Beazley is actually quite an intelligent guy, a Rhodes Scholar. Unfortuantely he hasn't been able to develop an image that helps him gain the confidence of the voting publc.

A couple of elections back he made fairer access to higher education part of a platform, but Howard and his spin docs were able to hoodwink the gullible public over the 'Tampa affair'.

Howard has consistently lied and misled the public and I guarantee Australia will regret the day it ever gave his Liberals control in both houses. All they have done is push forward their own agenda at break neck speed, not allowing for 'real' discussion. And just look how often the Liberal appointed speaker of the house of reps so obviously show bias in his rulings?

Just in case anyone missed it - this doesnt just impact the 'battler' so howards govt can't be accused of being unfairly focusing on that end of the employee spectrum.

Anyone earning over 100k$ pa is also excluded from access to unfair dismissal tribunal support.

beazley may well be educated but he appears a true buffoon. Under howard most people feel secure because of stable economics and booming house prices , until they duff that up they will remain in power.

. I see/hear a lot of what you're saying re the Howard government and agree.

There is a degree of indifference and "rail roading" in terms of changes without real discussion which in itself is not healthy. However Howard has had to make some tough decisions in order to bring this country into the new century and with the union powers that be, to be fair this must have been difficult. Give him his due, he was going to do it come what may. It just remains to be seen if he clamps down on business's who abuse those changes

Kim Beazley on the other hand is a very poor candidate for the opposition. He has absolutely no debating skills, is extremely intellectually inept in terms of communication skills and has as much charisma as a possum in a coma. He's all wind and gas, would send a glass eye to sleep and make an onion cry

Julia Gillard on the other would be a great candidate to fight the opposition. She is a bright, intelligent, articulate lady who is capable of conversing with the worlds leaders on an equal level. Perhaps a bit wet behind the gills as yet, but with time and support she could make a very articulate leader. However as a female in this country she stands very little chance up against the old boys network. And make no bones about it, it is the females of this great country who are the most vocal about ruling her out before she even gets the chance to run. It seems Australia is not yet ready for a female in the top job, after all, only the blokes are capable of running Awstraya

So whilst Howard is an arrogant shit, Beazley a baboon and Gillard....errr...a girlie .....who knows who will get elected when the time comes

Either way, we're all hoping productivity will improve, job security will increase and things will be fair and equitable on all sides. After all, Australia has it worse than Europe. It has Asia to compete with.

And that's no mean task!

I quite like Howard, he's a pragmatist who can handle the press. As a polly you'd get used to being asked bone questions by the media; I like the way you can almost hear him roll his eyes, and say, "listen you muppets your're out of your depth - any more stupid questions?"...

I think all pollies lie to get their agenda in, long gone are party politics etc, it's all consensus and basically trying to win a contract to govern for x no of years.

I buy loads of stuff by mail; I've been extremely happy with AusPost thus far, always have been. I find them easy to use as a consumer.

I agree he can handle the press, but then that's what he's paid for.

Howard's manner and the "rolling of the eyes" you mention, is exactly the problem. He thinks all those who ask valid questions are "muppets", when in reality the majority can see right through him. His condescending manner is doing him no favours and will eventually be his downfall.

Treating valid questions with contempt shows arrogance rather than intelligence.

Howard should know "never believe in your own propaganda"

Rolling my eyes at this, u muppet.

I have to say, after nearly two years, we too have had an overall excellent service by Aus post.

Karma worthy.

I've sent you some, you muppet

Some meatworkers in NSW have just been sacked and then invited to re apply for their jobs at $180 a week less

The trouble is that Straya was ten years ago in the same position that the UK was in the seventies: beholden to the unions and militants. It's easy to forget that there were strikes just about every day: one day you couldn't buy milk, one day the buses were not running, another day the air traffic controllers were on a go-slow. And every day it seemed the flight refuellers were out too! The "clearing" up process has probably started and because of the entrenched positions on all sides will be rough but *someone* had to do it, sometime - and preferably before the place sank happily into the Pacific with everyone boozily chanting "lucky country"!

We need to understand the big picture before we make judgment. It's too easy to form an opinion on half of what we hear or see. I'm not saying what's happened is right [we don't know the full story so don't know]....however often there is more than "meats" the eye! [sorry, couldn't resist ]

On a more serious note......

To put a different slant on the above [and this is just a scenario]....lets suppose the meat workers in NSW were on $180 ABOVE market rate i.e the unions up to this point had screwed the company to a level way and beyond "productivity" [or job] worth. Who benefits from an over inflated salary? Not the company or the consumer that's for sure.

Perhaps the workers were forced to reduce their pay in line with supply / demand and market forces? Let's be realistic here, companies cannot afford to pay inflationary wages and still expect to compete on a worldwide basis.

I'm not saying this is the case. I'm not saying these people were fairly dismissed. What I am saying is it's perhaps a bigger story than is being portrayed. Or it may not be. Time will tell with certain cases

The press are right to print these stories though as hopefully these cases will go to court and set precedence for future company incompetence [if the companies lose]. That way, eventually the balance will become even between employers/employees and how each should operate in a free market. Also the reckless unions who have created an unnecessary stranglehold will become more balanced in their views.

All the organisations involved in employee dismissal are very foolish if they believe they can behave in any manner they wish without repercussion.

Although it looks like the power is one-sided [on the part of employer] , eventually these companies will be heavily fined and precedences set, and they will be held accountable to the point they wont be able to afford to sack people willy-nilly without paying for it dearly.

The test cases you mention J&R will sort out the professional companies from the cowboys. And if these companies are too stupid to see that, then they deserve to fold

Totally agree that Julia Gillard should be 'groomed' for the leadership/deputy leader job but also Labor has to get itself a damned good PR team.

Howard does what howard wants and claims that he has a mandate to do so, whatever it might be. The only mandate he has every had (that any leader ever does have) is to govern responsibily for the benefit of society as a whole and not enact any policy or law that would adversely affect any group within that society especially when it would infringe on their human rights.

Howard is a wiley fox politcally. My guess is he wants to hang on to PM until he has outdone Menzies as longest serving one ( bit of an ego thing methinx).

Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews is trying to shift the blame for the government's new workplace laws onto employers, accusing them of misusing the controversial changes to justify sackings.

Labor and the unions are reporting sackings across the country that they say are the result of the sweeping changes which came into force last Monday.

Labor said the government was merely pretending to defend workers' rights and Australians should not be fooled into trusting or believing the prime minister.

"This is not about employers jumping the gun, it's about a gun being held to the head of Australian employees by John Howard and his legislation," Labor's industrial relations spokesman Stephen Smith told reporters.

Mr Andrews' warning to bosses follows a case at Cowra Abattoir, in central-western NSW, where 29 workers were sacked and told they could reapply for 20 positions.

The ACTU said the workers would be paid their entitlements and invited to apply for one of the new contracts, which involve pay cuts of up to $180 a week and the loss of performance bonuses

Excerpt: http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=h...S&_l=4&_t=&_r=

Yeah, he was a nice old geezer. And he did alright.

I actually disagree with that. Superannuation may be a bitter pill for small business to swallow, but it's a damn' sight better than the outdated pension system that we had before.

As an interested observer of the UK's pension fiasco, I can now see where Australia's pension system would have led us if we hadn't jumped ship to super.