Guest Nanks Report post Posted October 8, 2004 Big day down here today, our polls opened a little over half an hour ago. It's gonna be a fuckin' long night separating these two. On one side of this one we have our current Prime Minister, John Howard and his Liberal Party who have been in power for 8 years and are responsible for steadying and strengthening our economy since the last time Labour were in power and tried their darndest to spend every cent in the country. Working against Howard this time around is his particularly hardline stance against illegal refugees entering the country, and his strong allegiance with the US in the War on Terror. Don't ask me why these things are so terrible, I can't explain why people in this country think letting every penniless refugee flood into the country to drain the economy dry or why being partly responsible for removing a dictator and beginning to establish democracy in the Middle East are bad things, but I'm told they are. Standing against him is Mark Latham and the Labour Party. Latham is most famous for assaulting taxi drivers and cursing at the press. He's so good with money he even managed to run a local council into millions of dollars of debt... His major policies involve tax rises, class warfare and allowing unions to hijack the industrial sector. Again. Just like the last time his party was in power and our interest rates soared to 17%. For reasons quite beyond me this is actually looking like a really tight election and I'm going to be needing a lot of beer tonight. We're teetering on the precipice down here. Wish us luck.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tommytomlin 0 Report post Posted October 9, 2004 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Nanks Report post Posted October 9, 2004 You may not see my view as balanced, but rather than just brand me as ill-informed and give the same, tired faux-superior attitude so many others around here think is clever why not actually put forward your highly educated version on why their economic management hasn't come unstuck in the 8 years it's been in force, and perhaps even demonstrate any kind of economic success Labour has had in the past 20 years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 9, 2004 OT: I remember reading that y'all were required, by law, to vote. Is that the case? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Nanks Report post Posted October 9, 2004 Yup, that's right. Perhaps it's because it's just always been the way, but it just seems to make sense to me. If everyone doesn't vote, it just doesn't seem like the government is a true representation of the people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tommytomlin 0 Report post Posted October 9, 2004 You may not see my view as balanced, but rather than just brand me as ill-informed and give the same, tired faux-superior attitude so many others around here think is clever why not actually put forward your highly educated version on why their economic management hasn't come unstuck in the 8 years it's been in force, and perhaps even demonstrate any kind of economic success Labour has had in the past 20 years. 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? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted October 9, 2004 and for reference for the guys like me who aren't from there Main political parties: Australian Democrats: social-liberal party Australian Greens: ecologist party Australian Labor Party: social-democratic party Australian Progressive Alliance Christian Democratic Party Country Labor Party: New South Wales ALP affiliate Liberal Party of Australia: conservative party National Party of Australia: conservative party Northern Territory Country Liberal Party: regional conservative party Nuclear Disarmament Party Pauline Hansons' One Nation: nationalist/right-wing populist party Tasmanian Independent Senator Brian Harradine Group The Greens (WA) in other words.. it's basically two parties down there, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Morduin Report post Posted October 9, 2004 Yup, that's right. Perhaps it's because it's just always been the way, but it just seems to make sense to me. If everyone doesn't vote, it just doesn't seem like the government is a true representation of the people. I don't know. All it seems to have done this election is allow both parties to safely ignore voters in their safe seats, while throwing enormous bribes at swinging seats and undecided voters. Alan Anderson has a bitch about this a few days ago in the Sydney Morning Herald. I guess, as a Liberal party member, he might be a touch miffed about Howard throwing all notions of fiscal responsibility to the wind and trying to match Labor in spending. EDIT: Rob E, it depends on which house you're talking about. House of Representatives is split between the Liberals-Nationals coalition and Labor. I think there's a smattering of independants, but don't quote me. The Senate's where the minor parties get to play. Most of the seats are still held by either major party, but there are enough independants and minor parties to make it necessary (currently) for the Government to either get the Opposition's support or horse-trade with some of the minors to get bills through. The Democrats used to hold the balance of power, but they've had an extraordinarily shitty few years, and the Greens might take their place. Family First might grab some seats, too. Take this with a grain of salt. I try to keep up with politics, but the apathy gets to me sometimes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tommytomlin 0 Report post Posted October 9, 2004 and for reference for the guys like me who aren't from there Main political parties: Australian Democrats: social-liberal party Australian Greens: ecologist party Australian Labor Party: social-democratic party Australian Progressive Alliance Christian Democratic Party Country Labor Party: New South Wales ALP affiliate Liberal Party of Australia: conservative party National Party of Australia: conservative party Northern Territory Country Liberal Party: regional conservative party Nuclear Disarmament Party Pauline Hansons' One Nation: nationalist/right-wing populist party Tasmanian Independent Senator Brian Harradine Group The Greens (WA) 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spiny norman 0 Report post Posted October 9, 2004 I am still holding out hope that Latham will win. Most of what I have to say has been said for me by tomlin, but there is so much riding on this election. Will Australia actually vote for progress necessary for it at this time, or will it vote for a man who plays on people's bigotry and xenophobia to gain support? One thing I want to ask is why is Latham accused of creating class warfare? By trying to create an education/health system that will try to bring equality to all Australians. As opposed to Howard's class unity, where the rich get all the benefits. If you honestly believe that, I think you're a bloody idiot and deserve a Prime Minister to continue to lie to the masses and continue ensuring that the top 2% of the country are better off than the rest of us. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tommytomlin 0 Report post Posted October 9, 2004 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest croweater Report post Posted October 9, 2004 So basically it's warefare because he's trying to bring the classes together and the upper classes are not coming down without some bitching and screaming. I voted this morning, and while I'm not going to say who I voted for, I hope to sweet God that the labour party get in. They have a stronger health, education and environmental plan. But then again they're more left, so they always do (spend more in these areas I mean, not have a better plan). The current government is ok economically, nothing fantastic, but it's not like a labour government is going to completely destroy the contry's economy with their spending. Most of what has been promised is economically viable. I don't know if labour have actually come out and said what they are doing about the refugee situation. But when I hear of kids being kept in camps for 3 years excuse me if I think the current government is doing a shitty job with it. Edit: Oh, and I hope the greens pretty much get nothing more or less than what they have now. It's good that they have a voice in parliment, but after their environmental stance they really haven't got too much going for them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheAustralian Report post Posted October 9, 2004 Very Early polls comming in from Tassie, show the the Liberal party may pick up a seat or Two. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 9, 2004 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. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheAustralian Report post Posted October 9, 2004 The Liberal Party appears to be set to win easy. I am glad that the conservative party will win so easily. John Howards fourth Term Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 9, 2004 How can the Liberal Party be set to win easy and the Conservative Party win so easily?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spiny norman 0 Report post Posted October 9, 2004 I am glad that the conservative party will win so easily. I too am ecstatic that Australia is not accepting change. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spiny norman 0 Report post Posted October 9, 2004 How can the Liberal Party be set to win easy and the Conservative Party win so easily?... In one of those great ironies in life, the Liberal Party is in fact conservative. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 9, 2004 Ok then... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spiny norman 0 Report post Posted October 9, 2004 Well, John Howard has officially won this election. This is a big thing for Americans in that he not only led Australia into both Afghanistan and Iraq, but is the one leader in the world other than Bush not to sign the Kyoto Agreement. Thus this decision could be an important indicator as to what would happen in the US and possibly UK too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teke184 0 Report post Posted October 9, 2004 Anyone know if Howard won by a larger margin than expected is because of polling irregularities by the Aussie press? It certainly sounds strange that a 50-50 race ends up so strongly in Howard's favor and I DON'T mean because of the dead rising to vote Liberal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted October 9, 2004 Man, and I thought the polls goofed in our election. At least here you could tell momentum was changing in the days prior to the election. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 9, 2004 I guess the Kerry family couldn't swing the election into Labor's favor. Good job, Aussies -- you guys are A-OK in my book, except for the tommytomlins down there... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tommytomlin 0 Report post Posted October 10, 2004 I am so cut. I'll just have to console myself with the free healthcare, beautiful beaches, sunny weather, hot chicks and awesome beer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spiny norman 0 Report post Posted October 10, 2004 Enjoy the free healthcare while you can. And teke, there were two polls. One said 50-50, the other said 54-46. The final result was 53-47, I think, so it was kind of the middle ground of what the two polls were saying. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest croweater Report post Posted October 10, 2004 Well, I didn't expect that to happen. I was thinking it would be a much closer race. Hopefully Howard will retire very very soon, as I like Costello much more than him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Nanks Report post Posted October 10, 2004 Well thank Christ for that, what a fucking relief. The most interesting thing to come out of this election thus far, is that there is a chance Liberal could get a majority in the Senate (Upper House). Despite being a staunch Liberal supporter I'm not too sure I'm a fan of this. No government should have total legislative control, there has to be a balance. Croweater, that's an interesting opinion, why is that?? Personally I like Costello, he also happens to be my local member, but he is not widely popular for one reason or another. I'm not too sure why, I think it's because he "looks smug", which doesn't seem an overly good reason to not like a politician. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tommytomlin 0 Report post Posted October 10, 2004 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spiny norman 0 Report post Posted October 10, 2004 Croweater, that's an interesting opinion, why is that?? Personally I like Costello, he also happens to be my local member, but he is not widely popular for one reason or another. I'm not too sure why, I think it's because he "looks smug", which doesn't seem an overly good reason to not like a politician. Because he's nowhere near as far right as Howard is. Costello is someone who think could easily be either Labor or Liberal, as he's to the right of most of the Labor party but to the left of the majority of the Liberals. For that very reason, I too hope that Howard is relieved sooner rather than later. Unless of course Abbott somehow beats Costello in the leadership challenge, as he's possibly the only potential PM worse than Howard. And tommy, I too am saddened that Family First look possible to be the one person the Coalition has to swing in order to control the Senate. However I'd prefer that one member of Family First to be there than a government majority. As is I think that the next three years will be amongst the worst for Australia. I fear for the environment, I fear for our national security, I fear for our health and education systems (as someone going into university next year especially) and I fear for refugees and I fear for gays. It really will be a time of backwards movement (especially with this talk of abortion being an issue, which really worries me). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Nanks Report post Posted October 10, 2004 There's only 1 of those nutbars in there right?? Surely that one person doesn't hold the fuckin' balance. That would be of serious concern. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
