-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
Six Pack said:
That's the area you're voting in....and you said you're voting for a local candidate.
The candidates are:
Angelo Kakouros Liberal Party
Chris Johnston Socialist Alliance
Rob Leach Greens
Richard Marles Australian Labor Party
You've also said this before:
Six Pack said:
...which doesn't mean you won't be voting ALP, just that you're not a supporter of Rudd....which in turn also means if you still vote for the ALP, you're still supporting Rudd. It's a contradiction to vote ALP and not support Rudd.
So no...don't see you as an ALP voter.
You certainly won't be voting for Libs, cause that's who I'm voting for....and we can't have that, can we? :hihi
That leaves the red-rags and the tree-huggers.
Hmmm...tough one...but because you seem afraid to admit who you're going to vote for, I think its the reds.
Many of your posts suit their line of thinking after having a look at their webpage:
http://www.socialist-alliance.org/victoria/
How did I do?
And are you going to 'come out of the closet' now and just say who you're voting for?
C'mon show some balls....be proud of who you are! :hihi
Ho hum. Here we go again. And like every election I can remember for the past 30 years the result will not have any impact on my life.
It won't change my family relationships. Or my support for my footy team. I'll still go and enjoy the same festivals and concerts. My family business will continue to prosper and offer employment to 15 people. At weekends I'll still go car racing with my 2 sons and enjoy being beaten by them (swines!). I'll continue to get older and regrettably no wiser. My friends will continue to come around for a bbq and a drink every few weeks.
Despite the promises of Howard and Rudd there is nothing they can offer that will have any effect on the important things in my life. All they can do is tinker at the margins.
It won't change my family relationships. Or my support for my footy team. I'll still go and enjoy the same festivals and concerts. My family business will continue to prosper and offer employment to 15 people. At weekends I'll still go car racing with my 2 sons and enjoy being beaten by them (swines!). I'll continue to get older and regrettably no wiser. My friends will continue to come around for a bbq and a drink every few weeks.
Despite the promises of Howard and Rudd there is nothing they can offer that will have any effect on the important things in my life. All they can do is tinker at the margins.
Said this a while back:
....and it seems even some of the lefties are starting to question themselves.
I'm not lefty as you all know, but I thought this article, from "The Age" was o.k:
There must be more than just hating Howard
Monica Dux
October 16, 2007
The left needs to stand for more than just wanting Howard out.
I'VE now got three invitations to parties being held on November 24. I'm expecting more to arrive. I have no delusions about my popularity. It's not me that's got everyone so excited. It's the election.
Hosting an election party can be risky. If the wrong side gets up, you're stuck with a houseful of depressed inebriates, with some bore inevitably pontificating about how he knew they couldn't win.
For my generation of left-leaning thirtysomethings there has only been one election party that satisfied since we came of age — Keating's 1993 "unwinnable" victory. But this year my rapidly growing pile of invitations shows how confident my friends have become. The possibility that our Prime Minister might also lose his seat is the ultimate accompaniment to the victory so many of us crave.
When I was growing up, my parents regaled me with stories of another legendary election party held on the night of the 1972 Whitlam victory (I was in-utero at the time, so in a way I was actually there). Finally, after 23 years, the Coalition was ousted and a New World Order was heralded. No matter how brief his tenure and ignominious his downfall, Whitlam's win was remembered by them as a moment of promise, a cultural turning point.
Yet the thought that I'll one day follow in my parents' footsteps, impressing my own son with stories of the famous '07 election party, when Australia finally changed direction, doesn't quite ring true.
My friends and I are classic Howard-haters — the latte-dependent, over-educated, bleeding hearts that you've read so much about. The PM recently acknowledged that many people hate him. Not just his politics but him, personally. And when it comes to the so-called educated elites, the reason for our venom is simple. There have been many decisions by the Howard Government, from its handling of the Tampa incident to jackbooted indigenous intervention that we regarded as more than simply politically distasteful. These were moral questions.
But as deep as our disgust with the Prime Minister runs, we latte-sippers are essentially an impotent bunch. As Waleed Aly recently noted on this page, we've actually been a "self-renewing gift for the Coalition" as swinging voters have swung even closer to Howard whenever we've voiced opposition to him on moral grounds. Our self-righteous, chardonnay-soaked moralising has helped to sharpen Howard's wedge.
What's changed for us this year is the Liberal Party's catastrophic poll results. They've been feeding us Howard-haters with a weekly dose of blood, like droplets along the forest floor leading inevitably to the kill. But, in our excitement, are we becoming intoxicated by this blood lust and forgetting what really matters?
I was recently at a dinner party where everyone was gloating over the Government's poor polling. When one guest cautiously suggested that Rudd's me-too-ism is also disconcerting, she was immediately shot down. And yet no one really defended Rudd's policies, aside from reminding the dissenter that he speaks Mandarin.
Rudd has proved himself a skilful Opposition Leader but he, and his vision, remain elusive. It has been frequently observed that rather than taking the fight to the Government he has employed a strategy of avoiding confrontation. Troublingly, this has been particularly acute when it comes to the very moral issues that so incensed us Howard-haters in the first place. His spin is so well-spun that it's hard to be certain whether he intends to shake up the nation's consciousness or simply give us more of the same.
Perhaps, as Robert Manne argued, Rudd's reluctance to challenge the Liberal Party is really just a clever way of dodging the "rabbits" that Howard keeps pulling out of his hat. After all, it's the vote of "ordinary people" that will get the ALP over the line, as opposed to us "prosperous, professional 'elites' ".
But where does this leave us Howard-haters? Supporting the Opposition simply out of spite against the Prime Minister, without asking what we're getting instead? Perhaps we're wrong and we're not the moral voice of the nation. But if we're right and we are, then aren't we abrogating our responsibility? It's as if we've stopped caring who or what we vote for, as long as Howard loses.
If you don't believe that this is really happening then try this experiment: ask any self-identified Howard-hater why they're excited about the election. Will they reply with a list of the ALP's initiatives and policies, or will they simply say: "It looks like Howard's finally going to get it." Mandarin may or may not be mentioned.
Call me naive, but I like to imagine that back in '72 the discussion on election night focused on the positive vision of "It's Time" rather than the somewhat less dignified "Die, McMahon, die!" Of course, our '07 election eve celebrations could still go the way of that other famous shindig, Don's Party. Perhaps this wouldn't be all bad. Maybe next time we'd demand a bit more from the opposition.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/there-must-be-more-than-just-hating-howard/2007/10/15/1192300682911.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Liverpool said:
....and it seems even some of the lefties are starting to question themselves.
I'm not lefty as you all know, but I thought this article, from "The Age" was o.k:
There must be more than just hating Howard
Monica Dux
October 16, 2007
The left needs to stand for more than just wanting Howard out.
I'VE now got three invitations to parties being held on November 24. I'm expecting more to arrive. I have no delusions about my popularity. It's not me that's got everyone so excited. It's the election.
Hosting an election party can be risky. If the wrong side gets up, you're stuck with a houseful of depressed inebriates, with some bore inevitably pontificating about how he knew they couldn't win.
For my generation of left-leaning thirtysomethings there has only been one election party that satisfied since we came of age — Keating's 1993 "unwinnable" victory. But this year my rapidly growing pile of invitations shows how confident my friends have become. The possibility that our Prime Minister might also lose his seat is the ultimate accompaniment to the victory so many of us crave.
When I was growing up, my parents regaled me with stories of another legendary election party held on the night of the 1972 Whitlam victory (I was in-utero at the time, so in a way I was actually there). Finally, after 23 years, the Coalition was ousted and a New World Order was heralded. No matter how brief his tenure and ignominious his downfall, Whitlam's win was remembered by them as a moment of promise, a cultural turning point.
Yet the thought that I'll one day follow in my parents' footsteps, impressing my own son with stories of the famous '07 election party, when Australia finally changed direction, doesn't quite ring true.
My friends and I are classic Howard-haters — the latte-dependent, over-educated, bleeding hearts that you've read so much about. The PM recently acknowledged that many people hate him. Not just his politics but him, personally. And when it comes to the so-called educated elites, the reason for our venom is simple. There have been many decisions by the Howard Government, from its handling of the Tampa incident to jackbooted indigenous intervention that we regarded as more than simply politically distasteful. These were moral questions.
But as deep as our disgust with the Prime Minister runs, we latte-sippers are essentially an impotent bunch. As Waleed Aly recently noted on this page, we've actually been a "self-renewing gift for the Coalition" as swinging voters have swung even closer to Howard whenever we've voiced opposition to him on moral grounds. Our self-righteous, chardonnay-soaked moralising has helped to sharpen Howard's wedge.
What's changed for us this year is the Liberal Party's catastrophic poll results. They've been feeding us Howard-haters with a weekly dose of blood, like droplets along the forest floor leading inevitably to the kill. But, in our excitement, are we becoming intoxicated by this blood lust and forgetting what really matters?
I was recently at a dinner party where everyone was gloating over the Government's poor polling. When one guest cautiously suggested that Rudd's me-too-ism is also disconcerting, she was immediately shot down. And yet no one really defended Rudd's policies, aside from reminding the dissenter that he speaks Mandarin.
Rudd has proved himself a skilful Opposition Leader but he, and his vision, remain elusive. It has been frequently observed that rather than taking the fight to the Government he has employed a strategy of avoiding confrontation. Troublingly, this has been particularly acute when it comes to the very moral issues that so incensed us Howard-haters in the first place. His spin is so well-spun that it's hard to be certain whether he intends to shake up the nation's consciousness or simply give us more of the same.
Perhaps, as Robert Manne argued, Rudd's reluctance to challenge the Liberal Party is really just a clever way of dodging the "rabbits" that Howard keeps pulling out of his hat. After all, it's the vote of "ordinary people" that will get the ALP over the line, as opposed to us "prosperous, professional 'elites' ".
But where does this leave us Howard-haters? Supporting the Opposition simply out of spite against the Prime Minister, without asking what we're getting instead? Perhaps we're wrong and we're not the moral voice of the nation. But if we're right and we are, then aren't we abrogating our responsibility? It's as if we've stopped caring who or what we vote for, as long as Howard loses.
If you don't believe that this is really happening then try this experiment: ask any self-identified Howard-hater why they're excited about the election. Will they reply with a list of the ALP's initiatives and policies, or will they simply say: "It looks like Howard's finally going to get it." Mandarin may or may not be mentioned.
Call me naive, but I like to imagine that back in '72 the discussion on election night focused on the positive vision of "It's Time" rather than the somewhat less dignified "Die, McMahon, die!" Of course, our '07 election eve celebrations could still go the way of that other famous shindig, Don's Party. Perhaps this wouldn't be all bad. Maybe next time we'd demand a bit more from the opposition.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/there-must-be-more-than-just-hating-howard/2007/10/15/1192300682911.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
No. There doesn't have to be anything more than hating Howard. >
Times have changed since 72' and these days I just vote for the lesser of the evils. Most times I can't decide and can't stomach the thought of actually helping one of these idiots get voted in, so most times I vote informally and let everyone else decide.
Sometimes though, the desire to get rid of someone is greater than the disgust at voting in a moron.
Times have changed since 72' and these days I just vote for the lesser of the evils. Most times I can't decide and can't stomach the thought of actually helping one of these idiots get voted in, so most times I vote informally and let everyone else decide.
Sometimes though, the desire to get rid of someone is greater than the disgust at voting in a moron.
There was little more than hating Keating when Howard got in. Little more than hating Kennett when Bracks got in. It's the way of politics.
Workchoices ...thats what's done it for me.
If that policy stays my conditions are history or my job goes overseas either way I'm stuffed.
So this time I need to vote Rudd.
...thats what's done it for me.If that policy stays my conditions are history or my job goes overseas either way I'm stuffed.
So this time I need to vote Rudd.
Pacificbaron said:Workchoices
If that policy stays my conditions are history or my job goes overseas either way I'm stuffed.
So this time I need to vote Rudd.
If you're a true Tiger, you'll vote Howard
:Funds for Punt Rd Oval
19 October 2007 Herald Sun
Daryl Timms
THE Federal Government will contribute $2 million to the redevelopment of Richmond's Punt Rd Oval.
An announcement will be made today by the Minister for the Arts and Sport, Senator George Brandis.
Despite being home to Richmond for more than 120 years, Punt Rd Oval has fallen away into a venue with limited community benefit, according to Brandis.
"The Richmond Football Club's proposal will see the Oval become a centre for community life for the club's members, supporters and residents of the inner region of Melbourne," Senator Brandis said yesterday.
With a membership of about 30,000, Brandis said more than 35,000 local residents used Punt Rd Oval each year.
The Government funding will help the Tigers upgrade facilities for use by local community groups and residents and create community participation and involvement to complement the club.
Brandis said facilities planned for Punt Rd Oval included an indoor sports centre to house community sports, community swimming change rooms and new football change rooms.
"The new venue will also provide a new home for the Tigers in the Community Foundation Program which focuses on leadership, education and training, anti-obesity and healthy lifestyle programs," Brandis said.
The Australian Government will provide the funding in 2007-08.
Brandis said the Government's contribution was subject to the AFL, the Victorian Government and Richmond meeting their respective commitments to the project.
"The Australian Government will also consider the provision of a further contribution of up to $5 million towards the establishment of the proposed Indigenous Sports Institute, subject to the proposal being developed further in coming months," Brandis said.
This year the Australian Government will provide more than $350 million in funding for sport, an increase of more than 300 per cent since 1996.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,22611015%255E19771,00.html
VOTE 1 JOHNNY! 8)
The Opposition have had years to work out a tax-plan....and this is the best The Echo could come up with? :rofl
Labor tax plan 'me too-ism'
Paul Austin
October 19, 2007 - 5:10PM
Federal Treasurer Peter Costello has dismissed Labor leader Kevin Rudd's tax policy as "me too-ism".
Mr Costello said 91.5 per cent of Labor's plan was a direct copy of the $34 billion policy the Coalition unveiled on Monday.
Mr Rudd had "lopped off" the other 8.5 per cent for education tax rebates that would do nothing to help parents with schools fees and contributions.
"It is now clear that Labor never had a tax plan," Mr Costello said.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/tax-plan-me-tooism/2007/10/19/1192301035541.html
Labor tax plan 'me too-ism'
Paul Austin
October 19, 2007 - 5:10PM
Federal Treasurer Peter Costello has dismissed Labor leader Kevin Rudd's tax policy as "me too-ism".
Mr Costello said 91.5 per cent of Labor's plan was a direct copy of the $34 billion policy the Coalition unveiled on Monday.
Mr Rudd had "lopped off" the other 8.5 per cent for education tax rebates that would do nothing to help parents with schools fees and contributions.
"It is now clear that Labor never had a tax plan," Mr Costello said.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/tax-plan-me-tooism/2007/10/19/1192301035541.html
Promising tax cuts before elections is hardly an original idea for either party.
The real issue in my mind is how the government came to have $34 billion in the first place to hand back as tax cuts.
The real issue in my mind is how the government came to have $34 billion in the first place to hand back as tax cuts.
jb03 said:
Not when it's constant agreeing.
Not when it's insincere agreeing.
And not when the 'true' ALP policies are being hidden underneath this facade, because Rudd is not convinced by his own (and his party's) policies and ideas.
Like that lefty from The Age said:
I was recently at a dinner party where everyone was gloating over the Government's poor polling. When one guest cautiously suggested that Rudd's me-too-ism is also disconcerting, she was immediately shot down. And yet no one really defended Rudd's policies, aside from reminding the dissenter that he speaks Mandarin.
Rudd has proved himself a skilful Opposition Leader but he, and his vision, remain elusive. It has been frequently observed that rather than taking the fight to the Government he has employed a strategy of avoiding confrontation. Troublingly, this has been particularly acute when it comes to the very moral issues that so incensed us Howard-haters in the first place. His spin is so well-spun that it's hard to be certain whether he intends to shake up the nation's consciousness or simply give us more of the same.
Perhaps, as Robert Manne argued, Rudd's reluctance to challenge the Liberal Party is really just a clever way of dodging the "rabbits" that Howard keeps pulling out of his hat. After all, it's the vote of "ordinary people" that will get the ALP over the line, as opposed to us "prosperous, professional 'elites' ".
But where does this leave us Howard-haters? Supporting the Opposition simply out of spite against the Prime Minister, without asking what we're getting instead? Perhaps we're wrong and we're not the moral voice of the nation. But if we're right and we are, then aren't we abrogating our responsibility? It's as if we've stopped caring who or what we vote for, as long as Howard loses.
If you don't believe that this is really happening then try this experiment: ask any self-identified Howard-hater why they're excited about the election. Will they reply with a list of the ALP's initiatives and policies, or will they simply say: "It looks like Howard's finally going to get it." Mandarin may or may not be mentioned
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/there-must-be-more-than-just-hating-howard/2007/10/15/1192300682911.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Being a student of the bookmakers percentages I just went through the bookies prices for the "close" House Of Representative seats in the upcoming elections
Seats currently held by the Coalition where the bookmaker's favourite to win them is Labor are -
NSW - Eden-Monaro Lib $2.40 Lab $1.50, Macquarie Lib $5.00 Lab $1.14, Lindsey Lib $2.40 Lab $1.20, Dobell Lib $2.50 Lab $1.45
Vic - nil
Qld - Boner Lib $5.50 Lab $1.12, Moreton Lib $4.00 Lab $1.20, Blair Lib $2.85 Lab $1.40
SA - Kingston Lib $5.50 Lab $1.12, Wakefield Lib $4.50 Lab $1.16, Makin Lib $2.80 Lab $1.30
WA - Hasluck Lib $1.95 Lab $1.80
Tas - Braddon Lib $2.60 Lab $1.45, Bass Lib $2.70 Lab $1.40
NT - Soloman Lib $2.20 Lab $1.60
That is 14 seats -
Seats held by the Coalition where the Coalition are Favourites but only just -
Vic - LaTrobe Lib $1.72 Lab $2.00, Deakin Lib $1.73 Lab $2.00
Qld - Herbert Lib $1.72 Lab $2.00, Bowman Lib $1.80 Lab $1.95
WA - Stirling Lib $1.72 Lab $2.00
That is 5 Seats very close
Seats held by Labor where Labor are favourites but under $1 in front -
WA - Swan Lab $1.55 Lib $2.30, Cowan Lab $1.55 Lib $2.40
That is 2 seats reasonably close.
Above there are a total of 21 seats that are close according to the bookmakers - for a change of Government, Labor has to win 15 of them - a very tall order - possible yes - likely possibly not.........
Seats currently held by the Coalition where the bookmaker's favourite to win them is Labor are -
NSW - Eden-Monaro Lib $2.40 Lab $1.50, Macquarie Lib $5.00 Lab $1.14, Lindsey Lib $2.40 Lab $1.20, Dobell Lib $2.50 Lab $1.45
Vic - nil
Qld - Boner Lib $5.50 Lab $1.12, Moreton Lib $4.00 Lab $1.20, Blair Lib $2.85 Lab $1.40
SA - Kingston Lib $5.50 Lab $1.12, Wakefield Lib $4.50 Lab $1.16, Makin Lib $2.80 Lab $1.30
WA - Hasluck Lib $1.95 Lab $1.80
Tas - Braddon Lib $2.60 Lab $1.45, Bass Lib $2.70 Lab $1.40
NT - Soloman Lib $2.20 Lab $1.60
That is 14 seats -
Seats held by the Coalition where the Coalition are Favourites but only just -
Vic - LaTrobe Lib $1.72 Lab $2.00, Deakin Lib $1.73 Lab $2.00
Qld - Herbert Lib $1.72 Lab $2.00, Bowman Lib $1.80 Lab $1.95
WA - Stirling Lib $1.72 Lab $2.00
That is 5 Seats very close
Seats held by Labor where Labor are favourites but under $1 in front -
WA - Swan Lab $1.55 Lib $2.30, Cowan Lab $1.55 Lib $2.40
That is 2 seats reasonably close.
Above there are a total of 21 seats that are close according to the bookmakers - for a change of Government, Labor has to win 15 of them - a very tall order - possible yes - likely possibly not.........
I've been following the betting pretty closely too Remote.
The charting technical analysyst in me thinks this election is going to be a fair bit closer than alot of the polls have been suggesting.
This represents an inverse graph for the lIberals so the rise equates to the betting on their chances increasing (labours decreasing)From a charting perspective the Libs became a 'buy' about a month ago.
Another good week by the Liberal party and they may have labor chances pegged to near evens.
Follow the money.
Betting on Labor :
http://au.site.sports.betfair.com/betting/LoadRunnerInfoAction.do?marketId=20055342&selectionId=2049781&timeZone=Australia/Sydney®ion=AUS_NZL&locale=en_AU&brand=betfair¤cy=AUD
The charting technical analysyst in me thinks this election is going to be a fair bit closer than alot of the polls have been suggesting.
This represents an inverse graph for the lIberals so the rise equates to the betting on their chances increasing (labours decreasing)From a charting perspective the Libs became a 'buy' about a month ago.
Another good week by the Liberal party and they may have labor chances pegged to near evens.
Follow the money.
Betting on Labor :
http://au.site.sports.betfair.com/betting/LoadRunnerInfoAction.do?marketId=20055342&selectionId=2049781&timeZone=Australia/Sydney®ion=AUS_NZL&locale=en_AU&brand=betfair¤cy=AUD
Agree Evo, my call is this is going to come down to the bell on the day of the election.
Its easy to say "kick Johnny out" in a poll, its another to vote against him for the first time in 11 years.
People tend to be creatures of habit, and changing such routinue beliefs and support is not easy.
Its easy to say "kick Johnny out" in a poll, its another to vote against him for the first time in 11 years.
People tend to be creatures of habit, and changing such routinue beliefs and support is not easy.
