Well Done, and good luck!

I would also add that effort needs to be put into reducing the need to travel in the first place. There are many and varied ways to do this such as, working from home, anti-Westfieldification (i.e. making our cities more suitable for people who don’t want to drive to a mall to shop), avoiding flying. Petrol prices will continue to rise until the world finds ways to reduce demand, it’s that simple and it will pay off to be ahead of the game on this one.

This 2007 campaign has been so different. Head office is a little bit more responsive (even though it was WAY less resources than 2004) but the network of supporters and campaigners is vibrant and exciting. The ideas the Democrats are putting forward are total class and the other parties are looking shabby in the extreme this year (with the possible exception of the ALP, and then only because they have the whiff of victory about them).

BTW, don’t get too used to Sydney FC winning – Melbourne Victory will be back.

Spoken like a true Stadium fanatic…

This leaves a sour taste in my mouth at the sort of shady politics being invested by the Rudd Labor Party. I am not in Grayndler, but it does put another cross in the box…

Thank you for your comments. It’s great to see people reading my blog.

The Dems’ solutions are not simply to throw money at people. They understand the need to address structural and contextual issues when it comes to the poor. Creating support structures can assist people by providing access to services they would normally not be able to afford. It makes living in this income category more affordable. I left out some of the Dems plans because of space but you can check them out on their website.

Whilst all people may not stay within the defined category for poverty for consecutive years it is worrying that the overall trend is for more people to experience poverty at a stage in their life, however shortlived that may be. I wonder what the wider ramifications are.

Interesting that Saunders refers our unemployment rate when wondering why dependance is so high. People that work for one hour per week or more are not officially listed as unemployed. In other words, the working poor contribute to a picture of prosperity (if unemployment figures are a guide).

Did you happen to see Peter Saunders Article in the Oz on Monday?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22662559-7583,00.html
The main points being:
People below the (arbitrary) poverty line tend not to stay there for more than one year.
People tend to change their borrowing and saving trends in accordance with fluctuations in income so spending and essentially lifestyle change very little.

The Melbourne Institute study combines income and consumption into a single measure of poverty. It finds that only 3 per cent of the population comes out as poor at any one time on this measure, and just 1 per cent remains poor over two successive years. The study concludes: “Existing income-based measures (of poverty) are seriously in error. The results they give are much too high.”

I might also add as a response to you that homelessness is typically due to mental health issues, alcoholism and drug dependance. Throwing more welfare money at people is not going to solve any of these problems.

Any comments?