TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Australia
-- [Politics] Has John Howard done a good job?
Pages (8): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »


Posted by eRRaTiK on Oct-26-2005 11:51:

Question [Politics] Has John Howard done a good job?

I was seriously expecting him to step down and give Costello a run, but obviously not.

So has the current PM done a good job during his term?
Is it time for a changing of the guard?
Will Labor ever have an opposition leader with enough skill, ability, charisma, baldness to rival the honorable (questionable) Mr Howard?

Discuss.


Posted by Dj_Es-Dva on Oct-26-2005 12:00:

um no, though as much as people hate him all politicians are the same, they just screw our way of life differently to others.


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Oct-26-2005 12:11:

i think the coalition has done a very good job at getting done what they want/wanted to get done. judging parties is all about where your priorities are.

theyve apparently managed the economy well. im not an economist so i dont know. i think some of their welfare reforms have been harsh. i think their mandatory detention policies have been way harsh. i disagree with the GST. iraq? hmmmm, a toughy. the sale of telstra & the IR reforms are a fvcking disgrace.

i guess im saying i disagree with most of their policies, but dont know if theyve done a good job or not.

i like costello in the sense that he's a bastard and doesnt pretend otherwise. whereas howard's the guy you think had your back just before he stuck a knife in it but yeah, labor so dont have that charismatic leader anymore. i thought kim was very good during his first shot. but i dont see it anymore.

the coalition are gonna have to fvck something up for labour to get a sniff next election.


Posted by 00soups00 on Oct-26-2005 12:12:

whether you agree with their policies or not, Howard and his team have done a very good job..

i dont know what the stats are, but i think unemployment is down and growth is up and countries debt is down and all the good stuff, but who knows i might be wrong.


Posted by Ash Parajuli on Oct-26-2005 12:16:

If Howard decides to go for another term, he will win it again. He has so much experience and I doubt the Australian public will want to try someone new when they already have someone with experience.

Whenever Howard does decide to leave, then it will be interesting to see which way the Australian public will sway towards. Few new issues might give Labour a slight chance at the next polls, but doubt they can win.


Posted by kelsta on Oct-26-2005 12:50:

I don't really have a problem with what him, nothing he's done is holding me back from doing whatever I want to do so if it's not broken, why try and fix it.

But then I'm not a student... if I was I'd probably complain cause they like doing that



Posted by Philby on Oct-26-2005 12:53:

quote:
Originally posted by kelsta
But then I'm not a student... if I was I'd probably complain cause they like doing that


we have reputations to uphold!!!


Posted by kelsta on Oct-26-2005 13:06:

quote:
Originally posted by Philby
we have reputations to uphold!!!


yeah shouldn't you be off painting signs and making badges for your protest rally about library fees or something


Posted by narcism on Oct-26-2005 13:07:

quote:
Originally posted by 00soups00
but i think unemployment is down and growth is up and countries debt is down and all the good stuff


the health systems is at crisis point perhaps?


Posted by Philby on Oct-26-2005 13:13:

quote:
Originally posted by kelsta
yeah shouldn't you be off painting signs and making badges for your protest rally about library fees or something


haha i actually wanted to go to a protest this year
but i had to work....stupid job


Posted by pinkhelmet on Oct-26-2005 13:24:

johnny is hawtttt



(sorry i have nothing more constructive to add )


Posted by Philby on Oct-26-2005 13:28:

haha look out pinkhelmet has arrived


jolz delete this thread before renegade finds out about it


Posted by narcism on Oct-26-2005 13:46:


Posted by Philby on Oct-26-2005 13:52:

hahahaha


Posted by Antistatic on Oct-26-2005 13:52:

how about turn this into a poll?


Posted by pinkhelmet on Oct-26-2005 14:25:

quote:
Originally posted by narcism


yeah just a bit scary


Posted by jono4L on Oct-26-2005 15:12:

he is sending us along a similar path to america. on top of that he is making it even more of a rich get richer and poor get poorer society. yes unemployment is down and the economy has growth but the areas that really need the funding are not getting enough. on top of this the terror laws he is bringing in are wrong and against our constitution and the IR reform will hurt many many low income australians, we will have less unemployed from it however we will be like America and have many people with jobs below the poverty line even though they work long hours. not to mention the numerous legislation changes he is trying to sneak in under the media hype on the big issues.

he is not making these changes for the better of the country even if he does believe he is. he is simply trying to make sure that he is remembered by leaving his legacy. Costello will take over once Johnny has done his thing and Costello will make more TAX changes to leave his legacy. Australia could very well be heading into a very grim future.

only time will tell.


Posted by Light The Fuse on Oct-26-2005 15:26:

the war was fun
so were the kids stuck on that big orange tanker
those jails in the middle of the desert for people running from terrible situtations was kewl
the way we have never ever had a gst was koota

but then im a lifetime student lol.
but if latham won the last election thered probably be a lot more to complain about - so what can ya do.


Posted by Sid on Oct-26-2005 15:27:

slowly but surely the labour principles, which this country became widley known for are dieing a slow death under the current administration. Maybe the state of the economy has recently thrived, but at what expense do I ask?


Posted by jono4L on Oct-26-2005 16:02:

our generation needs to recognise and suppport the greens, they are the party that more truly represent the younger generations ideals. not only that but they are truly pushing for many changes that are needed in this country to make it more safe with a lower crime rate and they are on the right track with policies such has harm minimisation and decriminalisation of drug use. not to mention their commitment to the environment. an issue that we will see fall to peices under the howard/costello regime. an issue that will effect our lives heavily and not the lives of the baby boomer generation who are the large majority of the libral voters in this country who will not be around to suffer the consequences of their man Johnnys destruction of our wonderful country


Posted by batemanscott on Oct-26-2005 21:27:

I think the coaltion has done a good job. I disagree with a couple things like anyone but you have to ask "What would the other guys really have done in the same position"?

I'm not a blind liberal supporter, i am a realist and i would love for some other party to offer such a good package that i would be forced to vote for them but sadly i dont see this happening anytime soon.


Posted by 00soups00 on Oct-26-2005 22:32:

decriminalisation of drugs...


you must be joking right.... no seriously!!! you MUST be joking... im suprised someone as smart as yourself johno4l is saying something like that.. yes, it can be argued that if drugs werent illegal, then it would take the criminal element away from it all, and therefor some of the appeal would be taken away. In my opinion, that is rubbish. You decriminalise drugs you have an even bigger problem where the people take way too much and end up like drugfaced mules (if that doesnt happen already). it may not be nice to say, but ill say it anyway, death by overdoses is an effective culling device. you take that away by introducing government controlled drugs/dosage, who the hell knows what would happen.

as far as the IR reform, what are the examples of how this would affect the average worker? Im assuming that you (like myself) are basing your judgement purely on advertising, plus you wouldnt be a fan of the Liberal Party either. What EVIDENCE do you have to suggest it makes the ordinary person worse off?? [is it because of that ad where the guy is told her has to work friday nights even though his wife already does and he has 3 children???]


as far as the liberal parties terror laws go, im not really a huge supporter of how far they've gone e.g "shoot-to-kill clause", which as Jono4l correctly pointed that, is in direct contrary to many constitutional rights such as Innocent Until Proven Guilty. In my opinion what has happened to David Hicks has been a fuckn disgrace & the Australian government should be concentrating their efforts on getting him back to Australia instead of worrying about those fuckn bali 9 n00bs or that other traffiker Nguyen Tuong Van.

In other news -

Veteran Australian TV star Bert Newton will leave the Ten Network when his show Good Morning Australia ends next week after a 14-year run.


Posted by queen_vee on Oct-26-2005 22:42:

Sure Johnny's done a great job with the economy (he tells us ALL THE FRIGGIN TIME)

But at what cost? I'd say we're a society now that doesn't truly appreciate human values...(not that labour still hold on to those core values that established them... they're more the 'Liberal Lights' these days anyway)

Every man for himself and a booming economy. Woot! Love those aspirationalists. They're the backbone of this country now.

It's going to be sooo great when these reforms come in and the poor and uneducated can be taken advantage of.

Australia is screwed in the wider scheme of things.

/shrugs/ My life seems to be chugging away OK. I mean, I'm not working the streets, and I'm not fully addicted to any drugs


Posted by 00soups00 on Oct-26-2005 22:48:

looking after yourself and your friends and your family and stuff the guy next to you, isnt something that is acheivable at all, however its certainly not just because of the government that this has come about, its through a whole lot of different avenues - E.G the media!

and the poor and uneducated (and those who cant stand up for themselves) have been taken advantage of for a long time. this is nothing really new at all.

quote:
/shrugs/ My life seems to be chugging away OK. I mean, I'm not working the streets, and I'm not fully addicted to any drugs


and how are you any different to those who are looking after themselves??? MY life seems to be chugging away okay. I mean I'M not working the streets and I'M not fully addicted....

all about you


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Oct-26-2005 23:19:

quote:
Originally posted by 00soups00
decriminalisation of drugs...

you must be joking right.... no seriously!!! you MUST be joking... im suprised someone as smart as yourself johno4l is saying something like that.. yes, it can be argued that if drugs werent illegal, then it would take the criminal element away from it all, and therefor some of the appeal would be taken away.


firstly, unless the federal govt does something sneaky re international treaties concerning drugs, the legality of narcotic substances is a state issue, not a commonwealth one, so its a moot point.

quote:
Originally posted by 00soups00
In my opinion, that is rubbish. You decriminalise drugs you have an even bigger problem where the people take way too much and end up like drugfaced mules (if that doesnt happen already). it may not be nice to say, but ill say it anyway, death by overdoses is an effective culling device. you take that away by introducing government controlled drugs/dosage, who the hell knows what would happen.


youre an idiot soups. firstly, there are countries in the world that have a markedly different stance on drug use than australia, and they do just fine. also, the word decriminalise is very very different from LEGALISE. but youre just a typical gurner who likes to distinguish between substances - the drug problem is defined by people that i dont like abusing drugs i dont use. the ever-reliable position of the holier-than-thou hypocrite.

the currently legal substances cause far more grief and damage than narcotics ever will, regardless of legalities.

quote:
Originally posted by 00soups00
as far as the IR reform, what are the examples of how this would affect the average worker? Im assuming that you (like myself) are basing your judgement purely on advertising, plus you wouldnt be a fan of the Liberal Party either. What EVIDENCE do you have to suggest it makes the ordinary person worse off??


how about the fact that the small business employees will lose their right to challenge a dismissal? how about that currently unemployed workers will be put into AWAs that they must 'negotiate' with the boss; to negotiate means that you have some bargaining power. what kind of bargaining power does an unemployed desperado have? by allowing this, it undermines the wages of currently employed ppl. sure, apparently you cant be fired for choosing not to sign an AWA, but who the fvck wants to be in the same job theyre doing right now for the rest of their life? sooner or later they'll wanna move and then that AWA is gonna be rearing its ugly head. hey, soups works for 55c an hour, we'd be happy for you to join our lovely business at the same rate. fvck off.

what EVIDENCE do you have soups that it wont be detrimental to your average worker? quick, go switch on the telly and parrot what the Liberal, oh im sorry i mean government advertising is telling you.


Pages (8): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »

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