Who are you voting for in the Federal election?

[Whiskers]

Whiskers - the problem I have about all the committees that Kevin has established, does not relate to the waste of money (although there is that). My problem is that just by announcing all these enquiries and establishing all these committees - nothing is actually getting fixed. It looks great on the 6:00 news, "Kevin Rudd is to get tough on grocery prices", "Kevin Rudd will look into petrol price discrepancies" etc etc etc. The media lap it up, the voters lap it up and Kev looks like the messiah. Setting up a "committee to investigate" is a type of poor mans policy. A stop gap designed to plug a problem - and there are a heap of stop gaps required in Labor's policies.

Regards
Duckman

Hi Duckman

Well, if you don't have a committee to consider things, what are the options?

Busines does not invest in 'ideas' ad hoc. They engage committees and consultants etc to research, test, trial, get feedback, do budgets etc before making a decision to develop a major project or make big changes to proceedures.

One option that many Queenslders don't like is the Beattie style of forcing the leaders view on his own cabinet and the electorate... akin to a dictatorship.

On the weekend I saw somewhere on the TV about the downside of multitasking. Apparently Microsoft were one of the first to adopt multitasking, but their research has now found that it leads to too much loss of productivity.

The industry and community organisations that I have been involved in all have committees or representatives to delegate leg work functions too and report back to the leadership for decision making.

Provided the committee hearings and results are open to the public, then I believe it makes for more transparent and effective government.

You may need to clarify what you mean by 'poor mans policy'. I would have thought that not having committees to properly investigate issues and changes was a poor mans policy... at least in the sense that you may not make the best decisions based on all the options eg Work Choices, Iraq.

 

[chops_a_must]

Hmmm. I suspect this forum would be represented by only a very small minority of young, poorer folk , shift workers, service industry workers or other "typical" labor supporters from blue collar backgrounds or unions amongst it's members. I bet most labour supporters in here would be "middle class, tending to middle-aged, swinging voters".

So, In a way I'm not surprised the two polls in this forum have so far disagreed with what the "general community" polls might be showing.

Interestink, nevertheless.

JC

Well, I'm definitely not middle aged. Nor am I really a Labor supporter.

But if you are young, have a wordly awareness, care about education and not entirely self-interested, I just can't see how on earth you could actually vote for the "Liberals".

Tanya Plibersek (student union official)

Ahahahahahaha! I'm sorry, I didn't realise counselling students and giving them advice on Centrelink options was such a crime! It just appears we are no longer allowed to care for the industry we are working in, nor are we allowed to care for the fellow workers in that industry.

And while we are on union bashing, why don't we get rid of the most powerful and saturated union workforce of all? You know the one I am talking about... the police? Why aren't people prepared to take them on?

And in all seriousness, what's the difference between a union... and an association? I'm a member of my industry's largest association. We lobby for legislative changes, protect members, have workshops, training days, public information campaigns etc etc. Everything a union should do. So why not get rid of it? Why not get rid of the AMA as they are also effectively a union. Why not? They are an overtly political body.


But a final point I want to make, and most important. I met a student teacher the other night, who had been sacked from their place of work... because of going on prac. He was given an ultimatum, either go on prac and be sacked, or don't and keep your job.

Now, under work"choices", this is totally legal and acceptable. So... which one of you Liberal supporters here can defend the application of these laws in this instance. Someone who has taken a scholarship to go bush, to help your kids, someone who is going to give up a significant chunk of their lives to help out YOUR kids, gets sacked for doing so. What kind of society says that that is not important? What kind of society would allow the sacking of a worker, for trying to enter a workforce grossly understaffed? What kind of society says it is now ok to be sacked for becoming a teacher? Can one of the cheer squad here tell me how we are meant to have a functioning society when this sort of thing is happening, and is obviously happening a lot?

As the saying goes, if you tolerate this your children will be next.

"The future teaches you to be alone
The present to be afraid and cold
So if I can shoot rabbits
Then I can shoot fascists

Bullets for your brain today
But we'll forget it all again
Monuments put from pen to paper
Turns me into a gutless wonder

And if you tolerate this
Then your children will be next
And if you tolerate this
Then your children will be next"

 

[2020hindsight]

If Labour are defying gravity in the polls,
then I don't see how you can have a landslide
because - don't you need gravity to have a landslide ?

 

[Aussiejeff]

From AAP this morning...

"September 17, 2007 07:50am
YET another poll has given Labor a potentially election-winning lead.

The poll, conducted by Nexus Research over the weekend, found 51 per cent of 600 respondents in Sydney and Melbourne would vote Labor while 36 per cent would vote Liberal.

That is almost a complete reversal of a similar poll conducted in September 2004 in which 48 per cent said they would vote Liberal and 37 per cent Labor.

The latest poll shows nine per cent support for the Greens, down two per cent on September 2004.

Most revealing was the question of how respondents voted last election, with 39 per cent saying Liberal, 34 per cent Labor and 10 per cent Green.

"Further analysis reveals that whilst 93 per cent of previous Labor voters said they intended to do so again, the figures were only 76 per cent for Liberal voters and 69 per cent for Green voters," Nexus said.

"Labor have thus claimed 20 per cent of previous Liberal voters and 26 per cent of previous Green voters within Melbourne and Sydney.

"The two cities together make up almost a third of Australia's total population and are often indicative of coming trends."

Nexus also asked its respondents whether they thought they would be better off, about the same or worse off under a government run by Kevin Rudd, John Howard or Peter Costello.

For all three, about half thought it would be about the same.

Twenty-two per cent thought they would be better off under Kevin Rudd, 16 per cent under John Howard and 13 per cent under Peter Costello."

Well, no joy yet for the Liberal "Team" - and another poll on the weekend gives Bennelong to Ms McKew with a 7% swing against "Mr Magic"....

AJ

 

[moXJO]

It won't be a "tight" election...far from it. Its called an humiliating LANDSLIDE swing to labor. As if you can call it tight from this bl**dy forum poll, HAHA!!!.

Its tosser statements like this that gives labor a perceived arrogance by the swinging voters.And gives libs an underdog tag. What people vote on the day can be entirely different to how they were going to vote.

 

[greggy]

I'm surprised to find I'm the only fence sitter at the moment.

I'd normally consider myself on the left, but the idea of an opposition party rolling back the reforms of the government when they get to power makes me nervous.

I'm sitting on ther fence as well as I've done all my life. I will make my mind up during the election campaign. My political philosophy is small "l" liberal.
Disunity within government's ranks during the past week is a real turn off. They're not focussing effectively on what matters for ordinary Australians.
As far as I'm concerned, overall the Howard Government has been a very reasonable one, but now its looking tired. I felt that it started going off the rails somewhat with its IR legislation. Despite the huge advertising campaign the IR Laws are very unpopular indeed with voters. I'm a firm believer that good employers, and there's few here in this forum, who take care of their good staff. But IMO the problem here is that too many employers have exploited it for their own benefit. If it wasn't for the IR Laws I feel that the Howard Government would now be in a much stronger position.
Also, why are we still in Iraq when little headway has been achieved? I'm glad they got rid of Saddam and just feel that it is now up to the Iraqi people to take on more responsibility.
Five interest rate increases during its current term has also had a significant impact. Its good to see unemployment so low and that inflation is largely under control.
IMO the Howard Government has stopped listening to the people on a number of issues. The arrogant Keating Goverrnment also stopped listening ans was thrashed out of office back in 1996. Voters respond in kind when governments stop listening.
On the flip side, wall to wall govenments of one political persuasion is a worry. I rather have a spread of different parties in government at the various levels.
Rudd's relative lack of political experience (no ministerial experience) is also worrying although his CV in terms of work experience is very good indeed (e.g. Chief of Staff to Wayne Goss in Qld, diplomat, KPMG experience in China). If Mark Latham were still in charge I would not even consider voting Labor, but Rudd hasn't scared the voters thus far. He's very similar to Howard in many respects.

 

[mexican]

Its tosser statements like this that gives labor a perceived arrogance by the swinging voters.And gives libs an underdog tag. What people vote on the day can be entirely different to how they were going to vote.

If that is a issue with swinging voters, well they are only switching from one arrogant party to another.
I find it quite amusing Howard and Costello call Rudd arrogant!

 

[moXJO]

If that is a issue with swinging voters, well they are only switching from one arrogant party to another.
I find it quite amusing Howard and Costello call Rudd arrogant!

The unionists were told to shut up shop to the media for a reason. Too many dumb statements affecting the public vote.Personal attacks or general attacks hardly make people want to vote for one party more then the other.

 

[mexican]

The unionists were told to shut up shop to the media for a reason. Too many dumb statements affecting the public vote.Personal attacks or general attacks hardly make people want to vote for one party more then the other.

Agree! A good example was with Rudd and the strip club.
Maybe some of the Lib pollies should do the same as the unionists!

 

[The Mint Man]

Everyone and thing has to start somewhere.

I agree with that in general but a good place to start would be for Rudd to explain his policies (if any that are worth explaining) so that we can get an idea of what exactly we would be voting for. Theres just too much spin and PR work in his campaign for mine. He needs to stop going on airy fairy shows that ask questions like 'would you go out with John Howard?' and start going on shows that will actually press him for answers. IMHO, So far he has avoided this as much as he can. I know hes scared of this type of interview but if he is going for the top job then he needs to step up more often then not.

Cheers

 

[2020hindsight]

I'm in trouble on where to vote federally
NSW state I was able to identify with the fishing party with their motto "1 fish, 1 vote" (glub glub)
or was it "I fish, I vote" keep forgetting the motto here.
But I don't think they stand for federal matters

 

[marklar]

Was actually thinking of voting for myself (ie. running as an independent)

m.

 

[Rafa]

I agree with that in general but a good place to start would be for Rudd to explain his policies (if any that are worth explaining) so that we can get an idea of what exactly we would be voting for. Theres just too much spin and PR work in his campaign for mine. He needs to stop going on airy fairy shows that ask questions like 'would you go out with John Howard?' and start going on shows that will actually press him for answers. IMHO, So far he has avoided this as much as he can. I know hes scared of this type of interview but if he is going for the top job then he needs to step up more often then not.

Cheers

From what i've read, howard didn't release any policy details in 1996... and to be fair, it is hard to release detailed costed policy, without treasury resources.

But howard didn't release his policies in 2004 either...where was the IR policy in 2004?

 

[marklar]

But howard didn't release his policies in 2004 either...where was the IR policy in 2004?

Howard had tried to push his IR policies through the Senate for many years, it was only after '04 when he (surprisingly) had the numbers it got through.

m.

 

[Rafa]

Howard had tried to push his IR policies through the Senate for many years, it was only after '04 when he (surprisingly) had the numbers it got through.

m.

Ofcourse thats what they wanted to do... Nick Minchin is on record at some right wing talk fest for saying that he is sorry work choices does't go far enough...

Hence, are you saying that its ok for the Libs take work choices even further if they win the election, even tho in the election this was never stated as a policy?

Eg: there was always talk of unfair dismissal laws being revoked for small businesses, never for businesses of 100 people!

Work Choices, the policy, or whatever its called now, didn't exist in 2004...

 

[The Mint Man]

From what i've read, howard didn't release any policy details in 1996... and to be fair, it is hard to release detailed costed policy, without treasury resources.

But howard didn't release his policies in 2004 either...where was the IR policy in 2004?

Thats fine. But your missing my main point.... Rudd is hardly ever on serious TV or talk back shows. So, A) he never has a good chance of getting his policies details out there for everyone to see and B) he is rarely asked hard questions about his policies which is the reason for point A.
I understand that costing these things out would be hard at the best of times but thats part of Swans job isnt it? and what you said is hardly an excuse for not trying or being way off the mark. I mean these are the people that will be taking control of the government if they are elected. Further more Rudd is usually light on ANY detail when it comes to his policies... EG: the renter rebate (or whatever he called it) that he proudly advertised on the news a couple of months back. After the media fished for details it turned out that it wasnt so attractive as rudd was making it out to be, I mean the chick that he was proudly explaining it to wouldnt have even qualified for it!

Cheers

 

[dalek]

Steve Bracks had only been in Parliament a short time when he took over from Kennet and did well

J

Just what was it he did again ???


But, I digress from the original question....who to pick ??
No doubt all things (governments) reach a maturity, or use by date, and arguably the current crew, in their present configuration, are there.
In fact if the Age newspapers letters to the editor are any guide, the Howard clan will be "run out of town" sometime soon. This will apparently lead to vast improvement in everything from future weather patterns to my football teams performance.
Maybe we need a new D'Artagnan but who the hell are those musketeers in the shadows ??? seems a lot more than three of them to me.

 

[juiceman]

Look's like, and reminds me of Mr Ma Goo
Kevin Rudd that is

 

[Aussiejeff]

Look's like, and reminds me of Mr Ma Goo
Kevin Rudd that is

No need to worry about Rudd007 getting elected folks. This poll now shows a landslide win to the coalition!

AJ

 

[marklar]

are you saying that its ok for the Libs take work choices even further if they win the election, even tho in the election this was never stated as a policy?

People deserve to get the government they vote for. Howard lied several times prior to getting re-elected in 2001, yet that didn't seem to matter in 2004. He can do what he likes with impunity because the majority of Australians voted for him to be able to so.

Don't like it? Campaign against them. Anyone remember the phrase "keep the bastards honest"?

m.