The Australian Election Thread

[Scorch]

Well, yes, who would have guessed that the little formerly-British island in the middle of nowhere was having an election?

So what do you guys think? There's John Howard, an old (and probably out-dated) conservative who introduced laws on industrial relations that removed the protection of 75% of the workforce (that is, people who work in a workplace of less than 100 people) against unfair/wrongful dismissal, and is in the pocket of the big businesses.

Then there's Kevin Rudd, the twerpy nerd who can speak mandarin, is promising to withdraw peacekeeping forces (note, Australian forces in Iraq are not occupation forces, and play a different role to the Americans, I'm pretty sure) from an already destabilised region, and has promised to rip up Howard's IR laws, but has not mentioned what he will have instead. He is expected to get a fair few votes simply because he isn't Howard. Oh yeah, he's also in the pocket of the Unions.

In the end, I think it's Rudd that will win, simply because he's the lesser of two evils.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

Hmm yes, from what I can gather, the conservatives in North America and Australia will be taking the backseat for the next half-a-decade at least.

Scorch, how big an issue is Iraq in the elections?

[Scorch]

Hmm yes, from what I can gather, the conservatives in North America and Australia will be taking the backseat for the next half-a-decade at least.

Scorch, how big an issue is Iraq in the elections?

It has taken a back-seat to the IR laws (called WorkChoices), really. It seems to have been glossed over, and it's the only thing that's stopping me from supporting Labor, but it'll be a 'lesser of two evils'-type situation. I can't vote yet anyway.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Scorch, how big an issue is Iraq in the elections?

As the other guys have said, it's pretty minimal. The majority of Australians never fell for the neo-con crap in the first place and never wanted our troops there at all. The few who did and who honestly think our tiny, token effort in Iraq is important are voting for Howard anyway. The people who really object ideologically to our presence in Iraq are voting for the ALP or the Greens. For the swinging voters in the middle of the political spectrum - the ones who will decided who wins this election - whether we stay there in our current peace-keeping role or pull out isn't an issue.

The two things which have swung support in the polls behind Rudd are the economy and the IR law changes. For the last couple of elections Howard has sold his government on a track record of sound economic management. But he overplayed that card in 2004 by claiming that only his Government could prevent interest rate rises. This was crap, of course, since his policies had minimal effect on whether interest rates rose or not. But the electorate bought it and voted him back in. Since then interest rates have risen nine times and the "mortgage belt" has realised that Howard's claims were smoke and mirrors.

The IR law changes (I refuse to call them "reforms") came in after he won the 2004 election and that was when Howard's poll performances began to fall. That's because he didn't present these changes at the last election and had no mandate for them, he just rammed them through because he had control of both houses of Parliament for the first time. The bulk of the electorate were not impressed with this highhanded trickery and he's being punished for taking the electorate for granted.

Moral? Don't promise things you can't deliver and don't deliver things you didn't promise.

[Medicus]

Rudd will win in a landslide. Howard won't even retain his own seat.

how big an issue is Iraq in the elections?

Virtually nil. The big issues are climate change and the IR laws.

[LoZz]

is promising to withdraw peacekeeping forces (note, Australian forces in Iraq are not occupation forces, and play a different role to the Americans, I'm pretty sure)

the australian forces are not their as peacekeepers from the UN they are part of the "coalition of the willing" along with the USA and UK and a few others, same story in Afganistan.


hence the lack of blue hats and white thanks.

infact i dont think their any peacekeepers (UN) in ether country yet, both are still occupyed. ISAF (NATO) is in afganistan though.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

the australian forces are not their as peacekeepers from the UN they are part of the "coalition of the willing"

No-one said they were "peacekeepers from the UN". Read what was written.

[Earl of Rochester]

Are the Australian Democrats like the British Liberal Democrats? If so thats who I want to win, even though from what a gather there is no shot in hell.

Not that its my business, I just really like the British Liberal Democrat part. At least from what I have read.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Are the Australian Democrats like the British Liberal Democrats?

Pretty close.

If so thats who I want to win, even though from what a gather there is no shot in hell.

They used to be a very viable third force in a two party dominated system. They usually got enough seats in the Senate to be a moderating influence on any legislation, since they often held the balance of power in the upper house and so could send back government legislation for amendment if they though aspects of it were too extreme.

Then one of their past leaders did a deal with John Howard over his Goods and Services Tax (like your VAT) and they lost a lot of credibility. She got ousted, the party went through some turmoil and they did very badly in the last election as a result.

The Greens seem to be the new "party of conscience" and are tipped to do well in the Senate this time around. I'd be fairly happy with a Labor Government but with the Greens controlling the Senate to keep them honest.

[Garbarsardar]

What do you expect from the country that gave birth to Hitler?

[Medicus]

There is approximately 500 soldiers in Iraq, with a max of 1,000 - 2,000 support personnel. In contrast, there are probably more cops in NYC.

Do you remember the protests against the IR Reforms last year? Half a million people on the streets...

[LoZz]

There is approximately 500 soldiers in Iraq, with a max of 1,000 - 2,000 support personnel. In contrast, there are probably more cops in NYC.

size is irelivent, iceland had (i kid you not) 2 people it sent to iraq, that was enough to put them on the coalition of the willing list.

[Medicus]

size is irelivent, iceland had (i kid you not) 2 people it sent to iraq, that was enough to put them on the coalition of the willing list.

When will people accept that the Coalition of the Willing is just the US?

[Erik]

size is irelivent, iceland had (i kid you not) 2 people it sent to iraq, that was enough to put them on the coalition of the willing list.

America likes to add everyone to the "C.O.T.W. list".

But in reality:
All those who supported (not necessarily in a military sense) the initial invasion of Iraq=C.O.T.W. (there were 5 or 6 in total, IIRC)
All those who didn't support the invasion, but went to Iraq to clean up the mess that the COTW made, aren't.

If memory serves me right, Australia was part of the C.O.T.W.

[sapi]

Well, yes, who would have guessed that the little formerly-British island in the middle of nowhere was having an election?

So what do you guys think? There's John Howard, an old (and probably out-dated) conservative who introduced laws on industrial relations that removed the protection of 75% of the workforce (that is, people who work in a workplace of less than 100 people) against unfair/wrongful dismissal, and is in the pocket of the big businesses.

Then there's Kevin Rudd, the twerpy nerd who can speak mandarin, is promising to withdraw peacekeeping forces (note, Australian forces in Iraq are not occupation forces, and play a different role to the Americans, I'm pretty sure) from an already destabilised region, and has promised to rip up Howard's IR laws, but has not mentioned what he will have instead. He is expected to get a fair few votes simply because he isn't Howard. Oh yeah, he's also in the pocket of the Unions.

In the end, I think it's Rudd that will win, simply because he's the lesser of two evils.

Barring some sort of terrorist attack on our soil, or another immigration crisis, Rudd should win it.

Things are turning back in Howard's direction, but it's too little, too late.

Overseas engagements aren't really that big of an issue, especially as Rudd is going to keep our forces in Afghanistan (the war that most Australians support, at least compared to Iraq); except that Rudd will probably tighten ties with Asia.

Hocky has also proved himself incapable of selling the IR laws, especially against Gillard, for what that's worth.

As has been mentioned, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Mckew kicked Howard out of his own seat

Out of principle I wouldn't vote for Howard anyway

[boofhead]

It's a difficult choice:

The Wily Old Fox who usually has his nose geared to popular sentiment:



Or Saint Kev, the overly-well pronounced geek who was born wearing a bow tie:



I may have to abstain......as I have always done

(don't tell anyone..... )

[Medicus]

Frankly, I prefer Kevin Rudd as Tintin.

[Archaon]

The IR laws are not as bad, i started a new job Monday (24th) and 'my work place agreement' is much better than my past two contracts. All my pay awards, salary, leave, super, ect are clear (and very nice btw), and my role and responsibilities are also there so if one day my boss palms work to me thats not in the WPA and i screw it up i can't be sacked! unless i sign a new one (with obvious incentive).
The company policy is there too so the only way i can be sacked is if i breach company policy therefore breaking my WPA contract.
I am all for the new IR laws, they are fair and if you don't sign something that is unfair you will be fine too, it all comes down to commonsense.
Howard has kept our economy on the rise throughout his leadership, interest rates are more stable than ever (i.e. they do not spike after a short decrease to attract new byers, there are laws against this as i understand it).
Howard also introduced GST and Superannuation reforms, both benefiting the average Australian, specifically seniors. Howard also started the policing of internet based crimes, thats a big deal in my eyes.

I will not vote for Howard though because his time is up and he himself has indicated retirement after the election. I will not have an inexperienced, arrogant, shallow sighted leader as PM.

My main issues when choosing who to vote for are Social issues such as health and education and handling of environmental issues.
My vote will go to the Coalition, Rudd will make a far better PM than Costello.

Although i have shown support for John Howard i will have to admit i was anti Howard in my adolescent years, being naive and not knowing as much as i do now i know that i was mistaken for the longest time and am glad to have come to my senses.

[Carach]

Well, yes, who would have guessed that the little formerly-British island in the middle of nowhere was having an election?

So what do you guys think? There's John Howard, an old (and probably out-dated) conservative who introduced laws on industrial relations that removed the protection of 75% of the workforce (that is, people who work in a workplace of less than 100 people) against unfair/wrongful dismissal, and is in the pocket of the big businesses.

i think we all know your opinion of howard

America likes to add everyone to the "C.O.T.W. list".

But in reality:
All those who supported (not necessarily in a military sense) the initial invasion of Iraq=C.O.T.W. (there were 5 or 6 in total, IIRC)

actually there was a dozen + nations in the Coalition of the willing. As previously stated however, the numbers included from these countries vary. Believe it or not Afghanistan was part of the coalition of the willing (who knows what they sent..a donkey?)

[Scorch]

@TG - there are two things that worry me about labour.

1. Rudd has said he'll rip up WorkChoices, he hasn't said what he'll replace it with.

"Hey, lets empower the Unions to decide all minimum wages and awards. "

2. Iraq - I'll be very frustrated if we pull out. Whether or not we were justified to go in there in the first place (removing a dictator who tested chemical weapons on his own people, how evil of us) I think that pulling out now will just do more damage to an already unstable region.