Election time. Who you votin for?

i'll take you up on this one.

When John Howard was treasurer - Interest rates were 22%, unemployment and inflation were all in double figures - the only oz treasurer in history to get this trifecta.
regardless of interest rates, houses were also more affordable then and rates of mortgage stress are higher now than in history, therefore people are stretched more now than then.

its a complete pile of shit and a Liberal party con to take credit for low interest rates when its largely to do with international economic forces, ie chinese booming economy, price of oil rising etc and then distance yourself when the rates go up. funnily enough, the Libs 34 billion tax vote-buy effort has been mentioned by the reserve bank as likely to bring another interest rate rise - so you get tax back but then lose it all in interest and inflation! howard has riden the coat-tails of the major economic reforms put in place by the labour government of the 80s (howard was too pussy to do it himself).

note that it wasnt helped by the wall street crash of the late 80s which kicked off the recession (which lasted one whole year)... and regardless, the same economic situation occurred in the UK, but there it was a conservative party in power during the recession and the labour party is in power now during their boom.




havent we been paying some levy set up by howard before the last election to raise millions to do something about the murray? i havent heard that the money has been used for anything yet.



i dont think i would have such an issue with the work choices thing if it wasnt something that seems to regularly disavantage the lowest paid/youngest workers. rudd has said he'll keep AWA's for the higher paid workers who actually want them, but then remove the AWAs (which remove a serious safety net) for the lower paid workers. the recently introduced fairness test has already been a proven failure.
keep in mind that liberal senator nick minchin apologised to a business/free market leaders group (HR Nicholls society) that the IR laws hadnt gone far enough and that after this election, the next round of changes would be introduced...


for me though i cant trust a guy who lies about refugees throwing their children overboard, bribes saddam hussein through the AWB, then sends the army into an illegal war against Iraq (who have been armed with AWB bribe money) and makes us a greater terrorist target in the process, removes our civil liberties and privacy laws, refuses to address climate change, lies to the population about interest rates, further marginalises aboriginals and removes native title, railroads the republic debate.... fuck there are so so many reasons. in 11 years he's done sweet fuck all that i can applaud him on bar banning automatic rifles.

and a vote for howard is a vote for having peter costello as our next PM. fucking spare me

This post has been edited by jayar: Oct 27 2007, 08:30 PM

I'm with you. Go Green!!

I see voting for either of the two major parties as trading one devil for another I'm afraid. We're the mongs that let them get away with the shite they've put our country through by voting for them in the first place, not voting properly or not voting at all though. You'd have to be completely fucking naive to think that either one of the main jokers actually gives a rats about this country and where it will be in the next 20 years. It seems to be that the only common theme in politics in this country is to live for today and hope like fuck you're not still around to face the music when all your fake campaign iniatives and ridiculous promises fall into the heap of crap they always there. Climate change is a prime example of this... I can't say I care much either way for all the hype and crap that's being spread about. I don't think any of the majors have valid election promises because history shows us that they're not going to keep them anyway. May as well go green. I'm not a hippy but I'm not a fucking idiot too... voting for Rudd or Howard just seems completely idiotic to me. Fucking God botherer's the lot of them!

I don't care if anyone disagrees with me. There is nothing that anyone can say to make me believe that either Howard or Rudd will do the right thing by this country and I just don't care enough to get of my arse and do anything about it myself. Apathy - the only Australian right that they can't take away from us!

This post has been edited by mich: Oct 29 2007, 08:28 AM

vote for greens = preferences to labour = vote for labour ?

the AWB isnt even worth mentioning! -that is complete media hype bullshit
bribes are the way the entire world trade operates , we only just outbid the americans to secure the contract - its be in it or dont get a deal for christs sake
the childreen overboard was missinformation supply, noone is that stupid to lie when the truth is easily available
and I really miss my automatic rifle , wish all the do-gooders would get a reality check and realise that illegal guns kill and will always be out there and registered guns are not yours to take

Why should you be any different from anyone else on RA?

my thoughts exactly Matt!

mate i feel that pain ...

previously in Adelaide we had Kate Ellis - a reasonable choice and not Liberal. Now we are in Boothby and stuck with the two major choices of the same dickwad incumbent Lib Southcott, or the unattractive, unintelligent, unknown Nicole "my-Husband-used-to-play-football" Cornes. faark ...

I would like to use my vote this year to protest at the nepotism and lies coming out of the Howard gov, but faced with being represented by Nicole I just don't know anymore. If it wasn't for her, I would be happy to vote Lab and hope that enough of us band together to get Howard/Costello out - a case of "anything but him/them".

I have had thoughts that local MP's do fukall for their constituents anyway, so it won't matter if Nicole or anyone else is sitting in the Boothby chair, but I must say still unsure. Now if Green pref go to Labour then a Green vote becomes more than a symbolic vote and can actually change our leadership ...

and as for all those silly promises - if they were genuinely good for the community why would they be conditional on one party getting itno power? Parliament (both federal and state) should be about US in the community not those that serve.

***and MX - go for a postal vote, see aec.gov.au for details - you may not be able to vote if your details are not uptodate as the timeframe has passed for further changes

you'll have to do a mail in vote babe. i'll find out the details and PM them to you when I get a minute later on

Thanks baby,your the best,I need all the help I can get at the moment!

+ 1

I have no idea who i am voting for. I dont know anything about polotics what so ever.

The things that worry me are in interest rates on housing and climate change.

I for one dont want to see Peter Costello leading us when John Howard isnt around.

Don't forget that the current mining boom also plays a role here, but your right. Political decisions do play a part in what the interest rate is, but it's important for everyone to remember that the reserve bank sets interest rates, and fiscal policy is only one of a number of determining factors.

Yes you can say that the vote-buy (which rudd had to match) could create an inflationary pressure (causing interest rates to rise) but the last 2 years of tax cuts hasn't been the doom and gloom that the bank warned of before the last election either. Yes interest rates have risen, but thats mainly because of our booming economy (making it attractive for international investment) but also the fact that most people chose to spend the tax cuts, instead of saving it for their future.

When this mining boom ends, especially if the drought continues, we could get a recession and you'll need your savings then! You won't want a mortgage either. We can't be in boom times forever, despite the fact we have been for around the last 10-12 years.

I was gonna create this thread soon too but pratty got in first so bigups to him. Poll needs more options however please - i was gonna put all the major parties in plus a couple of extras like "independant", "the honourable alexb618" and we need an option for "not enrolled to vote/dummy vote"

Its a tough decision for me too but i think i'm going labour and probably a minor party/independant in the senate. Especially in the last 18 months or so, howard has been far too arrogant and some of the things his done so far in the campaign like the reaction to the chaser boys and his reaction to tony pilkington on 5AA when asked about the debate, have been just plain rude!!!

This post has been edited by jjcoolaus: Oct 29 2007, 11:04 AM

You can do it online these days I beleive..

you can download the forms to register for a postal vote online but you cannot vote online. Marie needs to fill out the forms and they'll send her a ballot or she needs to go to the nearest Australian Embassy or Mission to do it.

wft, go study economics, then come back. over half of ur statments dont follow economic theory.


agree

can you elaborate further? T'would be nice if you could actually debate instead of just flinging negativity ...

No no, you may find Turbulance (sic) isn't agreeing with you .. otherwise you'll find im an idiot, i think it will be the former.

This is true about a vote for a minor party going to one of the major parties anyway, but I care about the state of the planet we walk on, and I figure if enough of us little guys put in a vote that supports the Green Movement (or whatever minor movement we believe in) then at least the Major Party will have to take their views into account (I'd hope anyway).....

Does the H.E.M.P. Party still exist

There are a couple of good reasons for voting for a minor party.

1) It sends a message to the major parties that you care about the policies of the minor party that gets your primary (ie number 1) vote.

2) As long as that minor party ends up with at least 4% of the vote, the party will receive around $2 per primary vote in federal funding - thus allowing the party to remain in existence, get better resources, employ more staff (or any at all). Obviously, this helps foster more diversity in the political landscape, rather than leaving us in the two-party rut.

The key to making your primary vote for a minor party count in the way you want it to is to think carefully about where you place your preferences.

There are really two elections at a federal election. One is for the House of Representatives (the lower house, green ballot paper), the other is for the Senate (the upper house, white ballot paper). These have different voting options.

In the lower house, you need to number every box in order of your preference. If the candidate who got your number 1 vote gets knocked out of the count, your vote will flow on at full value to the candidate who got your number 2, and so on. eg if you voted for the Greens 1 and ALP 2, and the Greens candidate got knocked out, your vote would go to the ALP pile. Therefore, you could send a message to the major parties that you support the Greens' policies, the Greens will pick up two bucks in federal funding from your vote, and then your vote will go to the Labor candidate - which could be your contribution to electing Rudd as PM.

In the Senate, you can vote either above the line or below the line. If you vote above the line, you just put a 1 for the party you want to give your primary vote to, and by doing that you take on the preference flow that that party has lodged with the Australian Electoral Commission. You might want to take a look at where those preferences go beforehand, as your vote may end up on the pile of a party you do not support. (Exhibit A: Labor preferences going to Family First in the 2004 federal election!) You can find out this info at the AEC website - http://aec.gov.au/Elections/federal_electi...didates/gvt.htm

If you vote below the line with the Senate, you have to number EVERY box, which can take aaaaaages because there are so many Senate candidates, but it means you can put your preferences exactly in the order you like. But if you stuff up the numbering, your vote is invalid. You can always get a fresh ballot paper though.

*takes breath* Sorry, I am a bit of an election nerd

And for the record, I am voting Green, in both the House of Reps and the Senate. In the House of Reps I will Greens 1 and then ALP in front of the Liberals (and Family First), as I would rather have Rudd as our next Prime Minister. In the Senate, I'll vote above the line for the Greens, cos I've checked out their preference flow online and I'm happy with it.

no, it was the new laws - the staff pooled together and sought legal advice from a law firm who specialises in corporate & IR law, so from their mouth:

The new IR laws made it easier, ie CHEAPER for the company to get rid of the employees of said firm.
i wasnt a party to anything more than that - bear in mind that many of the people employed were no longer on valid contracts cos theyd been working there for up to 2 decades. maybe they still couldve gotten rid of them, but the new laws made it MUCH simpler to do so, and now thanks to a UK firm who is not providing anything to this state, there are now close to 100, highly skilled employees, many with families, on the dole.

...don't be sorry...its good to hear from someone who obviously knows their stuff

I always vote Green, purely because I'm an old hippy at heart, and as far as I am concerned nothing is more important that the planet that supports us all, but you have made very valid points that will keep me doing so for years to come I think.....

Unlike you I am not an election nerd, I just do my voting duty (to avoid the fine) and generally vote with my heart more than my head, but thank you for the very informative post

This post has been edited by S.M.P.: Yesterday, 10:08 PM

Excellent point. Because the fairness test was never part of Howards plans, it wasn't introduced at the same time the new ir laws were. It was introduced later when the government realised just how badly some people were getting shafted in an effort to make AWA's more fair for both parties. The problem I have is this, let's say your a young worker looking for a job and your negotiation your pay with someone who has had training on how to deal and manipulate people and who has been in a position of authority for a number of years. Who do you think is going to come out better? Also, the fairness test only applies to AWA's, not EBA's, so in the example of my previous post about the company demanding an extra half hour for no pay increase, that wouldn't have to be subject to the fairness test. The new laws allow companies to 'lock out' employees far more easily than it allows employees to go on strike, and if your a supplier your customer can also log a claim not to strike.

This post has been edited by Burgie: Today, 08:30 AM

its a worry isnt it

BINGO! That's exactly the way it is. Can't believe they managed to fool us for so long. Not this time Howard!

My vote is to Labor and hopefully they can reverse some of his bullshit Industrial Relations Laws.

And on another note make sure you don't waste your vote, number all squares... and put them in your favourite parties order to ensure preferences are distributed correctly.

I'll be putting Labor top (1), followed by green's, democrats, others, then Liberals and Nationals at the bottom of my list.

Then in the senate I'll just be putting Labor (1)

If the Libs win we're screwed and I'm going to live as a hippy in the middle of the bush for the rest of my life! So go Rudd!

BWHAHAHA yeah how many clubhouses have they bulldosed? none because they fuckin cant its persecution at its worsed if it wasnt they would have bulldosed the lot! NOT 1 is gone. thats your fuckin wanker mike rann and his bullshit to win votes! whats next they ban raves and dance partys because drugs are taken there? then they ban football club clothing because of soccer thugs and violence THIS GOVERMENT is full of shit and persecution of people! how the fuck are they going to make it illegal to wear a certain top or jacket? what a load of shit!

fuck you mike rann!

cracking down on bikies PFFFFFFFFFFFT!

This post has been edited by metal head!: Nov 21 2007, 08:27 PM

Hmmm... maybe Paul could learn from the political parties




I think the greens will get a few more people in as many people feel the way you do.
Not looking forward to voting below the line though!

Put Greens (1) in the Senate to restore the Senate as the house of review. The Greens are the only party with a realistic chance of getting the balance of power, but they need every vote they can get. The Libs/Nationals having control over the senate has been a disaster. There is no way they would have got Workchoices through if the Democrats or Greens had the balance of power.

I want Rudd to win also but I am voting Green and preferencing Labour.

Bye Bye John!

You know, I think i'm inclined to agree - it's starting to become the lesser of 2 evils. I know one thing for sure, on the day, my last preference will go to liberal. There is no way I want Howard in again - he might be a great economic manager, but that's his only positive. Everything is negative.

Ditto on Peter Costello - the man isn't human enough to run a country.

Putting labour in charge of the economy is a risk, BUT some things, like addressing climate change, improving workplace conditions (for those less fortunate than myself), and improving broadband access are more important than money.

A FTTN network throughout the cities is a concern however, because if they let anyone monopolize it, which labour has refused to say whether it will or not, we'll all be paying more PLUS to add insult to financial injury, all current ADSL2+ gear will be ripped out of the exchanges so we can't even stay where we are now.

I'd be happy to go to FTTN so long as i can stay with my current provider (node) at the same cost i'm paying now, as it result in a higher speed for me at the end of the day.

Anyway back to politics - I forgot to mention in my earlier posts that i was polled for the first time last weekend - soemone from a marketing company (cant remember which) rang me up saturday arvo and asked all sorts of questions like who would i vote for if an election were tomorrow, who did i vote for last time, what issues are important to me, etc, etc - interview only lasted <5 minutes

i heard that ann bressington's 18 yo daughter die of a herion overdose back in 94 which would explain her anti drugs (harm minimisation) outlook... also to say that dont vote for nick because of ann is a bit of a stretch though? she wont be following him into the federal politics and she bagged him just recently in her recent speech, so i dont think that she would have won any brownie points with nick... (personally, im not a fan at all of ann - her narrow minded views are doing much damage). maybe we need a pro sa candidate in federal politics who is politically and media savvy to help give sa a bigger profile?

with nick's preferences going to family first and the greens, wouldn't he actually be nullifying his preferences as family first and the greens hate each other and are opposite ends of the spectrum so therefore neither would gain an advantage? maybe he's a little craftier than we think

100% agree - absolute power corrupts absolutely - with the current government having control of the senate as well, it turned into what ever the prime minister wanted, he got... we need the checks and balances to ensure that what the government puts up for legislation, it is for everyone's best interest - a not just the fortunate few...

opps, i mean her 22 yo daughter back in 98...

Thats just stupid ! and un Australian