LNP blaming ALP Medicare "scare" campaign for their huge losses.

[Kwality]

Word is the libs are still seething and want to enact some kind of 'truth in political advertising' laws. How they do this without disadvantaging themselves more than opponents will be very interesting

Just another example of the bottomfeeders that populate the political space these days .... kneejerk reaction, not thought thru.
Same as the mob that won the most seats is being portrayed as the loser & the lot on the opposition benches is somehow the winner.
A bunch of Libs want to change the policy taken to the people because they don't like it.

Truly

 

[Pessimistic]

aren't they just glorified litmus paper? probably didn't need to pass food and drug testing

 

[sherb]

Scare campaign indeed.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/heal...blood-sugar-test-subsidy-20160716-gq75vf.html

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Word is the libs are still seething and want to enact some kind of 'truth in political advertising' laws. How they do this without disadvantaging themselves more than opponents will be very interesting

they will just let murdoch run the ground game.

 

[JackOutback]

they will just let murdoch run the ground game.

Ouch, you're right. Toe the line in the ads, let Rupert spin complete bullshit and fear,

 

[Pessimistic]

Ouch, you're right. Toe the line in the ads, let Rupert spin complete bullshit and fear,

In media which may not exist next time round? online subscribers would be negligible

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

In media which may not exist next time round? online subscribers would be negligible

Much like people who say Climate Change will be the end of mankind, it's pretty silly to think there won't be Murdoch media or it's forebears around for a very, very long time. Humans can adapt, and news.com.au already tips it's hat to some non-Murdochian views every now and again while still readily pushing the barrow on other issues. Murdoch's success is based on sport and sensationalism and people are going to remain interested in those.

I guess a big part of News Corp's future health will relate to how it reacts to this election. If they take the DelCon view and think they have to be more politically aggressive next time, they'll end up close to dead in having any political influence, but I suspect they're smarter than that.

 

[Pessimistic]

Amuses me no end you have to pay to get Bolts 'opinions'

Like today him suggesting France has allowed itself to become overrun by muslim immigrants

They may have, but its been happening for centuries. South of France has huge amounts of middle east and north african culture going back decades if not centuries

 

[JackOutback]

In media which may not exist next time round? online subscribers would be negligible

The influence may be declining but Rupert's media will be around in some form for a few more years yet.

 

[Pessimistic]

The influence may be declining but Rupert's media will be around in some form for a few more years yet.

 

[Chief]

Scare campaign indeed.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/heal...blood-sugar-test-subsidy-20160716-gq75vf.html

I wonder when they will 'back down' and make it only, say, $20 a box because that is how much they care.

 

[Power Raid]

He was a racist campaigner, who created the poisonous atmosphere around asylum seekers. He also just sat back while the country pretty much ran itself on mining revenue. Besides the GST, there's nothing you can point to that shows leadership or skill.

The mining revenues didn't kick in until Rudd was in.

Prior to that we had an exploration boom. Exploration is not mining.

 

[CM86]

The mining revenues didn't kick in until Rudd was in.

Prior to that we had an exploration boom. Exploration is not mining.

Yep, sure.
Australia didn't have any mining revenue under Howard. It only kicked in when Rudd took over.

Also, there was no GFC.

And we were put into a financial crisis by the ALP, that is ok now that they're out of power...

 

[Gough]

Once again PR knows better than almost 100% of economists.

 

[Mofra]

The mining revenues didn't kick in until Rudd was in.

Rudd was elected in December 2007 for those of you playing at home.

 

[Power Raid]

Yep, sure.
Australia didn't have any mining revenue under Howard. It only kicked in when Rudd took over.

Also, there was no GFC.

And we were put into a financial crisis by the ALP, that is ok now that they're out of power...

the graph above isn't great as it is a % of the overall economy rather than the industry's growth itself.

but in answer to your statement; of course we had a mining industry pre Rudd but it is a mistake to confuse the mining boom with the exploration boom

but as you can see by the graph, exploration and development activity rose long before the mining revenues kicked in


looking at royalties you get a good feel for govt benefit flowing through from both quantum and price

 

[Maggie5]

the graph above isn't great as it is a % of the overall economy rather than the industry's growth itself.

but in answer to your statement; of course we had a mining industry pre Rudd but it is a mistake to confuse the mining boom with the exploration boom

but as you can see by the graph, exploration and development activity rose long before the mining revenues kicked in


looking at royalties you get a good feel for govt benefit flowing through from both quantum and price

CM86 word was 'revenue' not 'boom', check his post again.
Why no source to your graphs?

 

[JoseMourinho]

Rudd was elected in December 2007 for those of you playing at home.

Have we got anything after 2008? Seems like Howard really only enjoyed the Mining Boom in his last term of Govt.

 

[Maggie5]

Have we got anything after 2008? Seems like Howard really only enjoyed the Mining Boom in his last term of Govt.

Stop falling into the PR trap. The word was revenue not boom. Look at the graph again - Mining Revenue.

 

[Power Raid]

Stop falling into the PR trap. The word was revenue not boom. Look at the graph again - Mining Revenue.

what are you banging on about?

take a look at the line under that............% of?


perhaps look at a graph referring to revenue

 

[Maggie5]

what are you banging on about?

take a look at the line under that............% of?


perhaps look at a graph referring to revenue

Take a look at the heading in big letters.

 

[Power Raid]

Take a look at the heading in big letters.

that's nice but you are only seeing half the picture.

It does say revenue but the graph is a % of GDP, meaning you aren't "just" looking at mining revenue................you are looking at mining in context to the australia's GDP. Further as mining increased GDP directly and indirectly (the base), you can't actually see the dramatic increase in revenue.

Put it in perspective of why the graphs were posted and that is, Rudd enjoyed the mining boom and Howard enjoyed the exploration boom.

 

[Maggie5]

that's nice but you are only seeing half the picture.

It does say revenue but the graph is a % of GDP, meaning you aren't "just" looking at mining revenue................you are looking at mining in context to the australia's GDP. Further as mining increased GDP directly and indirectly (the base), you can't actually see the dramatic increase in revenue.

Put it in perspective of why the graphs were posted and that is, Rudd enjoyed the mining boom and Howard enjoyed the exploration boom.

Terminology is important, big difference between revenue and a boom.

 

[Power Raid]

Terminology is important, big difference between revenue and a boom.

giggle

please explain to everyone the difference and then put it in context of the discussion

well done though of understanding there is a difference

PS, once done, you will now find you agree with my position

 

[Maggie5]

giggle

please explain to everyone the difference and then put it in context of the discussion

well done though of understanding there is a difference

PS, once done, you will now find you agree with my position

Wise to your misdirection, think I will give this one a miss.
Hilarious, you really are a sad case.