Howard Supporters?? (1 Viewer)

[um..]

and that isnt vague.?!?

ah, wrong person

 

[PenelopeK]

that was meant for Asquithian sorry

 

[Ziff]

third way actually leans towards liberalism, does it not

You could say "social-democrat". Towards the right in terms of economics and towards individual liberty in social terms.

The difference is that in economic terms Latham is less towards the right than Howard and in social terms he is leagues apart deep in Libertarian territory as opposed to Howard's some what authortarian and controlling characteristics.

 

[PenelopeK]

thorrnydevil: love the idiot list esp. #1

 

[thejosiekiller]

i dont get howard supporters- but then again im pretty cynical of the liberal/labour party system

 

[Ziff]

So what ur saying is that politicians abide by their election promises? lol I'd say look at the way the different parties work and you'll see the Liberals is stronger on the economy. I don't think he'll run it 'into the red' but I do think it won't be quite as strong.

Howard might not have been the strongest treasurer... Peter Costello is a good treasurer.

I'm not saying that Latham will run a bad economy, but It won't be as strong as the liberals. It's not impossible, but it is improbable that the Labor party being the type of spenders they are won't be able to build as strong an economy.

And what are you basing this assertion that the Liberals run a stronger economy on exactly?

 

[Ziff]

i dont get howard supporters- but then again im pretty cynical of the liberal/labour party system

In my mind, a two-party system isn't really democracy at all...

 

[thorrnydevil]

thorrnydevil: love the idiot list esp. #1

lol...thanks!!!

 

[Ziff]

I've looked at what the parties at least... state they stand for, and basically the liberals stand for things that would lead to a stronger economy.

If you know a bit of economics I think it's generally accepted that the way the liberals at least STATE they act is a way to create a better economy.

If you actually read what real economists say i.e. people who actually know things and know what they're talking about not people who think they know something about economics e.g. a HSC student or 1st year Commerce student, you'll realise that there really won't be much of a difference because both parties are towards the right in terms of economics and have somewhat similar policies anyway.

 

[thejosiekiller]

In my mind, a two-party system isn't really democracy at all...

my thoughts exactly when all the influence they encounter are economic/popularity issues

 

[Ziff]

Ziff - In my mind, a two-party system isn't really democracy at all...

what do u want.... 10 parties each with funding bugets of like 10 mil?
10 parties each with their own vague slightly different variations?
a whole bunch of parties fighting to get funding for their campaigns more than focusing on the issues?
Disagreements in parliament that take even longer to solve?
Lets all look to india, indonesia eh? lol

Umm, Indonesia and India are working quite well actually... They have massive eleciton campaigns because the nations are enormous and have an enormous amount of people in them.

The Indian election was a great success.

We're just lucky that in our system we have a senate that can moderate and limit the power of the major parties. In Europe (and Israel), however, the system is that no one party can get enough votes, so they have to form a coalition. These coalitions generally work as everything is nutted out before it goes to parliament hence you get a much more moderate and centrist style system.

E.g. in France the conservatives and socialists teamed up to keep the extremeist right-wing out.

 

[Ziff]

I'm not talking about the actual current parties economic policies.
I'm talking about the parties fundamental beliefs, whether they both completely abide by them or not (i'd recommend that they don't.)

As for the future economy... it's hard to tell, I think alot of the reasons the Australian economy is doing good is because of constant reforms since around the 1950's lol

Oh no, I wouldn't expect any party to really abide by anything they say. But I'm cynical.

That is the other thing, most economists point to reforms way, way, way back in the past as being what's fuelling the economy. They generally point towards the reforms of the Keating/Hawke era as being positive in the long-term.

 

[thorrnydevil]

On this ONE case, I have to agree with Ziff. A two party system is no democracy. We need a political force EXACTLY in the middle...none of this Green and Democrats.

 

[mervvyn]

As for the future economy... it's hard to tell, I think alot of the reasons the Australian economy is doing good is because of constant reforms since around the 1950's lol

speaking of reforms, i read this in the herald this arvo.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/16/1095320902731.html

gist of it is that our economic growth in the past 20 years or so has been dependent on a few reforms and a strong global economy. Whilst mr howard can claim to be a good economic manager, he would have a harder time trying to win the tag of reformer as well. I got the impression from the article that the GST is about it for him, and that more can/should be done. There's other stuff in the article too, i found it quite interesting.

*stirs the pot*

 

[Ziff]

Yeah, I read this.

Howard = Economic manager
Latham = Potential economic reformer

The economists reckon that we do need economic reforms, and interestingly, in a historical context (seeing as Liberals like this sort of thing then mixed in with a bit of de-contextualisation ) Labor have been the party to bring about economic reforms. It does seem however, that this nation only engages in economic reform when the shit hits the fan e.g. after the Fraiser/Howard years (not to say it was their fault but this is when it happened).

What I haven't seen from any party is any detailed plans on they're going to engage in real economic reforms and not just puffing around with tax cuts here and there...

 

[Ziff]

Under Hawke/Keating we saw a few important things:
- Privatisation
- Deregulation of the financial system (i.e. banks)
- HECS
- Floating of the Australian dollar
- Accord with the Unions
- Reform of the tax system
- Deregulation and privatisation of the telecommunications and airlines

More:
- National Competition Policy
- Cut tariffs

Anyone else fill in more, it's been a long time since I read about these...

At the time, economic rationalism was a huge movement world wide too...

 

[jm1234567890]

i thought voting liberal meant you had to compassion for your fellow man?

 

[Ziff]

i thought voting liberal meant you had to respect for your fellow man?

Umm err what?

 

[mervvyn]

The libs are porkbarralin just as much as the ALP!

Definitely - this year's budget = shameless vote buying
Tax cuts are fine, but probably not when services that have been cut back to get the surplus in the first place are suffering for a lack of funds - primary + secondary + tertiary education, public health, r+d, etc

 

[mervvyn]

state government.
state government.
Definately with you, if a party would present me with a good tertiary education plan I would vote for them.
this is a problem worldwide.
i don't think this is our major problem.

yeah true... doesn't mean the feds can't help though. Tertiary and research and development, however, could use a little attention with the pork barrel.

I think one thing ur forgetting is the aging population, i reckon we need to look to the future.. and no not with some mystery fund..

what mystery fund? super? =S