[redcarpet]

When Opposition Leader, Tony Abbot was easily and slowly roasted alive by
Kerry O'Brian and his successor on the 7:30 Report.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nch5BN0d9vE,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcklTCcs9M0,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShxmO4C6m0M&list=PLe5JjMY42eiID0LTrJSQpZJT38wPsjqLz&index=3

Can't believe this man is our national leader. How embarrassing.

[Social_Critic]

Evidently the other side was quite unpopular. I don't live in Australia, what were they doing , hugging illegal aliens and moaning about global warming? Nowadays that's bound to put them at a disadvantage.

[redcarpet]

Well for one thing we had the historic removal of a sitting Prime Minister before he
even finished his first term as natl. ldr., then a Hung Parliament election result in 2010
and then earlier this year the ldr that was removed (Kevin Rudd) won the leadership
back again.

But the 2013 fed. election saw lots of marginal seats in NSW & Victoria wing Liberal.
But only 1 million more voters to the Liberal party then the ALP. Mr. Abbot is only Prime
Minister because of the quirks of the preferential voting system. No doubt with FPTP
he'd have lost.

The internal infighting and leaking, etc, was definitely the number 1 turn-off for voters.

[JohnRawls]

Seriously? Is australia an industrilized nation, what is the standard internet ? I can already get up to 100mb anywhere in estonia using cable.

To be honest in my opinion 4g is the future, atleast for local use. It can provide 100mb peak speads but Tony was obviously lieing through his teath, considering its a very new technology that becake commercially available i am not sure if it can cost less than fibre optical plan which is WAY, WAY more simpler.

[Rainbow Crow]

As a distant island, even if they get 4g, Australia will need some kind of fiber-optic cable to reach the rest of the world.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Australia will need some kind of fiber-optic cable to reach the rest of the world.

Something like this, perhaps? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Cross_Cable

[foxdemon]

Evidently the other side was quite unpopular. I don't live in Australia, what were they doing , hugging illegal aliens and moaning about global warming? Nowadays that's bound to put them at a disadvantage.

It seems Australians wanted a change. Unfortunately the only alternative which is big enough to take office is Abbott and his neo-liberal henchmen. There was a swing against both major parties (the Liberal government is acatully a coalition, but we refer to them as a single party). Minor parties and independants are growing in number as the public becomes increasingly disillusioned with both established parties.

Part of the reason so many turned away from Labor was that the Murdock controlled media campangied aganst them. Regretably too many Australians are incapable of resisting propaganda and thus the political bias on TV had an inevitable toll on Labor's chances.

Another reason is that Labour under Gillard turned against those on welfare (eg: putting single mothers onto job search), a traditional part of their support base. I guess it is only to be expected that those people would turn against Labor in response.

Seriously? Is australia an industrilized nation,...

Not really. Nor is NZ. These two are at best provincal Anglo ex-colonies. Canada is a bit more industrialised. I think that there exists in the world a few countries that have done a remarkably good job at selling an image of themselves as advanced techo powerhouses when they are, in fact, backwaters. Possibly Australia could do a lot better if the establishment was not so inclined to rule in a lazy manner.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Seriously? Is australia an industrilized nation, what is the standard internet ? I can already get up to 100mb anywhere in estonia using cable.

What does your bandwidth have to do with industrialisation of your country?

Anyway, here in NZ a fibre-optic network is currently rolled out with expected completion date in 2019 when about 75% of end users will be able to get 100 Mb/s. I think about 20% of the total network is already built.

Most people in NZ can get about 20 Mb/s at the moment. Personally, I have never needed more bandwidth.

Since Australia and NZ are relatively sparsely populated, especially compared to most of Europe, there are large rural areas for which coverage is just very expensive. Much of these areas in NZ (i.e. the remaining 25% of end users) won't necessarily be directly connected via fibre but some will probably at least benefit from fibre backbones. There is the rural broadband initiative currently running in parallel to the fibre rollout which will provide "normal" broadband bandwidth (20+ Mb/s) to rural areas.

To be honest in my opinion 4g is the future, atleast for local use. It can provide 100mb peak speads but Tony was obviously lieing through his teath, considering its a very new technology that becake commercially available i am not sure if it can cost less than fibre optical plan which is WAY, WAY more simpler.

Not sure what Abbot said, but as far as I know while the NBN (which had an expected completion date in 2021 with currently 10% completed) will be discontinued the new government is planning on rolling out a fibre backbone, but it won't replace the copper lines from the nodes to the end users. That alone will obviously improve bandwidth capabilities, but not by as much. Additionally, a lot can happen in the 8 years until 2021 and mobile broadband (4g) may replace at least part of wired broadband.

Personally, I'm not sure whether it's really necessary to connect the vast majority of end users, especially residential areas, with fibre. Of course, it's nice to have it available, but who actually needs it right now or in the next 10 years? And what's the downside of upgrading the node-to-end user lines later if it really becomes necessary?

Not really. Nor is NZ. These two are at best provincal Anglo ex-colonies. Canada is a bit more industrialised. I think that there exists in the world a few countries that have done a remarkably good job at selling an image of themselves as advanced techo powerhouses when they are, in fact, backwaters. Possibly Australia could do a lot better if the establishment was not so inclined to rule in a lazy manner.

What criteria are you using to decide if a country is industrialised?

[foxdemon]

What criteria are you using to decide if a country is industrialised?

Posession of extensive heavy industry, demonstrated capability to produce the components of mechanised warfare (eg: tanks, combat aircraft, modern naval vessels). We might add extensive export trade in areas of machinery including consumer goods. I guess that is what makes a nation 'industrial'.

Examples include China, S Korea, Japan, Germany, France, USA.

Oz and NZ don't quite cut it.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Why the emphasis on military/weapons industries and exports?

Maybe you are using "industrialised" in an unusual way. It's not even common to distinguish between light and heavy industry when assessing the level of industrialisation. It just means that a country's economy is transformed from being based mainly on agriculture to being being based on manufacturing.

We are long past the industrialising state.

[GandalfTheGrey]

. No doubt with FPTP
he'd have lost.

LOL thats just absurd. Abbott would have won with a far bigger margin with FPTP. The electorates of Indi and Fairfax would have gone to the Libs just off the top of my head - and so many other seats which labor only won with Green preferences.

[colliric]

LOL thats just absurd. Abbott would have won with a far bigger margin with FPTP. The electorates of Indi and Fairfax would have gone to the Libs just off the top of my head - and so many other seats which labor only won with Green preferences.

But given his immigration policies are even more open than the Greens policies(because he supports cheap labour!), no doubt he took casual votes from them too...

His party looks conservative.... But the policies are a mixture.

In related issues?(which may warrant a new thread, but this one seems to have drifted more generally towards election discussion)
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-na ... 2wmpp.html

Anyone else think Senator Ludlam sounds exceptionally perculiar?

If the votes are indeed lost, either the first result should count, or there should be a re-election. We have plenty of time. What's Senator Ludlam's rush? Where is this sudden desperation to find the votes coming from? it's dang perculiar to me. Sounds suspiciously like he's trying to push events "in his direction".

Obviously Palmer won the first one, so he's naturally going to fight to have that result kept, but this aggression/pressure attempt from the Greens looks both desperate and perculiar. What's the real motivation?

If the AEC says the votes were lost and they "don't think they'll ever be found", the logical conclusion is to declare either the first count, or the incomplete second count and allow a re-election challenge to proceed.

Unless Ludlam believes a new WA senate election would mean the Greens would lose more seats? Why so afraid of a second election? Isn't this party supposed to support a strong Democracy?