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

[timmyh]

I understand the intention behind the halving of Science and Maths fees thing, but I don't think it'll attract more people to the disciplines, because people don't make decisions based on HECS fees. It's not as if anyone's saying "I've got the marks to study law, and I find it fascinating and I'd love a career in it, but... the fees that I pay back through the tax system once I start earning are very high. Better do Arts instead".

Fair enough point, but at least he's making an active effort in trying to cut the amount of money ppl have to dish out for uni...
Although i know its unrealistic, id love to have a Whitlam style free university system...

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Fuck! I would have loved to watch both of them go at it. Will it be repeated?

The future of politics I guess. Garrett > Turnbull no doubt. Turnbull can hardly talk coherantly, let alone convince me of anything he is saying.

I was watching parliament yesterday and Turnbull's performance was marked by knowledge of the matter, a clear vision for what he was going to say and a plan as to go about it. You here some MP's, such as, say, Howard going on about things he clearly doesn't know about. On the other side of the spectrum, you have the same problem occasionally with Abbott and Costello, but they instead focus on taking down the members opposite to hide what they lack. Turnbull didn't act, he knew what he was doing. It was impressive. Not as good as Garrett, but impressive none the less.

 

[Peter Garrett]

And Turnbull with his new superportfolio is being rocketed to the top end of the Liberal party. Proof money can get you anywhere. [/opinion]

You'd be best not to dismiss one of the most capable politicians in this country in such a manner, especially given Mr Turnbull's well deserved credentials and the fact that he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth. As for his rhetorical skills, I cannot help but think that in this case the problem is you, not Mr Turnbull.

He's a worthy opponent.

 

[Nick Minchin]

Rudd a sitting duck as Coalition hauls out big guns
Of all the figures, look to the money
Forget polling voters, just ask the punters

 

[ZabZu]

What's with the trend of making accounts with politicians' names?

Maybe the real Nick Minchin and Peter Garret are both on the forums

 

[Nick Minchin]

The following is why you don't vote for the greens. It's unfortunate that they are the largest minor party.

Sack 50,000: Bob Brown's greenhouse policy
A GREENS demand that Australia's entire coal industry be shut down within three years yesterday rocked the growing campaign against harmful emissions.
A coal ban would cost the nation $25 billion-a-year in export earnings, eliminate thousands of jobs, and switch off five NSW power stations.
Prime Minister John Howard called the idea reckless and job destroying and Labor said it was absurd.

 

[timmyh]

Yeh, the greens do seem to come up with some radical views, such as this. However, might i suggest that a large percentage of those who vote for the greens do not want a green government, rather they want representitives in parliament who are going to pressure on issues such as the environment etc (even if they do come up with some pretty absurd ideas at times). Furthermore the green voter would be aware that their preferences will flow to left/centre parties such as labor who have more moderate views.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

While it may be a little...outrageous for Mr. Brown to suggest it, at the very least, he's taking an issue which hasn't been taken seriously for many years to the next level. The coal industry will have to go some time in the future, whether it be due to lack of demand or whatever, so in a way, he's just suggesting something to us which I believe will be inevitable in the future. And while I don't agree with what he's saying, "progress demands sacrifice."

 

[ZabZu]

This trade off between the economy and the environment is a very important issue. The Liberals have very little environmental safeguards and Howard said Australia's interest is Australia's economic interests. The greens are willing to sacrifice a big part of the Australian economy to protect the environment. The ALP needs to outline their policies in this area. Theyve only said a few things like signing Kyoto.

We need a economic/environmental policy that has a good balance. Protecting jobs and industry is very important. However, I believe some economic sacrifices will be needed in order to sustain the environment and to control global warming.

 

[umop 3pisdn]

The following is why you don't vote for the greens. It's unfortunate that they are the largest minor party.

Sack 50,000: Bob Brown's greenhouse policy
A GREENS demand that Australia's entire coal industry be shut down within three years yesterday rocked the growing campaign against harmful emissions.
A coal ban would cost the nation $25 billion-a-year in export earnings, eliminate thousands of jobs, and switch off five NSW power stations.
Prime Minister John Howard called the idea reckless and job destroying and Labor said it was absurd.

Why is it absurd, Labor?

Bob Brown is right. If you really believe that there's impending doom and catastrophe due to global warmening, you're not going to stop it with signing treaties and carbon taxes. You need to drastically reduce emissions, immediately, ie. the coal industry has to go.

Labor don't deny climate change do they?

Garrett, for example, has already heartily endorsed Tim Flannery, whose ideas are much the same as Brown's. So Labor have this problem of professing to be stronger on climate change than the Coalition, but not being willing to do anything that the experts (doom preachers) demand, particularly while they're still so anti-nuclear.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,21203850-664,00.html
What you really have to do if you believe in stopping climate change.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Howards communicative skills in Question Time are fucking awesome.

Agreed, I can understand why he doesn't want a debate over Iraq strategy though. As much as I'm sure in any 'fair' debate Howard would be one of the strongest members of parliament, a debate on iraq could go no where but south for him.

 

[frog12986]

Howard is very good in question time, as is Peter Costello. I see no reason why Howard should debate Rudd at this juncture. No previous Prime Ministers, or future for the matter, would openly accept the invitation. As Howard said at a press conference, he even attempted that ploy when he was Opposition Leader, and is an expected tactic.

I liked Howards attack on Wayne Swan, who refused to answer questions about Iraq as it is not his area of interest; does the ALP even have a party line? At least the government can commit to a point of view that has remained fairly consistent throughout..

The issue with developing a 'timetable' is the means by which 'success' or 'mission complete' is determined. Howard rightfully pointed out, that you can't just set a date, and remove forces with the task still outstanding. Sectarian violence is a complex issue, and unless Iraq is self sufficient on the security front, it is not a viable option. In my opinion the solution lies in dividing up Iraq (or alternatively the Middle East) to better reflect the interests of the particular groups of people in each area. The sectarian violence there currently, is a consequence not of the deposition of Saddam Hussein, but rather the creation of nation states that do not reflect the true ethnic divisions of the area.

 

[Stott Despoja]

I also like how DPM Mark Vaille (again, spelling?) answered the Liberal member's question on the issue of the Murray-Darling water crisis. The Liberals might not always have my support with their policies, but have definately gained my respect for the way they carry themselves...with the exception of Downer and Abbott that is.

Dorothy Dixer - "(Australian English) A question asked of a minister by a member of his own party, to give the minister the opportunity to promote the government's work, criticize the opposition, etc."

I didn't catch Question Time in the House of Reps today, but I thought that it would be best to point out that a prepared response to a 'question without notice' will always come across as being better than one that's truly without notice. There's also a difference between those Dorothy Dixers that ask if there are any alternatives and those that are solely interested in the Government's own actions.

 

[poloktim]

Dorothy Dixer - "(Australian English) A question asked of a minister by a member of his own party, to give the minister the opportunity to promote the government's work, criticize the opposition, etc."

I didn't catch Question Time in the House of Reps today, but I thought that it would be best to point out that a prepared response to a 'question without notice' will always come across as being better than one that's truly without notice. There's also a difference between those Dorothy Dixers that ask if there are any alternatives and those that are solely interested in the Government's own actions.

You have no clue how much Dorothy Dixer questions annoy me. Half the time the question isn't answered, just the relevent minister rattling on about how bad the opposition is. Sometime I was to know the answer to the question, but all I hear is childish attacks.
Hence why sometimes I just have to stop watching question time. I can get better behaviour out of a room full of five year olds.

 

[Rafy]

Joe Hockey and Julia Gillard are debating Industrial Relations tonight on the 7.30 Report.

 

[Sparcod]

Bookies back Rudd as election favourite
There are people placing bets on who will win and I found that to be funny.

This is my first post ever in a Labor vs Liberal thread. Also, at this point in time at least, I'm more into state politics. The next federal election is pretty soon but there's still enough time to "think" about who to vote for. Mind you, I believe that nearly everyone, within their lifetimes, would vote for either of the big two parties at least once. Am I right?

Bennelong (Howard's electorate) has been redistributed and so his one should be marginal because of the Labor-voters who he inherited. Also, Rudd has been much more popular than Beazley and Latham.

My opinion is this. Apart from his electorate being redistributed the key issues facing Howard as well as Rudd.
-War in Iraq
-Workplace reform
-Climate change and the environment (possibly)

I really like Kevin Rudd's chances at the moment.

 

[Nick Minchin]

Bennelong (Howard's electorate) has been redistributed and so his one should be marginal because of the Labor-voters who he inherited. Also, Rudd has been much more popular than Beazley and Latham.

Assuming a uniform swing Howard would lose his seat before the government falls. I don't see it happening though.

Also, Rudd has been much more popular than Beazley and Latham.

Popularity may artifically inflate measures of voting intention. ( http://mumble.com.au/published/afr_oct1406.htm )

Love the attack on Albaneezi (sp?) though. "You have failed to make a point of reference" hmm. Technicallities are murdering labor in parliament.

Well he didnt really have a valid point of order to raise. For practical reasons 'relevance' is a term interpreted quite widely by the speaker. Raising points of order are usually a tactic used by the opposition to diminsh the momentum in a minister's attack on the opposition. By interrupting, the minister's response is split apart making it difficult for the media to get a good sound bite for the nightly news. The speaker can't do anything anyway. While the standing orders say that a minister's response should be relevant to the question, they also say that the speaker cannot direct a minister on how to answer.

 

[frog12986]

Well he didnt really have a valid point of order to raise. For practical reasons 'relevance' is a term interpreted quite widely by the speaker. Raising points of order are usually a tactic used by the opposition to diminsh the momentum in a minister's attack on the opposition. By interrupting, the minister's response is split apart making it difficult for the media to get a good sound bite for the nightly news. The speaker can't do anything anyway. While the standing orders say that a minister's response should be relevant to the question, they also say that the speaker cannot direct a minister on how to answer.

As Leader of the House, Tony Abbott made that very point, reitterating the fact that it is orchestrated by the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Grayndler. On many occasions the opposition claim relevance as the point of order, when the respective minister is clearly in order... it frustrates me to tears, particularly from the Member for Grayndler..

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Labor's going to back off unfair dismissal laws for small businesses? This might change the scene entirely.

 

[Nick Minchin]

Joe Hockey and Julia Gillard are debating Industrial Relations tonight on the 7.30 Report.

Transcript: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1848068.htm