ITT list policies of 'your' party that you disagree with (1 Viewer)

[Rorix]

There are a number of persons on this forum who to my knowledge have never expressed dislike of any policy proposed by 'their' political party - that is the one in Australia which co-oresponds to their side of the political spectrum (if the ALP can really be considered a leftist party). Anyone who agrees with the party line all the time is just a massive dick rider, not to mention any names, just yet.

Such policies must be reasonably recent or an on-going policy stance.

For starters, I disagree with the 'Pacific solution', I disagree with numerous invasion of civil liberties e.g. some aspects of anti-terror laws, I disagree with pursuing the ideological standpoint of reducing government involvement in private life (i.e. cutting taxes) at times when it is economically irresponsible. More later.

 

[townie]

i'm labor

i disagree with labor's endorsement of heterosexual marriages, they're hardline stance on asylum seekers, some other things i dont remember others, but there are.

EDIT: i think the biggest problem with australian politics is the party line in america or britain, ur not oblidged to vote with the party on all things, as u are here, IMO it cuts out debate, and just leaves 2 or 3 opinions, and politicians to scared to speak out.

labor has people that speak out on the wrong things, and damage the party
liberals have very few dissenters, on MAJOR policy issues (except perhaps recent asylum seeker events)

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I disagree with the governments current detention centre arrangements, however I am encouraged by the creation of these refugee 'communities', which allows them all to basically have a normal house etc and live a fairly normal life (however behind bars). I also believe their cases should be sorted out faster (if at all possible).

I dislike the nationalist crap that the government spews out, while I think it is important to have some form of identity, I believe the government often provides a limited view of what it is to be an 'Australian'.

Cross-Media ownership laws which are comming in are terrible.

edit: I know I'm a partisan hack on the forum.

 

[Rorix]

townie i sort of had in mind situations where you were more moderate than the party but I guess that works too

 

[frog12986]

My main concern with the Liberal Party at the moment, is their lack of emphasis and vison towards long term infrastructure policies, which in the future will become an absolute necessity. With the 'ageing' population one can predict that obviously in the not too distant future, the tax base is likely to dramatically decrease hence making it all the more difficult for the government of the day to implement all the infrastructure policies that are necessary. The fact is planning needs to begin now...and the mindset seems to be absent

On a state level I mainly become frustrated with the Liberals Law and Order policies..(actually Lib's and Labor). They are purely reactionary and contain no real substance in regards to actually addressing the key issues. In other words, Law and Order has become exorbitantly politicised which is detracting from the possibility of any 'actual' success in dealing with the issues...


They are the main two among some other minor issues..

 

[Xayma]

Against the denail of same-sex marriages, parts of the immigration policy, would've had prefered to see more spent on education in general as opposed to tax cuts (although I understand I have alot of bias). I'll think of some more later.

 

[Korn]

No offence but if there are so many things you dont like about a particular political party, find another one to vote for

 

[Not-That-Bright]

No offence but if there are so many things you dont like about a particular political party, find another one to vote for

 

[Generator]

No offence but if there are so many things you dont like about a particular political party, find another one to vote for

It isn't a case of supporting a party to the hilt, rather it's a case of supporting the party that most closely resembles your stance on the issues that you regard as being important. If it helps, think of policies existing in a tiered system, and that even though you may not agree with one you may well fully support another (or you just cannot stand the alternative, too). I doubt that anyone would support a particular party in its entirety, especially when particular policies are determined in order to ensure a sense of consensus within the party.

 

[Korn]

It isn't a case of supporting a party to the hilt, rather it's a case of supporting the party that most closely resembles your stance on the issues that you regard as being important. If it helps, think of policies existing in a tiered system, and that even though you may not agree with one you may well fully support another (or you just cannot stand the alternative, too). I doubt that anyone would support a particular party in its entirety, especially when particular policies are determined in order to ensure a sense of consensus within the party.

Yes I agree, for the majority of ppl there is no one party that is perfect, what I was trying to say was if you are so against many (majority or otherwise) then you shouldnt support said party. If they are the party that matches your views the closest then vote for them. It's just that the majority of ppl dont research enough parties in great enough depth to realise that there are parties more in tune with their own views

 

[withoutaface]

I disagree with the Liberals' stances on:
- abortion
- same sex marriages stance to some extent
- the need for a $9 billion surplus, but then I'm no economist

and there's probably some more that I'll post later if I think of them.

 

[withoutaface]

What stance on abortion?

I believe the Liberal party has no stance on abortion...'officially'.

Well the "unofficial" one that Mr Howard has taken then, though I do realise that the party itself is generally divided on the issue.

 

[Korn]

John Howard wishes to keep the current system.

Tony Abbot, Anderson, Alan Cadman ('women should stop having badies willy nilly') and Senator Boswell from QLD for very interested in getting into the Abortion debate.

John Howard knows its election poison and wont touch it with a ten foot pole.

Cadman can afford to pretty much say what ever he wants its one of the safest seats in the nation

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If the Liberals ever started getting into the abortion debate I would instantly move to Labor.

 

[Korn]

Dont be so sure about that, as Labour isn't fielding any real contendors for the seat as it seems to be impossible for the change.
Also Baulkham Hills shire has alot of religious ppl that are likely to be against abortion (need I mention Hillsbong, and the reputation of the Hills as the Bible Belt)

 

[Riewe]

For the liberals:
- Detention centre policy; i don't really agree that people should be locked up from society for an extended period of time. They should resolve their issues much, much quicker to ensure no problems in extended stay.
- Tax cuts to the rich and the huge surpluses. With such a huge surplus, this means that they are not spending enough money on basics, and in the meantime complain about no funds to fund improvement in hospitals and schools.
- Their stance on abortion; that it should stay where it is. As an anti-abortionist i wish they did someting about it.

Other than that, i don't think there is anything else i disagree with.

 

[Comrade nathan]

China.

I support the Maoist in Nepal and Peru.

And i support the violent resistence in Iraq.

 

[loquasagacious]

Labour:

I dislike them constantly being on the back foot and reacting to libs. Whitlam style policy from opposition would be good.

I disagree with:
Support for libs nationalist rhetoric and asylum seeker policy
Coast guard scheme
Forrests policy

All I can think of off the top of my head though there are others.

 

[ohne]

Liberal Party: I disagree with their stance on climate change and the Kyoto protocol. I would like to see the construction of nuclear power stations in Australia to solve this problem.

 

[Riewe]

Also another thing is their stance on regional security, with seemingly a policy of 'pre-emptive' strikes on the agenda. This stance seems to have had a negative effect on our relations with our regional partners, and for the interests of international relations, they might want to change their mind.

And if they keep true to their policy, what are they going to attack with?