Australian Election (and repercussions thereof)

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Who will win

Howard
7
7%
Rudd
31
29%
Other
3
3%
Not from Australia, so therefore I am un-Australian
65
61%
 
Total votes: 106

User avatar
dumbclown
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:45 pm UTC
Location: Hunting Godzilla
Contact:

Australian Election (and repercussions thereof)

Postby dumbclown » Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:46 am UTC

Who do you think will win or who will you vote for in the next election?

This is pretty much for Australian's only. Not because we don't like other people. Just because I don't think our sphere of influences includes any other countries.

Personally I dislike both of them, but I think Rudd will win. Hopefully he will just be a caretaker prime minister but I think he will just be like Howard and keep holding on. Kevin using the old small target strategy. Kevin isn't going to win it as much as Johnny is going to lose it. It is pretty much the same tactic that Johnny used to beat Keating.

I think Johnny could have pulled off another term if he hadn’t tied himself to interest rates at the last election. Rudd keeps pointing out that Howard broke his promise on interest rates but doesn’t say that they will go down under his government. He knows that interest rates are linked to inflation which is influenced by people spending money. To influence people spending money you have to bring in some pretty big policies. Keating or Latham might have done it, Rudd definitely won’t and it goes against the liberal party ideals.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Hawknc » Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:35 am UTC

I'm no politics student, so the views expressed here are simply that of a layman. That said...

At this stage, I think Labor's still set up for a victory. A lot could happen between now and November, though. The three key factors I think are going to decide things are the economy, the IR laws and climate change. The coalition has pretty much lost on two of those three fronts in public opinion, but the economy alone might be enough to keep it in power if they give the public enough money.

ZeroSum
Cooler than Jeff
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

Postby ZeroSum » Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:46 am UTC

Non-Aussie here: What're the IR laws and what's the major economy crisis of the day?

(And if someone's masochistic enough: Feel like giving a run down of candidates and/or parties and their stances on the deciding issues?)

User avatar
German Sausage
3 of 5
Posts: 2933
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:45 am UTC

Postby German Sausage » Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:58 am UTC

IR stands for Industrial Relations, in which Howard sort of screwed over everyone who doesn't work for themselves of employ people. As I understand it, anyway.
<bakemaster> Only German Sausage can prevent forest fires
<felstaff> Hype is like a giant disappointment ray aimed squarely at the finished article.
<watson> Treat me like a criminal, Holmes!
TMT4L

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Hawknc » Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:14 am UTC

That's the basic idea, yeah. The concept was that changes to the industrial relations system would allow the economy to grow by letting employers be more flexible with their workplace arrangements with their employees. Notably, it meant the removal of unfair dismissal laws for any business with less than 100 employees, as well as a shift towards Australian Workplace Agreements (individually negotiated contracts) rather than enterprise agreements (union-negotiated contracts).

Long story short, the whole thing has been a PR disaster for the government as the unions and the union-friendly opposition party have attacked them on it constantly, sometimes justly and sometimes not. I'm not sure if it has had any measurable benefit to the economy, but most people see it largely as an ideological move to reduce union power in the workplace by an anti-union government.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Postby jestingrabbit » Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:27 am UTC

funniest political observation of the week: either Peter Costello told the truth, or those journalists did.

As for who wins, most democratic election results are accurately predicted by looking at the betting odds that you can get. Currently, its about $1.50 for labour, $2.50 for the coalition, so the smart money says labour.

I'll be voting green, because the other options are tweedle dum and tweedle dumber.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Hawknc » Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:30 am UTC

To be honest, so will I. :P Simon Crean is my local MP, and he's not a bad guy (plus he went to my high school), but the ALP is being vague about too many political issues for me to vote for them. 60% greenhouse reductions are great, for example, but unless you specify how you plan to meet them, it's just empty words.

User avatar
dumbclown
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:45 pm UTC
Location: Hunting Godzilla
Contact:

Postby dumbclown » Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:15 am UTC

ZeroSum wrote:Non-Aussie here: What're the IR laws and what's the major economy crisis of the day?

(And if someone's masochistic enough: Feel like giving a run down of candidates and/or parties and their stances on the deciding issues?)


There are currently two major parties. Labor party; which is headed by Kevin Rudd and the Coalition which is headed by John Howard. The coalition party is made up of the two other major parties the Liberals and the Nationals.

The Labor party is usually a centre left sort of socialist party. They are tied in strongly with the trade unions of Australia. Union leaders get a say in who become the party leader. So they are usually big on workers rights.

Liberals are a centre right party. At the moment they are pretty conservative. They tend to be big on liberalism for the economy and alliance with the US. I think the Nationals are centre right as well. The National party is pretty weak. It usually only does well in rural areas.

Other minor parties are the Greens; which are an environmental party. Australian Democrats; I'm not sure I think they’re maybe socialist but it doesn't really matter as they are pretty much finished. Family First; super conservatives, I think they have Christian links as well but official they are secular. I think they are the only other parties that have sitting members.

Probably the major economy crisis of the day is drought. It hardly gets a mention as a election issue even though it is starting to have some serious effects on the economy.. Pretty much everywhere in Australia is running out of water. Just about all major cities have water restrictions. I think the worst is currently Brisbane its dam’s levels are at 15%.
Last edited by dumbclown on Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:30 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Hawknc » Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:20 am UTC

I don't know how fair it is on the Labor party to say that they're socialist...one faction within it certainly is, but they don't fall in with the current leader, who is very much an economy-centric person. The Greens are a bit closer to socialist, I guess, but their platform revolves mainly around environmental and social issues like welfare and drug use.

User avatar
dumbclown
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:45 pm UTC
Location: Hunting Godzilla
Contact:

Postby dumbclown » Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:37 am UTC

That is why I said usually and sort of. At the moment you would struggle to fit them into it but it is still the closest I could get. It is pretty hard to exactly define political parties.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Postby Gelsamel » Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:06 am UTC

Lame ass Labor will probably win. But if it was upto me I'd make Howard Prime Minister again so we can get Nuclear.

Also:

"Rudd keeps pointing out that Howard broke his promise on interest rates."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w09-cQfp60Q

Well he didn't at all - this is actually quite funny.

The above clip shows Howard saying "Who do you trust to keep interest rates low?" - and then they show that interest rates have been increasing in recent times (mostly due to the oil problem and the US housing problem).

They claim this breaks his promise of "Keeping Interest rates are record lows" - except he never said the word "record"! It would be ridiculous to try to keep them at "record lows" - the fact is, the interest rates and the Australian economy is way better now then it was under any labor government.

I hate this type of deception.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
DurAlvar
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 8:03 am UTC

Postby DurAlvar » Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:19 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:They claim this breaks his promise of "Keeping Interest rates are record lows" - except he never said the word "record"! It would be ridiculous to try to keep them at "record lows" - the fact is, the interest rates and the Australian economy is way better now then it was under any labor government.

I hate this type of deception.


This is true, but I also hate that the howard government keeps pulling the "the interest rates are way lower now then with a labor government" line out as if it proves that letting a labor government in will instantly collapse the economy...

Actually, I just hate politics in general.
They say hard work never hurt anyone, but why take the chance?

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Postby jestingrabbit » Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:27 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:"Rudd keeps pointing out that Howard broke his promise on interest rates."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w09-cQfp60Q

Well he didn't at all - this is actually quite funny.

The above clip shows Howard saying "Who do you trust to keep interest rates low?" - and then they show that interest rates have been increasing in recent times (mostly due to the oil problem and the US housing problem).

They claim this breaks his promise of "Keeping Interest rates are record lows" - except he never said the word "record"! It would be ridiculous to try to keep them at "record lows" - the fact is, the interest rates and the Australian economy is way better now then it was under any labor government.

I hate this type of deception.


Whilst it never came out of his mouth, it was in the text of one of the adds they ran. And this is the sort of hair-splitting, conniving drivel that makes me want to sit him down and lecture him on why the people need to be able to minimally trust their politicians.

And nuclear, this isn't quite the thread, but the whole "we need base load" is a bit spurious. At the moment, need for electricity is artificially flatened by off peak hot water. Also, why am running, independently, a fridge to keep things cold with a hot part on the back and a hot water heater? Seriously, efficiency and distributed generation ftw. Which is what the greens talk up.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Postby Gelsamel » Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:25 am UTC

I'm not talking about whether Australia needs more electricity or not. I'm saying a step towards clean nuclear is a good side effect of job prospects for me!

If they started plans to make nuclear plants in the next few years then I would heavily consider working in them - and that would be awesome as fuck, thats the reason I want Nuclear Power mostly.

DurAlvar wrote:This is true, but I also hate that the howard government keeps pulling the "the interest rates are way lower now then with a labor government" line out as if it proves that letting a labor government in will instantly collapse the economy...


At least the line itself is true. Of course to insinuate that labor will instantly crash the economy is also ridiculous.


Actually, I just hate politics in general.


QTF.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
dumbclown
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:45 pm UTC
Location: Hunting Godzilla
Contact:

Postby dumbclown » Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:32 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:Lame ass Labor will probably win. But if it was upto me I'd make Howard Prime Minister again so we can get Nuclear.

Also:

"Rudd keeps pointing out that Howard broke his promise on interest rates."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w09-cQfp60Q

Well he didn't at all - this is actually quite funny.

The above clip shows Howard saying "Who do you trust to keep interest rates low?" - and then they show that interest rates have been increasing in recent times (mostly due to the oil problem and the US housing problem).

They claim this breaks his promise of "Keeping Interest rates are record lows" - except he never said the word "record"! It would be ridiculous to try to keep them at "record lows" - the fact is, the interest rates and the Australian economy is way better now then it was under any labor government.

I hate this type of deception.

Imagine Australia are in the cricket world cup and they need a six from the last delivery to beat Mexico, the atmosphere is electric as the bowler starts to run in, but he slips because an earthquake occurred, the ball lollipops down the pitch, the bats man hits the ball, it is going for six but collides with a meteorite, Australia loses the world cup and then somehow John Howard.

It has to be John Howard’s responsibility for Australia losing the world cup because I included his name in that sentence. Which is similar to saying the reason the economy is going gangbusters or interest rates are increasing is because of John Howard. The majority of management of the economy is done by the reserve bank. Even it rarely makes drastic changes. They just usually try to restrict the damage done between the troughs and the peaks. The government may change some of the guidelines that the reserve bank try to keep the economy between but they usually leave it alone. To directly affect the economy, interest rates or inflation would take a very serious policy. Something along the lines of we are no longer importing any products or a ban on having children.

The whole nuclear thing pretty much set off why I wanted to start this topic. I don't think Australia will get nuclear power stations. I'm pretty sure that power stations are state run not federal. They could give money to build them but it would be the states decision but I can't see any of the states building them. I think it is just a smoke and mirrors election issue.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Postby jestingrabbit » Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:51 pm UTC

dumbclown wrote:Imagine Australia are in the cricket world cup and they need a six from the last delivery to beat Mexico, the atmosphere is electric as the bowler starts to run in, but he slips because an earthquake occurred, the ball lollipops down the pitch, the bats man hits the ball, it is going for six but collides with a meteorite, Australia loses the world cup and then somehow John Howard.

It has to be John Howard’s responsibility for Australia losing the world cup because I included his name in that sentence. Which is similar to saying the reason the economy is going gangbusters or interest rates are increasing is because of John Howard. The majority of management of the economy is done by the reserve bank. Even it rarely makes drastic changes. They just usually try to restrict the damage done between the troughs and the peaks. The government may change some of the guidelines that the reserve bank try to keep the economy between but they usually leave it alone. To directly affect the economy, interest rates or inflation would take a very serious policy. Something along the lines of we are no longer importing any products or a ban on having children.


I don't quite agree with this. I think that government policy can have wide ranging economic effects. Massive labour market regulation would discourage employers, though I don't see Rudd proposing a massive shift. Also, the way the GST came in really did have a big effect on housing, and then the first home owners grant had a big effect too. There are other things I could talk about, like r&d allocations, international trade pact negotiations etc.

Nonetheless, I think that if we have a six month period with all the states and the feds from one party, they might be able to sort some stuff out that's been causing problems (ports is one people talk about a fair bit, for instance).

zealo
Posts: 321
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:36 am UTC
Location: perth, australia
Contact:

Postby zealo » Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:11 pm UTC

i prefer the liberal position to labour on almost every issue i can think of (broadband / telstra being the exception, but i'm not even sure where either party stand on those at the moment)

also i am bitter at the way labour have screwed up almost every state controlled area i can think of since they came to power in WA (water restrictions, power restrictions, teacher strikes, police strikes, nursing shortages, health system issues in general, new stadium(s), etc. i'll ignore all the internal problems and corruption crap). Unfortunately, labour appear to be the only party that cares about state politics here :(

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:01 am UTC

I will vote for the Greens 'cause I'm a commienazi.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Postby jestingrabbit » Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:38 am UTC

This I just found too funny to be true

John Howard will today outline a new push on federal-state relations, declaring that if he wins the next election he will run the country as an aspirational nationalist.

I aspire to be a nationalist, but I just can't put together a sufficently authoritarian regime. But give me a mandate and she'll be extreme right.

edit sp.
Last edited by jestingrabbit on Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:55 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Hawknc » Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:58 am UTC

I'm sure he understands the connotations that the term "nationalist" brings about...yet he uses it anyway? Colour me worried.

The arrogance he demonstrates in that article frustrates me no end. "Australians don't care about what level of government provides them with services [true], so let's move more power to the Federal government". Anyone see the logical discontinuity there?

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Postby jestingrabbit » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:03 am UTC

Hawknc wrote:I'm sure he understands the connotations that the term "nationalist" brings about...yet he uses it anyway? Colour me worried.


Yeah, its such a weird phrase to come up with. A for its meaning, who knows?

I kinda feel like we should talk about 'the strip club incident', but I know I don't see it as relevant, and I'd hope most xkcders don't either.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Hawknc » Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:42 am UTC

No...Rudd did it, Nelson's saying he did it, and I'm sure most of the other politicians have done it at various points as well. Hell, if anything, at least it shows Rudd isn't the complete nerd he appears to be. :P

Lester :P
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:04 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby Lester :P » Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:52 pm UTC

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I will vote for the Greens 'cause I'm a commienazi.


Me too!

Labour will win, hopefully, and this will lead way to greens winning next election, we need some genuinely charismatic people to start leading these parties is what I say, they're all ugly.
`When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean-Neither more nor less.'
`The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,'said he,`Which is to be master-That id all.'

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby VannA » Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:31 pm UTC

Ahhh..

No.

We don't need the Green's in power.
They don't actually know what they are doing, outside of a very small group.


Get some Greens councilmen in power, let the manage shire-level affairs.
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

zealo
Posts: 321
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:36 am UTC
Location: perth, australia
Contact:

Postby zealo » Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:05 am UTC

i would support the assassination of green party members

luminosity
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:01 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Postby luminosity » Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:26 am UTC

I'm hoping for a minority Labor government. Not a big fan of Labor, but Howard disgusts me for various reasons, and his entire government has become so arrogant after so long in power, that they really need to be given the boot.

Not a huge fan of Rudd, but his government will be trying harder for their first term at least, and governments constrained by minority rule seem to work the best.

User avatar
ShowPony
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:01 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, on that scary continent

Postby ShowPony » Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:54 am UTC

luminosity wrote:...but Howard disgusts me for various reasons, and his entire government has become so arrogant after so long in power, that they really need to be given the boot.


"Politicians are like nappies. They need to be changed regularly, for about the same reason."

I've no idea who first said that, but it's been true for a long time.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Hawknc » Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:43 pm UTC

Indeed. There is some sense to a two-term limit, I have to admit.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Postby jestingrabbit » Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:28 pm UTC

I don't like the term limit thing. It creates more problems than it solves, I think. Currently, noone has any reason to do deals with Bush, not overseas nations, not the congress, not even people in his own party. Time limits set us up for that kind of crap.

Regarding the greens and inexperience (which VannA brought up). They've had members in the senate for a long time now (about two decades if you count WA greens), and I think they've steadily gotten better at it. I also think the picture of them as being single issue is just incorrect. The environment is obviously their primary concern, but would you call the liberals single issue because they prioritise the economy above everything else?

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Hawknc » Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:31 pm UTC

No, of course not. They also care deeply about advancing the cause of moral conservatism. :P

Lester :P
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:04 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby Lester :P » Sun Aug 26, 2007 2:55 pm UTC

I want an australian obama, whats with the greying old men in rotund-belly-hiding suits? Inspiration please.
`When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean-Neither more nor less.'

`The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,'said he,`Which is to be master-That id all.'

User avatar
dumbclown
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:45 pm UTC
Location: Hunting Godzilla
Contact:

Postby dumbclown » Sun Aug 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:I don't quite agree with this. I think that government policy can have wide ranging economic effects. Massive labour market regulation would discourage employers, though I don't see Rudd proposing a massive shift. Also, the way the GST came in really did have a big effect on housing, and then the first home owners grant had a big effect too. There are other things I could talk about, like r&d allocations, international trade pact negotiations etc.

Nonetheless, I think that if we have a six month period with all the states and the feds from one party, they might be able to sort some stuff out that's been causing problems (ports is one people talk about a fair bit, for instance).


Umm. I think you do agree with what I said. They are all serious policies. Rewriting your tax system is very serious, putting it as the major cause of the housing boom is a bit difficult. Believing that the ATO or reserve bank did not have it hand in setting up the GST is even harder. International trade agreements are usually the government’s decision but to think that the major influences is the government rather then the foreign influences is a bit hard. We don't have the size to simply ignore what is going on in the rest of the world. R&D allocations the government sets the general guidelines. The changes are only small. They have to be serious changes to have a major impact. The economy will still run its cycle.

User avatar
dubsola
Posts: 2325
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:55 am UTC
Location: Sunny Snakeville

Postby dubsola » Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:21 am UTC


User avatar
Toeofdoom
The (Male) Skeleton Guitarist
Posts: 3446
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:06 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Toeofdoom » Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:14 pm UTC

I'm filling in my enrolment form this very moment (damn those dodgy new rules) but I think rudd will win. Honestly I think they both kinda suck but its how politics currently works. So politics in general at the moment kinda sucks too. Oh well.
Hawknc wrote:Gotta love our political choices here - you can pick the unionised socially conservative party, or the free-market even more socially conservative party. Oh who to vote for…I don't know, I think I'll just flip a coin and hope it explodes and kills me.

Website

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Postby jestingrabbit » Thu Sep 27, 2007 5:43 am UTC

I thought this was a pretty funny ad.

https://www.getup.org.au/campaign/Clima ... rer&id=126

User avatar
dubsola
Posts: 2325
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:55 am UTC
Location: Sunny Snakeville

Postby dubsola » Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:00 pm UTC

Toeofdoom wrote:I think rudd will win. Honestly I think they both kinda suck...

I hope so. While I fully agree he probably sucks (not quite sure on the specific suckiness of Rudd, haven't done my homework since I moved to the UK), he sucks less than Howard IMO. He has not lied to the same extent that Howard has. Maybe he should be given a chance to mislead the nation over emotional issues (I'm thinking children overboard here). Hopefully he would take a more rational stance on the war on terror. Hopefully he would be able to keep the economy going well (although I imagine the economy is due for a downturn).

At the very least I would look at him and not think 'What an embarassing-looking world leader'.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re:

Postby Gelsamel » Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:33 pm UTC

dubsola wrote:
Toeofdoom wrote:I think rudd will win. Honestly I think they both kinda suck...

I hope so. While I fully agree he probably sucks (not quite sure on the specific suckiness of Rudd, haven't done my homework since I moved to the UK), he sucks less than Howard IMO. He has not lied to the same extent that Howard has. Maybe he should be given a chance to mislead the nation over emotional issues (I'm thinking children overboard here). Hopefully he would take a more rational stance on the war on terror. Hopefully he would be able to keep the economy going well (although I imagine the economy is due for a downturn).

At the very least I would look at him and not think 'What an embarassing-looking world leader'.


"He has not lied to the extent that Howard has" - Logical Fallacy, you only have the information about the lies YOU'VE FOUND OUT, the ones you haven't you think are truths so that statement is essentially meaningless. And Howard has been in the spotlight longer (way longer) so you're bound to find out more from him.

Howard has been awesome with Australia's economy and Labour has a knack for for screwing it up.

Also,
<insert paraphrase from everything I said above>.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Election

Postby Hawknc » Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:09 am UTC

Rudd hasn't been caught lying yet because he's yet to say anything of substance. However, as they say, better to remain quiet and be thought a fool then open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Howard's done well for the economy, but I'd attribute a lot of that to the resources boom we're experiencing, and I doubt anyone can claim that he is responsible for record levels of global demand for resources such as coal, steel, natural gas etc. It's unfortunate that it looks like we're on the cusp of a global economic downturn, the Australian effects of which a Labor federal government will surely be blamed for.

User avatar
dubsola
Posts: 2325
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:55 am UTC
Location: Sunny Snakeville

Re: Re:

Postby dubsola » Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:18 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:"He has not lied to the extent that Howard has" - Logical Fallacy, you only have the information about the lies YOU'VE FOUND OUT, the ones you haven't you think are truths so that statement is essentially meaningless. And Howard has been in the spotlight longer (way longer) so you're bound to find out more from him.

Of course, I totally agree that he could be just as big a liar as Howard. I think all politicians lie, Rudd will be no exception. My sentiment was more along the lines that I think Howard has done enough lying and will hopefully end his time in office this election. It would be fantastic if politicians lies were found out on a regular basis, and that they were held accountable for them rather than blaming someone else.

I agree with Hawknc re: the economy.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Re:

Postby jestingrabbit » Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:09 am UTC

dubsola wrote:It would be fantastic if politicians lies were found out on a regular basis, and that they were held accountable for them rather than blaming someone else.


If we had a decent freedom of information act we'd be a step closer to making that a reality.

That's really what I want out of this election: a strengthening of the fundamentals of a democracy. The foi issue, government information campaigns and the fact that they hold both houses at present is fucking up the democratic process. With a bit of luck we can change the last of these at the election and over the next few years the balance of power party(ies) can change the others. Fingers crossed.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests