with the Libs on this) and another to propose a policy that is suspect.

Chris
I am not disputing the costs of long term unemployment but am asking how will the $15,000 bonus work to reduce those numbers. Many people who are long term unemployed have issues (medical/personal) that make employers unwilling to hire them. Others are in regional areas where jobs may not be abundant and are unwilling to move. Others are just so used to welfare they find it hard to get off it, especially if they have been raised to expect and depend on welfare for a long period.

I am all for welfare to support people through difficult times and to support people to find work.

Why not use this money instead to assist people get work through education, skills, assistance to get to interviews or move for work etc. This is hands-on help not cash giveaways. I think it ranks up there with Labor's ineffective cash hand out as part of the stimulus package

pelican,
I think the semantics of unemployment are for another place.

Chris,

"pelican,
I think the semantics of unemployment are for another place."

This thread is titled:

"OPEN thread about what election policies or issues etc annoy you."

That's about as broad in context as it gets around here...pelican's comment is perfectly in line.

chris
I am not sure what you mean by 'semantics of unemployment'. However I thought an analysis of long term unemployment would be essential in assessing the policy proposals. It is a complex issue and it is not about blaming people but looking at what works best.

watching the debate..im noting..the 7 worm=more liberal
and the 9 worm..more rudd..eg right at top..on..9..on the middle line on 7

so..the worms annoy me

the debate is much a non..event..
thanks in part to..worm watching

Tonight at Rooty Hill Mr Abbott said Libs would bring down reporting of foreign investment in rural lands down to $15M rather than the current reporting figure of (I think he said) $200M. He also said there would be a publicly accessible register outlining foreign ownership, promising greater transparency. Well that remains to be seen, but the reduction in reportables is good start. I would argue it needs to be lower.

Rudd looked like he was doing investment policy on the run at that announcement and spun off a line about joint-ventures and matched the greater transparency aspect. Joint ventures not a bad idea either in some circumstances, but it looked spur of the moment. I could be wrong of course.

pelican, "Rather than criticising others' views why not declare your stance and the reasons for or against"

That is amusing, given that I was criticising you and others for leaping into the fray to joust for one side or the other as usual. Predictable. On another day with a different side putting up the same policy the stance would be different as would be the rationalisation. I gave examples where that has probably already occurred in the past. You do support maternity leave for senior public servants no doubt. You don't say that above a certain level they should receive lesser benefits, or go it alone.

I have explained numerous times that I really don't care what policies are implemented as long as the policies are arrived at through consultation with the public and particularly those directly affected. Also that legislation is accompanied by a statement of intent, the desired outcomes and measures of attainment. Further, wherever possible legislation has a sunset date.

There is a jealousy at work that would deny senior women parental leave. I really don't care whether there is parental leave or not. But if it is to be, all should be treated equally. If as you say it is welfare, find some other way of treating all women the same. That means paying mums at home and not just those who are employed. Feminists argue that parental leave is not welfare and nor is maternity leave for example. Was the case they argued all bollocks?

There would be no unemployment if all incentives to unemployment were removed.
Cut out the dole and social security, bring in a third time losers act like they have in the US.
Build bigger and harder prisons out in the desert and lock up the criminals for ever if they try to steal their way in life.
See how quick people go to work for whatever they can get.

OTB
"I really don't care whether there is parental leave or not. But if it is to be, all should be treated equally."

Senior women are not denied parental leave - where did you get that idea? I agree if there is to be a PPL then when women when caring for a baby out of work should receive the same amount rather than tailored to income (but that is my personal opinion).

I do agree that PPL and other issues should be open to public consultation ie. improving and expanding democratic participation. In fact why not bring it to the election via referendum? Perfect opportunity and then government would have a mandate.

Chrisgaff1000, you are stealing my policies.

Hasbeen,
Sorry I must have missed something somewhere.
It is good to know that there are others out there who think their tax dollars should be used for the good of their country rather than the good of the "Bludger Party"
I have people living beside me in public housing 1 couple plus 6 others. Come dole day They have 6 large Pizzas delivered. They get 3 boxes of beer and 2 boxes of rum and coke delivered. The buy a handful of 'grass' from a local dealer ( known to the police) and they party all weekend.
They are months behind in their rent, The premises are a derelict mess and complaints to the housing fall on deaf ears because if they evict them they have a responsibility to find them alternate accommodation.
They drive an unregistered car that has had two yellow defect notices posted on it by police and stripped off.
They have 3 very dangerous dogs that terrify local mothers with kids.
These type of lowlifes are everywhere thanks to Whitlam and Hawke

chrisgaff1000,

Those are the reasons government is pushing its welfare housing responsibilities onto private landlords. Government simply cannot manage housing.

At the same time government regulators and rental tribunals are beavering away making privately owned rental housing 'sensitive' and compliant to the needs of the most 'vulnerable' welfare tenants. They must have somewhere to live, even if they continually destroy houses, dump rubbish on nature strips and reduce the quality of life of everyone else.

In a short period of time and hastened by the churning of non-paying professional tenants who know how to avoid their responsibilities, the proudest, best-built home is turned into a dump. Rental tribunals have very broad allowances of what the feral tenant can claim as 'wear & tear' and there is no remedy available for the many tenants who are just hard on a property.

What other tenants do not understand is the cost to them of all of the government bureaucratic paraphernalia and tenancy lawyers, and of the damage done to properties.

Personally I avoid further investment in rental housing like the Black Death, because it is all high risk and outgoings. It is quite usual to hear of whole kitchens being replaced on a six to seven year cycle. For a small kitchen that is $10,000+ just for the cupboards and benches in ordinary laminate, no white-ware appliances. Dishwashers are now being replaced with imports from China. An Electrolux is destroyed just as fast through rough use.

Young people who vote for the manner of governments who protect and foster dependence, and excuse the behaviour of 'unfortunate' Houso types do not realise that in so doing they are taxing themselves twice: first, from the taxes on their personal income to support people who will not work, and second, for the higher cost of rent to cover for the shocking deterioration and trashing of property and the non-payment of rent and damage.

What does it take for young voters to realise that they themselves must eventually pay through higher taxes, higher rents and inconvenience for the lifestyles of ferals?

in 19 minutes rudd will take on..all comers

Online
Ask Prime Minister Kevin Rudd Anything On Reddit From 6pm

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/08/ask-prime-minister-kevin-rudd-anything-on-reddit-from-6pm/