The election thread - Will the new PM last a full term - who will you futilely vote for?

Who will you vote for?

  • Liberals

    Votes: 14 17.9%
  • Labor

    Votes: 32 41.0%
  • Nationals

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Greens

    Votes: 19 24.4%
  • Independant

    Votes: 4 5.1%
  • The Reason Party

    Votes: 4 5.1%
  • Shooters and Fishers Party

    Votes: 2 2.6%
  • One Nation

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • Donkey/Invalid vote

    Votes: 2 2.6%

  • Total voters
    78

RCOH

Eats Squid
I will definitely not vote Liberal. Why? Well among other things the funding levels of the ABC have been reduced significantly since they have been in power & if recent trends are to followed will continue to drop, which leaves me with less job security at worst or less chance of a pay rise at best.

ALP? Maybe...but fuckin Latham, 2 days ago he said 9/10 low-middle income families will be better of under ALP's tax policy, now 3 days later he has amended it to 7/10. WHY CAN'T THEY JUST TELL THE FUCKIN' TRUTH. Locally though, I know my ALP MP quite well & although he is a grumpy fuck & I covet his politician-salary-bought lifestyle I believe he is/will continue to be a good local member.

I voted Greens in this poll because they seem to make their policies based on fixing actual problems regardless of popularity rather than formulating policy just to get re-elected.
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
RCOH said:
I will definitely not vote Liberal. Why? Well among other things the funding levels of the ABC have been reduced significantly since they have been in power & if recent trends are to followed will continue to drop, which leaves me with less job security at worst or less chance of a pay rise at best.

ALP? Maybe...but fuckin Latham, 2 days ago he said 9/10 low-middle income families will be better of under ALP's tax policy, now 3 days later he has amended it to 7/10. WHY CAN'T THEY JUST TELL THE FUCKIN' TRUTH. Locally though, I know my ALP MP quite well & although he is a grumpy fuck & I covet his politician-salary-bought lifestyle I believe he is/will continue to be a good local member.

I voted Greens in this poll because they seem to make their policies based on fixing actual problems regardless of popularity rather than formulating policy just to get re-elected.
Amen to that brother!

Let's also not forget Bobby Brown stickin' it right up Bush when we weren't allowed into our own Parlaiment!!

Go Bobby GO!! :!: :!:
 

Carlin

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Ryan said:
Labor in the lower house because it's the only realistic way to get rid of Johnny being that we're locked into what's effectively a 2 party system where a vote for a minor party is a wasted vote.
A vote for a minor party is not a wasted vote so long as you distribute your preferences. A Greens 1, Labor 2, ... vote will register as a protest against the major parties, but still push Labor over the line on two party preferred :wink:
 

GrubNut

Likes Dirt
naz said:
fuck i forgot to enrol.
but if i had, id be voting invalid :)
:lol:

But if you want to vote and haven't enrolled I think you still can by voting absentee and filling out an enrollment on the day. At least you used to be able to. I did it ten years age when I first voted.
 

GrubNut

Likes Dirt
My electorate (Melbourne) has been hardcore Labor seat so it matters little who I vote for in House of Reps. Will still probably vote Green for thr Reps.

The Senate - now that's another matter! The Proportional representation system in the senate means that your vote always counts. Even better if the third force (the Greens at the moment) gets a large enough vote they'll get the balance of power.

So a party like the Greens can definitely get very siginifant influence if enough people vote for them. It's not all about who wins like in America.
Don't waste your vote. VOTE GREENS IN THE SENATE!
 

GrubNut

Likes Dirt
S. said:
Cave Dweller said:
Im probably voting Greens so that Australia can ratify Kyoto and hence leave a half decent world to future generations.
Somewhat on the topic... we were doing some stuff on "sustainable engineering" at uni yesterday, and the Kyoto protocol came up. According to numerous sources (I believe including CSIRO), the world is going to need much more extreme measures than Kyoto in place, within the next 50 years. I believe a large part of this is going to come from civil and social engineering rather than economic factors. Renewable energy etc is still SO expensive that to incorporate it, it has to be introduced as a fully integrated part of life, rather than installing a few wind farms here and there and maybe a solar panel to heat your pool. Houses, buildings and moreso cities are going to have to become much better designed. Efficient public transport is going to become a huge factor IMO, and in a lot of ways we're going to have to go backwards to go forwards. I believe that to fully realise (literally) the kind of efficiency we're going to need, we're going to have to go back to 19th century approaches of not doing anything half-arsed. Putting more buses on the road isn't the answer. Building train lines however, might be. Proper design on large scales (think whole cities) will become necessary to efficiently house, transport and generally accomodate our population. In some ways, communism works better for this kind of stuff because there's way less economic factors (namely privatisation and private development) to interfere with actually getting shit done.

[/rant]
Very nice write up. I believe that the energy problem is the biggest immediate problem facing the world today.

Bigger than Terrorism, AIDS, Nuclear War, and perhapes even Climate Change (although all of these things are interrelated).

Yes we may have to go back to 19th methods as the oil supply winds down but problem is that our population 4 (?) times as big and we have destroyed a lot of out environment since then.
 

S.

ex offender
GrubNut said:
Very nice write up. I believe that the energy problem is the biggest immediate problem facing the world today.

Bigger than Terrorism, AIDS, Nuclear War, and perhapes even Climate Change (although all of these things are interrelated).

Yes we may have to go back to 19th methods as the oil supply winds down but problem is that our population 4 (?) times as big and we have destroyed a lot of out environment since then.
What I meant about 19th century methods was to actually do stuff on a large scale, and do it properly (not just ride horses and have kero lamps and stuff ;)). Building a bigger/faster car/train/plane/building or developing a suburb isn't doing anything other than creating a short term solution and a long term problem. I believe transport will become a huge problem as cities get too spread out to actually remain cities any longer - perhaps DCBD megatropolii will emerge?

In some ways, cities are built in the worst places. It's not *that* hard to run a city in the middle of a desert and/or infertile land, but it sure is hard to run a farm there. Cities however, are always built on the best farming land and whatnot... whole countries may have to be reorganised to account for this, at some stage (probably not in my lifetime!).
 

Byatch

Banned
I am torn as to who to vote for.

I can't vote for Liberal, because i believe they would prefer to stick their head in the sand rather than do something about the environment.

I can't vote Greens. A lot of their policies i don't agree with. somewhere in between liberal and greens maybe?

I can't vote Labor. The rep from my electorate is a tool, and doesn't represent any of the opinions of the locals.

Democrats maybe?

As an aside: Johnny must be jumping for joy with that bomb in Jakata. (oh, the alliteration!) People will probably vote for him because they believe him to be a better protector.
 

danv

Likes Dirt
Byatch said:
As an aside: Johnny must be jumping for joy with that bomb in Jakata. (oh, the alliteration!) People will probably vote for him because they believe him to be a better protector.
Bwahaha! So true yet so blatantly screwed up. If it wasn't for him in the first place, we probably wouldn't have registered on the terrorists' radars.
 

S.

ex offender
danv said:
If it wasn't for him in the first place, we probably wouldn't have registered on the terrorists' radars.
I totally disagree. What was the provocation for the September 11 attacks? They're screaming black and blue "anti-infidel" crap, we would have come under the pump sooner or later anyway. Wipe the bastards out.
 

wombat

Lives in a hole
S. said:
danv said:
If it wasn't for him in the first place, we probably wouldn't have registered on the terrorists' radars.
I totally disagree. What was the provocation for the September 11 attacks? They're screaming black and blue "anti-infidel" crap, we would have come under the pump sooner or later anyway. Wipe the bastards out.
Whoa, they attacked Australia on september 11?
 

Rik

logged out
That's a big call there, but the bombing will definately play a big part in the election campaigning.
One side: "We will stand tall in the face of evil"
Other side: "If we didn't do what we did over the past years, we wouldn't be in this situation now"

We allied ourselves with the strongest, and most hated, country on this planet, yet didn't do anything to get friendly with our neighbours. I think I mentioned in an earlier thread that neighbourhood relations is something on my priority list, it was only a small issue then, but now a big one. How the next few weeks unfolds will be interesting at the least.
 

S.

ex offender
wombat said:
S. said:
danv said:
If it wasn't for him in the first place, we probably wouldn't have registered on the terrorists' radars.
I totally disagree. What was the provocation for the September 11 attacks? They're screaming black and blue "anti-infidel" crap, we would have come under the pump sooner or later anyway. Wipe the bastards out.
Whoa, they attacked Australia on september 11?
No, what I'm saying is the whole "if we hadn't done ____" attitude is a load of shit. The Americans hadn't done anything specifically to provoke terrorists killing thousands of innocent civilians, yet they got attacked. We hadn't either, but simply sitting back and saying "we'll be right" is a really, really dumb thing to do when you've got lunatics like that who are really willing (and wanting) to do that kind of damage. They're the ones attacking US remember...
 

wombat

Lives in a hole
S. said:
The Americans hadn't done anything specifically to provoke terrorists killing thousands of innocent civilians
Oh mate come on; I know you're smrater than that, and you should understand the reason behind the groups which are targeting the US. It may not be justified, but it wasn't just a matter of "hmm, who should we attack *spin the globe and stick your finger on a country*....ok, them!".
 

Byatch

Banned
Depending on who you talk to, you can get any sort of justification for the terrorist attacks.

Some authours clain that Osama Bin Laden (sp) himself specified 3 reasons for attacking USA, there being the occupation of holy lands by females, the assistance being provided to Israel, and another one that i cannot remember at the moment.
In responce to these points, Osama called on "all good muslims" to wage a holy war against America. (and other countries, but that information gets pushed aside when America is involved)

Obvoiusly, if you side with one party at war, you have to expect the enemy to be a little annoyed.
I'm not saying that anything is justified in this conflict. But jeez i wish people would do some research, even the little I have done has boradened my opinion.

BTW, i love the fact that Americans say "they hate our privelages, our way of life, and the freedoms that we stand for".
I call B.S.
They hate you because you help their enemy.
 

Carlin

Likes Bikes and Dirt
The Howard government has all but destroyed any diplomatic credibility that we may have had in the early 90s as an effective middle power in our region.

We actually pursued our own foreign policy and acted in our interests by playing an active role in the our region. This is opposed to the Howard government who has blindly followed US foreign policy and alienated our neibours with inward xenophobic "us and them" attitudes to the rest of the world.
 
S. said:
They're the ones attacking US remember...
What was the provocation for the September 11 attacks? They're screaming black and blue "anti-infidel" crap, we would have come under the pump sooner or later anyway.
Really?
Who's they?
Ever thought that such an attack might have been motivated by a little more than Islamic fundamentalists yelling that "America and its allies are the western infidel"?
I know it's not your particular field of expertise but come on mate... there's a lot more to it than you're implying. By turning it into an "us" and "them' argument you're essentially sinking to "their" level. Whoever "they" are... I know that I certainly don't know enough about the personal and group motivations of millions of people worldwide to make blanket statements about them.



As for the Indonesian bombing...
I wouldn't be too quick to accept any particular theory on this one.

[conspiracy theory]
Remember that the US, Indonesia and Australia all have elections in the offing.

Think of who has to gain from such an attack...

Howard Government: Such an attack supports one of their major policy standpoints which many voters are still undecided about.

Bush Administration: Ditto (perhaps slightly more far-fetched).

Indonesian Presidential Candidate (Army General): Able to push the line that Megawati Sukarnoputri (incumbent President) is soft on terrorism and that he, as an Army man, would be a better leader.
...I'm slightly unsure about this one... it rounds out a nice theory but I don't know enough about Indonesian internal politics to be able to say, unequivocally, that a stance against terrorism would be a worthwile standpoint in the election.
[/conspiracy theory]
 

Access

Cannon Fodder
S this is mainly for you. You wrote.
I totally disagree. What was the provocation for the September 11 attacks?
This really highlights the problem with the way the world is viewed by Americans and those influenced highly by American television and news media.

Does anyone really believe that an incident like S-11 or any other terrorist act is targeted at totally innocent countries?

Its an important lesson in life - one man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. I am not here to condone any act of Terrorism but what would take a group of men/women to focus all their attention and time, money, sweat and even their loved ones on hurting another nation?

The typical American response is "Their Jealous", or even "They hate the fact we have freedom." Only a self absorbed ethnocentric government would take that position.

Even recently in Russia, the hostage situation revolved around that the Kidnappers wished their country to be free from Russian control. Should they have taken 1500 people hostage........ well they certainly thought so. For one reason or another it seemed to them that their quality of life was so bad that the only option apparant to any of them was to kidnap 1,500 people. Thats intense, they dont do it because their jealous of Russia. No, they do it because they want things to change and this is their the only viable option they can see. Its almost inconceivable to an American / Australian / British person how such a situation can get this bad that it seems like the only option is to risk innocent civilians.

Their not heartless, just desperate.
The question which few are asking and certainly none in the government are asking is "Why are so many Terroirst groups SO desperate that attacking the US seems like the only option left".

'Because their Jealous', is a paper thin justification, but quite a successful one. So many Westerners just accept this as the reason.

S, Why do you think so many countries are angry at the USA?[/u]
 
Top