Australian 2013 Federal Election Megathread

[simpak]

Yes, it's an article from 2006 and I therefore dismissed it.  Also, everything you guys have quoted is valid but not recent at all.  I've only mentioned extremely recent stuff in my post.  If I was going to go back through the archives I'm sure I could find plenty of reasons to hate on Abbott.

Edit: editing only because I don't want a whole barrage of posts with UNRELATED recent reasons to hate on Abbott before you begin listing them! 

Polonium, I don't honestly think that the LNP will be opposed to gay marriage 'forever', sorry.  This term, yup.

[Thu Thu Train]

Don't be ridiculous now. The LNP platform explicitly states their opposition to same-sex marriage. It's a Christian conservative party, for fuck's sake. Elect ALP --> marriage equality; elect LNP --> no marriage equality. It's as simple as that. It's not a "maybe later", it's not a "we'll think about it." It's a "fuck no and we won't even let out front bench vote otherwise."

Source plz.

Abbott, as Health Minister, refused approval for the importation of RU-486, the abortion pill. He also previously stated his opposition to subsudising abortions through Medicare. I definitely don't expect him to be benign in terms of women's health issues as PM.

Yet it was still passed while he was health minister.

[JellyDonut]

Secondly, as Allan said, the Coalition have not said they support gay marriage at the present time but they haven't said they're never going to support it. Labor only very recently started speaking out on this issue.

Labor has been toying with idea of a same-sex marriage conscience vote even back when Gillard was in power. And it wasn't like it was off their books before then

[Starlight]

Abbott said his opinion of abortions was that they should be rare.  I do not agree with this opinion as I am fully pro-choice, but just because someone states their opinion doesn't mean they're going to implement a policy.  In fact, Abbott has said that he doesn't think abortion should be politicised here, so I don't see how you can argue he will actually MAKE abortions rare, even if he thinks they should be or wanted them to be.

Yes I agree with your point here, just disagree with his view.

Secondly, as Allan said, the Coalition have not said they support gay marriage at the present time but they haven't said they're never going to support it.  Labor only very recently started speaking out on this issue.

I agree, it is obviously quite iffy how labor is only speaking about gay marriage now. However they have not openly stated their opposition as much as Abbott. I have a feeling that the "present time" would be quite a while.

Thirdly, what are you talking about re: stem cells?  I tried looking in the news and I couldn't find anything, could you maybe post a link or something?  I do know that the Coalition have said that they would maintain funding to medical research and cut funding to 'wasteful' projects, most of which are humanities based.  Whether or not you disagree with this, I don't see how the cuts --> preventing stem cell research.

See ninwa's post.

Yes, it's an article from 2006 and I therefore dismissed it.  Also, everything you guys have quoted is valid but not recent at all.  I've only mentioned extremely recent stuff in my post.  If I was going to go back through the archives I'm sure I could find plenty of reasons to hate on Abbott.

I don't think he would be changing any of his strictly conservative views any time soon.

[Professor Polonsky]

Polonium, I don't honestly think that the LNP will be opposed to gay marriage 'forever', sorry.  This term, yup.

Well you're electing a government for THIS TERM aren't you? What's the point of voting someone in based on what their position might be in a future Parliament, in a future election cycle?

Source plz.

It's the official LNP position, Abbott has explicitly stated he won't allow a conscious vote, therefore front bench has to vote against it.
[quoYet it was still passed while he was health minister.
[/quote]So? He was opposed to it. That says enough.

[simpak]

I don't think he would be changing any of his strictly conservative views any time soon.

This is a serious question, believe it or not (and I preface it by saying I'm not trying to be hostile or anything, I'm just genuinely curious): why do you place so much emphasis on the conservative views (or those that you believe exist) of a potential leader?  Like, why does it matter so much in the context of party platform, current policy and current campaign when the party acts as a body or a group rather than as an individual, and the leader is just a spokesperson by and large for the stance of the whole party?

I don't think two of the issues you brought up are at all relevant to the current campaign.  Are you just somebody who has put yourself down as a non-LNP voter for life, and therefore you're never going to consider the current offerings and just always look at the overarching 'vibe' you get from the party at any point in time?  Or is it just Abbott that turns you off the party?  If there were another leader, what would your views be then?

Polonium, yes, I am electing the government this term.  I'm not electing them for life.  And I know this is probably going to make me sound like a bitch, but I personally don't feel I can sacrifice all the downfalls I see in Labor policy this term by voting Labor even though they are supposedly going to begin supporting gay marriage.  As much as I believe in marriage equality, I refuse to be a one issue voter.  I've thought about my vote, and I know where it is going this term.  It doesn't mean I would never vote Labor in the future and it certainly doesn't mean my stance on marriage equality is the same as the LNP stance at the present time (that it should wait).  I do believe action should be taken as soon as possible but I don't want to HAVE to vote Labor to see that action, just based on the other stuff they have put forth.

By the way, the official Liberal position on gay marriage is actually that it's 'not a current priority', which is basically a nice way to weasel out of the situation.  It's certainly not what you have posted in reply to Allan and I have a feeling that's why you haven't attempted to show us a quote stating that is the official Liberal position.  And importantly, at the present time.

I don't think that being opposed to something 7 years ago 'says enough', especially when a few DAYS ago someone said they don't want to politicise abortion.  I think the latter says enough about the validity of using that issue as a basis upon which to cast a vote in this election.  Even if Abbott were opposed to Abortion, this is not a dictatorship, and most of the Liberal party wouldn't feel the same way so I'd have difficulty believing that he would ever take any action on his personal concerns should he be leading the country.

[vox nihili]

Labor has been toying with idea of a same-sex marriage conscience vote even back when Gillard was in power. And it wasn't like it was off their books before then

It wasn't toying with it. It's actually quite sad that this has been credited to Rudd. He openly supported it during Julia's term, by which point, she'd already allowed all Labor members a conscience vote on the matter. This wasn't a Rudd achievement, this was a Gillard achievement. A lot of what she's done has been overshadowed by Rudd sadly!

[ninwa]

By the way, the official Liberal position on gay marriage is actually that it's 'not a current priority', which is basically a nice way to weasel out of the situation.  It's certainly not what you have posted in reply to Allan and I have a feeling that's why you haven't attempted to show us a quote stating that is the official Liberal position.  And importantly, at the present time.

While I have consistently advocated a position that the Coalition should keep its recent election commitment to maintain marriage as a union between a man and a woman, I will not tolerate comments that are offensive to people in same-sex relationships.

While the Coalition has a policy position not to support changes to the Marriage Act, the Coalition has a proud history of opposition to discrimination in any form and as Leader of the Opposition, I will not have this record undermined.

[ninwa]

Here's a more recent one from June this year:

TONY ABBOTT:
The short answer is no. I appreciate Sue's position and we're not a Stalinist party, never have been, never will be. Obviously we have a clear position that we don't support gay marriage as a party, but people on our side of the political fence have always had the right, if they feel strongly enough about something, to make their own decision.

[Professor Polonsky]

This is a serious question, believe it or not (and I preface it by saying I'm not trying to be hostile or anything, I'm just genuinely curious): why do you place so much emphasis on the conservative views (or those that you believe exist) of a potential leader?  Like, why does it matter so much in the context of party platform, current policy and current campaign when the party acts as a body or a group rather than as an individual, and the leader is just a spokesperson by and large for the stance of the whole party?

Not really. Major decisions are made by the Cabinet, with heavy influence by the Parliamentary leader.

I don't think two of the issues you brought up are at all relevant to the current campaign.  Are you just somebody who has put yourself down as a non-LNP voter for life, and therefore you're never going to consider the current offerings and just always look at the overarching 'vibe' you get from the party at any point in time?  Or is it just Abbott that turns you off the party?  If there were another leader, what would your views be then?

Polonium, yes, I am electing the government this term.  I'm not electing them for life.  And I know this is probably going to make me sound like a bitch, but I personally don't feel I can sacrifice all the downfalls I see in Labor policy this term by voting Labor even though they are supposedly going to begin supporting gay marriage.  As much as I believe in marriage equality, I refuse to be a one issue voter.  I've thought about my vote, and I know where it is going this term.  It doesn't mean I would never vote Labor in the future and it certainly doesn't mean my stance on marriage equality is the same as the LNP stance at the present time (that it should wait).  I do believe action should be taken as soon as possible but I don't want to HAVE to vote Labor to see that action, just based on the other stuff they have put forth.

No, you're not sounding bitchy at all. It's completely okay not to be a single-issue voter, and there are certainly areas in which I align with a party other than the one I would vote for (well, in fact, I'd split my ticket House/Senate). This is where I'm going to disagree with you (and probably agree to disagree at this point in time), as I'm far-left economically and centre-left on social issues. I don't see myself ever voting for the Liberal Party, as I am simply completely incompatible with their views.

By the way, the official Liberal position on gay marriage is actually that it's 'not a current priority', which is basically a nice way to weasel out of the situation.  It's certainly not what you have posted in reply to Allan and I have a feeling that's why you haven't attempted to show us a quote stating that is the official Liberal position.  And importantly, at the present time.

Searching for "current priority" liberal marriage yields zero relevant results. It is also not on their Federal platform nor their laughable policy booklet. The most recent relevant policy announcement regarding same-sex marriage from the Libs was Abbott's denial of a conscious vote on the issue when it came up before Parliament. The official Liberal Party position on the vote was against. There is nothing to suggest this position has changed.

I don't think that being opposed to something 7 years ago 'says enough', especially when a few DAYS ago someone said they don't want to politicise abortion.  I think the latter says enough about the validity of using that issue as a basis upon which to cast a vote in this election.  Even if Abbott were opposed to Abortion, this is not a dictatorship, and most of the Liberal party wouldn't feel the same way so I'd have difficulty believing that he would ever take any action on his personal concerns should he be leading the country.

You're really going to believe election propaganda over the man's stated views?

Most of the Liberal Party is controlled by social conservatives. That was one of the main reasons Turnbull was deposed, not just over ETS stuff. (Abbott is, in fact, closer to the economic centre than Turnbull. Abbott (as well as most of his frontbench) are also clearly unfit to lead the country, though. If it wasn't for his personal inadequacy, I'd prefer Abbott over Turnbull.) I don't think they would have any problem voting to restrict access to abortion in Australia.

Here's a more recent one from June this year:

The short answer is no. I appreciate Sue's position and we're not a Stalinist party, never have been, never will be. Obviously we have a clear position that we don't support gay marriage as a party, but people on our side of the political fence have always had the right, if they feel strongly enough about something, to make their own decision. As long as they're not on the front bench, and if they vote for it they should know that they probably won't be preselected for the next election being lowsy replaceable backbenchers in safe seats.

[Starlight]

This is a serious question, believe it or not (and I preface it by saying I'm not trying to be hostile or anything, I'm just genuinely curious): why do you place so much emphasis on the conservative views (or those that you believe exist) of a potential leader?  Like, why does it matter so much in the context of party platform, current policy and current campaign when the party acts as a body or a group rather than as an individual, and the leader is just a spokesperson by and large for the stance of the whole party?

I'm just not a fan of bias. I agree that obviously many of his views would not be implemented, however I think he would not be a good PM/ representative for Australia.

Prime example: "Shit happens"

Just because his views may not be implemented doesn't mean that he won't continue to voice them.

Are you just somebody who has put yourself down as a non-LNP voter for life, and therefore you're never going to consider the current offerings and just always look at the overarching 'vibe' you get from the party at any point in time?  Or is it just Abbott that turns you off the party?  If there were another leader, what would your views be then?

Not at all. I agree with the LNP on aspects such as (taking these from that votecompass quiz):

"The Commonwealth should pass laws requiring more women in senior positions". They disagree with that, as do I.
However, obviously my disagreements with their views on areas such as immigration and conscience issues outweigh any possible agreements on other issues.

[simpak]

Well thats more like it!  Thanks for providing recent evidence, I'll retract my comments on that one.

Polonium: there is influence from the leader but the leader does not make sole decisions.  Obviously a Liberal leader /does/ have more say than what a Labor leader does, which is something I guess should be considered.  This still isn't a presidential kind of system, most of us will vote for someone entirely different to the person we will see leading a party even if we voted for that party, and that was the point I was trying to make.

I guess what Nina posted is better evidence for the argument you're making there for marriage so check it out for future reference!

What exactly do you mean by election propaganda?  I agree with the stance Abbott has made recently in saying that we shouldn't go down the same path as America and allow that kind of debate about abortion and this kind of backwards travel for individual choice.  But I don't see his views being reflected in the current party platform and I don't see them as being entirely relevant for that reason.  Your comments about Liberals having no problem restricting abortion paints the LNP as being similar to the American far right which is frankly an inaccurate comparison to make, especially in the light of what I just said.  I don't personally think that any vote to restrict abortion will be occurring and I don't think that any movement to restrict abortion would be as easily approved as you've inferred.

@El: So your opposition to Abbott is more like, how good he would be as a representative for our country and a leader we can be proud of?  That makes sense   Okay I was just curious, thanks for answering my questions haha, it literally wasn't going anywhere in terms of argument so don't worry.  I guess, in contrast to you, I tend to vote more based on economy than what I do on social and conscience issues, at least at the moment.

[Starlight]

@El: So your opposition to Abbott is more like, how good he would be as a representative for our country and a leader we can be proud of?  That makes sense   Okay I was just curious, thanks for answering my questions haha, it literally wasn't going anywhere in terms of argument so don't worry.  I guess, in contrast to you, I tend to vote more based on economy than what I do on social and conscience issues, at least at the moment.

Pretty much. Yes economical issues are important too, if the economy was in ruins then i'd probably have no hesitance in changing my vote.

[Professor Polonsky]

Polonium: there is influence from the leader but the leader does not make sole decisions.  Obviously a Liberal leader /does/ have more say than what a Labor leader does, which is something I guess should be considered.  This still isn't a presidential kind of system, most of us will vote for someone entirely different to the person we will see leading a party even if we voted for that party, and that was the point I was trying to make.

Did I ever say that the leader makes sole decisions? I in fact explicitly made the point later that I don't trust most of the Liberal frontbench, which is who makes the decisions (as I stated originally). Simply a strawman.

I guess what Nina posted is better evidence for the argument you're making there for marriage so check it out for future reference!

My argument was more than compelling on its own, but thanks.

What exactly do you mean by election propaganda?

I mean that thing which occurs in all Western democracy in which ideological party leaders pander to the centre for the election in order to win votes, than revert back to their true position

Your comments about Liberals having no problem restricting abortion paints the LNP as being similar to the American far right which is frankly an inaccurate comparison to make, especially in the light of what I just said.  I don't personally think that any vote to restrict abortion will be occurring and I don't think that any movement to restrict abortion would be as easily approved as you've inferred.

Access to abortion itself might not be restricted. But those things start occurring slowly, with baby steps, and then it becomes a mainstream issue. We saw it with the war on drugs, we saw it with economic liberalisation, and then in the US with the most recent assault on access to abortion.

The Liberal Party has direct links to the US far-right. Several members went to the most recent ALEC conference (basically the source of all the anti-abortion shit). To be honest, those links are more pronounced with their economic-right faction rather than their Christian conservative faction, but they're still there.

But the reason I'd be voting ALP is because I'm scared of another massive economic shift to the right. The 80s were more than enough for me.

[simpak]

Did I ever say that the leader makes sole decisions? I in fact explicitly made the point later that I don't trust most of the Liberal frontbench, which is who makes the decisions (as I stated originally). Simply a strawman.

I was just pointing out that heavy influence doesn't mean sole influence.  If you don't trust the entire Cabinet then that's fine and a legitimate reason to vote against the party, but it was a question regarding trust of the leader and it was directed at El!

My argument was more than compelling on its own, but thanks.

That wasn't meant to be a stab at you... I'm suddenly feeling like this is turning from a simple debate to something a lot more hostile.  To me, Nina's hard evidence with links and quotes seemed more compelling.  I used the term current priority because they had stated it's not a priority for them and it had been reported in the media, admittedly a poor source for the most part.  Your argument, which poked fun at their policy booklet in a biased manner, probably isn't going to swing me when I'm already aligning my views with the party you're making fun of.  If you're trying to make a point and potentially sway someone or change an opinion, you've got to know who you're selling it to.  I'm the wrong audience for that kind of thing.  Or maybe that's not what you're trying to do at all and rather than inform and change opinions you're actually just trying to 'win' this mini-debate.  Which isn't the point for me.

I mean that thing which occurs in all Western democracy in which ideological party leaders pander to the centre for the election in order to win votes, than revert back to their true position

When in the past x years has abortion been a hot topic!  It hasn't, in Australia!  If the Coalition wants to be neutral on an issue which frankly isn't going to win or lose them many votes at all then I really don't see a problem.  I'm voting based on what is in front of me, I'm not going to speculate about what may or may not happen in terms of /party/ (not Abbott) position on abortion after the election because that's speculation and why would I vote based on speculation when I can vote based on explicitly proposed policy?

The Liberal Party has direct links to the US far-right. Several members went to the most recent ALEC conference (basically the source of all the anti-abortion shit). To be honest, those links are more pronounced with their economic-right faction rather than their Christian conservative faction, but they're still there.

I'm sorry but I really just don't see the comparison between the LNP and the US far-right.  There might be connections between members, I am not up to speed so I'll take your word for it. But in the same way, there are connections between the Greens and Labor and I don't consider them to be politically aligned - one is evidently further left than the other.  And before you mention it, I am aware of Labor factions and the fact that not every Labor member sits in the same place on the left-right spectrum.  But it's possible to 'have connections' with people from other parties and not sit in the same region of the political spectrum.  It's possible to 'have connections' and still have difference in policy.  The Australian 'right' will never mirror the American far-right for as long as the LNP remains a major party.  The true Australian right is littered with minor parties.  The Liberal party is nowhere near as 'right' as the majority of 'left' aligning Australians make them out to be - I don't think you can put them in the same circle on vote-compass.