Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[browski]

As to policies and announcement times.In 2007 the writs for the election were issued on 17/10.
K Rudd announced his policies at his campaign launch on 14/11.
The election was 24/11.

And now the ALP is demanding Tony Abbott release his policies 7 months before the election!

Of course i agree on one thing.Kevin Rudd hardly ever said no.But he did utter usually 536 words that meant the same thing.

DrRon, with all respect that response is soft.
I'm not asking for any policies that may magically appear in the next few months; I'm talking about "why the hell are you actually supporting the Libs"?

For example: Do you like:
1. their "Paid Parental scheme"?
2. their gifting of 10 billion dollars to the heavy carbon polluters in the hope that these same polluters will reduce emissions. (Yes that is correct, comical, I know. But most Libs actually think the Lib position is to "Do Nothing.")
3. their plan for the re-introduction on Temporary Protection Visa, or do you like Tony using the Navy (against their charter), to Tow back boats (to countries that will not accept them)
4. his building of a "5 pillar economy". Now I know that this is not actually policy; but I couldn't find anything else.

So over to you right wingers; is it any of the above 4? Is there something/anything about the Libs that you actually know?

 

[Pushka]

I've said before that I've voted Labor so I don't see myself as a "right winger" if I vote liberal this time. I actually liked Paul Keating because he was a leader who accepted responsibility for his actions. I refuse to vote for labor while the PM deflects any responsibility for her poor leadership and decision making, by using the gender card.
And there is a litany of poor decisions to account for.

I couldn't care less about the paid parent scheme, and both sides treat asylum seekers badly so there are no points to be scored there.

And while China pumps out the carbon and the jury really is out about carbon tax then sometimes inaction is action.

Just wondering why it is ok for people to call liberal voters right wingers but I suspect calling labor voters left wingers may be offensive.

Why do you think you know it all because you vote for labor and right wingers know nothing because they don't. Arrogant much?

 

[Sprucegoose]

If you check Hansard, you'll find that 95% of the time, Coalition and ALP vote together on legislation. Go check. There might only be a few bods in the chamber, but they are supporting each other.

On a few items where there is a clear policy difference, then both sides will muster all their troops just to make sure. Of course those are the issues that generate heat and excitement and media interest.

It is the function of an opposition to scrutinise government policy and administration and to highlight shortcomings. Gillard did exactly the same thing in opposition, and now she's holding the reins, surprise, surprise, surprise, she's doing some of the things she railed against most bitterly from the other side of the chamber. Nor is her government quite as open and forthcoming and transparent as the ideal she held up as an example when she was a shadow minister asking questions of Howard and his crew.

Government and Opposition do this little dance, regardless of which party is in power. Neither side likes to sing the praises of the other, and both sides love to highlight any failing of the other.

That's understood. What I find harder to understand is when people who aren't even members of a political party do exactly the same thing. Like fans at a sporting fixture, I like to think of it. The home team can do no wrong, the opposing side is full of evil.

I listen to what someone says about politics and I take note of what they say. If it's constantly tipped to one side, then they are singing the team song and their views may be discounted, because there is never going to be any balance or objectivity.

Agree! Most of the heavy lifting is done in committees and they are all bipartisan.

 

[Sprucegoose]

I've said before that I've voted Labor so I don't see myself as a "right winger" if I vote liberal this time. I actually liked Paul Keating because he was a leader who accepted responsibility for his actions. I refuse to vote for labor while the PM deflects any responsibility for her poor leadership and decision making, by using the gender card.
And there is a litany of poor decisions to account for.

I couldn't care less about the paid parent scheme, and both sides treat asylum seekers badly so there are no points to be scored there.

Just wondering why it is ok for people to call liberal voters right wingers but I suspect calling labor voters left wingers may be offensive.

The meaning of the true 'Liberal' as espoused by Menzies seems to have been forgotten in the frenzy for buzz words and labelling. As much as the 'light on the hill' missive.

 

[browski]

I've said before that I've voted Labor so I don't see myself as a "right winger" if I vote liberal this time. I actually liked Paul Keating because he was a leader who accepted responsibility for his actions. I refuse to vote for labor while the PM deflects any responsibility for her poor leadership and decision making, by using the gender card.
And there is a litany of poor decisions to account for.

Just wondering why it is ok for people to call liberal voters right wingers but I suspect calling labor voters left wingers may be offensive.

All Australian political parties are "left" of both US parties, so it could be argued that even Nationals are a leftist party. But domestically, I don't think either Greens, Labor Libs and Nationals find it offensive to be called left or right wing. Over the years, Labor has moved to the right and the Libs have moved even further to the right (does anybody really think Lib leaders Malcolm Fraser, John Hewson and Malcolm Turnbull really fit into the modern day Liberal party; they are pure labor now.)

Still think you are dodging the question Pushka...........just give a few Liberal policies you'd like to see implemented. At the very least you must be love the TPV idea. Give us something.

 

[Deleted member]

A high speed rail link syd to cbr to mel would be a great place to start. If they extended it to per via adl and bne then it would be much better.

When the uk, Japan, china etc can get high speed trains sorted you do wonder why Australia keeps rafting around.

I suspect our large size and small population has something to do with it.

 

[Deleted member]

Julia is getting the Kiwis to take 150 of the thousands, what a joke :evil:

They eventually end up here anyway.
The only answer is to treat NZ like anywhere else , and as an expat kiwi I think I make sense on this one

 

[Pushka]

I've given plenty of examples in this thread why I think the current Labor Government needs to go. As far as labor policies go, there's not much point bothering to know them because they change as soon as they are elected. Then there's the budget surplus, when all facts screamed to a deficit there was the Treasurer insisting it would happen. Against all the reality.

As a small business owner we are treated as worse than the devil by this Govt.

 

[dfcatch]

Obviously: Sen Fisher has been convicted. Mr Thompson remains innocent until proven guilty. The law is unequivocal in that respect.

Seriously people - politics aside - there is a massive difference in issues relating to mental health & depression vs rorting union funds (allegedly).

And unlike some others on this forum my view on this specific topic is not flavored by politics. If Fisher was an ALP member my view would be identical.

I truly hope neither you nor anyone you care about ever has to deal with the debilitating consequences of depression and the difficulties surrounding it.

If you ever have to - your "perspective" on the situation in question would change rather quickly.

Regardless of the perspective of the "law" - there is absolutely NO moral equivalence between Fisher and Thomson.

Now - leave Fisher alone to sort out her health issues.

Let's plenty of legitimate partisan issues for us to get into the ring with.

Back to regular programming.....

 

[Deleted member]

I've given plenty of examples in this thread why I think the current Labor Government needs to go. As far as labor policies go, there's not much point bothering to know them because they change as soon as they are elected. Then there's the budget surplus, when all facts screamed to a deficit there was the Treasurer insisting it would happen. Against all the reality.

As a small business owner we are treated as worse than the devil by this Govt.

Precisely my point. Generally speaking I am not overly fussed about which party is in power, my pet hates are incompetent and or corrupt. This one is definitely dishonest and has a real bent against small business. The labour love of big bureaucratic public sector relies on creating red tape etc, it's not enough that unions are making life difficult for the small business owner, but they ( the labor govt) come at it from the other end .
I think the carbon tax is a waste of time, not because I believe or don't believe In ( man made) global warming but because if the premise of the argument is that it's man made, the. We need to stop doing it, not taxing it.
I think the pink batts fiasco was enough in itself for the government to resign in shame, I think the school halls disaster was another.
This reeks of incompetence , and for this reason alone they need to go.
I don't actually think everything the conservatives are putting forward is ideal, I suspect that the party room will have more say here and common sense will prevail. Or at least I hope it does .
I could go on but I think you get the picture.

 

[777]

Let's plenty of legitimate partisan issues for us to get into the ring with.

The issue is very, very, very simple: what should happen when a politician is accused of a crime?

I am happy to leave the names of individual politicians out of it.

 

[browski]

I've given plenty of examples in this thread why I think the current Labor Government needs to go. As far as labor policies go, there's not much point bothering to know them because they change as soon as they are elected. Then there's the budget surplus, when all facts screamed to a deficit there was the Treasurer insisting it would happen. Against all the reality.

As a small business owner we are treated as worse than the devil by this Govt.

GPH "likes" the fact that you cannot think of one Liberal policy which you'd like implemented. You state you've given many examples in this thread of why you don't like the Labor government; but you cannot give one Lib policy that you actually like. This is why the polls will tighten come election day. The swinging voters (not diehard Labs or Labor) will actually look at policy; and they often stick with the devil they know (who may even have poor policy) rather than the devil they don't know (who has none)............especially when the economy is booming. (another inconvenient fact)
Think Keating '93 and Howard 2001, 2004

 

[Skyring]

The issue is very, very, very simple: what should happen when a politician is accused of a crime?

The law takes its course, as for anybody else.

However, some voters will make their minds up regardless of the facts, depending on which political sports team they support.

And some will make their minds up on the facts presented by the media, having no better evidence.

We are all potential jurors, we all consider the situation, we all have opinions.

And we are all voters. Ultimately we get to be judge and jury for some politicians.

 

[browski]

I don't actually think everything the conservatives are putting forward is ideal, I suspect that the party room will have more say here and common sense will prevail. Or at least I hope it does .
I could go on but I think you get the picture.

Ahh the picture we are trying to get is "what exactly are the conservatives putting forward" ...........just one thing........anything.

 

[medhead]

i don't think anybody is championing visa overstayers as a good thing. Think of immigration as holding a party and sending out invites. Australia is a party country in the eyes of many, and certainly the standard of living, the stability, the tolerance and all the things we love about our nation make us an attractive destination.

You send out invites, cater for those who respond, and the party proceeds well. Until the viral call to gatecrashers goes out and suddenly your home is full of hundreds of people you didn't invite and you don't want.

The visa overstayers were invited, and if they don't leave when asked, you may tip them out when you find them curled up on the couch or swilling your beer in the kitchen. The irregular arrivals, you are stuck with. The police won't cart them away without an order from the High Court, and until then, keep the beer and party pies flowing and put up some tents in the backyard. Maybe the neighbours can be paid to house a few. Maybe not.

Gillard's promised solution didn't involve Malaysia. That came after the election. A long way after she was knocked back by East Timor. And the High Court. Tony Abbott controls neither of those entities. Julia Gillard is sitting in the big chair, pulling in the big money, holding the wheel. The buck stops with her.

You say that Tony Abbott is to blame because he wouldn't play ball? I say that Julia Gillard is to blame for the exact same reason. Neither coöperated, but Julia is the person in the driver's seat.

She could have made the Malaysia thing a confidence matter. She could have forced a double dissolution via the Senate. She could have used Parliament to force an outcome.

She chose to do none of those things. And we now have the current situation where people are dying by the boatload, people are being crammed into detention camps, both at rates far higher than anything we saw in the Howard years, and Gillard washes her hands of the promises she made to the Australian people to gain their votes, and she blames the High Court, Tony Abbott, peoplesmugglers, anybody but the person being paid to do the job. Herself.

The visa overstayers were invited on the condition they leave at midnight. They take away jobs from Australians. They drain our resources. They are not some free ride without consequences. The magnitude of the problem they create is greater than the boat arrivals.

The fact remains the person in the big chair promised to do something, I don't recall any particular something being promised in that so whether Malaysia was involved is irrelevant. When they tried to do something, the person in the big seat was prevented from implementing their policies by the high court etc. and then by the person who blocked legislation in parliament.

I'm also appalled by people dying, but they're dead because tony Abbott wanted to play games. As you say the person in the big seat makes the decisions. They made a decision and Abbott played politics with that instead of letting the government stand on their decision and instead of trying to save lives.

 

[medhead]

Agreed.. & the incredulous scheme of offering additional thousands more of 457 visas, as our current qualified & willing Australians lay idle seeking respectable employment opportunities.
As much as the current Government talk up their very underwhelming achievements.

Or even offering 457 visas in the first place.

 

[dfcatch]

The visa overstayers were invited on the condition they leave at midnight. They take away jobs from Australians. They drain out resources. They are not some free ride without consequences. The magnitude if the problem they create is greater than the boat arrivals.

The fact remains the person in the big chair promised to do something, I don't recall any particular something being promised in that so whether Malaysia was incloved is irrelevant. When they tried to do something, the person in the big seat was prevented from implementing their policies by the high court etc. and then by the person who blocked the legislation in parliament.

I'm also appalled by people dying, but they're dead because tony Abbott wanted to play games. As you say the person in the big seat makes the decisions. They made a decision and Abbott played politics with that instead of letting the government stand on their decision and instead of trying to save lives.

Actually Medhead -

She was blocked in parliament because she (as the head of the legitimately elected and formed Coalition Government of ALP, Green and Independents) couldn't agree and pass the legislation.

Oh sorry - I thought this Government was passing all its legislation.

You can't blame the opposition for not passing Government bills.

And likewise - you can't credit the government for passing legislation in one breath and then excuse it for failing to in another.....

Please keep the arguments credible...... I missed you from the thread initially because I like your rational arguments.

I'll let you off the hook on this one


Ps. I know you can do better

 

[dfcatch]

Ahh the picture we are trying to get is "what exactly are the conservatives putting forward" ...........just one thing........anything.

Let me turn it around.....

I'm not being rude either.

I respect your rusted on opinions.....but....

Given that the majority (according to successive opinion polls) don't agree with you.

Pray tell us what is it about the ALP that makes you such a rusted on defender (and automatic opposer of the Coalition)

Genuine question????


Ps. Please don't give me the Talking Points lines from the ALP email - I receive that too

 

[vetrade]

I'm deadly serious. Have a read of what you wrote. It is absolute rubbish. Mary-jo Fisher herself has come out and said that her politial opponents did not do anything against her. She blames the police alone. So you statement is absolutely wrong. Then you bang on about suicide, which has not been suggested at all. The clear implication of your ramblings is that her political opponents were going to make her top herself. That is not support by the facts and hence is rubbish. I can't believe you can right such mis-infomation that is not supported by the facts and then have to gall to attack me for pulling you up.

The biggest joke is that you are so blind in supporting Abbott that you can't see the hypocrisy in his various positions.

Oh and Mary Jo's defence was based around anxiety and confusion. Not depression. Can I assume you're just making that as well?


.

Medhead, I reiterate that my post was not making a political statement. The way you have misrepresented what I did say shows your mind is closed and that you will stubbornly cling to your misinterpretation no matter what.

Did you not read my disclaimer/clarification regarding suicide which explicitly declared that I had no knowledge one way or the other as to whether Fisher had been suicidal? The point you apparently could not grasp was that the irrational behaviours of people suffering depression can result in suicide. Fact! Because of possible unpredictable behaviour it is therefore reckless to subject people with diagnosed depression to scrutiny if you aren't qualified to understand the possible repercussions. To suggest I was inferring that Fisher was going to top herself because of what Labor had said is just plain silly.

Adelaide Advertiser 22/6/12:
Labor backbencher Doug Cameron said: "I wish her the best for the future and hope that (she receives appropriate treatment for) this terrible mental illness that afflicts many people”.

The Age 2/9/11:
Mary Jo Fisher, who has been a senator since being elected in 2007, has recently been drawn into the Craig Thomson affair, with Labor seeking to draw some comparison between her position and Mr Thomson's...........

The Drum:
"The incident occurred at a time when Senator Fisher was trialling new medication for depression. Whilst the Labor party have been saying that allegations against Craig Thomson should be dealt with in the courts and he should not be judged beforehand, the Labor Party, including Prime Minister Gillard, seized on Senator Fisher's problems by giving them as much airing as possible as a counter to the activities of Craig Thomson."

You must be one of the few who missed Labor's attempts to score points from the Fisher case.

And, on the topic of making things up I think you will find that a psychiatrist gave evidence at Ms Fisher's trial that she was under treatment for medically diagnosed depression before the offences (i.e it obviously wasn't a diagnosis of convenience after the fact).......so much for your fabricated assertion that her defence was "based around anxiety and confusion - not depression".

 

[777]

The law takes its course, as for anybody else.

However, some voters will make their minds up regardless of the facts, depending on which political sports team they support.

And some will make their minds up on the facts presented by the media, having no better evidence.

We are all potential jurors, we all consider the situation, we all have opinions.

And we are all voters. Ultimately we get to be judge and jury for some politicians.

I totally agree with this. The issue is when it gets clouded in nonsense along the lines of "not accepting their vote" while they are entitled to sit in the parliament and have not yet been found guilty of anything. If that's the standard then it should apply in ALL cases and not simply where it is politically convenient.

This parliament provides a perfect case study in that because a Liberal, an ALP politician and politician who was a liberal and now is sitting as independent have all been charged at some point.