TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Australia
-- Election time again
Pages (6): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »


Posted by Romp on Sep-10-2004 02:09:

I will be voting for the Greens and giving my preference to labor.

I'm surprised there is so much support for John Howard here, I would not expect that from young people in the clubbing/dance scene.

What has Howard ever done for us?

-Raised our HECS fees
-introduced the GST which screws students, school kids and people on low incomes
-healthcare costs have gone up

-he's against harm minimisation polices on drug use, basically if you take drugs you are just a criminal according to him.

-interest rates are low which has helped fuel the property boom. This has made a lot of people a lot richer but for those of us who dont own property, we are screwed. I have no hope of being able to afford a property in the area I grew up in, not unless I am on a 100k a year+ salary.

-children in mandatory detention: truly shameful, when I was overseas in Europe this was something that often came up in conversation, made me ashamed to be an Australian. In Europe they think Australian's are racist because of Howard's policies. Add the wrecking of reconciliation and not saying "sorry" to Aboriginals to this category.

-Kyoto: Australia negotiated to get special status which allows us to increase our greenhouse gas use while everyone else has to decrease and Howard still wont ratify the agreement. Meanwhile, a report last week stated that temperatures in sydney are going to rise by 5 degrees over the next 60 years or so and droughts are going to be much worse. What kind of legacy are we leaving to our children and grand children, I hate to think of the water restrictions that will be in place in 50 years in Sydney. Add to this category logging of old growth forests, total lack of initiative in seeking alternative energy sources etc

-Iraq: well people have different views on this but one thing is for sure, the justifications for going to war (WMD, help the war on terrorism) have turned out to be false.

-VSU: the Liberals want to introduce voluntary student unionism into universities, this will pretty much kill all the clubs and societies at university, I didnt participate that much but they are a very important part of university life and it would suck to see them go.

I can understand why you might vote for Howard if you have 2 kids and a mortgage but if you are a young person then think about it... he is not working in your interest. If you look at the poll last week about age groups, I think it was something like 17% of 18-26 support Howard vs 60% of 55+... pretty easy there to see which generation Howard's policies are helping.


Posted by Adnan1999'ing on Sep-10-2004 03:49:

quote:
Originally posted by Antistatic
Almost all Young Libs are right-wing freaks that bear no resemblence to the senior party.


that is incorrect. The young libs is the "held back" version of what the Senior Liberals Truly think about. Infact i know many of the young liberals are now running for donkey seats all around NSW.

The senior liberals want to abolish HECS / medicare / completely privatise education / and get rid of affirmative action, there is just no way i can vote for a party with such principles.


Posted by Adnan1999'ing on Sep-10-2004 03:51:

quote:
Originally posted by Romp
I will be voting for the Greens and giving my preference to labor.

I'm surprised there is so much support for John Howard here, I would not expect that from young people in the clubbing/dance scene.

What has Howard ever done for us?

-Raised our HECS fees
-introduced the GST which screws students, school kids and people on low incomes
-healthcare costs have gone up

-he's against harm minimisation polices on drug use, basically if you take drugs you are just a criminal according to him.

-interest rates are low which has helped fuel the property boom. This has made a lot of people a lot richer but for those of us who dont own property, we are screwed. I have no hope of being able to afford a property in the area I grew up in, not unless I am on a 100k a year+ salary.

-children in mandatory detention: truly shameful, when I was overseas in Europe this was something that often came up in conversation, made me ashamed to be an Australian. In Europe they think Australian's are racist because of Howard's policies. Add the wrecking of reconciliation and not saying "sorry" to Aboriginals to this category.

-Kyoto: Australia negotiated to get special status which allows us to increase our greenhouse gas use while everyone else has to decrease and Howard still wont ratify the agreement. Meanwhile, a report last week stated that temperatures in sydney are going to rise by 5 degrees over the next 60 years or so and droughts are going to be much worse. What kind of legacy are we leaving to our children and grand children, I hate to think of the water restrictions that will be in place in 50 years in Sydney. Add to this category logging of old growth forests, total lack of initiative in seeking alternative energy sources etc

-Iraq: well people have different views on this but one thing is for sure, the justifications for going to war (WMD, help the war on terrorism) have turned out to be false.

-VSU: the Liberals want to introduce voluntary student unionism into universities, this will pretty much kill all the clubs and societies at university, I didnt participate that much but they are a very important part of university life and it would suck to see them go.

I can understand why you might vote for Howard if you have 2 kids and a mortgage but if you are a young person then think about it... he is not working in your interest. If you look at the poll last week about age groups, I think it was something like 17% of 18-26 support Howard vs 60% of 55+... pretty easy there to see which generation Howard's policies are helping.


well said


Posted by Dupz on Sep-10-2004 05:26:

quote:
Originally posted by Romp

What has Howard ever done for us?

-Raised our HECS fees


-interest rates are low which has helped fuel the property boom. This has made a lot of people a lot richer but for those of us who dont own property, we are screwed. I have no hope of being able to afford a property in the area I grew up in, not unless I am on a 100k a year+ salary.



-VSU: the Liberals want to introduce voluntary student unionism into universities, this will pretty much kill all the clubs and societies at university, I didnt participate that much but they are a very important part of university life and it would suck to see them go.


Yeah, I agree, well said.

Just some points that I'm concerned with. I agree with everything you've said, but:

- Higher HECS fee's arent going to be as bad as everyone thinks. I mean, sure, it looks bad on the surface but unis like RMIT will go under if they dont get their boost in unfront cash. It'll just help the unis become more competitive on an internation basis. Sure, it might put a few people off going to uni, but hey, at least its still cheaper than going to a private highschool.

- Low interest rates are not of the workings of Howard and co. Well, their influence is ambiguous, simply because it's the RBA who sets interest rates, and not the government. The only way the govt can influence interest rates is through their own levels of spending. The govt spends more on health/education etc, the more pressure on interest rates, and vise-versa.

- I havent heard of the VSU policy, but it's an interesting one, none the less. Personally, all of my student union fees go to supplying free slabs of shitty local beer every Thursday, and food that is verging on poisonous. Personally, my $140 in student union fees is a waste for me. But you're right, perhaps all those kick arse sporting clubs, and all that junk, will go.. So yeah, I'll handball the issue onto someone else.

Who am i going to vote for???
I was going to vote for Greens, but the GREENS economic policy verges on negligence. Studying economics at uni, and seeing them suggest that foreign investment be cut makes me choke.
And with all the uproar over this whole legalisation of illicit drugs... The greens went back on their policy, so sorry everyone, E's wont be legal under the greens

Howard is Bush's tool, but they seem to know what they're doing with the economy.. Nah, actually, bugger that.... No chance for my vote Johnny.

Latham? Appeals to the bogans, a little more than i'd like, but seems to be a stronger person than Howard (he wont be so much of a puppet for Bush). So yeah, mayyybe labour.

Besides.. this is a hardcore Labour seat, so my opinion wont fukn matter anyway


Posted by echosystm on Sep-10-2004 05:47:

Well, i'm not voting, not old enough

I WOULD vote mark latham though, simply because I can't stand john howard. He is a little bitch and I hate him for sending Australians to the war and just generally screwing us over to benefit conservative old farts and the "economy".

I like the family and people oriented wiewpoint that labour always has had, as apposed to the gay****s making people pay too much for education and health etc.

But, in the long run the libs are probably doing the right thing for the economy. I just don't like the idea of supporting businesses so much and privatising everything at the expense of the public


Posted by echosystm on Sep-10-2004 05:50:

quote:
Originally posted by Romp
I'm surprised there is so much support for John Howard here, I would not expect that from young people in the clubbing/dance scene.


No joke, I would expect alot of these pillmonkeys (or associates of pillmonkeys ;D;D) to be alot less conservative than this! :O

I mean, the only people I know that vote liberal are assholes


Posted by nicknack on Sep-10-2004 05:51:

quote:
Originally posted by narcism
Im voting based on my profession
liberals have royally fucked up medicare, less incentives to bulk bill meaning a back log of non-severe cases in the emergency departments. Why is there a 6-8 hr wait to get a bed let alone to see a doctor, because people front to triage with minor things


Its a big ask to improve health and health care but atm i dont see the liberals doing that.


i have a saying 'get private care you pov'

voting howard, i believe last election i was bennelong, although i think they have changed that since then. People dont realise if labor were in power last term we would have gone to war anyway, Latham would have done the exact same thign as howard


Posted by matt.h on Sep-10-2004 06:07:

quote:
Originally posted by S_madis
study enough politics at uni so really couldn't be bothered to get into any form of political discussion in the place where I usually come to get away from it all


hahaa that is so true! get home from uni and you really don't feel like paying any attention to all the election hoopla going on in the media etc.

federally, my area requires a 5.5% swing to become a liberal seat and im hoping that happens! woooo go the libs!

mark latham doesn't have a clue.


Posted by Renegade on Sep-10-2004 06:44:

quote:
Originally posted by nicknack
People dont realise if labor were in power last term we would have gone to war anyway


Er, actually Labor were against the war. Don't you remember Simon Crean?


Posted by Trance Nutter on Sep-10-2004 06:51:

Is anyone else missing the Election Chasers on ABC? They were fuckin hilarious last election, they should come back.


Posted by Adnan1999'ing on Sep-10-2004 07:06:

quote:
Originally posted by matt.h
hahaa that is so true! get home from uni and you really don't feel like paying any attention to all the election hoopla going on in the media etc.

federally, my area requires a 5.5% swing to become a liberal seat and im hoping that happens! woooo go the libs!

mark latham doesn't have a clue.


and howard does?

just like he had a clue about the tampa, the iraq situation and alot more?


Posted by Adnan1999'ing on Sep-10-2004 07:08:

quote:
Originally posted by nicknack
i have a saying 'get private care you pov'

voting howard, i believe last election i was bennelong, although i think they have changed that since then. People dont realise if labor were in power last term we would have gone to war anyway, Latham would have done the exact same thign as howard


maybe so, but I think Latham would have at least had the respect of waiting for the U.N resolution.


Posted by Antistatic on Sep-10-2004 07:31:

quote:
Originally posted by Adnan1999'ing
that is incorrect. The young libs is the "held back" version of what the Senior Liberals Truly think about. Infact i know many of the young liberals are now running for donkey seats all around NSW.

The senior liberals want to abolish HECS / medicare / completely privatise education / and get rid of affirmative action, there is just no way i can vote for a party with such principles.

..and I bet you believe that the Iraq war was for oil too right?


Posted by Paulie on Sep-10-2004 07:38:

3 reasons why Mr. John howard has my vote:

1. Wont say Sorry to the aboriginals.
2. Tough stance on illegal immigrants.
3. Voluntary Student Unionism.


And ffs dont give some half assed minor party aka democrats or greens or even independents power in the senate. If howard is elected as prime minister he should have the mandate to run the country as he sees fit.

As said before its easy in hindsight to say Howard shouldnt go to war but if latham was in power he would of done same thing. BTW if the election wasnt a certainty for the liberals before Jakarta Bombings it is now


Posted by matt.h on Sep-10-2004 07:39:

does the recent bombing outside the australian embassy in jakarta remind anyone else of a similar situation before the last election?

john howard has a tougher stance re terrorism, global war on terror etc...the bombing, imo, is going to play right into his hands.

mark latham's foreign policy is weak, and his cabinet will be inexperienced if elected...

seems like tampa all over again where john howard promised to get tough on the illegal immigrants/boat people.


Posted by Paulie on Sep-10-2004 07:39:

/me waits for pro labour bragi and webmeister to feed us their propoganda.


Posted by eRRaTiK on Sep-10-2004 07:57:

latham is just as weak as you matt!

w00t.


Posted by nicknack on Sep-10-2004 08:18:

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade
Er, actually Labor were against the war. Don't you remember Simon Crean?


Er, my point was it is all well in good to say your against the war when your not in power, HAD labor been in power i think you'll find we would have been going to war.

Point: They were *against* the war because at the time it was convenient for them to be, not because they really gave a fuck or not.


Posted by Ves on Sep-10-2004 09:06:

i think i'll be voting for Howard. I don't particularly like him, but I'm not a Latham fan at all.
i haven't made my mind up yet...we'll see how it goes.

i'll probably vote for greens in the senate, democrats maybe, or the communists (if they run for it). spice things up a bit

i've been thinking about this for awhile now, but haven't come to any definite conclusions. we'll see...


Posted by Adnan1999'ing on Sep-10-2004 09:25:

quote:
Originally posted by Antistatic
..and I bet you believe that the Iraq war was for oil too right?


And, I bet you believe that the Iraq war was to find "weapons of mass destruction?" or to "liberate iraq". Which one, please enlighten me? Also, if it was truly for those reasons, why is Bush not drafting up plans for the "pre-emptive strike" of North Korea as we speak? is it because North Korea doesn't have vast oil-market influencing natural reserves?

Lock it in eddie.

quote:
Originally posted by matt.h does the recent bombing outside the australian embassy in jakarta remind anyone else of a similar situation before the last election?


Personally I think we are more prone to terrorist attacks than we ever were before, thanks to our "Uncle Sam says - Jonnie thickbrows do" foreign policy. A pre-emptively agitative foreign policy has never worked nor will it, and history has proven that several times before.

It is truly a sad day for Americans when a President who lies about having sex with an intern gets impeached but a President who lies about "pre-emptively striking" (invading) on false pretences gets off scott free.


Posted by escee on Sep-10-2004 10:47:

quote:
Originally posted by Paulie
And ffs dont give some half assed minor party aka democrats or greens or even independents power in the senate. If howard is elected as prime minister he should have the mandate to run the country as he sees fit.


Minor parties holding the balance of power in the senate is essential in my opinion. The senate should be a lot more than rubber stamp for howard, and thankfully it has been for the last few terms.

I believe people should pay for their own shit, ie their own uni, their own health, etc etc. The government should not be concerned with that for people who can afford it. Sure help people who cant, but if your earning enough then there is no reason at all you should be bulk billed, or have the government pay for your schooling.

cue bludgers disagreeing with me.


Posted by batemanscott on Sep-10-2004 11:28:

I just want to clearly say that I have nothing against students, ( my GF of 3 years who I live with is one).But i really don't care about hecs or student unions.

I bust my arse six days a week putting up with people's bullshit to get ahead in life so why should my HARD eard tax money pay for your "further" education. If you want a degree to get the job YOU want, pay for it yourself!! I would gladly see my tax better spent than your hecs.

I'm happy to pay my share for the healthcare / welfare of others but i don't believe i should pay any part of your university schooling, note i do not say primary or secondary. Maybe some of the students i see pissing it up every weekend would take their studies more seriously if they had to save their pay for 4 years to be at uni?

I'm saving for a house so i'm scared of labour's renewed era of ridiculous interest rates. Bring back 18% interest rates and we'll see how much you or your parents can afford then or how long you spend trapped paying rent.

I believe in being responsible for my own welfare, wellbeing and not in hand outs so i don't vote labour.


Posted by Adnan1999'ing on Sep-10-2004 11:39:

so say HECS was abolished. Who would pay for your GF's uni fees, you? or your GF?. (im curious)

Do you know how hard life is as a student going to uni and working every other day just so you can pay your NORMAL hecs fees, let alone full-fee payments?

It may be your choice to go through life without a tertiary education but shouldn't it remain a "choice"? IF hecs was abolished, the choice of trying to complete tertiary education would become impossible for many students. Not all students can afford to pay Full-uni fees. You need to take that into account. IF hecs was abolished expect to see many more international students at universities all around Australia.

A good robust economy and potential for growth, development and advancement in Australia would depend very heavily on a solid output of skilled tertiary educated graduates from "Australia". Would you rather these graduates stay in Australia so they can give something back to the community? OR would you rather a completely privatised tertiary system where only international students and those who can afford $15,000-20,000+ a year be able to attend.


Posted by Antistatic on Sep-10-2004 12:36:

quote:
Originally posted by Adnan1999'ing
Do you know how hard life is as a student going to uni and working every other day just so you can pay your NORMAL hecs fees, let alone full-fee payments?

Actually you don't have to pay your HECS while you're at uni. You don't have to pay until you have a job and are earning >$30,000 a year or something like that.


Posted by Adnan1999'ing on Sep-10-2004 12:40:

yes that is if you defer HECS, which means you will be paying it off with Interest.


Pages (6): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.