Bombertalk

Dodge there's plenty of affordable land! My mate is in the council in Edenhope (about 1/2 an hour from the SA border) They are willing to give you FREE LAND!

All you have to do is build a house on it and live there!

The land is there, unfortunately the jobs are not.....

dodgey wrote:$6 billion of Commonwealth Land to be released for affordable housing..... But don't know where it's going to come from

a great Idea Kev..... But maybe you should have looked into how much land the commonwealth had available...and where it is.... before going with it.

Agree. Its a soft, smokescreen policy.

Before Filth juts in - yes is it better than what Howard is doing. But it is still nowhere good enough.

Libs will win. Book it in boys.

Just on a side note it would be lovely if we could have a fair unbiased media once in awhile. Sick of reading a paper and seeing it ALL Libs or ALL Labour.

Did anybody see the phone poll into today's Herald Sun

They had the question - Will Howard's tax cuts win your vote? - it was a 50-50 split.

Before you point it out, I know it's a Murdoch paper, and I know it's not representative of the whole population, or even Melbourne's population.

It's just interesting.

dom_105 wrote:Did anybody see the phone poll into today's Herald Sun

They had the question - Will Howard's tax cuts win your vote? - it was a 50-50 split.

Before you point it out, I know it's a Murdoch paper, and I know it's not representative of the whole population, or even Melbourne's population.

It's just interesting.

That's a disappointing indication for the Coalition. Something of that magnitude should have registered a 90% approval rating - even if only 10 people responded.

BenDoolan wrote:

dom_105 wrote:Did anybody see the phone poll into today's Herald Sun

They had the question - Will Howard's tax cuts win your vote? - it was a 50-50 split.

Before you point it out, I know it's a Murdoch paper, and I know it's not representative of the whole population, or even Melbourne's population.

It's just interesting.

That's a disappointing indication for the Coalition. Something of that magnitude should have registered a 90% approval rating - even if only 10 people responded.

Rubbish.

Being so far behind in the polls means a 50/50 result is just shy of the best result the Libs could hope for.

boncer34 wrote:

BenDoolan wrote:

dom_105 wrote:Did anybody see the phone poll into today's Herald Sun

They had the question - Will Howard's tax cuts win your vote? - it was a 50-50 split.

Before you point it out, I know it's a Murdoch paper, and I know it's not representative of the whole population, or even Melbourne's population.

It's just interesting.

That's a disappointing indication for the Coalition. Something of that magnitude should have registered a 90% approval rating - even if only 10 people responded.

Rubbish.

Being so far behind in the polls means a 50/50 result is just shy of the best result the Libs could hope for.

Ah well, you got me on that one!

Problem is I cant tell your sarcasm anymore.

boncer34 wrote: Problem is I cant tell your sarcasm anymore.

You made a good point!

To quote Mike Williamson,

"I tipped this !!!"

From what I've heard they are offering the same tax cuts but not to the rich bastards. The education initiative is good IMO. What used to be free education now incurs fees from most primary and secondary schools so it will provide some relief to the likes of well me when my little-lee goes to primary school.

I hope Rudd baby tears that maniacal curmudgeonly Howard apart in the "debate".

MH_Bomber wrote:To quote Mike Williamson,

"I tipped this !!!"

From what I've heard they are offering the same tax cuts but not to the rich bastards. The education initiative is good IMO. What used to be free education now incurs fees from most primary and secondary schools so it will provide some relief to the likes of well me when my little-lee goes to primary school.

I hope Rudd baby tears that maniacal curmudgeonly Howard apart in the "debate".

Yes, and I was suggesting that I hope they put that money into programs rather than straight into peoples pockets. This is better planning (good economic management) for the future rather than the irresponsible withholding of tax dollars only to be thrown back in the face of the electorate before an election.

Can anybody give a "fair and balanced" report on how the debate went, I missed it.

All I can say is that Mr. Howard is a completely shithouse debater.

BenDoolan wrote:All I can say is that Mr. Howard is a completely shithouse debater.

Not the most fair and balanced comment in the world...

I think it was quite interesting actually. Rudd came out on top but the majority of the debate was about tax and fiscal policy, which may benefit the Coalition down the line.

I actually also thought that Rudd came off looking like a bit of a smartass at times. Not a criticism, just an observation.

Staggy wrote:

BenDoolan wrote:All I can say is that Mr. Howard is a completely shithouse debater.

Not the most fair and balanced comment in the world...

I think it was quite interesting actually. Rudd came out on top but the majority of the debate was about tax and fiscal policy, which may benefit the Coalition down the line.

I actually also thought that Rudd came off looking like a bit of a smartass at times. Not a criticism, just an observation.

He is a notorious poor performer in debates. He keeps winning elections however.

Apart from the great tax revolution, what are Howard's programs for the future? Farked if I know....

IR? - status quo
Education? - status quo....or some mumblings about learning our history and adding up sums and spelling correctly (might help a few in here)
Health? - status quo
Iraq? - status quo or an increase in forces

Kept harping on about the economy though. But what does it mean if you don't implement programs and infrastructure for this country to prosper?

I agree. Howard wasn't clear enough about what his plan was.

But I think the fact that the majority of the debate was about the economy can only help Howard - regardless of the details.

And I actually think it was good to see a bit of niggle between the two instead of the usual mundane debates of the past. Nothing wrong with displaying a bit of passion for the top job.

I say Rudd won and won well, because visually Howard moved around, he kept hitting the mike when he waved his hands around.

Rudd was more rock like and looking into the camera, spoke to the viewer.

The Worm gave it to Rudd too.

Did Howard have to do better as he is behind?

And as he is behind is it Bad for Howard when the news leads are about Footballers and drugs and Murders and not Him getting your vote.

I think it worked for him when in was in the lead
in the past be now?

dom_105 wrote:Can anybody give a "fair and balanced" report on how the debate went, I missed it.

The following link has a couple of stories from tonight's debate under "Latest News".

http://www.federalelection.com.au/