PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

500N 26th Apr 2014 11:25

By party games, are you referring to two up ?

If so, I think a general exemption exists, or did for two up on Anzac Day.

Fubaar 26th Apr 2014 23:41

With the discussion about the standard of marching, to me, what was noticeable was what a huge improvement the new 'old style' Ronnie dark blue uniform is over the dreadful tram conductor's grey monstrosity they inflicted on us back in the 70s.

Captain Sand Dune 26th Apr 2014 23:57

Amen to that.
Seems a Chief of Air Force doesn't think they're doing their job unless they make a uniform change during their tour. However at least the current dress uniform looks quite good.......until someone changes it.

Solid Rust Twotter 27th Apr 2014 05:10

We seemed to do OK in these...:}


http://abload.de/img/recces89xcm.jpg

500N 27th Apr 2014 05:35

Looks like an SLR.

Is that Rhodesia ?

Of nearby ?

Worrals in the wilds 27th Apr 2014 08:30

The man makes the uniform...:cool::}
That said, I've heard several recent complaints from Army types about their new boots wrt marching. Apparently the soles are very slippery on hard surfaces and (in their opinion) accounted for the ice-skating style manouvres by more than one soldier when they lost their footing. Inner city asphalt gets very greasy, which wouldn't help either. :ooh:

I thought the new RAAF uniform looked very smart.

Seems a Chief of Air Force doesn't think they're doing their job unless they make a uniform change during their tour.
This also happens to civvies. I think it's like dogs and lamp posts :rolleyes:, but I guess it keeps the uniform supply companies happy. Not so much the plebs on the ground who spend the following wet season and winter trying to procure the elusive New Raincoat and Jacket (initially stocked in XXXS or XXXL, but only in Melbourne) while getting drowned and/or frozen :ouch: and trying to work out why the new trousers are a completely different size from the old ones, even though they're marked the same.

CoodaShooda 27th Apr 2014 11:24

In breaking news, our three renegade "bush MPs" have now signed up to the PUP.

I wonder if Clive really understands what he has signed up to.

Anderson is now on her third party, leaving wreckage in her wake.

Lee has been charged with assaulting an 18 year old female. If convicted, she may lose her seat.

The bloke has lost the support of his community for leaving the CLP, so may be a one term wonder.

There's no need for labor or the CLP to play the race card at the next election.
It's playing itself through the PUP. :E

Saltie 27th Apr 2014 20:56

War in Australia (any Oz Politics)
 
We seem to have arrived at Paul Keating's banana republic. I'll be called a racist if I say that in allowing themselves to be sold a PUP, these three Bush Politicians are displaying a certain lack of sophistication. A sophistication we should expect of and in anyone in an elected position.

500N 27th Apr 2014 20:59

Cooda

That will stir the pot up there :O

Worrals in the wilds 27th Apr 2014 22:06


Anderson is now on her third party, leaving wreckage in her wake.
Awesome, what could possibly go wrong? It should be like watching a car crash in slow motion. :}
Since winning his seat Palmer has been largely invisible in Queensland, except for looking testy and blustering insults when journos ask him about 1. his failing resort and 2. his badly performing (and environmentally suspect) nickel mine.

CoodaShooda 27th Apr 2014 23:30

I'm wondering how long before Palmer does a Nathan Tinkler and implodes.

rh200 27th Apr 2014 23:43


We seem to have arrived at Paul Keating's banana republic. I'll be called a racist if I say that in allowing themselves to be sold a PUP, these three Bush Politicians are displaying a certain lack of sophistication. A sophistication we should expect of and in anyone in an elected position.
There is a not insignificant amount of polly's who are dumb arse, ignorant [email protected]#$ wits on both sides. The difference is most of the time the party's do a god job of keeping them under wraps with the muzzle on. Occasionally though a muzzle falls off and you get the cringe worthy moments.

Palmer has just used the ignorance of these twits for his own objectives. They will find out the hard way.

Anthill 28th Apr 2014 00:22

I recently met a young man at a wedding reception. Some of his perspectives were VERY interesting as I will relate.

This young man is a PhD student and Maths tutor at an Australian university. He is also a memebr of the Greens. I was initially interested in speaking to him as he seemed to be politically aware and have an interest in social issues.

The converstaion turned to the issues of housing affordability. Here, this young Sydney-sider told me that he, as a well paid academic(!), could not afford to buy a house in Sydney and that this was the fault of the "baby-boomers".

He pointed out that my generation had the benefits of free university education and that his generation had to pay for theirs. My explaination was that Whitlam introduced free university to give battlers a chance to break out of the poverty trap, however as the concept of building a 'smart' society was adopted fees were introduced to pay for the expanding number of university places. His response was that we were a greedy generation and had abandoned usful social policy as soon as we had reaped the benefits. He also included housing affordability as a manifestation of this pattern of Baby-boomer behaviour.

Here, I was intrigued. I asked what my generation had done to make housing unaffordable for Gen Y. He told me that the 'boomers had driven up house prices by demanding low interest rates and tax breaks for negative gearing. I suggested to him that he, too, could take advantage of negative gearing to which he responded that he would not get to enjoy the same captial gains as the 'boomers have had and that this was unfair.

I pointed out that the first house that my wife and I had was bought with a 40% deposit that we had saved and shortly after purchase, our variable interest rate had shot to 16.7% and that some people were paying 17.5%. I pointed out that at the time, I was paying about 60% of my PRE-tax income in servicing the debt. I pointed out that a mortgage of $300k at 6% was actually easier to service than a $75k mortgage at 17% at average weekly earnings ( I actually consulted a mortgage calculator on my iphone and showed him the comparision). Some others at the table pointed out that 'Boomers often invested to provide an income stream for their retirement. He didn't like this at all.

He responded that The Greens were going to make housing affordable in accordance with the following stratgies: Negative gearing would be abolished but capital gains taxes raised. Positive gearing would remain taxed. Rent caps would be placed on investment properties so that the underprivilaged would not be subjected to a "rent gouge" for higher tax rates or if interest rates rose. Superannuation would be taxed at a rate equal to the marginal tax rate of the policy holder and the revenues directed to help those on low incomes (then what's the point?, someone at the table asked). The pearler was this: Superannuation would become unneccessary under the Greens as they had plans to pay a full living pension to all retirees.

At this stage the question arose "who will pay for all this?" Our young idealist told us that "Big Business, high income earners and the mining companies" would be taxed to pay for "socially beneficial programs" such as free public transport, a living wage for university students, free university education, support for refugees, increased 'newstart' (dole) allowances, bicycle paths, free health care...as well as the touted increaed pensions for all.

I could not continue that discussion without becoming rude, so I left it there. The question is and remains; how do the Greens think that this is going to be paid for? Also, is there currently some research in the feild of mathemetics in which money is conjured out of thin air without any resulting debt?

rh200 28th Apr 2014 00:47


I could not continue that discussion without becoming rude, so I left it there. The question is and remains; how do the Greens think that this is going to be paid for? Also, is there currently some research in the feild of mathemetics in which money is conjured out of thin air without any resulting debt?
A fairly poor excuse for a math's geek. Until you compile all the comparative numbers they never understand the scale of the problem, even then some still don't. The law of large numbers apply, in essence its the reason why you can spend billions on a tax break for the poor and it only gets them a pie and coke.

The fact is, the law of unintended consequences needs to be kept in mind. There's only so many rich people and company's around, and hitting them in the hip pocket may give you a number that looks big, but distributed around gives you stuff all. Then they basically do their business else where. Its all one big balancing act.

500N 28th Apr 2014 00:55

Might want to have a read of this article. Yes, I know it is the DM
but some of the bits were interesting and a possible insight into
how the Greens have no idea and should not be given power ????

Lunacy of the town that turned green: A ban on bacon butties. Traffic-calming sheep. Transgender toilets. Sounds like a send-up? In fact, it's the all-too-real story of how Britain's loopiest party took over Brighton... | Mail Online

mmciau 28th Apr 2014 00:57

Anthill, the Green lad really is screwed in the head.

chuboy 28th Apr 2014 01:57

Maths and economics aren't the same thing, so I am not surprised that young mathematician shared the half-baked ideas of the Greens. There are indeed fields of economics, not mathematics, researching such ideas as conjuring money from thin air. After all currency is just an abstract, it's not tangible. You can physically print as much as you want. What happens after is a question left to economists and their finely polished crystal balls.

I would tend to agree that negative gearing, among other things, has inflated the property market far beyond where it should be. It's starting to become a serious problem that is exacerbated by developers and local governments conspiring to limit land release. Few other countries in the world allow you to write off investment losses against personal income, I just don't see the argument for having it.

The endlessly inflating housing bubble is great for property owners but unless you let the air out in a controlled way, it will burst just like it did for Ireland.

Couple this with rising youth unemployment (not, as you will probably be inclined to believe, stemming from an "inherently lazy" Gen Y) and you have a serious problem growing on your hands.

On another note, some focus group recently came out and said we need to have a discussion as a nation about end-of-life options. Some large portion of medical costs borne by the government are spent on terminally ill people. Multiple-bypass surgery and expensive meds for 94-year-old comatose stroke victims and the like. Rather than letting people die of essentially natural causes, we spend huge amounts of money prolonging the inevitable for a few days or weeks, and not necessarily in comfort.

With a new government there's always the glimmer of hope that they will have the courage to tackle these kinds of issues their predecessors did not, but for me it is fading fast. Instead I see Joe Hockey suggesting all manner of cuts, our citizens work to the age of 70 in order to balance some numbers on a spreadsheet. Simultaneously I see the rest of the cabinet approving or preparing to approve swathes of money for very dubious projects - the "new" NBN, Joint-Strike Fighters, paid parental leave, billions on "roads only" for Badgery's Creek, etc. Finally there is the bizarre, like "unlocking Tasmania's forests" against the wishes of both green groups and the forestry industry.

I'm afraid we're in for more of the same. But at least the boats have stopped.

bosnich71 28th Apr 2014 02:29

500 .... I've Rellies who live in the Brighton area,they have given up on politics....as they don't have to vote it's the easier option ..... perhaps that's why the Greenies continue to eff them about.
Hang on though,here in Oz we have to vote and the buggers still eff us about as well !

Worrals in the wilds 28th Apr 2014 02:39


I pointed out that the first house that my wife and I had was bought with a 40% deposit that we had saved and shortly after purchase, our variable interest rate had shot to 16.7% and that some people were paying 17.5%.
This is the bit that the angry young things always forget. That said, if he's a tutor then I'm guessing he's fairly young? People are often very leftie at that age, particularly if they've spent more time (or all their time) at uni than they have in the real world.

At this stage the question arose "who will pay for all this?" Our young idealist told us that "Big Business, high income earners and the mining companies" would be taxed to pay for "socially beneficial programs" such as free public transport, a living wage for university students, free university education, support for refugees, increased 'newstart' (dole) allowances, bicycle paths, free health care...as well as the touted increased pensions for all.
Standard University Socialism 101. It was spruiked on campus in the 1990s (back then it was by the Socialist Worker comrades, aka the Socialist [email protected] :E) and it will probably be spruiked on campus after all of us are long gone. People usually grow out of it when they get a real job.

500N 28th Apr 2014 02:41

"This is the bit that the angry young things always forget."

You can say that again !

First mortgage signed at 17.5% :rolleyes:


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:23.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.