This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

ELECTIONS - Labor or Liberal

Who do you think will win the next election Labor or Liberal?

  • Labor (Kevin Rudd)

    Votes: 221 51.8%

  • Liberal (John Howard)

    Votes: 206 48.2%
  • Total voters
    427
Jump to new
bingk6 said:
Indeed, however, being labelled a politican is hardly the best compliment one could bestow on somebody else and Howard's head and shoulders above everybody else in that respect.
Click to expand...

This the closest I've seen Labor to being able to pull off a win for years. Little Kevie makes much sense at times, however the Labor frontbench has a lot of dolts, time servers and people about to cruel him, once Little Johnnie starts into the home stretch.

Garpal
 
I think it will be too close to call both for who Ill vote for, and who I think will win (being someone who has voted both Lab and Lib in the past) - but
... I'd be interested to know the exact quantum of the reduction in troops envisaged in Iraq.
For instance we apparently have 1400 there - including the Navy in the gulf there. Assume about 300 Navy and 1100 Army (?). Of these you would have to assume that the Army are at most risk of casualties.
Rudd says he will leave about (300 or) 400 to defend the new aust Embassy.
If he also leaves the Navy contingent, then he is presumably halving our involvement (?)
[Perhaps quartering it if the Navy also comes home (?)]
But at the end of the day, it's not as dramatic as it's being made out to be. (although I'm sure the ones that come home would be ecstatic).

btw the ratio of (USA : UK : AUS) is (100: 5 : 1) apparently
 

What kind of a moron pays ferals $3000 to pump out babies? not only are your taxes now paying for the feral, but also for the $3000, the Hospital they are having the baby in, the welfare to raise the child and probably another $3000 when the child at 16 pumps out one of her own. All so they can buy their smokes.

As a previous poster said, what has Johnnie done? coasted on the economy that Hawke and Keating set up (he even takes credit for it - the arrogance), blown dough on war, allowed the rich to pay for medicine and law degrees, made housing unaffordable for the young, made personal friends with George W, given us more taxes and taken away middle class working rights. Basically looking after rich and powerful people. Widening the gap in our social system between wealthy and middle class. Add to this his arrogance because he is narcasistic.

As for the comment that he has done great things becasue we are very attractive to overseas takeovers - wonderful, this is plain stupid. All the profits of our companies will go to mum and dad shareholders of the US, Japan, China and Europe. Yes you may make a little bit of money as you share price goes up when its taken over, but as any smart investor knows the turtle always wins the race, and in this instance the loser will be average australians who have no locally owned profitable companies left.

Out you go Howard you low life. Glad to see you retire on the legacy of a losing PM, that is unless you jump ship as it gets closer and see the polls aren't getting better for you. The polls are like this because you have not represented the populous.
 
To label Mr Howard as being Australia's most popular heroin dealer is disgusting, even if its meant as a joke. Someone I worked with died from a heroin overdose. Mr Howard has his faults but please don't label him in this way.
 

It may have been called a baby bonus but from what I see 9 times out of 10 it wasn't a bonus for the baby.
 

John W Howard alias posting on ASF here?
 
Kauri said:
It may have been called a baby bonus but from what I see 9 times out of 10 it wasn't a bonus for the baby.
Click to expand...
My daughter was born in Jul 04 and the baby bonus was a unexpected benefit as it started only that month. We decided to put the $3,000 straight into the baby's bank account. A number of other people have done the same thing. I feel that it was a nice gesture on the part of a government which is sometimes portrayed as being too tight.
 
Kauri said:
It may have been called a baby bonus but from what I see 9 times out of 10 it wasn't a bonus for the baby.
Click to expand...

Yes it encourgared those who would have a baby just to get $3000 to have one. Anyone else will have or not have one anyway if they were planning on it.
So the people who can't really afford to have babies, or whom are motivated by something else other than haveing a baby (ie $3000 and the future welfare it brings) are the ones encourgared. Also puts more strain on the welfare system both Govt and non Govt as a whole. Strange and stupid policy to me. Im guessing these are the many people I see heavily pregnant and smoking outside the public Hospital I work at. Coz if they were in it for the baby they would surely not be smoking. Guess $3000 is a big carrot to some.
 

So you didnt have the baby for the $3000, like anyone else who was having a baby anyway regardless of the bonus. Your point?

Its nice you feel warm and fuzzy that you made it by a few days and want to share this nice gesture, but I dont see the relevance.
 
Some people say the same thing about the sole parent pension, but I feel that the clear majority of women have babies for the right reasons, not for the money.
 
Hi Nicks,

I just saw your post. I was just responding to Kauri's post. As for the fact that we made it by 2 weeks, our baby was 6 weeks premature, as long as our child was born healthy that's all we cared about. The baby bonus announcement relating to its introduction came out after my wife had become pregnant. With this unexpected bonus, we gave it to our daughter.
 
greggy said:
Some people say the same thing about the sole parent pension, but I feel that the clear majority of women have babies for the right reasons, not for the money.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
greggy said:
Some people say the same thing about the sole parent pension, but I feel that the clear majority of women have babies for the right reasons, not for the money.
Click to expand...

Agreed and reinforces my point:

"So the people who can't really afford to have babies, or whom are motivated by something else other than haveing a baby (ie $3000 and the future welfare it brings) are the ones encourgared. " ... by the $3000 carrot.

One of the worser examples of John Howard manipulative policy for votes.
 
greggy said:
To label Mr Howard as being Australia's most popular heroin dealer is disgusting, even if its meant as a joke. Someone I worked with died from a heroin overdose. Mr Howard has his faults but please don't label him in this way.
Click to expand...

To "use" someone you worked with who died from poor life choices in this way is disgusting.

However I would never seek to limit your freedoms, such as speech, so feel free to continue using your ex-workmate to further your political idolatry.

johnnie the h-man will get you in the end.

cheers
 
Happytown,

Your attitude sickens me and I don't think you live in Happytown. It worries me that you have to refer to Mr Howard as being a heroin dealer in order to get your point across. Attack him for his faults, but to label him as being a heroin dealer is simply outrageous. For the record, I'm a swinging voter. In the past I've voted for Mr Beazley and for Mr Bracks so Mr Howard is not my idol. I just feel however that he has done a reasonable job overall as has done Mr Bracks here in Victoria..
 
greggy said:
For the record, I'm a swinging voter. In the past I've voted for Mr Beazley and for Mr Bracks so Mr Howard is not my idol. I just feel however that he has done a reasonable job overall as has done Mr Bracks here in Victoria..
Click to expand...
In 96, Howard was elected on one economic premise: To reduce foreign debt. In the ten years in office, it hasn't reduced, it has in fact TRIPLED. Under his own terms, he has failed economically.
 
chops_a_must said:
In 96, Howard was elected on one economic premise: To reduce foreign debt. In the ten years in office, it hasn't reduced, it has in fact TRIPLED. Under his own terms, he has failed economically.
Click to expand...
Yes, foreign debt has got out of control, but the Howard Government has slashed its level of debt since 1996. Also, Australia has had a longer period of economic growth than it did under the Hawke / Keating years. Also, I remember Keating boosting when we went into recession that this is the recession Australia had to have. Sure Keating made a number of sound economic reforms, but interest rates went up too high in the end and during his last few years he tried to spend his way out of trouble.
 
greggy said:
Happytown,

Your attitude sickens me and I don't think you live in Happytown. It worries me that you have to refer to Mr Howard as being a heroin dealer in order to get your point across...
Click to expand...
The greens have said the same about Australia exporting coal.... how stupid. Bloody dirty coal miners, you're all drug dealers
Labor wants greens preference too. Could you imagine what would happen to our stock market if the coal industry was closed down in 3 years?
 
I reckon Labor will win easily.

Why? Because Howard has lost his mind. I don't mean that as a throw-away line. I mean that he used to be shrewd and he's now following the line too far, possibly believing his own publicity?

The Howard government's economic success has been partly skill but mostly luck. The GST was far more successful than they expected and that's to their credit. However, the mineral boom and the enormous increase in Australian wealth (and tax) because of mining was absolutely nothing to do with who is in government. However, does anyone care whether Rudd would do a better or worse job? I doubt many do.

Socially and in the media, the big thing Howard has done is align himself with Bush. Now, you have to realise that US politics is much more right-wing than ours. They have no public health system to speak of. Schools are paid for by local taxes (so poor areas have crap schools). The divide between rich and poor is huge and few at the rich end want to change that. I come out a centrist between Liberal and Labor here, but that puts me way left of the US Democrats.

Honestly, Dubya is the closest leader to Hitler in any major country on the planet. The "war on terror" was manufactured by his administration because militaristic governments need a war to keep the people's support. The number of people killed by terrorists, even including 11/9/2001, is so small as to be irrelevant. The number of Aussies killed by terrorism in the last 10 years is, what, about 2 weeks' road toll? Terrorism is slightly more likely to kill us than a White Pointer, but I don't see us spending billions on attacking sharks. Slowly, people are starting to realise, even in the USA, that Bush is a nutter and that starting wars for ones own dirty purposes is bad.

Howard's playing of the Australian public, up until recently, has been very good. He leapt into the whole Bush-inspired war-mongering, but played it better than Bush. Our government has carefully tried to make us feel scared and pretend they are saving us, while at the same time not bringing in the really unpopular measures. So, while we now have lots of unnecessary "security" at airports, non-travellers are still allowed to meet friends at the gate, unlike in the US. It's a clever balancing act.

With Iraq, Howard cleverly deployed troops, but made sure it was mostly elite well-trained troops who, through skill (and some luck) didn't get killed, plus specialists, such as air traffic controllers, who are unlikely to be killed. This meant that he could crow about supporting the War, while having minimal chances of Australian deaths, which might undermine his popularity. Again, clever. (Brutal and disgusting, but clever.)

If Howard had remained at his cunning best, he would have distanced himself from Bush by now. Bush is a lame duck President. Even most of the Republicans are distancing themselves from him because he's stupid, he's incompetent and he's even too far right for them. By doing nothing about the appalling treatment of David Hicks and by criticising Barrack Obama, Howard has renewed his very close alignment to Bush at a time when that is an utterly unpopular thing to do.

I think Howard deserves to be thrown out for all manner of reasons, including the disgusting trade agreement with the USA which will put our copyright system effectively under US control. There are lots of reasons that some people dislike Howard's government and lots of reasons to be wondering whether Rudd will do any better. That's all a wash.

Just like previous useless US wars, the Cold War and Vietnam being repeated with Iraq, I think we will see history repeated: In Victoria, Kennett did great things for the economy, but then became more and more arrogant, ignored the views of the people, thereby pissing people off in droves. Howard is going down the same path. He is now showing unrelenting support for the biggest right-wing nutter on the planet, someone _way_ more right than 98% of the Aussie population. Unless he manages a massive backflip, this will see him come unstuck in a Kennett-sized landslide.
 
I'm glad I'm not holding any coal stocks. Just uranium stocks and Mr rudd is pro-uranium, although not as strongly as the PM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Major Liberal Party Stuff Up. NSW Council elections
Replies
3
Views
417
Garpal Gumnut
Election 2025 + Preferential Voting
2
Replies
20
Views
646
IFocus
2026 Victorian Election
Replies
2
Views
821
sptrawler
Mr. Trump (The Donald) To Win in 2024
66 67 68
Replies
1K
Views
42K
farmerge
Victorian election 2022
4 5 6
Replies
106
Views
7K
qldfrog
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...