• Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials?
    Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details
  • Looking for HSC notes and resources?
    Check out our Notes & Resources page

2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Rudd? (1 Viewer)

Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

  • Coalition

    Votes: 249 33.3%
  • Labor

    Votes: 415 55.5%
  • Still undecided

    Votes: 50 6.7%
  • Apathetic

    Votes: 34 4.5%

  • Total voters
    748

Generator

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,244
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Mc_Meaney said:
labour. Mainly because I disagree with many of the policies set forth by the Liberal party, and I dont want to see Costello become PM in the next...hmm ever.
Labor, not Labour.
 

Generator

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,244
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

IR stand boosts Beazley

IR stand boosts Beazley
Dennis Shanahan, Political editor
July 19, 2006



VOTERS have dramatically changed their attitude to Kim Beazley's leadership as he has campaigned on industrial relations in recent months.

The Opposition Leader has recovered from a slump in his personal standing earlier this year and is now considered as strong and decisive, visionary, and as caring as he was a year ago.

People consider the Labor leader more in touch with voters than John Howard, and the most trustworthy compared with the Prime Minister since he became party leader at the beginning of last year.

The Newspoll survey of personality traits of the leaders, conducted exclusively for The Australian last weekend, shows Mr Beazley pulling out of a March trough with across-the-board increases.

Mr Howard's ratings were unchanged in most categories and he still far outpolls Mr Beazley on the issues of economic management and handling national security.

[continued - see link]
 

transcendent

Active Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
2,954
Location
Beyond.
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Are the electoral changes written in stone? I don't know who's in charge of Blaxland. I was part of Fowler so that means I was with Julie Irwin and I have no disagreement with her. Still my electorate maintains heartland Labor votes so any other votes would be insignificant. Not that I've registered to vote or any such nonsense.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

I’ve got a good feeling that next year will be the same as 98 for Kim.
That campaign was fought with incredible guts and huge success, against all the odds.
He must privately know that an 07 victory is a big ask, but he's bringing the party back from the brink of oblivion - again.
He's never really had ambitions for the top job - evidenced in the perhaps 'lazy' style of the unlosable 2001.
He's a sort of transitional fellow, waiting for another bloodthirsty go-getter like Keating. Thoroughly respectable and modest.
Why dont the plebs love him?
 

poloktim

\(^o^)/
Joined
Jun 15, 2003
Messages
1,323
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

I don't understand why people would vote Liberal when Howard promised no interest rate rises. Do people like being lied to by John Howard? Do they like seeing him take a shit on his election promises? Maybe at 67 he's getting senile.
 

Rafy

Retired
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
10,719
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Uni Grad
2008
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

poloktim said:
I don't understand why people would vote Liberal when Howard promised no interest rate rises. Do people like being lied to by John Howard? Do they like seeing him take a shit on his election promises? Maybe at 67 he's getting senile.
He never promised that interest rates would not rise. Nobody could make that claim.
He did however say that interest rates would be lower under a coalition government, than a labor one.

It is therefore Beazley who is the one lying by misrepresenting the coalition's claim. (referring to the comments he made on the issue yesterday and today)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
409
Location
sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

if labor wins, we're going back to keating days :mad1: i like it how it is, libs for 07 :)
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Meh, Crikey.

Im liking how this election is shaping up to be about petrol - probably forcing Labor into an internally divisive energy debate at odds with middle-Australia's everything now philosophy?
Kim's already begun to call the bluff since he jumped out of the party's yellow cake - which is much more than can be said about Iron Mark's response to the Interest rate campaign.
 

ihavenothing

M.L.V.C.
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
919
Location
Darling It Hurts!
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

As much as I hate Beazley, im gonna have to vote for him.
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
409
Location
sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

on todays daily telegraph, go to page 23, down the bottom, there's an article that says 'we're 3 times richer in the howard era' read that article, very interesting :)
 

*Minka*

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Messages
660
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Labor.
 

Valeu

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
65
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

If Beazley manages to pull off a win, it will be due to either: a) higher interest rates, b) economic slowdown/WorkChoices backlash or c) further increased petrol prices. The man capitalises on failures or problems, and pretends he has an answer. Apart from WorkChoices he doesn't want to change anything fundamental.

His stratagem is simple:
1) find out what concerns people through polls. Create an expression of outrage at given problem, remedies or solutions can be thought through later or not at all.
2) Have no fundamental differences with the Liberal Party except for union backing. Any difference between ALP and LP leaves ALP exposed to attack, which they don't have the balls to counter.
3) Increase 'economic credibility', by appeasing to business groups as much as possible. We don't want to be offside with the big end of town. Look what happened to Latham.

He is truly pathetic. As Latham said, he was a man beholden to union powerbrokers, and above all, deeply scared of change. Until the ALP offers a clear policy differentiation between itself and the Liberals, the electorate will have little reason to vote them in. The only way to achieve this, i believe, is to make a concerted shift to the left, which is never going to happen.
[end beazley rant/]
 

Rafy

Retired
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
10,719
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Uni Grad
2008
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Beazley's incident with Wilson Tuckey in front of parliament yesterday does nothing to help him. It invokes thoughts of that Latham unpredictability. Sure it reflects poorly on Tuckey as well, however he isn’t the one aspiring to be Prime Minister.
What he should have done was maintain a degree of substance and rationality to his response to Tuckey, but instead he descended to shallow personal attacks. I for one could not picture Howard snapping in such a manner.

It says much about the man. He is all huff and puff; all talk, little substance.
 

wheredanton

Retired
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
599
Location
-
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Rafy said:
Beazley's incident with Wilson Tuckey in front of parliament yesterday does nothing to help him. It invokes thoughts of that Latham unpredictability. Sure it reflects poorly on Tuckey as well, however he isn’t the one aspiring to be Prime Minister.
What he should have done was maintain a degree of substance and rationality to his response to Tuckey, but instead he descended to shallow personal attacks. I for one could not picture Howard snapping in such a manner.

It says much about the man. He is all huff and puff; all talk, little substance.
Partly true. Wilson Tucky is an idiot, always has been in my opinion. It probably would have been better for Big Kim to not lower himself to Wilson's level and remind him that the border protection bill has nothing to do with border protection but rather than appeasing Indonesia (ie push the party line)

Personally the border protection bill is pretty disgusting. I really hope it gets watered down in the senate. I'll keel over if its the start of the Liberal party resorting to the race card next election.

Rafy said:
He never promised that interest rates would not rise. Nobody could make that claim.
He did however say that interest rates would be lower under a coalition government, than a labor one.
You have to admit that is not the impression that many in the electorate took.

If you take his promise literally, as you want us to, it is a totally hollow and useless promise. Suggesting that under the Liberals interest rates will be lower than the ALP is hardly a promise of any worth. The last time the ALP was in interest rates hit 17%. It was 1988. The world was a very different place and Australian was going through signficant economic restructuring.

Are you telling me that if interest rates went up to 10% (Lower than it has ever been under the ALP) John Howard would be out there telling everyone how wonderful and successful he was at how he kept his promise to keep interest rates lower than the ALP? Would he be out there telling everyone that he keeps interest rates low? I can assure you that an interest rate of 10% now would hurt Australia more than the 17% hurt Australia in 1988. It only adds to the fact that comparing rates across generations is not exactly the best measure.

Gimmie a break. Don't turn into a Liberal Party Parrot. You more shit you feed out like that the more I get the impression that you are stereotypical blue blood Liberal Kings School fellow who wants to fellate John Howard simply because of his breeding. I'd like to assume otherwise but the more you post without opposition in the thread the more inclined I am to believe that such an assessment is correct.

It is therefore Beazley who is the one lying by misrepresenting the coalition's claim. (referring to the comments he made on the issue yesterday and today)
Oh dear god no! A politician putting their own interpretation on the othersides words in order to score points. John Howard would never ever do that! God forbid heaven forfend!
 
Last edited:

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

I think that traditional labor policies vs traditional liberal policies, it's more likely that the lib policies would lead to lower interest rates on a pure ideological level. But at the same time I do think both parties have changed and there'd be little difference on Labors side.

I do wonder however, how labor intends to keep australia's economy the way it's going, without a 'wages race to the bottom', which I do agree is happening under the liberals. Do they have some industry they're going to throw more money into to get it up to world standards?
 

wheredanton

Retired
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
599
Location
-
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Not-That-Bright said:
I think that traditional labor policies vs traditional liberal policies, it's more likely that the lib policies would lead to lower interest rates on a pure ideological level. But at the same time I do think both parties have changed and there'd be little difference on Labors side.
Largely true. Both approaches have plues and minuses.

I do wonder however, how labor intends to keep australia's economy the way it's going, without a 'wages race to the bottom', which I do agree is happening under the liberals. Do they have some industry they're going to throw more money into to get it up to world standards?
In all honestly I don't think the ALP would differ all that much to the Liberals. Not much really seperates them. It's mainly rhetoric and ideology.

Most of this is highly and I repeat highly hypothetical.

'Workchoices' will be watered down and given a new name. The ALP well knows that labour market reform is essential. Hence when any politician says 'rip up' they mean alter and give it a new name. Hmm what else. Border security policy would change slightly. The rhetoric would be less harsh. Our relationship with the US would be the same, under the ALP there would be a greater chance of Australian troops pulling out. The ALP would be less enthusiastic about sending troops of to war. If the ALP did send it's troops overseas it would talk about security and the need to give support rather than big noting itself as being a part of the war on terror. Certainly last week it seemed like Howard was proud to delcare that it is possible that Australian troops could die in Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top