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

Re: Australian Election

Postby Gelsamel » Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:24 am UTC

I agree... Kyoto is stupid. Howard was right. But Rudd is just using not Ratifying it as leverage to get Howard out. And people will see Howard as anti-environment.
"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
KingAl
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:50 am UTC

Re: Australian Election

Postby KingAl » Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:18 am UTC

stephen wrote:Still the point remains that long term it will cost us more to raid the futures fund to build broadband than the benefits of rolling out a lower-cost-but-still-faster-than-currently system like Howard has proposed. A big part of my issue with Rudd's plan is to do with the way in which it will be implimented. A significant part of the cost should be taken up by the businesses that will benefit directly from the infrastructure (i.e. ISPs).


The 'future fund' exists in a large part because of the sale of Telstra. The reason ISPs aren't upgrading the broadband is because Telstra is a privatised company with a monopoly and as such doesn't really care; note companies such as iinet are playing a signficant part in broadband distribution, but their irrelevance in the market as a whole results in poor uptake. The lower-cost-but-still-faster-than-currently system is genuinely not good enough; Howard stated "12 megabits sounds pretty good to me" or something similar, demonstrating he doesn't know what he's talking about. Upgrading to 'slightly faster than the current level' is quite pointless considering both its inadequacy on an international level and the need for further upgrades in future regardless.
Just to be clear, I'm not partisan, but the sale of Telstra was one of the worst decisions regarding infrastructure in years.

Ashbash
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:46 am UTC

Re: Australian Election

Postby Ashbash » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:35 am UTC

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Refusing to export uranium would benefit the environment in the same way that refusing to hand out condoms prevents the spread of STIs.

As in then China will start using worse polluting things? Never thought about it like that.

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

Re: Australian Election

Postby Gelsamel » Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:31 am UTC

"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
KingAl
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:50 am UTC

Re: Australian Election

Postby KingAl » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:48 am UTC

Haha, I saw that on Triple J last weekend. Another bizarre one - http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ptccZze7VxQ

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

Re: Australian Election

Postby German Sausage » Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:35 am UTC

Hawknc wrote:
stephen wrote: It is interesting to note that 75% of Kyoto ratifiers have not met their targets. Australia HAS.

To be fair, we've only met our targets because of changes in land use, which aren't sustainable. We haven't done much to reduce the sector that will continue to drive emissions growth, which is power generation.

as well as this, our target was a reduction in the rate of increase, not a reduction in total emissions. we have (adjusted after land use) met our target of target of 8% growth. this will not lead to a 75% reduction in emissions, which is what is predicted to stop catastrophic climate change.
<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
damienthebloody
the most metal thing EVER
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:25 pm UTC
Location: under a rock

Re: Australian Election

Postby damienthebloody » Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:03 pm UTC

KingAl wrote:Haha, I saw that on Triple J last weekend. Another bizarre one - http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ptccZze7VxQ

Gelsamel wrote:http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=DgOu3b9DAYM

So weird - the axis of awesome is a bunch of people I know from uni, and the the Chairman Rudd one was made by my best friend.

Spread the word, peoples!
German Sausage wrote:Is that an EMP in your pants, or are you just outraged by my sexist behaviour?
liza wrote:When life gives you a wife made of salt, make margaritas?
Dance like you're stamping on a human face forever.

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 » Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:26 pm UTC

Ah, so the Chairman Rudd one isn't Liberal propaganda? I mean, I laughed anyway, but it struck me as one of those "grassroots" (ahem) videos paid for through a murky maze of channels by someone who knows someone who knows someone in the Liberal party.

Glad it isn't, though.

User avatar
KingAl
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:50 am UTC

Re: Australian Election

Postby KingAl » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:19 am UTC

If you look at his other videos, many of them are anti-Liberal - he's just taking the piss out of everyone, regardless of party :D

damienthebloody: Haha, it's a small world.

User avatar
Gem
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:56 am UTC
Location: Perth, Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Election

Postby Gem » Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:27 am UTC

I'm not old enough to vote, but I don't really like either of them. I do political&legal studies at school, and Howard is turning into a centralist. He's constantly eroding States' rights, and he's kinda gone a bit power-mad. IMO. IR laws, Murray-Darling Basin plan, taking over Mersey hospital...and he's reduced the accountability of government. The Senate is supposed to be a house of review, but Howard not only has a majority, he reduced the Standing Committees from 15 to 10, and all of them must now be chaired by a member of government. So the committee findings are hardly likely to go against government policy. And the anti-terror laws - he introduced that bill, and the IR bill and another bill in one week, and the first two were 400+ pages and pretty detailed. Anti-terror was given one day's scrutiny by a Committee.

Having said that, I don't really like Rudd either. He seems to be a Howard copycat. And Labor's track record with the economy isn't so great.

I'd vote Greens. Also because we had a talk given to our class by them, and the guy looked like Jesus. I mean, who can argue with Jesus? He's got to have our best interests at heart...

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

Re: Australian Election

Postby VannA » Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:59 am UTC

On the sale of Telstra... (Not that is wholly relevant :D)

Telstra should have been split, the service delivery side should have been sold, and the infrastructure decentralised and parcelled out to councils, with state (Or federally) mandated minium service capabilities, together with a long-term funding campaign for upgrades.

There is no exuse for Australia not to have captial-city wide high-bandwidth links. There are perfectly valid reasons for the expense of international and country data access rates.. but our city population density is plenty high enough to support large-backbone networks.
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.

|Erasmus|
Branson
Posts: 2643
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:53 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re:

Postby |Erasmus| » Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:00 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.



of course, under howard as treasurer, we did have incredibly high interest rates as well.

So... him claiming to be the 'right' leadership and how he has 'good economic management' is a complete load of bollocks. He just came in at a good time

guntersmells
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:28 am UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Australian Election

Postby guntersmells » Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:39 am UTC

I think that John Howard has had his time and has buggered up the country enough, I don't think that Rudd is quite PM material though. If I were to vote, i'd probably go independant (18 next year).

Did anyone catch Peter Garret's talk on Radio National yesterday morning? It was hillarious!

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 » Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:49 am UTC

Got a link to an audio/transcript? Peter Garrett is hilarious to me, if only because few people have sold themselves out quite so completely as him. ;) You can't become a politician for a major party without betraying at least some of the principles you have, unless your principles just happen to fall exactly with the party's, even when they change.

stephen
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:00 am UTC

Re: Australian Election

Postby stephen » Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:22 am UTC

guntersmells wrote:I think that John Howard has had his time and has buggered up the country enough, I don't think that Rudd is quite PM material though. If I were to vote, i'd probably go independant (18 next year).

Did anyone catch Peter Garret's talk on Radio National yesterday morning? It was hillarious!


You are 17, so you do not remember the time when finding a job was nearly impossible, nor when housing interest rates were sitting at higher than 10%. I note that the Labor opposition has actually had to cut some of its spending promises for this election because the promises have gotten out of hand.

Garret has caused a great amount of credibility loss for the Labor party regarding climate change based on his recent comments. That will hurt their votes.

Interestingly the mining UNION has backed the LABOR policy which will mandate 20% renewables by 2020. Geez, I wonder why a UNION would back a LABOR policy when it will have a detrimental effect on their members. It couldn't possibly be due to the UNION ties in the LABOR party could it?

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

Re: Australian Election

Postby Gelsamel » Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:58 am UTC

What did Garret say?
"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

stephen
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:00 am UTC

Re: Australian Election

Postby stephen » Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:26 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:What did Garret say?


Garret said that Labor would sign another agreement which excluded China and India in 2012.

Ashbash
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:46 am UTC

Re: Australian Election

Postby Ashbash » Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:35 am UTC

What are your thoughts on other issues apart from economic and environmental ones such as indiginous affairs and public education, health etc guys? In regards to party concerns/promises/actually making a difference-ness.

stephen
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:00 am UTC

Re: Australian Election

Postby stephen » Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:46 am UTC

Ashbash wrote:What are your thoughts on other issues apart from economic and environmental ones such as indiginous affairs


Judging by Rudd's support of the coallition's plans, there won't be much difference.

and public education,


<sarcasm>The extra 5% of federal spending on education that Labor has promised will make such a huge difference</sarcasm>, especially considering that the states are the ones who provide most of the funding for our education system. We may see a drop in private school attendance under Labor (bad for the economy as the government provides around 4x the funding to public students in comparison to private school students per capita). Universities won't change much, if at all.

health


Well you have to worry about the muddled and unclear plans that federal labor has to fix the state labor induced problems with our public health system.

etc guys? In regards to party concerns


Well I personally worry how long Rudd will hold onto his leadership. I also think that should he retain his seat, Malcom Turnbull would end up being our next PM if the coallition was returned to government.

/promises/


The core or the non-core promises :P. It is interesting to note that a leaked labor document admitted that they couldn't back up all their promises and are now cutting some of them.

actually making a difference-ness.


Any government in power will make a difference.

guntersmells
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:28 am UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Australian Election

Postby guntersmells » Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:54 am UTC

I'll try and find a transcript, but he would refuse to answer the question, the presenter asked him repeatedly about 4 times if the Kyoto protocol was going to be extended to 3rd world countries, because if it wasn't, we knew that it wasn't going to work. His answers were no where near what the question was about.

Here:

Code: Select all

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s2072669.htm


Shortly after this happened, who would turn up but the mighty pm!?:P

Code: Select all

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s2072671.htm


And no, I'm still pretty young, and I havn't witnessed much about previous governments. I only really go about what my parents tell me and go by, I suppose everyone was like that until they're independant enough to find out etc. But my mate who is a 40 something year old builder was saying what a bitch unions can be in the workplace. He was working on a buildsite, doing roofing in sydney near the Harbour Bridge. It was an unusually hot day, about 40 degrees up there, and the unions came up with a thermometer and measured it, and it was 2 degrees over the conditions they'd set as "too hot". So they went on strike.

This strike lasted about 8 hours, 4 hours left of that day where he didn't get paid, and 4 hours of the next day where they reached an agreement of some sort. Now this wasn't the only incident involving strikes, but when they were on strike, they didn't get paid. And what's worse, was they had to go to work so that when the strike got called off, they could start immediately, else they'd be sacked. So at 7 in the morning, they all had to drive onto their worksite and sit around doing nothing for X amount of hours waiting for the strike to be over while not getting paid!! I think there needs to be a firm control over the unions, but still have them in place.

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

Re: Australian Election

Postby Gelsamel » Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:08 am UTC

Why does putting a restriction on developing countries which do not necessarily have the technology to power straight through industrialization and into nuclear/solar/wind/etc. sound like a bad idea...
"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

stephen
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:00 am UTC

Re: Australian Election

Postby stephen » Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:22 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:Why does putting a restriction on developing countries which do not necessarily have the technology to power straight through industrialization and into nuclear/solar/wind/etc. sound like a bad idea...


This is precisely the time for them to implement renewables/nuclear/clean coal, while they're still in the building phase. Unlike the developed countries which have already invested significant capital into their current power plants and significant amounts of CO2 emissions into building those plants.

The idea is not for China to slow down their growth. The idea is to get them to grow in a green way. We have to deal with this now before it is too late (peak emissions must occur at 2015 or earlier if we are to have a chance at keeping climate change under control).

Holding out on signing anything until the US and China are on board is exactly the right thing to do. Note that we are one of the few countries who are actually going to make our Kyoto target.


RE: Workchoices...

I used to work in retail. I was on a state award. However, after working for over 2.5 years in that job I discovered that I had been drastically underpaid according to that state award. Fortunately my boss was quite reasonable about it when it was discovered and all employees who were affected by the mistake were paid out (they basically did not realise that all Sunday work was to be paid at time and a half - and I'd worked every Sunday for two and a half years!).

Having a state award system does not make it easier to ensure your rights at work. Having a fairness test helps far more. At least on an AWA I would have known *exactly* what I was getting, and if it was unfair I would have at least known about it, unlike what happened in this situation.

I later got a job elsewhere working part time on essentially minimum wage without the benefits. I needed the money so I took the job, even though I knew the employer was screwing me. If AWAs and fairness tests had existed then I would have gotten my entitlements (I wasn't there long and the difference was not worth persuing legally, but the point remains that if I was someone else and did not know my entitlements I could have been screwed for a lot longer in that job).

Unless you are working in big business, AWAs with a fairness test are far better than the confusing award system. Last time I checked around 3.7 million Aussies are employed in small business.


You've been asked before in this thread not to double post. Next time there'll be a warning. Please keep all your replies in one post.

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

Re: Australian Election

Postby Gelsamel » Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:41 am UTC

stephen wrote:(peak emissions must occur at 2015 or earlier if we are to have a chance at keeping climate change under control).


:-/
"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

stephen
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:00 am UTC

Re: Australian Election

Postby stephen » Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:54 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:
stephen wrote:(peak emissions must occur at 2015 or earlier if we are to have a chance at keeping climate change under control).


:-/


I heard that on AM the other morning (or was it PM the other evening?). Yes, it's sobering thought.

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

Re: Australian Election

Postby Gelsamel » Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:57 am UTC

stephen wrote:
Gelsamel wrote:
stephen wrote:(peak emissions must occur at 2015 or earlier if we are to have a chance at keeping climate change under control).


:-/


I heard that on AM the other morning (or was it PM the other evening?). Yes, it's sobering thought.


You heard it.. and thus it's true?

I guess this is not the thread for it, but that is quite a dubious claim considering the accuracy of climate models.
"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
KingAl
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:50 am UTC

Re: Australian Election

Postby KingAl » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:53 am UTC

I find the 2015 stat a little hard to believe, to say the least, and I think if it were strongly supported it would be paraded about a lot more...

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

Re: Australian Election

Postby Gelsamel » Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:01 am UTC

KingAl wrote:I find the 2015 stat a little hard to believe, to say the least, and I think if it were strongly supported it would be paraded about a lot more...


It would be paraded around more if it was strongly supported

But even if it were it is still dubious... >.>
"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

stephen
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:00 am UTC

Re: Australian Election

Postby stephen » Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:05 pm UTC

stephen wrote:You've been asked before in this thread not to double post. Next time there'll be a warning. Please keep all your replies in one post.


Well this was news to me. Perhaps a PM would have been a better way to inform me other than by editing a post on a previous page. At least a name as to the moderator who edited my post would have been nice so that I could clarify the rules (and yes, I did read the rules thread). This is the first messageboard on the internet that I have been on when "double posting" meant posting two replies to the same thread in a row. Most message boards take it to mean posting the same post twice in a row.

Having said that, I have no problem following rules and will do so in the future. I just assumed that by separating my posts into logically divided topics it would be easier to read, especially when I am posting such long pieces in a thread on politics where the reader may only be interested in comments on (for example) IR and not on climate change or vice versa.

EDIT:

You heard it.. and thus it's true?

I guess this is not the thread for it, but that is quite a dubious claim considering the accuracy of climate models.


No, hearing it does not make it true. But the AM/PM show on radio national is usually a very good source of information, and were quoting one particular report. Granted it was probably a little rash to state it as absolute truth like I did, but if that is even a possibility with even a .5% chance of being correct, shouldn't we do something about it?

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 » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:07 am UTC

Something should most definitely be done, but I don't see what has to do with politics. :P Facetiousness aside, the ALP has no plan to reduce emissions (a target, yes, but no plan for achieving it) and the Coalition has no intention of reducing them to the degree required, so we're kind of buggered either way. The best we can really do is try to apply pressure to the large emitters and future large emitters (US, China and India primarily) to get them to act fast, but the major parties aren't working to differentiate themselves on that front. Heck, I'd put the ALP out in front there, if only because they're more likely to be able to influence China on such issues than the Liberal party.

stephen
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:00 am UTC

Re: Australian Election

Postby stephen » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:50 am UTC

Hawknc wrote:Something should most definitely be done, but I don't see what has to do with politics. :P


I know that you are only kidding, but short of a technological breakthrough a political solution is the only way forward.

Facetiousness aside, the ALP has no plan to reduce emissions (a target, yes, but no plan for achieving it) and the Coalition has no intention of reducing them to the degree required, so we're kind of buggered either way.


I concur. However, I'm sure that the coallition would be more open to it if reducing emissions would not place a huge constraint on our economy which did not exist in overseas markets, thus causing a loss of jobs.

The best we can really do is try to apply pressure to the large emitters and future large emitters (US, China and India primarily) to get them to act fast, but the major parties aren't working to differentiate themselves on that front. Heck, I'd put the ALP out in front there, if only because they're more likely to be able to influence China on such issues than the Liberal party.


Agree on the solution, disagree on who is best equipped to do so. Howard has built our close relationship with both China and the US (which wasn't anywhere near as strong in the early 90s).

I just don't know why a country wants to sack a leader who has made everyone in the country wealthier, brought unemployment and interest rates down, has no obvious character flaws (other than the lies, which every politician is guilty of) and who has forged strong relationships with foreign countries.

Now it appears that both Howard and Turnbull (along with 18 other coallition members) will lose their seats, which is a real shame as Howard deserves to be able to retire on his own terms, and Turnbull would make a great PM/Treasurer.

User avatar
sickmate
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:47 pm UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Election

Postby sickmate » Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:37 am UTC

I think that Rudd will win simply because he isn't John Howard.
It might seem a dumb answer, but I think it is at least one of the major reasons why people will vote for him.

sickmate 8)

stephen
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:00 am UTC

Re: Australian Election

Postby stephen » Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:40 am UTC

sickmate wrote:I think that Rudd will win simply because he isn't John Howard.
It might seem a dumb answer, but I think it is at least one of the major reasons why people will vote for him.

sickmate 8)


You are probably right.

Interestingly, Peter Garrett has come out and said that it did not matter what the Labor policies are now, they will all change after the election anyway. Is this not the most dishonest and morally corrupt admission from someone who wants to help run the country?

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 Nov 02, 2007 11:17 am UTC

Well, to be fair, every party does that, he's just admitting to it. :P There's every chance he was joking around, but he should know better than to say things like that, especially to a radio presenter.

I think putting Garrett in any sort of position of power was a dumb move on the part of the ALP, to be honest. Rudd probably has Latham's picture on a dartboard in his office for all the mistakes he has to clean up because of him.

User avatar
Minerva
Posts: 947
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Election

Postby Minerva » Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:06 pm UTC

I voted Labor at the last federal election, I guess I'm generally pretty much centre on the political spectrum, but there's one thing that's really been pissing me off with the ALP, just one or two things, and that's Labor's policy of putting the coal industry's future profitability ahead of people's health and the state of the planet. To quote their own official media statement, Labor is "Committed to Coal".

Closely related to that, is the nuclear energy issue. Given all Rudd's talk of education, science and knowledge, I think it's hypocritical that they won't even look fairly at nuclear energy - frankly, I think the only explanation is a combination of Labor needing to appease their CFMEU coal mining mates who - stupidly - view nuclear energy as a threat to their jobs, and Garret being a typical Greenie who can't see the forest for the trees, and who has probably smoked one doobie too many with Bono and Daniel Johns.

If Labor said that they'd support a fair, scientific, sensible enquiry into the most sustainable, environmentally sound choices for our energy mix, with all options on the table, that would be good enough for me. I'm not asking that they commit to building 25 nuclear power plants, but that they simply give it consideration, in a fair, scientific, rational enquiry, alongside all the other options, and not rule it out for bullshit reasons.

Other than that, I think Rudd and the team aren't that bad.
...suffer from the computer disease that anybody who works with computers now knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is you play with them. They are so wonderful. - Richard Feynman

jmce
.
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:26 am UTC

Re: Australian Election

Postby jmce » Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:00 am UTC

Not masochistic to read this entire thread, but I thought I'd mention that I'm in Howard's electorate. Wouldn't it be hilarious if he lost his actual seat?

...well, perhaps not so much for him. :wink:
chaosspawn wrote:...a computer screen still can't hug you.

User avatar
hermaj
Posts: 6139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:37 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Election

Postby hermaj » Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:07 am UTC

Yeah, my university is in the Bennelong electorate, which is totally fun. I was actually talking to my father about this last week - what does happen if Maxine McKew wins the seat?

jmce
.
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:26 am UTC

Re: Australian Election

Postby jmce » Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:29 am UTC

Which university would that be? And for whom will you be voting (if you don't mind me asking)?
chaosspawn wrote:...a computer screen still can't hug you.

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

Re: Australian Election

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:15 am UTC

I think she goes to Macquarie.
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
hermaj
Posts: 6139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:37 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Election

Postby hermaj » Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:37 am UTC

Yessir, Thesaurus! :D Yeah, I go to Macquarie; I live in Chifley, though. And I'll be voting ALP.

*still wants to know what happens if Maxine wins*

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

Re: Australian Election

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:51 am UTC

I remember lot's of things (I even remember the pub we went to after Hugh was kicked out for not having ID)
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


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests