2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Rudd? (2 Viewers)

[Aryanbeauty]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Although I dont have Franchise in australia, I support John Howard, he is simply good. His economic policy is good, his foreign policy of supporting US, UK and Israel and his policy on immigration, nuclear and terrorism are few reasons he should stay in office. KIm Beazeley? ughh that pig. He should slim down first before thinking about the Prime Minister post.

 

[Rafy]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

I wish Kimbo would lift his game a little though. He seems too slow and unconvincing lately.

Full stride into a comedy of errors
The paradox of Aussie politics in recent days is that Howard is the one under pressure, but Beazley is the one making mistakes, writes Peter Hartcher.

 

[sam04u]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Although I dont have Franchise in australia, I support John Howard, he is simply good. His economic policy is good, his foreign policy of supporting US, UK and Israel and his policy on immigration, nuclear and terrorism are few reasons he should stay in office. KIm Beazeley? ughh that pig. He should slim down first before thinking about the Prime Minister post.

Shut up you bigot.

I think it's time for Labour to take it's term and completely neuter our economy. I don't think that howard can display his transparent rightism anymore then he already has. It's taking its toll on the middle class, a nice term with the Labour party would do Australia some good. (particular, lw and up seats.)

I wouldn't mind seeing the new industrial reforms abolished, and also a government who is willing to deal with things which we will inevitably face. (Including securing power), even though I don't support beazley's policies on 'solar energy', and all the other crap he'll waste money on, we need a bit of an economic stagnation, for interest rates to drop, and people to recede their mid-upper-middle class positions. Otherwise, there'll me a major imbalance, raising interest even higher (as people lose capita, the banks make less money and people keep borrowing).

Also, Howards international policies haven't been to my particular liking either. He's been caught out saying crap which I don't believe, misrepresenting the majority of Australian (who didn't want to get involved in an illegal invasion of Iraq).

 

[Iron]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

So get this - Yesterday I run into my member, Bob McMullan (Fraser, ALP) and i'm all like "Sir!", with the customary deep bow which befits such occasions, and he basically flat ignored my humble homage - strides past with a blank expression (discounting his koala-like good looks)

Is this grounds for voting Liberal in 2007? Im not sure that such a rude member warrants my vote, or that I want a party who endorses such candidates to govern the nation.

[an edit later: eye contact was certainly established, and I am 85% sure that it was indeed the Right Honourable Member]

 

[sam04u]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

As, do I.

 

[dunch]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

sam04u:
"we need a bit of an economic stagnation, for interest rates to drop, and people to recede their mid-upper-middle class positions. Otherwise, there'll me a major imbalance, raising interest even higher (as people lose capita, the banks make less money and people keep borrowing)."

This is not a brilliant economic policy, nor is it a line that Labor would want to be dealing out to the public. As a Labor supporter, maybe it would be better if Labor attacked Liberals wild and unsustainable use of Expansionary Fiscal policy, which had a direct impact upon the recent Interest rate rises and most probably Interest Rate rises to come in the next few month, as stated by Ian Macfarlane himself. Economic Stagnation as you suggest would certainly be a very unpopular option for ANY government to follow, and unless you want a decrease in standards of living I suggest you rethink that policy.

 

[torrentperson]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

The Liberal Party. But I probably would have voted for Keating over Howard in 1996. The problem is, Labor has fashioned itself into the party of irresponsible demagogy when it used to be a party of reform. Elections aren't won on "easing the squeeze" and tearing up IR legislation; they're won by the party that best convinces the electorate of its capacity to govern. Sounding like a reckless dolt is not the best way to do that. A constructive programme, rather than just opposing whatever happens to be on the government's agenda, also helps.

Unfortunately, I think Howard is doing real damage in promoting private education over public and tertiary. (Private schools are allocated twice as much money as public universities -- which do you think deserves it more?) Quality public education is the basis of the meritocracy; turning public schools into the inferior option of the poor is the end of equal opportunities for all.

I also think endless hand-outs may serve short-term political expediency (we saw what happened to Jeff Kennett when he held onto big surpluses), but investments in infrastructure, research and education would be far better for the country.

Otherwise, I basically agree with the Howard government: on nuclear power, on foreign policy, on immigration, on labour market liberalization, on border protection, etc. So you can expect a vote for the Coalition from me.

 

[Rafy]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Bomber drops another clanger

OH dear. It was merely a slip of the tongue.
And even as he clumsily mispronounced the surname of perhaps the nation's most famous broadcaster - certainly the most influential in NSW - the Labor leader seemed to realise he'd made a hash of it.

"Alan Jaymmmnnnnes", was how it ended up.

Alas for Kim Beazley, the malaprop was already out there.

"Alan Who?", chirped disbelieving government MPs, delighting in the question time howler. "Who's Alan James?"

"He said it with an Australian accent," huffed Labor's Catherine King, whose interjection not only confirmed the error but earned an ejection notice from the Speaker for good measure.
[...]
The Liberals love these Beazley brain-snaps. Only last month the Labor leader confused his Ian Macfarlanes, mistaking the recently retired Reserve Bank governor for the Industry Minister.

Last year he became famously discombobulated during a radio interview, referring to arrested model and part-time Muslim Michelle Leslie as Lee.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,20361875%5E12854,00.html

In Parliament yesterday, the Opposition Leader had a brain snap and referred to shock-jock [Alan Jones] as "Alan James".
Labor backbenchers looked at their shoes and the Coalition jeered as Mr Beazley - who last week assured everyone he had no lingering effects from a rare illness he recently suffered called Schaltenbrand's disease - corrected himself.

 

[walrusbear]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

how exciting!

australian politics are brilliant
what a clanger!

 

[BlackDragon]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

the poll in this forum isn't very useful..due to the fact that it only shows a tiny amount of people whose votes would most likely be decided by socio-economic background and geography. and most importantly, it does not show which voters from which backgrounds and geography are doing which. which is important, due to the fact that its such a small snapshot of australia. in this case, active debate is most useful...which is happening, so thats cool.

i certainly prefer the coalition. primarily because of their economic management, which i think is sound. and kim beazley is just an opportunistic oaf. he has no real stance and all he can do is bag the government when he thinks he can gain popularity. additionally, his attitude on iraq and afganistan sucks. It is no longer important whether it was moral to start the war. all that is important is that there is a large conflict which can have important consequences. We cannot turn our back on the world's problems.

 

[HotShot]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

I think Labor will win in the next election (unless of course they do somethin really stupid). Thats not to say that i support, at the moment i am undecided but i reckon that labor has the best chance of winning in the next elections.

This partly because of the recent events taken place.. that aussie military dude that died, iraq WMD, AWB, howards extremist views on islam, his support for the bush admin.. and the costello whinge

on the labor havent capitalised on these oppurtinies.. they are too busy saying "the prime minister promised that interest rates would stay low" - i mean srs only an idiot would say that - interest rates fluctate and if they didnt then the govnerment is not looking after the economy.

labor will need address a lot of issues.. if they are to win. Costello has basically thrown away any chance of him becoming prime minister and so has Downer. Which leave Abbot.... thus howard will stay on..

Labor have beazly - but he is old hag but he is probab the best they have got. there were interest rate rised today and i dont think they will rise in the near future - as they is relative stability in the world economy at the moment. though China's economy is booming.. will create asome inflationary pressure.. but the oil situation look stable. once iraq has invaded and assimilated into american culture properly - we can xpect top production from that sector which sure to reduce oil prices (wont happen) but keep them constant for some time.

so the economy as whole is in good shape which gives reason for labor to win because we need to ruin it. Ruin it.. so things can happen and labor are bloody good at it. (just look at NSW - but that was too much).

 

[Rafy]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

the poll in this forum isn't very useful..[...]

Suprisingly, in 2PP terms, our poll is showing approximately the same results as the major national polls.

I think Labor will win in the next election (unless of course they do somethin really stupid). [...] i reckon that labor has the best chance of winning in the next elections.

To close to call at the moment. We are still likely more than one year out from the election.
The opinion poll aggregate (of all 3 major polls) has flat-lined at an average of 48/52 since the start of the year. Usually the incumbent experiences a jump in their result when the election is called. Note also that the Coalition could still retain their majority even with 49% of the TPP vote (similar to what happened in the 98 election).
It is true however that Labor is doing much better at this stage of the electoral cycle than it was last time (back in 03) and its primary vote has recovered back over 40%.
I personally think that Labor will fall short, however a year is an eternity in politics, anything can happen.

This partly because of the recent events taken place.. that aussie military dude that died, iraq WMD, AWB, howards extremist views on islam, his support for the bush admin.. and the costello whinge

None of the above issues will cause people to change their votes. They are the everyday ills that befall any government during its term. Most significantly, they do not directly affect voters lives. Voters are inherently self-interested creatures and will vote on issues that directly affect them such as the state of the economy etc.

 

[Generator]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Suprisingly, in 2PP terms, our poll is showing approximately the same results as the major national polls.

It's also useful in the sense that it is serving its intended purpose, that being to gauge the opinions and preferences of those who are members of the BOS community.

None of the above issues will cause people to change their votes. They are the everyday ills that befall any government during its term. Most significantly, they do not directly affect voters lives. Voters are inherently self-interested creatures and will vote on issues that directly affect them such as the state of the economy etc.

I agree. That said, it is and will always be a shame that an issue such as the AWB scandal no longer rates (or it ever did) and that nobody seems to be taking issue with the Government's actions regarding voting eligibility and their Senate committee 'reforms' (with all of these it's as though we all expect such behaviour and as such there's no point in caring).

 

[wheredanton]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

I personally think that Labor will fall short, however a year is an eternity in politics, anything can happen.

The ALP can't win. Clear and simple. The economy has to go bad, employers will have to use the new workplace news to their max (employers won't do that until after the election), interest rates up etc.

Otherwise people seem comfy with Howard and co.

@ hotshot - as pointed out by a few opinion writers the ALP's support for Hicks and the big hoo haa over control orders doesn't do the ALP any good. 'Intellectuals' who have law degrees and such can bang on all we like about the procedural fairness of it all but it means nothing to the average voter. The average voter is wary of Islamic community (coming up the 5th anniversary of 9/11 wont help). As a result most people don't have much of a problem with the control order nor David Hicks being locked up forever...The voter doesn't identify with Jihad Jack or David Hicks - David hicks or Jihad Jack are not at the forefront of their minds. If the ALP is to win power it must cater to the mainstream. Diddling around at the fringe will never get them elected. Sad but true, being an ALP voter...its sad to watch them kill themselves off by supporting fringe causes when their main concern should be the mainstream - fringe issues should come second.

Currently the ALP is fighting at the fringe and not taking the government on. It also needs to tackle economic management head on. Get out there make it good argument about why 17% interest rates occur and how government has a small role in interest rates. Get out there and make an argument, rather than hiding and just pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[HotShot]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

The ALP can't win. Clear and simple. The economy has to go bad, employers will have to use the new workplace news to their max (employers won't do that until after the election), interest rates up etc.

Otherwise people seem comfy with Howard and co.

@ hotshot - as pointed out by a few opinion writers the ALP's support for Hicks and the big hoo haa over control orders doesn't do the ALP any good. 'Intellectuals' who have law degrees and such can bang on all we like about the procedural fairness of it all but it means nothing to the average voter. The average voter is wary of Islamic community (coming up the 5th anniversary of 9/11 wont help). As a result most people don't have much of a problem with the control order nor David Hicks being locked up forever...The voter doesn't identify with Jihad Jack or David Hicks - David hicks or Jihad Jack are not at the forefront of their minds. If the ALP is to win power it must cater to the mainstream. Diddling around at the fringe will never get them elected. Sad but true, being an ALP voter...its sad to watch them kill themselves off by supporting fringe causes when their main concern should be the mainstream - fringe issues should come second.

Currently the ALP is fighting at the fringe and not taking the government on. It also needs to tackle economic management head on. Get out there make it good argument about why 17% interest rates occur and how government has a small role in interest rates. Get out there and make an argument, rather than hiding and just pretend it doesn't exist.

well yeah, they really get some serious done. They need to be in the spotlight but not like before lol , the ALP needs to be a bit more radical i think.. to swing support - tho it could either way depending on what they come up with. where they can start is perhaps - with industrial relations - dont know what they can do with it - abolishing it would be stupid - amending it sounds mor elike it. .. but if the election was held today rit now i would the ALP might just win.. close.

 

[yy]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

at the moment, i'm thinking about either voting for liberal or the greens. the thing is, greens are likely to support labour, which i don't like (more and more conservative stance e.g. marriage amendment and their opposition to workplaces reform); and liberals are lumped with the nationals, which i don't like either (protectionism and bananas).

is there a party that support both workplaces reforms and the rights of gays? (and import fruits should such things happen again )

actually i will just support any party that will legalise all drugs and abolish marriages (don't think will happen)

 

[Generator]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Labor holds edge in federal gridlock

 

[RTTTYTR]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Labor holds edge in federal gridlock

They did last election season quite abit & were neck & neck alot, and we all know how that turned out.

And you know what they say, "better the devil you know"

 

[Rafy]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Sunny one day, defeated the next

Queensland's election is far from the boost it may seem for Kim Beazley, writes Peter Hartcher.

Labor may rule in the Sunshine State, but in Canberra it is out of power and in a state of denial. Most of its federal members do not comprehend the seriousness of their situation. Although the party can delude itself by concentrating on opinion polling, which shows it to be ahead of the Government, the truth is Labor is brilliantly positioned to lose the next federal election. Again.

Labor is in front in the headline poll numbers, but it has spent long spells in this position in earlier terms. It should know by now that its sunny mid-term season will turn stormy by polling day unless it can produce political climate change.

Two events this week should have thundered in the Labor caucus room like the rumble of an approaching tempest. First, the Queensland election demonstrated that even a government in crisis can be re-elected if the leader is reasonably well liked and the opposition leader is not.

Second, newspaper polls this week showed that at the federal level the Prime Minister is reasonably well liked and the Opposition Leader is not. [...]

Australians are generally cautious politically. We've changed federal government only four times since 1949. Australian politics is always an incumbent's game. And with a Government associated with a long economic boom, a Government that promises to protect us against terrorists, a Government led by a popular Prime Minister, it may be hopeless for Labor to do anything in a positive sense that will deliver power.

But Labor has an obligation to make every effort to win. Barring some extraordinary event in the year ahead, it will lose if led by Beazley. Federal Labor would rather be led by Peter Beattie, and some senior party officials thought hard about drafting him, before concluding it was impossible to achieve in time for next year's election.

Instead the party is being led by the Lawrence Springborg of national politics. Acknowledging his failure, Springborg resigned yesterday. How long will Labor give Beazley?


Full Article: SMH

___

The Australian offers an additional explanation for Beazley's performance:

I think he has a problem, a perfectly explicable problem that brings him no discredit but has to be addressed: Beazley misses his wife.

Beazley misses his life in the west: it is the curse of Perth, the tyranny of distance, that is distracting him, putting him under stress and leading to loss of concentration and a lack of attention to detail.

 

[Rafy]

Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?

Scathing dig at Beazley

Veteran ALP senator Robert Ray takes a swipe at Labor's factional battles.

LABOR would not regain power federally while its factions continued to churn out a production line of "soulless apparatchiks" and the perception existed that the Liberals had a "more credible leadership", the veteran ALP senator Robert Ray says.

In a scathing critique to the Fabian Society in Sydney last night, Senator Ray - a right-wing factional warlord from Victoria and a former minister - also said the Liberals had better economic management credentials and "much more credibility" on national security.

"It does not matter whether these perceptions are fair, accurate or induced by propaganda," he said. "They exist and are currently preventing Labor from achieving office federally."[...]

"A whole production line of soulless apparatchiks has emerged, highly proficient and professional but with no Labor soul," he said. "Control freaks with tunnel vision, ruthless leakers in their self-interest, individuals who would rather the party lose an election than that they lose their place in the pecking order."

He singled out fellow Victorian senators Stephen Conroy - Senator Ray's own factional creation - and left-wing powerbroker Kim Carr. He called them "factional Daleks" - robots from Doctor Who who screeched "EX-TER-MIN-ATE" and were hell-bent on world domination.[...]

Full Article - SMH