"cp" wrote in message
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:36:08 +1000, Terryc
wrote:

jh wrote:

If I was the PM I'd forget about the murrey darling basin and build
each state a couple of desal plants whioch are about $350 million
each. Each plant in Perth caters for about 300,000 people.

1) Little John would rather funds parties than build any infrastruture
for Australia. his legacy is going to be the squandering of the good
economic times that PK lined up.

Water is the responceability of the states as is the hospital system
which is in a god awful mess.

So why is John Howard trying to take over control of the Murray-Darling
Basin?

2) Climate change. To power desal, you are going to need a new coal
fired power station. Nukes are not going to happen in my lifetime.

Power stations are owned by the state governemets, blame them for coal
power station building.

So why did John Howard come home form his last trip to the US and announce
within a week that Australia would have 20+ Nuclear Power Staions?

"Terryc" wrote in message
cp wrote:

Once
you pay off your debts you really ought to save for your final years
not continue to spend like there is no tomorrow.

4) Yawn, I take it you're a naive kid .

I suspect this person is an old codger who has never voted anything but
Liberal in its life and doesn't want to think about anything political. I
think politics is the best spectator sport on the planet.

The states are racking in the money from the GST.

5) Lol, you really haven't tried to educate yourself have you. If you had,
you might know what the states gave up in return for getting the GST
income.

But unfortunaltey they haven't given up many of the taxes that they were
supposed to in order to get the GST money.

"Jonno" wrote in message

Damn the lack of water is not my fault. We shouldn't need tanks, except to
cause a revolution. They sell our utilities, and then because its a scarce
resource rip us of, in the meantime looking for other ways of taxing the
people.

But I doubt whether selling utilities would make any real difference.
Unless we get more rain then utilities sold or still State owned won't have
more water. It's no use building dams if there is less rainfall with which
to fill them.

Terryc wrote:
cp wrote:

Water is the responceability of the states as is the hospital system
which is in a god awful mess.

I take it that you have been out of the country.


You need water to have a garden. Without it you are stuffed.

I've got two water tanks. How many do you have?

You can also choose plants that require little water.

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:09:48 +1000, Terryc
wrote:

cp wrote:

And the really disturbing thing about this surplus is that most Australians
are too tied to one political party to use their heads and actually think.

Pot kettle black.

I take it that reading comprehension isn't a strong point with you.


When are you going to understand that the federal
government has nothing to do with the power, water and hospitals in
each state of Australia.

Lol, you really should make an effort to stop reading your party's
propaganda and connect withthe real world.


You can only save so much.

But you said that was what you should do for your old age.

You are kidding right. They left the country in a real mess. Debt
levels were so high that its only now they've been paid off.

lol, you really need to learn to read and analyse for yourself. Haven't
you worked it out yet. Every time the libs get into power, they have a
party and cause long term economic mayhem. Then the voters put labor
into power who do the hard years and turn the ship around. Hang onto
your hats, we are about to go there again.

My house repayments under the 17% of PK were far less that what I have
to pay now. explain that one.

Easy, you are a fool and probably have huge credit card debt.
You really need to get off your high horse and get out of the garden
news groups. Your crap belongs in aus.politics where all the loonies
live.

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 17:07:30 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

"cp" wrote in message
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 11:55:44 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

To pay off ALP debt

The only other way is to raise taxes which no one likes.

No it's not. One of the ways that we could have improved services right
across the board is if the current Goverment actually decided to DO
something with the huge surplus it is sitting on.

States run the power grid, water, etc...

Sigh!


And the really disturbing thing about this surplus is that most
Australians
are too tied to one political party to use their heads and actually think.

Pot kettle black. When are you going to understand that the federal
government has nothing to do with the power, water and hospitals in
each state of Australia. These are all run or sold by state
governments. Both Lib and ALP when in power have had to sell off
assets to pay for infrastructure.

You can only save so much. Rudd is going to have more waste with too
many departments which isn't going to be cheap. He's not said how he's
going to pay for it all. Meanwhile the Lib state leader here is a fool
and carpenter our state premier has ministers that have been caught up
in the corruption scandles.

The surplus the Government is currently sitting on came about as a direct
result of all the economic reforms put in place under the governments of
Hawke and Keating. There is actually no evidence that the Howard
government

You are kidding right.

No, I'm not kidding, I know what economic reforms they instituted.

If you don't believe me, you might believe Gerard Henderson. He is the
darling of all Right Wingers and is a stalwart of that wonderful right wing
think tank, "The Syndey Institute". Even though he is right wing, even he
can't bring himself to denigrate the legacy of the Hawke/Keating years.
http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au....php?ghwcID=77

They left the country in a real mess.

Nope. They activated a huge number of economic reforms that left Australia
in a postion where we could have a boom (or what is supposed to be a boom.
I have my doubts about that given that we can't any longer get accurate
unemployment figures now that anyone who works for an hour a week is counted
as being "employed". I just can't believe that anyone who works one hour a
week is in any way actively or gainfully "employed"

More fool you then.
Go play in aus.pol,itics where all your silly mates are posting and
keep your crap out of aus.gardens.

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:01:34 +1000, Terryc
wrote:

cp wrote:
Water, power, hospitals are the responceability of the states not the
federal government.

1) at least try to keep up with what is happening politically.
Responsibilities change.

What doe sthis have to do with aus.gardens.
Post your nonsense in aus.politics and not in here which is
aus.gardens about plants not crappy politics.

Snip mindless filthy crap.

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 17:11:14 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

"Terryc" wrote in message
cp wrote:

Once
you pay off your debts you really ought to save for your final years
not continue to spend like there is no tomorrow.

4) Yawn, I take it you're a naive kid .

I suspect this person is an old codger who has never voted anything but
Liberal in its life and doesn't want to think about anything political. I
think politics is the best spectator sport on the planet.

Member of the ALP for 30 years. Even been in parliament for the ALP 30
years ago. Came to my senses like that other ALP candidate who is
supporting the LIBS and has seen the hate like some of you have
posted.

Now go play in aus.politics where you belong.


The states are racking in the money from the GST.

5) Lol, you really haven't tried to educate yourself have you. If you had,
you might know what the states gave up in return for getting the GST
income.

But unfortunaltey they haven't given up many of the taxes that they were
supposed to in order to get the GST money.

That is the state ALP that was suppose to remove stamp duty. Blame
them. There was a big argument about this in ALP ranks a few years ago
but was shouted down by my own members. I'll go public if I continue
to see the crap that is going on. Rudd has clearly gone too far amd
worse than Keating.

Opposition leaders across Australia wether they are libs or alp are
quite ordinary to say the least.

Dont be silly. It wasnt the USA. It was the exclusive brethren who told
him to fog nuclear They paid for electioneering after all.
Pauline causes community responses. Which is better than no damn
response at all.
FarmI wrote:
"cp" wrote in message
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:36:08 +1000, Terryc
wrote:

jh wrote:

If I was the PM I'd forget about the murrey darling basin and build
each state a couple of desal plants whioch are about $350 million
each. Each plant in Perth caters for about 300,000 people.
1) Little John would rather funds parties than build any infrastruture
for Australia. his legacy is going to be the squandering of the good
economic times that PK lined up.
Water is the responceability of the states as is the hospital system
which is in a god awful mess.

So why is John Howard trying to take over control of the Murray-Darling
Basin?

2) Climate change. To power desal, you are going to need a new coal
fired power station. Nukes are not going to happen in my lifetime.
Power stations are owned by the state governemets, blame them for coal
power station building.

So why did John Howard come home form his last trip to the US and announce
within a week that Australia would have 20+ Nuclear Power Staions?

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:03:17 +1000, Terryc
wrote:

cp wrote:

Water is the responceability of the states as is the hospital system
which is in a god awful mess.

I take it that you have been out of the country.

The hospital system is a real disaster story. My neighbour died
recently and was sent home time and time again. Nursing homes are a
shambles. My neighbours children in the end cared for him. They had to
rent a special bed for him but in the end it was cheaper to buy a
special bed than rent one.

If your pet is in agony there is a green liquid that ends the pets
life with digfnity. Dying in agony I would not wish it on my worse
enemy.

If there wasa a referendum on this ussue the public would be for it
but poltitions are to scared about the clergy and their reactions to
go through with it. The NT a while back allowed this but the Federal
government put a bill into parliament and the dumb ass pollies from
all the major parties could vote yay or nay and they wer so worried
about the clergy they supported the bill to over turn the NT
government.

Personally I'd like to see the church stay the hell out of politics.
Both Rudd and Howard are to close the church IMHO.

A suggestion if I may. Post anything to do with politics in
aus.politics Somehow the loonies from aus.politics have made their way
to this news group. This debate has gone on too long as it is.



You need water to have a garden. Without it you are stuffed.

I've got two water tanks. How many do you have?

Bore water for us. Cost $5000 and two weeks later the state government
over here imposed that we can only use it 3 days a week. The way
things are going if I was to waste my money on a water tank they'll
impose that I only use it a couple times a week


You can also choose plants that require little water.

The only plants I grow are one sthat bring in food like vegi's and
fruit plants. This saves me a fortune on buying at the local store.
My food lasts longer and has taste with no poisons unlike what is sold
just about everywhere.

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 17:07:48 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

"cp" wrote in message
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:36:08 +1000, Terryc
wrote:

jh wrote:

If I was the PM I'd forget about the murrey darling basin and build
each state a couple of desal plants whioch are about $350 million
each. Each plant in Perth caters for about 300,000 people.

1) Little John would rather funds parties than build any infrastruture
for Australia. his legacy is going to be the squandering of the good
economic times that PK lined up.

Water is the responceability of the states as is the hospital system
which is in a god awful mess.

So why is John Howard trying to take over control of the Murray-Darling
Basin?

Personnaly I think he's made a mistake. Time for him to retire
gracefully. I don't like Costello. I would like to see Turnball or
Bishop in the leadership pack with Downer.


2) Climate change. To power desal, you are going to need a new coal
fired power station. Nukes are not going to happen in my lifetime.

Power stations are owned by the state governemets, blame them for coal
power station building.

So why did John Howard come home form his last trip to the US and announce
within a week that Australia would have 20+ Nuclear Power Staions?

Its a good idea. I'm all for nuclear power. Safe as houses.
Martin Fergerson is for nuclear power and he's from the ALP.
At least Rudd will allow Nuclear mining at long last. Now to get the
other states on board so they can mine urainium as well.

There are 443 uranium nuclear power stations in the world. The French
get 75% of power from nuclear reactors and sell power to Germany who
is against Nuclear power but is quite happy to pay for the power that
comes from nuclear.

I don't know why people are against it, maybe it comes from the silly
arms race between the then USSR and the US.

Longer term though helium-3 will be the way to go. 6 tonnes helium-3
would give enough fuel to run the whole of the UK for a year.

Helium-3 is on the moon which is why they are all eager to get back to
the moon.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/rus...788144227.html

Helium-3 is a non-radioactive isotope of helium that can be used in
nuclear fusion.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117....html?from=rss

I am afraid that nuclear power may be safe, but when its on a fault line
or mismanagement, then the system is really dangerous, and not just locally.
Have a look at the problems they have with one of the first nuclear
facilities at Sellafield in Great Britain, fifty years after the problem
its still not known how they can fix it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/cumbria/4559771.stm
Despite nuclear being safer these days, its a worry.
Australia is probably in a better position than most countries in the
world to use it, but despite its vastness, there are many people
suffering illnesses caused by unexplained cancers.
I know what I suspect.
Here is the link, and others from the BBC are interesting reading....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield
http://www.virtualnucleartourist.com...s/windscal.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire



I know one thing, In Tasmania our headmaster gave us iodine tablets for
"goitre" which was also an ideal cover for the radioactive fallout which
drifted over Tasmania after a nuclear test in SA.
He may have known that this would prevent problems due to radioactive
iodine being taken up by young people who were still developing.
We were lucky.


cp wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 17:07:48 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

"cp" wrote in message
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:36:08 +1000, Terryc
wrote:

jh wrote:

If I was the PM I'd forget about the murrey darling basin and build
each state a couple of desal plants whioch are about $350 million
each. Each plant in Perth caters for about 300,000 people.
1) Little John would rather funds parties than build any infrastruture
for Australia. his legacy is going to be the squandering of the good
economic times that PK lined up.
Water is the responceability of the states as is the hospital system
which is in a god awful mess.
So why is John Howard trying to take over control of the Murray-Darling
Basin?

Personnaly I think he's made a mistake. Time for him to retire
gracefully. I don't like Costello. I would like to see Turnball or
Bishop in the leadership pack with Downer.

2) Climate change. To power desal, you are going to need a new coal
fired power station. Nukes are not going to happen in my lifetime.
Power stations are owned by the state governemets, blame them for coal
power station building.
So why did John Howard come home form his last trip to the US and announce
within a week that Australia would have 20+ Nuclear Power Staions?

Its a good idea. I'm all for nuclear power. Safe as houses.
Martin Fergerson is for nuclear power and he's from the ALP.
At least Rudd will allow Nuclear mining at long last. Now to get the
other states on board so they can mine urainium as well.

There are 443 uranium nuclear power stations in the world. The French
get 75% of power from nuclear reactors and sell power to Germany who
is against Nuclear power but is quite happy to pay for the power that
comes from nuclear.

I don't know why people are against it, maybe it comes from the silly
arms race between the then USSR and the US.

Longer term though helium-3 will be the way to go. 6 tonnes helium-3
would give enough fuel to run the whole of the UK for a year.

Helium-3 is on the moon which is why they are all eager to get back to
the moon.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/rus...788144227.html

Helium-3 is a non-radioactive isotope of helium that can be used in
nuclear fusion.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117....html?from=rss

Jonno wrote:
I am afraid that nuclear power may not be safe, but definitely not
when its on a fault line ((Indonesia Iran and Japan to mention some)
or mismanaged, then the system is really dangerous, and not just
locally.
Have a look at the problems they have with one of the first nuclear
facilities at Sellafield in Great Britain, fifty years after the problem
its still not known how they can fix it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7030536.stm

Despite nuclear being safer these days, its a dangerous worry.
Australia is probably in a better position than most countries in the
world to use it, but despite its vastness, there are many people
suffering illnesses caused by unexplained cancers.
I know what I suspect.I know one thing, In Tasmania our headmaster
gave us iodine tablets for
"goitre" which was also an ideal cover for the radioactive fallout
which drifted over Tasmania after a nuclear test in SA.
He may have known that this would prevent problems due to radioactive
iodine being taken up by young people who were still developing. The
goitre tablets contained Iodine.
We were lucky.
Here is the link, and others from the BBC are interesting reading....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7030536.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield
http://www.virtualnucleartourist.com...s/windscal.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire


While this is not a gardening topic, it still affects all of us, if
they ever decide to build a local power station.
I figure Bass Strait is also in consideration. Especially seeing they
built a power line from Tassie lately...



cp wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 17:07:48 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

"cp" wrote in message
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:36:08 +1000, Terryc
wrote:

jh wrote:

If I was the PM I'd forget about the murrey darling basin and build
each state a couple of desal plants whioch are about $350 million
each. Each plant in Perth caters for about 300,000 people.
1) Little John would rather funds parties than build any infrastruture
for Australia. his legacy is going to be the squandering of the good
economic times that PK lined up.
Water is the responceability of the states as is the hospital system
which is in a god awful mess.
So why is John Howard trying to take over control of the
Murray-Darling Basin?

Personnaly I think he's made a mistake. Time for him to retire
gracefully. I don't like Costello. I would like to see Turnball or
Bishop in the leadership pack with Downer.

2) Climate change. To power desal, you are going to need a new coal
fired power station. Nukes are not going to happen in my lifetime.
Power stations are owned by the state governemets, blame them for coal
power station building.
So why did John Howard come home form his last trip to the US and
announce within a week that Australia would have 20+ Nuclear Power
Staions?

Its a good idea. I'm all for nuclear power. Safe as houses.
Martin Fergerson is for nuclear power and he's from the ALP.
At least Rudd will allow Nuclear mining at long last. Now to get the
other states on board so they can mine urainium as well.

There are 443 uranium nuclear power stations in the world. The French
get 75% of power from nuclear reactors and sell power to Germany who
is against Nuclear power but is quite happy to pay for the power that
comes from nuclear.

I don't know why people are against it, maybe it comes from the silly
arms race between the then USSR and the US.

Longer term though helium-3 will be the way to go. 6 tonnes helium-3
would give enough fuel to run the whole of the UK for a year.

Helium-3 is on the moon which is why they are all eager to get back to
the moon.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/rus...788144227.html



Helium-3 is a non-radioactive isotope of helium that can be used in
nuclear fusion.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117....html?from=rss

"cp" wrote in message
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 17:07:30 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:
"cp" wrote in message
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 11:55:44 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

To pay off ALP debt

The only other way is to raise taxes which no one likes.

No it's not. One of the ways that we could have improved services right
across the board is if the current Goverment actually decided to DO
something with the huge surplus it is sitting on.

States run the power grid, water, etc...

Sigh!


And the really disturbing thing about this surplus is that most
Australians
are too tied to one political party to use their heads and actually
think.

Pot kettle black. When are you going to understand that the federal
government has nothing to do with the power, water and hospitals in
each state of Australia. These are all run or sold by state
governments. Both Lib and ALP when in power have had to sell off
assets to pay for infrastructure.

You can only save so much. Rudd is going to have more waste with too
many departments which isn't going to be cheap. He's not said how he's
going to pay for it all. Meanwhile the Lib state leader here is a fool
and carpenter our state premier has ministers that have been caught up
in the corruption scandles.

The surplus the Government is currently sitting on came about as a
direct
result of all the economic reforms put in place under the governments
of
Hawke and Keating. There is actually no evidence that the Howard
government

You are kidding right.

No, I'm not kidding, I know what economic reforms they instituted.

If you don't believe me, you might believe Gerard Henderson. He is the
darling of all Right Wingers and is a stalwart of that wonderful right
wing
think tank, "The Syndey Institute". Even though he is right wing, even he
can't bring himself to denigrate the legacy of the Hawke/Keating years.
http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au....php?ghwcID=77

They left the country in a real mess.

Nope. They activated a huge number of economic reforms that left
Australia
in a postion where we could have a boom (or what is supposed to be a boom.
I have my doubts about that given that we can't any longer get accurate
unemployment figures now that anyone who works for an hour a week is
counted
as being "employed". I just can't believe that anyone who works one hour
a
week is in any way actively or gainfully "employed"

More fool you then.
Go play in aus.pol,itics where all your silly mates are posting and
keep your crap out of aus.gardens.

Clearly you don't remember but you did claim only one day ago, that I was
now in your killfile. But given the lack of knowledge you dispaly on
politics and recent history, you probably don't even know how to put someone
in your killfile.

Your lack of reply to valid and provable points is noted as is your
inability to to think outside the square set for you by John Howard.

"cp" wrote in message
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 17:11:14 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

"Terryc" wrote in message
cp wrote:

Once
you pay off your debts you really ought to save for your final years
not continue to spend like there is no tomorrow.

4) Yawn, I take it you're a naive kid .

I suspect this person is an old codger who has never voted anything but
Liberal in its life and doesn't want to think about anything political. I
think politics is the best spectator sport on the planet.

Member of the ALP for 30 years. Even been in parliament for the ALP 30
years ago.

You've proved a point I frequently make. Whenever anyone asks me about the
politicians I've met, I tell them that they are a real cross section of the
community. Some are brilliant and honest and some are as thick as bricks
and I wouldn't trust them to feed my cat.

Came to my senses like that other ALP candidate who is
supporting the LIBS and has seen the hate like some of you have
posted.

The only person here to post in "hate" has been you. You hate druggies, you
told Otter she was dreaming when a check of voting patterns would show that
she made a valid point, you called TeryC a fool with a huge credit card debt
and you accused me of ranting because responding based on facts was beyond
you.

But keep inventing and repeating the myths, it's something that the Federal
Liberals has found works well but unlike the Libs we can just go back one
post and check what you wrote and what others wrote.

Now go play in aus.politics where you belong.

Go stick you head up a dead bear's bum. I'll post where I like and when I
like and an old, hate filled codger who can't respond to a discussion based
on facts earns no respect from me.

The states are racking in the money from the GST.

5) Lol, you really haven't tried to educate yourself have you. If you
had,
you might know what the states gave up in return for getting the GST
income.

But unfortunaltey they haven't given up many of the taxes that they were
supposed to in order to get the GST money.

That is the state ALP that was suppose to remove stamp duty. Blame
them.

Clearly you failed to notice that I made a comment that it WAS the States
that were supposed to remove many taxes and Stamp Duty is not the ONLY tax
they have failed to remove.

There was a big argument about this in ALP ranks a few years ago
but was shouted down by my own members. I'll go public if I continue
to see the crap that is going on.

Please do go public. You'll interview really well on "A Current Affair" in
with the other dopy items like lift up bras and sad renters.

Rudd has clearly gone too far amd
worse than Keating.

Rudd has not yet had a chance to do anything except sit on the Opposition
benches so he can hardly be compared with Keating who made it to be PM. And
since we are talking about going too far, how can he be classed as doing
that? We don't yet know if he has lied but we know already that John Howard
has lied on many occasion with things like children overboard and the GST
that we would 'never, ever' have.

Have some sense. If you want to be treated seriously put some thought into
what you say rather than just reacting on the basis of prejudice.

Opposition leaders across Australia wether they are libs or alp are
quite ordinary to say the least.

Yep.

"cp" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 17:07:30 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

"cp" wrote in message
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 11:55:44 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

To pay off ALP debt

The only other way is to raise taxes which no one likes.

No it's not. One of the ways that we could have improved services right
across the board is if the current Goverment actually decided to DO
something with the huge surplus it is sitting on.

States run the power grid, water, etc...

Sigh!


And the really disturbing thing about this surplus is that most
Australians
are too tied to one political party to use their heads and actually
think.

Pot kettle black. When are you going to understand that the federal
government has nothing to do with the power, water and hospitals in
each state of Australia. These are all run or sold by state
governments. Both Lib and ALP when in power have had to sell off
assets to pay for infrastructure.

You can only save so much. Rudd is going to have more waste with too
many departments which isn't going to be cheap. He's not said how he's
going to pay for it all. Meanwhile the Lib state leader here is a fool
and carpenter our state premier has ministers that have been caught up
in the corruption scandles.

The surplus the Government is currently sitting on came about as a
direct
result of all the economic reforms put in place under the governments
of
Hawke and Keating. There is actually no evidence that the Howard
government

You are kidding right.

No, I'm not kidding, I know what economic reforms they instituted.

If you don't believe me, you might believe Gerard Henderson. He is the
darling of all Right Wingers and is a stalwart of that wonderful right
wing
think tank, "The Syndey Institute". Even though he is right wing, even he
can't bring himself to denigrate the legacy of the Hawke/Keating years.
http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au....php?ghwcID=77

They left the country in a real mess.

Nope. They activated a huge number of economic reforms that left
Australia
in a postion where we could have a boom (or what is supposed to be a boom.
I have my doubts about that given that we can't any longer get accurate
unemployment figures now that anyone who works for an hour a week is
counted
as being "employed". I just can't believe that anyone who works one hour
a
week is in any way actively or gainfully "employed"

More fool you then.
Go play in aus.pol,itics where all your silly mates are posting and
keep your crap out of aus.gardens.

Your fascist desire to tell others what to do is noted as is your failure to
respond on points made and your inability to operate your killfile.