Who is going to vote liberal? (1 Viewer)

[Mevelyn2551]

This is a serious question. Of those of you who have just turned 18 in the past year or two, how many are actually going to support the liberal government in the next election? I'm just curious, because I only actually know two people who are liberal supporters (unless the others are too afraid to admit it) - and I'm pretty sure its just because their parents raised them like that.

Now, Im not trying to say that Kevin Rudd is the second coming of Jesus, or that John Howard is the antichrist. In fact, both parties have noticable flaws. But, I just cannot see why anyone would even consider voting for the cohalition, who have - dispite "experience" messed with the economy, declared in favour of an abominable war, passed disgraceful workplace and terrorism legislation, and even blatently lied to the Australian people (I give you AWB, WMDs in Iraq, Children overboard, GST....).

So, seriously. Why would you consider voting for Johnny?

 

[katie_tully]

I am voting Liberal.

 

[Mevelyn2551]

I am voting Liberal.

I think you are a bit confused. I wasnt asking if you were voting liberal, i was asking WHY you were voting liberal.

 

[katie_tully]

This is a serious question. Of those of you who have just turned 18 in the past year or two, how many are actually going to support the liberal government in the next election?

Um. Pretty sure I'm not confused.

I wasnt asking if you were voting liberal, i was asking WHY you were voting liberal.

Because I wouldn't trust Kevin Rudd or his communist wench Gillard with my laundry, let alone an entire country.

 

[withoutaface]

I'm voting for Kevin.

EDIT: No.

 

[Mevelyn2551]

Because I wouldn't trust Kevin Rudd or his communist wench Gillard with my laundry, let alone an entire country.

Why don't you trust them? I am trying to generate some kind of debate here. If you are saying it is a matter of trusting the liberal party, then what is your opinion on this?


"There is no way a GST will ever be a part of our policy. Never, ever. It's dead, it was killed by the voters in the last election"
John Howard Media Conference, Tweed Hills Civic Centre, May 1995

"There was never a generation of stolen children"
Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, John Herron, in a submission to the Governments response to the Stolen Generations.

"The average Australian is now paying $400 a month less than what he or she was paying to service the typical housing loan when we were elected"
John Howard, 2 August 2003. In Melbourne young people saving to buy their first home have seen the bar rise from $801/month (1996) to$1822 (2003).

"Australian intelligence agencies made it clear to the government all along that Iraq did not have a massive WMD program"
Andrew Wilkie, Senior Intelligence Officer

"I promise to maintain the current level of expenditure on Austudy"
Austudy was cut by $527 million over their first term

"Who do you trust to keep interest rates low?"
Commercial, last election campaign.

If it is all a matter of trust, then I am somewhat confused as to your choice.
And I doubt that if Gillard will ever have the power to convert Australia to communism. I'm afraid you will need a more reasoned arguement than "Communist wench". Though I will admit that gillard is .... sightly creepy.

 

[katie_tully]

Sigh.
If it wasn't 10:25, and if I wasn't high on rum/coke spiders I could probably give you a list three times longer of the things this government has done to better this country.

In reality, your list is quite irrelevent. We've seen a period over the last 11 years where Australia has grown into prosperity. Our standard of living is, comparatively, quite high.

I don't see anything wrong with the GST. I cannot see any negative impact it has had. So he said we'd never get the GST - that was what, 2 elections ago? Let go.

In Melbourne young people saving to buy their first home have seen the bar rise from $801/month (1996) to$1822 (2003).

God forbid the cost of housing go up. No fault of the government. Try blaming the imbeciles that list their houses for excessive amounts, then blame the idiots that buy these houses for excessive amounts. If people didn't have this ridiculous idea of what dream house they're 'entitled to', people wouldn't be in a shit situation.

"Who do you trust to keep interest rates low?"

Quite frankly, they're still quite low. If you don't budget for anticipated rate rises when you get a loan, you're an idiot. Also no fault of the governments.
Reserve Bank sets interest rates, not the government. They were dicks for ever saying it to begin with.

Rudd and his cronies can't even seem to agree which policies they're going to adopt. Basically they're adopting everything the Government has, Rudd just throws in some soundbyte and the word 'revolution' and suddenly people think they're new ideas.

 

[Enteebee]

I'm voting for John Howard:

Environment:

- Nuclear Power needs to be one the table when looking at Australia's energy infrastructure plan for this century.

- While doing so we need to make sure we don't shoot ourselves in the foot as much as possible, i.e. protect jobs.

- Kyoto is imho nothing but a rhetorical tool for governments to get elected, we need real action on this issue and as the coalition either comes to realise they have to due to public sentiment or that the scientific consensus is there, I believe they're more likely to put in the practical measures needed.

- Recycled Water should be pursued over these silly, wasteful desalination plants the Labor party seems to have become obsessed with.

Economy:

- It can't be said that the Coalition have been 'bad' economic managers, this imo puts them ahead of an unknown group... even if all signs point to a more conservative policy shift by Labor towards the government's style of reform.

- The old Unfair Dismissal legislation was unfair on small businesses and based on anecdotal evidence I've received, with greater security in knowing they can fire someone they take on incase they become unsuitable, small business feels safer to employ someone for the long term.

- AWA's seem to be needed to allow for fair contracts in some specialised industries, i.e. Emergency Maintenance.

Health:

- The Coalition's recently unveiled plan on health (funding for more training places for student gp's etc) was the one favoured by the AMA and seems to be the better one to me.

Education:

- IMO, as a uni student... probably the Coalitions weakest link.

- For example, I feel Labor's plan to use highschools for technical education instead of the Coalitions 'Trade Schools' is a smarter approach.



------------------------

"There is no way a GST will ever be a part of our polic. Never, ever. It's dead, it was killed by the voters in the last election"
John Howard Media COnference, Tweed Hills Civic Centre, May 1995

He went to an election promising a GST and the people decided to elect him. He did change his mind and it probably was due to political expedience, but so what - Labor supports the GST.

"There was never a generation of stolen children"
Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, John Herron, in a submission to the Governments response to the Stolen Generations.

Kay, IDK...

Context?
Who supported it?
Where can we see the effective change in policy?

IMO The Howard Government has it fairly right when it comes to dealing with Aboriginal Communities (of course more funding might be nice as may be some further appologies, though Howard has promised to put aboriginal recognition in the constitution to a referendum), especially with regard to this intervention... which Labor supports.

"The average Australian is now paying $400 a month less than what he or she was paying to service the typical housing loan when we were elected"
John Howard, 2 August 2003. In Melbourne young people saving to buy their first home have seen the bar rise from $801/month (1996) to$1822 (2003).

Are people from Melbourne average Australians? What about increases in inflation/average sallary... As a % of household income Australians are paying more on home repayments now, that is true and that's how I would have presented your argument.

"Who do you trust to keep interest rates low?"
Commercial, last election campaign.

While it has little effect, in general the tax cuts/extra support to middle/low income australians which is more common under the Labor party is more inflationary than tax cuts to the rich/business which are more common under Liberal/Coalition governments.

 

[Mevelyn2551]

Nuclear Power needs to be one the table when looking at Australia's energy infrastructure plan for this century.

I agree. Like I said, neither side is perfect.

While doing so we need to make sure we don't shoot ourselves in the foot as much as possible, i.e. protect jobs.

I agree again. We need to protect jobs. Unemployment is at record low levels - however, this is because the governments definition of "employed" is "anyone who has worked one hour or more in the past month". According to a study from the workplace research cenre of Sydney University, "Underemployment" (being those who are either unemployed or not working enough) is as high as 10% - and likely as high as 20%. This suggests that uemeployment has decreased becuase there are more people doing the same amount of jobs. All this does is make it so that everyone works less, and in the meantime we have lukewarm economic growth rates because our labour productivity is plummeting. Yet we still get the bonus of high inflation.

- Kyoto is imho nothing but a rhetorical tool for governments to get elected, we need real action on this issue and as the coalition either comes to realise they have to due to public sentiment or that the scientific consensus is there, I believe they're more likely to put in the practical measures needed.

Likely to beleive they will? Then, pray tell, why have they spent over a decade in power having done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Australia produces greenhouse gasses at three times the per-capita level of China - we are rated number three in the world! Yet why havent we seen alternative energy sources springing up all over australia to tackle a governemtn environment policy that is supposedly "better than Kyoto?".

- Recycled Water should be pursued over these silly, wasteful desalination plants the Labor party seems to have become obsessed with.

Australia is is a terrible drought. You cant recycle what you dont have. Labor have stated that Desalination is not the only way, and have also said that treatment is a viable option that they would consider.

And what is wrong with desalination? Seems to me that anything that can make undrinkable water drinkable is a great thing - after all, isnt that what water treatment is?

- It can't be said that the Coalition have been 'bad' economic managers, this imo puts them ahead of an unknown group... even if all signs point to a more conservative policy shift by Labor towards the government's style of reform.

Indeed, the Cohalition have done an admirable job in dealing with a turbualnt economy. The $A is fluctuating, the resources boom, high inflation, etc. It isnt an easy job. But let me ask this - why why WHY are they giving $38 bn in tax cuts when this does nothing more than damage the economy in a situation like this. Cramming a few billion into the economy will only serve to give the people a couple of extra bucks in their pocket. And they'll need it to, seeing how high the cuts wil force inflation and interest rates. And they arent exactly peachy as it is.

The old Unfair Dismissal legislation was unfair on small businesses and based on anecdotal evidence I've received, with greater security in knowing they can fire someone they take on incase they become unsuitable, small business feels safer to employ someone for the long term.

Small buisinesses have always had the right to sack someone who wasnt suitable for the job. However - just think about what you just said. It is FAIR on small buisinesses to make UNFAIR dismissal legal? I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the man who has a family to support who was sacked in favor of a 15 year old who can work for $9 an hour cheaper.

AWA's seem to be needed to allow for fair contracts in some specialised industries, i.e. Emergency Maintenance.

Dont see why they are needed when common law contracts and individual agreements can do the same thing and protect their rights anyway.

The Coalition's recently unveiled plan on health (funding for more training places for student gp's etc) was the one favoured by the AMA and seems to be the better one to me.

Yep. But tell that to the government that does nothing more than point the blame at the states whenever anythign goes wring with the system instead of actually providing the desperately needed funding.

Education:

- IMO, as a uni student... probably the Coalitions weakest link.

- For example, I feel Labor's plan to use highschools for technical education instead of the Coalitions 'Trade Schools' is a smarter approach.

Yep. I also dont agree with the idea of new technical collages. Why not spend the money to fix up TAFE rather than start over again?

 

[jimmayyy]

everything i wanted to say has been said, plus the fact howard inspires a ton more confidence than rudd. whether you like him or not, at least hes strong, decisive and clear.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

I will be voting Liberal.

On the topic of interest rates... it's not the fault of the government that they have gone up. They are not all that high. They would definitely be higher under a Labor government. People who borrowed too much have only themselves to blame.

It's all well and good to say they are going to ratify Kyoto and reduce emissions by some amount I don't know exactly what it is.. but I am yet to hear a strategy to accomplish this that isn't going to cripple the economy.

Labor is ridiculously anti-business and I don't like it at all. The power belongs in the hands of employers, not employees and unions. I have no problem with work choices. I don't trust that a Labor government will not be influenced by unions, and even if they aren't they are plenty anti-business all on their own.

I don't like the prospects of having nothing but Labor governments in power.

Basically a Labor government will destroy the economy; higher interest rates, higher cost of living, higher unemployment, lower budget surplus. Their policies seem conservative but I don't trust that they will actually do any of what they are saying. If they tell people they are going to destroy the economy no one will vote for them.

...and there is absolutely no way I would ever vote for someone because "it's time for a change"... and that is the only the Labor has going for them.

 

[Mevelyn2551]

Sigh.
I don't see anything wrong with the GST. I cannot see any negative impact it has had. So he said we'd never get the GST - that was what, 2 elections ago? Let go.

So you see nothing wrong with the fact that a person who earns $25 thousand a year pays the same level of GST when trying to buy food for their family as someone who earns $200 thousand? This form of daxation is called "regressive" - because, unlike income taxes, it treats the poorest of the poor the same as the filthy rich.

Quite frankly, they're still quite low. If you don't budget for anticipated rate rises when you get a loan, you're an idiot. Also no fault of the governments.
Reserve Bank sets interest rates, not the government. They were dicks for ever saying it to begin with.

So it was a perfectly responcible economic decision to promise $38 billion in tax cuts? I dont know how aquainted you are with economics, so I'll make it simple:
1. Goverment gives everyone money
2. People spend money. People spending money casues inflation.
3. RBA reads inflation figures. RBA increases interest rates.

So what was the point of taking all that GST money away from the public if they are just going to give it back? I for one would rather see them spend it reducing my god-damn HECS fees for next year.(I dont care if they changed the name. Its still the exact same system. Just like Workchoices.)

Basically they're adopting everything the Government has, Rudd just throws in some soundbyte and the word 'revolution' and suddenly people think they're new ideas.

If you think that howard has good ideas, then shouldnt you be glad that Rudd agrees with him?

 

[withoutaface]

Reasons I'm voting Liberal:
1. Workchoices has seen a significant degree of flexibility introduced into the workplace, unemployment has dropped with naught but a small amount of anecdotal evidence to suggest negative effects.
2. They actually believe in what they're pushing. I say this because they originated 90% of the policy in this election, and because Garrett's on the record as stating that, if elected, the ALP will ditch all its promises.
3. Tax cuts.
4. VSU.
5. Rudd's a socialist.

EDIT: You're an ignorant douche. The tax cuts are $34bn, and they've been all but matched by Labor. Secondly if the tax cuts are matched by appropriate cuts in government spending, then inflation won't go up (because public and private spending both drive inflation).

 

[jimmayyy]

i also find it astonishing commited socialists can get behind Rudd. he is leading the most right wing faction of the most right wing labor party this country has ever seen. he will be exactly the same as howard, except with this false pretence of WORKING FAMILIES.

not that i care because i'll be voting Coalition

 

[Mevelyn2551]

On the topic of interest rates... it's not the fault of the government that they have gone up. They are not all that high. They would definitely be higher under a Labor government. People who borrowed too much have only themselves to blame.

Im sorry, but how can you blame people for borrowing too much? Houses cost a LOT of money. Unless you have a few hundred thousand in the bank when you are ready to buy a house, you will have to take a home loan. And you will have to pay interest on it.

Why would it be higher under Labour? At the moment with these ridiculous promises both sides of governemnt are making, Howard has promised more than Rudd. That seems to imply to me that If the cohalition win this jear, inflation will be bigger as they will pump more into the economy than labour.

It's all well and good to say they are going to ratify Kyoto and reduce emissions by some amount I don't know exactly what it is.. but I am yet to hear a strategy to accomplish this that isn't going to cripple the economy.

What about creating jobs in the renewable resources industry? I dont see why trained coal miners cant discover and drill for sources of geothermal energy rather than coal im preperation for a "clean coal" technology that will probably never happen.

Labor is ridiculously anti-business and I don't like it at all. The power belongs in the hands of employers, not employees and unions. I have no problem with work choices. I don't trust that a Labor government will not be influenced by unions, and even if they aren't they are plenty anti-business all on their own.

What is wrong with unions? Unions represent the people, campaigning for their rights in the workplace, representing them for OH&S claims, and inpecting workplaces to make sure they are safe. Power belonging entirely and unquestionably in the hands of employers seems to be a return to the days of indentured labourers who could be legally whipped if they didnt do their job.

Basically a Labor government will destroy the economy; higher interest rates, higher cost of living, higher unemployment, lower budget surplus. Their policies seem conservative but I don't trust that they will actually do any of what they are saying. If they tell people they are going to destroy the economy no one will vote for them.

Read my above post regarding trust. All I can say is... I dont trust John Howard.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I'm voting liberal, mainly because I hate humanity.

 

[Enteebee]

I agree again. We need to protect jobs. Unemployment is at record low levels - however, this is because the governments definition of "employed" is "anyone who has worked one hour or more in the past month". According to a study from the workplace research cenre of Sydney University, "Underemployment" (being those who are either unemployed or not working enough) is as high as 10% - and likely as high as 20%. This suggests that uemeployment has decreased becuase there are more people doing the same amount of jobs. All this does is make it so that everyone works less, and in the meantime we have lukewarm economic growth rates because our labour productivity is plummeting. Yet we still get the bonus of high inflation.

I believe the way the unemployment figure is formed is a remnant of the Hawke/Keating Labor government

Australia is is a terrible drought. You cant recycle what you dont have. Labor have stated that Desalination is not the only way, and have also said that treatment is a viable option that they would consider.

We do have the water though - We're in a terrible drought because we're not using the water efficiently, the simplest thing we could do to boost water efficiency on a large scale would be to recycle our sewerage.

Likely to beleive they will?

Well for instance... I believe they seem more likely to pursue Nuclear power.

Then, pray tell, why have they spent over a decade in power having done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Public sentiment wasn't on its side, a lot of the ministers didn't believe/know enough about climate change.

Australia produces greenhouse gasses at three times the per-capita level of China - we are rated number three in the world!

Eh? We are pretty bad and could definately do with cleaning ourselves up, however I wonder if these figures include all our mining etc.. i.e. They favour countries who get other nations to cut their trees for the wood, don't dig up their own land for resources etc.

And what is wrong with desalination? Seems to me that anything that can make undrinkable water drinkable is a great thing - after all, isnt that what water treatment is?

It's much more expensive per gigalitre and it requires much more energy to run.

But let me ask this - why why WHY are they giving $38 bn in tax cuts when this does nothing more than damage the economy in a situation like this. Cramming a few billion into the economy will only serve to give the people a couple of extra bucks in their pocket. And they'll need it to, seeing how high the cuts wil force inflation and interest rates. And they arent exactly peachy as it is.

The liberals are doing it because the public sentiment is against keeping a large surplus, they say 'That's my money I want it back!'... I don't believe this is real liberal policy, however it is Labor policy and has been for quite some time.

However - just think about what you just said. It is FAIR on small buisinesses to make UNFAIR dismissal legal? I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the man who has a family to support who was sacked in favor of a 15 year old who can work for $9 an hour cheaper.

The whole fair/unfair thing is just rhetoric... As for whether I think it's ok to allow a company to sack someone for someone cheaper, well I think it is. Just to quickly counter-act your example, are you saying that if you're going for a Job, are willing to work for less and another guy who has a family is going for the job and wants more, you think the company should pick the family man?

Dont see why they are needed when common law contracts and individual agreements can do the same thing and protect their rights anyway.

I'll try to write up a specific example of where that leads to imo unfairness with some jobs. As for individual rights, before Work Choices an employee did not have the right to take a Cash Bonus and have 1 weeks holidays instead of 2... Why shouldn't an employee be allowed to do so? Some people (particularly those struggling with mortgage payments etc) would much rather the money.

Yep. But tell that to the government that does nothing more than point the blame at the states whenever anythign goes wring with the system instead of actually providing the desperately needed funding.

That's kinda hard... as the Merzie (sp?) hospital situation is illustrating.

 

[Mevelyn2551]

Reasons I'm voting Liberal:
1. Workchoices has seen a significant degree of flexibility introduced into the workplace, unemployment has dropped with naught but a small amount of anecdotal evidence to suggest negative effects.
2. They actually believe in what they're pushing. I say this because they originated 90% of the policy in this election, and because Garrett's on the record as stating that, if elected, the ALP will ditch all its promises.
3. Tax cuts.
4. VSU.
5. Rudd's a socialist.

1. Of course... it is very flexible to be able to sack indiscriminantly. There are literally stories of - I kid you not - a girl fecieving overtime pat in the form of a barbeque chicken. Very flexible.

3. Tax cuts. I am confused - didnt you say yourself that these tax cuts were matched by labour?

5. Prove it.

EDIT: You're an ignorant douche. The tax cuts are $34bn, and they've been all but matched by Labor. Secondly if the tax cuts are matched by appropriate cuts in government spending, then inflation won't go up (because public and private spending both drive inflation).

My apologies on the tax cuts. However, if that makes me an ignorant douche, what does that make John Howard who couldnt remember the interest rate?

And why cut governemnt spending further?
- We should give out tax cuts. THese will increase inflation.
- We shoud decrease government funding. These will decrease inflation.

Then why give the tax cuts out just to take them back. And by the way, the government has not promised to decrease funding - quite the contrary.
I would rather see that money go into a hospital, or building in Aboriginal communities than tax cuts.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I believe the way the unemployment figure is formed is a remnant of the Hawke/Keating Labor government

Regardless, the fact that unemployment figures aren't great still stands.

We do have the water though - We're in a terrible drought because we're not using the water efficiently, the simplest thing we could do to boost water efficiency on a large scale would be to recycle our sewerage.

Um, no, lol. We're in a terrible drought because we're in a drought. I'd say the simplest thing to do would be to build another dam, although that costs a fair amount of money. Where's the surplus currently? At federal. Might be worthwhile spending a bit of that massive surplus on providing those measley working peasants with some drinking water

Well for instance... I believe they seem more likely to pursue Nuclear power.

Probably, although it seems unlikely given what Turnbull said. It looks as if they're trying not to pursue nuclear power and only want it there as an option (and I'm in full agreeance with that).

Public sentiment wasn't on its side, a lot of the ministers didn't believe/know enough about climate change.

Lol. Come off it. As I said the other day, the ALP has acknowledge climate change since the 90's. If the opposition can see it coming, why can't the government? And public sentiment? Cripes. The job of the government is to look out for the best interests of the country, right?

The liberals are doing it because the public sentiment is against keeping a large surplus, they say 'That's my money I want it back!'... I don't believe this is real liberal policy, however it is Labor policy and has been for quite some time.

Evidence?

The whole fair/unfair thing is just rhetoric... As for whether I think it's ok to allow a company to sack someone for someone cheaper, well I think it is. Just to quickly counter-act your example, are you saying that if you're going for a Job, are willing to work for less and another guy who has a family is going for the job and wants more, you think the company should pick the family man?

If I were an impartial observer, yes.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

ad hominem?