Liberal/Labor: Whats The MAJOR difference? (1 Viewer)

[zahid]

Ok I was thinking about this today...After looking at policies of both labor and the liberals, I realised that there is a lot of differences on paper...but how much different would our society be if Labor had the coalition ( I am not implying that it would be better). I keep thinking that in the short term there is really not much difference between the two mainstream parties. The only party that seems to have some form of civil sense is the GREENS....SHOCK...meh its probably just me.

But seriously where would the differences lie if Labor retained coalition.

 

[withoutaface]

If you don't think Labor has an civil sense why were you putting "Join Young Labor!" things in your sig and starting up threads with an alternate account saying how fantastic Labor's policies are?

 

[loquasagacious]

Labor and Liberals generally push toward four key outcomes: low inflation, full employment, favourable balance of payments and I forget the other.

This is the basis of any similarity in that similar policies achieve these outcomes. The other basis of similarity is one that I touched upon in the compulsory voting thread, both parties are trying to appeal to the same swinging 10% and so will logically have similar policies.

Differences between the parties have their basis in two things the priority that they give to the four outcomes in relation to each other and ideological differences. eg Labor will tend to place full employment before inflationary concerns Libs vice versa.

Ideologically speaking the lLabor party is more likely to be collectivist and Libs more likely to support property rights. As a flow on affect of this Labor is more pro-welfare and Libs more pro-coase theorem. The root cause being that the Libs prefer to trust the free market more than Labor.

 

[Alimoe_KG]

There is no difference.

Most of the time labour complains about liberal policies, it's contrived dribble that either makes no sense or is irrelevent.

But what are they going to do? Sit on their ass and shut up? No, because that's not going to win them elections.
Sometimes, their criticism is justified and pretty substantial. Most of the time, they just say something...anything.. to undermine the liberals even though they haven't got an alternative solution that's any better. As soon as a flaw pops up, BOOM labour jumps on it and exploits it for all it's worth. I'm sick of their dribble. Either come up with and put forward something good or shut the fuck up.

 

[berry580]

It's a sustainable economic growth, low unemployment, low inflation and stable & sustainable external sector. Any economist will know this. =.=""

To be honest, they're ALL the same.

The Labor government started this globalisation thing and the short term no no things came up (unemployment, etc), so voters turned to the Liberals. The Liberals then continued the globalisation/microeconomic reform plans, and when there's fruit, voters felt that Liberal was "good", so they continued to vote the Liberals and the Labor party can just stand there and cry.

 

[withoutaface]

If you can saving the world by invading some oil filled defenceless country because they have something that YOU sold them, then whatelse can’t be true?

Got grammar?

 

[Rafy]

They are quintessentially identical.

Labor complains about government policy simply for the sake of doing so.

 

[zahid]

If you don't think Labor has an civil sense why were you putting "Join Young Labor!" things in your sig and starting up threads with an alternate account saying how fantastic Labor's policies are?

Because a lot of the things that young labor does is very much civil.

 

[berry580]

There is no difference.

Most of the time labour complains about liberal policies, it's contrived dribble that either makes no sense or is irrelevent.

But what are they going to do? Sit on their ass and shut up? No, because that's not going to win them elections.
Sometimes, their criticism is justified and pretty substantial. Most of the time, they just say something...anything.. to undermine the liberals even though they haven't got an alternative solution that's any better. As soon as a flaw pops up, BOOM labour jumps on it and exploits it for all it's worth. I'm sick of their dribble. Either come up with and put forward something good or shut the fuck up.

Same sh!t.
There ALL the same and definately the same in this respect.

According to seven news, Kim Bealzey criticised Johnny on the last increase in interest rates, JUST LIKE how John Howard criticised Kim Bealzey on the increase in interest rates when the Labor Party was still in power decades ago.
I can't remember exactly what they say, but as far as the tape recorded then broadcasted by Seven News is concerned, they might as well tape everything they say now and use it few decades later, or they probably just have to repeat themselves like how they did now........

 

[withoutaface]

Same sh!t.
There ALL the same and definately the same in this respect.

According to seven news, Kim Bealzey criticised Johnny on the last increase in interest rates, JUST LIKE how John Howard criticised Kim Bealzey on the increase in interest rates when the Labor Party was still in power decades ago.
I can't remember exactly what they say, but as far as the tape recorded then broadcasted by Seven News is concerned, they might as well tape everything they say now and use it few decades later, or they probably just have to repeat themselves like how they did now........

Why would John Howard criticise Kim Beazley for interest rates when Labor was in power?

 

[Rafy]

Its just poltics though.

All oppositions have to criticise gov policy (Its just what they do), They know that they on the fundamental level would probally do the same thing they condem, but as Airness says, to speak their true thoughts will not win elections.

Its all just part of the cycle of power...

 

[berry580]

Got grammar?

Got a gun in your house?
Well either way, I 'know' there's a gun in the house because my dog and the dog next door says you do, although the N.S.W Police and Australia Intelligence Agents says you don't after a search.
So as a result, I will bulldoze your house down. Kill your sibbling, put you in jail. Take the gold in your safe, and rebuild a dog house for your pets and one of 'your' dog will be in charge of the unused gold that goes in my pocket

 

[withoutaface]

Got a gun in your house?
Well either way, I 'know' there's a gun in the house because my dog and the dog next door says you do, although the N.S.W Police and Australia Intelligence Agents says you don't after a search.
So as a result, I will bulldoze your house down. Kill your sibbling, put you in jail. Take the gold in your safe, and rebuild a dog house for your pets and one of 'your' dog will be in charge of the unused gold that goes in my pocket

You stated in another thread that there is no way of knowing who sold what to Iraq.

Your signature states that you are 100% sure the USA sold them to Iraq.

Perhaps you'd benefit from the purchase of the following book:

 

[berry580]

Why would John Howard criticise Kim Beazley for interest rates when Labor was in power?

Why won't John Howard criticise Kim Beazley for interest rate rises when Labor is in power???
Rise in interest rates is never poltically friendly. You don't know that?
Well now you do.

It's because increase in interest rates will lead to increase in mortgage payments. If you have less to spend, then you won't like the government. But obviously you won't have this feeling as we're still reliant on our parents.

 

[withoutaface]

Why won't John Howard criticise Kim Beazley for interest rate rises when Labor is in power???
Rise in interest rates is never poltically friendly. You don't know that?
Well now you do.

It's because increase in interest rates will lead to increase in mortgage payments. If you have less to spend, then you won't like the government. But obviously you won't have this feeling as we're still reliant on our parents.

Because Beazley was neither the treasurer nor the Prime Minister when Labor was in power. He would have criticised Keating, Willis or Dawkins.

 

[berry580]

You stated in another thread that there is no way of knowing who sold what to Iraq.

Your signature states that you are 100% sure the USA sold them to Iraq.

Perhaps you'd benefit from the purchase of the following book:

Mate, there's no way to even prove that Iraq even had WMD when Bush was saying "you disarm yourself or we'll disarm you".
But American invaded Iraq anyway? Why?
Because they KNOW no one can stop them.
But since they've talked things up so much, people will assume Iraq "does" have WMD and threatens them.

So grow up, that's the world, you assume things unless you can know things like how the US military can!!
But do you have the power like how they do? No you don't, so there you go.

How do you know gravity is 9.8 meter/second square?
You assume the text book is correct.

How do you know that 2 x 2 = 4 and not 9?
You assume what is taught is correct.

How do you know its 1-2-3-4-5 and not 1-2-3-9-5?
Once again........................ * someone tell that dude for me please *

 

[withoutaface]

Mate, there's no way to even prove that Iraq even had WMD when Bush was saying "you disarm yourself or we'll disarm you".
But American invaded Iraq anyway? Why?
Because they KNOW no one can stop them.
But since they've talked things up so much, people will assume Iraq "does" have WMD and threatens them.

So grow up, that's the world, you assume things unless you can know things like how the US military can!!
But do you have the power like how they do? No you don't, so there you go.

How do you know gravity is 9.8 meter/second square?
You assume the text book is correct.

How do you know that 2 x 2 = 4 and not 9?
You assume what is taught is correct.

How do you know its 1-2-3-4-5 and not 1-2-3-9-5?
Once again........................ * someone tell that dude for me please *

Way to miss the point, doofus.

 

[Sweets]

I know one MAJOR difference, Kim is fat and John isn't cause he goes power walking every morning :uhhuh:

 

[withoutaface]

Kim Beazley is fat and therefore untrustworthy.

 

[berry580]

Because Beazley was neither the treasurer nor the Prime Minister when Labor was in power. He would have criticised Keating, Willis or Dawkins.

Sorry? You're getting me mixed up : confused :

Ok, lets get this clear.
After some research, I realised that Beazley was never a PM.

But at times when Labor was still in power, Johnny at that time, I don't know what his position in the Liberal was, but he critisiced Kim Beazley about interest rates (should be regarding an increase in interest rates).
And that's the story.
Johnny was even wearing a pair of glasses that's enough to cover a quater of his face! So it gotta be long ago.