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

[michael1990]

Seriously do we have to have a discussion, it should always be John Howard. John Howard has done a lot for our country economically.

The most pronounced thing that worries me if John Howard does get into power is if he steps down, and who else is going to be in the top job beside Peter Costello and thats a real downturn that is going bad for the Liberals.

But i do believe that John Howard will stay in power long enough to see through the Referendum saying Aboriginals were here first so that he goes into history books.

I dont believe that Kevin Rudd has enough experience nor the brains to run Australia, i believe he is giving false promises to the Australian People.

When he says he has all these plans, i think he doesnt have those plans, i want proof... i do know he wont disclose all his plans as the Liberals would steal the good bits and make their own policies but he needs to show me what sort of plans and at least one of them. Not like the TAX cuts when he came out and gave a 90% same policy as the Liberals.

I do say Kevin Rudd is Labors best candiate for many years.

 

[volition]

All this anti-union fervour doesn't make any sense.

The role of unions should never be in any sort of position to change legislation. I think you'll find that's why people oppose them. It's not that they provide services to people in unions or even organise mass strikes, its just that they campaign for the govt to interfere with other people's property rights, specifically employers rights. Although it may be argued that when they campaign to increase minimum wages, which will result in higher unemployment, that those people who are now jobless are being harmed too.

On a much more personal level, both my sister and a close friend of mine have had run ins with bad bosses, who refuse to recognise their legal obligations (eg. being paid during training), purely because they don't have to - they are in a position of having extroadinary bargaining power.

See, in a free market, it may well be the case that an employer is not willing to pay you while they train you. The govt should not be imposing this condition on employers in the first place.

All of you that make the argument that economics should just play its course, that people will get paid what they bargain for, are not practising what you preach by supporting John Howard.

I absolutely agree with you here. Howard is not a free marketeer, and I think most people who vote for him realise this.

It may just be that they are just trying to vote for the lesser of two evils, so it would still be consistent to vote liberal anyway. eg. "I would rather have LESS workplace regulation, so I will vote liberal" is consistent.

Personally, I won't be voting liberal anyway.

 

[Triangulum]

A poll in the key seat of Eden-Monaro says 56-44 to Labor, and today's ACNielsen Online poll gives the same split nationwide. Less than a month from the election, this is pretty bad news for the government.

 

[Silver Persian]

A poll in the key seat of Eden-Monaro says 56-44 to Labor, and today's ACNielsen Online poll gives the same split nationwide. Less than a month from the election, this is pretty bad news for the government.

Hmm...well its interesting, because we had the 53-47 split two weeks ago, and then 58-42 earlier this week, and now 56-44. It seems like the earlier two poll were outliers, and that support for the Coalition and Labor has remained static throughout the election campaign...

It's an interesting situation, because we've seen that the Coalition looks like it might hold on to several key marginal seats, yet the overall nation-wide vote seems to suggest annihilation. Mayhaps it is possible that a lot of the swing towards Labor is occuring in already safe Labor seats...?

 

[Triangulum]

It's an interesting situation, because we've seen that the Coalition looks like it might hold on to several key marginal seats, yet the overall nation-wide vote seems to suggest annihilation. Mayhaps it is possible that a lot of the swing towards Labor is occuring in already safe Labor seats...?

That's probably part of it, yeah. (It could equally be that there's a swing on in safe Liberal seats that have margins that are big enough to allow the government to hold them and are therefore unlikely to fall, a la Wentworth and North Sydney.)

But if Labor's 2PP is in the range of 56% - which it has been at all year - it's hard to imagine it not winning government. (And even if Labor lost with 56%, the Howard government would have absolutely no mandate, and would be more or less crippled politically.)

In any case, I'm a bit sceptical of the idea that the Coalition is going great in the marginals. How much of that perception is based on independently commissioned polls and how much is based on leaks from the Liberals or lazy journalists looking for a story? (I'm referring there to the well-researched and intelligent piece in yesterday's Telegraph which extrapolated from interviews with 50 - yes, a whole 50 - people in the Penrith Plaza carpark that the Coalition wasn't losing votes on the interest rates issue in Lindsay.)

 

[Rafy]

Mayhaps it is possible that a lot of the swing towards Labor is occuring in already safe Labor seats...?

Well in Adelaide at least the polls are showing the swings in the Labor held seats are double that of those in the Liberal held ones..
http://www.pollbludger.com/advertiserpollmap.gif

(Boothy is a bit different because of ALP candidate Nicole Cornes.)

____

Morgan poll released yesterday was 54.5/45.5 TPP (primaries ALP 44, Coalition 41). Also had the Greens more than double their vote in Tasmania to 20.5%. (Pulp Mill)

 

[ZabZu]

On another note. Liberal's tax policy is superior to Labor. As I argued in the "Worm Thread" there is no reason why people on over $180 000 dont deserve a tax cut along with everyone else.

High income earners have received plenty of tax cuts from the Federal govt. In 2005 the highest tax bracket was 47c per dollar in incomes $95,000+. The main reason why receive tax cuts is because high income earners are the Liberal party's base. Most of the safe Liberal seats are in very affluent areas.

 

[Enteebee]

High income earners have received plenty of tax cuts from the Federal govt. In 2005 the highest tax bracket was 47c per dollar in incomes $95,000+. The main reason why receive tax cuts is because high income earners are the Liberal party's base. Most of the safe Liberal seats are in very affluent areas.

Tax cuts really shouldn't just be about 'who deserves better'. Reducing tax to the rich and businesses generally isn't inflationary and is usually highly beneficial... Reducing tax to lower/middle income earners on the other hand is highly inflationary.

To me the truth seems to be that we would have a bigger economic pie if we taxed the business and the rich much less from which to recieve tax revenues. However of course we need to give back to the people at some point (what's the point of economic prosperity if the people aren't seeing any of it?), but that's where the argument should be... Don't imagine that giving tax cuts to the rich is done for the same reason as for the poor.

 

[Muz4PM]

It would not surprise me if the ALP wins the 2PP, similar to 1998 where swings will be recorded in safe Coalition and safe Labor seats.

I would not be too sceptical about the reports of Coalition MP’s leading/doing well in key marginals such as Moreton, Herbert or McMillan. The Coalition has a raft of assiduous, diligent, dedicated local members who continually provide for their electorates, such as the ones mentioned above. It would not surprise me if they retain seats, albeit by a reduced majority.

Lets not forget however, we have another 3-4 weeks of electioneering to go, plans to be announced, gaffes to be made, people to rub up the wrong way. A week is a long time in politics, anything can happen.

 

[Graney]

who else is going to be in the top job beside Peter Costello and thats a real downturn that is going bad for the Liberals.

What's wrong with Peter Costello?

The worst thing I've ever heard about him, is that he is publicly perceived as smug. But the most recent polling I remember from a year or two back said that the supposed negative public perception of him is greatly exaggerated by the media, and he's actually perceived as okay.

The only criticism I'd have of him, his very public fued with John Howard could have been managed better, he's embarrased himself and his party.

There are so many bigger arseholes in the Liberal party.

I think you're just sprouting media rhetoric

 

[ZabZu]

Reducing tax to the rich and businesses generally isn't inflationary and is usually highly beneficial... Reducing tax to lower/middle income earners on the other hand is highly inflationary.

Yeh thats right. Low income earners are more likely to spend their tax cut while high income earners will most likely save the money.

However, I do not support a policy just because it is the most economically efficient thing to do. An example is wage increases for a low income earner on an AWA. Almost half of low income earners on AWAs dont receive any wage increase through the life on the agreement (which can be up to 5 years). Now this restraint on wages leads to a reduction in their real wage. This is good for the inflation rate, especially in a tight labour market, but the low income earner is worse off.

 

[Triangulum]

The Age:

Federal Liberal candidate Pastor Peter Curtis says homosexuality is a perversion and that gay men die from disease at many times the rate of heterosexuals.

Standing for the second time as the Liberals' candidate in the safe Labor seat of Lalor against Labor's deputy leader Julia Gillard, Mr Curtis said he was still hoping gays and lesbians would vote for him.

"As a Christian, I do not agree with the idea of homosexuality. That's the reality. I can't put it any other way," Mr Curtis told The Sunday Age yesterday.

"I certainly could never change my views that homosexuality is a perversion, because it is a perversion."

In 2003, Mr Curtis said a decision by the Uniting Church to allow for the ordination of homosexual ministers was a slap in the face for Christ "and a blow to those people struggling to escape from the miserable and unhappy lifestyle of someone engaged in homosexual practice".

He said that, if elected, he would be urging the Liberal Party to introduce intelligent design to state school science classes. Intelligent design is an assertion that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by natural selection.

"I would be very much in favour of intelligent design being taught in public schools," Mr Curtis said. "Just as the theory of evolution is taught as well — in my view regrettably taught in science classes, because I think it's a theory and not a science."

Who the hell preselected this guy?

 

[Triangulum]

Plus: after an initial upsurge, government support in the betting markets is again collapsing. Graph here.

Edit: 1500th post!

 

[iEdd]

Uh, I hate people who ignore fact or say ignorant things. Curtis is a tosser. I bet you could prove evolution to him using coloured paper animals (which a child would grasp) and he would still deny its possibility.
Costello is slightly more human than Howard, but evil at heart. That's why he belongs in the liberal party but isn't as popular as howard.

 

[iEdd]

A joke is a short story or ironic depiction of a situation communicated with the intent of being humorous. It can also be used a slang term for a person who is not taken seriously by others in general or is known as being a failure.

Click for those unfamiliar with the concept. Which you should be by now, with liberal in power for so long.

 

[iEdd]

also its impossible to tell on this board because some people say more outrageous things and they're totally serious.

Okay, I'll give you that one.

 

[Triangulum]

If anyone isn't reading the ABC's election blog Poll Vault (the one that isn't the pretentious and boring one), you should be. It's sort of magnificently awesome gonzo journalism about how shit it is being a junior reporter following the campaigns.

In fact as I write this I'm being heckled by a loud group of semi-naked youngsters kicking a footy around. A minute ago I was hit by their ball... and almost dropped the computer. Even worse, they keep calling me "Kevin07" and yelling "Workchoices Suck". Everytime the ball comes in my direction I'm hailed with calls of "Kevin07"! If only I could tell them I'm a harmless journo, not an ALP apparatchik. Thankfully a parking inspector has just arrived, so he's now the target of their pubescent angst.

 

[lala2]

Noone can guarentee a healthy economy, as much as they like to admit it. Both parties with their massive spending promises are looking as though they will be driving inflation through the roof. The fact of the matter is, that whilst the government plays a fairly major role in the economy, they are not in complete control. Look at it like this. If America desides to take on Iran, the oil price will go through the roof (more so), which will play havoc on the economy. Now this will happen with or without the Liberal's involvement. The economy is suseptible to any number of troubles, external and internal (to Australia). YOu seem to have fallen victim to the amazing scare campaigns that the Libs are running.

Fair enough, I used a perhaps too strong choice of words. But it seems to me that the Liberals have a better track record of managing the economy than Labor has.

Then vote for Labor into Federal Government? We have a state and federal system because that is how the constitution set it out. To change it, we'd need a referendum and all the bullshit that comes along with it.

I wouldn't vote Labor into Federal Government. It's just that the antagonism means that Labor is always blocking Liberal's policies, and Liberal is always blocking Labor's policies, so how can anything get done here? I agree it's too hard to change the constitution, but who on earth designed it that way? Instead of working together for the good of the country, it seems to me that the parties are just desperate to hang onto their piece of the pie and don't want to cooperate between state and federal level.

My two cents.

 

[LCollins]

I wouldn't vote Labor into Federal Government. It's just that the antagonism means that Labor is always blocking Liberal's policies, and Liberal is always blocking Labor's policies, so how can anything get done here? I agree it's too hard to change the constitution, but who on earth designed it that way? Instead of working together for the good of the country, it seems to me that the parties are just desperate to hang onto their piece of the pie and don't want to cooperate between state and federal level.

Have you considered (considering you don't want Labor, and you don't want conflict) voting for one of the minor parties into the Senate, so as to achieve them receiving the balance of power? Interesting note - Liberals, whilst having control of the Senate, have rejected 98% of amendments made by other parties to bills (www.getup.org.au search the 'senate rubber stamp').

 

[Triangulum]

I agree it's too hard to change the constitution, but who on earth designed it that way? Instead of working together for the good of the country, it seems to me that the parties are just desperate to hang onto their piece of the pie and don't want to cooperate between state and federal level.

The constitution was designed and put into place before the emergence of disciplined political parties in Australia, and intended for the federal government to have far less of a role than it has now. The growth of parties and of commonwealth power has caused problems in federal relations, although I'd argue that you're overstating how much the problem is caused by the parties. (They sometimes try to score political points off each other when dealing with issues on which they should be cooperating, but considering how much Labor states fight amongst each other, the problems seem to arise more from the states being desperate to hang onto their piece of the pie.)