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

Liberal or Labor

Jump to new
Hi mista2000


no offence, but to be honest, reading between the lines of your posts I am not convinced that you have actually reached voting age yet

cheers

bullmarket
 
bullmarket said:
ok wayne

I'm going to use the.......let's agree to disagree.............out-clause as there is no more chance that you will change my view than there is of me changing yours.

cheers

bullmarket
Click to expand...

NO NO, YOU MUST AGREE WITH ME!!!!! It's compulsory!

Just joshing
 
Noone with money in the stock market could seriously contemplate allowing Labor to run the country. During forty or so years of watching politics I cannot remember ever having seen such chaotic and incompetent rabble.
 
Odysseus said:
Noone with money in the stock market could seriously contemplate allowing Labor to run the country. During forty or so years of watching politics I cannot remember ever having seen such chaotic and incompetent rabble.
Click to expand...

AMEN they are a bunch of fools. espically kim he has no idea!
 
OK people, I will have another go at this. :

It isnt compulsory to vote.
Australian voters face two compulsions. The first is compulsory enrolment. All voters entitled to vote must register to have their name included on the electoral roll.

The second compulsion is the duty to attend a polling place. Once on the roll, you must attend a polling place on election day, or take advantage of the various opportunities for pre-poll and postal voting. When you attend the polling place, you must take a ballot paper and deposit it in the appropriate ballot box.

One of the consequences of compulsory voting is that we have a higher level of informal voting.

But you dont have to vote
 
Hi prospector

I don't think compulsory voting results in a higher informal vote in reality, but only in the absolute number - with voluntary voting those informal voters would not have turned up anyway and so the nett affect is 0 unless as in the point I made earlier supporting compulsory voting, apart from discouraging apathy, hopefully some of those that turn up to a voting booth that would not have had they been given the choice might then reconsider and submit a genuine vote since they are at the booth anyway, and so you then have an election result that is more reflective of the electorate's wishes.

Obviously even with compulsory voting you have the option to vote informally.

Prison Break is about to start, so have a good evening

bullmarket
 

A further point about compulsory voting and apathy. Legal compulsion to drop a ballot paper in a box does not circumvent apathy in the slightest.

There are great hoards of people who, despite this ludicrous requirement, remain firmly entrenched in their apathy. These people make their voting decisions based upon either 1/ traditional voting patterns i.e. labour for the working man, liberal for the businessman 2/ 8 second sound bites constructed by Rupert Murdoch and staff. 3/ who seems to be the nicest/sexiest/erudite or a host of other percieved virtues with no reference to actual policy.

Do we want these people deciding the social and economic path our nation takes via its so called leaders? No flippin' way mate. Let them stay at home and drink their two bottles of beer and watch the footy on that particular Saturday.

Let those fully interested and capable of actually making an intelligent decision do so. The rest should just stay away
 
GO THE GREENS
COLLAPSE THE ECONOMY
If we cant run it responsibly then dont let it run at all!
FREE THE PEOPLE : : :
 
One of the concerns I have about compulsory voting is that there is a section of the population who do turn up and do mark a ballot paper and drop it in the box. However, they have absolutely no idea about any of the candidates whose names appear on the ballot paper. They just tick the boxes in a random way.

So in this sense you could say that compulsory voting actually does not result in a genuine representation of the "wishes of the people".
Their apathy is simply presented as a vote which nevertheless will have an effect on the outcome of the election.

I lived most of my life in NZ. Voting is not compulsory there. However, from memory I think the turnout was over 80% in most elections. You could say that the NZ election results were more genuinely a reflection of what voters wanted in that they simply omitted the meaningless votes of people who couldn't care less what happened (but would undoubtedly whinge anyway).

Julia
 
Hi wayne / Julia

the points you make are valid but to be honest if you want me to take them seriously you're going to have to come up with some verifiable numbers that proves any of my views on compulsory voting are wrong in any way.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to change your way of thinking. I'm just calling it as I see it and will continue to maintain my views until I see verifable info proving I am wrong in any way whatsoever.

Have a nice evening to you both

bullmarket
 
bullmarket

Frankly, I don't care if you take my views seriously or not. I wouldn't mind a dollar for everytime you've posted that final sentence.

We are having a general discussion here. I am not required to "prove" anything to you or anyone else.

Julia
 
The Greens are he only ones that have a GENUINE commitment to the environment that SUPPORTS US. Why is that such a hard thing for people to wrap their heads around. These people are the smarter ones as they are seing the BIG picture do you honestly believe that these people couldnt run an economy or get the same boffins that do now just with a slightly healthier/responsible agenda?

 
The trouble with the greens is not their environmental policy but there economics policies which go back to the socialist left days of the 70s.

If they could be more middle ground they would get my vote.

I am for compulsory voting for the simple reason that it helps get people interested in the policies of the government and reduces apathy and makes everyone part of the decision and reduces the effects of pressure groups.

It always surprises me that the people most vehemently oposing this policy are people who will vote no matter what.

Look at the US and how that voting system completely fails the people.
 



i have to agree with you knobby. compulsary voting has both pros and cons but the main thing is that it makes people interested and understanding about laws and polices etc. also the greens have o idea how to run a country. they only concentrate on the environment and thats why they will never become government!
 
Pull ya head in brutha.
Me mates ran this place for 40,000 years on "environmentally sustainable grounds" before youse whitefellas cumalong a few years back, eh.
 
ahahhahahahaah thats funny. but we are talking about nowdays where environmentalists cant run a country! they can just wrap their minds around one idea which is the environment.
 
rederob said:
Pull ya head in brutha.
Me mates ran this place for 40,000 years on "environmentally sustainable grounds" before youse whitefellas cumalong a few years back, eh.
Click to expand...

That's why the diprotodon, the giant kangaroo and numerous other animals became extinct with the coming of man to Australia.

Not that it hasn't got worse.
 
The Australian is one of the most Pro Liberal papers going around...
Thats why todays editorial needs to be considered seriously, cause they seem to finally realise the lack of reform of the Howard-Costello era... i.e. they've been living off the reforms and investments of the Keating era...

they also raise some of the other more serious social impacts of some of their policies too...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial: Inefficient evidence
May 05, 2006
The rate rise shows the growing cost of avoiding reform

WHO will go down in history as the stronger, more reform-minded treasurer: Paul Keating or Peter Costello? The answer looks more like Paul Keating every day. Yet as Peter Costello prepares to hand down his 11th budget next Tuesday, the need for reform is stronger than ever. Just this week the Reserve Bank raised interest rates, citing structural inefficiencies as partial justification for the move. And the OECD has long warned that Australia was in danger of growing complacent on reform, to the detriment of growth. Compared with his predecessor, the Treasurer has done a pretty poor job enacting the policies and reforms that will best serve Australia over the next decade, and has instead created a system in which punishing effective marginal tax rates and lack of training discourage or prevent millions of Australians from working. The economic success of the past decade has been built on one very strong budget in 1997, a lot of good fortune, a China-driven resources boom and the economic reforms instituted by Mr Keating when he sat in Mr Costello's chair. Despite a few passes at clearing out regulatory deadwood and the introduction of the GST, John Howard and his Treasurer have spent more of the past decade handing out middle-class welfare to create a broad base of supportive voters for each successive election than they have doing the hard yards of structural reform. And ironically, many of those middle-class voters on the receiving end of Mr Costello's bread-and-circuses campaign will see the tax cuts from last year's budget, slated to take effect this July, eaten up by the higher mortgage payments that will flow from yesterday's interest rate rise.

The fact is the Howard Government is largely responsible for a situation in which Australia's interest rates are among the highest in the industrialised world, and not working is a rational economic decision for millions of people. The causes of this are not hard to identify. Lack of investment in training has created a chronic skills shortage and a two-tier economy in which well-trained workers command higher wages (fuelling consumer spending and eventually inflation) because a huge segment of the workforce is simply not in the game due to lack of qualifications. More workers are further discouraged from entering the job market by high EMTRs, a consequence of, on the one hand, the Government's failure to embrace tax reform by broadening and flattening rates, and on the other the creation of a welfare system that distorts incentives and quickly withdraws benefits as people move up the economic ladder. Yet a National Australia Bank Survey shows firms would expand if they could only find enough workers to hire. Meanwhile, an overburdened infrastructure is unable to absorb what growth is occurring. Clogged ports and rail lines restrict growth. As with tax, leadership on infrastructure reform – either in the form of privatisation or public-private partnerships – has been lacking from Canberra. Companies like Macquarie Bank, which are busy building the infrastructures of our Asian competitors, are discouraged from investing in domestic programs due to a tangled mess of state and federal regulations that desperately needs to be undone.

The danger of doing nothing is that growth will continue to sputter even as the Reserve Bank is forced to keep raising rates, as it has been doing since 2002. This would, in the medium term, end Australia's record 14-year run of growth and be a black mark on the legacy of the Howard Government, which has been so successful in other areas. And although the Government has achieved a few successes this term – the sale of Telstra and industrial relations reform – these are unlikely to sustain productivity improvements of the order seen during the past decade. Peter Costello and John Howard must stop worrying about the political heat that comes with reform and tax cuts, and start doing what's right for the economy.
 
without a doubt costello would go down as the best treasurer and keating would be miles behind. the interest rate rise has nothing to do with the government it is down by a seperate body. and the rise wasnt bad it has just made the rates what they should be.
 
The Coalition government via its GST is the biggest taxing governement we have ever had.
Treasurers should be measured by the hard decisions they take, and governements by nation building.
Costello's hard decisions are about how much money not to give, rather than where will the money come from.
As an Australian I would love to know where our government sees our nation heading, and what it presents as our core values.
Our kow towing to US-centric activities leaves me cold, while the recent IR reforms will continue to strip from workers conditions of employment (and wages) won over generations.
If I were a large business or corporation I would be heavily investing in the Coalition's next election as they will keep my bottom line safe.
I am not, and I can't think of much the government is doing at any level to give us a future we can be proud of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
WEF corrupts countries
Replies
6
Views
289
SirRumpole
Retirement-Semi Retirement, (Tech/a personal study) implementation and discussion
2 3
Replies
45
Views
4K
tech/a
  • Locked
  • Sticky
February 2025 Stock Tipping Competition Entry Thread!
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
farmerge
  • Locked
January 2025 Stock Tipping Competition Entry Thread!
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
4K
Joe Blow
Are you Face blind or can you remember absolutely everyone?
Replies
8
Views
654
finicky
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...