Docker_Brat said:
Yes they believe it to be so, however what happens when they realise they're not?
But how do you know they won't be? Are you that naive that you think Latham would definitely be the better option?
This is real simple: People chose a person with an excellent track record of stability for a long period over an inexperienced candidate with a questionable economic record. They played the percentages and quite rightly so. We don't know if they're right or wrong just as we don't know going for the boundary line was the right decision in a footy game. We do know one thing though - Howard and the boundary line are playing the percentages and you can't blame people for playing them.
Having Howard back in doesn't bother me, what does bother me is his increased majority.
And why does he have an increased majority? The main reason is Latham is unknown, risky, and at worst a glorified car salesman. I look at Latham and by initial gut feeling tells me that this man should not be in charge of our country under any circumstances.
If you tell your partner a lie, they know it and then worship you more.
So why are John Howard's lies unacceptable whilst Latham's are acceptable?
how do you feel about that person?
I wouldn't tolerate a partner or friend lieing to me on a regular basis. But they are not politicians.
Once again - why is Latham's lies ok and Howard's not?
I just wanted Howard to get a scare so that he realised he cant blatantly lie to people,
So do I, and it would have happened had ALP supplied a better alternative. You can't blame individual people for what happened. They voted for Howard rather than Latham, not for power of the Senate.
now he has a mandate to do whatever he wants.
Once again unfortunate, but that's how our system works.
Not really, I'm all for a sustainable economy, however it has to be one that protects what's left of the environment or not at the expense of the average worker.
Ahh, the old union/worker rules chip on the shoulder crap.
Strong economies provide low unemployment. Plenty of jobs for most. Workers are adequately protected in this day and age. There is a good balance - workers have plenty of jobs available, they have their rights protected, and there is enough incentive for people to start businesses that increase jobs.
The unions of the 80s became too powerful and needed to be put in their place. It was a regular occurance that people were striking because of trivial reasons such as the microwave in the lunchroom was broken.
There needs to be a balance between rights of workers and incentive for people to start businesses in order to increase growth and supply jobs.
This 'the worker is most important' attitude is dumb attitude that is detrimental to the economy which funnily enough includes workers.
Seeing people suffer from cancer because of the work they do, while the shareholders and managing directors make off like bandits offends me. Supposedly that makes me a 'loony lefty'.
It's not desirable, but how you relate this directly to the Coalition I don't know. Yes it does happen and it's always happened (under ALP too). But it is a small problem relative to other isuues. What's more, giving more widespread power to workers as you previously suggested is not the answer to this problem.
ps If it is such an issue then why didn't Latham use it as a main drawcard?