tommytomlin

And considering he's stood by and allowed Howard to put his stamp of social conservatism over every aspect of Government legislation without barely a whisper (he really needs to grow some balls), I don't see his appeal.

Yes, but if the Libs don't get the 39th seat in the Senate, then that 1 vote will be the difference between the Coalition's legislation passing or not.

I'm less worried about the Libs having control of the Senate (which still sucks) than the religious nutbags Family First having the balance of power. I'd like my Senators to be responsible to their state firstly, then their nation and then their party. I don't want to see Jesus Christ chucked in there.

I am so cut. I'll just have to console myself with the free healthcare, beautiful beaches, sunny weather, hot chicks and awesome beer.

Latham is accused of creating class warfare because his brand of class warfare is against the people in society with a voice (you could count on one finger the amount of newspaper editors and sub-editors who send their kids to a public school), whereas Howard's class warfare is against those who don't.

in other words.. it's basically two parties down there, right? Yes. The current party in Government is a Coalition of two conservative parties (The Liberals and The Nationals), but they've been in a Coalition for so many decades that they're essentially the one party. The Nationals represent the bush, and the Libs represent the suburbs and cities.

Fine. Let's look at interest rates, shall we? The cornerstone of the Libs election success? When Labor took over from the Libs and Treasurer Howard in 1983, interest rates were 17%. When they left, interest rates were 8%, a reduction of 9%. The highest interest rates in that period came not under Hawke or Keating, but under, you guessed it, Treasurer John Winston Howard at 19%. If you believe the Liberal line that Governments have this magical control over interest rates, and not that of economists who'll tell you it's the global economy that determines them, then Labor's economic record starts to look a whole lot better. If your education regarding interest rates doesn't come from the latest Coalition television commercial, you'll realise that domestic governments promising to put 'downward pressure on interest rates', or saying that 'under Labor, interest rates go up' is a bunch of unmitigated bullshit. As for Labor spending 'every cent', have a look at our Current Account Deficit. Remember when Howard ran in 1996, and his 'debt' truck running across Australia saying Labor's foreign debt would cripple us? Well, it's more than double now. All thanks to the prudent, responsibile fiscal management of the Howard/Costello Government. How much have they been handing out recently? $13 billion in the election campaign, and $40 billion or so of Budget handouts/promises? And this is meant to be the CONSERVATIVE party? Howard's 'hardline stance' on refugees was absolutely unecessary, which is why people object to it. He demonised an entire boat full of legitimate refugees, escaping the same country we were in the process of bombing to score political points. Then he introduced a bill into parliament he knew wasn't going to have the support of the ALP (because it was completely useless) to get some more political points. And then he wasted a few million dollars of our money on his Pacific Solution, and then in a few years all the refugees he spent a few months calling terrorists and shipping to Nauru ended up being LEGITIMATE REFUGEES. And the entire policy framework on which Howard based his campaign (mandatory detention) was introduced by a LABOR GOVERNMENT. As for the War on Terror, it has the ALP's support, and the support of every other Australian who isn't an arts student/protester/unemployed hippy. The War in Iraq, on the other hand, had absolutely nothing to do with Australia. It increased the risk of terror against us in our region, and diverted our resources away from SE-Asia. You know, the place where the terrorists are?

Nothing better than a nice, balanced, well-informed view to start off a thread. I was planning on making a nice contribution to this thread, but you're obviously a partisan hack, so I don't see why I should waste my time. The Coalition will win with a reduced majority, and in the next three years we'll see their 'responsible economic management' for the sham it really is.

NEJRABI/FATA 04!!!

I am so glad Australia has less seats than Tanzania and Nepal.

How come national polls have such a small sample? It's election time in Australia now, so we're being bombarded with polls, and in a country with 20 million people (about 13 million eligible to vote) we get polls with a sample size of 1000-2000. Yet in America, with 100 million+ voters, some polls have sample sizes under 1000? Are American polling companies just cheap, or is this just how statistics work?

So, you can't attack the Prime Minister, but you can attack the leader of the Opposition? Howard isn't the U.S' ally - Australia is. Intervening in our political discourse, no matter which side you pick, is irresponsible. Would you have been as outraged at Kerry's daughter's attack if she targeted Latham instead of Howard?

Yeah, I hate when U.S politicians interfere in Australian politics. There is no doubt in my mind, nor that of the government agencies which advised Howard before the start of the Iraq war, that Australian involvement in Iraq increased the risk of terrorism against our country. Right now, groups like Jemaah Islamiyah are living it up places like the Southern Phillipines and Indonesia, and countries like the Solomon Islands are descending into chaos, while Australian troops, intelligence agencies and resources are focused on Iraq. Yeah, great that Saddam is gone, but Iraq was the U.S' war. He was going to go anyway, the U.S didn't need the SAS, or the RAAF to take down Saddam. Australia's national and strategic interest is in our region. Intervening in Iraq has made Australian less safe because it has diverted our attention away from South-East Asia. You know, the place where the terrorists are? I don't approve of Kerry's daughter intervening in Australian politics just like I didn't approve of Bush doing the same, but the daughter of a Presidential candidate speaking her mind is less offensive to me than the President of an allied country campaigning for our Prime Minister.

What if they have bad eyesight?

Sorry, some of us over here in the States are sitting back and pondering how so many of you are eager to vote in as Prime Minister a man running on a "Fuck the U.S. and THEIR war on terrorism" platform. Latham and Labor support the War On Terrorism, they just don't support the War In Iraq. Afghanistan had Labor's complete support, as did the other facets of the war on terror. It was a Labor government that established the ANZUS treaty. It was a Labor Government that allowed U.S military bases on Australian soil despite huge public protest. It was a Labor Government that was willing to let the U.S test missiles near Tasmania. Saddam was taken down because he was a threat to the United States' interests. He posed no threat to Australia. Labor realised that, and knew Australian intervention in Iraq would divert intelligence and military resources that should have been focused on our own region. Australian political parties are responsible to the people of Australia, not the whims of the American President.

Yes, you're a shining example of an unbiased bipartisan. Labor didn't support the War On Iraq, therefore they don't have a defense policy. Right. I better call Kim Beazley and tell him he's screwed. Scrafton's conversations with the PM totalled ten minutes. Plenty of time to say 'Hey mate, that stuff you're saying about the boat people being children throwing terrorists is wrong'. And for you to defend what Ruddock said shows that you shouldn't be the one voting. It was a shameless attack with no basis in fact, which is pretty much the Government's campaign summed up in seven words.

Because you live in America.

The Australian Liberal party is 'Liberal' in the original sense of the word (or at least they're meant to be), not the bastardized American version. They're the equivalent of the Tories or Republicans. I'm definitely voting for Latham and Labor. The only advantage the Liberals have is the economy, and any decently smart economist will tell you that it was the Labor Party's reforms during Hawke/Keating which set the platform for Howard and Costello to manage the economy so well. And even then, our Current Account Deficit and Foreign Debt has skyrocketed, and even a modest raise in interest rates is going to do more damage than the 17% rates under Labor (which are completely exaggerated). So yeah, Labor has a more responsible policy on defense, health and education, so unless Mark Latham takes off his mask to reveal Triple H, he's got my vote. Of course, I live in a safe Liberal seat (by 20%!), so my vote is about as useful as tits on a bull. The election will be kind of interesting for the Americans though - Howard has been the third member of the Coalition of the Willing, while Latham has promised to withdraw Aussie troops from Iraq (all 300 of them) by Christmas. He also called Howard and the Liberal Party a 'congo line of suckholes' to the Americans, and called President Bush 'dangerous and incompetent'. That will be an interesting meeting if Latham becomes PM and Bush is re-elected. 'George, remember when I called you dangerous and incompetent?' 'Yes.' 'I didn't really mean it.' 'Why thank you, that means a lo-' 'HAHA PSYCH!@'

See, I always thought it was your massive population, natural resources and a few hundred years of development that made America the world's number one superpower, but apparently it's conservative values. I'll call Borneo and let them know the path to riches.

What does American Beer and making love in a boat have in common? They're both fucking close to water! BAM! And Tooheys Extra Dry is the best beer.

Air Force II: Electric Boogaloo?

You forgot Bradshaw

So do these Presidential Election things you guys have contain any...what's that word.... ummm.....starts with a p.... Ooh! That's it! POLICY. Apart from 'We must fight terror' from Bush, and 'You fucked up Iraq' from Kerry, how come when I flick to Fox News, or read this forum, or go to CNN.com or Drudge, there's barely any stories about actual policy?

A FIFTH of the profit for Tom Cruise? That's absolutely ridiculous. Yeah, he's a big draw, but actors don't make movies like these. Why not hire someone like Guy Pearce and draw $10 million less, but keep the profits? And I'm sure if the movie makes a loss, Cruise won't have to pay 1/5th of that. Hollywood is stupid.

If you're really stuck, you can stick it to the Republicans and hit Ctrl+M for an extra $5 million.