1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Election 2010, who do you think will win and why??

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Mark from Brisbane, Jul 20, 2010.

  1. Mark from Brisbane

    Mark from Brisbane Living the dream Premium Member

    +19,621 /383
    Personally I'd like to see the back stabbing Ranga on her merry way, how could anyone trust her with running the country when the former PM (who by all accounts was a decent bloke) was shafted from within by his own deputy...in my view despicable.


    In saying all of that I reckon she will get back in, and largely on the back of the Green vote......as in essence every Green vote is just a vote for Labor anyway.

    I think the country will have to be a lot worse off than it is (ie such as the British Isles who just changed after many many years of Labor) for the voting public to make such a move.

    I actually believe it should be one vote and one vote only.

    You vote for the person in your electorate whom you think will best represent you, and that's it...no preferences....first past the post wins...and if that means we get a whole lot more independents, or Greens then so be it!!

    What do you reckon??
  2. OneEyedEagle

    OneEyedEagle Well-Known Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +343 /5
    Mark, I was thinking exactly the same thing.

    I was having the discussion with my sister who was saying she was going to place a protest vote by voting for the greens, perish the thought. (She's not so smart for a school teacher).

    I kindly pointed out to her she shouldn't bother as her protest vote will just count for ALP.

    Maybe the ranga has polished up her pole and is planning on entertaining Bob Brown by doing some lap dances for a few tipping dollars.

    The ALP couldn't run a two bit rundown brothel in the middle of Kazakhstan, let alone run the best country in the world Australia, the past 2.5 years should have proved that to all the voters.
  3. Dan

    Dan Kim Jong Dan Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +7,733 /120
    that's politics...sheesh

    Your options

    Liberals - Fit dude...not fit to run the country though, his idea of health reform and health by religion worries me

    Labor - Doing a passable job of running the country but not great....the marginally better option at the moment.

    TBH under Howard I felt like a worthless number there to pay my taxes

    Under Labor I feel the same, it's just I dont care as much.

    I think i would rather pationately hate our prime minister than be completely indifferent. At least when you hate the person and the way you are being treated, you keep a closer eye on them. God knows what Labor will pull because everyone just doesn't care about them enough.

    I hate the ****ing tree loving greenies and independents up here, you may as well vote liberals.....a donkey vote may be on the way
  4. byso

    byso Well-Known Member

    +85 /0
    I feel you should vote for the party you think will run the country better. Not local area.

    Obviously liberal is the way to go.
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    +0 /0
    The goat gets my vote. 

    Unfortunately they are all as useless as each other and hopefully the greens don't get any votes.
  6. The Gronk

    The Gronk Well-Known Member

    +37 /0
    If people understood preferences there wouldn't be a problem -  you are actually allowed to decide for yourself where they go, ie you don't have to follow the how to vote card, and you can vote below the line in the senate. 

    They have first past the post in the UK and it results in ridiculous outcomes where the number of seats won is no where near the percentage of the vote. 

    The other example is the US where it is first past the post, and people voting for the Greens instead of the Democrats' Al Gore (who last time I checked was more than a bit concerned about the environment) elected George W Bush in Florida in 2000. 

    Preferential voting has its problems but it is far better than first past the post. The only improvement would be to make the preferencing optional - so you wouldn't have to number all the boxes meaning that your vote may not funnel back to the two big parties. 

    My prediction - the ALP will be returned and with an increased majority. 

    Hopefully this time around they will have more stable senate and not have a financial crisis thrown on them, and we will get to see what a real labor government can do. 
  7. Dan

    Dan Kim Jong Dan Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +7,733 /120
    Oh I get it, it's just to be honest, I have a problem with numbering the 70 odd candidates or whatever it is
  8. Mark from Brisbane

    Mark from Brisbane Living the dream Premium Member

    +19,621 /383
    I didn't give a prediction other than I thought the Ranga would win...but I think if she wins it will be by a slimmer margin, ie they will lose seats.

    I just hate the way that when the votes come up on election night you see one person way in front that's not Labor, and then they fold the Green votes into Labor...and whoof...up comes the seat to labor.

    I consider myself "green minded" but I'd never vote for the bastards as a vote for them really isn't a vote for them it's a vote for another party!!
  9. OneEyedEagle

    OneEyedEagle Well-Known Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +343 /5
    To some degree you are right Tookey.

    Byso really has summed it up well

    "vote for the party you think will run the country better"

    From my perspective Liberal has a better track record.

    From a NSW perspective, if the ranga is elected and Liberal win the state election don't expect $$$ coming our states way for hospitals or education or rebuilding of Brookvale oval.

    I predict if the ranga is elected within 12 months grubby Swan will  push for a another leadership spill and again we will face the prospect of another non elected leader.

    Wake up Australia
  10. Guest

    Guest Guest

    +0 /0
    I am not sure how anyone could think that labor are a better choice partularly as managers of the economy than anyone else.

    Surely no-one could say that the insulation program, BER and  school computer programs have been sucesses?  Not to mention the billion dollars a year we are spending on boat arrivals. 

    Labor is going to pray for a bigger and better mining boom for the next 10 years to fund ourself out of the hole that they have dug ourselves into. 
  11. bob dylan

    bob dylan Well-Known Member Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +6,440 /192
    The election is a won horse race, the bookies always get it right.  On betfair at the moment the market is (with $447,421.00 in the pool)

    ALP $1.28
    Coalition is $4.40

    I am not interested in pressing my views or opinions on others but if you are a Liberal voter and think they have a chance have something on them at the big odds.

    Current indications are the ALP will slightly increase the current 18 seat margin.

    Dont worry about the polls (although the one I saw last night showed ALP 55% and Coalition at 45%, which is double the advantage Rudd won over Howard last time) the betting was spot on in 2007 and the weight of money is the only true guide in this day and age.
  12. ManlyBacker

    ManlyBacker Winging it Staff Member

    +972 /7
    I find it hard to believe that anyone questions the ethics of Gillard in the Rudd demise. I am almost certain that despite everything, Rudd did not have the factional support needed plus his hopeless track record on delivering promises spelt his demise. For Gillard it was a case of stand for the position or forever be seen in the backwaters. For a career pollie there was just no choice.

    Winning elections comes down to swings and close seat margins. I'm tipping Labor to win with a loss of seats (bsk me in a few weeks when the elction has got closer). So far Abbott looks a little like a rabbit in the headlights, making too many errors but I expect him to improve. The Libs ad campaign looks poor to me and they need to pick up their game to get elected.
  13. ManlyBacker

    ManlyBacker Winging it Staff Member

    +972 /7
    Sorry tooks, imo these are just not seriously on the radar as far as winning an election goes. The boat arrivals was an issue but now both parties have the same platform. You will need to hope for more than that for the mad monk to ascend the throne :)
  14. Canteen Worker

    Canteen Worker Well-Known Member

    +215 /5
    The current Government has not been perfect but Rudd had very high ratings for quite a while, and for a reason. His backflips on Carbon Trading and a few other proposed schemes hurt him bigtime.

    For those criticizing the BER, try going and looking at the 95% of schools that have actually received their first infrastructure for years. Halls, classrooms and libraries are being built everywhere. Some of the Dept schools (under State Government) have not handled the tender process as well as might be.  However., it has kept people employed and avoided what a recession in virtually every other Western Nation. Yes- there has been some rorting but overall the programme has been a resounding success. Go and see the computers in schools that also have been a huge assistance to teaching and learning. The batts in ceiling had some companies rort it but a heck of a lot of people (including me) got ceiling insulation that has been a huge improvement. Yes - a few fraudsters made some cash and sadly a few died but in general, the programme helped a lot of people.

    One will not know whether Labour are better economic managers until they are in power during the boom years - it could be argued that Keating/Hawke reforms enable Australia to negotiate 'the recession we had to have' and Rudd/Swan avoided the 2008/2009 one.

    As for the 'porky' on Boats - that is merely scare tactics that both Abbott and Gillard have fallen for.

    Big question for me is whether Abbott as a lifetime politician and party hack is really the stuff of Prime Minister. I would much rather see Turnbull or Hockey in his spot. Abbott is too much of a Liberal version of a Mark Latham, something that Australia can't afford.
  15. Guest

    Guest Guest

    +0 /0
    Ben Packham SMH February 2010

    Labor yet to deliver on dozens of election commitments, leaving a trail of backflips and broken promises.

    A Herald Sun analysis of Labor's 2007 election commitments reveal many have been quietly axed or are far from being met.

    The Prime Minister apologised to the Stolen Generations and signed the Kyoto Protocol, but just one of 2650 promised trades training centres will accept students this semester.

    Of 260 childcare centres he pledged would be built in schools and TAFES, only one has opened its doors.

    And just two of Labor's 31 promised GP Super Clinics are fully operational.

    Promised Healthy Kids Checks have failed to make an impact on preschooler health, with GPs seeing just 62,823 children so far.

    Plans to attract retired nurses back into hospitals have also bombed, with just 752 accepting a $6000 return-to-work bonus. Labor hoped 7750 would take up the offer.

    And 52 of a promised 2500 new aged care beds have been opened within two years.

    Labor's election policies have been removed from the ALP website, but a copy of the website as it was on election day has been preserved by the National Library of Australia.

    Promised A-E grading of childcare centres, listed on the site, has been dumped.

    The much-vaunted "education revolution" is taking its time putting computers on desks - only 28 per cent of promised computers have been delivered halfway into a four-year program.

    Other big ticket promises such as Grocerywatch and Fuelwatch have fallen by the wayside.

    Devils inside hidden Green agenda By Andrew Bolt

    ONE election result is already clear - and makes this debate about Tony Abbott's "secret" plans even more brainless.
    Wake up, people. The Greens will have the balance of power in the Senate.

    Labor sealed that deal when it agreed to swap preferences with a party which its wiser heads know would devastate the economy if it could.

    That's politics, I guess.

    Winning is all, and to hell with the national interest. But how grotesquely irresponsible?

    Labor is helping into power a party which demands we scrap our power stations and close industries that earn us at least $60 billion a year.

    Oh, and it wants us all to have more holidays, because hard work and making money really sucks.

    Some 12 per cent of voters say this is just the party for them, and even Labor now says it's the best of the rest.

    Yes, that really is how infantile our society, and our politics especially, has become.

    But Labor, whose primary vote has been unusually low, says this only because it badly needs Greens preferences.

    In exchange, it's agreed to help the Greens save its own five Senate seats - and to probably win a couple more.

    It was already inevitable Labor would win back some Senate seats from the Coalition.

    But this deal also kisses goodbye to Family First Senator Steve Fielding, who lucked his seat in 2004 when Labor absentmindedly preferenced him but will lose it now Labor is steering votes to the Greens.

    That will be all it takes. After this election, no government will be able to pass a law against the opposition's objection without the support of the Greens, and Greens alone.

    Never has this party had such a great chance to inflict on us policies that many voters treat as position statements, rather than a deliberate manifesto for the deindustrialisation of our economy and the tribalising of our society.

    This now is the real issue: How much of our future did Labor sell off just to get these Greens' preferences?

    Never mind this week's scare campaign about what workplace laws Abbott might secretly plan. The hapless schmuck couldn't get them through a Greens-Labor Senate even if he wanted to.

    No, what really needs debate is what the Greens might now demand from a Gillard Government in exchange for its vote. And that, in turn, needs journalists especially to take seriously this party's policies.

    The Greens' manifesto is not written down for a joke. It is the serious work of ideological warriors hiding behind Bob Brown's amiable front.

    Vote Greens in this election and you won't get cuddlier koalas, bigger hugs and cleaner rivers. In fact, you'll be voting to "transition from coal exports", which means ending a trade worth $55 billion a year .

    You'll be voting to end "the mining and export of uranium", worth $900 billion a year. You'll be demanding farmers "remove as far as possible" all GM crops, which includes cotton worth about $1.3 billion a year.

    You will be voting to close down many other industries, including export of woodchips from old-growth forests, certain kinds of fishing, oil and mineral exploration in wildernesses, and new coal mines.

    You'll even be voting to close the Lucas Heights nuclear facility, even though it actually produces treatments for cancer.

    In fact, you'll be voting for policies deliberately intended to make us poorer. Less industrialised. Or as the Greens' policy puts it, for a "reduction of Australia's use of natural resources to a level that is sustainable and socially just".

    Maybe you think it won't matter if a few industries get shut. Maybe you really are that stupid. But you haven't heard the rest of the Greens' policies yet, have you?

    You see, the Greens also plan to shut coal power stations that produce 80 per cent of our electricity. They not only "oppose the establishment of new coal-fired power stations" - claiming they make the planet dangerously hot - but intend to ban new coal supplies for those we already have. And they'll hit power stations with a new tax to make electricity too expensive for you.

    Do you have any idea how many businesses would be driven broke by this Green frolic? How many hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost?

    If you think the Greens must have alternative power sources in mind, you're dreaming.

    The Greens want to keep Labor's ban on nuclear power. They even want to scrap government-funded research into carbon capture.

    So consider. If the Greens get their way we'll have huge industries banned, businesses driven broke and power prices driven through the roof, with not enough electricity for what industries will be left.

    So, with our income slashed to ribbons, what do the Greens propose? Not deep cuts in every government program but a spending spree to make Kevin Rudd seem a miser.

    It's free money for everyone. If you vote for the Greens, you're voting for an extra week of holidays for all, "mandated shorter standard working hours", more pay for women workers, higher pay for casuals and better weekly benefits to students and artists.

    More pay for less work, at the mere stroke of a Green pen. Isn't that a darling way to reorganise the economy? What could possibly go wrong?

    They promise to lift foreign aid to "a minimum of 0.7 per cent of GDP by 2010", which means an instant rise in handouts of $4 billion a year.

    Another $2 billion a year will go to scrap tertiary fees and forgiving all HECs debts.

    The Greens lazily assume that the bill will be covered by hiking corporate taxes, hitting the richer 5 per cent of Australians with wealth taxes, and slugging air travellers. Show us your costings, Bob.

    I'd be amazed if after a year of two of this that anyone would want to come to a country which by then would be a smoking hole in the ground.

    Yet the Greens plan to do their best to attract more people to their new nation of freeloaders. Any "asylum seeker" making it here by boat would be freed into the community within 14 days, security checks permitting, and rewarded with benefits, medical services and school for children. These goodies will be offered to "environmental refugees", too.

    A new, militant industrial agenda is also buried in this New Age madness, signalling the arrival in Brown's party of "watermelon Greens" - green outside and red inside.

    These, like NSW candidate Lee Rhiannon, seem Green more of convenience than faith, using this doctors' wives party to smuggle in the kind of hard-Left politics that would scare voters if they saw it coming under a hammer and sickle.

    This is what a vote for the Greens really means. And it's this party of vandals, tribalists and closet totalitarians that shameless Labor now helps to such threatening influence.
  16. ManlyBacker

    ManlyBacker Winging it Staff Member

    +972 /7
  17. The Gronk

    The Gronk Well-Known Member

    +37 /0
    The problem as I see it with complaining about a few overly expensive school halls and some insulation installers refusing to follow the safety guidelines is that these issues are so minor in the face of stopping the country going in to recession. 

    Our level of debt is just so low compared to any other western nations, and the plan is there for us to be back in surplus in a couple of years.  I just think these are minor issues, and if they had been enacted by the libs, people on here would be hailing them as heroes for staving off a recession. 
  18. CussCuss

    CussCuss Active Member

    +15 /1

    An example of how abbott has no ****ing idea.

    Its such populist bull****. If you look at it on the surface, 'ooh he is saving $50 billion dollars' but if you look at how he is planning to do it, by cutting the single most important IT project in Australias history and selling off assets.

    It is pandering to half educated ****wits who allan jones has trained to believe that the deficit (and boat people) is the worst thing to happen to australia ever, they cut spending on useful things, sell off infrasturcture and claim that they can run the country well.

    Howard did it on a massive scale, selling off over $50bn worth of assets and things like no real (i.e. including inflation) increase in university funding over his entire reign and abbott is coming up with the same ****.

    Another example is Abbott still claiming that interest rates will be higher under labor, just flat out lies, just like howard.
  19. Dan

    Dan Kim Jong Dan Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +7,733 /120
    Very true, in fact interest rates are still lower than when I first got my Home Loan which was just after Liberals were outed.

    TBH the national broadband network will actually be counter-productive as the more you try to give to the rest of the Australia the more places suffer.

    So major cities will have slower than possible speeds to compensate for people in regional areas getting mediocre speeds. This country is just to vast for something like that to work sufficiently.

    They need to completely scrap this internet filter BS though. It for one wont work, and will also cause greater issues with broadband in australia
  20. OneEyedEagle

    OneEyedEagle Well-Known Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +343 /5
    Rest assured Australia was nowhere near in deep poo poo as Rudd and the ALP put it for the GFC. The America's and Europe which were affected was due to a combination of financial banking institution mismanagement, foreign government mismanagement (i.e. Greece and other European countries overspending on bureaucrats and on government related jobs and perks, pension payments etc – this was all money that they did not have in the first place and it caused the credit squeeze which simply couldn’t be fixed by making and releasing more currency as that just devalues the currency on the international market). I have summed it up briefly as to go into the full extent would be to boring. I am by no means an expert but am around many who are and can provide arguements for both sides.

    In fact Australia and the whole Asia Pacific regions bar Japan was still experiencing growth, China was still going gang busters and were still putting in orders for our natural resources. No one not evening mining companies were laying off workers and no projects were being shut down, in fact in my own sector I could see up to 17% to 32% increase coming out of the mining sector and across the board of industries and this is no thanks to any stimulus package developed by Rudd and Swan.

    The RBA is now coming out with calls of cutting the spending which an ALP government can never do and warnings of interest rate increases.

    Rudd and Swan had us in the right direction to experience a GFC by pursuing with the mining super tax. Yes the miners are greedy and yes they should be paying a bigger chunk for Australia’s natural resources (yours and mine and everyone else’s that lives in this country) but they also invest a lot of money to develop it. (No I am not defending the miners) Yes there should be a greater tax and it should have been handled better.

    The miners would not think twice about pulling out of Australia and setting up elsewhere with less regulation. This action alone has the potential to caused a GFC in Australia as it will effect employment, shares, bonds superannuation. Most financial institution especially superannuation funds invest heavily in mining shares.

    At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter which way you vote. The rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer with most people in between the two. At least under a coalition government we have the chance of an opportunity of making it rich or to keep our head above water. Never ever forget where Hawke and Keating lead us with the recession we had to have and 18% interest rates, I sure won’t in a hurry.

Share This Page