1. Welcome, Guest

    Upcoming events: Supanova: Adelaide (20th-22nd November), Brisbane (27th-29th November)

    Oz Comic Con: Brisbane (19th-20th September), Sydney (26th-27th September)

Oceania ELECTION 04 - Who *will* win? (Official Discussion of 2004 Federal Election)

Discussion in 'Oceania Discussion Boards' started by Ender Sai, Feb 10, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. stinrab Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 1998
    star 5
    Yep, the Greens have Michael Organ (electorate of Cunningham) in the HoR. I'd expect him to retain that seat since the local opposition is weak and most of the residents are pissant uni students and former-hippies-turned-uni-lecturers. No wonder the Coalition doesn't even bother to put up a candidate there; complete waste of dosh.

    As for gaining seats, I'm not sure how many the Greens will secure (if any). There's definately enough dissatisfaction with the ALP amongst left-wingers. Whether they would actually vote for the Greens and "risk" another Howard Government is another thing entirely. If you don't like Howard, a vote for the Greens is pretty much a wasted vote :p

    As for the Democrats, well, they're soon to join One Nation in the Hall of Wannabes but Never Willbes. Their leader (who is it this week?) has pretty much secured the party's non-future. Only a couple of them will make it past the election. Wouldn't be surprised if Stott Despoja goes independant soon.
  2. The Gatherer Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 2, 1999
    star 6
    I think that this editorial by Andrew Bolt best sums up the apologist, appeasing nature of the ALP under the Mark Latham leadership:

    ----------------------------------------------------

    Labor lures terror
    By Andrew Bolt
    26mar04

    MARK Latham's plan to pull our troops out of Iraq is not only highly dangerous, it shows he's unfit for leadership.

    You cannot exaggerate the danger Mark Latham put us in this week.
    Australians may die in terrorist attacks because of the Labor leader's unforgivable recklessness.

    I know that sounds harsh, but the facts are implacable. And they damn Latham as unfit to lead.

    By promising to bring our troops in Iraq home by Christmas if he wins the election, he made us exactly the tempting target for al-Qaida that Spain was before the Madrid bombings.

    Didn't Latham learn anything from that outrage, which killed more than 200 commuters? Surely he isn't so hungry that he will risk even the lives of his countrymen to scare up more votes?

    Before this month's Spanish election, Spain's Socialist Opposition also promised to withdraw its country's peacekeepers in Iraq if it won power. Just as Latham has here.

    It hoped to exploit the fear of terrorists and the anti-Americanism felt by many voters desperate to be told this is not their fight.

    Just as Latham does here.

    Al-Qaida and its allies understood well what it therefore stood to win. If they could change the government in Spain -- and, better still, get the credit for it -- they would have their biggest victory since Osama bin Laden officially declared war on the United States and its friends in 1998.

    It would split the Western coalition, further isolate the US, cow Spain and drive out 1300 peacekeepers who are helping us to stop al-Qaida's allies from bombing Iraq into a new terror regime.

    Don't think terrorists are so mad that they don't figure things out like this.

    Norway's Defence Research Establishment last year found a 42-page document on a radical Islamist website, which outlined how terrorist attacks just before Spanish elections could do precisely this.

    "Spain can stand a maximum of two or three attacks before they will withdraw from Iraq," the document said.

    In fact, it took just one.

    Now Latham has told al-Qaida, in effect, that a bombing here just before the election could give the terrorists exactly the same victory, if not better, given that we, unlike Spain, fought in the liberation of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

    "Say the election was in September and there was a change of government, we'd be hoping to have (Australian peacekeepers) back by Christmas, certainly," he casually said this week.

    So the game is now clear to al-Qaida. If it can just bomb us, it will stampede a nervous public into voting in a Labor government -- a government that will desert the US and pull our troops from Iraq.

    What a brilliant victory that would give al-Qaida over the Coalition of the Willing. That coalition may have defeated Iraq, but it will have shattered against al-Qaida. And free Iraq may well be lost, which could prove to be an even greater disaster.

    After all, one of the reasons we got into Iraq was to replace a genocidal tyranny with -- we hope -- the first Arab democracy. Latham now will not defend that embryonic democracy, no matter how critical its survival is to the world and our security. All the dangers endured by our soldiers in the Iraq war will count for little.

    Never mind that Iraqis tell poll after poll they do not want any peacekeepers to leave until they've at least got themselves a government. Latham will instead leave them to the mercies of the terrorists who are already slaughtering Iraqis in their hundreds.

    But Latham is blind to all this. Heavens, this is a man who still thinks it was an act of folly and a disaster that we liberated Iraq from Saddam's genocidal rule.

    His excuse for wanting to cut and run from Iraq? "Our first priority is always, always, the defence of Australia," he said, spectacularly unaware he was actually putting us in dange
  3. DarthAttorney Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2000
    star 6
    I disagree with the idea that we should remove our "troops" from Iraq (most of them are ancillary and specialist medical/support crews right?) Australia should never have declared war on the sovereign state of Iraq in the first place. But we did and now the entire nation for the next few decades has to suffer the burden of fixing what we helped to blow up. And for that we have the Liberal Government to thank.

    Mark Latham an apologist?
    Cheers to him for that.
    As I just mentioned, someone should apologise to the Iraqi people on behalf of Australia for bombing them into international servitude without the approval of the UN and for no discenable reason (cue stinrab with the old "we freed them from the tyrant" rant ;) ). And we clap and cheer as our biggest grain export market goes to the US (hey, it's only fair those domestically protected US grain corporations get the best contracts) because of that handy free trade agreement that was dangled in front of Howard and Downer like a carrot to a pair of donkeys.
    I guess the war was good for Australia.....somehow.
  4. HawkNC Former RSA: Oceania

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2001
    star 6
    Three things:

    1) That article is from March.

    2) Calling Latham a scaremonger was hilarious when that article was written, and it's just as hilarious now. I think pulling completely out of Iraq right now probably wouldn't be the best move, but I at least agree with his sentiment that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. That's not scaremongering, that's common bloody sense.

    3) Bolt.
  5. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    I agree with both Hawk about Andrew Bolt. Fascism is never, ever cool.

    I mean, how intellectually lazy to use Bolt when the Bulletin is much more florid and erudite in it's criticism of Mr Latham. :p ;)

    //waits for PM Turnbull

    E_S
  6. HawkNC Former RSA: Oceania

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2001
    star 6
    Bolt's a smart, informed man...he just comes to the most spectacularly wrong conclusions. He's FOX News for those of us without cable. I'm not saying the Bulletin is any better, but come on...Bolt!
  7. stinrab Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 1998
    star 5
    As I just mentioned, someone should apologise to the Iraqi people on behalf of Australia for bombing them into international servitude without the approval of the UN and for no discenable reason

    Look, Mr Moore, we know it's you. The jig is up.
  8. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
  9. DarthAttorney Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2000
    star 6
    //laughs along but laughs harder at lack of factual rebuttal....






    //wets pants....

    Edit: And it might just be time to call it day, ladies and gentlemen, given that Gath has been banned again.
  10. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Yeah, I noticed. Damn shame...

    [face_mischief]

    As for the election; what are your views on healthcare, Aussie peoples?

    Do you want "free" universal health care, or a two-tiered system. Not the two tiered system Mr Latham made up to make Mr Anderson look bad, but the two-tier system Mr Anderson was referring to, which is Private on top of Medicare.

    Or do you want a totally privatised health system?

    I have Private health care of my own, which I pay for out of my own pocket, and I personally like it that way. I'm obviously not a fan of socialism or pseudo-socialist policies (more accurately) so the idea of universal free health care doesn't resonate with me.

    E_S
  11. DarthAttorney Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2000
    star 6
    Everyone should be entitled to free health care.
    I think that's a basis for a stable civilisation, let alone a healthy country.

    However, if some people want to pay more for what they consider "better" health care, they should be totally free to do it. I don't know if that come under the two-tiered system or whatever you want to call it but public health should have all the basic benefits of private health care (including dental which is not covered by Medicare atm I don't think).

    I disagree with the Government trying to do away with its responsibility to people who pay their taxes but cannot afford private health insurance, if the dilution of the Medicare system and the massive incentives offered to private health funds can be called that.
  12. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    But as a flipside, what do you say to doctors who want to go into private practise; that they should be restricted in their income and their work? That they should be servants of the State?

    I'm happy as all hell with the system now, and frankly have no desire to see it change, but I do believe I already said that.

    E_S
  13. stinrab Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 1998
    star 5
    laughs harder at lack of factual rebuttal

    Been there, done that. No point revisiting the debate we've had countless times before. Rather than waste more of TFN's web space, how about I go and watch some Foxnews and you can go elsewhere and gush about that overconsuming, millionare socialist you adore so much ;)

  14. DarthAttorney Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2000
    star 6
    You're the only one who mentioned Him.
    But since you're a true believer in Fox News, I'm sure their slogan "Fair And Balanced" strikes a chord with your general outlook.
    Never thought I'd see a conserative admit defeat though. ;)

    E_S: If anything, I think the Medicare system should have a bit more invested in it to patch up the gaps (eg: dental as I mentioned earleir) and maybe speed up the process for the people who need it. I certainly do not agree with doctors charging additional non-refundable fee's to ensure that patients are seen in a more timely manner while those who cannot pay have to wait until later. That turns my stomach. If that classifies as "limiting income" well...

    As it stands, doctors aren't limited in their income or where they can practice. Like you say, I don't have a problem with the current system aside from the Government actively encouraging private health fund membership and, in that sense, shirking its responsibility to the citizens it was elected to care for by not putting that money into the public system. Not every financial investment by a Government needs to make a profit.

    That being said, Medicare is pretty bloody good.
  15. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    But mate, is the government required to provide healthcare? Some would say yes, but fundamentally it's going to boil down to how your like your liberalism served.

    The Government's philosophy is that it's more effective and of greater benefit to the community to foster competition and thus give back to the community via a robust economy. The ALP, though now shackled to that archaic and lumbering movement of yesteryear, the trade union movement, sees it as the responsibility of the government to provide universal health care. Except in any system - like England, for example - where they have such a miracle in socialised medicine, it's utterly craptastic.

    Frankly, we need to have a system that provides basic health care as well as a private system. The state should not, IMO, be running a fully funded healthcare system simply because with the exception of Cuba, it does not and will not work.

    E_S

  16. DarthAttorney Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2000
    star 6
    "...is the government required to provide healthcare?"

    What is a Governement given to do aside from care for the well-being of it's own citizens?
    What is the role of Government if not that singular task?

    So yes, I think universal healthcare for those who need it is totally necessary. It's no wonder the Liberal Government can boast about an xx billion dollar surplus budget every year when they're selling off Government owned assets (cite: Telstra) and cutting funds from Medicare, ATSIC, arts programs....stuff that doesn't turn a profit and some will say isn't necessary to a "robust economy" but shows just how healthy we are as a country.

    A quality public health system is not something that requires competition or needs to show yearly profits.
    Neither does free education for anyone who wants it.
    Neither does a clean, sanitised water and sewage system that satisfies everyone who uses it.
    Neither does a dedicated, cheap telecommunications system that reaches the entire country.
  17. MarvinTheMartian Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 31, 2002
    star 5
    We have free education - at the Australian Defence Force Academy. Afraid of roughing it eh DA ;)
  18. DarthAttorney Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2000
    star 6
    Not at all, I considered joining the Defence Force Reserves when I was in high school. I wasn't rich, my parents weren't well-connected Liberals, I didn't have much hope of being able to pay HEC's fee's up front (although fair enough, they were a damn sight cheaper last millennium than this one) and the thought of a $10,000 debt at the age of 21 didn't appeal at all.

    But in the end, it was the part about potentially killing people so I could earn a degree that was totally free 15yrs earlier that turned me away ;)
  19. MarvinTheMartian Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 31, 2002
    star 5
    Think of the Arnie quote from true Lies: "Yes but they were all bad" :D
  20. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    A quality public health system is not something that requires competition or needs to show yearly profits.

    No, it requires competition to attract the best minds to it.

    Let me give you an example of something that followed a similar path: The US intelligence establishment. Unable to attract the top minds in the country to codebreaking and ELINT, they were losing the country's top minds to the Silicon valley.

    How does that apply here? Well without competition, the medical system is in danger of losing the best and brightest to more competitive environments where they can seek higher recognition for their work.

    Neither does free education for anyone who wants it.

    The problem you and I have with this is that I wouldn't define tertiary education as a right, nor do I expect society to foot my bills.

    I come from a family with a bit of money and who are well connected, and I still have a $20K HECS debt. I chose to pay my way (though granted I did go to a snooty private school) through University because I don't have this chip on my shoulder that says that I'm owed something.

    I'm not owed the absolute best quality medical professional for any given reason; I will pay for that service. If I elect not to, then I get what I pay for. That's how the world works, like it or not, and letting an outdated movement from the 1940's determine the level of government control in society after the great Sirs Robert "Bob" Hawke and Paul J Keating make such great progress in cutting those worthless bastards out of public life (though to be fair, Johnny delivered a death blow to them by making their fees voluntary, thus dropping their membership to a pissy 17%) just isn't going to change.

    E_S
  21. stinrab Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 1998
    star 5
    You're the only one who mentioned Him.

    Only because you were channelling him.

    Never thought I'd see a conserative admit defeat though.

    I wouldn't call myself a conservative. Compared to you, yes, perhaps. ;)

    Not at all, I considered joining the Defence Force Reserves when I was in high school. I wasn't rich, my parents weren't well-connected Liberals

    Wow. Is that how you get into Uni these days? You have to be a member of a Liberal family or associated with one? Pretty strange that the vast majority of students are socialists then.

    I didn't have much hope of being able to pay HEC's fee's up front (although fair enough, they were a damn sight cheaper last millennium than this one) and the thought of a $10,000 debt at the age of 21 didn't appeal at all.

    If you can't pay off a $10,000 debt with your degree (over a period of years, mind you), that degree was not worth getting.
  22. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Frankly, with the exceptions of brilliant, modest and talented Masters students and lawyers, you should be expect to be earning more than your debt in your first year our of Uni.

    And I wouldn't call myself nor Stinky conservatives per se. In strict terms, I'm very socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I'm a classic, hard core, dyed in the wool moderate.

    ES
  23. HawkNC Former RSA: Oceania

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2001
    star 6
    Well, you get what you pay for. I mean come on, any career you can buy with a piddly little $10,000 degree isn't going to get you very far, you need to spend at least $20,000 to have a hope of getting your money back in a reasonable timeframe. :p
  24. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Just think, Hawk, that people who spend $20K on say, an engineering degree, get the good marks and good jobs and Uni whilst we Arts students get the girls... and maybe a job later on... ;) :p

    E_S
  25. HawkNC Former RSA: Oceania

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2001
    star 6
    Tut tut Ender, still stuck in old stereotypes. We have actual women in engineering now. ;) Some branches of engineering have almost a 50/50 ratio these days...not mine, admittedly, but I think my girlfriend is probably happy about that. ;)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.