Political parties

[Glasses]

So just out of curiosity, I was wondering which political party you guys do (or intend to) vote for

[slothpomba]

I vote for and am a member of The Greens. In terms of a party, i think they have the best overall suite of ideas, especially so in a way that is consistent with my ideology. I don't agree with everything and not every policy is part of the "greatest hits" but in a parliamentary party system, you get to pick who is closest to what you want, not what you want.

In terms of individuals, i think there are some stellar individuals like Ricky Muir who was very surprising. He's matured into a very competent and considered politician. He comes from an ordinary background unlike most of the rest of parliament who were lawyers or even worse still, are political careerists more or less (their entire career in, aimed towards or peripheral around politics, i.e bill shorten). He understands a lot of average issues (say like welfare, being on it himself after losing his job for a brief time). He is very humbled and unlike members of parties, he isn't forced to follow what the party believes, he votes on what he believes (more or less).

I am mostly pleased with Daniel Andrews and the Victorian ALP. There are some things i wish they have done or didn't do, some i find rather upsetting, but as an overall package they are a godsend. It's a shame the federal ALP is no where near as attractive.

[Glasses]

I vote for and am a member of The Greens. In terms of a party, i think they have the best overall suite of ideas, especially so in a way that is consistent with my ideology. I don't agree with everything and not every policy is part of the "greatest hits" but in a parliamentary party system, you get to pick who is closest to what you want, not what you want.

In terms of individuals, i think there are some stellar individuals like Ricky Muir who was very surprising. He's matured into a very competent and considered politician. He comes from an ordinary background unlike most of the rest of parliament who were lawyers or even worse still, are political careerists more or less (their entire career in, aimed towards or peripheral around politics, i.e bill shorten). He understands a lot of average issues (say like welfare, being on it himself after losing his job for a brief time). He is very humbled and unlike members of parties, he isn't forced to follow what the party believes, he votes on what he believes (more or less).

I am mostly pleased with Daniel Andrews and the Victorian ALP. There are some things i wish they have done or didn't do, some i find rather upsetting, but as an overall package they are a godsend. It's a shame the federal ALP is no where near as attractive.

I agree with and support the Coalition's economic policy, but support the Greens' social policies and attitudes regarding certain things a lot more (i.e. - with relation to asylum seekers).

I completely agree with what you are saying with regards to voting for the closest thing to what you want - which is what encourages me to establish my own political party 

[ShortBlackChick]

I am voting Labor in the Federal election because I am now living in a marginal seat currently held by a Liberal MP. Long live the days of living in a Labor safehold.

I was taken by Bill Shorten's appearance on Q&A a few months ago. I think he is often understated because he's not the most charismatic leader but he has views I can generally agree upon.

I hated Tony Abbott's rhetoric towards everything really, but more so with asylum seekers and radicalisation, but it's good that Turnbull has calmed down a bit. I dont agree with the plebiscite on Same-sex marriages, I don't agree with fee-deregulation of universities, I don't agree with negative gearing, that shit needs to go, and I don't agree with cuts to the health care system through medicare and other cuts to bulk billing services.

I think on principle I can never affiliate myself with the Liberals.

I don't get the fuss about becoming a republic though. Both leaders have shown their support for it, but I think there's more concerning issues  in our country today.

[thebosscollins]

The upcoming election should be interesting one. Shorten is starting to really find his feet and Turnbull is really struggling. I think the general consensus is that he promised so much and hasn't really delivered at all. This is mainly due to the fact he has to do the impossible balancing act of keeping the right wing Liberals and moderates both happy - its impossible.

[Aaron]

Given my strong stance on Education, I always vote for whoever presents the best education policy at the time. It doesn't really matter who gets voted in, because they never stick to their word.

The past two elections that i've been able to vote in (2014 State and 2013 Federal), i've voted Labor both times. I most likely will vote Labor again due to their strong emphasis on computer science education (more specifically, the fact they continually mention giving children the opportunity to code in schools). Since they're targeting two of my strongest interests (computing and education), I don't think anyone else can beat that.

[chasej]

No party reflects my views adequately, I'm much more left-wing on social issues than Labor/Greens and am broadly against taxation and government spending, there should be a separation between government and economics like there is between government and religion.

Governments only real role should be foreign policy, enforcement of contracts and criminal law. Couples or other types of relationships don't need a government to recognise their marriage.

[extremeftw]

No party reflects my views adequately, I'm much more left-wing on social issues than Labor/Greens and am broadly against taxation and government spending, there should be a separation between government and economics like there is between government and religion.

Governments only real role should be foreign policy, enforcement of contracts and criminal law. Couples or other types of relationships don't need a government to recognise their marriage.

 Interesting. Just curious, if you don't think that the government should administer economic policy, then who should?

[chasej]

Interesting. Just curious, if you don't think that the government should administer economic policy, then who should?

'administering' government policy is a misnomer. The economy does not need to be managed from the top-down, in fact that introduces a system where the interests of some are held above the interests of others as the manager would always be biased. In a laissez faire system no administration is needed as the market is regulated by individual decisions and all are equal in the market.

Sounds a lot like the liberal democrats...

They're rather militant, rejection of authority shouldn't involve resistance to authority and much of the reasoning for their policies are not sound. They argue using misnomers such as 'efficient allocation of resources' and 'more fulfilment for the most amount of people', but that is a utilitarian argument and not a libertarian argument - essentially by arguing what they do they are arguing if statism worked out better in a situation, they would chose that.

[extremeftw]

'administering' government policy is a misnomer. The economy does not need to be managed from the top-down, in fact that introduces a system where the interests of some are held above the interests of others as the manager would always be biased. In a laissez faire system no administration is needed as the market is regulated by individual decisions and all are equal in the market.

 What do you think about the concept of the government using fiscal policy to stimulate demand in the economy to spur growth (or contract it to influence inflation)? A purely free market economy without substantive government spending cannot use fiscal policy in this manner which seems like a lost opportunity.

[chasej]

What do you think about the concept of the government using fiscal policy to stimulate demand in the economy to spur growth (or contract it to influence inflation)? A purely free market economy without substantive government spending cannot use fiscal policy in this manner which seems like a lost opportunity.

Fiscal policy is short sited and doesn't help long-term growth - essentially it involves pumping up huge debt and then restricting future growth through taxation, the end game of fiscal policy in a 'free market' economy is Greece. A free market stimulates and controls itself through banking using gold standard currency, in a time of high growth the interest rate would increase as capital begins to be limited restricting growth, and in times of slow growth, interest rates would go down as there is little demand for capital, prompting an increase in growth.

A market with substantive government spending isn't a free market either, it's a variation of a controlled market, on a spectrum which includes Communism at its end.

Economists believe fiscal policy is the only way because they take government backed currency as a given and don't consider alternative currencies such as gold backed currency.