It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

John Howard for PM in 2007

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I dont see enough of Australian Politics being discussed in here, which is a shame because we have probably the greatest political leader in the world at the moment -(I know that compared to Bush and Blair thats not saying much) who has this year celebrated hi his 10th year as Prime minister!

The economic development that Australia has seen in the last 10 years and the sound ecomonomic management that Howard and Costello have shown is impossible to criticise. Between them they have repaid nearly 100 million dollars of debt that was left by the previous Labor Government, increased minimum wages and now have set in place a flexible industrial relations package that will see Australias economy grow even further!

He is also very strong on preserving Australian values and culture. In my opinion He won the 2001 election on the statement:
"We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come".

Recently he has stated that Muslim Immigrants need to accept that to live in Australia they need to integrate, learn to speak english and treat women as equals. Of course the Muslim leaders all cried foul and threatened riots and violence if he didnt apologise.

John Howard didnt apologise, rather reaffirmed his message to those muslims who do not try to integrate with the Aus society. With the current climate of extremism and terrorism, I can think of no better person to entrust the safety of our nation with.

GO JOHN HOWARD! PM in 2007!!




posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Howard has done what was done in New Zealand in the 1980s and the 1990s and most of it has done us no good.
GST has done nothing but increase the tax burden on the middle - lower classes the same applys in Australia.
For a decade wages were stagnet and in real terms they would have gone down thanks to half baked IR reforms that did nothing but drive our best brains and skilled workers overseas were they would get paid what there worth. Howard has brought in the same laws in Australia.

New Zealand sits at the bottom half of the OECD and these policys were spose to make New Zealand more compitive on the econmic world stage !

The same will happen in Australia.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   


flexible industrial relations package that will see Australias economy grow even further!


At the expence of the average Australians working rights..


300,000 Australian workers took to the streets in a series of nationwide rallies today to protest against the conservative government's new industrial relations laws. The laws impose heavy restrictions on workers' rights to union representation and give employers huge power to determine wages and conditions unilaterally.


Source

Don't get me wrong, John Howard has done some good things for Australia, but IMO his I.R laws have brought working conditions and rights closer to the American system. All rights for employers, no rights for employee's. I Run a company and i am an employer. Even I think that'a taking it to far.

I believe the Unions need to be taking more of a stand, but in some ways they are helpless. In saying that if we have the choice between a Howard government or a Beazley government, I'll stick with Johny. The lesser of two Evils..

Personally, i would have preffered Steve Irwan running the country.

R.I.P mate!



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Of course Australia is booming.

If I earn $60,000 a yaer,
%50 of that goes to the government.

I buy petrol at $1.40 a litre, about 20-40c of that goes to the government

A good slice of my superannuation goes to the government

and ontop of all that, I have to pay %10 extra for all my goods, and give that to the government too

BUT

Nurses, Doctors, Truck Drivers, Electrical companies, Hospitals, Road workers, Disabled, Welfare all these people get NEXT TO NOTHING.
There screaming for wage increases, for better working conditions.
but the government REFUSES.

But there's no problem at all in giving them selves a heafty pay increase, with superannuation increases, with luxury companie cars, major fuel packages, paid international airfares and so forth and so forth and so forth.

What happened to the boat people scandal?
Why is he allowing so many of our citizens to be held for life, or put to death for drug crimes, yet the bali bombers who purposley killed australians are free in a matter of months/years?

Why did he follow us into this war on the grant of getting free trade.. only to be offered a packacge that is CRAP?

Why does he refuse to answer tough questions about his decisions, answering with only
' no comment '

Dont get me wrong, the economic situation of Australia is GREAT..
only because we are doing so much trade with china because of our vast rescources.

this woudl of happened REGARDLESS Who was in power.

Howard is as curropt as the next politician.
HE is definately NOT A GREAT MAN!



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   
You have voted Agit8dChop for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

What else can I say ?



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Of course Australia is booming.

If I earn $60,000 a yaer,
%50 of that goes to the government.


Then you need to see your accountant.... At that wage you shouldnt be paying more than 30-40% tax.

The highest tax level is 45% and thats for people earning over 80-90k a year.



and ontop of all that, I have to pay %10 extra for all my goods, and give that to the government too


A lot of taxes where abolished and still further taxes were meant to be abolished (if only the state governments which are all Labor, would honor the GST agreement and abolish them)



Nurses, Doctors, Truck Drivers, Electrical companies, Hospitals, Road workers, Disabled, Welfare all these people get NEXT TO NOTHING.
There screaming for wage increases, for better working conditions.
but the government REFUSES.


Yes the government refuses - THE STATE LABOR GOVERNMENTS.



What happened to the boat people scandal?
Why is he allowing so many of our citizens to be held for life, or put to death for drug crimes, yet the bali bombers who purposley killed australians are free in a matter of months/years?


Because those citizens of ours either; participated in terrorist activities and attacked our Allied Soldiers (David Hicks) or blatantly ignored the laws of our neighbouring country and smuggled illicit drugs across their borders! (The Bali Nine).

And John HOward isnt ALLOWING the Bali Bombers to be set free - He has no say! Hes the PM of Australia, not the PM of Indonesia! If you can think of a way for him to win that election as well - let me know! Ill be right behind you and I can guarantee that if they were tried in an Australian court, JH would be rushing every piece of legislation through that he could to make sure those extremist bastards got everything they deserved!



Why did he follow us into this war on the grant of getting free trade.. only to be offered a packacge that is CRAP?


Becasue America like it or not is our most important Ally financially and Militarily. I dont know about you but I would not like to be in an Australia that did not have the good will of America, when we are surrounded by Muslim nations who have little or regard for our lives (see above with the Bali Nine scenario)



Why does he refuse to answer tough questions about his decisions, answering with only
' no comment '


Watch Question time in Parliament, he answers plenty of questions on a whole range of topics.



Dont get me wrong, the economic situation of Australia is GREAT..
only because we are doing so much trade with china because of our vast rescources.

this woudl of happened REGARDLESS Who was in power.


Oh yeah just like Labor did in the late 80's... What was that? 17% interest rates? Economic recession? Do you really believe that Beazly who doesnt even know who the Chairman of the Reserve bank is, could run the economy better than HOward and Costello? He was the Finance Minister during Labors disastrous management of our Economy that left us with nearly 100 million dollars of Government debt! (Which the Libs repaid mind you).



Howard is as curropt as the next politician.
HE is definately NOT A GREAT MAN!


Well sounds to me like you dont have respect for any politicians, so Ill just leave it right there. Excpet to say that unless you are willing to get off your arse and do something about it yourself and get involved - you are really in no position to criticise.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Ezekiel]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by kojac
At the expence of the average Australians working rights..

Don't get me wrong, John Howard has done some good things for Australia, but IMO his I.R laws have brought working conditions and rights closer to the American system. All rights for employers, no rights for employee's. I Run a company and i am an employer. Even I think that'a taking it to far.


Heres an example for you, that will explain where Im coming from.

A friend of mine, Tony, owned a bakery that he and his wife used to run. They had two employees that worked for them part time. One of them, was a bad worker, would constantly cause dramas in the workforce and would abuse every single bit of leniency that was shown to her (ie. allowing them to have their phones at work).

HOwever, Tony could not fire her because she had not done anything that would be grounds for a fair dismissal. So he kept her on.

When Tony had to sell the business because of a death in the family (he had to sell and move interstate) he gave his workers about 12 days notice and found them both jobs in another bakery in the same neighbourhood.

The bad worker, sued Tony for him not giving the required amount of notice of termination of employment. She was awarded $6000 compensation even though she started a new job the DAY AFTER SHE FINISHED WITH TONY!

Tony sold his business for $30,000. She got 1/5th of the proceeds of the sale because of the system that was unfairly biased towards workers, who can very easily go and find another job.

Unlike business owners who often have to take out loans, or mortgage their house to afford to start a business which CREATES JOBS for these people. If the new laws protect the people who are risking all to make a living AND CREATE JOBS FOR OTHER PEOPLE - how can that be unfair?

Workers arent the ones who are risking their home, or financial ruin if the business goes down. They just pack up and move on the next job.

Anyway enough about that.



I believe the Unions need to be taking more of a stand, but in some ways they are helpless. In saying that if we have the choice between a Howard government or a Beazley government, I'll stick with Johny. The lesser of two Evils..

Personally, i would have preffered Steve Irwan running the country.

R.I.P mate!


Im glad that you can see that John Howard is a better choice than Beazley. The thought of him as Prime Minister is just scary.

And yeah Steve Irwin would have been much better. No dorothy dixers at question time, just PM Irwin jumping across to the Labor benches (he was a LIberal) to wrestle with Kim Beazley.

"Crikey! Look at the size of that one!"

RIP Steve.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ezekiel

Unlike business owners who often have to take out loans, or mortgage their house to afford to start a business which CREATES JOBS for these people. If the new laws protect the people who are risking all to make a living AND CREATE JOBS FOR OTHER PEOPLE - how can that be unfair?


Well you have to look beyond the BS that the Howard government spews out.
How is it fair that the system is open to abuse from the the likes of bussiness owners ?
How is it fair that if you work in company with less then one 100 employes unfair dismissal laws dont apply ?
Create jobs you have to be kidding me the opposite applys once Bussiness fail to invest in people and there wages go down people invest less money in the econmy and thus less jobs are created.

I dont think that a lazy or incompant should enjoy blanket protection but NZ is proof that Howards IR reforms will fail.

Dont you find it odd that Aust out performed NZ in econmic terms despite the IR reforms NZ had 10 years ago or so ?
Why bother competing with the likes of India and China in terms of wages ?
Even with the IR reforms NZ still cant compete with the likes of China in terms of paying people pittence. Companys still leave NZ for China and India so the whole argument that the reforms would make the country more compitive in ecomic terms is bogus.

Knowing that you can be fired easily by some uncaring boss people feel less valued and they are less likely to go to the extra mile. Take it from me Howards legecy will be that he lowed living standards , created skill shortages and gained nothing in return.



[edit on 7-9-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 7-9-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Well you have to look beyond the BS that the Howard government spews out.
How is it fair that the system is open to abuse from the the likes of bussiness owners ?


Most of the bull# BS and misinformation has come from Labor and the Unions! The Government has barely said a word on the IR reforms apart from what they are saying in question time! Its the unions that are running scare campaigns and misrepresenting the intent of the legislation.

As part of my job, I have had to read quite a bit of the new IR legislation and speak to people who have had grievances with employees / employers and I can tell that you 9 out of 10 of them walk away feeling much better about the legislation once they have heard the facts.



How is it fair that if you work in company with less then one 100 employes unfair dismissal laws dont apply ?


There is still UNLAWFUL dismissal which is basically the same, except that if a business needs to dismiss workers for financial reasons etc they still can. How fair is it that a company has to keep paying for a worker that is no good? Or keep paying a wage if it is not profitable for the company? The shareholders should pay out of THEIR pocket for a worker that is not making the comapny any money?



Create jobs you have to be kidding me the opposite applys once Bussiness fail to invest in people and there wages go down people invest less money in the econmy and thus less jobs are created.


Im not kidding - there have been 159,000 new jobs created since the introduction of the IR legislation. And businesses that are serious about succeeding will always invest in people. It doesnt matter what kind of legislation you have, if businesses dont invest in people they will always fail and that scenario you described will always occur.



I dont think that a lazy or incompant should enjoy blanket protection but NZ is proof that Howards IR reforms will fail.


I dont know much about NZ, however Australia is a vastly different country. We have a far greater Natural Resources sector for a start as well as great trade relations with China and India.



Dont you find it odd that Aust out performed NZ in econmic terms despite the IR reforms NZ had 10 years ago or so ?


No I dont, see above =D



Why bother competing with the likes of India and China in terms of wages ?
Even with the IR reforms NZ still cant compete with the likes of China in terms of paying people pittence. Companys still leave NZ for China and India so the whole argument that the reforms would make the country more compitive in ecomic terms is bogus.


The point is not to compete with India and China for wages, that will never happen and John Howard would be stupid to even contemplate it.

The point is to allow more flexibility in the economy. Over-regulation is never helpful and only stifles growth and expansion in any kind of market.



Knowing that you can be fired easily by some uncaring boss people feel less valued and they are less likely to go to the extra mile. Take it from me Howards legecy will be that he lowed living standards , created skill shortages and gained nothing in return.


We'll have to agree to disagree on this one mate. As far as skills shortages go, training and education has always been the responsibility of the States. Successive LIBERAL and Labor governments have failed to invest in training, which is disappointing but far from a federal government failure.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Ezekiel I guess a part of picture is bussiness mangement . To be fair you have raised some very valid points Aust will always have natural resources to fall back on so the skills shortages probaly wont hurt Aust as much as they did NZ. NZ is very much a skills driven econmy.

skills shortages are a very diffcult problem to solve it is easy enough to Educate people with skills that are needed but people tend go overseas in order to pay off there student loans or once they have some experiance under there belt they go overseas where they get paid more .


I am happy to agree to disagree. As for regulating bussiness I dont have a stance either way Im happy for bussiness to function without a mass of regulation providing that its we dont shoot our selvs in the foot. NZ is also chasing a Free trade agreement with China.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Ezekiel I guess a part of picture is bussiness mangement . To be fair you have raised some very valid points Aust will always have natural resources to fall back on so the skills shortages probaly wont hurt Aust as much as they did NZ. NZ is very much a skills driven econmy.


Unfortunately for NZ that is the case - we can weather skills shortages a lot better due to our natural resources.



skills shortages are a very diffcult problem to solve it is easy enough to Educate people with skills that are needed but people tend go overseas in order to pay off there student loans or once they have some experiance under there belt they go overseas where they get paid more .


Yeah that is a real problem. The government spends heaps of money educating people only to have them take off overseas. I know that as soon as I get offered more money to go work overseas I'll be outta here =D



I am happy to agree to disagree. As for regulating bussiness I dont have a stance either way Im happy for bussiness to function without a mass of regulation providing that its we dont shoot our selvs in the foot. NZ is also chasing a Free trade agreement with China.


I think you have a very smart position on that - let the businesses run without too much regulation as long as they dont mess it up. Australian businesses will now get the chance to prove themselves, I just hope that the good business owners & operators outshine the people who will inevitably abuse the system.

Fingers crossed that NZ gets that trade agreement =D



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ezekiel

Yeah that is a real problem. The government spends heaps of money educating people only to have them take off overseas. I know that as soon as I get offered more money to go work overseas I'll be outta here =D


I hear ya Dubai has a lot of appeal.




I think you have a very smart position on that - let the businesses run without too much regulation as long as they dont mess it up. Australian businesses will now get the chance to prove themselves, I just hope that the good business owners & operators outshine the people who will inevitably abuse the system.


I am going to watch with great interest.
In 10 years time we will see what has happened. Its going to very interesting to see how things pan out. This is an interesting thread that hasnt sunk into the political mud pitt that so many other threads end up in.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
With the new IR laws that came in it still is a worry that you may have to take pay cuts or be on a contract. I always hoped that if you did your job properly that you were safe dosent seam so these days but.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sth Hemisphere
With the new IR laws that came in it still is a worry that you may have to take pay cuts or be on a contract. I always hoped that if you did your job properly that you were safe dosent seam so these days but.


Yes that is always a concern for people that are industrys that might not be making as stable or as lucrative as others.

It is unfortunate, but it is fair for everone involved. If a business is employing people in that industry and is not doing well financially the business owners should be able to protect their rights and interests as they have a lot more invested than the workers.

For example, on the current Perth to Mandurah railway construction there was a recent case of dozens of workers striking and walking off the job after their claim had been heard and they had been ordered back to work. Effectively they had been told 'not to strike' by their union and by the industrial relations ombudsman.

They walked off anyway. One of the construction companies that was working on the job was a small family owned business that had a contract to fulfill.

Due to these workers walking off the job they have lost over $1.5 million in contracting penalties and lost working time.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Ezekiel with respect you avoided the issue of workers taking a paycut under the new IR regime. In some cases there may be more fairness towards the employer.
But how is it fair that in some cases people are earning less and still paying the same bills ?
Im not a big fan of unions but I do think that workers deserve a fair go. I understand that it is hard to find the right balance Unions are either holding a country to ransome or shorted sighted politicans and employers are doing long term harm to save a few dollars today.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 11-9-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Ezekiel with respect you avoided the issue of workers taking a paycut under the new IR regime. In some cases there may be more fairness towards the employer.
But how is it fair that in some cases people are earning less and still paying the same bills ?

[edit on 11-9-2006 by xpert11]

Sorry Xpert I didnt mean to avoid the issue =)

I agree with you that in some cases there will be more fairness shown towards the Employer. Especially in low demand industries (low demand for employees I mean). The employees will still be paid a fair minimum wage with required conditions that they can choose to adapt to their situation.

In some cases these will not be as good as the conditions and wages that were won by the unions during years of industrial disputes and strikes etc. However, it is important to remember the unions can still operate by encouraging the workers to join and be united in their cause. Rather than have it legislated that the unions can stick their nose in - they will now have to convince the workers that it is in their best interest to be associated with a union.

While this may mean that non-union employees can still come in and work for less, it also means that if the unions start working more effectively they can convince more people to join them and to all 'hold out' for better pay and conditions.

And no I dont think that its fair that people have to earn less and still pay the same bills, again though this is not and cannot only be the responsibillity of the business owners.



Im not a big fan of unions but I do think that workers deserve a fair go. I understand that it is hard to find the right balance Unions are either holding a country to ransome or shorted sighted politicans and employers are doing long term harm to save a few dollars today.


Funnily enough, as a Liberal voter I think that unions are quite important because if they are managed correctly they do protect workers from employers who would exploit them. (Please dont tell my liberal colleagues i said that!)

The major problem is that in Australia's current economic market, Unions have become more of a bother for employers AND employees, which has lost them a lot of support.

I do have to disagree with you that this legislation is short sited. Personally I think that this legislation is very important for Australia's long term economic sustainability, because of the flexibility it introduces into our industrial relations system. Excessive regulation has never made it easy to do anything, and in a market that is so dependent on international competitiveness and international trade we need all the options to be open.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ezekiel

Funnily enough, as a Liberal voter I think that unions are quite important because if they are managed correctly they do protect workers from employers who would exploit them. (Please dont tell my liberal colleagues i said that!)


Thats a sign that your are capable of independent thought process which is a good sign.




I do have to disagree with you that this legislation is short sited. Personally I think that this legislation is very important for Australia's long term economic sustainability, because of the flexibility it introduces into our industrial relations system.


To be fair its also what people do after the legislation is in place.
Im not going to repeat ground that I have already covered other then to say that If that the likes of business owners cause wages to remain stagnet you find yourself in a postion where less people can afford homes e.t.c
Now if both partys reach reasonable agreements that is moderate increases in wages over time and the employe is willing to be flexiable with in reason you will have the benfits of a flexable labour market without to many of the problems.

You could make the case that the IR reforms havnt solved another core problem the tax burden on workers . Any tax cuts that the Howard government has given people will go back to the government in the form of GST and other taxs and government related costs.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Apparently there are a lot of people in the U.S. who are looking to John Howard as how a leader of our country ought to be. I've come to this conclusion by one of those e-mails that are a forward of a forward of a forward to someone in my family who forwarded it to me that read as follows:

"IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.'


'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'

'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!'


'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'

'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'


'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,

'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'

'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."

The subject of the e-mail was "America Needs A Leader Like This!"

[edit on 24-7-2008 by saint4God]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by saint4God
 


LOL if the USA want John they can have him but the Americans should look around them and Vote a man like Ron Paul into office

Rud is getting alot of crap for what good ole John did when he was Pm



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by duffster
LOL if the USA want John they can have him but the Americans should look around them and Vote a man like Ron Paul into office


Ron Paul didn't strike me as conservative per the Prime Minister above, however.


Originally posted by duffster
Rud is getting alot of crap for what good ole John did when he was Pm


Hmmm...I must've missed it. What's the scoop?




top topics



 
1

log in

join