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

[wheredanton]

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

At the moment I am thinking about voting labor... but meh... I'm really unsatisfied with both parties at the moment. I am unsure of exactly where I stand and I don't think there is a party that represents my interests. If the election was held tomorrow I would simply waste my vote by writing 'ODOYLE RULES!'.

It would take alot for me to consider Voting Liberal. John Howard is, in my opinion, one of the least honest politicians ever. This guy lies without blinking. He knows there was an 'undertaking' and a highly respected Liberal Party member has verified this. He just flat out lies, even more so than the average politician. He played the race card and, to me, has become increasingly arrogant much like Keating at the end of his reign.

Also not too happy about the ALP at the moment. As pointed out in the Australia a few weeks back the ALP has gone back to playing the race card and banging on about overseas workers taking Aussie jobs. It's very old and nasty politics. Sadly Big Kim is irrelevant and the ALP has no chance of winning the election on workplace relations. It should know that with its internal polling.


Personally I'm really in the wets of the Liberal Party or the 'right' of the ALP. But 'wet' Liberals are a dying breed and the right wing of the ALP doesn't seem so right to me at the moment.

 

[transcendent]

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

John Howard would make a great poker player.

 

[katietheskatie]

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

45% labor? what the fuck is wrong with you people?

liberals ftw.

 

[Generator]

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

45% labor? what the fuck is wrong with you people?

liberals ftw.

Anything else to add to that, or are you just another of the mindless "RIGHT IS MIGHT OMG!" brigade?

 

[katietheskatie]

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

isn't it might is right?

anyway, no, it's not that. i just can't fathom why people would want to vote for a party with no real policies apart from blindly trashing everything the coalition does, is pretty much ruled by unionists who have no concept of business or how the real world works, and ended up with billions of dollars of foreign debt the last time they were in office.

 

[Xayma]

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

isn't it might is right?

anyway, no, it's not that. i just can't fathom why people would want to vote for a party with no real policies apart from blindly trashing everything the coalition does, is pretty much ruled by unionists who have no concept of business or how the real world works, and ended up with billions of dollars of foreign debt the last time they were in office.

Because it is often better then a party which lies, and is pretty much ruled by big business who have no concept of actual free market or how the real world works?

 

[neo o]

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

Bah, anonymous polling.

 

[wheredanton]

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

isn't it might is right?

anyway, no, it's not that. i just can't fathom why people would want to vote for a party with no real policies apart from blindly trashing everything the coalition does, is pretty much ruled by unionists who have no concept of business or how the real world works, and ended up with billions of dollars of foreign debt the last time they were in office.

It's their job ie 'opposition'. Largely a prerequisite for democracy.

 

[Rafy]

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

TO BREATHLESS teenage squeals of "oh my God" and "he's sooo coool", John Howard began the defence of his leadership yesterday by unveiling his most potent weapon, his political popularity.[...]

Stunned families waved back as Mr Howard loudly declared the weather to be fine. The students of Perth's Penrhos College went gaga, mobbing the Prime Minister.

"You're our favourite politician," they screamed as Mr Howard, and the trailing media, joined them for some hearty glad-handing and pictures. "It's pretty cool to meet John Howard in person," said 16-year-old Olivia Loxley. "We'd all vote for him if we were 18."

"He's pretty short in person. Oh my God, I'm taller than John Howard," said another student, Brittany Lynch.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/07/10/1152383677800.html

 

[Triangulum]

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

isn't it might is right?

anyway, no, it's not that. i just can't fathom why people would want to vote for a party with no real policies apart from blindly trashing everything the coalition does, is pretty much ruled by unionists who have no concept of business or how the real world works, and ended up with billions of dollars of foreign debt the last time they were in office.

If you're talking about current account deficit, which was a very big issue with the Libs under Keating, it's actually gone up (massively) under the Liberals. If you're talking about government debt due to spending, there is absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong with it. The US government has a budget deficit of hundreds of billions each year. Running deficits boosts spending, which can be good in certain economic circumstances.

Just saying 'Debt is bad!' is not a proper argument, it's an argument used by anti-Labor politicians to appeal to voters who don't have the faintest clue about these things and think that the finances of government are the same as the finances of a household.

 

[poloktim]

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

Labor for sure.

Costello and Howard can continue their fight over who gets leader of the opposition.

Yeah. Perhaps the thread should be renamed: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition versus Labor/Howard or Costello versus Beazley?

Just to ensure there is uncertainty in the air regarding the Liberal Party leadership.

I really don't understand the Liberal squabbering about the ALP being under control of the union movement. I always thought the union movement was one of the reasons the ALP are who they are. It's as silly as me saying Liberal is under the control of big business.

 

[withoutaface]

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

Cept Liberals aren't intrinsically controlled by big business. They pursue an agenda of liberalisation without big business having 50% of their votes, unlike Labor and the unions.

 

[wheredanton]

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

Cept Liberals aren't intrinsically controlled by big business. They pursue an agenda of liberalisation without big business having 50% of their votes, unlike Labor and the unions.

Thats a little bit idealistic. The only difference between the ALP and the Libs in terms of outside influence is that the union's role in the ALP is formal. The role of big business in the Liberal Party and the think tanks they sponsor is tacit but no less real.

 

[Triangulum]

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

The unions' role in the ALP is formal, but only at Conference level and so on, which sets only the general thrust of policy. Day-to-day policy decisions are made by the Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet and the Caucus, which obviously consist of elected MHRs and Senators.

 

[Generator]

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

The unions' role in the ALP is formal, but only at Conference level and so on, which sets only the general thrust of policy. Day-to-day policy decisions are made by the Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet and the Caucus, which obviously consist of elected MHRs and Senators.

And such decisions are influenced by the factions, many of which are dominated by union heavyweights (Bill Ludwig of the AWU comes to mind).

Edit: and such involvement is informal, yes. Sorry if the above suggests something that you did not write.

 

[frog12986]

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

If you're talking about current account deficit, which was a very big issue with the Libs under Keating, it's actually gone up (massively) under the Liberals. If you're talking about government debt due to spending, there is absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong with it. The US government has a budget deficit of hundreds of billions each year. Running deficits boosts spending, which can be good in certain economic circumstances

There may be nothing intrinsically wrong in relation to public debt, however comparing the effect that it may have upon the US and Australian economies is also misleading. The US economy is resilient and powerful enough to maintain investment and confidence at the present time, even in the face of massive government expenditure.
However, the situation in Australia is far more responsive to such conditions. Interest rates, inflation, stagnated growth and abismal productivity was not just a product of the downturn in world markets, but was also synonymous with the lack of confidence in the prospects for the Australian economy before and throughout the recession.

Labor stalwarts have always attempted to attribute the bulk of current prosperity to their micro-economic agenda, however thats where the thanks should end. Labor has, and always will be more fiscally irresponsible until they realise that balancing macro and micro policies is an absolute must, as is the need to reamin vigilant despite pressures from the vast array of minority groups that continually press for expenditure. Sure the micro economic reforms were necessary and ultimately effective, but to undertake those reforms with such ambitious fiscal policies was always going to be to the detriment to the Australian economy; and it still remains a major difference between the modern approach of both parties.

 

[frog12986]

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

Ended up with the debt so they could stop australia going into a massive, massive economic slump.

I take your argument and counter it with the fact that Howard has done precious little before implementing these wholeheartedly foolish IR regulations, other than surf on the wave of prosperity Keating martyred his side of government to provide.

Any questions?

An economic slump not only affected by world economic conditions, but one that also was derived through the ineffectiveness of policies such as the Prices and Incomes Accord, which despite Labor party propaganda, failed miserably to achieve productivity and real wage increases.

To suggest that Keating committed an act of martyrdom is overstating the achievements of the government. Whilst reforms were needed, the dollar needed to be floated etc, this did not absolve their responsibility to remain fiscally vigilant when all the structural pressures were being exerted upon the economy.
Policies such as the accord conflicted in that they demanded excessive expediture to maintain the "social wage" for lower income earners that offset the slow movements in wage levels. The ALP continues to go on about the 'casualisation' of the workforce under Howard, yet of the 1.6 million jobs created in 13 years of their government, half were part time.

And as for your comments regarding Howard "surfing the wave of prosperity", there always has and always will be a difference in fiscal responsibility and labour market policy between the two parties. As long as the Labor Party remains the party for the minority group, this will be so.

The approach by this government in reforming the tax system, workplace relations, trade and foreign relationships and overall fiscal management has been substantially different to its predecessor. Economic management is not a given, and overstated micro reform in the 80's did not automatically translate into the prosperity of the past 10 years.

 

[wheredanton]

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

An economic slump not only affected by world economic conditions, but one that also was derived through the ineffectiveness of policies such as the Prices and Incomes Accord, which despite Labor party propaganda, failed miserably to achieve productivity and real wage increases.

It's well recongised that real wage increases are not always the gaol of the ALP or that political outlook. At the most basic level those of the economic left would prefer to trade off real wage increases with universal access to basic services. The staple lefty diet of health, welfare and education. Essentially trade off wage increases by protecting 'basic services' from the inequities of the market.

What you accuse the ALP of doing is hardly startling or shocking. Really it was the economic wisdom of the day. Even the ALP government of the 80s can be seen as more economically liberal that the wet Liberals of Fraser's time, a time when John Howard hadn't quite yet been seduced by parsimonious neo liberal economic theory.

If anyone is engaging in gentle propagana it's you. At the time the economic left wasn't really interested in wage increases at all costs. To accuse the ALP of failing at something if never never really considered core is to conveniently misrepresent.

In any case. How do you excuse the Fraser/Howard financial combo? Surely if you are going to say the economic slump of the late 80s wasn't just due to the world economic environment but rather due to ALP incompetence then why wasnt it any different for the Fraser/Howard combo? Surely with such great Liberal minds at the controls of the country sound and prudent economic policy would make us immume from the poor global economic context?

late 80s - ALP - poor global economic climate - ALP's fault for not deploying sound economic policy to protect us from the global environment.

Fraser/Howard? - Liberals - it seems anomolous that superior Liberal economic minds were not able to insulate Australia from global economic conditions?

Perhaps it is because the political economy is global? Perhaps it's because political parties, in the quest to win votes, like to overplay their role in economic success and underplay the role of the opposition in the economic success?

 

[frog12986]

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

In any case. How do you excuse the Fraser/Howard financial combo? Surely if you are going to say the economic slump of the late 80s wasn't just due to the world economic environment but rather due to ALP incompetence then why wasnt it any different for the Fraser/Howard combo? Surely with such great Liberal minds at the controls of the country sound and prudent economic policy would make us immume from the poor global economic context?

late 80s - ALP - poor global economic climate - ALP's fault for not deploying sound economic policy to protect us from the global environment.

Fraser/Howard? - Liberals - it seems anomolous that superior Liberal economic minds were not able to insulate Australia from global economic conditions?

Perhaps it is because the political economy is global? Perhaps it's because political parties, in the quest to win votes, like to overplay their role in economic success and underplay the role of the opposition in the economic success?

Howard existed as an understudy in the Fraser Government which is evident not only the 1981 cabinet rejection of Howards tax reform agenda, but also in Fraser's more progressive stance today. He served an agenda as Treasurer that was stipulated by Fraser's directive, not his own ideas in relation to reform.

It has been prevalent thought within the Liberal Party for many years, and even today, that Fraser lacked the fortitude and foresight to implement the economic changes that needed to be done; probably part of the reason why he has become more liberal in the true sense of the word. Nonetheless, Fraser did lay a foundation for the reform process of the 1980's through the establishment the Campbell Committee of inquiry into the financial system which promoted both deregulation and the floating of the dollar, which was, of course rejected by the then opposition, later to be implemented by the same party...

It also has been noted, that when in opposition, Howard criticised the government for not acting faster and taking a more proactive agenda. He also attacked the Government for buckling before the vested interests on its own side (the unions) who had gained extensive influence via the accord.. something of course that remains today, stronger than ever..

 

[Mc_Meaney]

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

labour. Mainly because I disagree with many of the policies set forth by the Liberal party, and I dont want to see Costello become PM in the next...hmm ever.