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

[withoutaface]

Yeah I was, and 99% of what was said was bullshit. He made inappropriate comments in front of journalists (you know, the guys who write the articles, in the, like, newspapers), propositioned one of them, then cried foul when it was reported on...

 

[Rafy]

The Galaxy marginal seats poll:
Poll goes down to the wire
John Howard closes the gap in election race


Calamity John: Howard faces massive defeat
The latest Sunday Age/Taverner Research poll shows that 57% of the key mortgage-holder demographic will be voting for Labor, compared with only 43% for the Coalition.

 

[MaNiElla]

I for one welcome our Comrade, Chairman Rudd to the Emperorship.

Yeah, me too :uhhuh:

 

[Rafy]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Election editorials:

Sunday Telegraph - Why Kevin deserves a chance
"The Sunday Telegraph advocates a vote for Labor"

The Sunday Mail (SA) - Coalition best placed to govern
"The Sunday Mail believes the Coalition is best placed to govern Australia for the next three years."

The Sunday Mail (QLD) - Time to consider new leadership (Article not yet up)
"There is undoubtedly a mood for national renewal and there is a need for national renewal. Mr Rudd has demonstrated he has the potential to undertake that task effectively."

The Sunday Times - No valid reason to throw out Coalition
"The Sunday Times believes change for change sake is simply not an adequate trigger to throw out a Coalition Government"

The Sunday Age - Deserve it or not, Howard faces a losing battle with Me Too
"The Sunday Age does not see enough differences between the Coalition and Labor to urge readers to vote for one over the other"

Sunday Herald Sun - It's time, but not for Labor (Article not yet up)
"IT IS time. Not to change governments, but to resist temptation. It is time to acknowledge that the Coalition is the safe bet in a political contest in which the new, despite its superficial allure, offers less than the familiar."

 

[Triangulum]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

The bookies' average probability of a coalition win has dropped nearly 10% in the past week to 20.9%. Current best odds for the coalition are $4.50, current worst odds for Labor are $1.21.

Also, an ERMS poll in Tasmania again shows Labor leading in all five Tasmanian seats, including Braddon, the site of the Mersey porkbarrel.

http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/2007/11/18/day-34-report/

 

[spiny norman]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-attacks-drug-users/2007/11/18/1195321590798.html

A re-elected coalition government would take control of the welfare payments of people convicted of offences involving hard drugs, Prime Minister John Howard announced today.

Mr Howard said welfare recipients convicted of offences involving heroin, cocaine or amphetamines would have their payments quarantined for an initial one-year period which could be extended in some circumstances.

"We are the zero-tolerance coalition when it comes to drugs," Mr Howard told reporters in Sydney.

"It's not right that people should have control of taxpayer money when they have been convicted of such offences."

Mr Howard said the policy would mean such offenders would not be able to spend their welfare money on hard drugs or indeed on drugs like tobacco and alcohol.

Mr Howard said about 6000 people would be affected by the quarantining.

If re-elected, he would also seek greater consistency in illicit drug laws across state jurisdictions, he said.

Howard's announcing some divisive policy to make anyone who opposes look weak? Must be the eve of an election.

 

[chicky_pie]

i hope Howard makes through on Saturday, by a nail biter, only want him to run for the country because i hate tree huggers who believe in global warming (it's natural cycle people) and Labor is a tree hugging party with silly ideas like the Greens.

 

[Triangulum]

The Economist/Council on Foreign Relations weekly podcast has a segment on the election here. It continues the Economist's remarkably uncritical and unsophisticated view of John Howard and of the Labor Party, and uses an extremely dodgy analogy to British politics to explain the situation, but if you want to see how others see the election, might be worth a listen.

 

[jimmayyy]

The Sunday Times - No valid reason to throw out Coalition
"The Sunday Times believes change for change sake is simply not an adequate trigger to throw out a Coalition Government"

The Sunday Age - Deserve it or not, Howard faces a losing battle with Me Too
"The Sunday Age does not see enough differences between the Coalition and Labor to urge readers to vote for one over the other"

Sunday Herald Sun - It's time, but not for Labor (Article not yet up)
"IT IS time. Not to change governments, but to resist temptation. It is time to acknowledge that the Coalition is the safe bet in a political contest in which the new, despite its superficial allure, offers less than the familiar."

*************

^^^ an amalgamation of the the above article bylines probably best sum up my attitude to the election at the moment.

 

[Silver Persian]

Whoah. I've just been to the front page of The Australian wesite, and the first 5 or 6 stories there are all like "Rudd annouces fantastic policy", "Howard pulls ugly face", "Labor Landslide" etc etc.

At this point, Im still sticking to my earlier prediction of Labor winning ~52% of TPP vote, but not getting them in the right marginals. I am happy to be wrong

 

[Triangulum]

Wow, Howard's media minders didn't think to avoid this?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

The Sunday Times - No valid reason to throw out Coalition
"The Sunday Times believes change for change sake is simply not an adequate trigger to throw out a Coalition Government"

The Sunday Age - Deserve it or not, Howard faces a losing battle with Me Too
"The Sunday Age does not see enough differences between the Coalition and Labor to urge readers to vote for one over the other"

Sunday Herald Sun - It's time, but not for Labor (Article not yet up)
"IT IS time. Not to change governments, but to resist temptation. It is time to acknowledge that the Coalition is the safe bet in a political contest in which the new, despite its superficial allure, offers less than the familiar."

*************

^^^ an amalgamation of the the above article bylines probably best sum up my attitude to the election at the moment.

Oh how I hate editorials.

 

[LCollins]

because i hate tree huggers who believe in global warming (it's natural cycle people) and Labor is a tree hugging party with silly ideas like the Greens.

Care to back this up with some evidence? Its amazing there is still climate change skeptics. The change in the climate should be obvious enough to people who aren't even scientists and then failing that, the fact that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community support the global warming idea should be enough. Its a bit like going to the doctor, you believe him when he says you have X condition, cause you don't know any better, but you might go to another doctor to get a 2nd opinion. In the climate change debate, the 2nd doctor well and truly agrees with the first. ie. There shouldn't even be a debate as to if climate change is occuring.

 

[Triangulum]

Care to back this up with some evidence? Its amazing there is still climate change skeptics. The change in the climate should be obvious enough to people who aren't even scientists and then failing that, the fact that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community support the global warming idea should be enough. Its a bit like going to the doctor, you believe him when he says you have X condition, cause you don't know any better, but you might go to another doctor to get a 2nd opinion. In the climate change debate, the 2nd doctor well and truly agrees with the first. ie. There shouldn't even be a debate as to if climate change is occuring.

chicky_pie is a troll. Ignore him/her/it.

 

[Triangulum]

Hey, finally! A statement on university policy. Labor still intends to remove the DFEE system as of 2009 admissions, and will compensate universities with ~$400m. Details to be released this week.

 

[LCollins]

chicky_pie is a troll. Ignore him/her/it.

K. Identifying trolls doesn't seem to be a strong point of mine.

 

[withoutaface]

Wooo, so we (a) remove the DFEE places reducing the amount of choice students have about their university, (b) keep the same number of HECS places and (c) bill the taxpayer for this madness?

Who the fuck wins out of this scenario? I'm seriously angry.

 

[RedZenith]

Both parties are bureacratic and evil. However I really dislike some of the members of the Labor Party, so I'm gonna go with the lesser of two evils - the Coalition.

 

[Triangulum]

Wooo, so we (a) remove the DFEE places reducing the amount of choice students have about their university, (b) keep the same number of HECS places and (c) bill the taxpayer for this madness?

Who the fuck wins out of this scenario? I'm seriously angry.

The idea that people who can afford to pay should be allowed to get into university with lower requirements, but a person who gets the same result and can't afford it misses out, is intrinsically unfair. Also, who said that the number of HECS places would stay constant? Why wouldn't the current number of DFEE places be converted into HECS places?

 

[dieburndie]

The idea that people who can afford to pay should be allowed to get into university with lower requirements, but a person who gets the same result and can't afford it misses out, is intrinsically unfair.

I don't think it is. If you want the government to loan you money and subsidise your course, you should be getting better marks. If you're able to pay for it yourself, then this forms a voluntary and necessary form of university funding.

Seriously, it's one thing to even have HECS at all, let alone not letting people even choose to pay for their course in exchange for a lower cutoff.