• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Rudd? (2 Viewers)

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

BlackDragon

Active Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Messages
1,534
Location
Under The Tree
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

thank god! the coalition is finally winning. at least 42% of pollers aren't crazy.
 

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?

Vaile to trade his job for transport

Vaile to trade his job for transport
Dennis Shanahan, Political editor
September 23, 2006


MARK Vaile will announce a switch from Trade Minister to Transport Minister on the weekend - but will retain the roles of Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Nationals as the country heads into an election year.

[continued]
 

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?

Business rejects Beazley's overtures

ATTEMPTS by Kim Beazley to secure the support of big business in the lead-up to next year's federal election have failed, with top-level representatives of Australia's largest employer organisations angry with Labor for ignoring "those who take investment risk". [...]
The Australian
 

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 avoids risk, says Jones
LABOR elder statesman Barry Jones has revived questions about Kim Beazley's leadership, accusing him of shunning risk, refusing to make major policy reforms and pursuing only popular issues.

Beazley leaves voters in marginal seats dissatisfied: poll
VOTER dissatisfaction with Kim Beazley's leadership is undermining Labor's election-winning lead in crucial marginal seats.

ALP fails to attract women
 

ice_wind

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
57
Location
Up the hills
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

nah, we should have a military coup lyk in thailand to fix up politics, both sides are pretty disappointing if u ask me
 

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?

Malcolm Mackerras has revised his electoral pendulum, following the recent redistributions.

It's luck of the redraw

"According to Mackerras, the boundary changes have weakened the electoral position of the Howard Government by 1.1 per cent. Prior to the boundary changes, Labor needed a uniform swing of 4.4 per cent to win government. Now it only needs a 3.3 per cent uniform swing."
 

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?

Rafy said:
Malcolm Mackerras has revised his electoral pendulum, following the recent redistributions.

It's luck of the redraw

"According to Mackerras, the boundary changes have weakened the electoral position of the Howard Government by 1.1 per cent. Prior to the boundary changes, Labor needed a uniform swing of 4.4 per cent to win government. Now it only needs a 3.3 per cent uniform swing."

It's hard to imagine them getting that. 04 was pretty fantastic for the Coalition, and that was only a 1.9% HoR swing to them.
 

Scanorama

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
920
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

I don't like John Howard or the whole Liberal party. However I really dislike Kim Beazley. Why couldn't he just move on? He tried to win in 1998 and 2001 elections, and his rating is still pretty low at the moment. I'm sure there are better leader in the Labor party.

I am not sure who I will vote for, but I won't be surprised if I end voting Jonny.
 

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?

Scanorama said:
I don't like John Howard or the whole Liberal party. However I really dislike Kim Beazley. Why couldn't he just move on? He tried to win in 1998 and 2001 elections, and his rating is still pretty low at the moment. I'm sure there are better leader in the Labor party.
I am not sure who I will vote for, but I won't be surprised if I end voting Jonny.
Ah, the benefits of incumbency. Better the devil you know i take it?

Iron said:
It's hard to imagine them getting that. 04 was pretty fantastic for the Coalition, and that was only a 1.9% HoR swing to them.
1980 4.2% to Labor
1983 3.6% to Labor
1984 1.4% to Lib-Nat
1987 1.0% to Lib-Nat
1990 0.9% to Lib-Nat
1993 1.5% to Labor
1996 5.0% to Lib-Nat
1998 4.6% to Labor
2001 1.9% to Lib-Nat
2004 1.8% to Lib-Nat

I do agree with you, given Labor's current position I would be suprised if they managed such a swing.

___

In other news, The Tree of Knowledge was declared dead yesterday.

ALP's Tree of Knowledge declared dead

Barcaldine's Tree of Knowledge in western Queensland, which has long marked the birthplace of the Australian Labor Party, has been declared officially dead by a tree doctor. [...]

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1754425.htm
 

YBK

w00t! custom status!! :D
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
1,240
Location
47 |)35|< !!!
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Better the devil you know?

hmmmm, and how do you know the other party is also going to be the devil?

i mean seriously, what's the worst they can do.
You should be voting on the basis of who you think will do better, based on policies and bla bla - not who you speculate will be the lesser devil.

If anyone does anything too radical, obvious the public will disapprove of them and there will be consequences. What I'm saying is, it's not a risk to vote labor because you don't know what they'll bring to the table.
 

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 think Labor would almost certainly slaughter the public service, due to a growing custom to make political appointments there. The outfall from that would be pretty dodgy for a while.

On experience, only two have ministerial experience (Beazley and Crean), and that experience is really vital in the absence of a frank and fearless/politically neutral public service.

Living standards need to drop. The punters will flock to Labor as the party which has traditionally billed itself as the protector of the disadvantaged.
I hate representative democracy.
 

campbellleo

Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
60
Location
Idyllic Ballina: It's enough to make you rather si
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

<!!! Feel free to skip if you don't like long winded, semi-religious rants about everything that has and will be wrong with Australia. Sorry. First post, couldn't help myself. !!!>


Honestly, I don't want to sound condescending to, well, pretty much everyone in this country, but I have to say this.
Democracy does not work when the populace, is, on the whole, stupid.
ABS Religion Statistics
When 46% of the population (think about it: this is how stupid every second person you meet is) thinks that the other 54% is going to hell because they don't believe in some crappy book with the same (if not less) historical credibility than as Harry Potter, you've got to think: wouldn't it just be better to start your own party that, instead of pandering to the (as I think someone in this thread put it earlier) misconceptions of the public, actually led in the true sense of the word?

I seriously don't want to blatantly generalize all Christians as stupid, but I think about it, and it's either that or that they are intrinsically evil. To support a book as the 'word of truth' that also denounces homosexuality, disobeying your parents and - I don't know - looking the wrong way at a barrel as a capital crime, and then which calls beating your slaves all ok, you have to be stupid or evil. This is 46%, if not more, of our population!

I realise - as I often force myself to do - that this is neither the time nor place for another anti-religious rant, but this does relate, obviously, to my political stance. The same sort of people that blindly follow Christianity because:
1) That's what their parents told them to do
2) That's what all their private school friends do
3) They want to use it as justification for all their bigotries (i.e. "I don't lilke gays, so if it's part of my religion I will be excused from all the guilt and criminal status of discrimination" -- sadly, this is the case far too often in my opinion)
...are the people hear "good for the economy" and think, well, I want a little bit extra money to spend on my child's education; they shan't be educated with those public school brutes and 'ugh', horrible natives. They make their political decisions based on popular opinion and personal convenience. That has always been, for me, the irony of the Christian right: "I care about everyone and want all to live in peace and happiness" is what they claim, but, as we can see by their voting patterns, "I want what is best, materially, for me" is what they think.

So, after that long-winded digression, I will (I think I will just barely make it over 18 by the election) be voting Labor. Why? Partly because they are the most pragmatic choice: a necessary, if small, step away from the Coalition's conservative, blatantly racist (refer to Abbott's comments on the "un-Australian" nature of the Labor Party: these didn't even make headlines at the time) and sensationalist approach to world forces (if the War on Teror will make Australia safer, why was Bali attacked after we signed on? How is supporting a nation which has killed thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghanistani civilians supposed to make us safe?).

Partly Labor gains my vote because of Beazley. Beazley, let's face it, is in no way the ideal politician: he has in no way the public exposure, popularity and decisive policies that are need to win the 07 election campaign. But if you think about this logically, than we can see that these claims could be unfair. With Howard's undeniably favourable bent toward big businesses, and the head of big businesses (i.e. Packer and Murdoch), isn't it obvious that the media would pass on that bent to its coverage? I'm not talking about a conspiracy here, but if the executive in these companies hold even an unconcious and slight influence on professional bias, than it is obvious that the media would, not lie and withold information, but give a second page to Beazley's lates mispronunciation and a twentieth to an equal mistake by Howard. Although Beazley is obviously a competent, articulate individual, the Australian public seem to see him as the bumbling 'fat Kim'; ironic also that the 33% overweight Australian public see it fit to make comments about Beazley's not unhealthy build, which incidentally have a negligible effect on his ability to lead the country.

Finally, Labor gets my vote purely because they are not in office. When will modern democracies learn that an almost exclusively two-party parliament is in no-one's best interests? When M.Ps vote blindly along party lines, they are considering not their electorate (which they are, apparently, meant to be representing) but their own Cabinet or Front-Bench aspirations. In a system with only individual candidates, not only would Ministers be selected purely for their ability to fulfill a certain role (i.e. the guy with an economics degree gets Treasurer, instead of the country's key economic decisions being made by someone with the economic knowledge of an empty cup) but MPs would be voted in based on their personal policies, not some intangible and often indefinable party rhetoric. If I vote Labor, at least I help to decrease the margin between the two parties, which will effectively make both sides work harder.

As an added note, anyone with one year's study of basic economics under their belt knows that Howard and the Coaltion are not 'good' managers of the economy even in the short term, let alone the long term. If one more person says: "LOL but yeh tha ecomony will be good with Jon Hward as PM coz labour is bad at tht hey?" to me, they will come to an long, painful end. It would be fitting to let them face the (if Howard remains in power, or if Labour isn't capable of bringing Australia out of the now predestined slump) rising interest rates and decrepit infrastructure until they couldn't pay their mortgage, were evicted and ended up shipped to some future Middle-Eastern War in which we will have committed ourselves to fight in, at which point I will appear to them and say: "LOL. After all of that, there isn't even an afterlife for you. If I was so vengeful, I'd pity you."
 
Last edited:

Calculon

Mohammed was a paedophile
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
1,743
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

campbellleo said:
<!!! Feel free to skip if you don't like long winded, semi-religious rants about everything that has and will be wrong with Australia. Sorry. First post, couldn't help myself. !!!>


Honestly, I don't want to sound condescending to, well, pretty much everyone in this country, but I have to say this.
Democracy does not work when the populace, is, on the whole, stupid.
ABS Religion Statistics
When 46% of the population (think about it: this is how stupid every second person you meet is) thinks that the other 54% is going to hell because they don't believe in some crappy book with the same (if not less) historical credibility than as Harry Potter, you've got to think: wouldn't it just be better to start your own party that, instead of pandering to the (as I think someone in this thread put it earlier) misconceptions of the public, actually led in the true sense of the word?

I seriously don't want to blatantly generalize all Christians as stupid, but I think about it, and it's either that or that they are intrinsically evil. To support a book as the 'word of truth' that also denounces homosexuality, disobeying your parents and - I don't know - looking the wrong way at a barrel as a capital crime, and then which calls beating your slaves all ok, you have to be stupid or evil. This is 46%, if not more, of our population!
Firstly, the majority of "Christians" in Australia are those who only really pay lip service to the religion because they feel obligated. Secondly, I'll remind everybody that it's Rudd who came out in the last week or so pandering to the Church, and in this way negates any point you had about the Liberals being more influenced by religion than the ALP.
I realise - as I often force myself to do - that this is neither the time nor place for another anti-religious rant, but this does relate, obviously, to my political stance. The same sort of people that blindly follow Christianity because:
1) That's what their parents told them to do
2) That's what all their private school friends do
3) They want to use it as justification for all their bigotries (i.e. "I don't lilke gays, so if it's part of my religion I will be excused from all the guilt and criminal status of discrimination" -- sadly, this is the case far too often in my opinion)
...are the people hear "good for the economy" and think, well, I want a little bit extra money to spend on my child's education; they shan't be educated with those public school brutes and 'ugh', horrible natives. They make their political decisions based on popular opinion and personal convenience. That has always been, for me, the irony of the Christian right: "I care about everyone and want all to live in peace and happiness" is what they claim, but, as we can see by their voting patterns, "I want what is best, materially, for me" is what they think.
What's wrong with a voter wanting to maximise their material wealth? Should they seek to become poorer and live in a gutter?
So, after that long-winded digression, I will (I think I will just barely make it over 18 by the election) be voting Labor. Why? Partly because they are the most pragmatic choice: a necessary, if small, step away from the Coalition's conservative, blatantly racist (refer to Abbott's comments on the "un-Australian" nature of the Labor Party: these didn't even make headlines at the time) and sensationalist approach to world forces (if the War on Teror will make Australia safer, why was Bali attacked after we signed on? How is supporting a nation which has killed thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghanistani civilians supposed to make us safe?).
Elaborate on how coalition policy is blatantly racist. While I disagree with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan on a principled basis, it is in Australia's interest to maintain good relations with the United States, because if, heaven forbid, 50 years into the future we face a large scale invasion by an aggressive China, a technologically improved Indonesia or by someone else, it's better to be able to call on the world's most powerful military to help us than to be crushed like an ant.
Partly Labor gains my vote because of Beazley. Beazley, let's face it, is in no way the ideal politician: he has in no way the public exposure, popularity and decisive policies that are need to win the 07 election campaign. But if you think about this logically, than we can see that these claims could be unfair. With Howard's undeniably favourable bent toward big businesses, and the head of big businesses (i.e. Packer and Murdoch), isn't it obvious that the media would pass on that bent to its coverage? I'm not talking about a conspiracy here, but if the executive in these companies hold even an unconcious and slight influence on professional bias, than it is obvious that the media would, not lie and withold information, but give a second page to Beazley's lates mispronunciation and a twentieth to an equal mistake by Howard. Although Beazley is obviously a competent, articulate individual, the Australian public seem to see him as the bumbling 'fat Kim'; ironic also that the 33% overweight Australian public see it fit to make comments about Beazley's not unhealthy build, which incidentally have a negligible effect on his ability to lead the country.
I notice you don't mention the fact that the government pays for a rabidly left wing ABC, or that Fairfax newspapers tend to be fairly left wing, despite being run by a big business.
Finally, Labor gets my vote purely because they are not in office. When will modern democracies learn that an almost exclusively two-party parliament is in no-one's best interests? When M.Ps vote blindly along party lines, they are considering not their electorate (which they are, apparently representing) but their own Cabinet of Front-Bench aspirations. In a system with only individual candidates, not only would Ministers be selected purely for their ability to fulfill a certain role (i.e. the guy with an economics degree gets Treasurer, instead of the country's key economic decisions being made by someone with the economic knowledge of an empty cup) but MPs would be voted in based on their personal policies, not some intangible and often indefinable party rhetoric. If I vote Labor, at least I help to decrease the margin between the two parties, which will effectively make both sides work harder.
If you have a parliament full of independent MP's you get a massive increase in NIMBYism, and nothing ets done.
As an added note, anyone with one year's study of basic economics under their belt knows that Howard and the Coaltion are not 'good' managers of the economy even in the short term, let alone the long term. If one more person says: "LOL but yeh tha ecomony will be good with Jon Hward as PM coz labour is bad at tht hey?" to me, they will come to an long, painful end. It would be fitting to let them face the (if Howard remains in power, or if Labour isn't capable of bringing Australia out of the now predestined slump) rising interest rates and decrepit infrastructure until they couldn't pay their mortgage, were evicted and ended up shipped to some future Middle-Eastern War in which we will have committed ourselves to fight in, at which point I will appear to them and say: "LOL. After all of that, there isn't even an afterlife for you. If I was so vengeful, I'd pity you."
No, Howard has not been the best possible manager of the economy. No, he has not liberalised it enough to create prosperity, but he's done by far a better job than Beazley would ever do, because Bomber's not the type to make reform in the vein of Keating or Hawke. Also the ALP's pathetic economic record at a state level (read as: they tax like communists) hardly inspires any confidence in their ability to do a good job federally.
 

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?

Latest Opinion Poll (Acneilsen)

Primary Vote:
Coalition 39
Labor 42

TPP:
Coalition: 46
Labor: 54

http://www.smh.com.au/ffxmedia/2006/10/08/gr_poll.jpg

Labor vote creeping up on Howard

A long way to go, but the trend is Beazley's friend


My take on this poll is that it is probally a rouge result that presents nothing new. It is quite unlikely that Labor are 8 percentage points ahead (This appears to be caused by a low coalition primary result).

The trend can be seen here: http://www.ozpolitics.info/election2007/pollchart-acn-tpp.png
 
Last edited:

campbellleo

Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
60
Location
Idyllic Ballina: It's enough to make you rather si
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Calculon said:
Firstly, the majority of "Christians" in Australia are those who only really pay lip service to the religion because they feel obligated. Secondly, I'll remind everybody that it's Rudd who came out in the last week or so pandering to the Church, and in this way negates any point you had about the Liberals being more influenced by religion than the ALP.
To clarify this point: this post started off being what is wrong with Australian politics in general, not what is good about the Labor party. I don't even really like Labor, and their flaws are clear and not small. The point that (I think) I was trying to make here is that it is impossible to have intelligent political leadership in a democracy which consists of this many... less than rational people.
Although I do like to imagine that the Labor party is slightly more secular than the Libs/Coalition. Beazley takes a reasonably more liberal (lower case l) stance on abortion, proposes increased funding for public versus private school system, etc.

Calculon said:
What's wrong with a voter wanting to maximise their material wealth? Should they seek to become poorer and live in a gutter?
I was merely pointing out the discrepancies between Christians' idealism and their de facto pragmatism and materialism. You'd think these people, who apparently (I probably agree with you on the lip service, to a point) believe they will spend eternity in holy glory, would be the least worried about what is in their next paycheck (or mortgage bill).

Is there something inherently wrong with a voter wanting to 'maximise their material wealth'? In a word, yes. Yes when that voter thinks: "If I keep asian immigrants out of my country, my wages are more secure and likely to rise" and not: "If I keep asian immigrants out of my country, I may be denying them an oppurtunity to lead a free, un-persecuted existence." The average Australian voter - and we see this constantly - cares less about the lives of 1000 Indonesians or Africans than the jobs of 100 Australian workers.

Sure, you might say, but we only care about what we know. If we love Our Country, it will take care of itself. It will be a shining example, yadda yadda yadda. I am sick of all of this shit about Australia. Honestly, when will somebody point out that we are not an ideal, not a 'set of values', not even a common goal. We are exactly the sum of our parts: a bit over two hundred years ago, the poms chucked some convicts here, they killed off most of the native population, practically pushed Japan into WWII, and finally buckled under int'l pressure and passed anti-discrimination laws. Now we are multi-cultural (award winner for the most meaningless phrase in Aus politics) but for some reason force everyone who wants to come here instead of being killed wherever the fuck they had the unluck to be born to subscribe to our set of Aussie values. I know I'm preaching (hopefully) to the converted here, but who the fuck gave us the right? We're just a bit of land, a few tens of million of people. We aren't a country, our lives aren't more important than anyone else's, and neither is our prosperity.

Calculon said:
Elaborate on how coalition policy is blatantly racist. While I disagree with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan on a principled basis, it is in Australia's interest to maintain good relations with the United States, because if, heaven forbid, 50 years into the future we face a large scale invasion by an aggressive China, a technologically improved Indonesia or by someone else, it's better to be able to call on the world's most powerful military to help us than to be crushed like an ant.
Do you think that the small kid in the playground should pick the bigger bully and help him to beat up other kids just guard against the remote possibility of future attack? I think you are a bit deluded if you honestly think that
a) We matter enough to China to be a possibility for invasion - lets think about: China has a fuckload of land, labour and natural resources already that are being under-utilised. To seek more, they would first have to sort out their own shit (i.e. revolution/liberal reform)and you would think that after this they would be content with their own proseperity and too liberal to force a war on an unsuspecting, lucrative trade partner. Even if they did want some desert and a couple of decades worth of coal, why not attack some of the weak, non-allied and conveniently close neighbouring countries?
b) America would protect us from China more than nominally. What's in it for them? They don't even like us, and they must know by now that most of us damn well don't like them. They would have an epic war on our behalf and destroy their possibilities of dual domination with China? Uh-uh.

So what's the only other option? Instead of being an agressor, be a mediator. Tell both bullies and even some of the smaller kids that everyone would save themselves a lot of time if they just left each other alone.

Oh, and as for Libs being blatantly racist, perhaps a more accurate term would be xenophobic (although not Abbott, he is one bigoted fuckstick). Why do they treat refugees and immigrants some much worse than citizens? Give me one even quasi-logical reason. It is because the politicians are only pandering for Australian votes, and because Australians mainly care about Australians. So as we are caught in a vicious cycle of self-indulgence, thousands die.

Calculon said:
I notice you don't mention the fact that the government pays for a rabidly left wing ABC, or that Fairfax newspapers tend to be fairly left wing, despite being run by a big business.
Yeah, the government is overflowing with funding to the ABC. To the Liberals, the ABC is like an embarrassing little brother: you'd love to get rid of him, but if you try, Mum (i.e. the voters) will disown you.

Sure, Fairfax seem left wing, but how do we know that even their responses aren't peppered with a little Liberal favouritism? That's the whole point - no matter what they appear, it is impossible to tell if they are already affected by bias. Maybe Fairfax would revisist Children Overboard, the failings of the GST, the complete absence of ministerial accountability more often if they didn't think that, hey, we keep a fuckload more money if Howard continues to reign in Canberra.


Calculon said:
If you have a parliament full of independent MP's you get a massive increase in NIMBYism, and nothing ets[sic] done.
Everyone always says this, but how do you know? Have you ever witnessed such a parliament? Sure, we speculate that a multitude of voices would lead to chaos, but maybe it would actually lead to, for once, intelligent debate. Instead of having two parties intrinsically opposed, utterly convinced of the validity of their own veiws before they even begin to argue and only finally coming to a decision by sheer weight of numbers rather than the value of the thing, you might have a lot of smart people trying to find a way to solve everyone's problems. Sure, you may get a bit more argument, but instead of it being pointless name-calling (watch Parliament on ABC, it's ridiculous) - which would indeed be futile because the guy you think is dim-witted this week you may need on your side next week - it would be actual "well, how good is your solution" talk.

Calculon said:
No, Howard has not been the best possible manager of the economy. No, he has not liberalised it enough to create prosperity, but he's done by far a better job than Beazley would ever do, because Bomber's not the type to make reform in the vein of Keating or Hawke. Also the ALP's pathetic economic record at a state level (read as: they tax like communists) hardly inspires any confidence in their ability to do a good job federally.
This is my point: no politician will ever make the best economic manager: the politician is think of the economy in a 3-4 year political cycle, and the economist needs to think long term, i.e. decades. So why don't we just fuck it all and say: well, I don't paticularly care if a have to work three more hours next month to pay of the housing loan, because my government just saved thouasands of lives with aid donations? Being able to get by is essential, but, past that, why not help those who cannot?

Sadly enough, I have that little faith in the Australian people that I think that Howard will win out again. Even if Labor beats the odds, its just a tiny tiny step on the way to a better system. So, yes, I'll vote Labor.

Edit: Directly from the Liberal Party's website (apperently from the big horse's mouth itself) "Australia is the best country in the world. That's why we must do everything in our power to protect, secure and build Australia's future."

It's enough to make you want to convert to Christianity and start a new Crusade against the Liberal barbarians. Not that I'd need an excuse: the knights get all the chicks.
 
Last edited:

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?

Acnielsen poll released today. It is saying the same thing as the other two polls (Newspoll and Morgan): 54/46, in Labor's favour.
The poll also included the regular ranking of issues. IR was ranked 10th previously, now it is 2nd. However, most people still believe Howard will win.

He just can't lose, say seven out of 10

ONE year out from the federal election, 71 per cent of voters still believe John Howard will win, despite successive polls putting Labor ahead.

An ACNielsen/Herald poll shows only one in five predict a Labor victory, while 8 per cent are undecided.

This is a higher proportion of voters forecasting a Coalition win than at any time during the past three election campaigns.

The poll, which put Labor ahead of the Coalition by 54 per cent to 46 per cent on a two-party-preferred basis, found the Government's industrial relations changes were the main reason it was trailing Labor.

After health, the 1400 people polled cited industrial relations as the area that concerned them most. The economy, the Government's strong point, was rated third out of the nine issues put to respondents. Fourth was education, followed by the environment, Iraq, national security, interest rates and unemployment.[...]
2PP Polls: Morgan, ACnielsen, Newspoll
Monthly 3 poll aggregate

For all the graphs see: http://www.ozpolitics.info/election2007/polls.htm (Detailed breakdowns of voting intention, satisfaction and approval ratings, etc)
______


Seats to watch

The sweet 16: Labor's battle plan for claiming power
QUEENSLAND, South Australia and, to a lesser extent, NSW will be the big battlegrounds of the next federal election, campaign strategists say.
 
Last edited:

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?

Howard going out on anything but his own steam is pretty inconceivable. Times are too good.
Most government changes in this country have had a lot to do with serious downturns in the economy.
But surely no one expects a swing to the Coaliton?
 

frog12986

The Commonwealth
Joined
May 16, 2004
Messages
641
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

The opinion polls are really fairly standard at this point of the governing cycle... Labor held firm in the majority of the opinion polls leading up to the 2004 election, including the last..

In reality they mean absolutely nothing..
 
K

katie_tully

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

He can't lose, say seven out of ten.

It also helps when the leader of the opposition has more rubber between his ears than the Michelin Man.
 

Captain Gh3y

Rhinorhondothackasaurus
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
4,153
Location
falling from grace with god
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

campbellleo said:
Honestly, I don't want to sound condescending to, well, pretty much everyone in this country, but I have to say this.
Democracy does not work when the populace, is, on the whole, stupid.
ABS Religion Statistics
Please feel free to leave the country, thereby infinitesimally increasing the national average intelligence. Every little helps.

When 46% of the population (think about it: this is how stupid every second person you meet is) thinks that the other 54% is going to hell because they don't believe in some crappy book with the same (if not less) historical credibility than as Harry Potter, you've got to think: wouldn't it just be better to start your own party that, instead of pandering to the (as I think someone in this thread put it earlier) misconceptions of the public, actually led in the true sense of the word?
That's quite a non-sequitir. I, for instance, am considerably more intelligent than you, and I am a Christian, nominally at least. As were most of the scores of geniuses, philosophers, politicians and statesmen of all European history. At any rate, apart from making claims about a text that is used quite frequently as a source of evidence for studying the ancient near-east, you have not really shown any correlation between religious affiliation and ability to make rational decisions on government representation.

What, for you, would be an example of leading in the true sense of the word?

I seriously don't want to blatantly generalize all Christians as stupid, but I think about it, and it's either that or that they are intrinsically evil. To support a book as the 'word of truth' that also denounces homosexuality, disobeying your parents and - I don't know - looking the wrong way at a barrel as a capital crime, and then which calls beating your slaves all ok, you have to be stupid or evil. This is 46%, if not more, of our population!
But which of, disobedience of parents, looking at barrels, owning slaves, or beatiing slaves is permitted by the laws of this country (except maybe Tasmania)? If none, which of these are the 46% (a significant force in any representative democracy!) of Australians campaigning to have legislated for? If none, what is the problem?

What you are saying would only be helpful if this country was, or was in danger of becoming, a theocracy. Presently, this is far from the truth.

I realise - as I often force myself to do - that this is neither the time nor place for another anti-religious rant, but this does relate, obviously, to my political stance. The same sort of people that blindly follow Christianity because:
1) That's what their parents told them to do
2) That's what all their private school friends do
3) They want to use it as justification for all their bigotries (i.e. "I don't lilke gays, so if it's part of my religion I will be excused from all the guilt and criminal status of discrimination" -- sadly, this is the case far too often in my opinion)
...are the people hear "good for the economy" and think, well, I want a little bit extra money to spend on my child's education; they shan't be educated with those public school brutes and 'ugh', horrible natives. They make their political decisions based on popular opinion and personal convenience. That has always been, for me, the irony of the Christian right: "I care about everyone and want all to live in peace and happiness" is what they claim, but, as we can see by their voting patterns, "I want what is best, materially, for me" is what they think.
But in many cases what is best for me, might also be greatly beneficial to the rest of the nation. Imagine if the "horrible natives", as you describe them, had enough "extra money" to also send their children to our private schools, and provide them with the same opportunities as you and I, that at present many of them do not have. That is only one example, of course.

For someone who is attempting not to be condescending, you have made a lot of broad assumptions about the population (with no other evidence than the statistic that 46% are some form of Christian) such as how they think, what their goals and ambitions are, how they make their decisions, what they want, and what they will or will not believe. Incidentally some assumptions here are often shared by many on the 'Left', who imagine us (Australians in general) as a nation of greedy racists, etc.

Because Christianity is not a necessarily a religion tied to a particular culture, time or political status, you really need more evidence that people, by virtue of being Christian alone, are more likely to think this way about political matters. Due to the number of Christians in the world, they are found in dozens of nations, often in large numbers. Can you explain why so many countries with Christian inhabitents have such diverese governmental systems if being a Christian (in Australia at least) causes one to be predisposed to certain political views? There are, additionally, no Christian theocracies in the entire world. You must also ask if people of other religion, or no religion, are not also easily lead by "popular opinion". What are the thoughts and ambitions of the other 54% in just Australia? Since you are one of them, surely you would be more qualified to explain their thoughts than those of the 46%. It is not possible that all 54% are bleeding hearted, selfless idealists, nor that all 46% of "Christians" are blinded by greed in all matters political.

So, after that long-winded digression, I will (I think I will just barely make it over 18 by the election) be voting Labor. Why? Partly because they are the most pragmatic choice: a necessary, if small, step away from the Coalition's conservative, blatantly racist (refer to Abbott's comments on the "un-Australian" nature of the Labor Party: these didn't even make headlines at the time) and sensationalist approach to world forces (if the War on Teror will make Australia safer, why was Bali attacked after we signed on? How is supporting a nation which has killed thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghanistani civilians supposed to make us safe?).
In many ways a stronger opposition after the next election would be healthy. But surely you cannot say that labelling the Coalition "conservative" and "blatantly racist" is not sensationalist itself.

That is really a silly question to ask, about the (poorly named) war on terror. Bali was bombed (the first time) before the invasion of Iraq. The 1993 WTC bombing occured before the invasion of Afghanistan etc. That isn't really the point here, though. Did you know, for instance, that Australian troops were killed by Japanese troops after we joined WWII! Scandalous, isn't it! Not only that, but the number of people joining the Japanese army in fact increased considerably when the war was on! I know, it's difficult to believe. But did you expect the threat of Radical Islam (I'm not using the 'terror' euphemism) to disappear overnight? If it was going to do that clearly there'd have been no need for a war, we could have made some threats and they'd have surrendered faster than the French.

It's funny you make no mention that most of the "thousands upon thousands" of Iraqis were killed by other Iraqis, or foreign terrorists. Moral equivalence indeed.

Partly Labor gains my vote because of Beazley. Beazley, let's face it, is in no way the ideal politician: he has in no way the public exposure, popularity and decisive policies that are need to win the 07 election campaign.
That's why he won't win. You said it yourself. Not because of rampaging Christian theocrats, but because he's hopeless.

But if you think about this logically, than we can see that these claims could be unfair. With Howard's undeniably favourable bent toward big businesses, and the head of big businesses (i.e. Packer and Murdoch), isn't it obvious that the media would pass on that bent to its coverage?
What, precisely, is a "favourable bent"? There is quite a balanced coverage in the media, particularly in Fairfax newspapers, which contain no shortage of government-critical, or perhaps even Howard-hating columnists.

I'm not talking about a conspiracy here, but if the executive in these companies hold even an unconcious and slight influence on professional bias, than it is obvious that the media would, not lie and withold information, but give a second page to Beazley's lates mispronunciation and a twentieth to an equal mistake by Howard.
For example...

Although Beazley is obviously a competent, articulate individual, the Australian public seem to see him as the bumbling 'fat Kim'; ironic also that the 33% overweight Australian public see it fit to make comments about Beazley's not unhealthy build, which incidentally have a negligible effect on his ability to lead the country.
You said it first.

Finally, Labor gets my vote purely because they are not in office. When will modern democracies learn that an almost exclusively two-party parliament is in no-one's best interests? When M.Ps vote blindly along party lines, they are considering not their electorate (which they are, apparently, meant to be representing) but their own Cabinet or Front-Bench aspirations. In a system with only individual candidates, not only would Ministers be selected purely for their ability to fulfill a certain role (i.e. the guy with an economics degree gets Treasurer, instead of the country's key economic decisions being made by someone with the economic knowledge of an empty cup) but MPs would be voted in based on their personal policies, not some intangible and often indefinable party rhetoric. If I vote Labor, at least I help to decrease the margin between the two parties, which will effectively make both sides work harder.
So you're against a 2 party system, but voting for one of the 2 parties, and making wild accusations about the current MPs' credentials (I'm sure NONE of them have degrees of any kind, they're all just in need of Year 11 Economics!).
You also prefer Labor because you believe the Liberal party are run by Christians trying to ban barrel observation, even though, well, http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20531721-25717,00.html that says it better than I could.

As an added note, anyone with one year's study of basic economics under their belt knows that Howard and the Coaltion are not 'good' managers of the economy even in the short term, let alone the long term. If one more person says: "LOL but yeh tha ecomony will be good with Jon Hward as PM coz labour is bad at tht hey?" to me, they will come to an long, painful end. It would be fitting to let them face the (if Howard remains in power, or if Labour isn't capable of bringing Australia out of the now predestined slump) rising interest rates and decrepit infrastructure until they couldn't pay their mortgage, were evicted and ended up shipped to some future Middle-Eastern War in which we will have committed ourselves to fight in, at which point I will appear to them and say: "LOL. After all of that, there isn't even an afterlife for you. If I was so vengeful, I'd pity you."
Much of the "decrepit infrastructure" is due to State governments, and who's in power there? Really it's quite fitting that you end your post, filled with accusations of populism and sensationalism at any and all Christians or Liberal voters, with a sensationalist doomsday scenario that is not likely at all.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top