Labor's Future (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

To-may-to, To-mah-to

There's a difference, kiddo.

Edit: In today's terms, anyway - in practice, the ALP is more of a centrist to right-leaning party with social democratic tendencies than it is a 'true' social democratic party.

 

[sam04u]

AHHH NOOO STUPID STUPID FORUMS DIE AND GO TO HELL!

Well, I made an argument which explained what I wanted to say and then "Flash" it asked me to sign in and then the rest is history.

Basically here is what i said;

Social Democracy = Idealistic.

Theoretically = Social Democracy is Strong

Practically = Social Democracy is weak (depends on the countries policies)

Examples of unsuccesful countries with a Social Democratic Government;
Ireland
Great Britain

Ireland = Low GPA, Bad Living Conditions, High Crime Rate.

Great Britain = Borderline GPA, Moderate Living Conditions, High Crime Rate.
(Poverty = High = 25% Of all Britain have bad living conditions)

ie; 13 Million People with; Poor living conditions; lack of heat, clothing, food and adequate education.

Examples Succesful Countries with a Social Democratic Government;
Finland
Switzerland

Switzerland = High GPA, Good Living Conditions, Low Crime Rate.
Poverty = Almost Non Existant.
(Mainly because of its strong policies).


Australia = Moderate GPA, Good Living Conditions, Low Crime Rate.
Poverty = 11% (This isn't even a measure of true poverty; just a measure of "Relative Income"; these people usually have benefits. Such as public housing and pensioner benefits. Which means they have
similar living conditions.

In conclusion.
Australia has a strong government. A change to ALP would cripple large corporations; Such as "woolworths" and "franklins". Which provide fair & affordable prices.
Therefore, although the ALP would provide some sort of benefits to people of low Socio-economic status.
There will still people the problems which made it difficult for these people to aquire means. Eg; Physical Disability, Mental Disability, Single Mothers, Etc;

And therefore the overall cost of Living would increase; Which Inversely means the people of low Socio-Economic Status would be discriminated against.

See I know that if I needed to... in absolute poverty had to support myself and two others. I could get the basic necessities needed to survive from woolworths for about $100 a week.

(I hope this made sense to some; the point im trying to make is that a socialist democratic government can be beneficial in some cases. However it inversely discriminates by taking funding out of things such as "education" and "healtcare" indirectly).

Theoretically here is what a socialist democratic government should do; according to SI.

Firstly, freedom - not only individual liberties, but also freedom from discrimination and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of abusive political power. Secondly, equality and social justice - not only before the law but also economic and socio-cultural equality as well, and equal opportunities for all including those with physical, mental, or social disabilities. Finally, solidarity - unity and a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice and inequality

Tell me exactly how; within the ALP's policies they are going to achieve that?

(Socialism, Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy; are all the same in that. They all only work theoretically, unless they have STRONG policies and a well thought out budget. Perhaps the only person who could have pulled it off was Keating, and even he took money out of education and healthcare....
The ALP indirectly contradicts its statements through its policies...)

 

[leetom]

Australia has a strong government. A change to ALP would cripple large corporations; Such as "woolworths" and "franklins". Which provide fair & affordable prices.
Therefore, although the ALP would provide some sort of benefits to people of low Socio-economic status.
There will still people the problems which made it difficult for these people to aquire means. Eg; Physical Disability, Mental Disability, Single Mothers, Etc;

And therefore the overall cost of Living would increase; Which Inversely means the people of low Socio-Economic Status would be discriminated against.

Your whole bizarre and illogical argument is founded on the premise that the election of a Labor Government will instantly rein hellfire down upon major supermarket chains.

I demand to know why you think this would be the case.

 

[sam04u]

"Such as; Woolworths and Franklins"
It will affect many of these corporations... clothing stores... kmart, myers, big w etc.

As the government takes more from the top, the top just charges more to make up the difference. Its called "utilisation", you wouldn't understand.

 

[Iron]

Your whole bizarre and illogical argument is founded on the premise that the election of a Labor Government will instantly rein hellfire down upon major supermarket chains.

I demand to know why you think this would be the case.

Id ignore it. If anything, the ALP Shopies faction (Vic, W.A, S.A right) has nothing but arse-licking in stall for the s.mkts

He's basing it on no policy whatsoever

 

[sam04u]

:rofl: Nooblets....
I didn't say super markets... i said MAJOR CORPORATIONS; SUCH AS!
(These things will increase the "cost of living" is what i was saying...)

I dunno why its the people who study so much about the theoretical aspects of politics.... that know little/or nothing about the practical implications of them....
Theoretical situations only use some factors... its the same in politics... (they dont take into account little details...)

/pif... ALP Supporters....

 

[Rafy]

Ratings leave Beazley with look of a loser

By Louise Dodson Chief Political Correspondent
March 28, 2006

THE Labor leader, Kim Beazley, is again under pressure, with his personal approval rating plunging 10 points to a record low, although Labor is level pegging with the Coalition.

The new Herald Poll reveals that the number of people who disapprove of Mr Beazley has shot up eight points to 54 per cent, a record.

The poll is nearly all bad news for Mr Beazley, although Labor's two-party preferred vote is holding up at 50-50 per cent with the Coalition.

Mr Beazley's approval rate has dropped to 32 per cent, his lowest level ever as Opposition Leader. The highest disapproval rate he attracted was 58 per cent in Victoria, the scene of a vicious party brawl over moves to dump sitting MPs, including the former leader Simon Crean. But the second highest at 56 per cent was in Queensland, where Labor must pick up seats if it is to win the next election.

Labor's primary vote fell from 40 to 37 per cent, while the Coalition's rose one point. The poll of 1442 respondents was taken over the past month when the Government has been facing questions about its handling of the AWB oil-for-food kickbacks scandal and fears about the Government's new industrial relations system.

The Herald Poll shows that a strong majority of Australians who are aware of the industrial relations changes are opposed to them. While 82 per cent are aware of the new system, 58 per cent of these are opposed. The number of those opposed to the industrial relations changes has fallen slightly. In July 2005, 60 per cent were opposed, although 82 per cent said they were aware of them[...]

No Labor of love when a pal spurns you

 

[Iron]

:rofl: Nooblets....
I didn't say super markets... i said MAJOR CORPORATIONS; SUCH AS!
(These things will increase the "cost of living" is what i was saying...)

I dunno why its the people who study so much about the theoretical aspects of politics.... that know little/or nothing about the practical implications of them....
Theoretical situations only use some factors... its the same in politics... (they dont take into account little details...)

/pif... ALP Supporters....

This thread is a discussion of the political party, the ALP. You have not supported your argument that a specific ALP policy will increase the cost of living via HURTING THE MAJOR CORPORATIONS. Go away little man.

 

[katie_tully]

Uh, Iron. In case you didn't know, Sam04u paid $80 to join an internet site that sends him a certificate saying he is smart.
Therefore he is smart. Okay? So he has every right to go on a tirade about corporations in an ALP thread. Because he has a certificate.


I would be highly interested to know what Sam knows about the theoretical aspects of politics...


And completely off topic, but I have been meaning to ask for AGES. Generator, do you like the Foo Fighters? Everytime I see your name, I think of the Foo Fighters...and well, I was just asking

 

[katie_tully]

Anywho...
Labor really would be better off without Bealzey as their leader. I am not up to date with the possible replacement candidates, but unlike Howard he showed he wasn't able to cease the fighting among the factions. And well, as a voter I don't want somebody who cannot control their party, to control a country
Nothing against Labor specifically, but I would be inclined to vote Liberal again next election, if it meant not having Beazley.

I don't think the current state of NSW under Iemma is doing much for the party either.

 

[Generator]

Yes and no, Katie. I still like the band, but not as much as I used to (such as when I first decided to call myself Generator).

 

[Iron]

Like a kim beazley speech?

That's the first good funny i've seen you crack.
KUDOS to you good fellow. A capital effort.

 

[loquasagacious]

sam04u is clearly an idiot with little to no understanding of either theoretical or practical: politics, economics or society generally. Oh and he also has a complete inability to write coherantly or cohesively which doesnt help.

It would give me a headache to try and critique his posts in a specific way so here are some overarching comments:

You seem to both promote and oppose socialism this makes no sense.

You seem to assume that Labor is, will be or was (recently) a socialist party. The truth of the matter is that the ALP has not looked socialist since Whitlam. You ignore that it was Hawke/Keating who really began the liberalising of Australia - reduced regulations, reduced tarrifs, etc etc. Were labor to take power they would not institute socialism and hurt 'big business' it would be a steady as she goes policy.

You seem to place a republic and socialism as opposed when infact socialists would espouse a republic.

You seem to believe socialism to be theoretically strong - it is not, it is theoretically weak. Study some economics before pontificating upon it, in many ways your 'sucess stories' switzerland and finland are also failures - high taxation and high spending results in a net loss (it's called dead weight loss - n00blet, i believe that is the term you used).

You make spurious statements about a republic leading to widespread corruption and lawlessness, you do not qualify or support this statement in any way.

As far as what the ALP is I would suggest that the ALP is a centre right (or top right on the political compass) party with vestiges of a more left wing (social democrat, bottom left corner on the compass) past. Vestiges powerful enough that the party is gridlocked - it will not push for reforms/progress however it will not push against them either (or rather it won't in more than a big talk way, expect IR reform to disappear off the radar like GST has).

In a delicious irony you seem to think you know more than us (perhaps its the certificate that does that to you?) when clearly you do not, this is both wryly amusing and sad.

 

[sam04u]

ALP has alot of plans buddy.
ALOT of plans.... which will cost... squillians if they actually choose to follow thier policies (they usually don't).

Here is an example of one of these;

Coverting a large ammount of household consumption energy to solar energy; (even though solar energy should be harnessed, he isn't willing to fund more money into research. Instead he decides that it would be best if energy companies had incentives for this change) Which is a bunch of bullshit if you ask me....

Also according to thier policy they would like to focus on (cleaning coal production and sequestation) instead of focusing on newer technologies like Nucelar Energy; Consider these factors;
Australia has huge uranium reserves... this could easily provide energy for Australia.

So basically they want to waste money on this... (this is just one of the things they want to focus money on) where are they going to get all this money?
It'll serve little or no use.... (since currently solar energy cant be harnessed efficiently)

Now let me just make this "Logical"....

They want to USE money... which ISNT available... for USELESS technology... we will be consuming more energy... which in no way can be catered for cheaply... with the new plans.

This money has to be taken from somewhere.... right? this is just one example though... that will cost millions....
They also have other plans... and im assuming they'll start taking money from the top... as they are a social democratic party... either way.. people will get screwed over.... unless they just.. lie....

currently our government is doing well... so well in fact that if i remember correctly that foreign debt is being payed and Australia had about a 6 billion dollar surplus....
The last thing we need now is an incompetent government....

(Just saying it how it is.... Our government now is doing good! why change? howard is even focusing on the ADF... )

Noobz

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes and no, Katie. I still like the band, but not as much as I used to (such as when I first decided to call myself Generator).

Oh I thought it might have been the song 'generator' by bad religion

 

[loquasagacious]

That doesn't answer a single point I made and was barely logical far less readable....

It was simple (and rote) ALP bashing which seems to bear little relevance to anything.

Again you say that they are social democrats however they are not.

Suprise suprise a party doesnt implement all election promises - welcome to the real world.

As far as the energy question/rant:

Cleaning coal power is far more financially viable than bringing nuclear power online, nuclear power introduction has several key disadvantages (when compared to coal power in Australia):
1)Coal is established (building power plants is very expensive.
2)Nuclear power would introduce far higher fuel transport costs comparred to coal.
3)Nuclear power carries associated risks that coal does not.
Improved filtration of coal to make it say as clean as nuclear power is far more financially viable than building nuclear plants.

There is some considerable irony in that you choose a 'spend less' policy as a vehicle to attack the ALP for being high taxing and high spending....

As far as solar power incentives is a more economically sound idea than command based policies.

Conclusion you are a confused idiot who is clearly incapable of reading what others have posted, the ALP will not raise taxes, spending may tilt in new directions but even this is unlikley - maybe some defecit spending infrastructure if we started sliding into a recession. This is because they will prefer to control employment at the expense of inflation.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

1)Coal is established (building power plants is very expensive.

Well as it is Coal powerplants do need to be replaced every few years, because they run out of coal (close to them) to run them. I'm sure you already know this tho, just bringing it up incase someone doesn't

 

[withoutaface]

That doesn't answer a single point I made and was barely logical far less readable....

It was simple (and rote) ALP bashing which seems to bear little relevance to anything.

Again you say that they are social democrats however they are not.

Suprise suprise a party doesnt implement all election promises - welcome to the real world.

As far as the energy question/rant:

Cleaning coal power is far more financially viable than bringing nuclear power online, nuclear power introduction has several key disadvantages (when compared to coal power in Australia):
1)Coal is established (building power plants is very expensive.
2)Nuclear power would introduce far higher fuel transport costs comparred to coal.
3)Nuclear power carries associated risks that coal does not.
Improved filtration of coal to make it say as clean as nuclear power is far more financially viable than building nuclear plants.

There is some considerable irony in that you choose a 'spend less' policy as a vehicle to attack the ALP for being high taxing and high spending....

As far as solar power incentives is a more economically sound idea than command based policies.

Conclusion you are a confused idiot who is clearly incapable of reading what others have posted, the ALP will not raise taxes, spending may tilt in new directions but even this is unlikley - maybe some defecit spending infrastructure if we started sliding into a recession. This is because they will prefer to control employment at the expense of inflation.

What makes you so sure they won't raise taxes? Haven't you seen how the state ALP's (in particular NSW) have raped the constituents' wallets?

 

[sam04u]

You're an imbecile... why am i even wasting my time on you.

THEY CLAIM TO BE A SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY!
THEY HAVE JOINED SI WHICH IS AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION FOR SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS.

Even still... the ideals of their own cabinet is segregated... it is a failed political party... and you are a retard.
The idea i was making WAS NOT about their decisions about energy.. its the governments poor judgement. They would waste millions of dollars... my point is WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO GET THESE MILLIONS?

Its YOU who haven't answered any of the questions i put forward. Where is your evidence that solar power stations are going to be so effective? You're a retard.

Let me put this in terms you might be able to understand.

Solar Power = Expensive to harness... The only positive thing about it is perhaps it could provide energy to rural parts of australia. So they want to spend alot of money on solar power and cleaning coal mines? For little benefit.. as even HUGE solar energy power stations can only cater for a few thousand homes....

They also have other policies... all of which are stupid as the ones before them... For these to work... they're going to either;
a) Take funding out of something else - "god knows what"
b) Increase Tax Rates
Either one would be detrimental to those of low socio-economic status. If you don't see that you're stupid.

Finally... Nuclear Power stations are not expensive to run... they pay for themselves in as little as 20 years... and then in 20 years are a cause for profit using little resources. They also can provide for nuclear medicine etc; (currently the only nuclear facility we have is in Lucas Hts, A power station would provide jobs and cheap, renewable, affordable energy. And also provide jobs for scientists and room for employment of such professional. (so don't try and argue about the benefits of one... there has only been 3 risks "ever" of nuclear power stations....).

Ofcourse i know that governments lie... but ALP has changed its ideals so many times just to get into government.... They fail.....


Nuff Said.
Fruit Cake!

 

[sam04u]

He's basing it on no policy whatsoever

Yeah... Sorry about that.
I'm not a fan of ALP's Policies;
I guess it's because I don't like reading fiction.