ELECTIONS - Labor or Liberal

[arminius]

look i agree, swan annoys me as well. he is far too quick to jump in and get all defensive blah blah, and i wish they had tanner as tres. as for jg, put me in an elevator with her and helen coonan and ill take jules thank you very much. but, its not about individual personalities. its the big picture.
besides, after nov 25 you wont hear much from them all. the nations sick to death of seeing pollies on the box every single night and day. i know i am.
and julia, i think your red neck is turning pinker by the day.
but at least youve got a neck. everyone tells me i havent. (think rugby prop)

 

[moXJO]

but at least youve got a neck. everyone tells me i havent. (think rugby prop)

Up to your shoulders in Rudd : jk
Sorry couldnt resist

 

[roland]

I have trouble with all elections for the following reasons:

- It doesn't seem to matter - they are all fronts for larger influences that I don't understand or have informational access to

- My vote in the larger pool of votes is close to no consequence to the outcome

- The media, in my opinion, is the major influence to who wins ... remember the worm, remember Alan Jones and remember the number of mindless clones that follow media bias

- There never seems to be a good option covering everything that I want ... yes, pull our troops, no to terrorism, no to cutting down old growth forests, yes to zero tolerance on criminals, no to reduction in civil liberties, yes to better hospitals and education, no to increases in taxes, yes to exporting uranium, yes to reduce government waste on useless headcounts in government, no to anything that negatively impacts our environment, yes to better water and land management, yes to better military defence, no to increased unwarranted foreign aid, no to immigration to incompatible cultures .... etc

My list seems to go on forever, and I am sure we all have a differing view and I am sure that in reality we will never have an ideal candidate to fill our individual needs. We generally pick out the best alternative of the media presented flavour of the day in choosing a complete Government. Considering that a large portion of the voting public are not entirely free thinking, include large numbers of fanatical groups, have religious and racial agendas - then I wonder how we can ever have a Government that truley represents the wants and needs of the average Australian.

Truthfully I don't like any of the candidates. We have so many more better Australians, probably in the thousands that would make a hugley better PM than the choices we are forced to deal with - even my mother would do a better job.

Out of 21 million people (some obviously a bit young), we get a choice of 2 - I think lotto has a better chance of making us a winner.

 

[Rafa]

know how you feel roland...
alas its a choice between two...


This policy below tho does make labor a better choice IMO, especially after the recent string of cover-up's and the 'i know nothings' from the howard govt...

LABOR has pledged to break "the code of silence" it says has developed under the Howard Government, promising to extensively overhaul the freedom of information laws.

As accountability shapes as an issue in this election, Labor said its changes would foster open government and relate to journalist privilege, whistleblower protection and privacy laws.

The party wants a freedom of information commissioner to replace the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the freedom of information review process and changes to current journalist shield laws to allow reporters to protect their sources.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd and shadow attorney-general Joe Ludwig said an ALP government would ensure that a responsible journalist was never again prosecuted for a story that was merely embarrassing to a government.

They said strong FOI laws would mean that bureaucrats provided advice to their ministers without fear or favour ”” knowing they could be held to account and their decisions potentially made public.

The changes would prevent a government from refusing to release information, such as when Treasurer Peter Costello blocked details on income tax bracket creep and the first-time home owners scheme.

Mr Rudd and Senator Ludwig said the Howard Government had shrunk away from the light of public scrutiny and transparency by abusing the current law and called for a more open system.

Between 1997-98 and 2005-06, the Government refused full access to 75,064 information requests, and since 2005-06, full access to 8,655 information requests was refused.

Media companies have joined in a campaign to extend freedom of information and other provisions to reduce the secrecy that has engulfed government.

Full Article: http://www.theage.com.au/news/feder...ul-freedom-laws/2007/10/26/1192941340879.html

 

[greggy]

good evening julia,
i think i read somewhere that you are gonig to vote lib. yet every now and then you seem to waver.
now, close your eyes....relax...breathe......vote for those who you know in your heart to be the right choice. let go of your fears...forget your prejudice......ignore the negativity........come over to the light......we await you.......

I think from the posts I've read that Julia might well be a soft Liberal supporter. By that I mean that she does not come across as a die hard Liberal and thinks about who she's going to vote for. Her intelligent posts are often thought provoking.

In my household, my wife will be always be voting Labor and thats how it is. As for myself, I've always been a swinging voter. I voted Labor at the last state election and federally I backed the Liberals.

IMO Howard won the first week of this election campaign, but since then Rudd has come back strongly. Unless Rudd stuffs up like Latham did during the 04 election, I reckon that Rudd is headed for the top job. He's very similar to Howard. If an election were held today I would have voted Labour. After 11 years in office, the Howard Government is looking a bit tired. IMO Howard is not committed as he once was as he's already stated that he will be retiring mid term. He is the first PM in history to say this. Rudd in this respect is more committed. After Howard retires (should he win) there's no guarantee that Costello will become PM. I find Costello very similar to Keating. I voted for Howard in the 96 election feeling that it was time for a change. Once again I'm getting this feeling. At recent BBQs I've attended most people reckon Howard's done a reasonable job (with the exception of IR and maybe Iraq) and agree that a change would bring some fresh air.
Of course if Rudd stuffs it up we can always vote against him at the next election. But for the sake of this amazing country lets hope he does a good job should he win.

 

[Julia]

Today I was speaking with someone who knows both Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan pretty well. She put forth the view that Kevin Rudd has all his life been what she called obedient, i.e. he pretty much does what he is told by the power brokers (in this case the unions). Her view was that when (not if) he's elected he won't last long before being rolled.

I have no idea whether this is right or not but it's a view I haven't heard expressed before. I can't say it has been my impression. Apart from his irritatingly repetitive use of cliches "can I just say", "crystal clear", "Australian working families", etc etc he seems to me to be fairly decisive, yet quite thoughtful and reasonable.

Just can't say the same for the rest of the bunch and herein lies my difficulty.

Greggy, thanks for your comments. So it sounds as though you are coming down off the fence, huh!

So, Arminius, as you can see, I haven't swung over yet. Several weeks to go (sigh).

 

[wayneL]

I would put up with Wayne Swine for 3 years to be shot of Johnny Rotten.

I would be a struggle, but certainly no less unbearable than the Banana Republic guy.

 

[greggy]

Today I was speaking with someone who knows both Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan pretty well. She put forth the view that Kevin Rudd has all his life been what she called obedient, i.e. he pretty much does what he is told by the power brokers (in this case the unions). Her view was that when (not if) he's elected he won't last long before being rolled.

I have no idea whether this is right or not but it's a view I haven't heard expressed before. I can't say it has been my impression. Apart from his irritatingly repetitive use of cliches "can I just say", "crystal clear", "Australian working families", etc etc he seems to me to be fairly decisive, yet quite thoughtful and reasonable.

Just can't say the same for the rest of the bunch and herein lies my difficulty.

Greggy, thanks for your comments. So it sounds as though you are coming down off the fence, huh!

So, Arminius, as you can see, I haven't swung over yet. Several weeks to go (sigh).

Hi Julia,

No worries. Your comments are well thought out and I tend to agree with the vast majority of them.
Its taken me a while to finally get off the fence. All along I've tried to give a balanced view of political affairs. I see both good and bad within the major political parties. Its good to see that the ALP has finally found a capable leader in Rudd. Most voters now consider him to be a safe pair of hands. IMO history will judge Howard as having been an above average PM, but one who should have retired whilst he was on top. His major mistakes have been on IR and Iraq. He should have recalled his troops from there. Howard now risks losing his seat just like Stanley Bruce in 1929 when he lost his seat (Flinders). What a way to fall.

 

[Rafa]

If labor gets rid of Rudd, i won't be voting for labor...
As for alternative liberal PM's... i hope turnbull gets the job ahead of Costello.

 

[YELNATS]

Today I was speaking with someone who knows both Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan pretty well. She put forth the view that Kevin Rudd has all his life been what she called obedient, i.e. he pretty much does what he is told by the power brokers (in this case the unions). Her view was that when (not if) he's elected he won't last long before being rolled.

I've got a feeling that with the fullness of time and the benefit of hindsight, all this effort to associate the leadership of the ALP with the worst aspects of unionism will prove to be a red herring. It's smacks of 1950's old-style conservative McCarthyist politics - there's "a red under every bed", remember all that?

 

[Whiskers]

I've got a feeling that with the fullness of time and the benefit of hindsight, all this effort to associate the leadership of the ALP with the worst aspects of unionism will prove to be a red herring. It's smacks of 1950's old-style conservative McCarthyist politics - there's "a red under every bed", remember all that?

I'm inclined to agree, YELNATS.

I'm sure I can recall Rudd saying a number of times that he wanted to reduce unionists in decision makeing positions to allow greater public participation in the running of the party, to make it more appealing to the average voter.

That is probably the main reason why I am leaning a bit back to fed labor. If the unions were to topple Rudd I think it would do enormous damage to labor and send them straight back to the political wilderness for years again.

On the same note I think it is because Howard has pandered to big business especially with IR, that many people are dumping him.

 

[nioka]

If labor gets rid of Rudd, i won't be voting for labor...
As for alternative liberal PM's... i hope turnbull gets the job ahead of Costello.

My sentiments entirely.

 

[2020hindsight]

It's smacks of 1950's old-style conservative McCarthyist politics - there's "a red under every bed", remember all that?

does anyone remember the debate between Hawke and Fraser? or was it Hawke and Peacock?
someone suggested that Labor wouldn't be safe with money -

anyway Hawke says jokingly "well, now they say you'll have to put your money under the bed because you can't trust us with it - but then
you can't do that either ....
because there are reds under the bed to take it from you"

I liked his comment today (the silver budgey ) - "Howard wants to spend money on hospitals, roads etc .... in fact he should think about sending some money to Syria whilst he's at it, because with all these conversions on the road to and from Damascus - he's worn the bludy road out going back and forwards."

 

[2020hindsight]

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2069358.htm

But to the extent that these beliefs are based on electoral outcomes, the assertion that we are an inherently conservative electorate is built on sand, not bedrock.

It is the inherent inefficiency of the Australian electoral system, not any ingrained streak of conservatism in the Australian people, that has sustained Australian governments of all persuasions in office when the Australian people have voted otherwise.

For all of its purported sophistication, the Australian electoral system does an astonishingly poor job of converting a majority of popular votes into a majority of seats in the House of Representatives.

We may scoff at the outrageous outcome of the 2000 American presidential elections when the popular vote winner Al Gore was denied the Presidency, but this is a regular and frequent occurrence in Australian electoral history.

Since 1949, there have been five elections – 1954, 1961, 1969, 1990 and 1998 – when the Australian people voted clearly for a change of government which was then denied them by the arcane and anti-democratic workings of the electoral machinery.

Had the will of the people been expressed fairly and honestly, the careers of several prime ministers – Menzies, Hawke and Howard – would all have been considerably shorter.

The Australian people again pulled stumps on the conservatives in 1969, when in the clearest parallel to the 2007 election, Gough Whitlam obtained a swing of over 7% to defeat the Gorton administration.

To balance things somewhat, had seats followed votes, Prime Minister Peacock would have replaced Bob Hawke in the Lodge in 1990.

The Howard ascendancy would have lasted all of two years, from 1996 to 1998, when Kim Beazley decisively outpolled Howard to win that year’s elections.

Had the will of the people prevailed at these five perverse elections, the political and social history of post-war Australia would have been greatly different.

Since 1949, the Australian people have voted for political change at almost every other election, yet their will has been denied by a complex system that does not reliably deliver a majority of seats to the side that wins a majority of votes.

This absurd contraption of single member electorates locks up and effectively disenfranchises millions of Australians in safe electorates, while showering largesse on a small number of voters in marginal seats.

Over time, this has created a massively distorted imbalance in the national distribution of services and subsidies.

This has counted against safe seat voters on both sides of the political spectrum – and especially voters in most rural and regional seats and the inner cities.

It is beyond time to replace this grotesque travesty with a simple system of true proportional representation under which seats in the House of Representatives are allocated in strict proportion to the votes cast by the Australian people.

Only then will it be possible to talk of a true Australian democracy by and for all the people, equally.

The question of "one person one vote" is important or course - especially if city folk want to be selfish about drought relief for instance.

about 90% of WA appears to be under one electorate - extending Kalgoorlie to Broome etc . (and in the Pilbara, - just one corner thereof - you find a massive percentage of the wealth generation)

Anyway - I find this interesting - and someone adds under that ABC post that NZ system is better ...

this posted by Atticus...

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2069358.htm
As for the electoral system not delivering the will of the people, I agree. It does not. A system of proportional representation using preferential voting, and an electorate and top up system, as is used in NZ, is the way to go. It has not produced chaos there à ¢Ã‚€Â“ in fact quite the opposite.

 

[Purple XS2]

If labor gets rid of Rudd, i won't be voting for labor...
As for alternative liberal PM's... i hope turnbull gets the job ahead of Costello.

Leadership in the ALP since Keating has been a matter of "Who's our best salesman?" They persevered with Beasley for years until it finally dawned on them that as a frontman, he was a liability. Latham was a brave experiment ("brave" in the "Yes, Minister: sense). Crean was a collective cry for help, as if it were a suicide attempt.

In other words, Rudd is a mere frontman. I would expect an ALP government would be very much a collegiate affair. Not a bad thing, IMHO. If Prime Minister Rudd were to take himself too seriously, he would likely be jettisoned.

As for the Libs, Costello's hour came and went: everybody noticed but he himself. Turnbull has yet to manifest any inner belief in anything except Turnbull, and time is getting short. Mal Brough is probably their best option. Whatever one makes of the Aboriginal Affairs 'intervention', it can at least be used by Brough as an example of resolute administration.

Brendan Nelson would be a Lib Latham: a "brave" choice, but would come unstuck. An ego in search of a cause. By middle age, politicians really ought to have a cause or two.

In a saner world, the ALP would be able to be represented and/or led by somebody intelligent. Lindsay Tanner for example. Alas, as John Lennon said ('Working class hero'):
"They hate you if you're clever, and they despise a fool ..."

As for me, I'm a greenie, and proud of it.

 

[arminius]

with each day we see more embarrasment, deceit, and utter panic from our wonderful government. this will only heighten in the next few weeks as the punters get a crash course in political history, ie: see whats been really going on.

i stand by my statement made months ago. only the ignorant or the gutless would vote these criminals back in. ignorant to the lies and deceit and the backward policies. gutless 'cause they succumb to the fear campaign we've been warning about for 3 months.

and i stand by a prediction of 70% win for labor. that would restore my faith in the wisdom and courage of my country.

 

[Julia]

Leadership in the ALP since Keating has been a matter of "Who's our best salesman?" They persevered with Beasley for years until it finally dawned on them that as a frontman, he was a liability. Latham was a brave experiment ("brave" in the "Yes, Minister: sense). Crean was a collective cry for help, as if it were a suicide attempt.

In other words, Rudd is a mere frontman. I would expect an ALP government would be very much a collegiate affair. Not a bad thing, IMHO. If Prime Minister Rudd were to take himself too seriously, he would likely be jettisoned.

As for the Libs, Costello's hour came and went: everybody noticed but he himself. Turnbull has yet to manifest any inner belief in anything except Turnbull, and time is getting short. Mal Brough is probably their best option. Whatever one makes of the Aboriginal Affairs 'intervention', it can at least be used by Brough as an example of resolute administration.

Brendan Nelson would be a Lib Latham: a "brave" choice, but would come unstuck. An ego in search of a cause. By middle age, politicians really ought to have a cause or two.

In a saner world, the ALP would be able to be represented and/or led by somebody intelligent. Lindsay Tanner for example. Alas, as John Lennon said ('Working class hero'):
"They hate you if you're clever, and they despise a fool ..."

As for me, I'm a greenie, and proud of it.

Hey Purple,

Great post. Would that your insight could communicate itself to those who would make good use of it.

 

[Julia]

I would be a struggle, but certainly no less unbearable than the Banana Republic guy.

I actually voted for Paul Keating. I arrived to live here in 1993 and, after the well mannered politeness of New Zealand politics, found him quite compelling.
Not at all sure my response would be the same now.
However you feel about him, he's the master of a sharp response.

Re comments on Malcolm Turnbull: agreed. He has no passion or conviction.
It's as though he has succeeded in business and politics is the next thing to be ticked off. No thanks.

I like Mal Brough. At least some fire in the belly.

 

[arminius]

outrage. outrage. outrage.

if anyone saw 4 corners tonight they would now be aware of the incompetence on a criminal scale perpetrated by this 'wonderful experienced govt that so good on national security'.

i mentioned some months ago about the decision to buy super hornets even though the air force didnt want them. check the story.

we would have lost the most important defence capability of our country. in a conflict, our best pilots would be blown out of the sky.

Nelson and Huston refused to be interviewed for the report. nelson is at this very moment hiding under his bed quivering with fear. 'they know about it, they know about it' .

i want the government to answer for this. i want you liblovers to stand up here and defend this gross incompetance.

vote this government back in and there will be riots on the streets.

 

[chops_a_must]

The question of "one person one vote" is important or course - especially if city folk want to be selfish about drought relief for instance.

about 90% of WA appears to be under one electorate - extending Kalgoorlie to Broome etc . (and in the Pilbara, - just one corner thereof - you find a massive percentage of the wealth generation)

Well... in WA, the country bumpkins only recently rolled over and gave up their weighted voting rights. Although that was forced to the high court! So much for democracy! Anyone living in rural WA, that opposed one vote one value, can stick it where you know what.

And Purple, I'm with you bud.