ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => News and Politics => Topic started by: Collin Li on October 21, 2007, 02:32:25 am
-
Who are you voting for, and why?
I am undecided (and a swing voter) because I believe there are no real options for this election. The issues have been rather complacent, no fierce campaigning, and Labor has pretty much copied everything the Liberals plan to do.
I oppose repealing the IR reforms, but if Labor shows initiative environmentally or can convince me of economic competence, I would vote them.
By the way, I can't vote :P
-
I'm voting Labor. Why? Because I dislike Liberal policy by principle. Steal from the poor and give to the rich. I don't like it. Labor supports the little guy, Labor pumps more money into education and health. Ruddy boy won't stick his head up Bush's ass. Labor ftw.
-
I'm voting Labor. Why? Because I dislike Liberal policy by principle. Steal from the poor and give to the rich. I don't like it. Labor supports the little guy, Labor pumps more money into education and health. Ruddy boy won't stick his head up Bush's ass. Labor ftw.
"Steal from the poor and give to the rich" is a very uninformed statement. I'd like you to back that up. Labor is the one that "steals from everyone" to support the lazy lower-class.
But yes, I agree that Australia should not mimic the country with the worst foreign policy in the world.
I'd argue that social welfare provides a disincentive for the poor to work themselves out of the lower-class. They quite like living off Centrelink payments. Not to mention (I am in a lower-class family), the welfare system does not promote saving! If you have enough assets, you are not allowed to get payments. They don't even consider your income! Our income is less than 20k a year for the entire family (two kids and two parents) but we have great financial planning inside our family (my mum is fiscally responsible). We don't take any Centrelink payments, and frankly we're quite happy with it.
I agree with the free-market and believe that everyone can work themselves up. Economically conservative (free-market, not socialist, minimal social welfare) policies benefit everyone, even the poor.
I don't think any party is stupid enough to drastically cut spending on education, and I don't believe exorbitant amounts of spending in education is necessary anyway. The system just needs a push by competition. Extra funding will go to waste (sports facilities, drama schools, etc.), if public schools know that kids will continue going to their schools. Remove "zoning" rules, remove information asymmetry (release ALL results and data about schools) and watch kids flock to better schools, then we'll actually see public schools improve (because they finally have an incentive to do so... otherwise they will continue to get students due to stupid rules like "zoning").
Teacher unions need to be broken down. I'm sure we all know we've been through crap and good teachers. The injustice is that crap teachers must be paid equally to the good teachers in public education. How does this encourage greater learning? Labor is the party that will allow teacher unions to gain even more power, and hence lower the standards of the education system even more!
Sure, socialism encourages equal outcomes for all, but they are the equally worst outcomes for all.
However, I don't think Liberal is the correct party to vote to promote free-market libertarianism. The criticisms of the "capitalists" in right-wing economics are not completely unfounded. There will be poverty gaps increasing, and an increase in inequality, but that is due to the unnecessary bureaucracies in place that similarly support special interests. A good example of this is the Republican neo-conservative stance, which is typically considered "right-wing" but is really for big government and socialism within the country, while trying to enforce "free-market" (in the loosest sense of the term) in every other country to reap the benefits of their resources.
I'm also unimpressed by the lack of parties that are providing a strong stance on civil liberties. We know we still live in a primitive society when people are self-righteous enough to believe we should prevent gay couples from marrying. What is their problem?
We need a more radical party (than Liberal) that will make changes to government to play a more minimal role in our lives, and let people decide how to run their own businesses, and more importantly, our lives.
-
You lost me at " " "
-
liberal for sure - did you guys forget what happened last time labor was in office??......enough said.
-
Just a reminder: the debate is on 7:30PM ABC tonight!
-
<3 John
-
Yup, watching it now.
-
Labour FTW! You get my vote labour.
-
Labour FTW! You get my vote labour.
i guess we're lucky you're not voting then.
traiter.
-
Watch closely guys, any moment now Rudd may rip out some mandarin :!:
-
Watch closely guys, any moment now Rudd may rip out some mandarin :!:
and do a dance with kerri-anne
-
ROFL :) :D :P :lol:
-
I thought that Rudd was the winner of the debate, but I essentially agree with Howard. John Howard made a poor debating performance, but I do not believe that Rudd stands firmly in particular issues:
i) his tax cuts are a mimic
ii) his exit strategy on the Iraq War involved keeping the navy there, but the navy is the first thing to pull out since it is the most mobile!
Therefore, I think Rudd is too afraid to take a strong stance on fixing our foreign policy (getting us out of Iraq). If he had exploited the weakness of Liberal foreign policy more, that could have definitely swung me to be a Labor supporter, because I do believe that the threat of terrorism increases with the involvement in Iraq, and that the war is unjust.
The important thing that remains is that Howard and his cabinet firmly believe in economic reform (towards a freer market), while Rudd wants to reverse economic reform. John Howard made good economic attacks on Rudd, and Howard is the real optimist in that he believes that Australian individuals will be the best at optimising expenditure priorities, not the government. His 'minimal government' stance outshone his overall poor debate performance, and won my vote (if I had one).
The reversal of the Industrial Relations will shift more power to unions (to bargain) and give government more power to decide how we spend our money. I disagree with this fundamentally.
My undecided stance strongly swings towards Liberal now.
-
Rudd wants to put more money into education through helping people buy computers and getting internet connection. I seriously can't trust him to handle a country now XD
-
Rudd wants to put more money into education through helping people buy computers and getting internet connection. I seriously can't trust him to handle a country now XD
Yeah, I mean, talk about "optimism," which was a theme of the debate.
If Rudd is so optimistic about Australia, why doesn't he believe that the market (i.e.: the aggregate individual spending preferences) can decide whether they need computers or not?
-
Because first you need the infrastructure. And the cost of setting that up is far greater than 'consumer interest' could foster for itself. We are lagging behind other countries, literally and figuratively in terms of internet. We can't afford that if we want to truly prosper economically.
-
yea and his argument about people not having better lives. I think its more of an individual thing where people don't know how to be wise with thier money. Howard may have lied to us but he does a good job.
Because first you need the infrastructure. And the cost of setting that up is far greater than 'consumer interest' could foster for itself. We are lagging behind other countries, literally and figuratively in terms of internet. We can't afford that if we want to truly prosper economically.
true but he was basically saying that computers will somehow enhance our education.
-
That's kind of a given? Think of all the multimedia we'll have better access to now? >_>
-
Not really. My VCE didn't need any computers. If he had said it helped our economy i would not have thought he was off his rocker.
-
My VCE depends on wikipedia.
-
My VCE depends on wikipedia.
Woah... whats going on with ur VCE studies? like what subjects are you doing? And How on earth does wiki even help?
-
liberal for sure - did you guys forget what happened last time labor was in office??
Uh, no. Given that I was 5 the last time labour was in office, I don't remember at all.
For me, Rudd won me back a little after the debate. I wasn't sure I wanted to vote for Labour after tRudd's stance on capital punishment became known to me because I'm a big believer in human rights, but I actually do think the Labour party is much more grounded on Earth than the Liberals.
I believe in better funding for and investment into education that goes beyond the 'Endowment Fund'. I think everyone deserves to go to a quality school that isn't in a constant state of disrepair. And even though the states are primarily in charge of this, I think the federal government should assist the states in terms of funding. In fact, (and this is probably because the states are largely Labour governments) the relationship between the states and federal governments is terrible. There needs to be more proactive communication and states should not be withheld funding for not doing as the federal government wants. The idea of Performance Based Pay and of the Federal government determining the syllabus is ludiocrous. The states don't need to be told what to do, they just need some money to help do it.
-
But then the schools and statse spend the money on retarded things. Like the arts center....
-
My VCE depends on wikipedia.
Woah... whats going on with ur VCE studies? like what subjects are you doing? And How on earth does wiki even help?
See sig. The new green chemistry part of chem runs on wiki. Hahaha. My text has like one puny paragraph on the Kyoto Protocol. :(
-
My VCE depends on wikipedia.
Woah... whats going on with ur VCE studies? like what subjects are you doing? And How on earth does wiki even help?
See sig. The new green chemistry part of chem runs on wiki. Hahaha. My text has like one puny paragraph on the Kyoto Protocol. :(
Why don't you wait for a yr12 textbook. Im sure they have everything in it(if they want the books to sell that is). OR you can go state library to look at another textbook that will cover that topic more in depth. Maybe a more practicle approach is if the government said it will noly used more money to fix schools and assist in buying study guides and textbooks ONLY. You can't argue that a computer is essential to education. To me it sounds like he is throwing money away to people like me who are ready to abuse the system through my sister :D.
-
I learnt most of what I know through the interwebs.
-
The idea of Performance Based Pay and of the Federal government determining the syllabus is ludiocrous.
Why? We all know a little bit of competition stops industries from under-performing.
Because first you need the infrastructure. And the cost of setting that up is far greater than 'consumer interest' could foster for itself. We are lagging behind other countries, literally and figuratively in terms of internet. We can't afford that if we want to truly prosper economically.
If, as individuals, we don't feel we need it, then there shouldn't be an artificial injection of funds into the infrastructure. However, I would agree that we want it, and it is necessary. The goal should be achieved via the invisible hand of the markets though, not by the iron fist of the government. The problem is that there is a monopoly around the broadband sector (with Telstra and all) and this sector needs deregulation in order to thrive and give us competitive internet and rates.
-
it doesnt help education that after a year or so most teachers get put on permanent contracts (forgotten what theyre called)
-
Oh no lol... im doomed if thats the case :cry: oh but after teaching for a few years im moving on to bigger and better things, so i shouldnt worry too much.
-
Hmmm? Bigger and better? Do elaborate. :)
-
If, as individuals, we don't feel we need it, then there shouldn't be an artificial injection of funds into the infrastructure. However, I would agree that we want it, and it is necessary. The goal should be achieved via the invisible hand of the markets though, not by the iron fist of the government. The problem is that there is a monopoly around the broadband sector (with Telstra and all) and this sector needs deregulation in order to thrive and give us competitive internet and rates.
You misunderstand me, Collin-my-boy. It's not that consumer INTEREST isn't high enough, it's the funds GENERATED by consumer interest that aren't enough. We, as the massive country of Australia with such a tiny population cannot make it wortwhile for a private entity to set up the infrastructure and charge a cheap-enough price for high-speed fibre optic broadband. It's just the cold truth of the matter - we need the government to step in.
-
Hmmm? Bigger and better? Do elaborate. :)
Ahh well ill still be in the education industry, but i'll be opening up my own business :) hehe hopefully (thats where my business knowledge ties into this, as well as my business plan that ive written)
-
hmm.. wonder who'll win the election..
Same here, i have no interest in politics but yeah i'd like to know who wins :)
-
that sounds like interest to me.
-
You misunderstand me, Collin-my-boy. It's not that consumer INTEREST isn't high enough, it's the funds GENERATED by consumer interest that aren't enough. We, as the massive country of Australia with such a tiny population cannot make it wortwhile for a private entity to set up the infrastructure and charge a cheap-enough price for high-speed fibre optic broadband. It's just the cold truth of the matter - we need the government to step in.
Here's what I said to enwiabe on MSN (with fixed grammar/punctuation):
Don't be so patronising when you clearly don't understand the economy. If consumer demand does not generate enough incentive to upgrade broadband, then there is no benefit to upgrade broadband, simple. However, I looked beyond that and agreed with you (that broadband does need an upgrade), while also implying that consumer demand provides the incentive for it.
The reason why there has been no free-market forces that have led to this is due to regulated telephony sector. Australia needs deregulation. That is what will help the economy. Less laws that restrict economic freedoms (and social freedoms, but that is irrelevant to this particular issue).
EDIT:
If you continue to believe consumer demand does not generate the incentive for a broadband upgrade, then the decision to upgrade is not beneficial for society. It may help businesses and firms, but at the cost of taxpayers. Overall, the benefits and losses sum to an overall loss.
-
agreed if broadband were deregulated and competition encouraged, its likely the companies would invest in higher speed broadband in response to demand and to advance themselves above competitors to provide the best service. HOWEVER. its unlikely they would expand that service to regional and rural areas because its not worth it for them. the demand there doesnt match up to the cost and inconvenience of setting it up out in isolated areas. hence why it leans toward being something the government should look at.. having said that. i dont think they personally should set it up funded by tax payers. i suggest they deregulate a little bit, encourage equal playing ground for competitors and increase competition, but implement restrictions which require providers to provide equal access to rural areas if they wish to access urban markets. and possibly subsidise providers for their costs in servicing rural areas. i duno i havnt thought it out entirely, but thats my standing
-
agreed if broadband were deregulated and competition encouraged, its likely the companies would invest in higher speed broadband in response to demand and to advance themselves above competitors to provide the best service. HOWEVER. its unlikely they would expand that service to regional and rural areas because its not worth it for them. the demand there doesnt match up to the cost and inconvenience of setting it up out in isolated areas. hence why it leans toward being something the government should look at.. having said that. i dont think they personally should set it up funded by tax payers. i suggest they deregulate a little bit, encourage equal playing ground for competitors and increase competition, but implement restrictions which require providers to provide equal access to rural areas if they wish to access urban markets. and possibly subsidise providers for their costs in servicing rural areas. i duno i havnt thought it out entirely, but thats my standing
I like your stance on the issue. It's not a strong stance, but I like the idea of moderation in this. Ultimately, the end plan is for as much deregulation as possible, while ensuring equal opportunities (but with no aim towards equal outcomes).
EDIT: I take that back, I was feeling a bit socialist then. I still believe that if there is no sufficient rural demand, then there should be no rural broadband upgrade. It means the costs outweigh the benefits.
-
that sounds like interest to me.
Lol, well i don't really get involved in the discussion, and i dont really care who wins (i have no stance when it comes to politics), but i like to keep upto date with whats going on, if you get what i mean :)
-
Someone argue against/ find faults/ reply to/ completely attack/ scrutinise/ praise my previous long post which was slightly irrelevant please? Hahaha, I don't want it being a wallflower. :o
-
A performance-pay scheme for teachers would just spur unnecessary tension between the individuals concerned.
How would you measure teaching performances? There is hardly a justifiable way to determine the merits of a teacher. If it were to be suggested that the teacher's wages be purely based on their students' achievements, it would drive these professional educators to seek out the institutions with the 'high achieving' students; and subsequently we would see the elite inner-city schools employing the 'high performing' teachers. Hence a cycle of disadvantages for under performing schools left with the cruddy classroom practitioners.
Discrimination would escalate! For example; if a teacher from what would be deemed a 'lower classed' school were to apply for a job at a more 'prestigious' establishment, we would have curriculum vitaes intently scanned for past employment places. These teachers would be rejected, because a history with a 'lower class' school meant that he or she is, to some extent, an under performing teacher. What if the teacher had improved in some way? Well those few words of 'shit high school' would have left a permanent scar on their records.
No one would want to work for the inferior schools. No student would want to even go to these schools, but then we have those who have no choice. These people would be indecorously atoned to poor educational standards; and thus their chances of doing something with their lives would be unduly compressed and quite limited.
It's a foolish ranking of our teachers. The competition that should be motivating them would become unbearable.
"How far into kinematics have you dived into? Oh, and Mr.X said that you managed to lay your hands onto some practice papers, would it be possible if I would borrow them to photocopy for my students?"
"Get the f*ck out of my classroom b*tch! My teaching is confidential!"
The performance based pay is ultimately flawed. It should not be a substitute for an increase in wages. If they want 'better' teachers, then why not further improve the quality of the way teachers are trained? Commit to a radical overhaul of the teaching education instead of toying around with illogical rewards.
Okay, so what about determining a good teacher in terms of their qualifications then? Huh? Huh? We can base their wages on that!
Oh hey, wait, guess what! The ones with higher qualifications already get paid more! Lawl, but anyway...
Well you see, the glorified tags of 'PhD' and master's may seem honorable, but what gives? Being in the classroom is all about connecting with students. A doctorate is barely going to help one control a group of rebellious teenagers, let alone even feed them any knowledge. How good is a teacher that teaches without being able to change their teaching styles to suit their students' needs? Hardly any good at all. There is no correlation between additional higher qualifications and their impacts on better results. A successful teacher is definitely not someone who is academically overly qualified.
Don't you remember that teacher who always tried their best to help you? The one that understood and went out of their way just to assist you with your problems. The memorable teacher that "made a difference" with your schooling. Or do you remember that teacher with the ?ber cool research degree in god knows what, who spoke in a monotone that made you sleep all throughout the lessons? Who would you deem the 'better teacher'?
But indeed, every scheme derived has consequences attached to it.
(I'm too tired.)
Edit: Okay shit, lol, I just realised that this is irrelevant. :( .......................................... I misread something. Tralalalala.
Edit 2: Wait a minute, is it? Ah, I don't know any more.
i disagree and all your points are ill-founded and pretentious.
-
Someone argue against/ find faults/ reply to/ completely attack/ scrutinise/ praise my previous long post which was slightly irrelevant please? Hahaha, I don't want it being a wallflower. :o
I originally responded, but then deleted it, because I rushed it (and basically I had no idea what the Liberal party is proposing with this PBP thing).
Basically, my whole opinion on the matter is that the education sector needs to be deregulated to provide for competition and incentives to improve quality of teaching (like almost everything). To help this, the government must abolish zoning laws (schools preferring local students) and help bridge information asymmetry by making it a legal requirement to publish education data and performance.
Why will this work?
Schools will be accountable for their own quality of teaching. This means that parents will want to send their kids to the better schools. This means that schools must lift their standards in order to keep their customers (zoning discourages this)!
Obviously, a large factor of teaching standard is based on the teacher, and the principal (or whoever is in charge) will want to pick the best teachers. Some sort of "performance based pay" is necessary, but it should not be based on any government criterion, but at the discretion of the employer. The employer (the principal) can make his own judgement on which teachers deserve what pay. He or she can improve his pricing estimate by using "quality of teaching feedback" surveys on classes to get feedback and improve teaching quality.
If principals unfairly pay (undervalue) the teacher, the teacher will simply get a better job where his or her skills will be recognised.
This was a very step-by-step explanation of how the free-market works, and it doesn't skip the economic arguments and details like most of my other posts.
-
Yay!
Well our federal Education Minister, Julie Bishop, wants to impose performance-based pay for teachers on the states from 2009.
i disagree and all your points are ill-founded and pretentious.
Thank you.
(Note that I don't really stand firm for what I said before, I'm sure you can tell.)
-
Yay!
Well our federal Education Minister, Julie Bishop, wants to impose performance-based pay for teachers on the states from 2009.
i disagree and all your points are ill-founded and pretentious.
Thank you.
(Note that I don't really stand firm for what I said before, I'm sure you can tell.)
Oh great lol... lets hope i perform well as a teacher.. well i wont graduate for another 4 years .. but still i need to worry about these things, how will they be able to accurately assess the performance of a teacher, it'll get a little messy, i think... but thats just what i think
-
Yay!
Well our federal Education Minister, Julie Bishop, wants to impose performance-based pay for teachers on the states from 2009.
i disagree and all your points are ill-founded and pretentious.
Thank you.
(Note that I don't really stand firm for what I said before, I'm sure you can tell.)
well i did do what you asked for :P
-
Yay!
Well our federal Education Minister, Julie Bishop, wants to impose performance-based pay for teachers on the states from 2009.
i disagree and all your points are ill-founded and pretentious.
Thank you.
(Note that I don't really stand firm for what I said before, I'm sure you can tell.)
well i did do what you asked for :P
I appreciate it. :D
-
Yay!
Well our federal Education Minister, Julie Bishop, wants to impose performance-based pay for teachers on the states from 2009.
i disagree and all your points are ill-founded and pretentious.
Thank you.
(Note that I don't really stand firm for what I said before, I'm sure you can tell.)
well i did do what you asked for :P
I appreciate it. :D
just doing my bit to help out.
-
i think the only reason why i will vote for labor is because kevin rudd can speak chinese and john howard is too old and i dont like peter costello. lol pretty lame reasons. but to be honest, i have no interest in politics because all politicians are liars. all they want is power.
-
but to be honest, i have no interest in politics because all politicians are liars. all they want is power.
Yeah same here :)
Well I wont be voting this year anyways lol so whoever wins wins, im not fussed :)
-
I actually think it's a shame that so many people are apathetic about politics. And it's not like it's their fault, it's just that the world is severely lacking in inspirational politicians right now (though fortunately there are inspirational leaders who probably respect themselves too much to become politicians).
-
I actually think it's a shame that so many people are apathetic about politics.
Me too.
-
Who needs politics anyway :roll:
-
I actually think it's a shame that so many people are apathetic about politics. And it's not like it's their fault, it's just that the world is severely lacking in inspirational politicians right now (though fortunately there are inspirational leaders who probably respect themselves too much to become politicians).
Ron Paul is one charismatic person with stunning truth surrounding his words. He's running as a presidential candidate for the Republican party. His website: http://www.ronpaul2008.com
I don't know anyone like that in Australia, but some of the Liberal front-bench are good (not all, especially foreign policy ones like Alexander Downer, boo). I like Costello and Nick Minchin, but this is out of ideology rather than charisma really. They do speak truth, though. Personally, I think Costello is better than Howard.
-
1. Green/independent
2. "
3.Labour
I agree with what enwiabe said about the Liberals on his first post here and on his fight with costargh -now flushed away to eternity, but the word "xenophobic" [for either Howard or the Libs] stood out.
Yes, the economy is important, but I have zero-tolerance for a govermment which treats Indigenous Australians, gays, immigrants, childless couples/women etc as second-class citizens. Couple this with their limp-wristed approach to climate change and you see why I won't be voting liberal :)
Also, Coblin -after seeing you as having a free-thinking, libertarian stance on Bos, I must say I was taken aback to see that you consider yourself a "swing-voter"
-
Yes, the economy is important, but I have zero-tolerance for a govermment which treats Indigenous Australians, gays, immigrants, childless couples/women etc as second-class citizens. Couple this with their limp-wristed approach to climate change and you see why I won't be voting liberal :)
Also, Coblin -after seeing you as having a free-thinking, libertarian stance on Bos, I must say I was taken aback to see that you consider yourself a "swing-voter"
Well, if the Liberal party really discriminates against Indigenous Australians as you say, then I really have no candidate to vote for, since it conflicts with my libertarian views. :P
The Liberal party is far from ideal, but it would still get my vote. I definitely would not vote Labor, but I would consider voting Greens/Democrats just to push the idea of smaller government intervention (in social matters) into parliament. However, I fundamentally disagree with their socialist viewpoints (to me almost everything is socialist, :D)
If you want to hear my life story, my initial political views began from the typical left-wing indoctrination. Concerned about civil liberties (gay rights, abortion rights, etc.) I looked to those who shared these "progressive" ideas with me. Unfortunately, it was the left that found me first, and I pretty much took up socialist policy by "default." After my independent pursuit of economics, I began to become more and more convinced that the free-market society works, at least much better than the government could do, so hence I became a free-market libertarian. However, you could say that I am ultimately for the social liberties of mankind, and it would be my first priority.
However, Labor has failed on those fronts of social liberty, and therefore will not win my vote. The two-party political system is aligned in a way such that it is always a win-lose situation for me. The Liberal party is socially conservative (I disagree) and economically conservative (I agree), while the Labor party is usually socially progressive (I agree) and economically "progressive" (cough: regressive -- I think you can tell I disagree). But this time around, Labor has failed to be socially progressive: they are too gutless to remove discrimination of gays, to make a prompt exit from Iraq and to leave our internet alone (voted for NetAlert)! (Am I the only one who sees the threat of NetAlert and national broadband?)
...and no, Kevin Rudd is not an economic conservative. That ad campaign is a joke.
-
Who is Peter Costello?
Costello's maiden speech to Parliament in 1990:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/firstspeech.asp?id=CT4
http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_w42/idw2007.10.18.19.20.05.html
"Having previously referred to himself as a "Burkean-type liberal", Costello has made the primacy of the individual the centrepiece of his political thinking. From the time of his maiden speech to Parliament in 1990, he has emphasised the subservience of government to the citizen, warned against the danger of ideology and made it clear that his allegiance is to the individual over monopoly control. These fundamental precepts dovetail neatly with Howard's view of the world and offer comfort to an electorate that will be looking for continuity and renewal from a Costello-led government. Costello's combination of more than a decade's experience as Treasurer and a personal passion for understanding such critical policy areas as demographic change, competitive federalism and the welfare of our indigenous communities make him well able to implement the Government's reform agenda. Like Howard, Costello has also shown a willingness to take the hard decisions to advance the national interest, irrespective of their popularity. The last is particularly pertinent as it involved the Treasurer saying "no" to the spending "wish lists" of his colleagues. This capacity to hold the line assumes greater importance as a re-elected Coalition government will find itself again swimming in a sea of state Labor governments. Costello should have few problems translating his experience dealing with state treasurers, who have included new premiers John Brumby and Anna Bligh, into productive relationships at the head of government."
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s255582.htm
Childhood
"Peter Costello was brought up in the Melbourne suburb of Blackburn by his teacher father and educational psychologist mother. He was one of three children: Tim, Peter and Janet, born in that order. It was a strictly Christian home. The Costellos were foundation members of the Blackburn Baptist Church in the mid-1950s. Oldest brother Tim is currently the President of the Baptist Union of Australia. He works in a small spartan room on the 6th floor of an old office block at the unfashionable end of Collins Street in Melbourne. His window overlooks a back alley, the paint around his doorway is chipped. The grey carpet on the floor is decidedly thin, though not threadbare. Tim Costello says the teachings of the Baptist Church gave his younger brother Peter his fundamental view of the world."
On the role of government and individual social freedom
Peter Costello: "I'll take the second part of it. I do have a suspicion of power, I think that power can be abused, and it can be abused to over-ride individual choices and individual freedoms. I think governments' powers should be limited. I really do believe in that. I also think politics should be limited, because there are a lot of people who make the mistake of thinking every problem in our society can be fixed by government. I don't think that's right. I think if you gave governments the power to fix every problem in our society, you would have overpowering governments, which would tend towards the authoritarian impulse, and I think there are areas of our society which we just ought to get the governments out as far as possible, out of family lives, you ought to let the non-government institutions of society, like the family and the school and the community and the church to take a lot of the slack. I am very suspicious of governments that want to tell people how to think and what to do. I think that can be a real threat to individual freedom."
"Peter Costello does however have a guiding ideological framework which underpins his view of the world and informs his stance in policy debates. His core belief is in the primacy of the individual in society. "
Peter Costello: "What I believe is that everybody should be given the choice to do the best they can, and every individual should be able to maximise their opportunities. And I think individual freedom of thought and conscience is just so important to their self worth, to who they are, and to the kind of community that we want to build. And to me these are really important values, whether they're freedom of religious thought, freedom of conscience, freedom of political thought, I believe in maximising individuals' choices and respecting their choices."
On the role of government and individual economic freedom
"Peter Costello is a free marketeer, a privatiser, a deregulator, a tax reformer, a union basher, a surplus builder and fierce protector of the budget bottom line. He also has a reputation for arrogance and intolerance. Those are the public perceptions of him that come up in research into what people think of the government but what's missing is an understanding of the ideas that motivate him, and his views beyond economics, views that set him apart from John Howard. Peter Costello has in fact been exceedingly disciplined in not revealing himself. In the Canberra Bureau of The Australian newspaper, Foreign Editor, Paul Kelly, explains why."
Peter costello in his maiden speech to Parliament on economic freedom:
"It is tempting to stand here and talk about the economy as if it were just a statistic or a series of tables. It is tempting to stand in the luxurious and imposing surrounds of this House and to think that somehow this is the engine of the Australian nation; it is not. The engine room of the Australian nation is found in the shops, the factories, the farms and a whole host of workplaces scattered far and wide across this nation. Some are large but predominantly they are small.
It is the enterprise and the work of those millions that create the wealth of this nation. These are the people who sought no government commission to trade; they sought no government program to establish their business or job; they asked for no government assistance to maintain it. They do not ask the Government to be a nanny, to scold, to reprove and to smother them with advice.
What they ask of government is an unobtrusive administration so that they can continue to generate that wealth, continue to provide for their families and continue to pursue their aspirations. In going about their ordinary business, these millions of wealth generators contribute to the well being of all. So, in the contest between the government and the citizen, I am for the citizen."
Costello describes himself as a "burkean-type" liberal
Peter Costello: "Look, there are certain things that a society has to be able to do. You've got to have a basic taxation system, in my view, to pay for education and health and defence and age pensions and those kind of things that individuals can't do for themselves, and so I believe in having a basic tax system and a basic social security system. But I'm not an anarchist, no, I just regard myself as really an old-fashioned Liberal, maybe a Burkeian type Liberal, you know. I'm a Liberal. People say 'What are you, are you an anarchist or are you a libertarian, or this, or that?' I just sort of regard myself as a Liberal actually."
On Aboriginal relations:
Gerald Tooth: "John Howard banned Peter Costello and other Cabinet Ministers from walking across the Harbour Bridge in the Sydney Reconciliation March. Costello toed the line, despite hinting that he wanted to take part. Later the Treasurer did march in Melbourne when the Prime Minister reversed his decision. It was a symbolically powerful gesture but just that, a gesture. Peter Costello has spoken little of his vision for reconciliation, until now."
Peter Costello: "I think it's coming from two angles actually. I think there is a very large part of non-Aboriginal Australia that wants to make a statement to the Aboriginal people of Australia, to say 'We want you to feel part of us, and we want to feel part of you.' I think they want to make that statement. I think on the other hand too, there is also a lot of Aboriginal Australia that wants to reconcile with non-Aboriginal Australia. This is going to come from two angles. I think this is an important issue. I was, as you know, wanted to demonstrate my support of it, which I did. I think it is going to go on for a long period of time, but there is a lot of goodwill. I actually think there is a lot of goodwill in the community on this issue, and it's building the positive people on both sides that will take that forward."
On immigration and taking on Pauline Hanson
"Peter Costello was the first senior Liberal to take a stand against One Nation when it emerged. Having grown up in multicultural Melbourne and counted a number of Asian Australians amongst his friends, he reacted decisively to Pauline Hanson's views...He said he would be putting One Nation last on his how-to-vote card in his Melbourne-based seat of Higgins."
Peter Costello: "I think in the longer term we in Australia are probably going to build our population. I mean there's a couple of issues in here, there's the issue of environment, there's the issue of water, but as I look around the world and I see North American Free Trade area of 300-million people, I see European Union Free Trade area of 300-million people, and you see Australia, which is I think about 19-million people, it's very small compared to some of these other areas. And I think, subject to all those environmental-type issues, if we can build a bigger population in Australia, I think it will help us in economic terms, in national sovereignty terms."
Gerald Tooth: "Peter Costello's vision is to use immigration to literally fill Australia with people...It's an economically driven, populate-or-perish policy based on building market strength in the global marketplace. He won't supply a population figure that he'd like to arrive at in order to complete his vision. But the mere fact that he's talking about investigating what's environmentally sustainable suggests he's talking very big numbers indeed. Again, his views on immigration are a significant departure from the current orthodoxy within his own party."
-
Nationals, I'm from 'rural Victoria' so to speak, and I'm a conservative at heart. I don't necessarily agree with a lot of things from either side, but there we go.
-
now who voted for one nation??????
-
now who voted for one nation??????
wtf?! one nation doesn't even exist anymore...
-
and why is the CLP included in the first option?... who would be voting for them that reads a VCE forum?...
-
"Who said young people weren't interested in politics? Elisabeth Tarica reports."
http://www.theage.com.au/news/education-news/rise-of-a-new-political-class/2007/10/28/1193506344968.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
-
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/595
Commentary by Richard B. Freeman, Professor of Economics at Harvard University, on WorkChoices
-
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/595
Commentary by Richard B. Freeman, Professor of Economics at Harvard University, on WorkChoices
Interesting! I don't know much about labour market economics yet. Now I'm not sure if I know if reversing is better than not reversing it. I personally wouldn't trust Labor to set a fair IR system.
-
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22691365-601,00.html
PETER Garrett has reportedly told a journalist that Labor would change its policies once in power, in an enormous campaign gaffe.
"Once we get in we'll just change it all," Mr Garrett said to high-profile radio announcer Steve Price.
-
more people should vote for the greens
they have the peoples best interests at heart, they're not just making policies to stay in office/get in office
i know people think voting for them does nothing cos they won't get in office but voting for them gives them more seats
GO THE GREENS!
-
I would vote Liberal because, there is no reason to take a risk for nothing much to gain.
Rudd can really ruin Australia's economy and when Johnny isn't in power who is Rudd going to copy with his me too antics?
I hope the Liberals can slide through this election on 24 Nov.
It seems it is going to be a close election.
-
more people should vote for the greens
they have the peoples best interests at heart, they're not just making policies to stay in office/get in office
i know people think voting for them does nothing cos they won't get in office but voting for them gives them more seats
GO THE GREENS!
The Greens have the best interests at heart because they have no political power. Power earns corruption. Instead, we need a much more limited government regulated by a very strong constitution, like the U.S.
Why you should not vote for the Greens?
The Greens claim they will gain the balance of power in the Senate. This would be bad: the Greens do not have any power in the Senate to pass off bills that should have been passed in any society that takes liberty seriously, such as the legalisation of gay marriages, however, their economic viewpoints are very flawed! Their so-called "compassionate" stance on the poor is going to hurt Australia, and create poverty traps and disincentives for the lower class. They will deny every tax cut from the Liberal government, and they promote dependence on the government (economically). How can a society that believes in harm minimisation in drug policy (individual social responsibility) then believe in perpetrating an economic policy based on welfare dependence, and disincentivising those who are individually responsible for their economic actions. The Greens will do more trouble than good in the Senate for this reason.
I would vote the Liberty & Democracy Party (LDP), a minor party, over the Liberal party, because they believe in limited government and do not believe in the socially conservative policies that Liberal do. If you vote for LDP, make sure that you preference the Liberal party 2nd manually, because I'm not sure who the LDP are recommending their preferences to.
I really want to challenge those who traditionally vote Labor. I am in a lower-class family. My parents are first-generation immigrants who came here with 0$ and on a loan they had to work off. Why would I support Liberal over Labor? Am I stupid? No, it's because I strongly oppose the policies that will discontinue the Australia that allowed opportunities for all, regardless of the outcome. It was my parents' effort that got me here, not the government. Don't dismiss Liberal as a voting option immediately, you may hate their social conservatism (I do too), but what about Labor? Have they shown any resolve? Nope. The only parties that seem interested are minor parties. Whether you place your vote in a minor party, or in Liberal, I don't care, but I think there is no merit in voting Labor this time around.
-
liberal voter =]
-
I really want to challenge those who traditionally vote Labor. I am in a lower-class family. My parents are first-generation immigrants who came here with 0$ and on a loan they had to work off.
Your situation reflects mine, but I'm planning to vote Labor. Why exactly do you prefer Liberal over Labor? Just interested seeing as I really don't know much about their economic policies :wink:
-
The media is clearly 'pumping up' Mr Rudd as preferred prime minister with fresh ideas in contrast to a stale and outdated Mr Howard.
Better safe than sorry.
-
I really want to challenge those who traditionally vote Labor. I am in a lower-class family. My parents are first-generation immigrants who came here with 0$ and on a loan they had to work off.
Your situation reflects mine, but I'm planning to vote Labor. Why exactly do you prefer Liberal over Labor? Just interested seeing as I really don't know much about their economic policies :wink:
Well, Labor loves to give social welfare to "help the poor." When your parents came here, do you think they came here to live on Centrelink? I don't think so. I think they came here to escape whatever cruel oppression they came from, and to escape the restrictive governments back at home, so that they could convert their hard labour into profits. In the communist societies that most immigrants come from, they were not given the economic freedom to do this, and people were instead delegated to tasks as the central government saw fit. It was the economic freedom of Australia that was so attractive to your parents.
In Australia, we are our economic freedom is abundant, compared to the past communist societies that your parents emigrated from, but it could really do with more. An economy resembles a communist economy when it has multiple bureaucracies to file your way through before you can open a business. Small businesses take years to open if bureaucracy is inefficient! Labor wants to revive such "checks and balances" to "protect" Australian workers. They have regressive ideas on industrial reform, believing that government enforced standards should be imposed on the negotiation of a wage contract between employer and employee. These systems hurt the economy, they hurt the poor and they hurt the employers. I will give you an example: the minimum wage. It does not make sense to enforce a minimum wage of $13/hr, if an potential employee is willing to work for $10/hr, and the employee is only willing to pay upto $12/hr. If they settled on any price between $10 to $12, they both would have benefited, but the minimum wage says: "nope, the government tells you what is acceptable!" and makes it illegal. It is much too like a communist economy.
Although the Liberal party actually supports the minimum wage (lol, I just owned myself), Labor does too, and they support even more intrusive "checks and balances" in the system (such as regressing IR laws to their old state), that are unnecessary if people hold themselves accountable for their own actions. The government is not there to make economic decisions for us, they ought to be merely there to referee the economy, making sure that no deception is going on in the marketplace. Labor loves running on the stand of "protecting our workers" but the old adage applies to economics as well as society:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ? Benjamin Franklin
People can protect themselves. Checks and balances can be instituted individually. Those who choose not to be responsible should be accountable for their irresponsibility. We should not adopt this trend of handing over the responsibility to the government, because in doing so, we must hand over our liberties as well.
-
Ah, I see your point. I didn't even know that, lol - oh well, I've got 3 days between my last exam and the election to really read up on each party's policies. Maybe then I'll be able to actually make an informed choice :roll:
I guess I'm just attracted to Labor's foreign policy as that is the only area in which I have some knowledge. My friend, who is going for Liberal, keeps reminding me that Rudd will screw up the economy. Can someone explain how?
-
Ah, I see your point. I didn't even know that, lol - oh well, I've got 3 days between my last exam and the election to really read up on each party's policies. Maybe then I'll be able to actually make an informed choice :roll:
I guess I'm just attracted to Labor's foreign policy as that is the only area in which I have some knowledge. My friend, who is going for Liberal, keeps reminding me that Rudd will screw up the economy. Can someone explain how?
Government interventions in economy create "dead-weight loss." This is economic jargon for economic inefficiency, because the government interventions often have adverse effects on the amount of trade that goes on, causing to differ from the "optimal" amount of trade. Basically, there ends up becoming trades that would have otherwise been mutually beneficial, but they are now prevented because of the government intervention (a tax or something).
Hm... I'm sceptical of Labor's stance on foreign policy to be honest. Rudd wants to be out in 1.5 years. This is good compared to the Democratic candidates in the U.S., who want out in 2012! What worries me is Rudd's me-too'ism, that the media has played on a lot, and I have generally interpreted this as an attack on his credibility as a prime minister. I don't think he has values that he will stick to, and will tend to cave in on his values due to popular demand. This is horrible for the economy (leads to big deficits), and is also bad in principle. Once the labourers in power plants start complaining that their jobs are being cut because of environmental reform, Rudd will cave in. He is weak on his values.
-
Ah, I see your point. I didn't even know that, lol - oh well, I've got 3 days between my last exam and the election to really read up on each party's policies. Maybe then I'll be able to actually make an informed choice :roll:
I guess I'm just attracted to Labor's foreign policy as that is the only area in which I have some knowledge. My friend, who is going for Liberal, keeps reminding me that Rudd will screw up the economy. Can someone explain how?
Rudd and his team have a clear lack of experience.
-
Hm... I'm sceptical of Labor's stance on foreign policy to be honest. Rudd wants to be out in 1.5 years. This is good compared to the Democratic candidates in the U.S., who want out in 2012!
Mm, yeah, I like his approach to the Iraq situation, although it could be better. I also like some of the other aspects of Labour's foreign policy, such as its advocacy for greater involvement in the UN and in the Asia-Pacific region, rather than viewing the ANZUS alliance as the cornerstone of Australian foreign policy - the Liberal stance - which I think can only be good for Australia.
I'm also worried about the "me-too-ism". I wonder, how many of the policies Rudd is pushing now will actually come to fruition?
EDIT: Then again, most parties are like that.
-
Ah, I see your point. I didn't even know that, lol - oh well, I've got 3 days between my last exam and the election to really read up on each party's policies. Maybe then I'll be able to actually make an informed choice :roll:
I guess I'm just attracted to Labor's foreign policy as that is the only area in which I have some knowledge. My friend, who is going for Liberal, keeps reminding me that Rudd will screw up the economy. Can someone explain how?
Rudd and his team have a clear lack of experience.
I'm not too concerned about experience, because Howard is going to hand over to Costello. He's had no experience as PM too (but he has had great years as Treasurer). I think that Costello would be a good leader though.
I would look at someone based on their values rather than criticise them on inexperience, because everyone started off inexperienced at some stage.
-
Hm... I'm sceptical of Labor's stance on foreign policy to be honest. Rudd wants to be out in 1.5 years. This is good compared to the Democratic candidates in the U.S., who want out in 2012!
Mm, yeah, I like his approach to the Iraq situation, although it could be better. I also like some of the other aspects of Labour's foreign policy, such as its advocacy for greater involvement in the UN, and greater integration into the Asia-Pacific region, rather than viewing the ANZUS alliance as the cornerstone of Australian foreign policy - the Liberal stance - which I think can only be good for Australia.
I'm also worried about the "me-too-ism". I wonder, how many of the policies Rudd is pushing now will actually come to fruition?
EDIT: Then again, most parties are like that.
Yeah, I'm not too happy with Liberal's foreign policy. Labor's foreign policy is really the only place where it shines, although ideally, I would prefer fewer military alliances and more free trade, so I'm not that interested anyway. A Liberal government still focuses on China (just as much as Rudd) in terms of trade, but I don't think alliances are necessary. We should not align ourselves militarily with a country that is so oppressive to it's people. We should only ally with countries who show a clear understanding of liberty.
-
Ah, I see your point. I didn't even know that, lol - oh well, I've got 3 days between my last exam and the election to really read up on each party's policies. Maybe then I'll be able to actually make an informed choice :roll:
I guess I'm just attracted to Labor's foreign policy as that is the only area in which I have some knowledge. My friend, who is going for Liberal, keeps reminding me that Rudd will screw up the economy. Can someone explain how?
Government interventions in economy create "dead-weight loss." This is economic jargon for economic inefficiency, because the government interventions often have adverse effects on the amount of trade that goes on, causing to differ from the "optimal" amount of trade. Basically, there ends up becoming trades that would have otherwise been mutually beneficial, but they are now prevented because of the government intervention (a tax or something).
Hm... I'm sceptical of Labor's stance on foreign policy to be honest. Rudd wants to be out in 1.5 years. This is good compared to the Democratic candidates in the U.S., who want out in 2012! What worries me is Rudd's me-too'ism, that the media has played on a lot, and I have generally interpreted this as an attack on his credibility as a prime minister. I don't think he has values that he will stick to, and will tend to cave in on his values due to popular demand. This is horrible for the economy (leads to big deficits), and is also bad in principle. Once the labourers in power plants start complaining that their jobs are being cut because of environmental reform, Rudd will cave in. He is weak on his values.
Wow, Collin.
You should be some sort of political/economic advisor.
I agree that Rudd is weak on his values and may even change what he has promised if he gets elected.
-
On the dead weight loss - think of government intervention this way: the government takes $10, then they calmly burn $2 and then they give $8 back to the people. That's how government works.
Andrew Leigh, economist at ANU:
http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/~aleigh/opinion_fulltext2.htm
"With a few exceptions (such as the improved targeting of private school funding), much of the increased social spending in Australia has been devoted to universal benefits. The First Home Owner Grant, Private Healthcare Rebate, and Family Tax Benefit Part B are just three examples of policies that have enormous budgetary costs, but minimal social impact. By international standards, Australia?s welfare system is still reasonably well targeted, but we?re headed in the wrong direction.
Peter Saunders, from the Centre for Independent Studies, calls middle-class benefits the ?tax/welfare churn?. But this implies that the problem is simply one of moving money around. In fact, because taxes have an efficiency cost, each dollar raised in taxes reduces economic output. Estimates of the efficiency cost varies, but the best recent estimate for the ?deadweight burden? in Australia is around 20 cents in the dollar. Perhaps ?tax, burn and churn? would be a better description....
A taxpayer hands over five $20 notes. The government representative calmly burns one of them, and hands back the remaining four."
-
I'll be voting the Coalition, not because I think they are great, but because I'd rather vote them than Labor or the Greens. If a Ron Paul-esque person arose from the ashes and started their own party - that's who I'd be voting. Until then, I'll continue voting the Coalition.
-
I'll be voting the Coalition, not because I think they are great, but because I'd rather vote them than Labor or the Greens. If a Ron Paul-esque person arose from the ashes and started their own party - that's who I'd be voting. Until then, I'll continue voting the Coalition.
Agree with you mate.
Check out the LDP (Liberty & Democracy Party). They're not fielding many candidates, so you might not be able to vote them. If you're voting them a Senate spot, make sure you manually do your preferences, because I'm not sure how they're preferencing (usually they sign preference deals with minor parties, which are socialist, in order to get a better chance to win).
-
I'll be voting the Coalition, not because I think they are great, but because I'd rather vote them than Labor or the Greens. If a Ron Paul-esque person arose from the ashes and started their own party - that's who I'd be voting. Until then, I'll continue voting the Coalition.
With the exception of the LDP, Peter Costello from the Liberal Party seems the closest thing to Ron Paul given his views: http://freestudynotes.com/VCEforum/viewtopic.php?p=1167#1167
-
Check out the LDP (Liberty & Democracy Party). They're not fielding many candidates, so you might not be able to vote them.
Yeah, they aren't around here. I will have a look at them though, they do seem of interest.
With the exception of the LDP, Peter Costello from the Liberal Party seems the closest thing to Ron Paul
I've always found Peter Costello to be quite excellent, especially his comment (paraphrased a bit here): 'Anyone would think there were never reds under the bed, just economic conservatives'. Great stuff.
Edit: The LDP seems to echo my views in a lot of ways, just reading over a few of their policies... good stuff!
-
I just realised something
lol. Someone voted for "One Nation". I for one would never vote for One Nation as they have an anti-Asian/ethnic policy.
-
I would prefer fewer military alliances and more free trade
Well, there's the AUSFTA I spose which is huge ... though I think that things got more negative consequences than benefits for Australia ...
-
I would prefer fewer military alliances and more free trade
Well, there's the AUSFTA I spose which is huge ... though I think that things got more negative consequences than benefits for Australia ...
I'm not sure what the AUSFTA is, but I'm ready to take down anyone who wants to argue that free-trade (in general) will have more negative consequences than benefits.
-
Sorry, I remember things by acronyms lol: Australia-US Free Trade Agreement.
- Doesn't improve our economy much
- Excludes much of our agricultural industry, which is what we'd originally wanted to include
- Removes some of the restrictions on television content - so now television will be even more Americanised
- May deter other potential trade partners, especially in the Asia-Pacific
-
ahh coblin, i'd still rather more seats for the greens than for the homophobic liberals
-
Sorry, I remember things by acronyms lol: Australia-US Free Trade Agreement.
- Doesn't improve our economy much
- Excludes much of our agricultural industry, which is what we'd originally wanted to include
- Removes some of the restrictions on television content - so now television will be even more Americanised
- May deter other potential trade partners, especially in the Asia-Pacific
Free trade is a good thing. The "FTA" is a misnomer because it is not actually free trade, but a contract that only allows trade in some sections. That's hardly free trade. The FTA still does more good than bad though. You can never lose from opening up free trade where there was previously none, and the economic benefits will always outweigh the costs.
One example is your fear of Americanised TV. There is no reason why American TV would take over Australian TV unless American TV attracted more viewers in Australia, than Australian TV. What is wrong with that? That means people like it. It simply introduces competition for Australian directors to produce material that appeals to Australians better than American TV producers can.
-
ahh coblin, i'd still rather more seats for the greens than for the homophobic liberals
Your principles are strong, and I commend that, but there needs to be room for pragmaticism.
These seats for the Greens are going to be in the Senate. In the Senate, the Greens do not introduce bills, they only approve or disapprove bills. Both the main parties have shown no resolve on social issues (such as gay rights), and that is not going to change. Voting for the Greens will not change their viewpoint on this. Instead, it will send a mixed message to Labor, influencing them on multiple fronts, such as regressive taxation, and the environment, rather than on gay rights. Since the major parties are going to be fighting around on fiscal policy (where to give tax cuts, whom to give money to), the Greens will only have an economic effect, and if you subscribe to my economic beliefs, their economic principles are bad for the nation, and ultimately bad for the poor and aspiring lower-middle class who want to open small business.
If you truly support liberty (which would be concordant with supporting gay rights), and you do not wish to concede your values, place a vote for the Liberty & Democracy party, not the Greens. This will not send a mixed message to Labor, but in fact, it will send a strong and clear message to the Liberals saying: "social conservatism makes no sense! Get rid of it, and this plus responsible economic management would be a winner for everyone."
-
What would happen if the Liberal Party won, but John Howard lost his Bennelong seat?
-
What would happen if the Liberal Party won, but John Howard lost his Bennelong seat?
Costello! :D
That's my dream outcome.
-
These seats for the Greens are going to be in the Senate. In the Senate, the Greens do not introduce bills, they only approve or disapprove bills. Both the main parties have shown no resolve on social issues (such as gay rights), and that is not going to change. Voting for the Greens will not change their viewpoint on this.
Bills can be introduced in the senate, unless they are money bills. But yes they are generally introduced in the lower house
-
The only problem is that the Greens are giving their preferences to the Labor Party.
-
- Removes some of the restrictions on television content - so now television will be even more Americanised
That's what people like to watch obviously. If they didn't, then the commerical networks wouldn't buy it.
-
Who remembers the last time that neither Labour nor Liberal had control of the Senate? Because from memory I believe it was the democrats but I'm not 100%. Also I think it was back around 1998 or something but I can't be sure on that either.
Goosefraba? lol
-
actually i've never heard of the Liberty & Democracy party, why don't they have more ads? hahhaha
-
Who remembers the last time that neither Labour nor Liberal had control of the Senate? Because from memory I believe it was the democrats but I'm not 100%. Also I think it was back around 1998 or something but I can't be sure on that either.
Goosefraba? lol
I think they held the balance of power in 1999/2000 when the GST bill went through, and they managed to have GST removed from basic food.
-
This is going to be an interesting week of final election rampage from the two major parties.
-
actually i've never heard of the Liberty & Democracy party, why don't they have more ads? hahhaha
Too poor. They don't have taxpayers money and/or union officials donating heaps to fund their advertisements.
They also have a shortage of candidates too, so you might have trouble voting for them :(
-
- Removes some of the restrictions on television content - so now television will be even more Americanised
So what? If people really preferred Australian shows over American ones then the tv networks have an economic incentive to provide it (the higher the ratings, the more they can charge advertisers).
-
Who remembers the last time that neither Labour nor Liberal had control of the Senate? Because from memory I believe it was the democrats but I'm not 100%. Also I think it was back around 1998 or something but I can't be sure on that either.
Goosefraba? lol
I think they held the balance of power in 1999/2000 when the GST bill went through, and they managed to have GST removed from basic food.
Ah yes. Refreshed my memory with the GST thing. It was the compromise aye? So that they didn't have to dissolve both houses of parliaments?
-
- Removes some of the restrictions on television content - so now television will be even more Americanised
So what? If people really preferred Australian shows over American ones then the tv networks have an economic incentive to provide it (the higher the ratings, the more they can charge advertisers).
Yes, I agree. I don't see a real problem with it. I'm just revising for international studies which says that it's a negative consequence of AUSFTA :P
Something about cultural imperialism => Americanism dilutes Australian culture - because networks are being forced to release some of their control on the content of television programs - apparently, there is a certain percentage of programs which have to be Australian.
-
Something about cultural imperialism => Americanism dilutes Australian culture - because networks are being forced to release some of their control on the content of television programs - apparently, there is a certain percentage of programs which have to be Australian.
personally i would dismiss the argument about imperialism because imperialism implies invasion, force, and coercion but no one is forcing anyone to watch american tv shows. if a person doesn't like it they can switch off the tv.
-
Something about cultural imperialism => Americanism dilutes Australian culture - because networks are being forced to release some of their control on the content of television programs - apparently, there is a certain percentage of programs which have to be Australian.
personally i would dismiss the argument about imperialism because imperialism implies invasion, force, and coercion but no one is forcing anyone to watch american tv shows. if a person doesn't like it they can switch off the tv.
Yeah, connotative appeal.
-
Apparently Kevin Rudd is going to reduce subsidies to private schools. This would lead to an increase in private school fees.
The election is only a few days away. This is going to be one tight election.
-
Apparently Kevin Rudd is going to reduce subsidies to private schools. This would lead to an increase in private school fees.
The election is only a few days away. This is going to be one tight election.
Not sure about that, but I do know that he is going to abolish full fee places by some date (I think it was 2009). That is the most ridiculous anti-choice policy that you could ever make in his so called "education revolution."
Full-fee places provide the greatest incentive for universities to perform well.
-
GO Family First!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
but i probably end up voting for Liberal.
-
GO Family First!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
but i probably end up voting for Liberal.
Eww! Who told you to vote that? Your youth group leader?
Please stop listening to that bullshit, and let people make up their own minds on moral decisions. A vote for Family First is a vote for enforced Christianity.
-
The Greens would be the worst. Biggest pro-unionists, like woah.
-
GO Family First!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
but i probably end up voting for Liberal.
Eww! Who told you to vote that? Your youth group leader?
Please stop listening to that bullshit, and let people make up their own minds on moral decisions. A vote for Family First is a vote for enforced Christianity.
is it? serious? i didn't know that. im not very into politics. i'll most likely do a donkey vote.
-
Apparently Kevin Rudd is going to reduce subsidies to private schools. This would lead to an increase in private school fees.
The election is only a few days away. This is going to be one tight election.
No he is not.
-
Either way this election goes not much is going to change.
Same product. Different packaging.
-
GO Family First!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
but i probably end up voting for Liberal.
Eww! Who told you to vote that? Your youth group leader?
Please stop listening to that bullshit, and let people make up their own minds on moral decisions. A vote for Family First is a vote for enforced Christianity.
is it? serious? i didn't know that. im not very into politics. i'll most likely do a donkey vote.
End up voting for Liberal sounds alright :)
-
I really have no clue who I'd vote for, but I don't need to worry about it - I'm not 18 until the middle of next year :P
-
Did anyone watch The Chaser's version of the election.
At the end it had Kevin Rudd's repetition of the words 'Working Families'
-
lol that was mad...the chasers never get boring
-
If Labor wins, would our economy go unstable???
-
It appears as the Age puts it to be a 'cliffhanger.'
-
http://www.domain.com.au/Public/PropertyDetails.aspx?adid=2006832414
I saw that joke. I hope Johnny is still there on Sunday.
-
cant believe johnny lost! watch our economy go backwards - hopefuly for only 1 term!
-
Yeh, johnny lost.
I want to know what the new ministry of labor will be like.
-
I might as well join in the fun and go for the liberal leadership too :)
-
@ least costello will still be on the backbench and he won his seat by heaps as well!