Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Deleted member]

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

Did I say that? I thought I liked the Keating reference.
What i said about lib policy was that I don't think " everything " is ideal.
The Australian labor party is not responsible for the mining boom, that kudos goes to the communists in china.
The discussion here is academic, I think it's obvious that there will be a change of government in September. Moreover I think hat the current mess will take a while to clean up. The damage will continue after they have gone

 

[browski]

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

dfcatch, I know the thread is long and you may not have read it all, but take a look at post #65

 

[Skyring]

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).

The economy is booming because we are selling coal to China to make carbon dioxide and pollution.

By and large, oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. The government gets the spotlight for three years while the opposition struggles for airtime.

And I am quite sure that every time Julia Gillard opens her mouth to make a promise, she is going to be greeted with a chorus of "yeah, right!". So many core promises broken, she is pulling an enormous burden behind her.

Deflecting attention is exactly the same game Gillard plays every Question Time. She is asked a specific question about some government disaster, and she instead uses her response to attack Abbott. That sort of tactic doesn't impress people. It's misleading, it's dishonest, it's a coward's response. It's what you do when you don't want to own up and admit the truth.

For myself, I don't particularly mind if government stuffs up now and again. It's a complex game, often driven by factors beyond our control. Nobody's perfect.

What I value is honesty, transparency and responsibility, so that I may cast an informed vote. I'm not going to vote for someone who sets out to obscure the facts or make dishonest promises.

 

[SQ421]

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

And as a small business owner, you must be livid that the "pro-business" party opposed the reduction of Company Tax rates from 30% to 29%, or they tax.... er.. "levy" the same party wishes to slap on businesses to fund their rolls-royce (or, staying true to this forum, the "SQ Suites") parental leave scheme.

 

[medhead]

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

You're missing the point. The moral comparison I'm making is in the treatment handed out by both sides in the respective cases. That treatment has been very different.

As for fisher depression, I'm sorry but her defence during her first court case was not depression but anxiety, a panic attack.

Finally, it might be worth remembering that Thomson only has to show that his spending was authorised but the union. A possibly that seems possible given their apparent governance failings. That situation means that it is very relevant that he has not be convicted.

 

[Mal]

Finally, it might be worth remembering that Thomson only has to show that his spending was authorised but the union. A possibly that seems possible given their apparent governance failings. That situation means that it is very relevant that he has not be convicted.

Interesting. Would this be a legitimate defence?

 

[SQ421]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone here actually changed their view since the last election?

Nope. My vote in the last election was decided the day Turnbull was ousted as the Liberal Leader.

 

[dfcatch]

dfcatch, I know the thread is long and you may not have read it all, but take a look at post #65

Fair enough - thanks for posting.

See from my own view - I oppose the current ALP and support the Coalition on much higher views.....

I personally believe in personal responsibility.
I believe in equality of opportunity not equality of outcomes.
I believe in wealth creation, not wealth redistribution. Ie. I believe that growing the pie increases "everyone's" share.
I am genuinely scared by this government's obsession with redistribution (as opposed to provision of a fair safety net).
I genuinely have no confidence in the ability of the current government to manage the economy.
And I believe the current state of the economy is in fact "despite" the government rather than "because" of them.
And, in no small part based on my younger experiences with the introduction of the VCE - I have a strong personal opposition to the ALP Left's ideology on education.

So Tony or no Tony, I won't be supporting the ALP for a generation I foresee.

Let them bring back people with the calibre of Beazley for example and that would be a game changer.

IMHO

 

[browski]

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.....

On the surface you point seems sound; except...........if in government, the Libs will need to pass the exact same piece of legislation to re-enact their former "pacific solution".
So, as a voter, you either supported the government's proposed legislation of you didn't...............so apparently the Lib voters don't. However next year if the Libs are in Govt and they try to pass the exact piece of legislation, will anybody hold TA accountable for the blood and politics he played with this issue. I think not.

 

[browski]

Fair enough - thanks for posting.

See from my own view - I oppose the current ALP and support the Coalition on much higher views.....

I personally believe in personal responsibility.
I believe in equality of opportunity not equality of outcomes.
I believe in wealth creation, not wealth redistribution. Ie. I believe that growing the pie increases "everyone's" share.
I am genuinely scared by this government's obsession with redistribution (as opposed to provision of a fair safety net).
I genuinely have no confidence in the ability of the current government to manage the economy.
And I believe the current state of the economy is in fact "despite" the government rather than "because" of them.
And, in no small part based on my younger experiences with the introduction of the VCE - I have a strong personal opposition to the ALP Left's ideology on education.

So Tony or no Tony, I won't be supporting the ALP for a generation I foresee.

Let them bring back people with the calibre of Beazley for example and that would be a game changer.

IMHO

dfcatch, those are nice beliefs.......but let's stay on topic. Can you specifically name a POLICY that the Libs will implement that you are really looking forward to?

 

[Pushka]

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

GPH doesn't "like" he simply understands push and pull factors. I think the liberals best policy at the moment is simply competence. You dont seem to understand that the liberals don't have to do much more to win Government. Just be competent. Be prepared to take responsibility for their decisions; don't LIE to the electorate, and don't scream misogyny as soon as people dare question your credibility. Don't take out your leader by an underhand vote then say you knew nothing about it. Don't appoint people to positions without due process. If you get into bed with people just to win government then stick to your word. Are you seeing a theme here?

As far as people sticking to the topic, where does it say someone can only post if they discuss Liberals policies? I missed that. That is your need, not the thread topic.

 

[medhead]

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.
.

What you wrote is clear. You accused her political opponents of using her situation against her. You have now repeated accusation that the ALP said something against her. The fact is the ALP did no such thing. A fact supported by the words of fisher herself. That's why you post is a load of rubbish.

That you then go on with a tirade against what you view as a political statement because I compared and contrasted the treatment of Thomson suggests mock outrage. It also shows you totally missed the point.

 

[Pushka]

And as a small business owner, you must be livid that the "pro-business" party opposed the reduction of Company Tax rates from 30% to 29%, or they tax.... er.. "levy" the same party wishes to slap on businesses to fund their rolls-royce (or, staying true to this forum, the "SQ Suites") parental leave scheme.

You have to make a profit to pay tax. Ways and means my friend. As Gillard has just realised with the mining tax. The difference between knowing how to run a business versus running a union.

 

[browski]

GPH doesn't "like" he simply understands push and pull factors. I think the liberals best policy at the moment is simply competence. You dont seem to understand that the liberals don't have to do much more to win Government. Just be competent. Be prepared to take responsibility for their decisions; don't LIE to the electorate, and don't scream misogyny as soon as people dare question your credibility. Don't take out your leader by an underhand vote then say you knew nothing about it. Don't appoint people to positions without due process. If you get into bed with people just to win government then stick to your word. Are you seeing a theme here?

As far as people sticking to the topic, where does it say someone can only post if they discuss Liberals policies? I missed that. That is your need, not the thread topic.

Pushka, people can post what they like, but after 1000 posts I was hoping some Lib follower would offer something that they were looking forward to. In you post above, all of those issues of competence and underhandedness are the same of the coalition; even if you cannot bring yourself to believe it. However let's assume that is a given for both sides; what are you looking forward to policy wise from the TA govt?

 

[Pushka]

How did you draw the conclusion that the liberals are incompetent when they haven't been in power for six years? As opposed to the Labor Government who have actually demonstrated it. So no, all things are certainly not equal in those stakes.

I don't care who gets in as long as they are competent.

I can see you don't understand the discussion line so I'll leave you to your theme and I'll stick with mine.

 

[browski]

How did you draw the conclusion that the liberals are incompetent when they haven't been in power for six years? As opposed to the Labor Government who have actually demonstrated it. So no, all things are certainly not equal in those stakes.

I can see you don't understand the discussion line so I'll leave you to your theme and I'll stick with mine.

Pushed you right to the edge of your own belief system then, didn't I? Scary isn't it when that happens.

 

[Pushka]

Are you serious?

 

[dfcatch]

dfcatch, those are nice beliefs.......but let's stay on topic. Can you specifically name a POLICY that the Libs will implement that you are really looking forward to?

Yes - repeal of the carbon tax


(And I'm hoping that their so-called "direct action" policy will kinda fall down the priority tree )

 

[medhead]

Interesting. Would this be a legitimate defence?

Her position was that she walked out of the shop with goods she intended to buy because of a panic attack. So admission of guilt in her defence and she was found guilty (pretty sure she wasn't convicted as she has recently retired not because of conviction be because of her ongoing difficulties). So I'd say it was mitigation for the penalty applied.

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.....

As already mentioned. When the government introduce legislation to "stop the boats" as demanded by the opposition. Then yes I do blame the opposition for not passing the legislation. Abbott clearly blocked the legislation because of the political game he was playing. (I'm surprised you can't see that)

So for that one piece of legislation, yes I will blame the opposition. If anyone need to try harder, it is not me.

We can also take it a step further. Abbott claimed that Nauru is the only was to "stop the boats". Yet the boats haven't stopped.

 

[Skyring]

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.

Most visitors on tourist visas leave promptly. Long before midnight. They were invited in, they filled out the paperwork, they got on the plane. The overstayers may take jobs, but if so, then they must be jobs that attract no government attention through tax file numbers or medicare deductions or all the rest of the bureaucratic imperialism. Nor are we paying them government benefits, providing healthcare, superannuation or any other assistance. They are no problem.

And we know that they are no problem because the Opposition isn't jumping up and down to make a fuss to embarrass the Government every Question Time.

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.

The facts are that John Howard implemented a policy which reduced deaths in transit to zero. The policy worked. Rudd changed that and the deaths began again. Before Tony Abbott became opposition leader, and before the Malaysia thing was rejected by the High Court. The government's own bill to implement the Malaysia Solution didn't get into Parliament until September 2011, and by that time under Rudd and Gillard, hundreds had already drowned.

Nor was Tony Abbott the only voice raised against Gillard. Bob Brown and the Greens weren't having a bar of it either. The Victorian ALP on 8 October 2011 rejected it as well.

Gillard has the wheel in her hands. She could have compromised, she could have worked with Tony Abbott - or the Greens and Independents, because remember that the Coalition doesn't have a majority in either house - she could have called an election on the issue and given the people the choice.

Blaming the Opposition for opposing the Government is no way to argue a case. The Opposition could steadfastly vote Nay to every Government Aye and that would be entirely acceptable. The Government failed to make their case for the Malaysia Solution to the Opposition, the Independents, the Greens, the High Court. Singling out just one voice from the many opposed to the scheme and laying hundreds of deaths on Tony Abbott's shoulders is very poor form indeed. Abbott held the very strong position that the Pacific Solution under Howard had worked for many years and it would work again. He said this time and again, pointing out that reducing deaths in transit was a prime factor in his firm position.