Howard Supporters?? (1 Viewer)

[Ziff]

Yeah, Costello's Age fund or whatever it's called. It's a mess...

It seems to me that the parties only look at what they think interests the electorate (and only the marginals at that!) rather than taking a hollistic approach, looking at EVERYTHING that they should be dealing with and offering solutions.

If the major parties weren't so obsessed with marginal seat vote buying we might see more than tax cuts and a token attempt to care about the environment for the yuppies of inner-city Sydney and Melbourne...

 

[Ziff]

Well think about it for a moment:

Outback electorates compared to city electorates...

About 1/2 of NSW (in terms of area) is one electorate, same applies for most states except ACT, VIC and TAS...

About 1/2 (or more, in terms of area) of NSW, QLD, NT, WA and SA make up ONE electorate each. No wonder rural communities are so marginalised. Especially considering that one rural community might have different needs to a different rural community 1,000km away on the other side of the state.

Electorates that take up an enormous area of the state:
WA = Kalgoorie
NT = Lingiari
SA = Grey
QLD = Maranoa (Kennedy takes up a lot as well)
NSW = Parkes

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/electionmaps/

Look at it for yourself.

Clearly, these communities aren't really being represented as well as the localised and dense communities of the inner cities...

That's why it makes sense for the major parties (and this includes the Nationals who are in a Coalition with the Liberals) to only really listen to the demands of the swinging marginal city electorates.

 

[jm1234567890]

i'm in throsby, who owns that?

 

[Ziff]

Throsby is Labor. Jenny George is a complete fool though...

Another criticism of mine of the system, I don't like it because people vote for parties, not for for a competent local candidate who might be able to represent THEIR electorate properly.

I believe that in Cunningham, last time, the reason people voted for Michael Organ (the Greens guy) and got him elected was because people voted for who they wanted and who they saw as a better candidate, better representing their area, rather than a particular party. (Labor was disendorsed by the unions because they weren't impressed by Sharon Bird...)

 

[Ziff]

I find it interesting looking at the close up map of inner sydney lol the northern... rich suburbs are all liberal, the southern ones are labor

as if it isn't class warfare lol

yet somehow the coalition got in most of the country areas.. by alot lol

Well most people only care about ECONOMICS...

In country areas... it's weird. I have a feeling that if the electorate in regional areas - espeically those in sugar cane areas remember the Howard government and the FTA with America they will vote against Labor AND the Liberals for an Independent...

 

[jm1234567890]

it's a very safe labor seat.
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/thro.htm

btw talking about marginal seats, from what i've been hearing jackie kelly of lindsay is probably going to lose. She's liberal & she came to our formal drunk... telling girls to go get pregnant...

Lindsay has a history of going with the government, so going by that it looks like labor could win..

damn safe seat, i want to feel like my wote will acctually do something

 

[mic]

it's a very safe labor seat.
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/thro.htm

btw talking about marginal seats, from what i've been hearing jackie kelly of lindsay is probably going to lose. She's liberal & she came to our formal drunk... telling girls to go get pregnant...

Lindsay has a history of going with the government, so going by that it looks like labor could win..

jackie kelly also got into deep strife for saying that no one in her electorate goes to university! and the university of western sydney happens to have campuses in her electorate. needless to say, ppl around the area were less than pleased.

 

[Ziff]

damn safe seat, i want to feel like my wote will acctually do something

Not a chance...

At least you can maybe make a difference in the Senate where you only need 33.3%+ to get a seat...

 

[blahzz]

Under Hawke/Keating we saw a few important things:
- Privatisation
- Deregulation of the financial system (i.e. banks)
- HECS
- Floating of the Australian dollar
- Accord with the Unions
- Reform of the tax system
- Deregulation and privatisation of the telecommunications and airlines

More:
- National Competition Policy
- Cut tariffs

Anyone else fill in more, it's been a long time since I read about these...

At the time, economic rationalism was a huge movement world wide too...

so true - reading stuff from the eco textbooks (i dunno how reliable that is..) a lot of the economic reforms were initiated by the labor govt in da 80's and early 90's like em mircoeconomic ones and the liberals are just basking in labor's successful reforms dat just took a while to take effect =P

 

[thejosiekiller]

i hate it when ppl vote for labour or liberal because they want to vote as to make a difference- u know if every1 actually voted to make a difference we wouldnt have latham or howard and all the others trying to pull american style pranks/stunts

 

[Ziff]

Then if the labor government gets in this election and has a good economy... is that because of the liberals?

No, read the SMH article. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/16/1095320902731.html

The Liberals are good economic managers, the Labor party are good economic reformers. Go figure...

Now if we had a party that was good at both and was popular, we could just be the best nation ever!

 

[Ziff]

Yea well they sort of don't go hand in hand..
It kinda makes sense when u think bout it that a party that's good at economic reform may not be very good at managing the economy, while if you're good at managing the economy.. you're probably not going to come up with the new ideas, concepts which are needed for reform.

I dunno if i've explained that properly...I'm hoping you get what i'm talking about.

Keating probably embodies that the best...

Good economic reformer, but he was fiscally irresponsible later on in his term as Prime Minister...

But that is a very complex story too so yeah.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

yet somehow the coalition got in most of the country areas.. by alot lol

Hint: coalition with country party in 40's

 

[walrusbear]

out of curiosity, are any of the howard supporters on this board concerned by the social values espoused by the liberal gov?

 

[Ziff]

Neither of the australian political parties are drastically morally incorrect in any way... often they're in the middle range and slightly opposing each other, but generally the issues where the parties are different aren't that different..

ie, labor saying they want equal schools funding... the howard government wants something like this, but his idea is to boost public school funding, not just take funding away from private schools..however he hasn't spoken much about this.

I always explain the Australian political system like this (Using a 'Futurama' quote that is criticising the American political system...):

John Jackson: "It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: I'm against those things that everybody hates."
Jack Johnson: "Now, I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man. But quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said."
John Jackson: "I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far."
Jack Johnson: "And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough."

Futurama by Matt Groening, Episode 2ACV03 - "A Head in the Polls"....

 

[walrusbear]

i have issues with the ethics of the howard gov
i wouldn't say it's not morally incorrect

the treatment of refugees for instance

(awaits 'bleeding heart naive moron' rants)

 

[Ziff]

i have issues with the ethics of the howard gov
i wouldn't say it's not morally incorrect

the treatment of refugees for instance

(awaits 'bleeding heart naive moron' rants)

Explain why detesting the imprisonment of Children and adults who are asylum seekers and (as we've seen from the Tampa incident) legitiment refugees is "not morally correct" and also prone to eliciting a "bleeding heart" narrative?

 

[walrusbear]

Explain why detesting the imprisonment of Children and adults who are asylum seekers and (as we've seen from the Tampa incident) legitiment refugees is "not morally correct" and also prone to eliciting a "bleeding heart" narrative?

huh?
me?

i do think it's morally incorrect!
i'm just expecting people to say that i'm a bleeding heart and that it doesn't matter blah blah they're gonna fuck the country up somehow

 

[walrusbear]

there's no way i'm arguing that, it's ridiculous

i'm just ashamed that our country does commit human rights abuses.
we shouldn't be doing this sort of shit.

edit: what are some of the arguments for the other side though? i've discussed this with people before and i don't understand where they're coming from.

 

[walrusbear]

those are good points

haven't they already ascertained that none of the refugees pose any security threats? if so, maybe we could continue any other screening processes necessary without the whole extreme detention part?

i've have to research but i remember hearing that our refugee intake is fucking low compared to the likes of UK and Canada, and that neither of them use this same detaining process.

i'm cynical of the idea that we send money or support to other countries for their benefit. if there is any benefit on the side, then i suppose that's good, but have we sent troops to anywhere recently without our own interests at heart?
howard only sent troops to East Timor very late, when it became popular for him to do so, and to give us a firm grasp of the oil deposits there.
i'm pretty sure our involvement in Iraq was for the US trade agreement.