Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
I don't think many people were thinking 'but what about the kyoto protocol!'.
i was. only because if labor would've gotten in, my argument that the aust. govt. is weak at implementing global environment law in my legal essay wouldn't have seemed so convincing.Not-That-Bright said:I don't think many people were thinking 'but what about the kyoto protocol!'.
Ziff said:If you want to effect change, join the Liberal party and start branch stacking
If you're into Labor, then join Labor, see if the marginal seats have a shit Labor candidate, branch stack and get rid of them, install yourself and make sure you win the seat
Money they so desperately need but it's ok for them to lose $50 million due to problems with processing traffic fines.cattlefat said:This is what forums are about whinging...ranting..saying what your angry about..Obviously if its given back to the states, then they're not getting enough. I doubt they would sqaunder funding that is so desperately needed.
And I said that instead of funding improved public services, funding must have gone elsewhere.
Stop blocking what I say and think about it, instead of being so staunchly liberal and narrowminded.
I'd like to be the first to welcome the era of the 1950s into my life, as I'm sure the rest of you would like to do as well."I think everyone should have a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down about what might happen in the Senate", said the Finance Minister, Senator Nick Minchin.
i personally think voting should stay compulsory. lets just look at exhibit A, the US. Political apathy abounds, only around half the eligble population votes - as such, the parties have to spend more effort convincing people to vote and less effort gets spent into actually presenting policies beyond a name eg "clean air act" "funding for faith based community groups"...Not-That-Bright said:I agree with losing compulsary voting apparently it makes people think about issues.. but it doesn't really. Some people just don't give a crap
Could this get passed through the senate now? or would we need a referendum? I dunno where it talks about compulsary voting..
Mwahahaha! You actually based your 'personal conclusions' on the extensive research method of watching crap tv? Did you seriously assess a political leader (ie the person unfortunately running this country) on whether or not he appeared on a television show which has no bearing on politics whatsoever, and which is hosted by a presenter who repeatedly fails to ask relevent, pertinent questions? Yay democracy!waterfowl said:My method: I kept a tally throughout the campaign and Howard or Latham got minus or plus points for things they did. It was a tie for a while but then when Howard didn't go on Rove he lost the tally. But I believe Liberals will do a good job, I researched and that is what my personal conclusion was.
Yes a referendum is necessary because it would involve changing the constitution...I presume anyway.mervvyn said:i personally think voting should stay compulsory. lets just look at exhibit A, the US. Political apathy abounds, only around half the eligble population votes - as such, the parties have to spend more effort convincing people to vote and less effort gets spent into actually presenting policies beyond a name eg "clean air act" "funding for faith based community groups"...
In any case, I presume a referendum would be necessary.
Gough would be 88Mendo said:If people actually had any enthusiasm about politics in this country then maybe labor would have won. Swinging voters who decide to stick with the current government because they THINK they've run things ok decided the outcome, pretty much. Johnny is gonna be about 70 at the next election IF he stays on, and some higher power better help us all if costello runs the show- *insert smirk here*
Damn i wish gough was still around.........