Who is going to vote liberal? (1 Viewer)

[Enteebee]

Annabel Crabb's and Mike Carlton's columns in today's Herald has some interesting quotes from 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol was signed.

From the Prime Minister: "It's an outcome that will protect tens of thousands of Australian jobs and it's also an outcome that will put the world on a firmer path towards controlling greenhouse gases". Further: "We end the year having achieved this...absolutely stunning diplomatic success at the Kyoto conference. That was an extraordinary achievement, that Kyoto summit, an absolutely extraordinary achievement, and it was against all the odds. I mean, what we were able to do at Kyoto was both make a massive contribution to the world environmental effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions but also to protect Australian jobs".

So the PM was wrong in his statements?

employee of all rights to an unfair dismissal protection is indefensible.

No... my understanding is that they still can't dismiss on the basis of race/sex/union membership etc.

well I've heard quite a bit of anecdotal evidence myself of people being fired for ludicrous reasons - some helped (though still often not helped far enough) by the previous laws, some completely fucked with them gone.

Meh they're only being fired probably to make way for someone/something else which will do the job more efficienty, leading to our economy being a bigger pie from which the government can spend on workers etc.

"That's the state government's responsibility", realise that the federal government does now get 82% of your taxes - the rest is split between the state and the local.

a) Not sure on those figures... are they counting GST funding as federal funds (because it goes to the federal government who then gives it to the states)?

b) I can understand for a variety of reasons why it's unlikely the federal government will co-operate with the states and vice versa...

c) I think hospitals should simply be taken over by the federal government, if at all possible.

 

[yoyo123]

I will vote for Howard.

At the end of the day I only have two points of contention with him:

1. The insane relgiousity of the party he represents

I despise organised religion, but it's not like Howard is ramming it down our throats. And in anycase Labor also seems to be pandering to the religious.

2. The war in Iraq

I was heavily against the initial invasion, but I do think that pulling the troops out now would be disastrous. Iraq would take a few months to fall and that is a
far worse circumstance than what is happening now.

I won't vote for Rudd because over the past few months I've come to view him as a fraud.

For example, take his bleating on climate change. Highlighting the issue is not a problem, but does he actually think that the odd windfarm and solar panel will make it all go away?

If he was actually serious he would not dismiss nuclear power. The way he portrayed it in the debate made me want to puke. Secondly, he needs to admit that there will be economic sacrifices as a result of his climate change policies. Once he does that, I'll listen.

 

[Iron]

This isnt a bad thread. At first I could identify with the creator in thinking who could actually be for this government, but it's a nice surprise to see some passionate Coalition supporters come out of the woodworks.
For what it's worth, a good deal of my vote comes down to the change factor. Had Stello had the intestinal fortitude, I may have been tempted to turn to the dark side. I can relate to a lot of the boyish headkicking stuff from the government frontbench. Labor's not great at it anymore.

 

[Dave2007]

The thought of Gillard, Garrett and Swan as Federal ministers should be enough to stop anyone from voting Labor

although the equivalent didn't stop them winning NSW

Excellent point.

I find it disgusting (as implied by the title of the thread) that most young people today "assume" that anyone with half a brain will vote labor. It IS the popular thing for young people to be howard-bashing, thinking its "time for change". Most young people are horribly misinformed. When you've written 10,000 word reports on Iraq, know what happened to Perves Musharef this week and have details we don't know on plans for iran, then maybe you can make a comment on middle eastern policy without looking like a fucktard. And no, your get out of iraq now wristband isn't a statement.

I'm not so much voting for the coalition (in fact i may not at all and go for an independent...), as against labor and all their "new look", "time for change" party stands for. Some of the things the coalition government has done in their term have been terrible (I'm referring to sagas such as Habib and Aboriginal reconciliation) but at the same time I know my family has been the best off its ever been (not saying this is the case for everyone, but my vote is about me...), and even if it was "time for change", labor sure as fuck isn't going to provide it.

How can they justify that they're going to make the radical social change that so many young people assume will happen so we can live in this happy lefty land? The two parties no longer stand for what they once did - they echo each other in policy and economic management. Polls told kevin to fashion himself as an "economic conservative". So he did. Not that he had any choice... Their tax policies almost have to be pathetically similiar. So many other election promises are simply copies of the other. Labor fucked up hospitals and schools at the state level (Where section 51 of the constituion puts them) and then claim they'll make a change with pussy federal plans, such as to "review the possibility of federalising health in two years". They're not actually going to make tangible change. We're swapping a centre-right party, leaning towards the centre, for a centre-left party that is also leaning towards the centre - but with absolutely no proven experience, a smug as all fuck leader, no good ideas to fix their drawcards like climate change or housing affordability (the fact they reference them vaguely in speeches without enunciating clear solutions doesn't mean they have them!).

Someone may well pick apart this post's thesis with all these wonderful little self-answered questions (I HATE it when they do that...) from Labor front benchers, of things that will actually bring change. Maybe I'm not on top of every policy, but I can safely say they either amount to shit-all change, are trumped by the coalition, or will have absolutely no effect on how I live my life.

 

[jb_nc]

I'm going to vote Liberal because they're going to put up $20 million to filter the Lane Cove Tunnel (something which State Labor refuses to do).

Also NSW State Labor has made me loathe them enough I don't think I'll ever vote Labor. Including in Britain.

 

[intelligencia]

we need a new leader, and also our strong economic position and massive surplus is just due to the gov selling most of its assets

also it was the labour gov which dramatically reformed in the 80s like removal of tariffs, so that we have more industries now

 

[Mevelyn2551]

The GST is a consumption tax. It's the only decent type of tax. It's not a regressive tax because the poor are not paying MORE per item.

Errrr.... yes they are. They are paying a higher PROPORTION OF THEIR TOATAL INCOME for the SAME LEVEL OF GOODS. To give a highly simplified example:

Rich guy has 5 dollars.
Poor Guy has 3 dollars.
Both want to buy an ice cream worth $2.50 + 30 cents GST.
Rich guy has $2.20 left (44% of his money)
Poor Guy has 20c left (6.6% of his original money)

If both were taxed progressively with income taxes the money in Australia is distributed much more fairly. How is a flat tax like GST fair?

A consumption tax is the only form of tax that should ever be considered. Income tax is a disgusting invasion of privacy.

This coming from someone who supports a party that introduced the new terrorism reforms? When they tap your phones on suspicion that you loaned a terrorist $5, then feel free to complain about your privacy. But honestly, assesing your income and chopping off 60K from some disgustingly high income to help an impoverished family afford food and education...

A side note on Inflation

Money is a commodity, it is not a store of value, it is a commodity, and it has no value. Our money is worthless and as such we have tricked ourselves into thinking its value fluctuates.

So... the "commodity" of money is "bartered" for increasing values as the value of the "commodity" decreases. What has this to do with anything? When you need more money to trade in exchange for the same quantity of goods - thats inflation in any language.

 

[Mevelyn2551]

I am not going to educate you on how someone can borrow too much and why creating jobs in the renewable energy sector is not a solution to the destruction of the economy that will be caused if we rely too much on renewable energy and significantly reduce our emissions. You need to read up on these things yourself.

I'm sorry... but all you seem to be saying is that I am uneducated without actually indicating flaw in anything I am saying. Buisinesses trying to improve and people taking out homeloans are a going to be big loans no matter what. I cannot see how you can point the finger at a restaurant that took a loan to buy a new kitchen that has just gone bankrupt and say - "Hah, well you deserve it for trying to keep your buisiness competitive with that new chinese place across the road." And you cant go to a family that has just been booted from their home for falling behind on their home loans and point and say "you deserve this for giving your family a home." To rieterate: these are the main sources of interest repayments. And no matter the economic conditions these will be big loans.

There are plenty of good reasons for giving a certain level of power to employers instead of employees, particularly in the case of small businesses.... but if you are one of those people who are under the impression that the only goal of every employer is to lower wages and take away conditions (and I think you are one of those people) then you will ignore those reasons no matter how many times I explain them to you.

My parents have ran a total of three different small buisinesses in my life, and I have worked for another. In fact, when our boss gently "sugggested" that the 17 year olds and over (who recieved the highest wage) might want more time for the HSC, I gladly left my post (partly because it was true). Many employers are nice, good people, and I never suggested that they are evil and spend their times smoking cigars, drinking sherry, and laughing at the poor stupid commoners. But there are many who are arseholes and have no problem ripping people off. I give you Cowra Abbatoir. That is why there are good reasons for giving enough power to employees that they can work in a safe and comfortable working environment with a fair wage that doesn't see them working at Maccas at 3am on top of their day job to see ends meet.

You don't want to use the free speech argument on me because I don't support free speech at all. I think only the top 10 or 15 percent of the population should be allowed to vote. People who aren't up to date with all the issues, have some basic understanding of business and economics, and display independent thought have no business voting.

If only the top 10-15% of the population (what do you define as "top"? The richest? The ones with political science degrees? The ones with influential parents?) vote, then what obligation is there on the government to represent the whole people.

Oh, and...

PEOPLE WHO DISPLAY INDEPENDANT THOUGHT HAVE NO BUISINESS VOTING!!!!

A little freudian slip there perhaps?
That is quite possibly the most disgusting and disturbing comment I have ever read outside an Orwell novel
I would be very careful because the last quote is very easy to misinterpret.

 

[miss-smexy]

I'll vote for whoever offers to pay all my HECS

Yes, I succumb to bribery =/

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Here's a radical idea... buy a cheaper house.

Legislation still exist. There is still a minimum wage. One business fired everyone and rehired them. Many more have been able to hire more people because of the flexibility AWA's give them. Fair trade off in my opinion.

If only the top 10-15% of the population (what do you define as "top"? The richest? The ones with political science degrees? The ones with influential parents?) vote, then what obligation is there on the government to represent the whole people.

The most intelligent... as defined by some kind of test.

No obligation. Most people don't know what's best for them, so why should they get a vote? We don't allow children to vote and there are plenty of adults who do get to vote who know less about the important issues that some 16 and 17 year olds.

PEOPLE WHO DISPLAY INDEPENDANT THOUGHT HAVE NO BUISINESS VOTING!!!!

A little freudian slip there perhaps?
That is quite possibly the most disgusting and disturbing comment I have ever read outside an Orwell novel
I would be very careful because the last quote is very easy to misinterpret.

Yeah I messed that sentence up. It should be more like:
People who aren't up to date with all the issues, don't have a basic understanding of business and economics, and don't display independent thought have no business voting.

I will fix the original post.
Edit: I accidentally replaced the original post with my response to this so I ended up deleting it... BOS being so slow got me hitting all sorts of wrong buttons.... and the posts in this thread are really out of sequence.

 

[jb_nc]

Errrr.... yes they are. They are paying a higher PROPORTION OF THEIR TOATAL INCOME for the SAME LEVEL OF GOODS. To give a highly simplified example:

Rich guy has 5 dollars.
Poor Guy has 3 dollars.
Both want to buy an ice cream worth $2.50 + 30 cents GST.
Rich guy has $2.20 left (44% of his money)
Poor Guy has 20c left (6.6% of his original money)

If both were taxed progressively with income taxes the money in Australia is distributed much more fairly. How is a flat tax like GST fair?

Last time I checked, an ice cream wasn't a necessity.

 

[kazan]

im honestly undecided

neither party has really pulled me in yet

 

[katietheskatie]

kevin rudd is a smug little fuckwit. yeah, lets preach about 'working class australia!' and 'doing it for the families!' when i have millions and millions of dollars and my wife is a super successful business person! i know all about working class!

i would rather eat my own head than vote for labor. they're all style and no substance and completely full of shit.

 

[The_highwayman]

I don't like kevin rudd. He comes across as the bullied school kid who has beaten the jocks in a footy match. I find his smirk to be disconcerting.

Plus, i trust john howard. i feel the country is an excellent position right now and the long term vision being acted upon now and over the last 11 years is a liberal vision, something nobody should expect from a labor government.

And i loath julia gillard. She's more a man than kevin.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

The thought of Gillard, Garrett and Swan as Federal ministers should be enough to stop anyone from voting Labor

although the equivalent didn't stop them winning NSW

 

[Triangulum]

kevin rudd is a smug little fuckwit. yeah, lets preach about 'working class australia!' and 'doing it for the families!' when i have millions and millions of dollars and my wife is a super successful business person! i know all about working class!

i would rather eat my own head than vote for labor. they're all style and no substance and completely full of shit.

...

People can not be of the working class and still care about the working class. Particularly since Rudd himself grew up in financial difficulty.

Howard also talks about the needs of working families, and he's a rich former solicitor from the North Shore.

 

[Tulipa]

...

People can not be of the working class and still care about the working class. Particularly since Rudd himself grew up in financial difficulty.

Howard also talks about the needs of working families, and he's a rich former solicitor from the North Shore.

So they're both rich and they're both pandying to those without money...

Yeah that really makes me want to vote for either of them.

However, like Nolan, I live in one of the safest Liberal seats and it's pretty much not worth voting.

EDIT: The "it's" doesn't exist thing from the previous page made me lol so hard, harder than I have in a long time on BoS.

 

[Enteebee]

Guyz in 'safe seats', there is a senate remembar?

 

[katie_tully]

I don't know where we'll end up. The independent for Calare just died and the National guy for Parkes has to try and win Calare over. I think he can do it.

Go John Cobb. Go.

 

[Enteebee]

Still, my impression was that he was genuine and that more independants would be a good thing.

I think the best thing to do is make separate political parties illegal, woo china.

True that. But we don't even have anything close in either of the major parties, unfortunately.

Idk, Nick Minchin?