ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => News and Politics => Topic started by: stonecold on June 24, 2010, 10:30:51 pm
-
I'm bored. Thread title says it all.
Feel free to banter about who you prefer/hate more and why. :)
I personally will vote for Abbott, purely because I can't stand Labor.
-
libz 4 life
-
I'd Rather Rudd over Gillard - however definetly not Abbott - so at this moment in time I'd vote for the Labor (Gillard).
-
Most likely voting for The Pirate Party or The Sex Party - both against the filter and for R18+ games (not really their choice though).
However, two party preferred, I truly fear an Abbott government, as one person on twitter put it, "If Abbott gets in, we can no longer say, only in America"
So Labour it is. So far I *like* Gillard, she is apparently an atheist, or at least refuses to declare any religious affiliation, and I really like that. I thought the Christian address by Kevin and Abbott was absolutely disgraceful (coupled with their pandering towards the Australian Christian Lobby - another abhorrent group).
-
However, two party preferred, I truly fear an Abbott government, as one person on twitter put it, "If Abbott gets in, we can no longer say, only in America"
care to explain that?
-
I truly fear the number of times I will have to hear Julia Gillard say "Working Families" in every interview she does.
FFS we just got rid of Mr. "Reform"
:P
-
Gillard. Abbott is probably the worst candidate I've seen in my life time.
-
However, two party preferred, I truly fear an Abbott government, as one person on twitter put it, "If Abbott gets in, we can no longer say, only in America"
care to explain that?
I simply perceive it as the fact that so far several of Abbott's comments have been eerily reminiscent of inappropriate political quotes from America. Just FYI, the author of the quote was Daniel Burt (@trubnad).
It should be noted that I'm not completely against the Liberal party, I must admit, I would be a very difficult decision for me if Malcolm Turnbull was still the leader (to choose two party preferred).
"I'm frightened that Tony Abbott could become PM. Ironically, I can't vote, so I'm probably his ideal woman...." - Cal Wilson (@calbo)
-
Abbot has big ears, therefore.. I DONT LIKE HIM.
-
i will probably vote ldp
-
Gillard. Abbott is probably the worst candidate I've seen in my life time.
Haha, are we old enough and wise enough to say 'in my life time' yet?
Not Abbott, not an out-of-touch religious nut, please.
-
I can bet you, if this Poll had Rudd there instead of Gillard even..this poll would still yield similar results!
For the same reason stated by Mao, and others. Abbott, is such a lost man. In question time, always starts
off with one question, then sits down and listens to everything, for the whole of question time.
-
I can bet you, if this Poll had Rudd there instead of Gillard even..this poll would still yield similar results!
For the same reason stated by Mao, and others. Abbott, is such a lost man. In question time, always starts
off with one question, then sits down and listens to everything, for the whole of question time.
True, but I have much better feeling about Gillard than Rudd. For one, if she is going to "crowd-source" ideas and contributions from her party as she claims, hopefully we won't have any sudden changes in policy, such as waking up to "good morning LOL JK I'm Rudd and I'm putting on a 58% non-negotiable tax".
[Secondly, I place humour over ability to speak Chinese. That got old REAL fast, I don't remember hearing anything about it in the last years.]
-
Other: I'm going in, getting my name ticked off then leaving...
-
I'm in a difficult situation because I really want to vote for my current MP who's Labour, but I don't want Labour to win overall..
-
True, but I have much better feeling about Gillard than Rudd. For one, if she is going to "crowd-source" ideas and contributions from her party as she claims, hopefully we won't have any sudden changes in policy, such as waking up to "good morning LOL JK I'm Rudd and I'm putting on a 58% non-negotiable tax".
[Secondly, I place humour over ability to speak Chinese. That got old REAL fast, I don't remember hearing anything about it in the last years.]
Just curiously, what exactly have you got against the mining tax? It's supported by a lot of top economists and even the IMF
Totally agree with 2nd point.
-
Donkey vote for me.
-
Have nothing against Gillard other than the way the labour party reshuffled to get her into power. Probably won't vote labour (or liberal, abbott is a nice person but i sure don't want him as a PM). Ultimately it doesn't matter, my electorate is the safest in the country apparently.
-
He didn't deserve the knife in the back, he was a decent prime minister and at least deserved to see out his term. I hate how the f***cking corporates have been able to kick someone who we voted for out of office overnight. If this is a precedent for things to come then our democracy is screwed.
-
I liked his stimulus packages. I'll vote for whoever offers another one ;)
-
I AGREE fuck sake rudd may be a dudd but at least he had glasses and was ready to use them (makes no sense whatsoever but perhaps it does ?? mystery ??) and seriously who wants that racoon looking ferral thing governing our country if i was a leader of another country and met gillard i'd literally puke and swallow for the entire conversation. shes probly going to start a world war 3 with her looks.
Nice, base your entire argument on her looks. Hilarious.
He didn't deserve the knife in the back, he was a decent prime minister and at least deserved to see out his term. I hate how the f***cking corporates have been able to kick someone who we voted for out of office overnight. If this is a precedent for things to come then our democracy is screwed.
We never voted for the Prime Minister, we voted for the party. The leader of the party with the majority is merely offered the position of PM by the Governor General.
(The office of Prime Minister isn't even mentioned in the Constitution.)
-
We may not have voted for Prime Minister but we voted for a party lead by Kevin Rudd. I think that's close enough.
-
i dont know how to trust labour if they can stab one of their own in the back, crucify him and then have the guys to stab him on a back bench seat. absolutely disgraceful. i know rudd wasn't the best made some dumb decisions but did not deserve this. liberal for me.
-
We may not have voted for Prime Minister but we voted for a party lead by Kevin Rudd. I think that's close enough.
We voted for a party lead by Kevin Rudd and his deputy Julia Gillard, who would have succeeded him had anything happened to him. Would you have the same issue with this if Rudd had, say, passed away instead or for whatever reason stepped down of his own free will?
(unless there's some law governing what happens in this case, in which case ignore me)
-
We may not have voted for Prime Minister but we voted for a party lead by Kevin Rudd. I think that's close enough.
Since 1901, Australians have never voted for a Prime Minister, rather you've voted for your MP in your constituency. It's the vote of all the Members of the House of Representatives that decides who the Prime Minister (and the entire cabinet for that matter) will be.
Remember, the last time this happened in Government was rather recent. Paul Keating did exactly the same thing back in 1991.
-
i dont know how to trust labour if they can stab one of their own in the back, crucify him and then have the guys to stab him on a back bench seat. absolutely disgraceful. i know rudd wasn't the best made some dumb decisions but did not deserve this. liberal for me.
I was a little suprised when they initially turned there back on him. I didn't expect him to be taken out. The same thing had between Costello/Howard for years. Labor was a little ruthless in taking him out.
Though admittedly he did seem to lose sight of his original objectives and lose his convictions.
-
We may not have voted for Prime Minister but we voted for a party lead by Kevin Rudd. I think that's close enough.
We voted for a party lead by Kevin Rudd and his deputy Julia Gillard, who would have succeeded him had anything happened to him. Would you have the same issue with this if Rudd had, say, passed away instead or for whatever reason stepped down of his own free will?
(unless there's some law governing what happens in this case, in which case ignore me)
Thats true but the prime minister is the face of the party. It is he/she who influences the majority of voters (I think its far to say) more so then the actual party.
-
Anyway on the whole RUDD VS GILLARD issue, I think it's hard to distinguish between Rudd and Gillard when it comes to the record of Labor; Gillard has been almost as responsible for its failures, especially in relation to policies such as the Building the Education Revolution (of which she is personally liable for the wastage of billions of dollars).
They conducted most decisions together.
The primary difference is that as I mentioned before is that Rudd was the face of the party and he was losing many voters, Labor needed a change in leadership to try and maintain power. On stupid decisions, they both share similar amounts of responsibility. Lets see if it worked.
-
I think I will vote Danby first even though he is a little too pro Israel. Probably Greens second and Liberal last, the guy in my electorate looks like a bit of tool.
-
Thats true but the prime minister is the face of the party. It is he/she who influences the majority of voters (I think its far to say) more so then the actual party.
So would you have a problem if Rudd had stepped down of his own free will, and Gillard had stepped up out of necessity? You still wouldn't have voted for her in that case (assuming you would vote on who the head of the party is rather then on the party itself).
As for influencing the majority of voters, I don't think that's fair to say. I know this is only one source, but many, maybe even the majority, of comments on this ABC article seem to suggest that they don't see it as a betrayal of democracy / voters' intentions / however you want to put it.
-
id vote for Shane Warne over any of the party's
I AGREE fuck sake rudd may be a dudd but at least he had glasses and was ready to use them (makes no sense whatsoever but perhaps it does ?? mystery ??) and seriously who wants that racoon looking ferral thing governing our country if i was a leader of another country and met gillard i'd literally puke and swallow for the entire conversation. shes probly going to start a world war 3 with her looks.
Nice, base your entire argument on her looks. Hilarious.
He didn't deserve the knife in the back, he was a decent prime minister and at least deserved to see out his term. I hate how the f***cking corporates have been able to kick someone who we voted for out of office overnight. If this is a precedent for things to come then our democracy is screwed.
We never voted for the Prime Minister, we voted for the party. The leader of the party with the majority is merely offered the position of PM by the Governor General.
(The office of Prime Minister isn't even mentioned in the Constitution.)
well we do kinda vote for the PM coz thats the face we see spewed all over our television sets. It wasnt Labour 07 it was Kevin 07. etc etc ultimately the leader of the party persuades us to vote for him.... /her.
-
well we do kinda vote for the PM coz thats the face we see spewed all over our television sets. It wasnt Labour 07 it was Kevin 07. etc etc ultimately the leader of the party persuades us to vote for him.... /her.
So answer this q:
We voted for a party lead by Kevin Rudd and his deputy Julia Gillard, who would have succeeded him had anything happened to him. Would you have the same issue with this if Rudd had, say, passed away instead or for whatever reason stepped down of his own free will?
(unless there's some law governing what happens in this case, in which case ignore me)
-
i dont know how to trust labour if they can stab one of their own in the back, crucify him and then have the guys to stab him on a back bench seat. absolutely disgraceful. i know rudd wasn't the best made some dumb decisions but did not deserve this. liberal for me.
Although they were in opposition, the Liberal party did something similar only in December last year...
-
well we do kinda vote for the PM coz thats the face we see spewed all over our television sets. It wasnt Labour 07 it was Kevin 07. etc etc ultimately the leader of the party persuades us to vote for him.... /her.
So answer this q:
We voted for a party lead by Kevin Rudd and his deputy Julia Gillard, who would have succeeded him had anything happened to him. Would you have the same issue with this if Rudd had, say, passed away instead or for whatever reason stepped down of his own free will?
(unless there's some law governing what happens in this case, in which case ignore me)
no
-
i almost forgot...Labour continues its power next election... internet filter and censorship yay!
-
no
What's the difference then? Either way, you get a PM you supposedly didn't vote for. I think the real issue you, and people with your views, have is the method with which she obtained power, rather than the fact itself.
-
i almost forgot...Labour continues its power next election... internet filter and censorship yay!
True, I also find that very disturbing (it should be noted, there is a *small* chance that the policy may change, especially if Kate Lundy replaces Conroy, when Gillard makes her changes). No guarantee the Coalition won't do the same, as the opposition hasn't officially opposed the filter (only concerns from Abbott about its effectiveness), and indeed Howard also had plans for a filter.
-
no
What's the difference then? Either way, you get a PM you supposedly didn't vote for. I think the real issue you, and people with your views, have is the method with which she obtained power, rather than the fact itself.
wat views? i just said The leader of the party is the one ppl vote for because most ppl vote for a party based on the leader and how they present themselves to the ppl of Australua. so really we vote for a PM not a party.
-
no
What's the difference then? Either way, you get a PM you supposedly didn't vote for. I think the real issue you, and people with your views, have is the method with which she obtained power, rather than the fact itself.
The difference is that if the PM passes away there's no alternative, somebody has to replace him. But otherwise, the PM should retain power for his full term.
That's by the by, Gillard replacing Rudd isn't going to significantly alter anything
e,
so really we vote for a PM not a party
YOU may vote based on which individual you prefer, but the voting system doesn't take that into account (ie even if labour win 90% of the vote with Rudd leading, he still might not be eligible to be PM)
-
YOU may vote based on which individual you prefer, but the voting system doesn't take that into account (ie even if labour win 90% of the vote with Rudd leading, he still might not be eligible to be PM)
I agree with this. I personally support the Liberal party and always will, no matter who leads it. I'd be extremely suprised if the average Australian voted on the basis of a party, rather then who was leading it.
If you think about it, it is the leader who is advertised, scrutinised and praised by the media/public, not the party. But yea I agree with Russ, whatever reason (party or leader) you vote, the voting system doesn't care. As long as you vote.
-
I personally support the Liberal party and always will, no matter who leads it.
Why?
-
I personally support the Liberal party and always will, no matter who leads it.
Why?
good question homeboy
Family influence mainly. We have always been liberal supporters.
The liberal party is more business-minded/looking after the economy, whereas Labor primarily works for the working class families. My family/my Dads business is more suited to Liberals (tax-wise and other).
The introduction of the stimulus package wasn't looked at too fondly in my house.
-
If anyone wants a good definition of irony, it's this:
Considering Tony Abott's no sex before marriage in teenagers and then taking a look at his daughters:
http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2010/01/23/1225822/870061-dtstory-tony-abbott.jpg
-
If anyone wants a good definition of irony, it's this:
Considering Tony Abott's no sex before marriage in teenagers and then taking a look at his daughters:
http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2010/01/23/1225822/870061-dtstory-tony-abbott.jpg
That was the biggest Media bash up over nothing I've ever seen. And Gillard's comments on the matter also pissed me off. I don't really follow politics, so I don't know what other stupid things Abbott may have said regarding abortion, feminism and religion, but he got crucified over nothing on that one.
-
lol stonecold, I have no opinion about it, I just think its amusing he has this belief while his daughters are actually quite attractive...
-
It worked. For the second election year in a row, a lobby group booted the Prime Minister by convincing the bogan that its constitutional right to get rich easy was under threat. While it was the unions in 2007 pillorying Workchoices, the mining industry in 2010 nobly found itself willing to spend tens of millions of dollars on ads to save tens of billions of dollars on tax. With the ALP’s re-election prospects worsening by the day, the party booted its technocrat leader. A leader who sometimes didn’t speak English, and was allegedly threatening the bogan’s entitlement to make $150k per annum for holding a stop sign in a hole somewhere near Kalgoorlie.
In his place was installed Julia Gillard. With a strong background in both the union and maxtreme justice dispenser Slater & Gordon, the bogan is intended to feel that its unconvincingly stated intention of going to work in the mines is safe. Safe from a tax that it has not actively sought to understand, but knows that it does not like. Another key benefit of Gillard’s ascension to PM is the bogan’s vastly increased capacity to pass ginger jokes off as political analysis. After identifying that Kevin Rudd looked somewhat like Tintin, the bogan’s content ran dry, and it was forced into silence. No longer. With a deeper arsenal of ginger jokes derived from Summer Heights High, The Footy Show, and its friends, the bogan can now extend an unflattering analysis of its leader’s physical appearance well out past 20 seconds. Immediately upon her appointment, it trawled the internet for web pages entitled ‘ranga joke of the day’, then bookmarked it to provide fodder for its workplace joke-telling. The bogan likes this.
While the last couple of decades have made women in politics less remarkable, the bogan still cannot help itself. With comments more thinly veiled than Janet Jackson’s right breast during Super Bowl XXXVIII, bogans have availed themselves of AM radio talkback shows to share insights such as “if she’s never run a household, how can she run a country?”.
Whether the bogan will vote for Gillard is a different question. More likely, this new twist in an already circuitous pre-campaign campaign is likely to provide the bogan with ample opportunity to say things it believes are profound, without requiring any knowledge or offering any insight. It will say things like “I’m not sure if Australia’s ready to vote for a woman”, blissfully unaware that, in a parliamentary democracy, it has no capacity to vote for Julia Gillard (unless it lives in the admittedly bogan loci of Melton or Hoppers Crossing). In the bogan booth, however, the bogan will pause, concerned about the prospect of being told what to do by a women…
Whether applicable in this instance or not, the bogan’s homophobia infiltrates much of its mindset. Despite the cheap shots on offer, and his self-confessed fear of homosexuality, the Coalition knows that Tony Abbott needs to stay away from gender and sexuality in the coming months. He will face a new task; breaking the balls of someone who was born without them, and looking chivalrous all the while
http://thingsboganslike.wordpress.com/
Approved.
-
I don't like any of the candidates.
I'm not a big fan how Kevin Rudd was kind of "overthrown" because of party politics and because of the influence of unions (or so wiki says) . So, because of that simple fact im not a big fan of gillard either.
I know almost nothing about her qualities as a leader as well. So shes an unknown for me.
Liberal is worse...Abbott cant control his party... and has a bunch of kooky ideas.
So i reckon I'm going for the sex party.
Then once that's finished, I'm probably going to vote for liberal (this is a major strong labor seat... so if i make it more marginal we might get some more attention..hopefully by some weird twist liberal wont get elected here... but this seat has been under labour rule for like a straight 60 years... and liberal has only been in power 15 years since 1910) or a 3rd party like the greens.
When i vote this year, i think i will (unlike most people) not just vote for the particular head of the party because has better promises. I'll vote for the party with the better policies and see which candidates are standing in my electorate and which ones i think can best serve my interests. You could always do a bit of tactical voting to try make your seat more marginal i guess.
-
Other.
Although I will rank Gillard higher in my preferences. Abbott is a nut!
-
If I can vote in this election, like kingpomba, I'll be voting for the most competent representative in my area.
-
If I can vote in this election, like kingpomba, I'll be voting for
the sex party.
-
lol stonecold, I have no opinion about it, I just think its amusing he has this belief while his daughters are actually quite attractive...
they are very attractive lol... :P
-
dont like either atm, but ill vote liberal cos im in such a strong labor seat :P
-
^ i can see the chick spinning both ways :S
-
I prefer Richard III.
You get it because you're a nerd.
-
True, but I have much better feeling about Gillard than Rudd. For one, if she is going to "crowd-source" ideas and contributions from her party as she claims, hopefully we won't have any sudden changes in policy, such as waking up to "good morning LOL JK I'm Rudd and I'm putting on a 58% non-negotiable tax".
Just curiously, what exactly have you got against the mining tax? It's supported by a lot of top economists and even the IMF
To answer a very early post because of my absence, http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php?topic=27024.new#new
:)
-
You know, despite the well thought out selection-process many of you guys have for either of the two parties, depressingly...
The population of the poorly educated lower-class masses will be swayed by things like today tonight and a current affair and vote on media pressure.
Which, I think is swaying towards Gillard.
SIGH (at compulsory voting)
-
It appears, despite the ministerial reshuffle, that the incompetent Conroy still remains the Minister for BCDE.
- 1 vote for Labor, Pirate Party/Sex Party + 1
-
Gah.
Rudd should have been given Foreign Affairs. And labor would have gotten soooo many votes if she'd gotten rid of Conroy. Silly woman.
-
I just found out that Gillard is an Athiest, I'm now inclined to vote for her.
-
Meh, not even going to get to vote. lame...
-
I miss out by just over a week. Not sure whether its a good thing or a bad thing. I wouldnt have a clue who to vote for anyway. Maybe labour because they give out more handouts. :D Then when im a rich capitalist in a few years I switch to liberal.
-
Regardless of who you prefer, I think we should all vote below the line and put Conroy last :)
-
I wish it was during sept holidays then I could've worked at the electoral polls...dammnit.
-
go liberal! XD
however, i do think the labor party is slightly better off without rudd. i heard he yelled at people on a plane just cause the service wasnt gwood enough for him! WTF O.O
-
Well, you kinda can't vote for Abbott or Gillard unless you live in their electorate (which I don't).
So, it's more a choice of parties.
So I'm probably going to vote for the Greens for the Senate, and I'll probably read up on all the candidates in my electorate. The most awesome electorate - BATMAN.
-
I'd imagine that there would be people here on VN that would have the liberty to be able to vote for Gillard personally.
-
specially is you live in weribee or the surrounding area.
her seat is called lalor.
-
Really good election website:
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/campaignpulse/
-
The most awesome electorate - BATMAN.
!!!
-
Big Sister
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCUX9dS9_UI&feature=player_embedded
-
haha i found this quite interesting
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/07/29/latham-on-the-carr-manual-on-election-campaigning/
-
When will people understand that Abbott and Gillard are mere figureheads of their respective parties. Vote based on policies, not the leaders.
-
When will people understand that Abbott and Gillard are mere figureheads of their respective parties. Vote based on policies, not the leaders.
This is what I'm planning to do, however it's difficult when every bit of information I've heard so far has had absolutely no mention of policies. In reading the paper today....or yesterday, there was a thing on Gillard who apparently had hidden policies or said something about these policies. I'm only being ambiguous because the entire article had people's opinion on what she had done without actually mention what she did, hence I cannot make a legit opinion on it
-
It really annoys me how the election has been called, but they haven't even finished announcing policies. It makes it hard to figure out who to vote for, so the decision has to be last minute, which is not good. However, unless a really amazing policy is announced, I guess it doesn't matter anyway because I will be voting for the Greens.
-
Imma vote for Greens, then Gillard. Greens votes are going to Gillard anyways. Purely based on the fact that Abbott seems like a fucking prick and instead of saying what he'll bring to the table he continues to attack the opposition. If Abbott wins i will feel sorry for this country.
-
If Abbott wins, I may have to emigrate.
-
If Abbott wins, I may have to emigrate.
+1
-
If Abbott wins, I may have to emigrate.
+1
+2
-
Yeah, but in the case of Gillard, I think I could at least wait out a few years and see how they go.
-
You're probably should be starting to pack your bag, given the latest opinion poll.
-
I know nothing about Politics, but unfortunately I have to vote. So which of the two would give more money to the mathematical departments, associations etc. ? thx
-
Figureheads aside, can someone please explain to me what is so bad about Abbott's policies?
-
Figureheads aside, can someone please explain to me what is so bad about Abbott's policies?
+1
-
Okay, I guess the main thing I hate about Tony Abbott is his personality. But I'd say his failure at climate change policy is probably the Liberal Party's worst policy. Alongside with increasing business tax as a better alternative to the mining tax. Uh, WTF? I disagree also with the abandonment of the laptops to school kids. I'm trying to look up more, but it's really difficult, on the website they say things like 'we're going to restore budget surplus in 3 years' without actually telling people HOW they're going to find the money when over $6 billion has been committed to stuff already, and the election is still weeks away.
For full disclosure, I should note that Labor's Mental Health policy is a lot worse than the Liberals one though.
Don't get me wrong, they're both terrible (especially on immigration policy, which is disgusting on both sides), but of the two, Tony Abbott is significantly worse. And yes, that's partly because I don't like him personally (but I swear, only partly!).
-
If Abbott wins, I may have to emigrate.
+1
+2
-3
-
Figureheads aside, can someone please explain to me what is so bad about Abbott's policies?
Well that's exactly it. There are precious few. We'd love some policies to analyse, but the entire Liberal campaign thus far has been "attack Labor at all costs whilst contributing nothing of worth ourselves"
Pathetic
-
@Eriny
I have to attempt to disagree, please point out where I am mislead, but I am not a fan of labor's excessive spending. As good as money in my pocket sounds, I prefer a strong economy, strong job market and high standard of living much more than the economy going backwards.
I'm trying to look up more, but it's really difficult, on the website they say things like 'we're going to restore budget surplus in 3 years' without actually telling people HOW they're going to find the money when over $6 billion has been committed to stuff already, and the election is still weeks away.
Firstly, from what I can find, the government has a revenue in excess of 300 billion every year. $6bn is not a huge portion of that (5%), and a budge surplus can be easily achieved by SAVING elsewhere. From my understanding, budge surplus and deficit is not dependent on past year's budge (at least not directly), and it's not a running total. You can see from the previous link that labour has managed to overspend 25.6bn and 48.9bn in the past two financial years. Liberal is willing to stop spending money on non-essential crap (such as the NBN and the laptop scheme, which I will talk about later), and save money so we can start paying the debt already. If anything, that's a brilliant idea. In the meanwhile, labor is still trying to win votes by committing more money to get marginal votes off people who drive old cars, families with 16-18 year olds (FTB increase). It's a tried and true method though, more spending = more vote.
Not sure where you are getting "they are increasing business tax", because this says they are decreasing business tax from 30% to 28.5%.
As for climate change, if you are still thinking a carbon-trading scheme, you really should understand that the power generation plants in Victoria is incapable of being that clean from an engineering perspective (the cost will outweigh the benefits by much), and putting a trading scheme on it will simply mean our electricity bill will increase, so the government might as well just tax us normal citizens for it. What we really need is to decommission the dirty power plants and build new ones, but generally new ones take up to 10 years to build, and old ones have contracts that the government can't pull out of without going out of pocket (read: excessive waste of money). So I'm not sure how the Greens or any other 'environmentally conscious' party plan to reduce carbon emission immediately, because the coal fire stations (owned by overseas companies, of course) will simply tell the Government to piss off, because the govt is these companies' bitch.
On the topic of immigration policy, I agree completely with stopping the boats. These aren't refugee seekers, they aren't pursued by terrorists who are going to kill them (if they are, I'm sure US would have invaded that country already). They are illegal immigrants who want to jump the queue, and bypass the criteria. As a migrant, I'm disgusted, and as a citizen, I say a fair go for everyone IS the bottom line, so get back to the back of the queue, and if you don't want to wait back in your country, you can wait outside my door.
On the topic of the laptop policy, let me start by saying it's been FOUR YEARS, and I haven't seen any laptops been freely given out in Victoria. I hear in NSW they had some, but they weren't exactly free either. The only ones I've heard of in Victoria are the ones where students are forced to buy the laptops at ridiculous prices (some 200% of retail prices, without administrative access to the computer), in the name of maintaining a good school network. Network admins don't get paid that much, the price students pay for that abomination of a laptop covers twice if not thrice the cost dept of education would purchase them at, so where is that money going into? Network maintenance? Communication companies would be laughing with their new-found riches, because it's almost all pure profit. Hint: Excess spending.
And National Broadband Network, Labor simply had to buy the copper network from Telstra for some 40bn dollars. Telstra did bid for the project, and offered something that's actually acceptable and competitive at a much lower price with a much lower overhead, but since the govt didn't have control over it and Telstra wasn't too keen on censorship in the backbone of the network, the tender was rejected. So now, Labor wants to develop this NBN, headed by a previous head of Telstra, with a whole load of bureaucracy (read: inefficiency), and the prediction of the cost for a fibre-optic connection to a home is much higher than Telstra's proposal in the tender (which was deemed too high by the government). At this point, I doubt if anyone competent actually sat down and did the maths with proper advisors. This whole sham of a project reeks of EXCESSIVE SPENDING. Do you really trust the same treasurer and the same party to be back in the decision making position?
I agree that Tony Abbott is nowhere near as good as past Liberal PMs, he's a bit too out of touch for me, a bit too conservative, a bit too religious, and a bit too stupid. But you gotta realise it's the policy that makes a government, and the figurehead at the top doesn't have all that much power (unless you are Kevin-Rudd-Riding-Solo), and it's the cabinet and powers-that-be in the party that make the decisions. To be honest, I'd much rather a bunch of people who have successfully managed the country for many years in the past, than the Labor party (Read: bunch of idiots) who are known for excessive spending every single term of their leadership.
So no, I won't be voting Julia Gillard, because she represents Labor. I'd much rather a treasurer who can do the job (read: not Wayne Swann), and a party that can actually manage the country.
-
Figureheads aside, can someone please explain to me what is so bad about Abbott's policies?
Well that's exactly it. There are precious few. We'd love some policies to analyse, but the entire Liberal campaign thus far has been "attack Labor at all costs whilst contributing nothing of worth ourselves"
Pathetic
Disagree, because the entire Liberal campaign is "We're going to save money.", which may seem catchy for a few days, but given the attention span of the media and the public, it won't make them many friends while Labor is throwing money at everyone.
I'm actually glad that Liberal isn't promising that many changes, because changes cost money. They just want to come in, improve efficiency, save money and keep the country running smoothly.
So no, the campaign is not pathetic, it's necessary to a) keep the philosophy of their campaign, b) keep the attention of the media and public and c) win the election so we don't fall into a bigger debt. I'm proud that the Liberal is doing this at the scrutiny of the left, and not succumbing to throwing money at everyone. Let's hope they don't do that in the coming weeks.
To give an analogy, would you rather a conservative pilot piloting a passenger jet, or an idealistic pilot who wants to push the plane to it's fullest potential? Personally, I'd rather get there safely than possibly getting there faster but risk running out of fuel.
-
On the topic of immigration policy, I agree completely with stopping the boats. These aren't refugee seekers, they aren't pursued by terrorists who are going to kill them (if they are, I'm sure US would have invaded that country already). They are illegal immigrants who want to jump the queue, and bypass the criteria. As a migrant, I'm disgusted, and as a citizen, I say a fair go for everyone IS the bottom line, so get back to the back of the queue, and if you don't want to wait back in your country, you can wait outside my door.
I find this stance to be abhorrent - devoid of compassion, and flush with ignorance.
There are terrorists in every country, you dolt, the United States does not own the world. Sri Lanka had some of the worst terrorists (Tamils) and US didn't go near them
Have you seen what's going on in Sudan? People are being slaughtered in their TENS OF THOUSANDS, and you sit here on your ass typing from your computer in 1st world Australia and tell them that they're not undergoing hardships?
In most parts of Arabia, the 5% richest live it up whilst actively hoarding wealth from the other 95%. Here's a little known fact - the average standard of living in THE WEST BANK (i.e. palestinians) IS HIGHER THAN THAT OF THE ENTIRE ARAB WORLD.
Most of the people fleeing countries like Iran, Syria etc. are fearing political retribution. You can be silently killed for speaking your mind in Iran.
So don't you fucking sit there and say that none of these people have a right to flee these regimes. That is SO OFFENSIVE. I can't even begin to imagine where you get off with "I'm an immigrant therefore I can say what I like". Do the most basic of research and you'll see that there are hundreds of millions of people facing daily oppression. Did you know that in most parts of Africa sexual slavery exists and is a thriving industry? You don't call that escaping fucking oppression?
Now I'll calm down a bit and agree that there is merit to the argument that among the genuine asylum seekers are queue jumpers, but to my mind, I'd rather take in the queue jumpers with the genuine asylum seekers than forsake those brave souls for leaving some of the most horrific conditions you could ever imagin, when the punishment for being caught is most likely death. But you'd rather not imagine, would you? It's so much easier to just deny any existence of the problem and sweep it under the rug...
-
Figureheads aside, can someone please explain to me what is so bad about Abbott's policies?
Well that's exactly it. There are precious few. We'd love some policies to analyse, but the entire Liberal campaign thus far has been "attack Labor at all costs whilst contributing nothing of worth ourselves"
Pathetic
Disagree, because the entire Liberal campaign is "We're going to save money.", which may seem catchy for a few days, but given the attention span of the media and the public, it won't make them many friends while Labor is throwing money at everyone.
I'm actually glad that Liberal isn't promising that many changes, because changes cost money. They just want to come in, improve efficiency, save money and keep the country running smoothly.
So no, the campaign is not pathetic, it's necessary to a) keep the philosophy of their campaign, b) keep the attention of the media and public and c) win the election so we don't fall into a bigger debt. I'm proud that the Liberal is doing this at the scrutiny of the left, and not succumbing to throwing money at everyone. Let's hope they don't do that in the coming weeks.
To give an analogy, would you rather a conservative pilot piloting a passenger jet, or an idealistic pilot who wants to push the plane to it's fullest potential? Personally, I'd rather get there safely than possibly getting there faster but risk running out of fuel.
How are they going to get a surplus by cutting taxes and not axing any of the spending programs, genius? Further to that, they've put forth more than $2 billion more of their own programs than the net of what they're going to cut from labor. E.g. let their programs = y and let labor's = x, and y - x = +$2 bn
That makes a lot of fiscal sense doesn't it... Lower taxes, more spending... yet SURPLUS!!!
-
I have to attempt to disagree, please point out where I am mislead, but I am not a fan of labor's excessive spending. As good as money in my pocket sounds, I prefer a strong economy, strong job market and high standard of living much more than the economy going backwards.
I'm trying to look up more, but it's really difficult, on the website they say things like 'we're going to restore budget surplus in 3 years' without actually telling people HOW they're going to find the money when over $6 billion has been committed to stuff already, and the election is still weeks away.
Firstly, from what I can find, the government has a revenue in excess of 300 billion every year. $6bn is not a huge portion of that (5%), and a budge surplus can be easily achieved by SAVING elsewhere. From my understanding, budge surplus and deficit is not dependent on past year's budge (at least not directly), and it's not a running total. You can see from the previous link that labour has managed to overspend 25.6bn and 48.9bn in the past two financial years. Liberal is willing to stop spending money on non-essential crap (such as the NBN and the laptop scheme, which I will talk about later), and save money so we can start paying the debt already. If anything, that's a brilliant idea. In the meanwhile, labor is still trying to win votes by committing more money to get marginal votes off people who drive old cars, families with 16-18 year olds (FTB increase). It's a tried and true method though, more spending = more vote.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/debts-not-so-bad-in-small-doses-20100304-plnk.html
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/dont-ignore-positives-of-national-debt-20100613-y5uu.html
Or google "benefits government debt"
tldr; debt =/= weak economy, in fact the use of debt saved our strong job market.
"The report outlined that if no fiscal stimulus measures were taken, employment in Australia would be between 1.4 per cent and 1.9 per cent worse off, or around 150,000 – 200,000 less jobs by the end of 2010." http://www.current.com.au/2009/09/18/article/IGNUKFFTAQ.html
Again once again, debt allowed us to stop our economy going in reverse. Under the Liberal policy of economy management, our economy would have gone in reverse, and unemployment would have been much higher.
On the topic of immigration policy, I agree completely with stopping the boats. These aren't refugee seekers, they aren't pursued by terrorists who are going to kill them (if they are, I'm sure US would have invaded that country already). They are illegal immigrants who want to jump the queue, and bypass the criteria. As a migrant, I'm disgusted, and as a citizen, I say a fair go for everyone IS the bottom line, so get back to the back of the queue, and if you don't want to wait back in your country, you can wait outside my door.
Nice generalization. On average, 87% of asylum seekers are found to be genuine. Your outrage would be better off aimed towards "great majority" of 'illegals' who "have arrived legally, and overstayed their tourist, student or other short-term visas." http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/cib/1999-2000/2000cib13.htm
-
I have to attempt to disagree, please point out where I am mislead, but I am not a fan of labor's excessive spending. As good as money in my pocket sounds, I prefer a strong economy, strong job market and high standard of living much more than the economy going backwards.
I'm trying to look up more, but it's really difficult, on the website they say things like 'we're going to restore budget surplus in 3 years' without actually telling people HOW they're going to find the money when over $6 billion has been committed to stuff already, and the election is still weeks away.
Firstly, from what I can find, the government has a revenue in excess of 300 billion every year. $6bn is not a huge portion of that (5%), and a budge surplus can be easily achieved by SAVING elsewhere. From my understanding, budge surplus and deficit is not dependent on past year's budge (at least not directly), and it's not a running total. You can see from the previous link that labour has managed to overspend 25.6bn and 48.9bn in the past two financial years. Liberal is willing to stop spending money on non-essential crap (such as the NBN and the laptop scheme, which I will talk about later), and save money so we can start paying the debt already. If anything, that's a brilliant idea. In the meanwhile, labor is still trying to win votes by committing more money to get marginal votes off people who drive old cars, families with 16-18 year olds (FTB increase). It's a tried and true method though, more spending = more vote.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/debts-not-so-bad-in-small-doses-20100304-plnk.html
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/dont-ignore-positives-of-national-debt-20100613-y5uu.html
Or google "benefits government debt"
tldr; debt =/= weak economy, in fact the use of debt saved our strong job market.
"The report outlined that if no fiscal stimulus measures were taken, employment in Australia would be between 1.4 per cent and 1.9 per cent worse off, or around 150,000 – 200,000 less jobs by the end of 2010." http://www.current.com.au/2009/09/18/article/IGNUKFFTAQ.html
On the topic of immigration policy, I agree completely with stopping the boats. These aren't refugee seekers, they aren't pursued by terrorists who are going to kill them (if they are, I'm sure US would have invaded that country already). They are illegal immigrants who want to jump the queue, and bypass the criteria. As a migrant, I'm disgusted, and as a citizen, I say a fair go for everyone IS the bottom line, so get back to the back of the queue, and if you don't want to wait back in your country, you can wait outside my door.
Nice generalization. On average, 87% of asylum seekers are found to be genuine. Your outrage would be better off aimed towards "great majority" of 'illegals' who "have arrived legally, and overstayed their tourist, student or other short-term visas." http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/cib/1999-2000/2000cib13.htm
ah yes, but Noblesse, you're forgetting that the united states will save everybody and therefore there can be no oppression ever
-
Okay, I admit I have my facts wrong, especially on the topic of asylum seekers. My apologies.
On that note though, I still do not believe it should be open-arms all round. Given that the quality of living in the west-bank is better than the majority of the Arab world, I would argue that the quality of living in the detention camp is higher than the quality of living in the main refugee sources. In that case, the safety of the camp and general well-being is not all-that-bad, and I personally don't see anything wrong with keeping these people there while their identity is verified.
Illegal migration aside, there are many refugee seekers who have been in detention for a long time, if the boats are allowed into Australia straight away, in the name of fairness do you agree with releasing all of these refugee seekers as well?
On the topic of excessive spending, I am unsure whether Liberal is axing any programs or not, but I believe they will lower the spending in all programs. I say that without evidence, because I can't be bothered searching for it. What I have seen though is Wayne Swann's projection that Labor will also return to surplus next year. That I doubt, I don't have evidence for it either though, so I shall not focus on that. Personal opinion aside, next year's revenue (for some reason) is projected by the good sir Swann that it will be much higher than the previous two years, and even without cutting on spending both parties can reach a surplus.
My point is, whilst the government is in power, Liberal does not commit to stupid spending (such as purchasing the copper network from Telstra for the NBN). My bias for Liberal is based on their ability of being conservative with the money, and I'm banking on them not spending too much while they're in-term, compared to Labor's streak of spending throughout the history of Labor (this, I can get evidence for, but I can't be bothered searching).
@ Noblesse, I do agree that taking out a debt has benefited the Aust economy to a certain degree. However, in an international environment, the debtee has to have the money to give to the debtor, and this group of debtees is currently headed by China and Japan. Now I ask you, what happens when the economy of these countries falter? China has a very volatile economy, and I don't suppose we should all be banking on China being strong for our economical well-being, let's face it, if China goes under, we lose one of our primary export buyers as well as fall into a debt crisis. I would much rather if we can get rid of this debt than live on borrowed money/time.
Which brings me back to my contention, I can't trust Labor because they are prone to spending too much money on ridiculous things even at times when we don't have the money (not just in the last term, but most, if not all, of their previous terms). I therefore prefer Liberal, and as bad as Liberal is to some of you, I'm still not convinced that the Liberal policy is all that bad, and I still do not see how Labor (or any other party for that matter) can manage the concerning issues better. All I have seen are among the lines of "Tony Abbot is ridiculous" or "Liberal is a bunch of bullshit", which reminds me of the word 'pathetic' from the page before.
And this contention remains for this election, and all coming elections. And just putting it out there, I personally support work-choices given much of Australia is in a skill-shortage at the moment. I am strongly against Internet censorship, and I don't like spending money I don't have.
-
Okay, I admit I have my facts wrong, especially on the topic of asylum seekers. My apologies.
On that note though, I still do not believe it should be open-arms all round. Given that the quality of living in the west-bank is better than the majority of the Arab world, I would argue that the quality of living in the detention camp is higher than the quality of living in the main refugee sources. In that case, the safety of the camp and general well-being is not all-that-bad, and I personally don't see anything wrong with keeping these people there while their identity is verified.
Illegal migration aside, there are many refugee seekers who have been in detention for a long time, if the boats are allowed into Australia straight away, in the name of fairness do you agree with releasing all of these refugee seekers as well?
On the topic of excessive spending, I am unsure whether Liberal is axing any programs or not, but I believe they will lower the spending in all programs. I say that without evidence, because I can't be bothered searching for it. What I have seen though is Wayne Swann's projection that Labor will also return to surplus next year. That I doubt, I don't have evidence for it either though, so I shall not focus on that. Personal opinion aside, next year's revenue (for some reason) is projected by the good sir Swann that it will be much higher than the previous two years, and even without cutting on spending both parties can reach a surplus.
My point is, whilst the government is in power, Liberal does not commit to stupid spending (such as purchasing the copper network from Telstra for the NBN). My bias for Liberal is based on their ability of being conservative with the money, and I'm banking on them not spending too much while they're in-term, compared to Labor's streak of spending throughout the history of Labor (this, I can get evidence for, but I can't be bothered searching).
@ Noblesse, I do agree that taking out a debt has benefited the Aust economy to a certain degree. However, in an international environment, the debtee has to have the money to give to the debtor, and this group of debtees is currently headed by China and Japan. Now I ask you, what happens when the economy of these countries falter? China has a very volatile economy, and I don't suppose we should all be banking on China being strong for our economical well-being, let's face it, if China goes under, we lose one of our primary export buyers as well as fall into a debt crisis. I would much rather if we can get rid of this debt than live on borrowed money/time.
Which brings me back to my contention, I can't trust Labor because they are prone to spending too much money on ridiculous things even at times when we don't have the money (not just in the last term, but most, if not all, of their previous terms). I therefore prefer Liberal, and as bad as Liberal is to some of you, I'm still not convinced that the Liberal policy is all that bad, and I still do not see how Labor (or any other party for that matter) can manage the concerning issues better. All I have seen are among the lines of "Tony Abbot is ridiculous" or "Liberal is a bunch of bullshit", which reminds me of the word 'pathetic' from the page before.
I never said that all the asylum seekers shouldn't be vetted first. I completely agree with minimal detention until their status may be determined. But what currently transpires is excessive by any measure.
FURTHER - if you're going to say "I can't be bothered doing the research" - then honestly, why are you debating this? You're just talking out of your ass. It is pointless to debate you if you do not have even the simplest grasp of the facts, it won't lead to any new enlightenment - all it will do is expose your lack of knowledge.
-
FURTHER - if you're going to say "I can't be bothered doing the research" - then honestly, why are you debating this? You're just talking out of your ass. It is pointless to debate you if you do not have even the simplest grasp of the facts, it won't lead to any new enlightenment - all it will do is expose your lack of knowledge.
If you read my reply, you would realise evidence would strengthen my point, and if no evidence exists, the logic still stands. As for things I can say with confidence, I do not have time to dig up references to support my case. In any case, I'm trying to get an opinion out of anti-liberal about why liberal is so bad, not provide a compelling argument why Liberal is better than Labor, and so far I only have Eriny's response which I do not agree with.
Also, please don't degenerate into a discussion on 'valid forms of argument', I want to talk about this issue, not about how to provide an infallible argument. If some of my logic/reasoning is bad, please point out a counter-case (doesn't have to be factual, a scenario is okay) rather than "THAT DOESN'T LEAD TO THAT REDUCTIO AD INFINITUM" or something like that.
-
FURTHER - if you're going to say "I can't be bothered doing the research" - then honestly, why are you debating this? You're just talking out of your ass. It is pointless to debate you if you do not have even the simplest grasp of the facts, it won't lead to any new enlightenment - all it will do is expose your lack of knowledge.
If you read my reply, you would realise evidence would strengthen my point, and if no evidence exists, the logic still stands. As for things I can say with confidence, I do not have time to dig up references to support my case. In any case, I'm trying to get an opinion out of anti-liberal about why liberal is so bad, not provide a compelling argument why Liberal is better than Labor, and so far I only have Eriny's response which I do not agree with.
Also, please don't degenerate into a discussion on 'valid forms of argument', I want to talk about this issue, not about how to provide an infallible argument.
... You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you're unwilling to provide evidence to back your claims then no that is not a valid argument.
"Historically, Liberals have been good with the economy" is NOT a valid argument. In fact, it is incomprehensibly daft coming from you. Now either buck up and start evidencing your arguments, or stop expecting people to do your own research for you. "I don't agree with Eriny" isn't valid when eriny has provided FACTS. You've already conceded being wrong on other points.
We're just not willing to put in the time to school you on basic shit if you're not going to do us the basic dignity of doing some simple reading. The only reason why I even replied to your diatribe before was to prevent anyone from reading your utter bilge and forming an opinion from it because they thought you were informed (hint: you're not).
Conclusion: People don't like debating people who are ignorant by choice and expect everyone else to do their work for them..
-
FURTHER - if you're going to say "I can't be bothered doing the research" - then honestly, why are you debating this? You're just talking out of your ass. It is pointless to debate you if you do not have even the simplest grasp of the facts, it won't lead to any new enlightenment - all it will do is expose your lack of knowledge.
If you read my reply, you would realise evidence would strengthen my point, and if no evidence exists, the logic still stands. As for things I can say with confidence, I do not have time to dig up references to support my case. In any case, I'm trying to get an opinion out of anti-liberal about why liberal is so bad, not provide a compelling argument why Liberal is better than Labor, and so far I only have Eriny's response which I do not agree with.
Also, please don't degenerate into a discussion on 'valid forms of argument', I want to talk about this issue, not about how to provide an infallible argument.
... You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you're unwilling to provide evidence to back your claims then no that is not a valid argument.
"Historically, Liberals have been good with the economy" is NOT a valid argument. In fact, it is incomprehensibly daft coming from you. Now either buck up and start evidencing your arguments, or stop expecting people to do your own research for you. "I don't agree with Eriny" isn't valid when eriny has provided FACTS. You've already conceded being wrong on other points.
We're just not willing to put in the time to school you on basic shit if you're not going to do us the basic dignity of doing some simple reading.
What? I have provided fact in my rebuttal also. I have addressed my disagreement in terms of the budge surplus with evidence (Labor is also predicting a budget surplus, you claim Liberal is spending 2 extra billion than Labor, and so even by Labor's budget they're still getting a surplus, before any savings on spending [note, not axing, saving]), I've addressed my disagreement in terms of the alleged increase in business tax (with evidence), and I have backed away from my radical point of view in terms of asylum seekers. I have also provided evidence for the NBN. Have I missed something?
On the other hand, I haven't seen any evidence for why Labor is going to manage the economy better, or why Liberal is not going to manage the economy better, or even a solid argument against why my stance on the economy is invalid.
And at your request, evidence for my argument:
http://www.liberal.org.au/Issues/Economy.aspx
In the pdf on page 32, you can see the biggest deficits are in 1990-1993 and current, both managed by Labor. The 1990 southeast-asia economical crisis can explain the drop, and it took Paul Keating to kick Bob Hawke out and restore the economy at the cost of a massive international debt (page 36). The Howard Government managed to repay that debt completely, and then Rudd happened. Read through that section if you are unconvinced, which gives the liberal government's current policies (running surplus to repay debt, limit spending, redirecting revenue from sale of assets directly to the debt, lower interest rates). I had a search on Labor's website, and I have failed to find anything solid on repaying the debt (note that this debt is not interest free).
As for why the debt is bad and it is important that we pay it off, see previous post and the pdf, and again to emphasize, NOT INTEREST FREE.
So I'm still asking the same unanswered question, what is so bad about Liberal's policies? [Again, if you'll ignore my radical point of view in terms of immigration and border security]
-
On the topic of my radical point of view on illegal boat arrivals.
Firstly, do you claim that there are more people suffering hardship at this present moment than say, two years in the past?
Secondly, do all these refugee have to go through illegal channels?
Thirdly, how do you explain the recent spike in boat arrivals?
Take Sudan, for example, the war begun in 2003, the number of arrivals of illegal boat people were less than 500 per year in the period 2003-2008. This year, we're in excess of 7000. What's changed? And what is wrong in wanting to restore order and reduce the number of boat arrivals? Do you propose we promote boat arrivals instead? The Labor government's [lack of] policy has encouraged illegal boat arrivals.
On the other hand, assuming that arrival of these asylum seekers are not a problem. Should these asylum seekers be placed in off-shore processing centers as Labor has promised (and still haven't planned yet), or let it overflow into the Australian jails? Christmas island had 8 people in detention in 2008, this figure now has four numbers. There is no information on the Labor website with regards to this, so if Labor wishes to not stop the boats and accommodate these asylum seekers, where's the action?
-
FURTHER - if you're going to say "I can't be bothered doing the research" - then honestly, why are you debating this? You're just talking out of your ass. It is pointless to debate you if you do not have even the simplest grasp of the facts, it won't lead to any new enlightenment - all it will do is expose your lack of knowledge.
If you read my reply, you would realise evidence would strengthen my point, and if no evidence exists, the logic still stands. As for things I can say with confidence, I do not have time to dig up references to support my case. In any case, I'm trying to get an opinion out of anti-liberal about why liberal is so bad, not provide a compelling argument why Liberal is better than Labor, and so far I only have Eriny's response which I do not agree with.
Also, please don't degenerate into a discussion on 'valid forms of argument', I want to talk about this issue, not about how to provide an infallible argument.
... You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you're unwilling to provide evidence to back your claims then no that is not a valid argument.
"Historically, Liberals have been good with the economy" is NOT a valid argument. In fact, it is incomprehensibly daft coming from you. Now either buck up and start evidencing your arguments, or stop expecting people to do your own research for you. "I don't agree with Eriny" isn't valid when eriny has provided FACTS. You've already conceded being wrong on other points.
We're just not willing to put in the time to school you on basic shit if you're not going to do us the basic dignity of doing some simple reading.
What? I have provided fact in my rebuttal also. I have addressed my disagreement in terms of the budge surplus with evidence (Labor is also predicting a budget surplus, you claim Liberal is spending 2 extra billion than Labor, and so even by Labor's budget they're still getting a surplus, before any savings on spending [note, not axing, saving]), I've addressed my disagreement in terms of the alleged increase in business tax (with evidence), and I have backed away from my radical point of view in terms of asylum seekers. I have also provided evidence for the NBN. Have I missed something?
On the other hand, I haven't seen any evidence for why Labor is going to manage the economy better, or why Liberal is not going to manage the economy better, or even a solid argument against why my stance on the economy is invalid.
And at your request, evidence for my argument:
http://www.liberal.org.au/Issues/Economy.aspx
In the pdf on page 32, you can see the biggest deficits are in 1990-1993 and current, both managed by Labor. The 1990 southeast-asia economical crisis can explain the drop, and it took Paul Keating to kick Bob Hawke out and restore the economy at the cost of a massive international debt (page 36). The Howard Government managed to repay that debt completely, and then Rudd happened. Read through that section if you are unconvinced, which gives the liberal government's current policies (running surplus to repay debt, limit spending, redirecting revenue from sale of assets directly to the debt, lower interest rates). I had a search on Labor's website, and I have failed to find anything solid on repaying the debt (note that this debt is not interest free).
As for why the debt is bad and it is important that we pay it off, see previous post and the pdf, and again to emphasize, NOT INTEREST FREE.
So I'm still asking the same unanswered question, what is so bad about Liberal's policies? [Again, if you'll ignore my radical point of view in terms of immigration and border security]
I already told you that the liberal party's policies don't make sense
Their projected spending on new programs minus their cuts/axes to current programs = $2 bn
AND they're decreasing taxes.
Tell me how the fuck you get a surplus from that.
..
-
On the topic of my radical point of view on illegal boat arrivals.
Firstly, do you claim that there are more people suffering hardship at this present moment than say, two years in the past?
Secondly, do all these refugee have to go through illegal channels?
Thirdly, how do you explain the recent spike in boat arrivals?
Take Sudan, for example, the war begun in 2003, the number of arrivals of illegal boat people were less than 500 per year in the period 2003-2008. This year, we're in excess of 7000. What's changed? And what is wrong in wanting to restore order and reduce the number of boat arrivals? Do you propose we promote boat arrivals instead? The Labor government's [lack of] policy has encouraged illegal boat arrivals.
On the other hand, assuming that arrival of these asylum seekers are not a problem. Should these asylum seekers be placed in off-shore processing centers as Labor has promised (and still haven't planned yet), or let it overflow into the Australian jails? Christmas island had 8 people in detention in 2008, this figure now has four numbers. There is no information on the Labor website with regards to this, so if Labor wishes to not stop the boats and accommodate these asylum seekers, where's the action?
Yes because 7000 asylum seekers means the floodgates are opening. We get 240,000 immigrants each year who come through legal means.
Asylum seekers make up 2.5% of that. This number would not keep increasing so rapidly as there are only a finite number of resources to ferry the refugees to our waters, not to mention the difficulty of getting out of their countries in the first place, the associated risks and the associated costs. It would not rise unabated, it would cap at a number determined by these factors.
-
@ Noblesse, I do agree that taking out a debt has benefited the Aust economy to a certain degree. However, in an international environment, the debtee has to have the money to give to the debtor, and this group of debtees is currently headed by China and Japan. Now I ask you, what happens when the economy of these countries falter? China has a very volatile economy, and I don't suppose we should all be banking on China being strong for our economical well-being, let's face it, if China goes under, we lose one of our primary export buyers as well as fall into a debt crisis. I would much rather if we can get rid of this debt than live on borrowed money/time.
To be quite frank, IF China falters, we have a LOT more problems that our meager debt. However I agree that debt reduction is a good thing, primarily as it makes us more able to offset any incoming economic downturns. The Labour party has shown how they will do that in the next three years, the Liberals however must not have released their entire economic campaign as the figures clearly do not add up. In addition, a majority of their proposals have not been through independent proper costing yet, so the figures we are hearing are simply based on their projections.
-
Their projected spending on new programs minus their cuts/axes to current programs = $2 bn
AND they're decreasing taxes.
Tell me how the fuck you get a surplus from that.
..
And I reiterate, saving, not axing.
http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/PortfolioMediaReleases/tabid/71/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1092/categoryId/1/Coalitions-Plan-to-Rein-in-Rudds-Reckless-Spending.aspx
You can find the figures in the links in that article (Coaling savings 1 2.pdf). A projected saving of $42bn over the next three years.
Now, where is your evidence for Liberal committing more money than Labor? Or, if I have understood you incorrectly, where is your evidence that Liberal is spending more than they are saving?
-
Reading the newspaper helps:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/surplus-blunder-reveals-coalitions-economic-woes-20100803-115g5.html
-
The Liberals have actually promised to spend more in this election than Labor according to the Australian. Labor probably would spend more in the long run, but that doesn't bother me because looking after people is more important than looking after the economy (within reason). And yes, the ALP have wasted a shitload of money, but ideologically speaking I think it was good things to buy, just really awful negotiations, and I'm not really sure who to blame for that?
I think we also do need a national broadband network because network coverage is abysmal in Australia. This is going to cost a lot of money, but infrastructure is there for long-term gain, I think it's worth it.
I should note that I'm finding it difficult to defend Labor, because they are bad. But there is no way I can vote for the Liberal party.
-
I should note that I'm finding it difficult to defend Labor, because they are bad. But there is no way I can vote for the Liberal party.
Agreed.
-
then vote other
-
Sex party!
-
Greens FTW!
But their vote goes to Labour so lol to that.
-
argh greens
'Green prefer power to principles'
http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1235:greens-prefer-power-to-principles&catid=135:current-press-releases&Itemid=279
“The Liberals, Labor and the Greens merely disagree about how to spend taxpayers’ money to attract votes. We say the money would be spent much better by taxpayers themselves" Peter Whelan.... i like this statement
this is a great video that sums up the Building the education revolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXEj_1DuR98&feature=player_embedded
these are some good articles on Julia Gillard
The goldfish bowl of politics
http://www.corybernardi.com/2010/07/the-goldfish-bowl-of-politics.html
Swapping One Clunker for Another
http://www.corybernardi.com/2010/07/swapping-one-clunker-for-another.html
Would the Real Julia Gillard Please Move Forward
http://www.corybernardi.com/2010/08/would-the-real-julia-gillard-please-move-forward.html
-
[url=http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/tony-abbott-reopens-debate-on-burka-wishes-fewer-australians-wore-it/story-e6frfllr-1225901230710]TONY Abbott says he finds the burka confronting and wishes fewer Australians wore it
-
https://www.belowtheline.org.au/vic/
this is a great tool whoever wants to vote below the line for senate preferences... you get to see how it turns out if you vote above the line
-
this is a great video that sums up the Building the education revolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXEj_1DuR98&feature=player_embedded
these are some good articles on Julia Gillard
The goldfish bowl of politics
http://www.corybernardi.com/2010/07/the-goldfish-bowl-of-politics.html
Swapping One Clunker for Another
http://www.corybernardi.com/2010/07/swapping-one-clunker-for-another.html
Would the Real Julia Gillard Please Move Forward
http://www.corybernardi.com/2010/08/would-the-real-julia-gillard-please-move-forward.html
What a completely unbiased author...oh wait.
[url=http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/tony-abbott-reopens-debate-on-burka-wishes-fewer-australians-wore-it/story-e6frfllr-1225901230710]TONY Abbott says he finds the burka confronting and wishes fewer Australians wore it
..... Holy crap, we seriously could have this guy running the country?
I should note that I'm finding it difficult to defend Labor, because they are bad. But there is no way I can vote for the Liberal party.
+1
-
everyone has bias
its just which bias to you believe in
-
everyone has bias
its just which bias to you believe in
You must be aware he is a Liberal party senator. His bias is unbelievably obvious and yet you call them 'good articles'? We obviously have very different standards when it comes to journalism.
-
have i ever said i love the liberals... no ... however they do have a better foundation than labors, even though they may not follow that platform
i won't vote for liberals anyway
and anyway its his personal blog site... its not like its in a newspaper
i just said those articles are good because it points out the failures of the Gillard government
-
have i ever said i love the liberals... no ... however they do have a better foundation than labors, even though they may not follow that platform
i won't vote for liberals anyway
Never said you did, besides I wouldn't have any problem with someone voting Liberal anyway. Democracy and all, you know?
i just said those articles are good because it points out the failures of the Gillard government
And here is where we differ on 'good' journalism I guess. I view them as pure attack pieces. Sure, the Labour government got a lot of things wrong - all governments do. However the articles are only attacking, not talking about any of the good things the government has achieved. No attempt at balance. But I guess that is what politics is nowadays (I miss Malcolm Turnbull).
-
i would like to hear about the good things the labor government has done
-
Helped prevent the economy from sliding into recession?
-
i would like to hear about the good things the labor government has done
Kept the economy afloat while in the GFC.
The Apology to the stolen generations.
Recognition of same-sex unions
Withdrawal from Iraq
NBN - probably not that well handed, however badly needed
Dumping WorkChoices - not too sure on this one, I never really read into the differences between policies, however many regard it as the devil himself.
-
I don't believe that baloney... thats the old government trick that if you spend enough money during recession you prevent it... australia would most likely be better off without that stimulus ... and the resource sector probably had a lot to do with it and we started with a budget surplus and other factors...
http://johnhumphreys.com.au/2010/01/19/why-the-stimulus-was-bad-policy/
http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/08/31/growth-and-fiscal-policy/
http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/11/11/stimulus/
and then theres all the articles i posted in 'economics' thread of how stimulus fails...
-
I don't believe that baloney... thats the old government trick that if you spend enough money during recession you prevent it... australia would most likely be better off without that stimulus ... and the resource sector probably had a lot to do with it and we started with a budget surplus and other factors...
http://johnhumphreys.com.au/2010/01/19/why-the-stimulus-was-bad-policy/
http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/08/31/growth-and-fiscal-policy/
http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/11/11/stimulus/
and then theres all the articles i posted in 'economics' thread of how stimulus fails...
All I can say on this is that I don't have enough economic training to really comment. My first year Keynesian knowledge supports the stimulus, but I will be the first to acknowledge that a much deeper level of understanding would be required. The stimulus was applauded by many prominent economists, as well as the OCED. However the saying, 'you can put a dozen economists in a room and get thirteen different opinions' comes to mind...
-
i would like to hear about the good things the labor government has done
Kept the economy afloat while in the GFC.
The Apology to the stolen generations.
Recognition of same-sex unions
Withdrawal from Iraq
NBN - probably not that well handed, however badly needed
Dumping WorkChoices - not too sure on this one, I never really read into the differences between policies, however many regard it as the devil himself.
The Organ Donor Register
Ratifying Kyoto
-
i would like to hear about the good things the labor government has done
Kept the economy afloat while in the GFC.
The Apology to the stolen generations.
Recognition of same-sex unions
Withdrawal from Iraq
NBN - probably not that well handed, however badly needed
Dumping WorkChoices - not too sure on this one, I never really read into the differences between policies, however many regard it as the devil himself.
yes the apology was good... a bit late ... but it was only just symbolism
australia should get out of the war even afghanistan but of course we are supporting america... and the whole war is a failure...
ndn is a disaster... and we probably won't feel that much of a difference in the city where we already have relatively fast internet... government run broadband yuck... and anyway i reckon when they put the filter in.. it will slow it down so the effect would be negletable..
dumping workchoices... hmm yes it was probably good in some way and bad in others... but fairwork is probably just as bad.. i haven't really looked into it... but we need to make it easier for businesses to set up shop here and to allow voluntary contracts between employers and employees
-
I don't believe that baloney... thats the old government trick that if you spend enough money during recession you prevent it... australia would most likely be better off without that stimulus ... and the resource sector probably had a lot to do with it and we started with a budget surplus and other factors...
http://johnhumphreys.com.au/2010/01/19/why-the-stimulus-was-bad-policy/
http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/08/31/growth-and-fiscal-policy/
http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/11/11/stimulus/
and then theres all the articles i posted in 'economics' thread of how stimulus fails...
All I can say on this is that I don't have enough economic training to really comment. My first year Keynesian knowledge supports the stimulus, but I will be the first to acknowledge that a much deeper level of understanding would be required. The stimulus was applauded by many prominent economists, as well as the OCED. However the saying, 'you can put a dozen economists in a room and get thirteen different opinions' comes to mind...
well all those economists are big government keynesian types... i more agree with the free market austrian types
-
and anyway i reckon when they put the filter in.. it will slow it down so the effect would be negletable..
Over my dead exceedingly upset body.
-
thats the old government trick that if you spend enough money during recession you prevent it...
Well, we did, didn't we? We're the only developed country in the world which got through the GFC relatively unscathed.
-
yes we held up pretty ok but that doesn't mean it was because of the stimulus ... politicians just like to claim credit when they do something and everything is ok even though without it it might have been great
although at the rate we are spending i would be cautious to say we are out of the woods since if there is another shock via china or via some these inflationary boom that the government has created then we are now in a worse shape to absorb these shocks ... although the fed is somewhat offsetting it by raising interest rates (unlike america's fed who is clueless)
"It might again be worth pointing out that the Australian economy went into a mild recession, unemployment did go up and we now have debt to deal with where none had existed before. The Government inherited a robust economy from its predecessors, our banking system had a small proportion of toxic assets to work its way through and most importantly, the Chinese economy’s own stimulus created the momentum for growth here.
And given that our own stimulus soaked up the equivalent of four percent of GDP, all of which needs to be found again which means tremendous sacrifices for years to come, we shall see whether the panic reaction to the mildest of recessions will have made all that much sense in the larger scheme of things. And all we have to show for it are a series of poorly constructed and vastly overpriced school facilities and some insulation that is now an actual threat to many of the homes in which they were installed.
The notion that Government debt on forms of expenditure that cannot earn a return on funds expended is similar to business investments which are intended to pay their own way through added productivity shows a chasm between Keynesian thought and a more market approach. I might note that there is no other economy in the world where the economics profession would even contemplate putting such stuff before the public."
Steve Kates
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/08/04/an-open-letter-on-the-stimulus/
-
hey can someone tell me if the liberals have said outright that they will oppose the internet filter? because that would be a big sweet spot because if they haven't then i guess they will just go along with it and then blame it on labor when they could of ooposed it
and these are two quotes i like
“the government is great at breaking your leg, handing you a crutch, and saying ‘You see, without me you couldn’t walk.’"
"Government stimulus spending is like giving yourself a blood transfusion from your left arm to your right arm and losing half the blood in the process."
Peter Schiff
-
VOTE BELOW THE LINE
FILTER CONROY BALLOT GUIDES ARE NOW UP
http://filter-conroy.org/ballots.html
-
https://www.belowtheline.org.au/vic/
this is a great tool whoever wants to vote below the line for senate preferences... you get to see how it turns out if you vote above the line
VOTE BELOW THE LINE
FILTER CONROY BALLOT GUIDES ARE NOW UP
http://filter-conroy.org/ballots.html
wo thats a great site...better than the one i put... it orders the numbers for you! thanks for the link ninwa
please conroy come last! although if you put labor first they will find another senator to support it... i hope people vote for parties that oppose it
-
hey can someone tell me if the liberals have said outright that they will oppose the internet filter? because that would be a big sweet spot because if they haven't then i guess they will just go along with it and then blame it on labor when they could of opposed it
and these are two quotes i like
“the government is great at breaking your leg, handing you a crutch, and saying ‘You see, without me you couldn’t walk.’"
"Government stimulus spending is like giving yourself a blood transfusion from your left arm to your right arm and losing half the blood in the process."
Peter Schiff
i found the answer
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/coalition-to-dump-flawed-internet-filter-20100805-11kmv.html
very welcome news
-
Sooo, it's about time I filled in my postal vote... Still not sure who to vote for. I don't like labour in general but I do like my local labour mp..
-
tony abott made a really good speech :)
i would vote for him if i was old enough.
-
where? online?
-
no. on tv this morning. the launching coalition speech on channel nine and sbs
-
I voted on Friday. Yay for not being in the state! P.S. I filtered Conroy (somewhat - I still preferenced him above One Nation and Family First)
Vote below the line, kids. There's only 60 little squares to fill out and you avoid crazy party preferences that are sucky and difficult to find.
-
Also:
" Deficit fetishism never makes sense – the national debt is only one side of a country’s balance sheet. Cutting back on high-return investments (like education, infrastructure, and technology) just to reduce the deficit is truly foolish... Indeed, if one is concerned with a country’s long-run debt, as one should be, such deficit fetishism is particularly silly, since the higher growth resulting from these public investments will generate more tax revenues. ...
Citizens should consider the legacy they leave to their children... It is two-faced to claim to care about the future and then fail to ... leave our children without adequate infrastructure and the other public investments needed to be competitive in the twenty-first century. "
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/08/stiglitz-the-crisis-down-under.html
-
panda says Greens ftw
-
NBN
http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2010/08/11/broadband-innovation-and-the-nbn/
agree with this
and agree with Tim R comments in that blog
"Yeah you see this phenomena everywhere in political issues.
People seem to assume that the government is a metaphysically given and forget it’s man-made. People are unwilling to perform the abstract thinking necessary to even consider the proper role of government and to understand the need for scaling back government intrusion. To most people, it’s incomprehensible to think of privitising health or education for example. For most people, it’s perfectly OK for governments to be giving rebates left right and centre, stimulating packages, heavily regulating or owning infrastructure and messing up our internet! etc etc
Just today, I read another comment by some moron in the paper saying the last decade had proved that “capitalism has failed”!??!? Idiots like Rudd and the clowns at Per Capita push the same false argument. But note that they get away with it! Personally I’d be embarassed because saying capitalism has failed is the intellectual equivalent of tatooing “I’m an idiot” onto your forehead. I would bet the people who make these empty assertions couldn’t even define the concept capitalism. Many of these people are probably so intellectually stunted that they are beyond reasoning with, especially if they are too old to care about seriously examining their ideological beliefs.
This comment shows just how prevalent ignorance and inability to think are in our society, especially when it comes to politics.
What the world needs in politics, is a widespread discovery and acceptance of the principle of individual rights and the principle of non-initiation of force.
The Liberals certainly won’t help here. In terms of the long term battle, the Liberals may even be more damaging than the hopelessly incompetent and destructive Labor party. Because the Liberals try to masquerade as being business friendly and pretend to care about classical liberalism while throwing out the principles of freedom and accepting compromising and populist approaches to politics.
While certain commenters around the place may have sympathy for the Liberals compared to Labor, I think it’s important to keep in mind how bad both parties really are. The trend towards statism and the blind addiction to government force won’t be addressed by Australia’s major parties until it becomes popular to do so. ie: Politicians won’t initiate the significant changes modern government needs. Moves towards freedom will continue to be superficial and a case of 1 step forward 2 steps back. Politicians respond and follow the crowd.
Regarding this particular election, I’m not sure whether it’s slightly better to vote Liberal or Labor. I can’t even be stuffed thinking about it considering my total lack of respect for most politicians in this country and the fact that I have a life to live and get on with."
-
It's the same propaganda Keating put forward to justify their wasteful policies: "The recession Australia had to have"
-
Ew, last week mum was listening to Abbott and shes like 'I am really enjoying him'
NO MUM, NO
-
NBN
http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2010/08/11/broadband-innovation-and-the-nbn/
agree with this
and agree with Tim R comments in that blog
"Yeah you see this phenomena everywhere in political issues.
People seem to assume that the government is a metaphysically given and forget it’s man-made. People are unwilling to perform the abstract thinking necessary to even consider the proper role of government and to understand the need for scaling back government intrusion. To most people, it’s incomprehensible to think of privitising health or education for example. For most people, it’s perfectly OK for governments to be giving rebates left right and centre, stimulating packages, heavily regulating or owning infrastructure and messing up our internet! etc etc
Just today, I read another comment by some moron in the paper saying the last decade had proved that “capitalism has failed”!??!? Idiots like Rudd and the clowns at Per Capita push the same false argument. But note that they get away with it! Personally I’d be embarassed because saying capitalism has failed is the intellectual equivalent of tatooing “I’m an idiot” onto your forehead. I would bet the people who make these empty assertions couldn’t even define the concept capitalism. Many of these people are probably so intellectually stunted that they are beyond reasoning with, especially if they are too old to care about seriously examining their ideological beliefs.
This comment shows just how prevalent ignorance and inability to think are in our society, especially when it comes to politics.
While saying 'capitalism has failed' is a little extreme, its certainly true that capitalism has yet to redeem itself in the face of environmental degradation and other negative things that have come about due to its presence. While capitalism can also provide an answer to many of these problems, it hasn't yet.
In fact, this piece is generally fairly poorly written, attacking people holding certain views rather than the view itself. I don't get a sense of why this writer believes whatever it is they believe, but it seems close minded to me to simply dismiss other people like that.
-
in regards to capitalism and the industrial revolution and the rise of factories and the impacts to the environment... yes we could have affected the environment in some way but without this progression and the living standards rising due to this, we would not have all the good technologies etc we have now... and anyway im sure and ive read good arguments that a market based aproach is appropriate to deal with this issue... like if we respect private property no one has the right to pollute the surrounding property and you know as the demand for increasing energy efficiency and reducing fuel based pollution increases, there would no doubt pop up industries for this that develop these new technologies without the government coming in and regulating everything and imposing restrictions etc...
i like these policies http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1154:global-warming&catid=101:policies&Itemid=290
http://ldp.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1226:environment&catid=101:policies&Itemid=290
ill try find those articles ive read
hm well its pretty much these points
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism
"Free-market environmentalism is a position that argues that the free market, property rights, and tort law provide the best tools to preserve the health and sustainability of the environment."
-
Former Reserve Bank governor Bernie Fraser has launched a scathing attack on the Coalition's economic management credentials.
Also, http://www.factsondebt.com. Obviously biased and selective since it's run by Labor, but the facts are backed up by external sources.
-
A confidential Treasury analysis has revealed an $800 million hole in the Coalition budget costings Tony Abbott has promised will add up to a bigger surplus in three years than that promised by Labor.
A new Coalition ad promising to ''stop the boats'' shows a defective immigration vessel responsible for the deaths of five Australians including a five-year-old girl.
The Malu Sara sank five years ago and led to a coronial inquiry and litigation claims against the federal government.
...
An ad broadcast at the Coalition's campaign launch on Sunday showed a still image of a group of immigration boats that were removed from service within weeks of their launch in 2005, because of the Malu Sara tragedy.
...
Mark Green, a barrister who represented the families of victims at the inquest, was shocked that the image was used.
''It is extremely insensitive, given that it was the Liberal government that presided over the circumstances that led to the tragedy,'' he said.
''To use the image is not only insensitive, it's offensive.''
-
Quote from Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey: "Don't expect me to deliver a super policy today. We have already launched a tax policy and that is enough" according to http://www.investordaily.com/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/9874.htm?rdeCOQ=SID-0A3D9633-A4E88C25. I would find the actual speech transcript but I can't, because the liberal party website isn't even loading.
It's just over a week until the election and they haven't even got a policy for a pool of funds worth $1.177 trillion.
So much for better economic management - look what you'd be getting for a treasurer if the liberals win the election.
Yeah Labor aren't much better but look at what the alternative (realistically) is =\
-
Here is something I never thought I would read in New Limited owned papers:
Therefore, the Sunday Herald Sun believes that, on balance, the best interests of Australians are served by the re-election of Labor and Julia Gillard.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/editorials/australia-has-been-let-down/story-e6frfhqo-1225905277135
-
Here is something I never thought I would read in New Limited owned papers:
Therefore, the Sunday Herald Sun believes that, on balance, the best interests of Australians are served by the re-election of Labor and Julia Gillard.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/editorials/australia-has-been-let-down/story-e6frfhqo-1225905277135
Wow.
-
Is the NBN a good use of taxpayer funds?
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2983739.htm
-
Just filled out my postal vote. Made me feel so... dirty. I honestly didn't care who I put first, I spent ages deciding who I wanted to be last though. I wish I could've put them all last.
-
great assessment
The economic risks of Labor
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/08/16/the-economic-risks-of-labor/#more-11964
and the way Sinclair wrote this is lol
Fundamental contradictions of Gillardism
"Raja Junankar – author of a fine textbook on Marxist economics – has authored an open letter praising the Rudd government’s economic stimulus package.
This remarkable letter contains no economic discussion whatsoever, yet purports to be signed by economists qua economists. Milton von Smith rips into the letter and identifies a fundamental flaw in the ALPs economic narrative.
If Rudd saved Australia from a deep recession, then by sacking Rudd and destroying our one and only saviour, Gillard has committed a crime against the economy.
So although the economists do not say it, that is the only reasonable conclusion that one can draw from their letter.
The economists have identified the fundamental thread of contradictory stupidity running through Gillard’s entire story on economic management in this campaign. If Rudd really did save us from a severe recession, he must be an economic genius.
And it must be one of the greatest injustices in the entire history of the human race that he was politically assassinated by union hacks."
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/08/16/fundamental-contradictions-of-gillardism/
i like this long analysis as well about kevin rudds time in office and his response to the economic crisis
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/08/16/rudds-economic-nightmare/
bring competition to the banking sector
http://ldp.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1254:greens-qfarierq-banking-would-go-well-in-venezuela&catid=135:current-press-releases&Itemid=279
-
I voted today lol, don't have a clue about politics so just put 1-6 randomly down the page haha
-
who was number 1?
-
no idea, i didnt even read their names haha
-
u shoulda just left it blank to be safe lol
or write 'politics sucks' across it
-
Donkey votes ftw.
Abbott = near the top.
A for Arsehole.
-
Donkey votes ftw.
Abbott = near the top.
A for Arsehole.
The AEC are aware of people donkey voting so the order of the ballot paper is actually now randomised.
-
this is so LMAO
NBN: Join the National Broadband Network
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO8pPhsUbak
The Chaser: Yes We Canberra! - Life At The Top
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G4ssGz85OI&feature=player_embedded
-
I realy realy realy realy hope for a hung parliament. It would be so entertaining.
-
Donkey votes ftw.
Abbott = near the top.
A for Arsehole.
The AEC are aware of people donkey voting so the order of the ballot paper is actually now randomised.
0.o Randomised. Finally ~
-
Why does my local member have to suffer for Abbott's crap?
-
Why does my local member have to suffer for Abbott's crap?
You are a labor man? <3?
-
I'm totally twittering this election: twitter.com/erin23456
I'm hoping for a hung parliament with Labor+greens/independents coalition. Then the media will call the Coalition 'the Coalition' and the new coalition will also be 'the collation' causing much confusion.
-
I'm totally twittering this election: twitter.com/erin23456
I'm hoping for a hung parliament with Labor+greens/independents coalition. Then the media will call the Coalition 'the Coalition' and the new coalition will also be 'the collation' causing much confusion.
hahahahah! :D I'm on your team.
-
Got no idea what gonna happen LOL
-
omg yes theres no clear labor win!
i hope the independents are good and will be against so much bad policies
but yeah this shows how many people are unhappy with politics and julia gillard
but hoping theres more of a stuggle to pass legislation and they will actually have to debate it properly... very close
but i think this trend where one doesn't win out right will continue. like uk and the trend will probably continue in america
-
this election is fucking insane. exciting!
-
Just got home, had no access to mass media. Fill me in crappy what's going on
-
Donkey votes ftw.
Abbott = near the top.
A for Arsehole.
The AEC are aware of people donkey voting so the order of the ballot paper is actually now randomised.
0.o Randomised. Finally ~
It's actually been randomised for a while now, certainly before you and I were born.
-
Just got home, had no access to mass media. Fill me in crappy what's going on
Basically - hung parliament
None of the parties have enough to be able to make government by themselves. Cue drama in the next few days.
-
Just got home, had no access to mass media. Fill me in crappy what's going on
Basically - hung parliament
None of the parties have enough to be able to make government by themselves. Cue drama in the next few days.
Holy shi-
Cheers bud.
-
omg yes theres no clear labor win!
i hope the independents are good and will be against so much bad policies
but yeah this shows how many people are unhappy with politics and julia gillard
but hoping theres more of a stuggle to pass legislation and they will actually have to debate it properly... very close
but i think this trend where one doesn't win out right will continue. like uk and the trend will probably continue in america
It's strange - it might be that two party politics is dead. Who knows?
It's a brave new world indeed.
-
I would have taken a liberal victory over a hung parliament. Sigh.
-
omg yes theres no clear labor win!
i hope the independents are good and will be against so much bad policies
but yeah this shows how many people are unhappy with politics and julia gillard
but hoping theres more of a stuggle to pass legislation and they will actually have to debate it properly... very close
but i think this trend where one doesn't win out right will continue. like uk and the trend will probably continue in america
I would say it means that people are equally unhappy with both parties, not just the labor party.
-
the liberal party has done very well this election, it's mostly a backlash against the ALP.
-
omg yes theres no clear labor win!
i hope the independents are good and will be against so much bad policies
but yeah this shows how many people are unhappy with politics and julia gillard
but hoping theres more of a stuggle to pass legislation and they will actually have to debate it properly... very close
but i think this trend where one doesn't win out right will continue. like uk and the trend will probably continue in america
I would say it means that people are equally unhappy with both parties, not just the labor party.
I'm not so sure about that statement, you don't just gain 17 seats across five states and territories if people are unhappy about your policies. This election has really shown the division of ideals, where some with an open heart want progress regardless of debt, and others who are more conservative with values, money and immigration. It just shows that too much of anything is not good, people of the latter group clearly didn't like Labor's values imposed onto them.
The liberals have done well, and Tony Abbott has gained credibility and regained trust from many Australians. Labor won't last long this time, considering the factional powerhouses won't be happy about the outcomes at all. I sense Wayne Swann stabbing Gillard in the back soon.
Also, congratulations to the youngest MP (20 yo) in QLD, and also the first Indigenous Australian MP.
-
I don't think Wayne Swann is fit to be PM (but then again, I think the same thing about Tony Abbott and he may well be PM-elect by the end of the next couple of weeks).
I think this was a difficult election in terms of capturing national sentiment, because there wasn't one. The swings towards and against Labor were all over the place, it seemed to depend mostly on local issues, because people as sure as hell were not engaged by talk at a national level. The commentators were at least suggesting that the election would be really difficult to call because there was a real diversity in views. I would suggest though that the major swing towards the Greens (really, it was astounding) in most electorates might suggest that people are beginning to look at other options because the two-party system isn't doing it for them anymore. That's not to say people aren't sick of labour, but the liberal party hasn't exactly won either.
I think it is also misleading to suggest that 17 seats is a huge shift towards liberal when all of them were extraordinarily marginal to begin with and the difference could well be attributed to the rezoning of many seats. Additionally, the swing against labour in the primary vote was not at all matched by the swing towards the liberal party - the swing to the liberal party was relatively small (+1.8), it was other parties that managed to gain substantially on the primary votes.
-
Oh and if you look at the break-down: http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/guide/sop.htm
In VIC, TAS and SA there was actually a swing AWAY from the liberal party.
-
lets see if this "ideals" mean anything
but i was reading this guys comment
"Oakeshott: wants an ETS
Katter: Climate skeptic, but very anti-free market
Bandt: Greens candidate – ’nuff said
Wilkie: Former Greens, doesn’t like Libs much
Windsor: No idea where he stands
*sigh* We’ve all complained about lack of choice between minor parties – but are these the best alternatives?"
Fleeced
this is not looking promising =(... i hope the countries wealth doesn't get squandered even more
-
I think both major parties did dreadfully, and that's reflected in the result.
-
i dont really want the greens holding the balance..
-
Moral of the story: If all else fails, suck up to the Greens.
-
They'll be pushing their agenda though, half of it is sane and i agree but some of it is just plain economy harming idealism
-
... You know what sucks? If you live in Victoria (and if you don't then i'm not quite sure why you're on a vce forum) then we get a few weeks off from election saturation, then the state election rolls around and we're drowned in it again :(
there is no end :(
-
^any idea when that shit piece election will fall? bang smack in the middle of the exam period i imagine :(
-
Nah, it's end of november from memory
-
It's the 27th of November.
-
cant really affect our exams though, just one day?
-
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/swan_necked/#commentsmore
i want to see more!
-
found it
http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/9raw-swan-holds-lilley-grilled-by-joyce/xveug3v
haha wayne swan you doofus
i love when politicians are attacked haha
-
found it
http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/9raw-swan-holds-lilley-grilled-by-joyce/xveug3v
haha wayne swan you doofus
i love when politicians are attacked haha
How is he a doofus? I thought he handled himself particularly well, especially in the face of such a disgusting attack. What a bunch of low-lifes.
-
ha yeah that was probably my opinion of him
thats how politics is in australia all they do is yell at each other
-
On Channel nine it was so bad, the liberals rather unsubtly promoting their side (Costello and that other dude) and then that Labor chick obviously going against him and the Labor Baldy going "JULIAS GREAT SHE PULLED US BACK UP FROM THE POOLS FROM 47% TO blah blah blah."
I know we're campainging and all but it really didn't help viewers get a real sense of what was really going on.
-
On Channel nine it was so bad, the liberals rather unsubtly promoting their side (Costello and that other dude) and then that Labor chick obviously going against him and the Labor Baldy going "JULIAS GREAT SHE PULLED US BACK UP FROM THE POOLS FROM 47% TO blah blah blah."
I know we're campainging and all but it really didn't help viewers get a real sense of what was really going on.
i prefer watching ABC for election coverage, u dont get anywhere near as much of that crap
-
I got a kick out of watching Channel 9 last night, watching Labor defending their policies to cold harsh facts is rather, entertaining.
-
i prefer ABC too.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ_s6V1Kv6A&feature=player_embedded
i have no idea what they are saying but it looks hilarious
just realised there are subtitles. CC
also this piece by the daily telegraph is quite funny in the way that its written
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/election/fake-julia-throws-sucker-punch/story-fn5zmod2-1225908553948
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ_s6V1Kv6A&feature=player_embedded
i have no idea what they are saying but it looks hilarious
AHAHA those animations were gold.
BTW anyone followed the Chaser's Yes We CanBerra during the lead-up to the election? [/r'ing the second episode if anyone has it or has a link to it.]
-
BTW anyone followed the Chaser's Yes We CanBerra during the lead-up to the election? [/r'ing the second episode if anyone has it or has a link to it.]
I watched it, it's pretty good. Some of the segments are just crappy, some are quite funny.
Here's the second episode if you wanted it
-
guess who was pretty fun and the music parodies were good
-
I got a kick out of watching Channel 9 last night, watching Labor defending their policies to cold harsh facts is rather, entertaining.
Or do you really mean, Wayne Swane getting pwned by Barnaby Joyce and Kroger? :P
Though I have to admit, they went a bit overboard.
-
I got a kick out of watching Channel 9 last night, watching Labor defending their policies to cold harsh facts is rather, entertaining.
Or do you really mean, Wayne Swane getting pwned by Barnaby Joyce and Kroger? :P
Though I have to admit, they went a bit overboard.
Sadly, I missed out on that bit. Though I did enjoy Costello/Kroger/Barnaby on Arbib. That was entertaining.
-
can you find the video?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9GlEbEs4bQ
-
na i found that one i mean
"Though I did enjoy Costello/Kroger/Barnaby on Arbib. That was entertaining."
-
na i found that one i mean
"Though I did enjoy Costello/Kroger/Barnaby on Arbib. That was entertaining."
I think that was the night in general, considering they were panelists. I watched from 11 onwards, and watched Arbib get increasingly frustrated.
-
ah ok.. but theres no video of the channel 9 election coverage
-
In all honesty, Oakeshott's idea of a unity government is one of the stupidest things i have heard in my lifetime. How the hell does he think they would agree on anything?
-
Yea, I'm a bit uncertain about how the independents will handle things to be honest. Although Abott/Gillard don't really look to be promising by themselves, I have a feeling nothing will get done if we divide government up between the three groups. Or at best, it will be seriously weird... I'd liken it to eating roast duck and ice cream at the same time.
-
It'd not a stupid idea, it'd only work if there was a war though.
-
I'd liken it to eating roast duck and ice cream at the same time.
I HAVE to try this sometime. Now that I've read it, it's just gotta be done.
-
^ it has to be the asian roast duck, or else it just isn't authentic :P.
-
Wish I'd found this blog sooner: http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/post/2010/08/20/It-should-be-a-one-horse-race.aspx
-
ah dont like it at all lol all keynesian nonsense
and hes trying to defend the insulation scheme, ber and all the other government schemes... sigh...
this person is just a big government type and loves the government micromanaging everything and then saying its brilliant because some government statistics said so
-
So what the hell's going on, have they decided on a PM yet?
-
nope... still counting...so far coalition 73 labor 72 greens 1 independents 4
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/results/
-
So what the hell's going on, have they decided on a PM yet?
http://doesaustraliahaveagovernmentyet.com/
-
LOL so blatant
-
lol nice
-
So what the hell's going on, have they decided on a PM yet?
http://doesaustraliahaveagovernmentyet.com/
Good one :D
-
TECHNICALLY THE GILLARD GOVERNMENT IS STILL THE GOVERNMENT UNTIL WE GET A NEW ONE! WEBSITE IS A LIE!
-
lolz so this why they didn't wanna get their policies costed by the Treasury
Treasury's analysis has found the Coalition would improve the Budget bottom line by $863 million over the next four years - well below the $11.5 billion improvement predicted by the Liberals. Treasury's best-case scenario is for a $4.5 billion Budget boost.
-
TECHNICALLY THE GILLARD GOVERNMENT IS STILL THE GOVERNMENT UNTIL WE GET A NEW ONE! WEBSITE IS A LIE!
Not a legitimate one, sweetie
-
It's no less legitimate than it was when the election was called
-
Remember the PM is in reality an appointment, not an elected position. Julia Gillard still holds the commission as PM and will do so until her appointment is revoked. She is the legitimate Prime Minister of Australia, as is the rest of her Cabinet.
-
Fair enough