Quote:


Nope, in more modern times, that would be Whitlam (2 years 7 months) and then Keating (4 years 2 months). 

Quote:



Will they be removing the troops from Iraq?  Could you post the link to that policy please.

deepthought wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 6:36pm:


What did they lose by? Lots or just a few points/goals?  I know nothing about football (typical female) but it IS just a game.    Cheer up.  

Neferti wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 5:54pm:


Are you on drugs nef? One term gov means one term ,Whitlam was elected in 72 and wait for it again in 74 thats two terms . Keating took over from Hawke governed for 18 months and then won another election against Hewson. Look ive told you before nef if you dont know what your talking about its best you shut up. I stand by what I said the last one term gov in oz was in either 1929 or 39 , I'll check and get back you, but you must promise to at least try and comprehend becouse I'm starting to get sick of wasting my time on you.

Death, the Liberal party is talking up solar and promising to spend more on it than labor. They are regularly criticising labor for not spending enough. Subsidising solar power is an even worse idea than MRETs, but the punters like it because it feels like another handout, which is what the Liberals are into at the moment.

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2008 at 12:10pm:


And, where do you get this information that they are planning to spend more on it than Labor?

Are you also referring to calls for a 'solar continent'?

Death, there's been a few comments on the front page of the Australian. I googled this:

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2007/s2248087.htm

BRENDAN NELSON: Well, this is economic and environmental madness, Barrie. Firstly, by the way, we, generally speaking as Liberals, we get a bit concerned about means tests in a number of areas. The second thing is that, how do you means test an environmental footprint? People on higher incomes generally have a larger carbon footprint than those who don't. The idea that if you're a policeman and your wife's a teacher and you're ineligible for an $8,000 rebate to put solar panels on your house, which are still going to cost you another $8,000 to $10,000 out of pocket, is in my view absolute madness. It's also destructive of small business. This is a growing, an emerging industry in Australia that needs more investment in research and development, and it's generally been higher income people and when I say higher income, I mean $100,000 to $250,000 a year, the people that are actually putting these things on. So this is something that I really urge Mr Rudd to have a look at. I know Peter Garrett doesn't really know what he's doing when it comes to economics, but I think Mr Rudd seriously needs to re-examine this measure. It is contrary to all of the rhetoric and hot air we've had from him on the environment.