PDA

View Full Version : ELECTION RUN AND WON: Howard gets fourth term as Prime Minister


Lemonskin.
Sep 19th, 2004, 05:48 AM
Discuss. :angel:

I'm voting Howard. Latham doesn't appeal to me at all. The Liberals seem to have dismantled his policies well enough, too. Latham I think needs to serve at least one term as shadow PM before he's ready for the job as Prime Minister of Australia.

YES, I know that there's more than two political parties, but, face it, Liberal and Labour will get 95% of the votes anyway. If you're voting for other parties, please feel free to comment.

Penne1
Sep 19th, 2004, 06:24 AM
I am voting Liberal to.

I think one day Latham probably will be Prime Minister but he still has much to learn.

None of the Labor policies have made me sit up and take notice and we live in a very conservative politcial society. Whether Liberal or Labor are in power doesn't matter. Their policies are not to dramatically different and I say 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'

I can also guarantee that regardless of promises to withdraw troops from Iraq there is NO WAY Latham will be able to do this - trust me, I am from a military family and my father knows what's what - it ain't gonna happen people so don't vote for him for that reason alone! You will be wasting your time and your vote!

Bjorkman_Girl
Sep 19th, 2004, 07:21 AM
I respect a man that is happy to let G.W.B. know what he thinks of him... but, I'm one of those green people :o lol ;) I dunno really... I find polling time so amusing, seeing all of the different parties listed, with the strangesy names!!

bionic71
Sep 19th, 2004, 07:45 AM
Both make my skin crawl....
Howards blind, American influenced, approach to both foreign and domestic policy needs to be ended. He has really tarnished our international reputation and put Australia on the world stage for all the wrong reasons.

His recent alliance with the Catholic Church and the setting up of additional Catholic Universities, whilst the public education system is starved, is a vile, perverse injustice.

Democracy....in my book, was founded on the notion of separation of Church and State...Howards definition appears to be very different to mine.

Both parties have dreadful education funding policies...as a teacher i am disgusted with both approaches.

And, as a gay man I am viewed as a second class citizen by both, so I cannot give my vote to either.

Neither leader represents ME as a voter...so I will be steering away from both....as much as our voting system allows.

The Labor party have struck a notable deal with the GREENS so my GREEN VOTE will be heading the way of the LABOR party by default....a thought that does not make me happy, but that is the nature of a two-party preferred system....what can you do.

I hope many more voters vote GREEN...it sends a nice disatisfied message to the major parties.

Bjorkman_Girl
Sep 19th, 2004, 08:53 AM
I study Land Management and Conservation at UWS, and so many of the people out there are for the Greens. Its nice to see, instead of people voting for the more mainstream parties. Most people I know from uni are pro-Greens. :yeah: Including the Social Ecology students :tape: lol, I love the hippy students, I swear!

Sam L
Sep 19th, 2004, 09:47 AM
I study Land Management and Conservation at UWS, and so many of the people out there are for the Greens. Its nice to see, instead of people voting for the more mainstream parties. Most people I know from uni are pro-Greens. :yeah: Including the Social Ecology students :tape: lol, I love the hippy students, I swear!
Hey, good for you!!!

I'll be voting Greens too with preference given to Labor.

Basically anyone BUT Liberal. Their policies on education, health and the environment are appalling. The three areas that really matters to me.

DutchieGirl
Sep 19th, 2004, 09:57 AM
I don't want to vote for anyone.

~ The Leopard ~
Sep 19th, 2004, 09:59 AM
I'm not that keen on handing over the country to the trade unions, but I'll still vote for Latham. Howard is a relic of another time that is thankfully long, long past. I don't mean his actual age, so don't accuse me of ageism ... Bob Hawke, for example, is older than Howard, but has more or less kept up with the times. I mean his determination to take us back to the 1950s.

Experimentee
Sep 20th, 2004, 02:53 AM
I'm not voting but if i did I would vote Labor. I agree that Howard lives in the 50's, and hes spent too long as PM already. He done nothing but screw over the education system and increase fees etc, and done nothing for humanitarian issues. My electorate is safe Labor anyway, so even if i did vote it wouldnt really count for much.

Experimentee
Sep 20th, 2004, 02:56 AM
I do think that the ALP should have put someone other than Latham as their leader though, he doesnt appeal to many mainstream people, and will not be elected IMO. They would have stood a better chance with someone else. Macklin seems like a sensible choice, shes done very well for the party in the last few years, and is sensible and level headed, but maybe she didnt want the responsibility.

Beefy
Sep 20th, 2004, 07:11 AM
I'm voting Lib's, because I've grown up in a Lib's area, and most of my family does. I just don't think Latham can win it, he's quite dangerous to the country.

Veritas
Sep 20th, 2004, 09:33 AM
I do not know who to vote. John Howard and the Liberals have done a good job with Australia's economy. So far, they've stabalised the market and diversified potential markets so that our exporters will not be as badly affected when the global market sours. The FTA with the US proves this.

But I do not like their approach to the Tampa and Children Overboard Issues. What they did basically violated almost every international convention there is and placed the lives of many innocent people at risk. I cannot believe that once those two controversies were over, the asylum seekers who were forced to leave Australia were found to have been 'genuine' refugees. And the sad thing was that after this, less than 9% of the Australian public did not supported the 'Mandatory Detention' policy.

And Mark Latham confuses me. He has not said much about the economy - the ALP has traditionally been weaker at this. He seems inexperienced as well. But he does have a fairly convincing health policy. Plus he has promised to abolish that ridiculous 25% increase on HECS fees. If he keeps his word - I don't expect him to - then I might be leaning towards the ALP. And John Howard has already been in office for three terms. It is time to give someone else a 'fair go'.

Lemonskin.
Oct 7th, 2004, 09:43 AM
Only two more sleeps until the election!

Johnny Howard is looking good at the moment I think.

Latho is getting desperate I think.

Anyone here listen to the radio program "Tough Love"? (10am-12pm weekdays on Triple M). I love that show but I was pretty shocked to hear Mick Molloy's comments about John Howard. He truly, deeply seems to hate him! He's the most blatant pro-Labour media presonality I think I've ever seen O_o.

I'm still voting Liberal.

geegables
Oct 7th, 2004, 09:47 AM
im not even voting my my family is going for labour on the basis that liberal are always concentrating on the rich and those with big businesses and that labour is for the people. plus i hate john howard and think he's an idiot. anyone else seen that ad where its got howard and costello singing? omg thats the funniest ad and then costello's face is just gold.

its close atm, around 47% for the coalition, 39% for labour, 7% for greens based on the latest opinion poll which makes it round 47-46

so its extremely close

bionic71
Oct 7th, 2004, 09:56 AM
Even Greener than my previous post...
The two major party clowns are hideous...and as for policy...argh...and the vile preference deals both have struck recently in order to keep the Greens out of the Senate are perverse.
I am absolutely disgusted and feel sick at the prospect of having either as leader.

Andy.
Oct 7th, 2004, 11:28 AM
Im not really that much into politics but i am Voting for John Howard, thats the way my family does and i suppose ive been influenced by them. Im also not a fan of Mark Latham.

Lemonskin.
Oct 7th, 2004, 11:44 AM
Even Greener than my previous post...
The two major party clowns are hideous...and as for policy...argh...and the vile preference deals both have struck recently in order to keep the Greens out of the Senate are perverse.
I am absolutely disgusted and feel sick at the prospect of having either as leader.
A vote for the Greens is a vote for Labour anyway you know.

Beefy
Oct 7th, 2004, 11:50 AM
I think what Howard's done now about Tasmania, I think that is the election winner

Rohin.
Oct 7th, 2004, 12:00 PM
I think what Howard's done now about Tasmania, I think that is the election winner

I have heard that to but from both side's..

Apparently there are alot of Tasmanians who are actualy happy about the Latham policy on logging (obviously not the loggers).. and Tas is a state usualy dominated by Labour (I heard this toady kinda second hand info though)


Personaly I cant bring myself to vote for ether Howard or Latham Infact I am really undicided about who to vote for.

Rohin.
Oct 7th, 2004, 12:18 PM
I don't want to vote for anyone.

me to :rolleyes:

SpikeyAidanm
Oct 7th, 2004, 12:19 PM
Not quite 18 yet, but frankly, not keen on either.

Lemonskin.
Oct 7th, 2004, 12:25 PM
I don't want to vote for anyone.
Donkey vote then :p

Epigone
Oct 7th, 2004, 12:58 PM
A vote for the Greens is a vote for Labour anyway you know.:confused: Do you understand the full preferential voting system?

bionic71
Oct 7th, 2004, 02:48 PM
A vote for the Greens is a vote for Labour anyway you know.I am well aware of our two party preferential system...as I stated in post #4.

No...a Green vote is not a Labour vote by default as far as I am concerned. Obviously I have no say in the preference desemination that occurs....but my vote for the Greens is a clear vote away from the two major parties as neither offer a good representation of me or my family at this time. As far as the Liberal party is concerned....any party that places the Fred Nile led party ahead of the Greens on preferences is not deserving of any vote at all....and Labour is no better in this case as they are actually attempying to block Greens Minister Kaye from the Senate via preference deals.

As a result I will also be voting Green for the Senate also . As a gay male, a public school teacher, who may want to adopt children, is deeply concerned with the destruction of our environment, despises our current Govts. ties with the Catholic Church and our approach to the American led "war of terror"....I cannot give a vote to either major party.

The notion of the "donkey vote" you mention was constructed to steer people away from voting against the two major parties. This inaccurate description of a vote away from the majors is slowly changing as people are finding that the alternative parties represent them better. A vote for the Greens, or whatever alternative chosen, sends a clear message of disatisfaction to the majors. I will be voting Greens for the Senate as well.

As for Howards approach to saving loggers jobs over saving wilderness in Tasmania...it is simply vulgar. How much further back in time can this current Govt. takes us.?

At this stage I have a feeling that the Libs will sneak over the line.

Epigone
Oct 7th, 2004, 03:42 PM
This is how full preferential voting works for the House of Reps.:
The number of '1' votes for each candidate are counted. If a candidate gets more than 50% +1 of the total votes, that candidate will be elected

If, however, no candidate has more than half of the votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is excluded. This candidate's votes are then transferred to the other candidates according to the second preferences shown by voters on their ballot papers

If still no candidate has more than half the votes, the candidate who now has the fewest votes is excluded and the votes are transferred according to the next preference for a candidate who has not been elected.

This process continues until one candidate has more than half the votes. This candidate is then elected.Conclusion: Either follow the 'how to vote card' put out by the candidate you wish to vote for as number 1, or fill out the preferences any way that you want.

A vote for the Greens is not a vote for Labor.

Lemonskin.
Oct 7th, 2004, 09:59 PM
The Greens have "A firm hand of the shoulder of Labour"

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 12:34 AM
John Howard is the anti-christ IMO.

Binoic - I know how you feel about Latham jumping into bed with Howard to ban gay marriage but I truely beleive there is hope for reform if Labour gets in. The liberals didnt even respond to the questionairee sent out by the G+L rights lobby asking all the major polictical parties what their policies are on issues affecting gays - there is room for improvement in labours response but the liberals didnt even respond which shows that we are nothing to them.

I cannot understand why aussies arent more OUTRAGED at being led to war on the premise of lies and corruption just so CHeney and Wolfowitx etc can profit through their companies that make the war machinery.

Howard lied about the children overboard, he is trying to use fear to get relected and from reading this thread it seems to be working.

History will judge Howard and the Iraq war as one of our greatest shames...

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 01:44 AM
Ayla - All I will say is you are good at swallowing the crap that Howard feeds.

He is a proven liar and when the Iraq situation gets worse and worse and worse and out troops are still there years later - lets see how his decision, based on his friendship with Bush, is judged.

He is a dishonest little rodent and I cant wait to see him gone.

Even if he wins, Id pary he retires cuz Costello is a far better politician that that evil prick.

How can you condone a PM that will put the HATEFUL, RACIST, Homophobic Fred Nile led Family First party ahead of the Greens?? I guess it just says a LOT about you as a person, as does my opposition to that hateful little rodent.

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 01:58 AM
And Howard would rather give preferences to party that belives lesbians should be burnt at the stake(family first) over a party (the greens) that wwant to stop logging in tasmanisa old growth forests...

Theres your fucking heroic leader and his values right there.

Masharapova
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:08 AM
JOHNNY ALL THE WAY! :worship:

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:29 AM
Ayla - You just proved my point that you swallow whatever crap you are fed without any question.

Interesting how the SMH, one of the only NON RUPERT MURDOCH OWNED NEWSPAPERS TOOK A NETRAL STANCE>

Murdoch is right in Howards pocket because Howard is SOOOOOOOOOOOO much more employer freindly and anti-union - its the same with the Fox news network in USA - the favouritism towards the conservative party in the media is sickening.

But you are swallowing the crap like a good zombie.

V.Melb
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:57 AM
I Agree with Ayla.
But i also agree with what Czech fan is saying about the media alliances with certain political parties.
In any case.... i beleive Howard is racist.... but i am still voting for him...as ayla said; he has better direction as a leader
... unfortunantly Czech fan, Gay and Lesbian rights are not on anyones call card... a lot of aussies (particularly in rural areas) couldn't give a stuff about the rights of male/male relationships etc. ----
Besides, my family have voted Liberal for over a decade now... both my parents are in upper management.... sick of dealing with union reps on their high-horses.
I don't want to vote for a party that will bow down to union demands... liberal is definently they way to go this year for me. Howard knows what he is doing.

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:08 AM
.... i beleive Howard is racist.... but i am still voting for him...as ayla said; he has better direction as a leader
... unfortunantly Czech fan, Gay and Lesbian rights are not on anyones call card... a lot of aussies (particularly in rural areas) couldn't give a stuff about the rights of male/male relationships etc. ----

V Melb - I realise G+L rights arent on most peoples agenda's..I can live with that..

But it really saddens me to read how you write in the SAME sentence that Howard is a racist but has better direction as a leader. That just makes me sad that you see him for what he is yet accept it...My faith in humanity is really getting shaken with these elections adn they way people prioritise tax breaks and small monetary bribes over important social issues and killing innocent people in Iraq so american companies can profit.

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:18 AM
Funny how you can post that Ayla but not answer the question Ive been throwing at you...

You'd make a good spin guy for Howard or Bush...Dont worry about answering the tough questons, just stick to the lines you've been fed and hope the uneducated swallow it...

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:20 AM
Funny, pathetic, transparent, defeated, cluthcing at straws...all of the above is what it is...

Epigone
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:22 AM
If you just put a 1 next to the greens in the choosing the part+their preferences part instead of numbering your preferences on your own then a vote for the greens IS a vote for Labor.All I was pointing out was that voters have full control over where they direct their preferences.

I probably won't follow the how-to-vote card because I'm not a sheep :)

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:27 AM
As they should Ayla - Latham cares more about the envirnment thatn John -Im not gonna sign the Kyoto protocol cuz George Bush didnt - howard..

Howard is pro rich people and pro employers, thats his base, along with the looney religious right.

Robbie.
Oct 8th, 2004, 04:02 AM
It really scares me the number of people who vote for the greens without even reading their full policy statements.

If the Greens were ever elected as the governing party their policies would destroy the functioning capacity of the country, bringing it to a standstill, and anyone who votes for them without at the least a good understanding of their fundamental policies is irresponsible in the extreme.

They are a good interest group to have, but nothing more. And yes, a vote for the Greens IS, in almost all cases, a vote for Labor because no one who votes for the lunatic fringe Greens is going to preference the Coalition. In theory you could, but it is logically bankrupt because in the political spectrum the Greens are far closer to the ALP than to the Libs (although the Libs and Labor are far closer to eachother than they are to the Greens truth be told) and thus a greens supporter would always PREFER an ALP govt to a Lib govt. Because of the two party entrenchment and the preferential system , the Greens almost always eventually get eliminated from the running and their votes redistributed to the ALP at full value.

The scariest thing is that if enough people vote Greens as a "protest vote" against a major party, these nutjobs may end up holding the balance of power. All that needs to happen is that they hold on to cunningham, and grab an inner city seat like Melbourne which they came close to winning last time, and the election result in a hung parliament, which, the way things are going, is not out of the realms of possibility.

Epigone
Oct 8th, 2004, 04:40 AM
A vote for the Greens is a vote for the Greens. Whatever a person chooses to do with their preferences after that is what determines which of the two major parties will get the full value of the vote.

If I wanted to lodge a protest vote against Labor, I would vote Greens first, and Labor second. Sure, I could have voted Democrats, or Family First, or One Nation as my first preference, but they are so ideologically different to where I stand. Does that mean that a first preference vote for any party than a coalition party mean that I'm voting for Labor? No. All that matters is the order of my preferences.

...thus a greens supporter would always PREFER an ALP govt to a Lib govt. Because of the two party entrenchment and the preferential system , the Greens almost always eventually get eliminated from the running and their votes redistributed to the ALP at full value.Yes, Greens voters would most likely prefer an ALP government, and they can distribute their preferences with that goal. However, if they want a coalition goverenment, they will structure their preference distribution a different way. So, a vote for the Greens doesn't mean a vote for Labor, unless a voter directs their preferences to Labor.

This whole business is a scare tactic thrown up by the coalition.

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 04:46 AM
It really scares me the number of people who vote for the greens without even reading their full policy statements.

If the Greens were ever elected as the governing party their policies would destroy the functioning capacity of the country, bringing it to a standstill, and anyone who votes for them without at the least a good understanding of their fundamental policies is irresponsible in the extreme.

They are a good interest group to have, but nothing more. And yes, a vote for the Greens IS, in almost all cases, a vote for Labor because no one who votes for the lunatic fringe Greens is going to preference the Coalition. In theory you could, but it is logically bankrupt because in the political spectrum the Greens are far closer to the ALP than to the Libs (although the Libs and Labor are far closer to eachother than they are to the Greens truth be told) and thus a greens supporter would always PREFER an ALP govt to a Lib govt. Because of the two party entrenchment and the preferential system , the Greens almost always eventually get eliminated from the running and their votes redistributed to the ALP at full value.

The scariest thing is that if enough people vote Greens as a "protest vote" against a major party, these nutjobs may end up holding the balance of power. All that needs to happen is that they hold on to cunningham, and grab an inner city seat like Melbourne which they came close to winning last time, and the election result in a hung parliament, which, the way things are going, is not out of the realms of possibility.

I am PRAYING that the greens get the balance of power in either the senate or the lower house.

The Coalition gives preferences to extreme right wing, hate mongering 'christian' parties like Fred Niles party and the 'Family First' party...

A Family First party memeber was asked whilst campaigining this week whether lesbians should be burnt at the stake and replied "yes"..

They accuse the Greens of helping paedofiles by EQUALLING the age of consent for gays to 16, i.e removing discrimination.

The scarey party is the Coalition IMO. We can keep doing the ostrich approach to the environemnt, global warming etc. But as an Australian i am GROSSY ashamed that australia and the USA are the ONLY two countries not committing to the Kyoto protocol - thats shameful and on that basis alone labour should be voted in, or the greens.

Im amazed how many people value a few extra dollars in their wallet over preserving the planet for their children etc.

So much for family first lol...

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 04:48 AM
I never said they shouldnt so once again stop assuming things. Latham has taken a more environmental approach in his policies however his Tasmanian Forest policy which was the main basis of Greens placing Labor higher in preferences, is just stupid. Yes the forests are important and we should all benefit from them, however to force 100's of people out of employment and force them to get new training and make them pay for the advantage of everyone else is just wrong and I can certainly see why they would be so pissed.
I never said you said they shouldnt, I just agreed with the fact they should, so please stop assuming things....:rolleyes:

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 05:00 AM
Nope Ayla, you were assuming, you said your piece about the greens preferences, and I simply said "and so they should' indicating my support.

So stop assuming.

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 05:01 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/07/1097089499365.html

Treasury backs Labor's tax costings
By Matt Wade
October 8, 2004

Page Tools


http://www.smh.com.au/images/clear.gifEmail to a friend (http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupEmailArticle.pl?path=/articles/2004/10/07/1097089499365.html)
http://www.smh.com.au/images/clear.gifPrinter format (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/07/1097089499365.html#)
http://www.smh.com.au/images/clear.gif (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/07/1097089499365.html#)
http://www.smh.com.au/images/clear.gif (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/07/1097089499365.html#)


The federal Treasury has backed the costings of the main plank of Labor's tax package, contradicting a claim by the Treasurer, Peter Costello, that the Opposition's plan had a $700 million error.

Mr Costello said earlier in the campaign that he was prepared to stake his economic credibility on his claim to have found a $700 million "black hole" in the way Labor had accounted for the low income tax offset that it proposes to replace with its working tax bonus. The bonus would deliver an $8 a week tax cut to those earning less than $52,000.

But the Treasury costings of Labor's policy has contradicted Mr Costello's calculations.

A spokesman for the shadow Treasurer, Simon Crean, said last night that Treasury had vindicated Labor's economic caution and put the spotlight on Mr Costello's economic credibility.

"Peter Costello's big lie has been exposed by Treasury just in time for the people to decide," he said.

Labor said its working tax bonus and tax threshold increase for the top marginal rate would cost $2.6 billion in 2005-06, rising to $2.7 billion in the next two financial years.

Advertisement Advertisement
Treasury estimated the cost to be about $2.5 billion a year - even less than Labor's estimate.

Mr Costello told ABC Radio on September 23 that he would stake his economic reputation on the claim to have found the $700 million shortfall.

Labor's finance spokesman, Bob McMullan, said the Treasury report damaged Mr Costello's credibility. "The Treasurer put his economic credibility on the fact there is a $700 million hole, and Treasury have said he is totally wrong. They have said not only is his arithmetic wrong, his whole conceptualisation of the issue is wrong. He must be humiliated."

Mr McMullan said Mr Costello's mistake showed what happened "when he doesn't have the Treasury department to hold his hand".

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 05:03 AM
More lies from the coalition, just like the claims about interest rates - Not one independant ecomonic forecaster agrees with the coalition that interest rates would rise under labour....

But the fear tactics are used so well by the coalition, just like the republicans...and people like Ayla make it all worthwhile..fear certainly works...people will swallow whatever crap they are told...

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 05:28 AM
The need for me to clarify why they (the greens) should was simply because I felt like it - thats all the need I need loser.

Giving everybody equal rights re marriage is hardly making the govt 'pro gay' but Id expect that sort of narrow minded thinking from a pathetic loser such as yourself..and I was pissed off with Latham for bowing to the religious right, but I still beleive he is a bettter choice than Bush's lapdog - if only because he wont be a lapdog to Bush.

I know how shit scared you are of the usa abandoning us when indonesia invades (fear tactics again) but dont worry Ayla, that wont happen, no need to be afraid of it!!

Robbie.
Oct 8th, 2004, 05:38 AM
A vote for the Greens is a vote for the Greens. Whatever a person chooses to do with their preferences after that is what determines which of the two major parties will get the full value of the vote.

If I wanted to lodge a protest vote against Labor, I would vote Greens first, and Labor second. Sure, I could have voted Democrats, or Family First, or One Nation as my first preference, but they are so ideologically different to where I stand. Does that mean that a first preference vote for any party than a coalition party mean that I'm voting for Labor? No. All that matters is the order of my preferences.

Yes, Greens voters would most likely prefer an ALP government, and they can distribute their preferences with that goal. However, if they want a coalition goverenment, they will structure their preference distribution a different way. So, a vote for the Greens doesn't mean a vote for Labor, unless a voter directs their preferences to Labor.

This whole business is a scare tactic thrown up by the coalition.
I'm not sure what your saying. I think what your doing is confusing a "vote" for the Greens with a "first preference vote" for the Greens, which is something quite different.

In practice, in our system, when one gives their first preference to any party other than the ALP or a Coalition party, in House of Representatives elections, the order of 2nd, 3rd, fourth, fifth preferences will likely be MUCH MORE significant than your first preference vote.

Most people (I would go to as far to say the number who don't is negligible) who give their first preference to the Greens, a party with no chance of winning, in a HoR election, will preference the ALP ahead of the coalition, wherever they are on the ballot paper. So everyone ultimately has to make a choice about who they want in power, the ALP or the Coalition, and whether one preferences them 4th and 5th is quite irrelevant.

If a "first preference greens vote" is counted for the purposes of the election towards Labor's tally then how on earth is it anything other than an ALP vote?

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 05:50 AM
:lol: U are so fuken funny :lol: .... yes Im so afraid of Indonesia Invading (WTF?) .......

Meanwhile I bet that if you got AUS to vote for or against gay marriage they would vote against it. Alot of people don't think Marriage should be for gay couples.

And please don't call me a loser when it is clear that you are the narrow minded loser who won't even look past how he benefits as a gay man in australia rather than look at which PM would benefit Australia as a whole as a nation in the world.

CONVERSATION CLOSED!
Well where do I even begin to pick apart this drivelling load of bullshit?

Looking past benefiting as a gay man? Geez, considering this whole thread has been me arguing against the war in Iraq, posting articles about labours medicare policy etc etc,. I think its pretty clear gay marriage aint my only issue.

And Indonesia is referring to your argument way back at the start where you said australia had no choice but to join the iraq war because if we ever got attacked noone would come and rescue us.

Fool.

Now lets see if its really 'conversationn closed'....hahahahaha

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 05:56 AM
I knew you couldnt resist Ayla, glad you finally agree you are a fool. Loser, pathetic, all of the above....Im sure you look like a pathetic little rodent like your hero howard...

Ever posted any pics on here Ayla?? I feel like a good laugh...

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 06:06 AM
I'll let it go, I promise as soon as you either admit you were wrong to say Saddam was a threat, or you explain WHO he was a threat to...thats been my only problem with you - you will not answer that because you know you spoke out your ass and were wrong...

bionic71
Oct 8th, 2004, 06:12 AM
Voting Greens no matter what your preference will eventually end up in favour of Labour. You may aswell just put in a dead vote.
Utter nonsense....dead vote, donkey vote...if more people would actually think about what they are voting for and vote away from the major parties then this ludicrous dead vote misconception would cease to exist.
I am not going to retype what I posted in post#4 and post#24 of this thread.
I am fully aware of our two party preferred system...the word being "preferred"...and I prefer neither of them and my vote reflects such.

Robbie.
Oct 8th, 2004, 06:24 AM
Utter nonsense....dead vote, donkey vote...if more people would actually think about what they are voting for and vote away from the major parties then this ludicrous dead vote misconception would cease to exist.
I am not going to retype what I posted in post#4 and post#24 of this thread.
I am fully aware of our two party preferred system...the word being "preferred"...and I prefer neither of them and my vote reflects such.
Now that IS nonsense.

The nature of our system is that you MUST PREFER one or the other. If your vote is going to count for anything you MUST preference one over the other.

And if people actually looked at what the Greens genuinely stand for, it would only reinforce the two party system further. They are bunch of lunatics, dead set.

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 06:26 AM
Robbie - Why are the greens more loony than Fred Niles party? or the family first party?

Robbie.
Oct 8th, 2004, 06:32 AM
Robbie - Why are the greens more loony than Fred Niles party? or the family first party?
Oh they aren't :lol: None of those parties are serious parties of government, and if they ever found themselves in power the country would be in grave danger. I'm just targetting the Greens because they're the "flavour of the month" minor party at the moment, like the democrats were a few years ago (though much more extreme). The point is that the two major parties are the only ones fit to govern for the foreseeable future, and regardless of who you "first preference" you cannot avoid selecting between the two. The only way you can do that is via donkey vote.

Ekkekko
Oct 8th, 2004, 06:50 AM
Neither...

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 07:02 AM
Thanks Robbie...

What policies of the Greens are you totally against? Im sure they probably have some weird obscure ones, but I completely think they are in touch and represent me when it comes to removing discrimination in marriage rights, the iraq war, penalties for drug users (i.e rehab not jail) and on reconcilliation with the indigineous australians..

Just curious to hear what policies you think are their loony ones? :)

Epigone
Oct 8th, 2004, 07:06 AM
I'm not sure what your saying. I think what your doing is confusing a "vote" for the Greens with a "first preference vote" for the Greens, which is something quite different.
...
If a "first preference greens vote" is counted for the purposes of the election towards Labor's tally then how on earth is it anything other than an ALP vote?I know how the voting system works.

If you want to vote for the Greens, but don't want the ALP in power, preference the coalition candidate higher. Therefore, a vote for the Greens wouldn't be a vote for Labor. That more Greens voters would like to see Mark Latham as PM is irrelevant. Unless you choose to preference Labor over the coalition, a vote for the Greens isn't a vote for Labor.

I could put Family First as my first preference, and Labor as my second preference, and it would be a vote for Labor. John Howard hasn't come out and said a vote for Family First is a vote for Labor. He is attacking the Greens because he sees them as a threat, and he is scaremongering in an attempt to kill two birds (ALP and the Greens) with one stone.

Epigone
Oct 8th, 2004, 08:01 AM
Have you voted before. In a voting card you can A) choose your party or B) choose your preferences. Most people, especially if they are not into politics, cannot be bothared to number every single box of preferences. If you choose option A which most do then if you vote for Greens your vote WILL go to Labour.Yes, I have voted before.

For a House of Reps ballot paper to be formal, it must contain one number '1' and consecutive numbers in every other box, or every box except one.

If you number only one box, your vote will be informal, and won't be counted :)

A Senate ballot paper is different. You can either show a preference against one of the squares in the group ticket part at the top of the paper, or you can show a number '1' and the continuing preferences against all candidates names in the bottom part of the ballot paper.

azza
Oct 8th, 2004, 08:04 AM
Latham no reason

bionic71
Oct 8th, 2004, 08:35 AM
Now that IS nonsense.

The nature of our system is that you MUST PREFER one or the other. If your vote is going to count for anything you MUST preference one over the other.

And if people actually looked at what the Greens genuinely stand for, it would only reinforce the two party system further. They are bunch of lunatics, dead set.
Excuse me...there is no MUST involved...as voters, and as part of the democratic process we are able to position our preferences in the order we see fit....

No....you are given the option to show your distaste for the major parties by voting accordingly.
Paint me a lunatic if you will...but at this moment in time I align myself with your so-called lunatic green fringe for the reasons i posted in post#4 and #24.

I am well aware of what the greens represent and it is much more attractive and enlightened prospect than any of the major parties from my position....as I also stated in post #4 and #24. I am simply unwilling to cast a vote for the Lib party (who fail to conform to the fundament of democracy -the seperation of Church and State) or the Labour party (who are now far removed from their historic Socialist past.)

Neither of the major parties represent me or my family or my concerns for this country and our place in the world...and as a result my vote will represent such. Voting is in essence an individual and democratic judgement, and how to vote should not be dictated.....there should never be a MUST involved.

Beefy
Oct 8th, 2004, 08:56 AM
Anyone here listen to the radio program "Tough Love"? (10am-12pm weekdays on Triple M). I love that show but I was pretty shocked to hear Mick Molloy's comments about John Howard. He truly, deeply seems to hate him! He's the most blatant pro-Labour media presonality I think I've ever seen O_o.
I take it you don't watch Rove? I don't but what I've heard, he's just as bad

bionic71
Oct 8th, 2004, 09:06 AM
Yes well you should still find one which you like the most and then vote for one that preferences them high. Because regardless of what you may think when you vote greens you are giving a vote to Labour in the long run. If you dont want either party to get your vote then a donkey vote is the only way to go, otherwise one will get it :)
...and my point being that from my position NEITHER major party is to my liking...and I vote as such....voters should not feel that they MUST vote for the major parties, it is a major misinterpretation of the two party preferential voting system. You are given many voting options....use them to form the best possible representation of YOU.

Robbie.
Oct 8th, 2004, 09:13 AM
Excuse me...there is no MUST involved...as voters, and as part of the democratic process we are able to position our preferences in the order we see fit....

No....you are given the option to show your distaste for the major parties by voting accordingly.
Paint me a lunatic if you will...but at this moment in time I align myself with your so-called lunatic green fringe for the reasons i posted in post#4 and #24.

I am well aware of what the greens represent and it is much more attractive and enlightened prospect than any of the major parties from my position....as I also stated in post #4 and #24. I am simply unwilling to cast a vote for the Lib party (who fail to conform to the fundament of democracy -the seperation of Church and State) or the Labour party (who are now far removed from their historic Socialist past.)

Neither of the major parties represent me or my family or my concerns for this country and our place in the world...and as a result my vote will represent such. Voting is in essence an individual and democratic judgement, and how to vote should not be dictated.....there should never be a MUST involved.oh dear, someone doesn't understand the voting system :tape:

The major parties put up candidates in EVERY seat. The voting system requires you not only to vote but "preference" ALL candidates. It's not a "first past the post system". Therefore for your vote to be formal you must express a PREFERENCE for one or the other major party.

Even if you put the major parties last and second last, the choice you make there is ultimately more significant than your first preference. Whether you like it or not, YOUR vote will end up going to a major party.

So which MAJOR party are you preferencing?

bionic71
Oct 8th, 2004, 09:38 AM
oh dear, someone doesn't understand the voting system :tape:

The major parties put up candidates in EVERY seat. The voting system requires you not only to vote but "preference" ALL candidates. It's not a "first past the post system". Therefore for your vote to be formal you must express a PREFERENCE for one or the other major party.

Even if you put the major parties last and second last, the choice you make there is ultimately more significant than your first preference. Whether you like it or not, YOUR vote will end up going to a major party.

So which MAJOR party are you preferencing?
No "oh dear" about it...I am fully aware of our preferential two party system.
I am aware it is not a "first past the post" count, I am also acutely aware of the disemination of votes to the majors via preferences and the deals struck with the minor players regarding preferences...my previous posts (4,24,69,83) make mention of preferences and that distribution of these is inevitable and beyond our control...but thanks for reminding me.

My previous posts have also outlined my position as a voter and how neither party represents me....and subsequently my vote reflects this. There is no misunderstanding....

The thread asked...HOWARD OR LATHAM?...I replied that both are not to my liking and that neither party represents me as a voter and that my voting card will represent such.

Of course the preferential system dictates that I need to position the major parties in a numerical preference...as I have stated already in this thread...

To answer your last question.... I will be placing the Liberal party one notch below Labour on my card. If you wish to simplfy this to be a Labour vote ahead of a Liberal vote then you are free to do so if it suits your approach to voting. This is not my approach to voting. All parties, including the majors, are positioned in the order I feel they represent me as a voter....simple as that..
I do not consider my preference for placing the majors at the bottom end of my card to be a donkey vote....it is as accurate vote for me at this stage, a refection of how I see the two major players.

My point is that people should not simply pick Labour or Liberal and BELIEVE that any other selection being placed at #1 on your card is this mythical "donkey" or "dead" vote...it is simply wrong.

Robbie.
Oct 8th, 2004, 09:43 AM
Thanks Robbie...

What policies of the Greens are you totally against? Im sure they probably have some weird obscure ones, but I completely think they are in touch and represent me when it comes to removing discrimination in marriage rights, the iraq war, penalties for drug users (i.e rehab not jail) and on reconcilliation with the indigineous australians..

Just curious to hear what policies you think are their loony ones? :)I like to call the greens "loony" because their policy statements, while perhaps considered "enlightened" by some are completed inconsistent with the maintainance of civil government and a viable economy. Their drug policy involves the complete decriminalisation of all drug use, issuing free heroin to addicts, and considering the distribution of ecstasy and other "social" drugs. Their policy on abortion is to repeal all laws prohibiting it, giving complete choice to women, including aborting late term foetuses. They have a policy that prisoners should be paid wages by the state for the work they do in prison! They have a policy to ban all genetically engineered food. And one of their proposals on the environment last year, though never making it to policy, included legislating to make people ride their bikes more! Their economic policy involves the scrapping of coal-fired power stations, the cutting of working hours without cutting pay,the raising of company tax and the hitting of taxpayers with more "levies". On Defence they propose to reduce the size of our military forces while simultanteously closing all US facilities here, and withdrawing completely from the war on terror leaving us completely vulnerable.

Now a close analysis of One Nation's policies in their prime were similarly "loony", but supposed intellectuals never supported ON the way they support the Greens.

OK, so they are completely impractical, but they are morally pure, right? One of the more disturbing things for me was to find out that the co-author of "The Greens" with Bob Brown, Peter Singer, came up with the particularly morally reprehensible idea that human life can be valued in a utilitarian way; that a foetus as well as newborn babies could be slaughtered in the same fashion as we slaughter animals - "that the grounds for not killing human beings do not apply to newborn babies". Now that might be "enlightened" thinking to some but it makes me sick to the stomach. I know it will never become policy, but still....

So, yes, I do have a fundamental problem with any "extreme" parties. The major parties may have their vices, but they are fairly middle of the road. Parties to the "extreme" of either spectrum are not for me, because they are just as loopy as eachother. They almost come full circle.

Robbie.
Oct 8th, 2004, 09:46 AM
No "oh dear" about it...I am fully aware of our preferential two party system.
I am aware it is not a "first past the post" count, I am also acutely aware of the disemination of votes to the majors via preferences...my previous posts (4,24,69,83) make mention of this...but thanks for reminding me.

My previous posts have also outlined my position as a voter and how neither party represents me....and subsequently my vote reflects this. There is no misunderstanding....

The thread asked...HOWARD OR LATHAM?...I replied that both are not to my liking and that neither party represents me as a voter and that my voting card will represent such.

Of course the preferentail system dictates that I need to position the major parties in a numerical preference...as I have stated already in this thread...

To answer your last question.... I will be placing the Liberal party one notch below Labour on my card. If you wish to simplfy this to be a Labour vote ahead of a Liberal vote then you are free to do so if it suits your approach to voting. This is not my approach to voting. All parties, including the majors, are positioned in the order I feel they represent me as a voter....simple as that..
I do not consider my preference for placing the majors at the bottom end of my card to be a donkey vote....it is as accurate vote for me at this stage, a refection of how I see the two major players.

My point is that people should not simply pick Labour or Liberal and BELIEVE that any other selection being placed at #1 on your card is this mythical "donkey" or "dead" vote...it is simply wrong.
OK, so you prefer the ALP. Thanks.

And no it's not a donkey vote, it's just a valid vote for the ALP ;)

But seriously, I can kind of understand what you are talking about. In practice it doesn't really work that way though.

AUSBOY
Oct 8th, 2004, 09:49 AM
OK, MY TURN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1.) People think Howards is a dick for building such strong allegiance with Bush/America but do they realise that Indonesia really are a threat to us! Indonesia has 9 million in their army compared to Australia's 100,000, thats a 90:1 ratio in Indonesia favour!!! We need to do whatever it takes to have allegiance, and if telling a few white lies to justify the war which captured a man that slaughtered more of his own people than the 3 million Jews that Hitler was responsible for killing is a crimre then bite me!

2.) Australia has had one of the strongest performing economies in the world the last 5 years, Unemployment is at a 20 year low, investment confidence is way up. When our economy is the best its even been you would have to be insane to think, 'Lets give someone else a go to be fair" The consequences of that pathetic attitude could be enormous.

3.) For the idiot that said Howard favours the rich, I ask you to take a look at our welfare system! (You probably know all the pro's and cons anyway cos all your families probably on every benefit possible) :rolleyes:

We are the highest welfare paying nation in the world. Something like 52% of all taxes goes on welfare! The amount of lower class people ripping the system off too is disgusting, perhaps if they werent ripping it off so much the govt could reduce their taxes more. Its the hard working people, the ones that have sacrificed years of their lives to study at uni and work hard to earn their jobs and salaries that are paying the huge taxes of 47.5% to pay for the lower class, dole bludging people. The poor always complain, they always want everything handed to them. In a survey done recently on Foxtel it was shown that 82% of Foxtel customers were from the poorer/outer suburbs. Its always the poorer people that spend more on take away, TV, Cd's etc. They have no idea about saving, budgeting etc, and they think the rich get rich over night, most wealthy people have worked hard and have gone without Foxtel, take-away 5 nights a week, and have learnt to invest what they save to move up into a more comfortable style later in life.

Also why should Howard keep discriminating the wealthier that have worked harder and sacrificed more? If he did that there would be no incentive to strive and then there would be even more dole bludgers.

I'm liberal all the way, and I agree with everything Ayla Y. has said. Sure I dont agree with all Liberals policies, they are anti-gay which I dont like, but they know how to manage an economy and know how to do a damn good job at it. Not like Latham's Medicare Gold, the biggest joke in the world LOL

And a vote for Greens is a vote for Labour unless you put Liberal ahead in your preferences!!!

bionic71
Oct 8th, 2004, 09:51 AM
OK, so you prefer the ALP. Thanks.

And no it's not a donkey vote, it's just a valid vote for the ALP ;)

But seriously, I can kind of understand what you are talking about. In practice it doesn't really work that way though.
The problem is that many people are simply lazy with their approach to voting and this ancient fear of casting a "dead" or "donkey" vote hinders their abilty to really use the preferential numbering to voice an opinion.

Regarding some of the greens approaches to say...drugs...as you mentioned above. Many of their proposals are based on the very successful models implimented in Holland...a country where deaths from drug misuse are far less than ours despite legalisation. Holland has a wonderful progressive approach to containing the drug problem and we would actually benefit from taking note of many of their successful attempts to control it as best they can...

I am not even going to touch the abortion policies you mention....but I firmly believe that it is ultimately a woman's final choice.

Considering that both major parties consider me to be immoral....maybe I am not the best candidate to offer my opinion in this particular forum....and I have been through all this before with a poster who turned out to be a fabricated Christian lunatic persona (Rothes) who has since been erradicated from the board....so I am simply too tired to offer any further input. i think i will go and tend to the garden.

Lemonskin.
Oct 8th, 2004, 11:47 AM
I take it you don't watch Rove? I don't but what I've heard, he's just as bad
Rove pays out Howard in jest. Mick Molloy does too but he also has this inane hatred in his voice when he speaks about him. It's wierd. He'll be funny all show but then he goes all serious and hateful when it comes to John Howard.

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Oct 8th, 2004, 01:45 PM
What were the results?

BCP
Oct 8th, 2004, 01:52 PM
I'm glad I live in the UK now, where there is a genuine push for equal rights for all, regardless for how they were born. The Howard government, aside from being "1950s" shows no compassion, empathy, equality for anyone who isn't Christian, white, and married with kids (and don't you dare come knocking on our door if you are fleeing conflict in your own country or need help). It has now made acceptable and mainstream many of the views that we were so horrified with when Pauline Hanson first came onto the scene. Aside from that, Howard's view on the environment is as appalling as Bush's.

It's a sad indictment on all of us that despite being close-minded, uncaring, and liars, the Howard government will be voted back in...............

BCP
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:08 PM
V Melb - I realise G+L rights arent on most peoples agenda's..I can live with that..

But it really saddens me to read how you write in the SAME sentence that Howard is a racist but has better direction as a leader. That just makes me sad that you see him for what he is yet accept it...My faith in humanity is really getting shaken with these elections adn they way people prioritise tax breaks and small monetary bribes over important social issues and killing innocent people in Iraq so american companies can profit.I couldn't agree more. Are we so selfish that as long as we are ok, we don't care whether:

- people different from us do not enjoy the same rights we do. They don't even want to afford straight de facto couples equal rights
- we turn away and lock up people looking for refuge and help
- our politicians lied, or at least didn't bother to independently check the facts before sending people to war, and then afterwards, show no remorse or apology for their actions
- our government declares that fossil fuels are the way forward for the next 50 years, without any regard on the effect on the environment/global warming for future generations
- laughably declare that pre-emptive strikes are justified. Given that Australia will pre-emtively strike anyone who is a "threat", then I guess we'd better not complain when Indonesia bombs Melbourne first to pre-empt the pre-emptive strike....
- actually pay people more money to have babies to "support an ageing population" when the world's resources are becoming ever scarce, and the world is in danger of overpopulation
- declare that recognising committed same-sex couples are a threat to our species (that one took the cake!)
- lie about the children overboard affair, and blame it on the parents!
- the list goes on........................

But despite all of this, we'll still vote Howard in, because he's better on the economy, and Latham is inexperienced................

Sam L
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:39 PM
I'm glad I live in the UK now, where there is a genuine push for equal rights for all, regardless for how they were born. The Howard government, aside from being "1950s" shows no compassion, empathy, equality for anyone who isn't Christian, white, and married with kids (and don't you dare come knocking on our door if you are fleeing conflict in your own country or need help). It has now made acceptable and mainstream many of the views that we were so horrified with when Pauline Hanson first came onto the scene. Aside from that, Howard's view on the environment is as appalling as Bush's.

It's a sad indictment on all of us that despite being close-minded, uncaring, and liars, the Howard government will be voted back in...............
I still have hope, but I love Blair and I love UK, even though he did go to war in Iraq, all his other policies are really good.

BCP
Oct 8th, 2004, 04:16 PM
Even the conservatives here have endorsed civil unions for same sex couples, and you can apply for residency under the category of unmarried couples........

Experimentee
Oct 8th, 2004, 04:50 PM
OMG Czechfan .... History will view Howard in the future as one of the great PM's of Australia. Really he has helf Office for so long despite how muc hwe all apparently hate him and he has done alot for Australia on a World Basis.
Latham has no idea about running a Country at all and if he does get elected will be a flop.
That won't happen though cause Howard will be re-elected im almost 90% sure of that.

He has been in office for so long not because he is a great leader, but because the ALP has had incompetent or unappealing opposition leaders, so that it doesnt take very much to beat them. Most people vote for the lesser of two evils anyway. No way in hell would I call Howard a great PM, especially after all the lying, covering up and misleading the public into wars and racial hatred.

Experimentee
Oct 8th, 2004, 04:59 PM
OK, MY TURN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1.) People think Howards is a dick for building such strong allegiance with Bush/America but do they realise that Indonesia really are a threat to us! Indonesia has 9 million in their army compared to Australia's 100,000, thats a 90:1 ratio in Indonesia favour!!! We need to do whatever it takes to have allegiance, and if telling a few white lies to justify the war which captured a man that slaughtered more of his own people than the 3 million Jews that Hitler was responsible for killing is a crimre then bite me!


As if Indonesia is a threat to invade Australia! Thats just a product of the governments racist fear mongering, which is doing more harm than the supposed Asian threat. Last time I checked, the US were the ones who were unilaterally invading other countries, surely they'd be the ones to be afraid of rather than Indonesia.

Lemonskin.
Oct 8th, 2004, 11:22 PM
Voting Day today.

I'm going off to vote in about an hour.

Still Liberal.

DutchieGirl
Oct 8th, 2004, 11:34 PM
Donkey vote then :p
my point is though, why the hell should i HAVE to vote in the first place... why should I have to go in and do a donkey vote? (Which I didn't do). And I had to put myself out even more this time as I'm in Canada and don't get back to monday, so I had to go fucking postal vote before I left! :rolleyes: Nice democracy!

DutchieGirl
Oct 8th, 2004, 11:37 PM
Voting Greens no matter what your preference will eventually end up in favour of Labour. You may aswell just put in a dead vote.
ahh but not necessarily... if you read the prefernce thing then unless the greens get the least amount of votes, your next preference won't matter anyway!

DutchieGirl
Oct 8th, 2004, 11:40 PM
Yeh ... that is if people are bothered to number all their preferences ... alot of people won't which is a worry because Greens seems like the likely choice for a non Lib/Lab voter and unless they number all thier preferences their vote will ultimately end up in Labour's favour.
John Howard released a statement today about that ... I will see if i can find it :)
ONLY if they have the lowest amount of votes....read the preferences bit on the first page!

DutchieGirl
Oct 8th, 2004, 11:46 PM
:lol: U are so fuken funny :lol: .... yes Im so afraid of Indonesia Invading (WTF?) .......

Meanwhile I bet that if you got AUS to vote for or against gay marriage they would vote against it. Alot of people don't think Marriage should be for gay couples.

And please don't call me a loser when it is clear that you are the narrow minded loser who won't even look past how he benefits as a gay man in australia rather than look at which PM would benefit Australia as a whole as a nation in the world.

CONVERSATION CLOSED!
and there is a reason for me leave this stupid bloody country!

DutchieGirl
Oct 8th, 2004, 11:48 PM
Utter nonsense....dead vote, donkey vote...if more people would actually think about what they are voting for and vote away from the major parties then this ludicrous dead vote misconception would cease to exist.
I am not going to retype what I posted in post#4 and post#24 of this thread.
I am fully aware of our two party preferred system...the word being "preferred"...and I prefer neither of them and my vote reflects such.
I think some people would still donkey vote for the sheer fact that they are objecting to having to vote for anyone at all... ;)

DutchieGirl
Oct 8th, 2004, 11:50 PM
Now that IS nonsense.

The nature of our system is that you MUST PREFER one or the other. If your vote is going to count for anything you MUST preference one over the other.

And if people actually looked at what the Greens genuinely stand for, it would only reinforce the two party system further. They are bunch of lunatics, dead set.
ahh... the stupidity of our political system comes to the fore. ;)

DutchieGirl
Oct 8th, 2004, 11:54 PM
oh dear, someone doesn't understand the voting system :tape:

The major parties put up candidates in EVERY seat. The voting system requires you not only to vote but "preference" ALL candidates. It's not a "first past the post system". Therefore for your vote to be formal you must express a PREFERENCE for one or the other major party.

Even if you put the major parties last and second last, the choice you make there is ultimately more significant than your first preference. Whether you like it or not, YOUR vote will end up going to a major party.

So which MAJOR party are you preferencing?
maybe he's donkey voting!

DutchieGirl
Oct 8th, 2004, 11:56 PM
No "oh dear" about it...I am fully aware of our preferential two party system.
I am aware it is not a "first past the post" count, I am also acutely aware of the disemination of votes to the majors via preferences and the deals struck with the minor players regarding preferences...my previous posts (4,24,69,83) make mention of preferences and that distribution of these is inevitable and beyond our control...but thanks for reminding me.

My previous posts have also outlined my position as a voter and how neither party represents me....and subsequently my vote reflects this. There is no misunderstanding....

The thread asked...HOWARD OR LATHAM?...I replied that both are not to my liking and that neither party represents me as a voter and that my voting card will represent such.

Of course the preferential system dictates that I need to position the major parties in a numerical preference...as I have stated already in this thread...

To answer your last question.... I will be placing the Liberal party one notch below Labour on my card. If you wish to simplfy this to be a Labour vote ahead of a Liberal vote then you are free to do so if it suits your approach to voting. This is not my approach to voting. All parties, including the majors, are positioned in the order I feel they represent me as a voter....simple as that..
I do not consider my preference for placing the majors at the bottom end of my card to be a donkey vote....it is as accurate vote for me at this stage, a refection of how I see the two major players.

My point is that people should not simply pick Labour or Liberal and BELIEVE that any other selection being placed at #1 on your card is this mythical "donkey" or "dead" vote...it is simply wrong.
Isn;r a donkey vote when you don't vote for anyone, or write something on your form to make it invalid? :scratch:

DutchieGirl
Oct 9th, 2004, 12:00 AM
The problem is that many people are simply lazy with their approach to voting and this ancient fear of casting a "dead" or "donkey" vote hinders their abilty to really use the preferential numbering to voice an opinion.

Regarding some of the greens approaches to say...drugs...as you mentioned above. Many of their proposals are based on the very successful models implimented in Holland...a country where deaths from drug misuse are far less than ours despite legalisation. Holland has a wonderful progressive approach to containing the drug problem and we would actually benefit from taking note of many of their successful attempts to control it as best they can...

I am not even going to touch the abortion policies you mention....but I firmly believe that it is ultimately a woman's final choice.

Considering that both major parties consider me to be immoral....maybe I am not the best candidate to offer my opinion in this particular forum....and I have been through all this before with a poster who turned out to be a fabricated Christian lunatic persona (Rothes) who has since been erradicated from the board....so I am simply too tired to offer any further input. i think i will go and tend to the garden.
hmm we think very similarly... although I didn't vote greens. ;) Man, the sonner I get to Holland, the better!

jd4eva
Oct 9th, 2004, 01:25 AM
OK, MY TURN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1.) People think Howards is a dick for building such strong allegiance with Bush/America but do they realise that Indonesia really are a threat to us! Indonesia has 9 million in their army compared to Australia's 100,000, thats a 90:1 ratio in Indonesia favour!!! We need to do whatever it takes to have allegiance, and if telling a few white lies to justify the war which captured a man that slaughtered more of his own people than the 3 million Jews that Hitler was responsible for killing is a crimre then bite me!

There are several things wrong with your logic. Firstly, transparency in the Government is essential to maintain the morale of the public. A Government cannot base its actions on a few "white lies" even if the ends may arguably justify the means. This is a dangerous notion and if such conduct by a Government becomes acceptable there is no telling where it may lead. Before 9/11, there was very little to indicate that Indonesia would attack Australia and there is little to indicate that now. Of course we are now more vulnerable to Islamic fundamentalist groups but we are not more vulnerable to Indonesia, the nature of international relations dictates that Indonesia is unlikely to ever attack us. The concept that the war on Iraq was a moral one is flawed, because it lacks consistency. If Howard aimed to 'liberate' the Iraqi people from their evil dictator, then why has he been inactive in greater, more dire situations on the African continent and in Asia? When Howard steps in to help the people of Uganda or Zimbabwe, then his argument that he helped the invasion of Iraq on moral grounds will be valid. Until that, it's all rationalisation based on bad decisions.

2.) Australia has had one of the strongest performing economies in the world the last 5 years, Unemployment is at a 20 year low, investment confidence is way up. When our economy is the best its even been you would have to be insane to think, 'Lets give someone else a go to be fair" The consequences of that pathetic attitude could be enormous.

I'll give you the concession of economic growth. Howard's administration has done an excellent job in terms of international economic growth, however this has come as a detriment to our health and education systems. It's all a matter of values, if you value wealth over greater social construct then that's fine. I personally would favour a greater education and health system over greater foreign investment.

3.) For the idiot that said Howard favours the rich, I ask you to take a look at our welfare system! (You probably know all the pro's and cons anyway cos all your families probably on every benefit possible) :rolleyes:

We are the highest welfare paying nation in the world. Something like 52% of all taxes goes on welfare! The amount of lower class people ripping the system off too is disgusting, perhaps if they werent ripping it off so much the govt could reduce their taxes more. Its the hard working people, the ones that have sacrificed years of their lives to study at uni and work hard to earn their jobs and salaries that are paying the huge taxes of 47.5% to pay for the lower class, dole bludging people. The poor always complain, they always want everything handed to them. In a survey done recently on Foxtel it was shown that 82% of Foxtel customers were from the poorer/outer suburbs. Its always the poorer people that spend more on take away, TV, Cd's etc. They have no idea about saving, budgeting etc, and they think the rich get rich over night, most wealthy people have worked hard and have gone without Foxtel, take-away 5 nights a week, and have learnt to invest what they save to move up into a more comfortable style later in life.

Ok, I see you have decided to base your arguments on bold generalisations. So the fact that 82% of Foxtel customers come from poorer, outer suburbs indicate that it's always the poor who purchase luxuries? We're talking about the Foxtel demographic here, 82% of Foxtel customers is not to be confused with 82% of people who live in these areas. The poor do not always complain and your attitude here shows a clear prejudiced against people from a lower economic strata. I do agree our welfare system is quite adept, however if the Government had spent more money on creating a more egalitarian education system perhaps those who are born into poor families (as social indicators of wealth are often inherited) would be able to work their way out of the precarious situation there are in. I would suggest you try and not simplify things to rash generalisations.

Also why should Howard keep discriminating the wealthier that have worked harder and sacrificed more? If he did that there would be no incentive to strive and then there would be even more dole bludgers.


Wealth is often, though not always, inherited. If you are born rich, chances are that you will stay rich. If you are born poor, then chances are you will stay poor. The "incentive to strive" as you put in, is negated by an education system that is flawed. I am not one of those people on welfare and I think it is highly uneducated of you to state that only those on welfare could have any compassion for people in the same predicament. I see compassion isn't extended to those who consider themselves 'elitist'. I do not think that it's acceptable to say that the rich are the only ones who work hard or who have sacrificed things. In fact, I find it rare that this is the case as most of the people my age who are wealthy are so because of the familial connections, rather than through hard work. Meanwhile, I know of many "blue collar workers" who do work hard for little reward, an dyet you think it's ok to discriminate against them.

Discrimination is NEVER justified and no Government in a democratic society could ever purport to support it. It's a shame you, as a supporter of the current Government, can't see it the same way.

Robbie.
Oct 9th, 2004, 02:28 AM
There are several things wrong with your logic. Firstly, transparency in the Government is essential to maintain the morale of the public. A Government cannot base its actions on a few "white lies" even if the ends may arguably justify the means. This is a dangerous notion and if such conduct by a Government becomes acceptable there is no telling where it may lead. Before 9/11, there was very little to indicate that Indonesia would attack Australia and there is little to indicate that now. Of course we are now more vulnerable to Islamic fundamentalist groups but we are not more vulnerable to Indonesia, the nature of international relations dictates that Indonesia is unlikely to ever attack us. The concept that the war on Iraq was a moral one is flawed, because it lacks consistency. If Howard aimed to 'liberate' the Iraqi people from their evil dictator, then why has he been inactive in greater, more dire situations on the African continent and in Asia? When Howard steps in to help the people of Uganda or Zimbabwe, then his argument that he helped the invasion of Iraq on moral grounds will be valid. Until that, it's all rationalisation based on bad decisions.



I'll give you the concession of economic growth. Howard's administration has done an excellent job in terms of international economic growth, however this has come as a detriment to our health and education systems. It's all a matter of values, if you value wealth over greater social construct then that's fine. I personally would favour a greater education and health system over greater foreign investment.



Ok, I see you have decided to base your arguments on bold generalisations. So the fact that 82% of Foxtel customers come from poorer, outer suburbs indicate that it's always the poor who purchase luxuries? We're talking about the Foxtel demographic here, 82% of Foxtel customers is not to be confused with 82% of people who live in these areas. The poor do not always complain and your attitude here shows a clear prejudiced against people from a lower economic strata. I do agree our welfare system is quite adept, however if the Government had spent more money on creating a more egalitarian education system perhaps those who are born into poor families (as social indicators of wealth are often inherited) would be able to work their way out of the precarious situation there are in. I would suggest you try and not simplify things to rash generalisations.



Wealth is often, though not always, inherited. If you are born rich, chances are that you will stay rich. If you are born poor, then chances are you will stay poor. The "incentive to strive" as you put in, is negated by an education system that is flawed. I am not one of those people on welfare and I think it is highly uneducated of you to state that only those on welfare could have any compassion for people in the same predicament. I see compassion isn't extended to those who consider themselves 'elitist'. I do not think that it's acceptable to say that the rich are the only ones who work hard or who have sacrificed things. In fact, I find it rare that this is the case as most of the people my age who are wealthy are so because of the familial connections, rather than through hard work. Meanwhile, I know of many "blue collar workers" who do work hard for little reward, an dyet you think it's ok to discriminate against them.

Discrimination is NEVER justified and no Government in a democratic society could ever purport to support it. It's a shame their supporters don't see it the same way.Good post, but I don't support alot of it.

Latham's redistribution of education funding will not make any substantial gains towards achieving equality in education. All it is is a short sighted attempt to open up old class divides (and people call Howard divisive) in the hope of winning votes, incidentally providing a disinsentive to those who work hard to send their children to private schools. The fact that Latham has taken away from the Anglicans (who are traditionally Liberal), yet not withdrawn funding from Catholic Schools such as Xavier (remembering that Catholics traditionally vote ALP), with exemptions for Jewish schools, illustrates what a true vote buying exercise it is. The fact is that EVERY child, no matter what their background or the school they attend, is entitled to government funding for their education, and at the moment the funding to government schools per student, taking into account state and federal funding, is several times that for the non-government student. Latham's policy on higher education obviously appeals to students with it's abolition of the increase in Hecs and of full feeing paying, and I admit its objectives are good. But quite simply it seems like "pie in the sky" stuff; that Latham is going to abolish all these mechanisms that provide funding for universities, open up additional tertiary places, and then still be able to ensure that the quality of my degree is not compromised as a result contradicts my basic experience.

If his education policy professes to be "needs based" then the jewel in his health policy, Medicare GOLD, totally violates that principle and is one of the most blatant vote buying exercises I have ever seen. I mean really, to GUARANTEE that somebody over 75 gets a bed? Ludicrous. You talk about discrimination, what do you call that? Health care should be distributed in a "triage" system where the patient with the most need is given priority. And if anyone should be given priority, then it is the young, the future of this country. This idea seems to be lost on Mr Latham.

And all this is to not even consider that Health and Education are, under the constitution, not federal but state responsibilities. The State governments are all ALP, so they have a substantial responsibility to wear for the state that the heath and education systems are in. The ALP seems to get a cheap ride as the fairer party of Health and Education, but in Victoria, where electors revolted against Jeff Kennett's govt on precisely those issues, Steve Bracks has had 5 years, an upper house majority, and the money derived from the GST to make inroads, and has failed to make any substantial gains.

The reality is that neither party is truly visionary, so to pretend that one is is absolutely delluded. All the policies on health and education released during this election campaign are simply re-arranging chairs on the titanic, and will be so until some visionary politician (s) (state or federal), concerned more for the country than his or her own place in parliament, is willing to take responsibility, stop passing the buck, and stake his position in parliament on it. Until such a time, electing one party over the other on the basis of health and education will for most people be case of self-interest: that is how much will I personally benefit under each party? There are many people who get bought out, and then couch their reasons as "ideological", which I find particularly amusing. Similarly this absurd "Howard is a Liar" smear campaign, as if their are politicians out there who don't lie, seems to be the cattle call of those who can't dent the govt on material issues like its economic credibility.

The reality is that neither party is going to make substantial gains on health and education in the current climate, but there is a wide gap between the economic credentials of the two parties. Quite simply, on economics, to use an education analogy, one is an A+ student, and the other is a juvenile delinquent who has been repeatedly thrown out of school for poor performance.

Robbie.
Oct 9th, 2004, 02:48 AM
Further to what I have written above, people claim that Howard is divisive and preys on latent hatred in the community. Well Latham has identified himself, labelled himself, a HATER of the affluent. That's right, your eyes do not deceive you, he "hates" affluent people. If that isn't a dangerous philosophy then I don't know what is. The guy is loose canon. Anyone who crticises Howard for inspiring hate, which I personally don't think he does at all anyway, and then supports Latham is a hypocrite who thinks that it is ok to hate on certain sections of the community, while we must exercise "compassion" towards others.

jd4eva
Oct 9th, 2004, 03:33 AM
Good post, but I don't support alot of it.

Latham's redistribution of education funding will not make any substantial gains towards achieving equality in education. All it is is a short sighted attempt to open up old class divides (and people call Howard divisive) in the hope of winning votes, incidentally providing a disinsentive to those who work hard to send their children to private schools. The fact that Latham has taken away from the Anglicans (who are traditionally Liberal), yet not withdrawn funding from Catholic Schools such as Xavier (remembering that Catholics traditionally vote ALP), with exemptions for Jewish schools, illustrates what a true vote buying exercise it is. The fact is that EVERY child, no matter what their background or the school they attend, is entitled to government funding for their education, and at the moment the funding to government schools per student, taking into account state and federal funding, is several times that for the non-government student. Latham's policy on higher education obviously appeals to students with it's abolition of the increase in Hecs and of full feeing paying, and I admit its objectives are good. But quite simply it seems like "pie in the sky" stuff; that Latham is going to abolish all these mechanisms that provide funding for universities, open up additional tertiary places, and then still be able to ensure that the quality of my degree is not compromised as a result contradicts my basic experience.

If his education policy professes to be "needs based" then the jewel in his health policy, Medicare GOLD, totally violates that principle and is one of the most blatant vote buying exercises I have ever seen. I mean really, to GUARANTEE that somebody over 75 gets a bed? Ludicrous. You talk about discrimination, what do you call that? Health care should be distributed in a "triage" system where the patient with the most need is given priority. And if anyone should be given priority, then it is the young, the future of this country. This idea seems to be lost on Mr Latham.

And all this is to not even consider that Health and Education are, under the constitution, not federal but state responsibilities. The State governments are all ALP, so they have a substantial responsibility to wear for the state that the heath and education systems are in. The ALP seems to get a cheap ride as the fairer party of Health and Education, but in Victoria, where electors revolted against Jeff Kennett's govt on precisely those issues, Steve Bracks has had 5 years, an upper house majority, and the money derived from the GST to make inroads, and has failed to make any substantial gains.

The reality is that neither party is truly visionary, so to pretend that one is is absolutely delluded. All the policies on health and education released during this election campaign are simply re-arranging chairs on the titanic, and will be so until some visionary politician (s) (state or federal), concerned more for the country than his or her own place in parliament, is willing to take responsibility, stop passing the buck, and stake his position in parliament on it. Until such a time, electing one party over the other on the basis of health and education will for most people be case of self-interest: that is how much will I personally benefit under each party? There are many people who get bought out, and then couch their reasons as "ideological", which I find particularly amusing. Similarly this absurd "Howard is a Liar" smear campaign, as if their are politicians out there who don't lie, seems to be the cattle call of those who can't dent the govt on material issues like its economic credibility.

The reality is that neither party is going to make substantial gains on health and education in the current climate, but there is a wide gap between the economic credentials of the two parties. Quite simply, on economics, to use an education analogy, one is an A+ student, and the other is a juvenile delinquent who has been repeatedly thrown out of school for poor performance.

I'm not going to buy into the private v public school debate. This is where I disagree with Latham because I don't see how private schools should be compromised for the sake of public schools. Parents work hard in order to send their children to these schools and they shouldn't be penalised in terms of reduced funding.

I was more concerned with the tertiary education policy. I support Latham's promise to abolish the HECS increase although I know that some of his othe rideas are unrealistic, but I am willing to support his education policy based on the fact that it will save me a decent amount in debt.

To be honest, I don't like either Howard or Latham personally. I am voting purely based on my own interests, and that is for reduced HECS fees. For me, this isn't about a lesser of two evils because that's subjective. I was purely responding to AUSBOY's arguments which didn't seem to really hold, that it was fine to discriminate in favour of the affluent because they worked hard (which isn't always the case, as wealth is often inherited) or that poor people were wasteful with their money and thus inadvertently chose their own economic predicament (which I don't think is a fair assessment at all). I don't think Latham's tertiary education policies are necessarily enough to quell this problem, but I think it's a small step in the right direction and it's a direction that benefits myself.

I also find Howard's logging policy slightly skewed. Do you know how many people are enmployed in the entire Tasmanian logging industry? 320. That's right. 320!. Howard is spending 800 million of our tax money in saving 320 jobs. When things like the Kodak factory shut down and thousands of jobs are lost, it's all in the way of 'progress'. Howard might as well have just given them 2 million each and save himself 160 million dollars.

Like I said, I don't believe it is acceptable for any Government to discriminate against a segment of the population. However, that being said, i think it's a reality that Latham's policies can't really hurt the affluent as much as Howard's policies can hurt the poor because the affluent control enough of society in order to nulify any Labor policies which could be detrimental to them. Whether it was justified or not, Howard did lie and I find that reprehensible, just as I would if Latham lied too.

It is clear that neither party is 'visionary'. This is the exact reason why they're the top two parties, because Australian society, in the most are afraid of change and it's also the reason why parties like the Greens and Family First will hopefully, never be in power. That and the fact that I doubt the Greens and Family First have any sort of intellectual capacity within them. I swear to God I was attacked by members from both parties when I went to vote today. The Greens candidate looked like he hadn't showered in about 5 years and the Family First candidate was one of those guys that acts all 'righteous' but you just know he goes home and looks up child porn. I was thinkinjg that if you're not going to wash or if you were going to look at children like pieces of meat, that isn't going to win my vote. They're both just as bad the other, however I didn't find it acceptable to rationalise Liberal policies by simply saying that rich people worked hard and poor people deserved to be poor because they all waste their money. I found that an offensive generalisation and my response was to that post.

For the majority of what I've read in here, I believe everyone has a good and reasonable reason for the way in which they're voting but this particular poster did not and so I felt like I needed to address their specific points.

To be honest, I don't really care about which party wins. They all, for lack of a better word, suck. I might have voted Liberal if Howard wasn't Bush's bitch. Or if he didn't look like a furby.

Robbie.
Oct 9th, 2004, 03:48 AM
The Greens candidate looked like he hadn't showered in about 5 years and the Family First candidate was one of those guys that acts all 'righteous' but you just know he goes home and looks up child porn. I was thinkinjg that if you're not going to wash or if you were going to look at children like pieces of meat, that isn't going to win my vote.
To be honest, I don't really care about which party wins. They all, for lack of a better word, suck. I might have voted Liberal if Howard wasn't Bush's bitch. Or if he didn't look like a furby.:haha: :haha: :haha:

That's Gold!

kes
Oct 9th, 2004, 07:44 AM
I voted Greens in the senate,

and Greens in the lower house - with my preference going to Labor!!! :)

:bounce: :bounce:

Its time to go................. JOHN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr_Molik
Oct 9th, 2004, 10:24 AM
how could u guys possibly b watching the election.......grease is on !! :p

Hayato
Oct 9th, 2004, 10:35 AM
Go Johnny http://smileys.******************/cat/5/5_1_117.gif

This reminds me of Johnny http://smileys.******************/cat/15/15_1_47.gif

Mr_Molik
Oct 9th, 2004, 10:37 AM
omg what channel!!
channel 7 :yeah:

Mr_Molik
Oct 9th, 2004, 10:50 AM
we had toy story 2 last week :confused:
im in tassie by the way :wavey:

Mr_Molik
Oct 9th, 2004, 11:04 AM
did liberal win?

xr6turbo
Oct 9th, 2004, 11:31 AM
Howard = :retard: :anzela: :smash:

xr6turbo
Oct 9th, 2004, 11:35 AM
:howardhasreallybushyeyebrows: :tape:

xr6turbo
Oct 9th, 2004, 11:41 AM
Just found this pic of Howard, taken only minutes ago...

http://www.online-thecatsmeow.com/images/Emoticons/harem.gif

Athena
Oct 9th, 2004, 11:45 AM
Just found this pic of Howard, taken only minutes ago...

http://www.online-thecatsmeow.com/images/Emoticons/harem.gif


HOWARD :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :worship: :worship:

SilK
Oct 9th, 2004, 01:17 PM
Howard! :worship:

BTW, I have no idea who the dude is, but as half Aussie (never been there though :lol: ) I felt it was my duty to pick the one with the least votes on the poll :mad:

*JR*
Oct 9th, 2004, 01:33 PM
Howard = Prime Minister of Australia for 3 more years.Eee's Pauline Hanson in drag! :o

Beefy
Oct 9th, 2004, 02:25 PM
Well done to Howard and the Party. I thought it was going to be close, but what a landslide. Will the knifes be coming out in Labour is things get worse in around two years time?

Epigone
Oct 9th, 2004, 03:48 PM
What do Australians value? After everything that has happened since the last election, and given the result tonight, I really have no idea.

Scotso
Oct 9th, 2004, 05:16 PM
Boo.

Experimentee
Oct 9th, 2004, 06:35 PM
Howard :fiery:
I cant take 3 more years of him. It really does make you wonder what Australians value :mad:
I knew this would happen anyway, Latham is too inexperienced and personality is not very appealing to most people. Why couldnt they have picked a better leader? :rolleyes:

DutchieGirl
Oct 9th, 2004, 06:45 PM
yeah so if Latham is as you said... inexperienced and unappealing, do you wonder why people voted for Howard? :p

Sam L
Oct 10th, 2004, 02:22 AM
I don't think I want to live in Australia anymore. Seriously.

Sam L
Oct 10th, 2004, 03:24 AM
You are in the minority ..... sorry
You do realise that interest rates will still rise? I can't wait. :lol:

Sam L
Oct 10th, 2004, 04:34 AM
there go my hopes and dreams of ever doing law because now Howard will just increase university fees more and more.
There's still HECS. :confused:

Robbie.
Oct 10th, 2004, 04:38 AM
there go my hopes and dreams of ever doing law because now Howard will just increase university fees more and more.What a nonsense. If you get good enough marks, you will still get into law, and you won't start paying for it until you are earning a good wage thanks to a degree that taxpayers have funded 75% of.

Howard :worship:

Robbie.
Oct 10th, 2004, 04:40 AM
You do realise that interest rates will still rise? I can't wait. :lol:Of course they will; it's cyclical. But how much is not certain, and will be determined by economic management. Thankfully we have the A-Grader looking after the economy and not a delinquent :wavey:

Sam L
Oct 10th, 2004, 05:34 AM
Even the conservatives here have endorsed civil unions for same sex couples, and you can apply for residency under the category of unmarried couples........
The bad news about this election is the rise of the so-called "religious right". Australia is heading backwards and if we keep this up, we'll pay for it in the future.

With us hanging on to the use of fossil fuels and lack of funding in science and technology and education in general.

If I ever get an opportunity to study/work in US/UK, I'll leave instantly.

Robbie.
Oct 10th, 2004, 06:58 AM
The bad news about this election is the rise of the so-called "religious right". Australia is heading backwards and if we keep this up, we'll pay for it in the future.

I think the rise of any "extreme" groups commands attention, but in most cases it's just a very small percentage of the population anyway (2.1 % of primary vote went to Family First). The Greens and the "loony left" had a far stronger primary vote. I don't think it's that worrying, you are always going to have a section of the community wanting to look back, wanting to restore the way things were. Family First may have attracted the old One Nation vote? :confused:

With us hanging on to the use of fossil fuels and lack of funding in science and technology and education in general.

The Nelson reforms are the best thing to happen to the tertiary sector in years. Yes, it comes at a cost to the student, but the quality of the universities will benefit unquestionably from it, more than any realistic amount of extra government funding would.

Bjorkman_Girl
Oct 10th, 2004, 09:24 AM
Time to :wavey: and :kiss: the Tassie forests goodbye!
John, you legend for keeping Forestry jobs :bs:

Hopefully Mark will hang around a few more years, John will retire and people will remember they dont want Costello in charge :rolleyes:

Sam L
Oct 10th, 2004, 12:21 PM
I read this in the 'comments' section on SMH. It's written by a Canadian and pretty much sums up what I've been thinking about Howard's re-election.

Australia was once regarded as a great liberal democracy. You were admired for your independence. Nowadays you are more like the American evangelical South. Your society is regressing. The ban on equal access to civil marriage for your sexual minorities was based on religious dogma. It contrasts with the direction taken by Canada and the European Union. Your extreme right is on the rise. Christian fundamentalists are more influential than ever. In essence you are a country going in the wrong direction. You've tarnished your good name and made some very dangerous enemies.

In four weeks we will know if John Howard is the man with access to the big guys in Washington or whether he is to become Australia's political albatross.

So true, I'll be watching the US elections VERY VERY closely. I pray for a Kerry win. Then most Australians will see what a bad decision we've made because there'll be no FTA with US nor closer ties. Where will Howard turn to then??? Possibly become an isolationist country?

Lemonskin.
Oct 10th, 2004, 12:37 PM
Funny that... Latham was the Great White Hope for Labour, and they come out of the election even worse off that they went in.

I cant believe there would be any talk of Latham standing down from the top job... that would be ALP shooting themselves in the foot. They need to establish a leader that will challenge the Liberals in the next election. I reckon Latham could just be the PM next election if he sticks with it.

Beefy
Oct 10th, 2004, 12:43 PM
It was really hard for me last night, because my family and I were around some friends' place, and my mother, sister and myself are all Liberal (my dad doesn't really give that much away), but these people (only two were voting age) one was strong Labour, one's not sure, and the two kids are going on about Labour. It's so hard to try keep your true colours to yourself in those conditions.

Robbie.
Oct 10th, 2004, 01:42 PM
I read this in the 'comments' section on SMH. It's written by a Canadian and pretty much sums up what I've been thinking about Howard's re-election.



So true, I'll be watching the US elections VERY VERY closely. I pray for a Kerry win. Then most Australians will see what a bad decision we've made because there'll be no FTA with US nor closer ties. Where will Howard turn to then??? Possibly become an isolationist country?Yes because a candian would know so much about our country :rolleyes:

That quote is a bunch of rhetoric. This election showed that it is support for the extreme LEFT, not RIGHT, which is rising most significantly. The Greens polled more than 7 % of the primary vote in the house of reps, which is around the same level as the National party, and a lot more than the 2% of the Family First Party. But hey let's not let facts get in the way of a self righteous rant! :tape:

The "isolationist" comment is also rhetoric. Yes, we will be "going it alone" with the other 40+ countries who went to Iraq :haha: This notion that we are going along with the US while few other countries are is nonsense. Who have we "tarnished" our name with? Maybe with the big knobs on the security council, the perenially morally pure (not) french and germans, but not with anyone who was ever going to be beneficial to our national security interests. And who are these "dangerous" enemies? The terrorists? Oh dear, yes, let's jump into bed with those rational terrorists, we wouldn't want to make enemies of them :lol:

Regardless of whether your doomsday predictions about Kerry's election and the subsequent effects on us come true, it's very poor form to be wishing ill for the country simply to vindicate some absurd hatred of Howard. Very poor form.

If Canada is so much more "progressive" than, and "morally superior" to, us then I give you permission to go and live there, and take the writer of that letter to the editor with you :wavey:

Sam L
Oct 10th, 2004, 02:03 PM
Yes because a candian would know so much about our country :rolleyes:

That quote is a bunch of rhetoric. This election showed that it is support for the extreme LEFT, not RIGHT, which is rising most significantly. The Greens polled more than 7 % of the primary vote in the house of reps, which is around the same level as the National party, and a lot more than the 2% of the Family First Party. But hey let's not let facts get in the way of a self righteous rant! :tape:

The "isolationist" comment is also rhetoric. Yes, we will be "going it alone" with the other 40+ countries who went to Iraq :haha: This notion that we are going along with the US while few other countries are is nonsense. Who have we "tarnished" our name with? Maybe with the big knobs on the security council, the perenially morally pure (not) french and germans, but not with anyone who was ever going to be beneficial to our national security interests. And who are these "dangerous" enemies? The terrorists? Oh dear, yes, let's jump into bed with those rational terrorists, we wouldn't want to make enemies of them :lol:

Regardless of whether your doomsday predictions about Kerry's election and the subsequent effects on us come true, it's very poor form to be wishing ill for the country simply to vindicate some absurd hatred of Howard. Very poor form.

If Canada is so much more "progressive" than, and "morally superior" to, us then I give you permission to go and live there, and take the writer of that letter to the editor with you :wavey:
I'm not wishing ill for the country. All I'm saying that Liberal voters (which is most of the country, I guess) will live to regret their decision.

It's not my problem that Howard is chums with Bush and that Bush may not be getting re-elected in a few weeks. It's a grave he's dug for himself and for the country if Bush isn't re-elected.

It's a fact that if Kerry is elected that he'll turn his ties towards Germany and France rather than with Australia (especially given Howard is PM). And I'm glad for them.

I've also read that the RB is planning to raise interest rates in the next few months.

I guess the next 3 years will be interesting and fun. :D

Sam L
Oct 10th, 2004, 02:09 PM
If Canada is so much more "progressive" than, and "morally superior" to, us then I give you permission to go and live there, and take the writer of that letter to the editor with you :wavey:
See you're already sounding like one of those evangeical Americans, "if you don't like it, get out"?

And the Greens got 7% of the vote? So what, the Liberals will have full control of the Senate, which means they can pass ANY laws they like. And they've aligned themselves with the religious right - Family First, so we pretty much do have a religious right government.

Robbie.
Oct 10th, 2004, 02:44 PM
See you're already sounding like one of those evangeical Americans, "if you don't like it, get out"?

And the Greens got 7% of the vote? So what, the Liberals will have full control of the Senate, which means they can pass ANY laws they like. And they've aligned themselves with the religious right - Family First, so we pretty much do have a religious right government.
You're confusing the issues. Firstly the Liberals do not have control of the senate. They will have half of the seats in there which is not "control". In any case when did they become a "religious right" party? :confused: The fact that Australia has given the Liberals, a secular party, 38 seats in the senate should be seen as no indication of the country's leaning to the religious right.

The fact that family first is likely to get ONE SINGLE Senate seat and likely to support the Coalition on most, although by no means all, legislation, means that the government will be able to pass more legislation than it has been in previous senates. But it's drawing a long bow, a ludicrous deduction, to conclude that because a fraction of the population voted in ONE SINGLE Family First senator, however likely that senator is to support the govt, that we are as a country moving to the religious right. It's like saying that in previous parliaments where we have voted in Democrats and Greens senators who have allied themselves with the ALP, that that senate majority is a "hard left" majority, and that the disposition of the electorate was moving towards the "hard left". If you know anything about the voting system you will know that proportional representation used in the Senate is designed to, and does, result in a Senate where the number of senators of any party reflects the proportion of support it has in the community. So to have 1 "religious right" senator out of 76 is weak and insubstantial proof that the Australian electorate is moving to the religious right. It's a piss weak argument in fact.

Robbie.
Oct 10th, 2004, 02:53 PM
I'm not wishing ill for the country. All I'm saying that Liberal voters (which is most of the country, I guess) will live to regret their decision.

It's not my problem that Howard is chums with Bush and that Bush may not be getting re-elected in a few weeks. It's a grave he's dug for himself and for the country if Bush isn't re-elected.

It's a fact that if Kerry is elected that he'll turn his ties towards Germany and France rather than with Australia (especially given Howard is PM). And I'm glad for them.

I've also read that the RB is planning to raise interest rates in the next few months.

I guess the next 3 years will be interesting and fun. :DMore speculation and doomsday predictions, and then a smiley face at the end, and you expect me not to think that you are hoping that things go wrong so you can say "i told you so"? :lol:

I'm glad you know so much about Kerry's foreign policy objectives if elected to office. I'm also glad that you know more about the economy than those who have been managing it successfully for 8 1/2 years. I'll give you one thing though, your ability to forecast the future with such certainty is outstanding :D

For the record, if we do live to regret our decision the great thing is that we can throw the Libs out at the next election. That's the great thing about living in a LIBERAL DEMOCRACY, however unhealthy some Canadian smartass thinks ours is.

Mateo Mathieu
Oct 10th, 2004, 03:34 PM
Another 3 years for John Howard, meh! :rolleyes:

Experimentee
Oct 10th, 2004, 04:20 PM
What a nonsense. If you get good enough marks, you will still get into law, and you won't start paying for it until you are earning a good wage thanks to a degree that taxpayers have funded 75% of.

Howard :worship:

No one wants to be saddled with a $30 000+ debt when they leave uni.
I highly doubt that the quality of anything will prove either. Most of the other times they take away funding in order to improve the quality of something, it always happens that there is no noticable difference, but still the increase in price.

Robbie.
Oct 10th, 2004, 11:18 PM
No one wants to be saddled with a $30 000+ debt when they leave uni.
I highly doubt that the quality of anything will prove either. Most of the other times they take away funding in order to improve the quality of something, it always happens that there is no noticable difference, but still the increase in price.There's a difference between no difference and no noticeable difference.

As for the increase in Hecs, well it comes out of your salary along with Tax, so it's not something you have to make provisions for. I will be paying it, and while obviously I'd prefer not to, I can understand the logic that the taxpayer should not be obliged to pay for the whole of my degree, which is (hopefully) going to lead on to a very profitable career. I mean the $30,000 hecs is a fraction of what any moderately successful lawyer makes in a year.

In any case to say that you are PREVENTED from doing law by the price is a LIE. If your marks are good enough, you get in, and pay it off later, when you can afford it.

bionic71
Oct 11th, 2004, 12:31 AM
I read this in the 'comments' section on SMH. It's written by a Canadian and pretty much sums up what I've been thinking about Howard's re-election.



So true, I'll be watching the US elections VERY VERY closely. I pray for a Kerry win. Then most Australians will see what a bad decision we've made because there'll be no FTA with US nor closer ties. Where will Howard turn to then??? Possibly become an isolationist country?

I sense this as well and it is something that I have mentioned in previous threads over the last few years. It disappoints, angers and frightens me.

DutchieGirl
Oct 11th, 2004, 01:58 AM
I don't think I want to live in Australia anymore. Seriously.
I'm already planning on moving... just not because of the election result! :p

DutchieGirl
Oct 11th, 2004, 02:05 AM
:yawn: Thank God we don't have to vote for another 3 years... maybe I'll even be out of this place by then! :woohoo: (Although I'm thinking I'll probably have to vote one more time before I leave).

*JR*
Oct 11th, 2004, 03:05 AM
:yawn: Thank God we don't have to vote for another 3 years... maybe I'll even be out of this place by then! :woohoo: You and Kim will almost be trading places! :p

Philbo
Oct 11th, 2004, 04:53 AM
I really feel its a sad day for Australia. I guess I just think very differently to my fellow Aussies.

I do believe we are headed for a 'nasty' period in Australian politics where the minorities and disadvantaged are left out of the governments plans and considerations even further whilst the middle class and well off will become even more 'better off'.

It just amazes me that australia has given a mandate to givernment that went to war with no good reason..It just shows how fucked up peoples priorities are - doesnt matter how many iraqi people get killed each day as long as families dont have to pay a hundred bucks more a month on their mortgage...

The fact that for the first time in 20 years the liberals (or any govt for that matter) has complete control of the upper and lower house is a terrible result as is family first getting a senate seat - they are borderline facists and just shows the direction the country is headed.

I want to live in Spain - now there is a progressive country where the majority of people think like me.

Veritas
Oct 11th, 2004, 06:16 AM
I think it was really Latham's inexperience that played against him in this election. Howard's had 3 previous terms already, and besides a few hiccups he's done a good job with the economy - which I believe was the Liberal's strongest selling point.

For the record I voted for Labour. At least Latham promised some sort of "correction" to that stupid 25% HECS increase and the introduction of that 'CSP' crap. I mean, I'd be surprised if any student were to vote for a government that increased fees, placed a limit on study time and cut back on discounts to up-front payers. That and the Liberal's handling of the Tampa and Children Overboard fiasco made me a Labour voter this time round.

Besides, I don't like Peter Costello anyway. Voting for Howard would almost guarantee him retiring soon and have Costello take over as the PM :scared:

Robbie.
Oct 11th, 2004, 09:24 AM
It sounds like nonsense now but this whole increase is leading to a upfront paying system. Did you realise they increased places for full fee paying students who only have to get 94 to get into law and i have to get 99.3. Yeh, talk about not pandering to the elite of society.
Of course I realise that, I was looking to get into Law last year. Full fee paying does frustrate me, for me it was the onyl drawback about voting for the government. But hey, if you don't get the enter to get into Melbourne or Monash, there are plenty of other uni's which offer Law at a slightly lower enter - 97 or so. If you really want to do law then you can do it :) Good Luck with that :wavey:

I mean, I'd be surprised if any student were to vote for a government that increased fees, placed a limit on study time and cut back on discounts to up-front payers.
Wow, I must be a freak then :lol:

I want to live in Spain - now there is a progressive country where the majority of people think like me.

Yes, buckling to terrorists is the sign of a strong nation :tape:

The overreaction about Family First getting a senate seat in here is hysterical. This election demonstrated that their is far greater support for the extreme left than than the extreme right.

DutchieGirl
Oct 11th, 2004, 04:10 PM
You and Kim will almost be trading places! :p
Well hey, no problem! I'll swap with her! ;) Belgium's close enough! :p

Mateo Mathieu
Oct 11th, 2004, 04:18 PM
I would love move to live in Canada but like inkyfan said before, I don't move out of this country because of election results unless if it's getting worse in next 3 years ;)

Philbo
Oct 11th, 2004, 11:46 PM
Robbie - YOu may judge Spain pulling out as buckling to the terrorists, I see it as Spain correcting a situation that should never have existed - i.e they should never have been in Iraq at all.

I was more talking about the fact that in Spain discrimination is really illegal. Minorities and disadvantaged groups are treated more humanely there than in Australia today - ive always been a fiecely patriotic sort of guy, I love Australia but I am beginning to feel ashamed of my fellow australians - we really are a more racist, prejudiced country than I grew up beleiving...

switz
Oct 12th, 2004, 12:48 AM
howard and latham are both battlers. robbie is a liberal party plant. probably the leader of the young liberals because no other objective student could support for the howard government is doing to higher education for young australians.

this country is going to become progressively dumber and that's exactly what howard wants because his political agenda is all about appealing to stupid people. fee paying international students are going to hand over their big cheques, learn a lot, and then go home. what kind of country requires somebody get 99.7 as an 18 year old in order to become a lawyer? law is not hard, and just like with doctors getting 99 whatever in your HSC is far from a good indication that you will be a good lawyer.

i dislike latham primarily because i come from a wealthy background and i really felt like he was out to get anyone who had any advantage in life. also i really don't want to have to play like 40 000 grand a year to eventually send my kids to my school

Robbie.
Oct 12th, 2004, 09:25 AM
howard and latham are both battlers. robbie is a liberal party plant. probably the leader of the young liberals because no other objective student could support for the howard government is doing to higher education for young australians.

this country is going to become progressively dumber and that's exactly what howard wants because his political agenda is all about appealing to stupid people. fee paying international students are going to hand over their big cheques, learn a lot, and then go home. what kind of country requires somebody get 99.7 as an 18 year old in order to become a lawyer? law is not hard, and just like with doctors getting 99 whatever in your HSC is far from a good indication that you will be a good lawyer.

i dislike latham primarily because i come from a wealthy background and i really felt like he was out to get anyone who had any advantage in life. also i really don't want to have to play like 40 000 grand a year to eventually send my kids to my schoolyes, i'm a plant :lol:

Many other countries require a student to be post-graduate to get into law, we don't. The ENTER system can be unfair, I agree, a number certainly doesn't mean you are going to have an aptitude for a particular occupation. But I firmly believe that it's the only way. Law may not be THAT hard, but it's not easy either; it's a fallacy to think that anyone can do it. It requires copious amounts of reading, commitment and general cognitive ability. The students who rank highly in VCE or equivalent are more likely to have these attributes than those who don't. Probably anyone who gets 90+ is capable of doing law, depending on the subjects they have done, but then it does become a matter of competition and the fact that there must be the prospect of jobs at the end.

As I said I would rather not pay HECS, but unlike some (all?) students I can see the practical side of things, and the fact that it is not realistic or practical for there to be "free tertiary education", nor do I believe it, in the long run, to be particularly fair as a matter of policy. And let's not forget it was the ALP who introduced HECS in the first place. I don't like full fee paying at all, and it was the only thing I disagreed with on the Howard agenda. But the fact is that in the long run, whether I or others as individual students like it or not, the Nelson reforms will be beneficial to the quality of our universities. People talk about the government's policies being (1) unfair to students and (2) contributing to the declining quality. These claims are inconsistent. As I said, in terms of improving quality the Nelson reforms are the best thing to happen to universities for decades - ask any Vice Chancellor! The reality is that while in the short-term it seems to be "unfair" for students to be hit with extra HECS, in the long run they will benefit from a better quality system. Cutting HECS and full-fee paying to be "fairer" to students would ultimately penalise them because the quality of their degree would be diminished. It's all about finding the right balance.

Czechfan, I really think you're overreacting. We are not a rascist country at all, we just look after our own interests first before those of other countries (kind of like "moral" France not giving the go ahead to Iraq because of their own oil deals. Yes they weren't fuelled by self interest at all :lol: ). I disagree that minorities are discriminated against to the extent you make out, and even if you take the position that they are, I don't see how the election of the ALP would have solved anything given that on most issues the two parties are pretty much in agreeance. People say refugees are discriminated against, I consider myself well informed on the matter and, considering matters of practicality, don't think they are (or have been as there are NO refugees, not A SINGLE ONE, left in detention now) treated inhumanely. Even if you think they have been, it was the ALP who introduced mandatory detention, the instrument of the inhumane conduct, in the first place! IMO Gays are probably the only ones who can truly be said to be discriminated against, but that wouldn't have changed irregardless of who was elected. Personally I think the the granting of legal "marriage" type rights to homosexuals is a very small concession for government to make, and don't see why equal rights in this regard is such a contentious issue in politics. It shouldn't even be an issue!

The indignition on here and elsewhere about Howard's re-election is not justified. Both major parties are, ultimately, very similar on most issues of social justice. People who consider the ALP a "white knight" on these issues are either kidding themselves or downright delluded. In fact I would go so far as to say that the ALP shot itself in the foot by failing to differentiate themselves adequately from the Coalition on health, education and social issues. Both parties were very obviously more concerned with winning power than employing any vision; the "stupid" public that switz refers to was smart enough to see through Latham's rhetoric to the fact that the ALP's policies were more about winning votes than really addressing pressing issues of inequality. In the light of this, the election race was essentially reduced to a plebiscite on who could be better trusted to manage the economy. That was a no contest, and thus the result. The election result is no more or less significant than that!