From: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.australian
Subject: The victorian elections
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:41:11 GMT
Organization: werple public-access UNIX, Melbourne

Original Message From: ewartd@emu.insted.unimelb.edu.au
Subject: Re: Victoria Election?
 
> Well, we have a democracy right?  There's two choices, Buckley's and Nunn.
> Labour are trying to hold power but have little chance against the liberals
> campaign which, in a US Republican a-la-Bush style is fairly negative.
Their
 
What do you expect them to do, highlight the good points! Mind you the Liberals
would be hard-pressed to find any.
 
> whole pitch is vote labour out (& by the way, we're the only choice).  They
 
Sounds like a typical election to me. What do you want them to do,
ignore all
the past incompetencies of the Labor government? Oh please!
 
> refuse to give all policies &/or costings until AFTER the election!  They've
 
Name me one party that can safely do anything but ESTIMATE the revenue/expenses
of their projects. Without full access to all government departments and
information they do not have a hope.
 
As to their "refusal to give all policies ... until AFTER the
election!", there
- to my knowledge - have only been two. One was the policy on low-cost housing
and the other, well I can't recall. Certainly the main policies are out like
Education, Social Welfare, Spending (Budget) and Industrial Relations. What
more do you want.
 
 
> denigrated independents.  Claimed bizarrely unlikely dirty tricks (Watergate
 
They didn't denigrate independents, they pointed out that a vote for the
independents would result in preferences being given to Labor. Certainly they
went overboard with their campaign but no more so than Labor and their "look
out Victoria - we could be the next New Zealand!".
 
You cannot deny that democrat and independent preferences gave Labor power
both in Victoria and Federally.
 
 
> style breakin of an office - nobody's fooled there, brick through leaders
> window, etc)  Of course, there is one other party (the Democrats
having shot
 
I didn't hear this one - was it the break in in one of the shadow minister's
offices? In which case it could hardly be compared with Watergate.
 
 
> So the buffoons will romp it in.  At least 10-15000 public servant
jobs will
> be shed.  Everything not nailed down will be sold, especially those turning
> a profit.
 
Well if they are excess to our needs, then surely they must go, just like
many others in many other PRIVATE industries had to shed their work force
when times became tough. Also you are forgetting about the fact that the
Liberals intend to privatise some areas and contract out work. This way the
public servants can compete with those in the private sector for the
jobs and
if they are good enough then they will get the job. Sounds fair to me.
 
 
> Did you here the one about "individual worker contracts"?  Who needs unions.
 
Certainly not Victoria. Again, you seem to be a victim of Labor
paranoia. The
so-called "individual worker contracts" will be optional and can only be
entered into with the agreement of both worker and employer.
 
You must also look at who has most to lose under this system, the public
servants. In a majority of small businesses in Victoria there is little
or no
union on the shop floor and most workers are not members of a union. All
those who are in unions will obviously be so pleased to remain under the
centralised wage fixing system and not be able to barter their goods that
they would not opt for the "individual worker contracts".
 
 
> Send mail for more, especially less facetious answers.
 
Just did.
 
Cheers.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.australian