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

[Sparcod]

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

McKew for Bennelong.

 

[bshoc]

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

McKew for Bennelong.

Never gonna happen in this electorate, a survey of 400 people is in no way a serious inference on the 120000 people that live here, Labor hasnt got a chance, especially some retarded limo lefty.

In other words, there aren't enough stupid people in the electorate ie. Labor voters

 

[bshoc]

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

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, Minchin. A) No-one gets what happened. B) No-one cares what happened. C) No-one watches nor cares about Question Time anyway.

No-one who votes for Labor anyway ..

 

[bshoc]

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

Bennelong either swallowed up a lot of Labor voters or everybody who was originally there are swingers or both.

Or you're making a big deal about a poll that surveyed 0.003% of the electorate ..

If I know my community, Howard is probably going to bump up his margin by about 1% to 56%, its going to take decades for them to move the electorate west enough for Labor to even have a slight chance here.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

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

No-one who votes for Labor anyway ..

Here I was thinking that the intellectual middle class generally votes for the ALP. Guess I was wrong, huh?

Never gonna happen in this electorate, a survey of 400 people is in no way a serious inference on the 120000 people that live here, Labor hasnt got a chance, especially some retarded limo lefty.

I'm pretty sure that it's reliable, given that they were picked randomly. It's not that reliable, but it's fairly reliable.

In other words, there aren't enough stupid people in the electorate ie. Labor voters

All your 'arguments' would be a lot less flimsy if they weren't littered with random gibberish and ad hominem attacks throughout.

 

[bshoc]

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

Here I was thinking that the intellectual middle class generally votes for the ALP. Guess I was wrong, huh?

Those in the middle class self conceded enough to brand themselves "intellectuals" maybe. Theres nothing intellectual about big government, higher taxes and left wing nutcases.

I'm pretty sure that it's reliable, given that they were picked randomly. It's notthat reliable, but it's fairly reliable.

Its not even inside a reasonable statistical confidence interval, heck its little better than sampling the 3 people from Bennelong on this forum and tallying the result ie. 100% Howard.

All your 'arguments' would be a lot less flimsy if they weren't littered with random gibberish and ad hominem attacks throughout.

Intelligent people don't vote to raise their own taxes.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

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

Those in the middle class self conceded enough to brand themselves "intellectuals" maybe. Theres nothing intellectual about big government

Big government = more control. Providing the people who are in control don't go John Howard on the situation (we won the senate. Now we shall enact a couple of hundred awful pieces of legislation), then all is well.

higher taxes

High taxes = more, and improved services to increase quality of life. Also, a bigger government allows for taxes to be controlled at put in places where the money is needed. Also, a big government allows for the distrubution of wealth and service availability to be more equally dispersed, as opposed to being concentrated in the upper echelons of societies wealth classes.

and left wing nutcases.

Agreed.

Its not even inside a reasonable statistical confidence interval, heck its little better than sampling the 3 people from Bennelong on this forum and tallying the result ie. 100% Howard.

Isn't the magic number for a large population about a thousand or so? As I said, it's not brilliant, but it's not the poor indicator you're making it out to be.

Intelligent people don't vote to raise their own taxes.

Clearly, they do.

 

[bshoc]

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

Big government = more control. Providing the people who are in control don't go John Howard on the situation (we won the senate. Now we shall enact a couple of hundred awful pieces of legislation), then all is well.

Big government = more corruption = higher taxes = everyone worse off

High taxes = more, and improved services to increase quality of life.

People seem to be able to do this alot better with their own money than others doing it for them, you know your own needs and wants alot better than some politician sitting in Canberra.

Also, a bigger government allows for taxes to be controlled at put in places where the money is needed.

Money is needed in the hands of the workers who earn that money, not for a big government to throw them away of stupid programs that never work.

Also, a big government allows for the distrubution of wealth and service availability to be more equally dispersed, as opposed to being concentrated in the upper echelons of societies wealth classes.

There is no such thing as equality of dispersement, everyones preferences, needs and wants vary, all a Labor government would do would create waste through the costs of administrating the redistribution itself and hand it off from hard working families and people who earned their own money to hopeless social programs that shouldnt exist.

Agreed.

You're one of them, take an undergraduate economics class sometime, redistribution and waste of welfare programs actually makes everybody, including the benefactors worse off. Such systems cause higher unemployment - especially in lower skilled industries, higher interest rates and governmental waste - three things that hit the people Labor claims to want to help the hardest.

There is no better improvement to quality of living than a tax cut.

Isn't the magic number for a large population about a thousand or so? As I said, it's not brilliant, but it's not the poor indicator you're making it out to be.

No the magic number depends on what kind of significance level you wish to set as well as the relation of that level to the relative size of the population.

Clearly, they do.

I'll never stop getting a hearty laugh from middle class wannabe intellectuals, because if you are truly an intellectual you wouldnt exactly be middle class would you?

 

[ZabZu]

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

In other words, there aren't enough stupid people in the electorate ie. Labor voters

No-one who votes for Labor anyway ..

In NSW politics the state seat of Ryde is a very safe Labor seat.

"Watkins received another swing to him of 8.9% in 2003. On the new boundaries, he now has a margin of 14.8%, an astonishing margin when it is remembered that this seat makes up more than half of John Howard's Federal seat of Bennelong."

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/nsw/2007/guide/ryde.htm

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

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

Most of this stuff is laughable, at best.

Big government = more corruption = higher taxes = everyone worse off

This assumes that higher taxes does indeed lead to people being "worse off", which simply isn't true. I know that I'd much rather live in a society where education, healthcare and welfare is distributed evenly amongst the population, rather than being located at the very top of wealth brackets for only the top of the brackets to access.

People seem to be able to do this alot better with their own money than others doing it for them, you know your own needs and wants alot better than some politician sitting in Canberra.

Money is needed in the hands of the workers who earn that money, not for a big government to throw them away of stupid programs that never work.

Clearly, you don't understand the role of government in ensuring that its citizens all receive equal opportunities and rights in life. Point of the matter, is that everyone in life deserves an equal opportunity, regardless of race, wealth etc. This can hardly be acheived if children are born into a society where parents have to buy healthcare and education and can't access welfare as it's been banished by the government. Having a government that doesn't take an active role in distributing funds evenly throughout society leads to a snowball effect of the redistribution of wealth, leading to (for lack of a better phrase) the rich getting rich and the poor getting poorer. Hence, children of the poor can't succeed in life due to their parents mistakes blah blah.

I think it's rather incredulous to suggest that having citizens allocate their money according to what they want to do with it would lead to a society being better for everyone. Better for some? Yes, definately, but better for all? No, definately not.

You're one of them, take an undergraduate economics class sometime, redistribution and waste of welfare programs actually makes everybody, including the benefactors worse off. Such systems cause higher unemployment - especially in lower skilled industries, higher interest rates and governmental waste - three things that hit the people Labor claims to want to help the hardest.

Perhaps you ought to take an undergraduate class in social work/welfare some time, seeing as you make an absurd generalisation that all welfare programs don't work. But seeing as you're making a vain attempt to discredit what I'm saying, I'd love for you to show me some examples or a worked theory of how the even distribution of wealth leads to everyone being worse off.

No the magic number depends on what kind of significance level you wish to set as well as the relation of that level to the relative size of the population.

That's fine then. Enlighten me as to the margin of error for this poll. I'd go and pull out my old statistics book and work it out for myself, but I think you ought to be the one to do it. Even if I was wrong, I simply wouldn't care. This isn't an issue which I'm really interested in.

I'll never stop getting a hearty laugh from middle class wannabe intellectuals, because if you are truly an intellectual you wouldnt exactly be middle class would you?

Cheap, cheap generalisation. Very poor too. Suppose the threshold of being in the middle class ranges from, say, $40k-110k? That sound fair? I'd go as far to say that a very large portion of those who attended university (hence being educated) would fit into that class. Very much so indeed.

 

[bshoc]

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

In NSW politics the state seat of Ryde is a very safe Labor seat.

"Watkins received another swing to him of 8.9% in 2003. On the new boundaries, he now has a margin of 14.8%, an astonishing margin when it is remembered that this seat makes up more than half of John Howard's Federal seat of Bennelong."

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/nsw/2007/guide/ryde.htm

And the seats of Lane Cove and Epping, the other composite parts of Bennelong, are safe Liberal, whats your point?

I live in the seat of Ryde also, I wouldn't be that surprised if Watkins actually loses his seat come next election, or at the very least this seat will become a marginal one.

 

[ZabZu]

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

And the seats of Lane Cove and Epping, the other composite parts of Bennelong, are safe Liberal, whats your point?

I live in the seat of Ryde also, I wouldn't be that surprised if Watkins actually loses his seat come next election, or at the very least this seat will become a marginal one.

We'll see what happens at the NSW election. My bet is that Lane Cove is going to have a huge swing to the Libs.

 

[cowface]

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

Big government = more corruption = higher taxes = everyone worse off

Private Business are way less corrupt than government. Cause there's public oversight isn't there? Everyone has democratic control of Nike, and Mc Donald's don't they?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

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

Better example these days might be James Hardie. Can the private sector be trusted? No. There's no other answer.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

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

Private Business are way less corrupt than government. Cause there's public oversight isn't there? Everyone has democratic control of Nike, and Mc Donald's don't they?

Both have little public oversight to be honest.

 

[frog12986]

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

Ahh the socialist spiel of Neb.

The role of government is determined not by theory, but by the electors. Its central role is assumed on the policy platform on which it is elected, and presently, that is one premised on a balance between welfare provision and incentive. It is idealistic to suggest that a society that operates under a focused welfare system will provide a totality of wealth, better living standards and prosperity. Anomalies such as the Scandanavian countries are testament to a system operating under a set of conditions (namely self-sufficiency); conditions that do not exist in all nations. If mainland Europe is used as an example, the welfare state has merely fostered the maintenence of unemployment, inflation and economic conditions unconducive to growth and prosperity for its people; France, Germany and Italy are perfect examples.

See what perplexes me, is the way in which it is the same people who advocate human rights issues, and denounce extensive interference in one's personal life, conucurrently promote economic interference.

As Joe Hockey said the other day the most responsible way a government can provide income to it's population is through employment.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

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

The role of government is determined not by theory, but by the electors.

Then surely you can't support these ghastly industrial relations reforms!

 

[ZabZu]

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

As Joe Hockey said the other day the most responsible way a government can provide income to it's population is through employment.

I saw most of his speech to the press club.

Personally I want to see as many people employed as possible too. I believe in strong minimum conditions but WorkChoices doesnt include provisions i believe as essential in a fair industrial relations system.

The Liberals say that their IR reforms are key for a strong economy. However, as of last year only 2% of workers were employed on AWAs. Instead it was Paul Keatings reforms of 1993 (Industial Relations Act, enterprise bargaining) which have been far more beneficial for the economy and kept inflation low. The libs claim a Labor govt will have a system dominated by centralised wage fixing but it was the ALP who decentralised the industrial relations system.

 

[volition]

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

This assumes that higher taxes does indeed lead to people being "worse off", which simply isn't true. I know that I'd much rather live in a society where education, healthcare and welfare is distributed evenly amongst the population

I understand that your intentions may be good, but I think that an even distribution of wealth is too hard to create, not to mention unfair on the people who have worked hard for their wealth. I don’t believe that there is any right to somebody else’s property, no matter how much smarter/luckier/better off they are.

 

[withoutaface]

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

We'll see what happens at the NSW election. My bet is that Lane Cove is going to have a huge swing to the Libs.

Of course it will, Anthony Roberts is a fucking hero.