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

[jb_nc]

who doesnt love menzies

 

[Iron]

Hahaha.
Michael Brissenden. 7:30 Report:
"Perhaps voters aren't waiting for John Howard with baseball bats, but they may be waiting with a warm cup of tea and slippers"

He's a top bloke. Spoke to him before Keating! earlier this year.

 

[Sparcod]

Oh yeah that one. That's funny.

Galaxy poll has showed that Rudd's popularity has slipped to 54:46 on the opinion polls. Why is it that all of a sudden John Howard wants to take drastic actions on climate change?

 

[Rafy]

Love Brissenden's reports.

Galaxy poll has showed that Rudd's popularity has slipped to 54:46 on the opinion polls.

Galaxy didnt ask a leader 'popularity' type question. I assume you refer to the Two party preferred prediction? That was 53/47.

Full details here: http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5510874,00.jpg

Also shows the extent of Labor's economic credibility problem (even among its own supporters).

 

[jb_nc]

Galaxy have been tending favourable towards the Coalition. Keeping the current trend line with their polls only, the situation of 60/40 would be reversed to Liberal come election time according to Galaxy.

 

[Sparcod]

Love Brissenden's reports.

Galaxy didnt ask a leader 'popularity' type question. I assume you refer to the Two party preferred prediction? That was 53/47.

Full details here: http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5510874,00.jpg

Also shows the extent of Labor's economic credibility problem (even among its own supporters).

With the ratio I gave, it's obviously a 2 Party-Preferred poll. Some sources say that Labor was ahead on 60/40.

Also, looking at the 2nd table, it looks like that those Labor-supporters are Labor supporters because they want to 'give Kev a go'.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Somebody...please make the endless poll reporting go away!

 

[Sparcod]

To the two posters above- I also find opinion polls annoying at times. They give either false hope or false alarms and as far as I'm concerned- false predictions.

"Will Australians be better served by wall-to-wall Labor governments?"- John Howard
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21843461-2,00.html

In response to Mr Howard- I'd say so.

There'd be improved state-federal government cooperation (partly due to the fact that they're the same party), wouldn't there?

 

[Iron]

There'd be improved state-federal government cooperation (partly due to the fact that they're the same party), wouldn't there?

There has been a scary idea forming during the Howard years: Libs are suited to federal issues of the economy and national security; Labor is suited to state/domestic issues of health and eductation.

Theory was that as long as states are Labor and Cth is Liberal, there's no need for a federal opposition.

 

[ZabZu]

There has been a scary idea forming during the Howard years: Libs are suited to federal issues of the economy and national security;

I believe national security would be better under Labor. Howard's foreign policy (esp Iraq) has increased the threat to this country.

The American Presidential candidate Barak Obama spoke about security at a democratic forum a couple of days ago. He said Bush's war in Iraq has made America more prone to terrorism and hence less safe. However, he's going to move closer to the centre if he becomes the democratic candidate because he has to appeal to more conservative voters and not leftie democrats who vote in the primaries.

Some people might disagree, especially conservatives, but the war has provided a source of recruitment for Muslims all over the world who are increasingly angry at America and its allies. Iran has become emboldened with the removal of Saddam's regime.

I just hope that this becomes the mainstream view before the federal election so Howard's trump cards are reduced.

 

[Iron]

Yes. Labor's certainly addressing both national security and economic managment a tad better than Latham.
I think the theory's dead. It peaked with the 2004 campaign, where Latham looked like he was running to be Premier rather than PM

 

[frog12986]

I believe national security would be better under Labor. Howard's foreign policy (esp Iraq) has increased the threat to this country.

The American Presidential candidate Barak Obama spoke about security at a democratic forum a couple of days ago. He said Bush's war in Iraq has made America more prone to terrorism and hence less safe. However, he's going to move closer to the centre if he becomes the democratic candidate because he has to appeal to more conservative voters and not leftie democrats who vote in the primaries.

Some people might disagree, especially conservatives, but the war has provided a source of recruitment for Muslims all over the world who are increasingly angry at America and its allies. Iran has become emboldened with the removal of Saddam's regime.

This idea that our involvement in the Iraq War has increased the risk to our national security is another attempt by many on the left to relate terrorist action as a derivative actions of the United States, and somehow hold the US responsible for the attacks that occur around the world.

New York and Bali each occurred prior the Iraq invasion, and terrorist success since has resoundingly failed. Terrorism is related to ideological and religious difference. Whilst some may believe that the war is 'intensifying' anti-west sentiments, national security in both the US and Australia has increased immensely, essentially nullifying the attempts of terrorists to undertake similar large scale attacks.

More specific to Australia however, once again, our role in foreign affairs and international influence has been greatly overstated. We are a small nation, that has little or no impact on the subistence of the 'western economy'. As this weeks foiled terrorism plot explicitly revealed, most organised terrorist attacks aim to leave a lingering impact that supercedes the attack itself; economically, socially and politically. The vast majority of terrorist threats in Australia are home grown, or related to our closest and most specific danger, Indonesia. I'd much rather develop a sense of national security with an alliance with the United States (even with such a small number of specialist troops assisting) than be subject to the same risks founded on ideological difference that exist without that support. Intelligence sharing, and the associated benefits, are far more important than political expediency.

 

[wheredanton]

This idea that our involvement in the Iraq War has increased the risk to our national security is another attempt by many on the left to relate terrorist action as a derivative actions of the United States, and somehow hold the US responsible for the attacks that occur around the world.

Only the far left would try to link events in the manner. However I think it is deficient to deny that there is a perception (and hopefully perception doesn't glow into reality) that Australia is now a larger terrorist target than it was before the Iraq war.

Only this morning I was on the bus to University and two young males were discussing how they hate the west and how the Koran is 100% consistent with all scientific theory (While at the same time wearing western clothes, living in a western liberal democracy, enjoying a western education etc etc). It is hard to determine whether this attitude, which I assume is shared by some other Muslims, has developed independent on the West's involvement in Iraq?

 

[Iron]

There are major ideological differences on national security. But it's only been general, and subject to exceptions.

Labor under Hawke/Keating completely had the right idea in my view. They, with Beazley, advocated the idea of "Continental Defence"; the idea that Australia as a continent can be defended and should be defended. Our defence of this soil goes to the heart of national identity and our claim to live here (eg Kokoda diggers died in defence of Australian soil, thereby legitimating our claim).

The Liberal party has been pretty consistent since Menzies. They hold to a more practical and sad view that the continent is indefensible, and not particularly worth defending anyway. They advocate "Forward defence" - that is, our security is achieved by helping our culutral/historic partners (UK/US) in their conflicts on the basis of a shabby understanding that they'll return the favour if need be. It's an insurance policy with no guarantee. In practise, it sees Australia as merely an appendage of greater allies/cultures, rather than a unique entity in and of its own. (eg Defence purchase of Abram tanks which have no concievable application on our soil)

The gallipoli campaign gained traction for the conservatives because the beach was reminicient of Australia, and served as a kind of tragic parallel to our struggle against our own hostile land. In a vague way, it reminds us that we have no relationship to Australia as a land, but rather to vague ideas along the lines of 'Western civilization'.

The Liberal viewpoint has traditionally won, because of the overwhelming public belief that we're constantly in danger (Imperial Japanese, Communist Chinese, Islamic Indonesia) and need a friend. The Labor view, born out of globalisation and increased international cooperation, is still relevant today, especially in spite of terrorism.

 

[ZabZu]

This idea that our involvement in the Iraq War has increased the risk to our national security is another attempt by many on the left to relate terrorist action as a derivative actions of the United States, and somehow hold the US responsible for the attacks that occur around the world.

New York and Bali each occurred prior the Iraq invasion, and terrorist success since has resoundingly failed. Terrorism is related to ideological and religious difference. Whilst some may believe that the war is 'intensifying' anti-west sentiments, national security in both the US and Australia has increased immensely, essentially nullifying the attempts of terrorists to undertake similar large scale attacks.

Im not trying to defend the actions of Islamic extremists (terrorists).

There were a few other terrorist acts against American targets prior to 9/11. A couple major ones are the bombing of the USS cole in 2000 and the bombing of 2 American embassies in Africa in 1998.

America's foreign policy angers radical Islamists. Policies such as:
- strong support of Israel
- support to moderate/pro-western Arab countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan
- presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia

The list goes on. While neither us nor the Americans should appease terrorists, Americans strong intervention in the world since WW2 has had little benefit to people outside the US.

 

[Strummerkid]

This idea that our involvement in the Iraq War has increased the risk to our national security is another attempt by many on the left to relate terrorist action as a derivative actions of the United States, and somehow hold the US responsible for the attacks that occur around the world.

There is undeniable links there. The left is not creating these links, they are existant. America's role in bringing much pain and suffering to the peoples of the Middle East is why they are targeted.

New York and Bali each occurred prior the Iraq invasion, and terrorist success since has resoundingly failed. Terrorism is related to ideological and religious difference. Whilst some may believe that the war is 'intensifying' anti-west sentiments, national security in both the US and Australia has increased immensely, essentially nullifying the attempts of terrorists to undertake similar large scale attacks.

"Terrorism" is a political phenomenon. When there is a religious, racial or other difference between enemies it will of course be exploited by both to gain support from their respective populations.
Terrorism is just how those without a state army fight, whether it be right of wrong.
I don't believe the security of either USA or Australia has increased. Definitely the expendature on security measures, and the sense of constant fear have increased but the security its self i would disagree.
Also America has been involved in many, many unpopular campaigns within the middle east. The 2003 invasion of Iraq is never claimed to be the sole reason terrorists exist.

More specific to Australia however, once again, our role in foreign affairs and international influence has been greatly overstated. We are a small nation, that has little or no impact on the subistence of the 'western economy'. As this weeks foiled terrorism plot explicitly revealed, most organised terrorist attacks aim to leave a lingering impact that supercedes the attack itself; economically, socially and politically. The vast majority of terrorist threats in Australia are home grown, or related to our closest and most specific danger, Indonesia. I'd much rather develop a sense of national security with an alliance with the United States (even with such a small number of specialist troops assisting) than be subject to the same risks founded on ideological difference that exist without that support. Intelligence sharing, and the associated benefits, are far more important than political expediency.

I understand what you're trying to say here. But once again, i disagree that terrorists will strike any nation that has a regime dissimilar to the Taliban or Iran. If that is the case, why have nations such as USA, UK, Spain etc been targeted as opposed to say Ireland who is neutral or Iceland which has no armed forces?

 

[Sparcod]

This idea that our involvement in the Iraq War has increased the risk to our national security is another attempt by many on the left to relate terrorist action as a derivative actions of the United States, and somehow hold the US responsible for the attacks that occur around the world.

There has always been a threat of terrorism and the west has been a target for decades not years. I'd say that Iraq war has increased the threat of terrorism due to the fact that these extremists feel that America is giving itself a bad name. By the way, in my opinion, many terrorists hold anti-American views and this is mainly because of the US being the big player and their are ideological differences, as you mentioned. These ideological differences widened when the war took place.

Certainly, there have been anti-American terrorists for decades so you've got a valid point there.

Some people might disagree, especially conservatives, but the war has provided a source of recruitment for Muslims all over the world who are increasingly angry at America and its allies. Iran has become emboldened with the removal of Saddam's regime.

I agree but not fully. I don't think all Muslims oppose the Iraq War. Iraq War played a significant role in increasing anti-Americanism.

I believe that Europe's relationship with the US has severred a bit since the war. I got this from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-americanism

The fact that we haven't had a terrorist attack on Australian soil does not prove it is optimal.

The Bali Bombings of 2002 and 2005 and the Australian embassy in 2004 were scary enough given that we're pretty close and that there are lots of Australians there. I'd be pretty sure that their plans to fight terrorism would be as big as that of the coalition.

*****​

As someone mentioned before, terrorism does not equal anti-Americanism. The threat of terrorism occurs everywhere and is due to ideological differences that are taken too far. Ideological differences were stretched a bit more due to Bush and Howard and their allies.

Frog12896- would you say that a country that's not aligned with the US is safer OR more at risk?

 

[Lachlan18]

I really like the poll results here. It seems that 52.86% are intelligent and care about the future of this country.

 

[Boo Quah]

Frog12896- would you say that a country that's not aligned with the US is safer OR more at risk?

Regardless of a few towelheads with bombs, I'd take the US any day. Who's going to defend us if required, Sweden?

I really like the poll results here. It seems that 52.86% are intelligent and care about the future of this country.

I feel comforted knowing that 33.94% of us eat babies.

 

[jb_nc]

I really like the poll results here. It seems that 52.86% are intelligent and care about the future of this country.

yes i agree if you voted liberal you are a fucking moron and hate australia.

vote labor or else your a fuckhead