Archived Discussion Topic

Labour or Liberal        started by cindy42 on 20 Aug 2010   (23050)
Message InfoMessage
From cindy42

20 Aug 2010 8:11 PM
(109194)
Who gets your vote ? my head is spinning......
From kayandandy

To cindy42

20 Aug 2010 8:13 PM
(109195)
traditionally a a lib voter ... but Abbot is a bit of a T$%! Miss Gillard gets on my nerves and I wish she would have speech lessons. I am going on policy and the libs get it for me as they are trying to bring in more maternity leave for women which cant be a bad thing. Miss Gillard can stick her two weeks paid paternal leave on minimum wage up her .... Both boring! A pretty shabby election campaign.
From Marshy

To kayandandy

20 Aug 2010 8:30 PM
(109196)
I agree, I can't abide Abbott but as my husband keeps reminding me I am voting for the policies not the person. As someone who is married to a person dependent on the resources industry, a Labour vote would be equivalent to a few dollars towards a plane ticket back to Blighty.
From Perth42

To Marshy

20 Aug 2010 8:51 PM
(109197)
Does anyone know what Liberal's policy on migration is? I have a horrible feeling if Abbott gets in I and others may be waiting a very long time for the SMP's to be released, if they they release them at all... I just want to get underway with our visa we have been on hold since my hubby psssed his VETASSESS in May... arrggghhh!!! Marie-Louise
From kayandandy

To Perth42

20 Aug 2010 9:32 PM
(109198)
I may be wrong but I thought he was going to tackle the difficulties in WA and encourage immigration to rural areas and building communities in mining towns so as to stop the fly in and fly out culture which is so bad for families.
From Mindblower

To kayandandy

20 Aug 2010 10:01 PM
(109199)
Can't vote as not citizen yet. However, Labour incompetent and always tax,spend and debt. Abbot- Too scary for three or four years of him. All amateurs in my book.
From moirclan

To Perth42

20 Aug 2010 10:11 PM
(109200)
i think in their mandate they are going to reduce immigration from 300.000 to 170.000 anually, ensure two thirds of migrators are skilled and encourage placements in regional or rural areas with skills shortages,
From Perth42

To kayandandy

20 Aug 2010 10:21 PM
(109201)
Thats also another worry I have if they stipulate we can only live in a certain area i.e. the mining areas way up north. If the Wheatbelt areas is still an option on the new list we should be fine. I will await with bated breath to read the news online tomorrow. Mind you it might make it on telly here... This morning on BBC news they said both leading parties Tony & Julia were born in England!!!!
From cindy42

To kayandandy

20 Aug 2010 10:26 PM
(109202)
Not keen on Abbot either but...i think it will be a liberal vote for us.
From tisme

To Perth42

20 Aug 2010 10:33 PM
(109203)
Abbott was born in London to Australian parents and Julia was born in Barry, Wales.
From tisme

To cindy42

20 Aug 2010 10:35 PM
(109204)
Liberal vote for me. Can't stand either of the two clowns, but I think the Liberals will be better for Oz.
From Perth42

To moirclan

20 Aug 2010 10:36 PM
(109205)
I did seem to think that was the case. I didn
From baddad

To cindy42

20 Aug 2010 10:44 PM
(109206)
What a choice. They are all as short sighted as each other. The pollies are worse over here than the UK!!!! They are not even second rate..
From Perth42

To baddad

20 Aug 2010 10:53 PM
(109208)
Are you sure?? Got to be better than the collation gov here.... retirement age has gone up and they are now talking about stopping OAP bus passes... the old folks have been hit in everyway, they used to get free swimming along with kids thats gone too! Oh and thanks to them I and many more people will be out of work come july 2011... at they are putting a stop to the labour insentitive of getting more working class into HE.... One thing about the current Oz Gov this is on the agenda... and fingers crossed if/when we get our visa's I should be able to do the same work in Aussie unis....
From me2you

To kayandandy

21 Aug 2010 7:49 AM
(109212)
true - the FIFO is bad for the communities - locals can't buy houses, doctors, teachers, nurses etc leaving to do menial tasks in the mines for twice the money they could earn in their 'regular' jobs - others flying in, earning a mint but spending elsewhere - but i still cannot imagine migrants from western countries actually living in these remote places - well maybe the odd one or two but there's not many could cope with the constant heat, flies and isolation. if you were escaping persecution mabye, but otherwise not many could cope with living so remote.
From Ljenks

To cindy42

21 Aug 2010 8:22 AM
(109215)
I'm still undecided and have to vote later today. The only thing that swings it for me is here in Queensland Anna Bligh (the labor state premier) didn't disclose in her election mandate that she intended to sell off all our state assets. As she's head of the labor party she could be Gillard's boss - puts me right off voting labor.
From tisme

To Ljenks

21 Aug 2010 10:28 AM
(109216)
It's a good thing having state leaders belonging to opposing parties to that of the country leader, keeps everyone on their toes. 0) If all state leaders and the countries leader were the same it would be a license for disaster.
From Kris+Rob

To Perth42

21 Aug 2010 5:17 PM
(109218)
The UK is now paying for keeping Labour in power for so long, serves 'em right.
From cindy42

To Ljenks

21 Aug 2010 6:36 PM
(109219)
First time ever i have had to queue to vote. Back in the UK the polling station was usually empty. Compulsory voting must be the way to go?
From fairylights

To me2you

21 Aug 2010 9:44 PM
(109220)
I really don't think FIFO is such a bad thing - what's worse dad (or mum) working 6 days a week early til late - hardly seeing kids and grumpy all the time because of 1 hour each way in traffic to work - or dad (or mum) away 8 days and home for 6 - happy on days home and has more time for kids and leisure and earns more so standard of living higher - that's the way I see FIFO working well - OK some spend all their days off in the pub, but they would do this anyway working regular hours.
From Kris+Rob

To cindy42

22 Aug 2010 9:21 AM
(109222)
I'm not convinced by the Aussie voting system. Some seats over east had dozens of candidates. How can one number them all in preference, one can't possibly know them all. Parties being able to give their preferences to another smells like third world banana republic to me? Whatver happened to 'One man-one vote'? Compulsary voting was one of the features of the Eastern Block states which weren't exactly known as hotbeds of democracy.
From jimboman

To Kris+Rob

22 Aug 2010 11:20 AM
(109223)
I am not convinced by any voting system. Let's face it, wherever you are, you have a choice between right or left. You have to pick through the policy 'promises' and then weigh up which is the lesser of two evils. Very rarely do you get a positive choice. Campaigns are based on who will be worse for the country rather than who will improve things. Stop the boats, stop the houses burning down after they have been insulated are all negative reasons to vote Liberal. Likewise, 'he knows nothing about the economy, he wears budgie smugglers and his ears stick out' Negative.. A highly competent politician with the interests of the people at heart, can be destroyed by the press for walking past a Mosque or knowing someone who went to a Gay Bar. I would like to see a statute where parties are bound to give a set of promises (costed and feasible) and they are held to those promises if elected. If a party says 'we will stop the boats', they should stop the boats. They shouldn't be allowed to say 'we reduced the number of boats (seasonally adjusted) in real terms but we are still experiencing the onflow caused by the previous government and will continue to do so for some time'. How come an Australian can be fined or go to gaol for failing to vote whilst at the same time it is lawful for a party to promise a 10% tax cut, but fail to deliver it once elected? I lived opposite Screaming Lord Sutch (Monster Raving Loony Party) for about six months and I am only just starting to understand what he was doing. RIP David Sutch.
From kayandandy

To fairylights

22 Aug 2010 12:45 PM
(109224)
I appreciate those benefits but these large mining companies think that by throwing money at people all will be alright. I would be interested in a survey that looks at the parent left home with two young children and limited support structures. I have lived this lifestyle, albeit abroad and it was gruelling and lonely. the money was lovely but it was lovlier when husband was home. If mining is to make a fair contribution to our society and community it needs to address social and wlefare issues as well as acknowledging that they rip a fair old whack of resources out of our ground and moan and groan at limited tax implications.
From me2you

To fairylights

22 Aug 2010 9:42 PM
(109226)
yes I take your point - but I was referring more to the communities where the FIFOs go ie the communities surrounding the mines etc. The mining companies buy up all the housing etc, the locals work the mines for more money eg school teachers, doctors, nurses etc, leaving those communities bereft of those needed to support everyday living - there was a big article about it in the papers not so long ago. no one can blame individuals for trying to make money, but the wages tend to go back to the areas the FIFO workers came from, not the surrounding communities. of course the locals may also individually work in the mines and make good money, but at the overall community level, its led to problems. In the article I read, it was said that FIFO workers place a huge burden on the local infrastructure, tend not to have any sense of community/respect for the locals, crime rates increase and anti social behaviour. Additionally, because the FIFO workers are based on site camps, the local shire cannot claim any federal funding for them - so you have lots of people in an area but it is only federally funded for a significantly smaller number of people - so it is impossible for the town to provide the services needed to support the true larger number of people. Individually it may be a good thing for some families, but at a societal level, possibly not so good.