NationStates Jolt Archive

This message is for all Australians or anyone else who knows the political parties in Australia:

I was wondering since the elections are coming up (this weekend) who do you think would become prime minister? I mean it's going to be so tight between Lathem and Howard. I'm not too sure I like either of them but I know one of them is gonna get through.

So far (in this thread) labour has 3 supporters, and libral has 4 supporters.

Come on guys! Tell me who your voting for (not that you have to), I wanna work out who is gonna be our new/old prime minister.

Personally I think John Howard will win!!

But what's with Bob Brown in the title, he has no chance. I find him a radical idealist who is playing the major parties off each other for his benefit.

Note to everyone,

DO YOUR OWN PREFERENCES AND FILL EVERY BOX, YOU DECIDE WHERE YOUR PREFERENCES SHOULD LIE.

Go Latham. I totally need him to fix up the screwey HEX fee's but mostly agree with his Medicare, Healthcare and education ideals. I also enjoy that he hasn;t got a pipe from his mouth to Dubya's ass lol

Personally I think John Howard will win!!

But what's with Bob Brown in the title, he has no chance. I find him a radical idealist who is playing the major parties off each other for his benefit.

Note to everyone,

DO YOUR OWN PREFERENCES AND FILL EVERY BOX, YOU DECIDE WHERE YOUR PREFERENCES SHOULD LIE.

Yeah Bob Brown doesn't have a chance...but theres no way I'm voting for Howard...oh wait, I can't vote yet, i forgot...

Go Latham. I totally need him to fix up the screwey HEX fee's but mostly agree with his Medicare, Healthcare and education ideals. I also enjoy that he hasn;t got a pipe from his mouth to Dubya's ass lol

Yeah, I'd go for Lathem too (um...if I could vote) but I don't like his ideas about reducing funding to private schools...actually screw lathem and all the other politicions, i hate them all...except for the good ones.

To be honest, I hope Lathem wins...I hope his man boobs don't affect the choice of voters.

Yeah, I'd go for Lathem too (um...if I could vote) but I don't like his ideas about reducing funding to private schools...actually screw lathem and all the other politicions, i hate them all...except for the good ones.
Haha it's funny because the private schools don't care. Actually one of them Kingsgrove or something was saying they didn't need it and it was a good idea. It won't harm the schools. He's trying to bring all schools to a top level. The top now won't be brought down. If it did someone will trhow money at them lol. Thats what Australian politicians do, something goes wrong they throw money at it.

I'm going to be voting Labour. The Liberals are not liberal enough for me. :) My only major decision is whether to put the Liberals or Family First last. I don't like fundamentalists of any religion getting into power, whether they're christian (assemblies of god, in this case) or muslim.

coalition -> liberal -> howard

In a word....Howard.

from the looks of things here, howard

As an american I have no idea who any of these individuals are, but I recommend you all vote for the conservative; if there is one.

Haha it's funny because the private schools don't care. Actually one of them Kingsgrove or something was saying they didn't need it and it was a good idea. It won't harm the schools. He's trying to bring all schools to a top level. The top now won't be brought down. If it did someone will trhow money at them lol. Thats what Australian politicians do, something goes wrong they throw money at it.

No, the fees would go up in some private schools and thats all I'm worried about...

OK so far in this thread labour (Lathem) has 3 supporters and Libral (Howard) has 4 supporters. :(

private schools get money already. People PAY to go there. They don't really NEED as much government funding as public schools.

Aside from all that., this election is one huge bitchfest. Have you SEEN the ads??

L: Howard's a rat fink liar, nyeh nyeh!
H: Oh yeah? Well you cant handle money!
L: Oh yeah? Well youre ready for retirement!
H: wah! Mommy!
GWB: what is it this time?
Bob: You're all a bunch of losers. I like families, yes I do. That makes me better than you, especially at all the stuff that doesnt really have anything to do with families. So there.

The private school funding has nothing to do with whether or not the private school needs the funds. If I pay my taxes and decide to pay extra for my child's schooling then why should the government fund my child less than another? Currently this already happens. If the funding is removed then a proportion of private school students will no longer be able to afford to go to their private school because the fees will increase. Therefore these students will return to the public school system where they will cost the taxpayer more.

This is a simple case of Latham trying to create a class war to generate votes. Sadly, a number of people are falling for it.

No, the fees would go up in some private schools and thats all I'm worried about...

Why should you be worried about the fees of some private schools going up? Only 67 schools will not get much funding, because of their already high fees. They get most of their money from the parents anyway, and so they DON'T NEED extra government funding. Why not just save $20,000 a year and send your kids to a public school?

Labour all the way.... The Invasion of Iraq was a Violation of International Laws.

Why should you be worried about the fees of some private schools going up? Only 67 schools will not get much funding, because of their already high fees. They get most of their money from the parents anyway, and so they DON'T NEED extra government funding. Why not just save $20,000 a year and send your kids to a public school?

Some of us prefer private schools, and I'm not saying we should get extra funding I think we should just get the same funding as every other school.

Amusing and interesting as it would be to have Latham as Prime Minister, I still think Howard is more likely to get elected. Incidentally, if Costello was running instesd of Howard, I for one would be much more likely to vote liberal.

Amusing and interesting as it would be to have Latham as Prime Minister, I still think Howard is more likely to get elected. Incidentally, if Costello was running instesd of Howard, I for one would be much more likely to vote liberal.

So your for Costello?

To those who want to whinge about americanisation look at Labor, no not labour which is the australian spelling of the word but labor the american word. While it may be irrelevant they started the whole americaniztion thing.

To those who want to whinge about americanisation look at Labor, no not labour which is the australian spelling of the word but labor the american word. While it may be irrelevant they started the whole americaniztion thing.

But they are definatly not going to continue that way, especially with Lathem as their leader. On the other hand if you go with Howard Australia will continue sucking up to George Bush...

Look, they are both hopeless as leaders, but I'm going Latham because he is the only one with a chance of getting Howard out. Yes, the economy is going to suffer if Latham goes in, but it would suffer if any leader other than Howard goes in? you know why? It is how Howard has spent the last nigh on 10 years engineering it. as soon as another party gets power, they will be pushing shit uphill to get everything in order. Howard has screwed the economy up so much that as soon as someone tries to change it for the better of Australians (and i mean real, average Australians, not the ones who spend half their lives in some other country or on their own private yachts) the whole lot will crumble in a big heap. it is now so dependant on Ameriaca and other countries, that we might as well merge with them... and if howard get's his way we will...

what I'm saying is that we need Howard out now before he signs Australia over entirely. We will go through some damn hard times over then next yea or two if Latham gets in, but seriously people.. it is for a GREATER GOOD!

Everyone seems to be thinking of the short term with this election. stop arguing their policies, and look at how much Howard has screwed this country over already. We need him out now.

change it for the better of Australians (and i mean real, average Australians, not the ones who spend half their lives in some other country or on their own private yachts)

I agree with getting Howard out, but what do you mean by real Australians? And what do you mean by "on their own private yacht"? Are you saying Rich Australians are less Australian then you? They have the same voting power as you.

Ok lets review, If the coalition wins then Labor is near certain in next term as no-one likes people in that long so you even if Labor lose dont worry they will in a huge landslide next election.

What so bad about being allies with america, nothing is being put out by us, we not losing out, if you review the free trade agreement is actually very beneficial just so many disagree on principle. Australia is also far more secure by being american allies.

No matter what party gets in, there will be major reforms in all facets of society with all these election promises.

Do we really want the country to be dominated by a single leadership etc.

I personally will vote Howard, but I have nothing against Latham and it was a hard choice, the only easy thing to choose was to place Greens last as they are just WAY TOO radical.

I agree with getting Howard out, but what do you mean by real Australians? And what do you mean by "on their own private yacht"? Are you saying Rich Australians are less Australian then you? They have the same voting power as you.

Thats a very good point.


I think the Labor policies are good, but their economic record isnt much to be proud of, and there are no signs that it will be any different this time (except for his 'low interest rate guarantee', which is bullshit anyway).

But if had to punt on it, Howard will continue as Prime Minister.


Also another thing that raises questions is that are they just 'puppets' of the cabinet, caucas'(sp?), and 'advisors'? Ive often wondered this....so any input would be appreciated :)

Look, they are both hopeless as leaders, but I'm going Latham because he is the only one with a chance of getting Howard out. Yes, the economy is going to suffer if Latham goes in, but it would suffer if any leader other than Howard goes in? you know why? It is how Howard has spent the last nigh on 10 years engineering it. as soon as another party gets power, they will be pushing shit uphill to get everything in order. Howard has screwed the economy up so much that as soon as someone tries to change it for the better of Australians (and i mean real, average Australians, not the ones who spend half their lives in some other country or on their own private yachts) the whole lot will crumble in a big heap. it is now so dependant on Ameriaca and other countries, that we might as well merge with them... and if howard get's his way we will...

what I'm saying is that we need Howard out now before he signs Australia over entirely. We will go through some damn hard times over then next yea or two if Latham gets in, but seriously people.. it is for a GREATER GOOD!

Everyone seems to be thinking of the short term with this election. stop arguing their policies, and look at how much Howard has screwed this country over already. We need him out now.

This makes no sense what so ever.
Firstly even Labor admits that Australia has had the strongest economy since it's foundation but they say this is due to their reforms from Hawke and Keating etc.

Secondly, real australians, that is the biggest stereotype since Paul Hogan was in our tourist australia campaigns.

Thirdly, Howard is a monarchist not a republican, so how does this link in with so called merging with america, what a load of rhetoric.

Fourthly, no evidence for how Howard has stuffed our country, i bet you aint old enough to know a government other than Howard.

Have I missed anything???

Promises, shmomises. Sif they're all gonna come true. Anyway, I reckon it's probably time for labor to have a go, Howard's been at it for a while and he hasn't achieved anything spectacular except for looking rather stupid in front of the UN along with bush.

I personally am glad we don't have the american system of politics - there are a lot of little parties you can vote for just to show you disagree with the two major ones.

Well, whatever, politics is politics and no-one's going to be any different in the logn run because things tend to balance out.

I agree with getting Howard out, but what do you mean by real Australians? And what do you mean by "on their own private yacht"? Are you saying Rich Australians are less Australian then you? They have the same voting power as you.

Thats exactly what he is saying and so is Latham. To be wealthy and successful should be frowned upon according to Latham and anyone daring to reach a level of success should be punished. So much for encouraging Australians to work hard...so they can get punished in order to prop up those with less?

Free medical care for over 75's, shorter waiting lists for surgery for over 75's. With no input of more hospital beds or medical staff (oddly enough a state government's responsibility that Latham will have minimal direct influence on) it just means younger patients waiting times will increase. Ultimately, someone has to "pay" for anothers gain.

The private school funding has nothing to do with whether or not the private school needs the funds. If I pay my taxes and decide to pay extra for my child's schooling then why should the government fund my child less than another? Currently this already happens. If the funding is removed then a proportion of private school students will no longer be able to afford to go to their private school because the fees will increase. Therefore these students will return to the public school system where they will cost the taxpayer more.

This is a simple case of Latham trying to create a class war to generate votes. Sadly, a number of people are falling for it.

If it is not possible for EVERYBODY to enter a school then it should not be publicly funded (ie. funded by EVERYBODY). if only certain types of people can get in then those ppl should fund it NOT THE PUBLIC.

oh yeah, and im voting greens with preferences to labor.

Thats exactly what he is saying and so is Latham. To be wealthy and successful should be frowned upon according to Latham and anyone daring to reach a level of success should be punished. So much for encouraging Australians to work hard...so they can get punished in order to prop up those with less?

Free medical care for over 75's, shorter waiting lists for surgery for over 75's. With no input of more hospital beds or medical staff (oddly enough a state government's responsibility that Latham will have minimal direct influence on) it just means younger patients waiting times will increase. Ultimately, someone has to "pay" for anothers gain.

but the point is that rich ppl have a greater power than poor ppl. They have more ecconomic power which translates to political power. So society should seek to redress this inbalance.

My only major decision is whether to put the Liberals or Family First last. I don't like fundamentalists of any religion getting into power, whether they're christian (assemblies of god, in this case) or muslim.

Idiot, they aren't the same type of fundamentalists you think they are. They're just Pentacostals and most of the ones running aren't even that. The Greens have been spreading bullshit about them.

I don't like what Howard did with Iraq but I'm voting for him. Had there been a better Labor leader I probably would have voted against them. As for the Family First, they are getting my first preference as a protest vote against Downer (member for my electorate).

Also, why would you put that worthless radical Bob Brown up there? You'd be mad to give a green third preference.

My first chance voting...woo.. very excited. I definately prefer Labor over Liberal, but I'll probably have give my preferences to, in this order, Democrats, Greens, Labor.

If it is not possible for EVERYBODY to enter a school then it should not be publicly funded (ie. funded by EVERYBODY). if only certain types of people can get in then those ppl should fund it NOT THE PUBLIC.

So if the wealthy are barred from any public funds then should they not then be exempt from paying tax? Do you think that councils should not fund street repairs in wealthy areas too? Should wealthy people be barred from accessing Medicare because they are wealthy? In what other ways can we punish these people who dare earn good money and become successful?

Every taxpayer's child or children should have equal funding from the government for their education. As it currently stands, private students get less funding per student than public school students. Therefore, anything that encourages people who can afford to pay extra to enrol their children in a private school and take some burden from the public system should be encouraged, not punished.

Everybody can enter a private school provided they have the funds to do so. Most of the funding of private schools is through the addition fees paid by the parents of students, through fundraisers run by the parents of students and through other benefactors.

My first chance voting...woo.. very excited. I definately prefer Labor over Liberal, but I'll probably have give my preferences to, in this order, Democrats, Greens, Labor.

A donkey vote first up then?

i think definately howard. he's got the best name.

but the point is that rich ppl have a greater power than poor ppl. They have more ecconomic power which translates to political power. So society should seek to redress this inbalance.

How do they have more political power? They have a vote each as do you and I. The two men running for Prime Minister are both products of public schooling. How does overburdening the public education system help redress the "inbalance" you are alluding to? It doesn't. It just feeds peoples resentment of those that have more than they do. I have not attended a private school, my family is not wealthy but I know if I work hard I will improve my lot in life. I do not resent wealthy people and punishing them for their wealth and success does nothing to improve anyone's lives. It is just cheap politics from a person with a very large chip on his shoulder.

i suppose i could just vote for my self. whichever i feel like at the time.

I am just under voting age, but I would vote for Latham, not because I think he's especially good but just to get rid of Howard. If I thought the Liberals didn't have a good chance I would probably vote for one of the smaller parties, maybe the Greens. They seem different to the "big 2" in that they care about things other than money. I'm not really sure how I would vote, I'll pay more attention to politics next election when I can vote.

I think private schools should get the same funding as public schools, on a needs basis (what Latham says he will do, hint hint). The parents who decide to waste money on private education can pay for all the other shit like stables and swimming pools. I don't see why you would though, you can get an equally good education at a public school.

My preferences will go Green > Democrats > indy's > labor > liberal >family first

If you consider that a 'donkey vote' you don't understand the electoral system, when the green candidate doesn't get in (I know they won't, but I will vote for the person i think is best suited for the job, that's what democracy is about) then my vote will flow to the demo's and so on. So ultimately it's a vote for labor over liberal, but it's important to number EVERY box not just so you get your true intention across, but also because that is required for a house of representatives ballot to count. You only have to number 1 box on your senate ballot, but I'd encourage everyone to take that extra 2 minutes every 3 years to number each one in order so that you choose where your vote goes, instead of letting a party decide for you.

O.K here's the best idea ever vote for me and free beer for all! :mp5:

My preferences will go Green > Democrats > indy's > labor > liberal >family first

If you consider that a 'donkey vote' you don't understand the electoral system, when the green candidate doesn't get in (I know they won't, but I will vote for the person i think is best suited for the job, that's what democracy is about) then my vote will flow to the demo's and so on. So ultimately it's a vote for labor over liberal, but it's important to number EVERY box not just so you get your true intention across, but also because that is required for a house of representatives ballot to count. You only have to number 1 box on your senate ballot, but I'd encourage everyone to take that extra 2 minutes every 3 years to number each one in order so that you choose where your vote goes, instead of letting a party decide for you.

I fully understand the electoral system. If you want to vote Greens then thats your choice...voting Democrat on the other hand....are they running? :eek:

What is it about the Greens that makes you want to vote for them? Their responsible and well thought out policies, their impeccable record in the field of international diplomacy or something that I have missed?

I think private schools should get the same funding as public schools, on a needs basis (what Latham says he will do, hint hint). The parents who decide to waste money on private education can pay for all the other shit like stables and swimming pools. I don't see why you would though, you can get an equally good education at a public school.

Who decides which school needs more? Parents of private school children already do pay for pools, stables etc. Their children receive less public funding than public school students even though they too pay their share of taxes.

My vote goes to Latham, mainly because I fell that the ALP are the best choice we have, we need Medicare brought back up to standard and Latham is the best possible choice for that.

As a greenie would say, No Howard

Labour! Our current member is a complete tosser (Liberal, holding seat by 88 votes)

I'm voting for myself.

Anyone who would like a policy platform...uhh...ask.

In response to Tygaland's question, I support the greens because their policies most closely reflect my own personal views. I think that's why everyone should vote whichever way they do, chose the candidate who holds the views closest to your own.

I believe in the Greens education policy which would see an end to university fees, which would leave the Australian economy no worse off than the $4 tax cut we just received.
I agree with the Greens strong opposition to the Iraq invasion, and don't think labor was strong enough in their condemnation of the build up before the invasion or their criticisms after it. I also believe the Howard government’s policies on refugees are unjust and that the Greens are the only party that have been outspoken enough about it. I am appalled that the Howard government has pledged support to the missile defence program, which serves no real-world purpose but to line the pockets of weapons manufacturers, and although labor has said they do not support it entirely, they have not made it clear that they will reject it either, the Greens have. I support the greens policies on renewable energy, especially the phasing out of coal power plants by 2050

I’m not trying to change your views, I’m sure we’re both locked in only 3 days out from the polls, I was just confused by you referring to a vote for a minor party as a donkey vote, a term I usually hear to describe a vote that doesn’t count. The beauty of the Australian preferential election system is that you can truly vote for the candidate you believe is best and your vote will always count.

Thats one of the reasons i support Howard, as i strongly agree with their current immigration policies.

I will be voting for Mark Lathem (though the actual vote will be for Wayne Swan, who is one of the best, most active federal members I have ever had in my electorate).

I will also be voting for Labor in the senate, because...

1 - I despise the Liberal party and everything they stand for.

2 - The Democrats have gone to hell in a handbasket (too many wannabe Liberals), and I no longer trust them.

3 - the Greens are way, way too radical and have no real policies, just agenda's.

4 - Voting independant is a waste of a vote.

Nine years is more than enough punishment under the Libs. Its time for a radical change, with a leader who is willing and able to concentrate on our country and region.

To those who want to whinge about americanisation look at Labor, no not labour which is the australian spelling of the word but labor the american word. While it may be irrelevant they started the whole americaniztion thing.

That's not Amercanisation, Labor (as opposed to Labour) means "of Labour", it isn't an Americanisation, it's simply the correct word.

This is a simple case of Latham trying to create a class war to generate votes. Sadly, a number of people are falling for it.

You're arguement is ridiculous. If that is you're arguement, then why should MY tax dollars go to paying to subsidise your business?

Liberals will win.
The Reason:
3 simple words: New South Wales

Bob Carr has screwed up NSW with health & transport especially and the people of NSW will retaliate by not voting for Labor in a federal election. It is labor's own fault that the people of NSW have their issues mixed. I recall a campaign at the NSW election saying that labor didn't support the war on Iraq (not as bad as the greens who said they'd get the forces out). You also have to remember that Australia is at heart conservative and the old addage "it's harder to win government than retain it" is very true. Labor need to win a whopping 12 seats off Liberal and for every one seat they loose to Liberal that's 2 more and they will also loose seats to the greens adding 1 more to the total. It seems Bob Brown has become Michael Moore and by campaigning against Howard (activley saying if you want to remove him vote for me) will take votes away from the only person who can take power from Howard (just like Nader did to Gore under the support of Moore).

If you are voting please vote for one of the two major parties. If you really hate them both that much vote for your independant who will not give a damn about party lines like the democrats or greens,

Finally, the argument that Howard would retire mid-term was used at the last federal election. What has happened since then? We have had 3 Labor leaders (Beazley, Crean & Latham) and John Howard is still the leader of Labor Party.

Mr. Latham, if you can't run a council you can't run a country.

Before you go voting for Howard based upon the assumption that he is responsible for the current well-bing of the economy, you must look at how the world economy works. If the world market goes up, we go up. If it goes down, we go down. Australia can only move with the mass, especially with the size of our economy, and our dependance upon exports. Our economic strength is caused by the way Australia was integrated into the world market by Hawke and Keating. We can move up and down within the collective, but cannot be independant. The way we can move up to the top of the collective group is through ensuring our future with education and health, and that's why a two-tier system in either harms Australia, not helps.

Based on this view, Latham's policies, and watching what Howard has done to our education and health systems, I'm voting Labor.

On a side note, you may want to look at this site if you are voting for Howard based on his trustworthy and stable track record: Howard's 35 Lies (http://www.alp.org.au/features/lies.php)

Mr. Latham, if you can't run a council you can't run a country.

Howard's already proved he can't run a country, I think that's obvious if you look at how much he relies upon US Republican policy.

As an american I have no idea who any of these individuals are, but I recommend you all vote for the conservative; if there is one.
=======
so the can get shafted like we've been???

=^^=
.../\...

I'm also in the just can't vote category, and I would vote Latham as well. I really don't think that despite the Liberal campaign of bagging Latham's economic ability I highly doubt he would get far with screwing the economy with all the economic advisors he will have. He's already stated that he's going to listen to the experts, and this is the biggest reason I have seen people saying they will not vote Labor.

Did anyone watch the Insiders last night on ABC? During his interview Howard got hammered while I thought Latham did a very good job. I'd like to hear how it went from a Liberal supporter. Howard's token Tasmaina policy got nailed, when told he was saving trees that were under no threat, he claimed its still a good thing that they are being protected and it'll happen straight away unlike Labors policy. Maybe this is because Labors policy involves actually doing something?

He's already stated that he's going to listen to the experts, and this is the biggest reason I have seen people saying they will not vote Labor.

He only listens to the experts that agree with him, or do you not consider the AMA experts in the reality of the Australian medical system?

The private school funding has nothing to do with whether or not the private school needs the funds. If I pay my taxes and decide to pay extra for my child's schooling then why should the government fund my child less than another? Currently this already happens. If the funding is removed then a proportion of private school students will no longer be able to afford to go to their private school because the fees will increase. Therefore these students will return to the public school system where they will cost the taxpayer more.

This is a simple case of Latham trying to create a class war to generate votes. Sadly, a number of people are falling for it.

Don’t give me that rubbish, you know as well as I do that Howard has been one of the most divisive politicians this country has ever seen. He is a master of wedge politics, he divides and conquers. He started the class warfare rubbish by increasing funding to the MOST WEALTHY private schools over those needy public and private schools.

Go Latham lower HECS fees, whooo!!!! That means I pay less later!!!

I'm voting labour in the house of reps and Pauline in the senate yay!

Too lazy to say why I'm voting for both of em cause frankly it's my own opinion and I dont care what you or anyone else thinks.

Wow...back from doing stuff and i was surprised to still find this here.
After I noticed there were more then 60 posts I decided to get rid of that early idea where I would keep score of what party is more popular in this thread. Though after reading all these posts (not really, we're not super-hero's you know...I skimmed over many) I realized that it's going to be a very tight election between labour and libral and I can't work out which is more popular. This election should prove to be interesting...On a different note I would like to remind everyone to turn on their T.V's at 9:00pm on abc to watch "chaser decides" (they are the same people that brought you "the onion" and "CNNNN" and for those that don't know it is a comedy...about elections).

I have to vote Liberal.

They've (not Howard) have kept the economy strong despite poor global conditions. Unemployment and inflation are low, while economic growth is at a healthy level. The only unhealthy thing is the CAD and no one can solve that.

Latham is one of the more annoying Labor leaders I've seen, and find fault in many of his policies especially Industrial Relations. Medicare Gold, tax breaks for the middle class and a system of cutting funding to private schools which isn't actually based on a system; also seem poor choices.

However I could live with Latham (just), but there is no group in Australian politics that worry me more than the Greens (or as some know them the Reds). I have visited their website; and having a background in Economics; what I saw SCARED me. That someone would even contemplate doing some of those things made me think I had stepped back far into the past.

And whenever I see an ad for the Democrats I just laugh; poor sods.

I'm voting labour in the house of reps and Pauline in the senate yay!

Too lazy to say why I'm voting for both of em cause frankly it's my own opinion and I dont care what you or anyone else thinks.


Pauline...? Oh well your choice, at least you're voting for labour.

Any of you see that Greens ad on the abc *gasp! ads on the abc?* Bob Brown really knew how to get his word across...I fell asleep halfway through it, and it on went for a few minutes.

Ok, I got to go now, I'll be checking on this thread tomorrow...don't forget, chaser decides on the ABC at 9:00pm tonight (thursday)

Don’t give me that rubbish, you know as well as I do that Howard has been one of the most divisive politicians this country has ever seen. He is a master of wedge politics, he divides and conquers. He started the class warfare rubbish by increasing funding to the MOST WEALTHY private schools over those needy public and private schools.

School funding doesn't have a great deal to do with class warfare, and heck federal education funding pales in comparison to state level funding anyhow, most of Howard's funding is inclined towards sporting programs anyway.

And yes I went to a public school.

The only thing stopping me from voting for Labour is Mark Lathem, I realy do not like his personal attitude. I also would never vote for the Greens, they have move far away from their original platform under Bob Brown.

The only thing stopping me from voting for Labour is Mark Lathem, I realy do not like his personal attitude. I also would never vote for the Greens, they have move far away from their original platform under Bob Brown.

Yeah I'm not a fan of Lathem either but I think he will do better then Howard...Oh that's right I've got to go now, see ya :)

Before you go voting for Howard based upon the assumption that he is responsible for the current well-bing of the economy, you must look at how the world economy works. If the world market goes up, we go up. If it goes down, we go down. Australia can only move with the mass, especially with the size of our economy, and our dependance upon exports. Our economic strength is caused by the way Australia was integrated into the world market by Hawke and Keating. We can move up and down within the collective, but cannot be independant. The way we can move up to the top of the collective group is through ensuring our future with education and health, and that's why a two-tier system in either harms Australia, not helps.

Did you even follow the world economy of the last few years?

im voting Labor.

Did you even follow the world economy of the last few years?

Yes, however, if you look at what Australia's (ever-diminishing) industries are based in, those were strong over the past few years because of international demand. I thought that it was clear, I guess I needed to express that after all. This strength stands to suffer under the free-trade agreement with the US, the Liberal Party stands to weaken our economy significantly by marginalising our industries. US trade unions even liked the agreement because it will favour US industry so much, unfortunatly at the detriment to Australia.

Some of us prefer private schools, and I'm not saying we should get extra funding I think we should just get the same funding as every other school.

Exactly. They should get the same amount of funding (from both public AND private quarters) as ALL schools - including the public ones. And hence, the money they get from parents should be deducted from their government grants (and then the deductions should be spread back over the whole school system).

Otherwise it's not equality, it's the government giving extra money to schools that have already reached the level of other schools (hence leaving some schools with more money and some with less, which is illogical and best and sickening at worst... can you tell I'm still stuck in the shitty education system? Ugh).

Don’t give me that rubbish, you know as well as I do that Howard has been one of the most divisive politicians this country has ever seen. He is a master of wedge politics, he divides and conquers. He started the class warfare rubbish by increasing funding to the MOST WEALTHY private schools over those needy public and private schools.

Yet a student who goes to a private school still receives less funding than one going to a public school. Any additional payments to the school come from the parents of the student. So why should there be any difference if the parents of a public school student and the parents of the private school student both pay taxes?
Why should children be punished for the type of schooling they choose?

By funding private schools (even at the current levels) this enables more families to be able to afford to send their children to private schools meaning there are less students in the public system which in turn saves money. The money that is in the public system is then better utilised because of the fewer students needing it. How is that divisive? No-one is forced to go to a private school under the current funding arrangements however, under Latham's policy, people will be forced to leave private schools further burdening the public education system.

the Greens (or as some know them the Reds)

Yeah, and a lot of people call the Libs the suck holes, but that doesn't make it true (well, for the Libs it is).

Don't start quoting Alan Jones now, or I'll have to send an electrical shot through the internet.

You're arguement is ridiculous. If that is you're arguement, then why should MY tax dollars go to paying to subsidise your business?

They are not YOUR tax dollars, you surrender the money when you pay your taxes.

A better question would be:

Why should a child receive less government assistance towards their education than another child when we all pay taxes?

or:

If a parent or parents decide to pay extra to send their child to a private school, why should they be punished for that decision?

I think that the government is there to look after public works, to keep the laws and economy running in decent shape. Now, to take care of the first task, I'd have to say Labor wins hands down. The second and third are tough to choose from, but perhaps leaning slightly towards the Liberals on the third. After those considerations, then it gets to the people in the parties and past history. the Liberals have been in power for almost 9 years, and so they could have made the country what they wanted in that time. They haven't exactly been the most honest government around, either.
Australia will never, ever have a GST."
Add to that Labor apparently has more innovative policies, and it's definitely Labor for me.

As to the comments about family first, I live in South Australia, and know many people from the assemblies of god. They are almost as bad as the jehovas witnesses in their beliefs.
Gays and lesbians should be burned at the stake
Well, maybe not exactly a quote. I'm not completely sure about the stake, but definitely burned, more than likely to death.

So if the wealthy are barred from any public funds then should they not then be exempt from paying tax? Do you think that councils should not fund street repairs in wealthy areas too? Should wealthy people be barred from accessing Medicare because they are wealthy? In what other ways can we punish these people who dare earn good money and become successful?

They pay tax for those things because, at any time, they could use those things... just like any other tax payer. It's not the governments fault the wealthy PREFER private schools and hospitals. The government has never said "Right, you lot with the money! You're banned from public hospitals because you're rich". Hence, the wealthy pay tax because they can use the things the taxes pay for. However, the public should not subsidise the private schools and private hospitals et al because... they're private. If they want to be able to charge whatever fees they want, they should be able to provide for themselves totally. And from the wealthy point of view... why are you willing to pay for your private school twice? If they were funded soley by parental donations they'd most likely cut costs to keep fees stable... and then you would only have to support schools that get NO other support... instead of paying for all the public schools as well as the private schools.

Every taxpayer's child or children should have equal funding from the government for their education. As it currently stands, private students get less funding per student than public school students. Therefore, anything that encourages people who can afford to pay extra to enrol their children in a private school and take some burden from the public system should be encouraged, not punished.

Private schools should get no funding. They are PRIVATE. If they can't be self-sufficient, they should fail, just like any other business. Public schools deserve tax-payer funding because they have NO other source of income, and are meant as a PUBLIC service. Private schools work as a business, and should be treated as such. If tax-payer funding of private schools was pulled, there would be a much larger amount of resources for public schools, and the burden *would* be lessened. If you can afford to pay extra, pay extra. But don't expect others who *can't* afford to pay extra to pay not only for a public service, but for a private business that is not open to the public (for free).

Everybody can enter a private school provided they have the funds to do so. Most of the funding of private schools is through the addition fees paid by the parents of students, through fundraisers run by the parents of students and through other benefactors.

A public service should not cost money to enter/use, because it is being paid for by taxes. When private schools charge entry fees, they are setting themselves up as something other than a public service. As such, they should not be funded as a public service (should not recieve funding from tax-payers). The parents of the students, if they want to pay for better education, have every right to want to do so... but they can bloody well pay for it in full, since the public is already carrying the entire public school system. Again, if the schools want to charge fees, they need to set themselves up to be totally self-sufficient from those fees.

--------
I'd also like to add that, reading over your points, I greatly respect your ability to properly articulate your opinions, and the logic behind them - even I (in all my dirty-commie glory) find it hard to rebutt some of your earlier points.

Yes, however, if you look at what Australia's (ever-diminishing) industries are based in, those were strong over the past few years because of international demand. I thought that it was clear, I guess I needed to express that after all. This strength stands to suffer under the free-trade agreement with the US, the Liberal Party stands to weaken our economy significantly by marginalising our industries. US trade unions even liked the agreement because it will favour US industry so much, unfortunatly at the detriment to Australia.

It's a two way street, our industries are simply uncompetitive, we've benefitted from the fact that we've been streamlining our economy to remove industry that simply isn't competitive on a golbal scale, and we only stand to benefit from doing it farther.

The people who stand to lose are the people whose jobs will be marginalised by further pushing towards a more competitive market place, but the product of this is an overall net gain to Australia as the gain to consumers is greater than the loss to producers, which allows Australia greater economic freedom as it puts more money into the economy.

The opening of the economy is the core reason we have been successful through the international downturn, the FTA will be a massive boon to the Australian economy. Of course there will be people hurt, but for example, GM plans to expand their plant further in Adelaide to ship more left hand drive cars back to America. As labour costs are greater in the US, if they are able to undercut our production costs, then it's about time we abandoned them, because they're definitely uncompetitive.

If I can buy something made in the US for less than made in Australia, you can bet that I will, why should I be expected to pay more to protect uncompetitive industries? Screw subsidies, screw tariffs, open it all up.

In fact currently I self import a lot of products for myself since local retailers still match their retail price to our dollar at US 50 cents (yet at 70 cents+, even with shipping I save often 25%+, but that's an issue for another day.

They are not YOUR tax dollars, you surrender the money when you pay your taxes.

A better question would be:

Why should a child receive less government assistance towards their education than another child when we all pay taxes?

or:

If a parent or parents decide to pay extra to send their child to a private school, why should they be punished for that decision?

Stop being so anal and literal.
Any parent has the choice to send their child to a public school, regardless of their ecenomic background. Why should they be punished because they cannot afford an equally funded education. This isn't like some kind of shady deal behind the backs of parents; parents willingly hand over extra money knowing full and well that public schools recieve more funding. However this funding is all the funding these schools have, they simply need more funding in order to provide equal education - a right that all children are entitled to.
No child is being punished by recieving less assistance, this is simply taking money from those schools stewing in excess in favour of providing much needed funding for public schools. I doubt that any private school had to use textbooks that were over 30 years out of date like I had to throughout my publically funded education.

Some of us prefer private schools, and I'm not saying we should get extra funding I think we should just get the same funding as every other school.

If private schools received the same amount of funding as public schools, and private schools also get the benefit of changing fess, then it would create a 2 tier education system. Private schools would be dramatically better off! Why would anyone want to send their kids to public schools if this was the case? Private schools should get no public funding. If people want to send their kids to private schools then good on them, they putting a higher dollar value on the religious values that are taught in the private system, but the tax payer should not have to pay for other peoples religious preferences. If by not funding the private sector then more people stay in the public sector then well and good, I do not see a problem with it.

I refuse to fund a business and I refuse to fund a school simply because someone wants their kids taught different religious beliefs.

The FTA stands to cripple the wheat and sugar industries within 20 years. If you think Australia can go without these, two of our largest industries, by all means vote coalition. What really burns me up is the fact that the National Party did nothing to protect their constituants, who they are supposed to protect, they've made themselves a joke country-wing of the Liberal Party.

Stalankia, state funding dwarfs federal education funding, state education funding goes entirely to public schools.

The FTA stands to cripple the wheat and sugar industries within 20 years. If you think Australia can go without these, two of our largest industries, by all means vote coalition. What really burns me up is the fact that the National Party did nothing to protect their constituants, who they are supposed to protect, they've made themselves a joke country-wing of the Liberal Party.

well i agree the Sugar industry got screwed by the FTA many of are other primary industrys greatly benifited by it

The FTA stands to cripple the wheat and sugar industries within 20 years. If you think Australia can go without these, two of our largest industries, by all means vote coalition.

What on earth? Do you know even the slightest more than nothing about the sugar and wheat industries, especially their US industries?

The reason the sugar industry is so annoyed is because they can't get into the US, ie, they gain nothing and lose nothing, the reason they want in is because we use the world price, 5c a pound, the US however uses a market protected price of 22c a pound, ie they stood to gain millions upon millions, but this wasn't to be, now the sugar industry in America is so incredibly corrupt it's laughable, the biggest lobby group is a corn syrup manufacturer who due to their exorbetant sugar prices, gets all the contracts for companies like Coke and Pepsi (that btw is why it tastes different in the US, they dont use sugar as the sweetener).

The wheat industry, say what? We've been catching the US in a global scale.

You know though where we're going to rake it in? the WTO move to ban export subsidies by 2007/8, as we're in a lot of industries the only major player with no subsidies, take Wheat, we're second to the US on the export market (we recently passed Canada), the US uses high subsidy rates, know what happens to their export market when we who don't have subsidies and they who do and barely stay competitive try to bid on say Japan when subsidies are removed? that's right, we make a killing and they get the shaft.

Stalankia, state funding dwarfs federal education funding, state education funding goes entirely to public schools.
And that is a problem, there is simply not enugh funding from the federal government, and federal policies significantly effect how these areas run.

Free Trade Agreements almost always harm the smaller country.

""The bottom line is that there is no US commitment to free trade. It is really a commitment to getting other countries to give access to American producers to their markets and the US reciprocates when it is convenient."

- Professor Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate in Economics

Agricultural trade liberalisation policies of the last decades have been a disater for Australian farmers. Since 1965, the number of Australian farms has dropped dramatically from over 200,000 to just 120,000. On average, that's a shocking 6 farms disappearing every day from Australia's rural areas. The 2001 National Land and Water Resource Audit notes that almost all the farms that disappeared over a decade of measurement (1986-96) were small farms - less than 500Ha.

The Audit notes that most farmers left the land because of declining commodity prices - since the early 1970s, real commodity prices have fallen by over 80%. Why are Australian commodity prices so low? Because for the last few decades, governments have pursued policies of deregulation and export-orientation which have advantaged large, corporate farmers, and disadvantaged smaller, family farms. They mirror the effects that neo-liberal policies have had in other, both rich and poor, countries.

The Australia-US FTA will continue these trends. Despite a promise to Australians by Prime Minister Howard on November 21, 2003 that "if we can't get something quite big on agriculture then we won't have a free trade agreement", the FTA delivers few new export markets to farmers. At the same time, it threatens local markets by giving all US imports into Australia (many of them subsidised by the US government) "immediate duty-free access", and by making changes to quarantine standards to allow more US produce in.

Quotas for Australian beef exports to the US will remain for the next 18 years, until 2022, before free trade is instituted. Australian dairy exports will be allowed to increase to a tiny 2% of US imports. Sugar is excluded from the deal.

However, local produce which will be threatened with increased imports of subsidised US produce including processed foods, soups and bakery products, fruits and vegetables, dried onions, fruit and vegetable juices, dried plums, potatoes, almonds, tomatoes, cherries, raisins, olives, fresh grapes, sweet corn, frozen strawberries, and walnuts."

From: http://www.tradewatchoz.org/AUSFTA/Index.html

And that is a problem, there is simply not enugh funding from the federal government, and federal policies significantly effect how these areas run.

I don't have the exact numbers on hand but great amount of state money comes directly from the federal government anyway, they just don't decide how it's spent.

One thing that annoys me is the state's obfuscation of gambling revenues to get greater federal grants, as the federal government tries to offset state performances, since well, it's responsible to the country.

The liberals are not good for anything any more. We all know that the Australian Labor Party takes the prize and is the only party in Australian politics that is prepared to take the hard decisions in regards to reforming the Australian economy. They built the modern Australian economy in the 80s and early 90s, and the Howard government can thank most of its success to the reforms that the Labor party introduced. As far as the interest rate bullshit scare campaign goes, lets not forget interest rates were on their way down in Keating’s last term. The Australian Labor party is the only true party that believes in liberal economic reform.

So in short, if you want to vote for a party that will make the Australian economy stronger, vote for Labor. Of course if you believe that their is more to life then money then education and health will be important to you, and you would vote labor anyway, same goes for the enviroment.

If you want to vote for a government that likes to sit on its hand and take credit for other peoples work then vote of the liberals. Just remember that many of the liberal promises made during this campaign might be non-core promises. And if Bush decides to invade another country e.g. North Korea, Iran Cuba, be prepared for Australian involvement if Howard is still in. Howard and Bush have already shown that they are prepared to invade countries on false intelligence. Its easy for cowards to commit other peoples lives to war when there own body isn’t in the firing line. What really annoys me about the whole episode is that Howard and Bush refuse to take responsibility for their wrong actions. People that refuse to take responsibility for their own actions are never accountable and therefore can never be trusted.

However, local produce which will be threatened with increased imports of subsidised US produce including processed foods, soups and bakery products, fruits and vegetables, dried onions, fruit and vegetable juices, dried plums, potatoes, almonds, tomatoes, cherries, raisins, olives, fresh grapes, sweet corn, frozen strawberries, and walnuts."

Let me repeat this point

All global agricultural export subsidies are to be removed by 2007/8

and again

All global agricultural export subsidies are to be removed by 2007/8

Maybe repeating it twice in bold will have the effect of having it read this time.

Know what this means about the competitiveness of products relying on export subsidies?

I'll let you answer it, I'm sure you can.

As for the US competing against us on agricultural products?

ahahahahahahahaha

Know what the voice of opposition in the US was? that their agriculture industries would gain NOTHING, know why? because it's true... In fact, their congressional + senate vote turned entirely into farming (no) vs manufacturing (yes) industries.

As for Joseph Stiglitz, I've read his work (you would probably use one of his textbooks during an economics degree also), he uses his background to put forward his political goals of stifling the global transition. He knows the US are opening trade because there's a net gain overall to opened markets, especially to a consumer driven society like the US (they're like locusts, consume consume consume consume), we're going that way also, so being able to buy things for less boosts our economy significantly also.

I was mistaken about the specific industries earlier, however, the FTA stands to marginalise local media content, kill our automobile manufacturing industry, with even Toyota saying they may be forced to move off-shore, US pharmaceutical companies come out on top, raising the prices of medical drugs in Australia, our agriculture industries will be threatened by lax quarintine restrictions, we stand the threat of our citizens being prosicuted by US anti-piracy laws.
“On the conclusions of the CIE/DFAT modelling . . . I think that part of the calculation generating a majority of interests is simply not credible. . . . This is a protectionist FTA, the trade effects of which will diminish Australia’s economic welfare.”

- Prof Ross Garnaut, Professor of Economics, Australian National University

I think I've made my point on this issue.

And that is a problem, there is simply not enugh funding from the federal government, and federal policies significantly effect how these areas run.

Thankyou Stalankia you have summed it up perfectly.

Latham's education policy is a run-around, we dont need to take money off someone just to give it too someone else, we just need more money. All schools have rights, private schools get less money as it is, they aren't wanting more but they dont want less either. If you took all the money off private schools then the parents would have to pay things even like the water bill to keep bubblers going and toilets flushing, the parents will leave and kill off these schools. We dont need to change which schools get more but we need to give them all more.


If you want to vote Latham, vote for him because of a good stance he may have on another issue, not this clear attempt to divide classes while doing nothing for schools. Also dont listen to those Teachers federation ads, they compared a school of 200 students funding level with a 800 or so students school funding level.


NOTE:- Most school management is determined by state governments for example NSW department of education, so keep state issues where they belong.

I was mistaken about the specific industries earlier, however, the FTA stands to marginalise local media content, kill our automobile manufacturing industry, with even Toyota saying they may be forced to move off-shore, US pharmaceutical companies come out on top, raising the prices of medical drugs in Australia, our agriculture industries will be threatened by lax quarintine restrictions, we stand the threat of our citizens being prosicuted by US anti-piracy laws.
“On the conclusions of the CIE/DFAT modelling . . . I think that part of the calculation generating a majority of interests is simply not credible. . . . This is a protectionist FTA, the trade effects of which will diminish Australia’s economic welfare.”

- Prof Ross Garnaut, Professor of Economics, Australian National University

I think I've made my point on this issue.


Thankyou again, Did you hear due to the FTA, that mitsubishi would actually increase its production in Australia, which would take it to Mitsubisihis biggest international production centre. Medical drugs have already been addressed, and no not because of Latham but it was already in place, how can australians in australia using australian stuff be prosecuted under american law, and actually the agriculture industry loses nothing although it doesnt gain anything and the local content laws wont change for at least 10 years and even i can say Howard will be gone in 10 years time so you cant blame him for future governments choice.

Also the Australian National University is just bitter after they entered the political fray on a certain side and now cant back away from that stance

Let me repeat this point

All global agricultural export subsidies are to be removed by 2007/8

and again

All global agricultural export subsidies are to be removed by 2007/8

Maybe repeating it twice in bold will have the effect of having it read this time.

Know what this means about the competitiveness of products relying on export subsidies?

I'll let you answer it, I'm sure you can.

As for the US competing against us on agricultural products?

ahahahahahahahaha

Know what the voice of opposition in the US was? that their agriculture industries would gain NOTHING, know why? because it's true...

As for Joseph Stiglitz, I've read his work (you would probably use one of his textbooks during an economics degree also), he uses his background to put forward his political goals of stifling the global transition. He knows the US are opening trade because there's a net gain overall to opened markets, especially to a consumer driven society like the US (they're like locusts, consume consume consume consume), we're going that way also, so being able to buy things for less boosts our economy significantly also.


Mate I don’t know wether to laugh at you or cry because you believe this. don’t be a goose, the US isn’t going to remove its subsidies. You know that, don’t pretend other wise.

Lets think about something for a minute, who would you want running an economy. Someone who has studied law? Or someone who has studied economics?


Who is better equipped to run Australia's 800 Billion dollar economy.
Howard studied law at uni.
Latham studied Economics (with Honours).

Hmmm...... lawyer or economist lawyer or economist lawyer or economist?

Give the scare campaign a rest, your sounding as dishonest as Howard.


p.s. in case you didnt get the answer to my question, Its the Economist.... stupid!

the FTA stands to marginalise local media content

Know who the most influential person is in the Australian media?

Rupert Murdoch (although his partner in right wing neo-conservatism, Kerry Packer has a lot also)

Know who the most influential person in the US media is?

Rupert Murdoch

He's about as American as the pie floater, in fact, News Corp's control of their right wing media has boosted American views of Australia since Murdoch took it over, do you know that the 4 major players in the Iraq War, the US, UK, Australia, Italy all have medias whose most powerful man is that same Keith Rupert Murdoch?

even Toyota saying they may be forced to move off-shore

how does this work? by staying in Australia, you could do what GM are doing and use Australia as a cheaper labour manufacture base for the American market, it's certainly NOT cheaper to relocate to the US.

US pharmaceutical companies come out on top

Have you read the policy concerning the PBS? they're required to tell the US companies why they said no, and actually have a set period to which they need to give an answer, oh no, they need to give them reasons. Even the patent law threat is ridiculous because our courts don't apply the same corporate liberalism as causes the problem in the US.

our agriculture industries will be threatened by lax quarintine restrictions

only if our courts rule that way, the chance of that happening is nil, let me reiterate this, Australian courts do not operate like American courts in regards to corporate benefits, our judiciary are far more conservative in their application of law.

we stand the threat of our citizens being prosicuted by US anti-piracy laws

ARIA have stated they have no intention of embarking on the campaign that the RIAA have undertaken in the US.

Even Latham will go thru with the FTA due to its massive gains to Australia, the only opposition comes from the hippy left and their slurred facts.

Btw the main reason the US is embarking in FTA's is to gain favourable trade deflection from European industry, ie they sell us what the Europeans or others would have. Although us gaining from some of their more massive economies of scale, like the car industry will be a blessing.

Because Australia would change its laws to be unifrom with the United states. So Corporations In Australia and the U.S could Litigate for infractions in both countries.

I think that it will be very close. I not complelled to vote either way but I can't see Latham winning or being PM. Howard isn't that much better and neither party has any really good policy for anyone. I think we've got Johnny till he gets too sick or the Liberals get sick of him. And I really don't think that Costello would be that bad a PM. Better than Downer.

I think it will be the Coallition, with losses on both sides, a hung senate and possibly a hung house of reps.

I guess Australia might be headed for a double dissolution if we aren't careful.

Mate I don’t know wether to laugh at you or cry because you believe this. don’t be a goose, the US isn’t going to remove its subsidies. You know that, don’t pretend other wise.

The US removed all subsidies on their steel industry and even added a tax to it to pay the $3b WTO sanction due to their illegal subsidisation last year.

The US has repeatedly eaten massive losses in order to hold their view of global free trade, most notably in the 80's when Reagan used VER's instead of tariffs to protect their car industry (ie allowing japanese manufacturers to effectively pocket the tariff gains rather than the government).

Because Australia would change its laws to be unifrom with the United states. So Corporations In Australia and the U.S could Litigate for infractions in both countries.

You do know we currently have laws with identical wording that are interpreted in vastly different ways?

Yes that's right, same wording, completely different ruling.

They can't set precedence, their courts are liberal, they take a "prove I can't" view,m our courts are conservative, they take a "prove I can" view, the latter allows much less freedom in litigation.

Because Australia would change its laws to be unifrom with the United states. So Corporations In Australia and the U.S could Litigate for infractions in both countries.

As stated above, the courts of Australia are far more conservative than their US counterparts, we have far more in common with the British court system than the US. So before you start praising the Australian apocalypse check what your talking about.

The FTA agreement, is available through DFAT if required, I suggest you take a look before you start preaching rumours.

Who is better equipped to run Australia's 800 Billion dollar economy.
Howard studied law at uni.
Latham studied Economics (with Honours).

Since when did Howard construct our economic policy in the last decade? hehe

Peter

Costello

We aren't voting for a president, we're voting for a party, Howard is the prime minister, Costello makes the economic policy though. I doubt there is even one of us here who actually has ever seen John Howard on a ballot ><

Who is better equipped to run Australia's 800 Billion dollar economy.????



Thankyou for the support Voldavia.

Yeah, last time I checked Treasurers are in charge of economy not PM's or Opposition leaders.
Costello is treasurer and has done well, Adding to this, Simon Crean is the Labor shadow treasurer. So a better question is who do I trust?

Peter Costello or Simon Crean???

Easily Peter Costello, he has a good track record and managed it wel thus far even Labor didnt want Crean as a leader so why would I want him as a treasurer over Costello.

Go Labour!!

I know my vote doesn't really count (maybe in the Senate) but I would not ever vote for Roger Price(chifley member) again since he lied to me when I was twelve about the kangaroos not being hurt in the ADI site, and because he used to be for consription (he has also been defence minister in the past), that being said I can not vote for Howard and still look myself in the mirror (I agree he probably wants to be governor of US 52 state), and the Democrats self destructed I can'tsee any alternative to Greens.

The bad thing is whoever wins we get stuck with a politician. :rolleyes:

How many times, must I say it.

Howard is a monarchist.
Can anyone remember back to the Republic debate???
Who did Howard side with, hang on it was the monarchists.

Hold the phones, that means he wants to stay in the commonwealth.

I can't believe what I am seeing but that means he has no intention of becoming a part of America.

*Shock, horror*That's too hard to believe, I can't believe the Greens would lie to me so much and that Howard actually wants to be Australia's PM not an American Governor.

I can't vote yet.. 2 more years.. but right now i'd probably vote for Howard cause latham just looks funny.

Then I'll vote for labor next time for lower HECS fees :)

As a student in a private school I don't think funding should be shifted from one school to another. Most private schools have a lot of funding simply because there are a lot of people going to the school. More students= more funding. Therefore its easy to look at the statistics and think that private schools are getting too much but they arent. It think the main reason private schools cost more is because the teachers are paid more. After all, good things cost a lot of money.

My family isn't very rich and the only reason I go to a private school is because I received a scholarship but if fees continue to grow, less people will be able to attend private schools as not everyone is as rich as you think they are. Some families are spending all of their money for their childrens education and have little left over.

Well why don't I go to a public school? Simply put, many public schools suck... In Victoria theres Melb High and Macrob that are very good public schools and thats about it. Furthermore, the only reason those schools are good is because they are selective.

But anyway, private school funding shouldn't really be that important of an issue. If u look at the statistics. Federal school funding is like what, 10% of what the state gives? So it doesn't really matter anyway.

P.s. Go Jeff Kennet lol

They pay tax for those things because, at any time, they could use those things... just like any other tax payer. It's not the governments fault the wealthy PREFER private schools and hospitals. The government has never said "Right, you lot with the money! You're banned from public hospitals because you're rich". Hence, the wealthy pay tax because they can use the things the taxes pay for.

Again, private health cover is another example of the wealthy paying and taking the strain off public health care. As Latham's ill-conceived hospital stunt showed. He took a public bed from someone that needed it despite having a private bed waiting for him. Where is the logic in that?
Same goes with schools. Every child that goes to a private school costs the government less that one that goes to a public school.
Just because people choose to pay extra for health and education does not mean they should be denied the right to tax funding.

However, the public should not subsidise the private schools and private hospitals et al because... they're private.

As I said, the minimal funding given to private schools and private hospitals takes the strain off the public systems. In the health sector it means more beds available in the public system for those that need public beds. In education it means that there are fewer public students and therefore the government funding can supply much more to the public schools.

If they want to be able to charge whatever fees they want, they should be able to provide for themselves totally. And from the wealthy point of view... why are you willing to pay for your private school twice? If they were funded soley by parental donations they'd most likely cut costs to keep fees stable... and then you would only have to support schools that get NO other support... instead of paying for all the public schools as well as the private schools.

If they had to be fully self-sufficient then their fees would increase. People pay extra for the extra facilities at a private school. If the fees increase a proportion of parents could no longer afford to send their child to private school and these children would return to the public system costing the government more money than what they would have costed had they stayed in private schooling with the current level of funding.

Private schools should get no funding. They are PRIVATE. If they can't be self-sufficient, they should fail, just like any other business. Public schools deserve tax-payer funding because they have NO other source of income, and are meant as a PUBLIC service. Private schools work as a business, and should be treated as such. If tax-payer funding of private schools was pulled, there would be a much larger amount of resources for public schools, and the burden *would* be lessened. If you can afford to pay extra, pay extra. But don't expect others who *can't* afford to pay extra to pay not only for a public service, but for a private business that is not open to the public (for free).

Less burden if funding removed from private schools? How? If all government funding was removed from private schools then I am sure a large proportion of private school children would not be able to afford to go to the private school. This means that they would return to the public sector meaning that the public schools would need more funding. Currently a private school student is subsidised less than a public student. So every student that leaves the private system for the public costs the government more money.

A public service should not cost money to enter/use, because it is being paid for by taxes. When private schools charge entry fees, they are setting themselves up as something other than a public service. As such, they should not be funded as a public service (should not recieve funding from tax-payers). The parents of the students, if they want to pay for better education, have every right to want to do so... but they can bloody well pay for it in full, since the public is already carrying the entire public school system. Again, if the schools want to charge fees, they need to set themselves up to be totally self-sufficient from those fees.

I don't think they are hiding the fact that they are not a public institution. They call themselves Private Schools. I am looking at this from the perspective that removed subsidies from private schools is cutting your nose off to spite your face. It ends up costing more and providing additional strain on the public education system.
The other reason is that banning the children of the wealthy from government support in their education is pure discrimination.


--------
I'd also like to add that, reading over your points, I greatly respect your ability to properly articulate your opinions, and the logic behind them - even I (in all my dirty-commie glory) find it hard to rebutt some of your earlier points.

Thank you. I understand your perspective. I even once shared it until I looked at it from a different angle. I appreciate someone voicing their opinion, even one opposite to mine, without resorting to name calling.

firstly, the greens are one of the WORST parties now
their policys have gone to the shit pits and now they have absolutly rediculous policys... dont believe me? have a look

howard and latham on the other hand... i think a lot of people in this thread have one eyed views... i have no idea who to vote and thankfully dont have to (2 months too young)
howard is clearly the stable option, we know the economy is ok now, and will continue to be ok
latham on the other hand is the risky option, he has lots of great ideas, but we dont know if they will work or if he will even follow through with them

they are both good politicians, it comes down to the choice of wether u want to take the safe option, or try something new and go with the risk option

ps DONT VOTE GREENS

Stop being so anal and literal.
Any parent has the choice to send their child to a public school, regardless of their ecenomic background.

Your point being? How does removing a parent's choice to send their child to a private school because of the flow on fee increases due to reduced government funding help a public school student?

Why should they be punished because they cannot afford an equally funded education. This isn't like some kind of shady deal behind the backs of parents; parents willingly hand over extra money knowing full and well that public schools recieve more funding. However this funding is all the funding these schools have, they simply need more funding in order to provide equal education - a right that all children are entitled to.

Why should wealthy children be punished for wanting a private education? Public schools do need MORE funding, but this shoul not be taken from private schools, it should be an extra injection of funds to public schools. The extra funding should be put towards regular testing of students to make sure they are reaching the standards of education to progress through their schooling. The extra funding combined with the fact that those in private education remain there means that the extra funds will have a greater effect on the education system. Thats the big picture. Latham's Robin Hood mentality does nothing to improve public education, it just makes private school students the scapegoats for past underachivement in the public system due to a lack of answerability by schools, teachers and state education departments.

No child is being punished by recieving less assistance, this is simply taking money from those schools stewing in excess in favour of providing much needed funding for public schools. I doubt that any private school had to use textbooks that were over 30 years out of date like I had to throughout my publically funded education.

Yes, every child will be punished by giving less assistance to private schools. Increasing the number of students in the public system means the strain on the system and its resources increase. This then means that the costs (funded by the taxpayer) for public education increases. The subsidies for private schools actually mean more money is available per student for public education.

firstly, the greens are one of the WORST parties now
their policys have gone to the shit pits and now they have absolutly rediculous policys... dont believe me? have a look

howard and latham on the other hand... i think a lot of people in this thread have one eyed views... i have no idea who to vote and thankfully dont have to (2 months too young)
howard is clearly the stable option, we know the economy is ok now, and will continue to be ok
latham on the other hand is the risky option, he has lots of great ideas, but we dont know if they will work or if he will even follow through with them

they are both good politicians, it comes down to the choice of wether u want to take the safe option, or try something new and go with the risk option

ps DONT VOTE GREENS

Well said. I chose the safe option of Howard. It is a shame you are too young to vote (regardless of who you would have supported) because you seem to have a good understanding of the candidates and their strengths and weaknesses.

Since when did Howard construct our economic policy in the last decade? hehe

Peter

Costello

We aren't voting for a president, we're voting for a party, Howard is the prime minister, Costello makes the economic policy though. I doubt there is even one of us here who actually has ever seen John Howard on a ballot ><


Hmmm let me think, who announces the major policies that a political party stand for? Prime minister or treasurer? Hmmm, how are governments remembered, by the Prime Ministers name (i.e. the Howard government, the Keating government, the Hawke government, the Frasier government, the Whitlam government, the Menzies government) or by the tressures name?? Hmmm when governments are remembered for leaving their mark on Australia, who's legacy is remembered, the prime ministers (i.e. Howard’s legacy, Keating’s legacy, Hawke’s legacy, Frasier’s legacy, Whitlam’s legacy, Menzies legacy) or the treasures? Hmmm who do we see as our head of government and the leader of the nation the Prime Minister or the treasurer?

Your right guys! I got it wrong, the Prime Minister doesn’t run the country :rolleyes:

Hmmm let me think, who announces the major policies that a political party stand for? Prime minister or treasurer? Hmmm, how are governments remembered, by the Prime Ministers name (i.e. the Howard government, the Keating government, the Hawke government, the Frasier government, the Whitlam government, the Menzies government) or by the tressures name?? Hmmm when governments are remembered for leaving their mark on Australia, who's legacy is remembered, the prime ministers (i.e. Howard’s legacy, Keating’s legacy, Hawke’s legacy, Frasier’s legacy, Whitlam’s legacy, Menzies legacy) or the treasures? Hmmm who do we see as our head of government and the leader of the nation the Prime Minister or the treasurer?

Your right guys! I got it wrong, the Prime Minister doesn’t run the country :rolleyes:

The government runs the country, the Prime Minister leads the government. Sure, the Prime Minister is the public face of the government but the policies proposed and enacted by the government are created by the government ministers, not solely the Prime Minister.

I don't necessarily think better funding will equal a better education. I think the main factors of how much a student can achieve is the environment they work in and their aspiration to do well. Funding can change the teachers and resources but not the students. In a private school, the environment around a student can be fully altered. They can employ the best teachers, create the best facilities and most importantly, they can accept or deny students at their own will. Punishments in public schools are not met with the same severity and no matter how good the facilities are or how good the teachers are, the students themselves will ultimately decide whether they will be able to have a good education.

Rather than working out where the funding goes, perhaps the government should be looking at the education system in whole and stop thinking that money will fix everything.

Hmmm let me think, who announces the major policies that a political party stand for? Prime minister or treasurer? Hmmm, how are governments remembered, by the Prime Ministers name (i.e. the Howard government, the Keating government, the Hawke government, the Frasier government, the Whitlam government, the Menzies government) or by the tressures name?? Hmmm when governments are remembered for leaving their mark on Australia, who's legacy is remembered, the prime ministers (i.e. Howard’s legacy, Keating’s legacy, Hawke’s legacy, Frasier’s legacy, Whitlam’s legacy, Menzies legacy) or the treasures? Hmmm who do we see as our head of government and the leader of the nation the Prime Minister or the treasurer?

Your right guys! I got it wrong, the Prime Minister doesn’t run the country :rolleyes:

Well I can tell you what you did get wrong the question which you yourself asked.

That was;
"Who do you trust to manage Australia's $800 billion economy?"

The answer is the treasurer, understandably yes, the leader endorses it but it is still the treasurer who makes the policy.

Oh! I don’t see how I could have got it wrong. Lucky I remembered that when the liberals have been running their “Who do you trust to run our 800billion dollar economy” they have been showing pictures of Peter Costello. Your right, I was wrong. :headbang:

In my opinion....

The Greens: Have no policys on the things that matter; health, education, war. And if they do then they are doing a lousy job of publisizing them! Will gain seats but not enough to do any real harm.

The Liberals: Racist right winged biggots. But smart about it. Favour the upper class above regular familys. Lieing bastereds. And Homophobic also. Unfoprtunately have played up zenophobia and terror so much that it has basicly become a non-issue. Will win election by a narrow margin.

The Nationals: Just another branch of the Liberals these days, expected to tow the line. Popular in rural australia.

The Democrats: A dieing breed, will never get into power again as the last time the australian public put any trust in them we ended up with the GST.

Familys First: Right wing extreamists quote from a pamphlet I have seen "Brothels, bottle shops and mosques are bastions of Satan". Havn't got a chance in hell in getting in, extreamism will get you nowhere.

One Nation: Dead.

The Labour Party: Not much better than the liberals, have gone soft on key issues and are not the union orientated party they once were. Will not get into because too many recent party divisions, seen as unstable.

I don't necessarily think better funding will equal a better education. I think the main factors of how much a student can achieve is the environment they work in and their aspiration to do well. Funding can change the teachers and resources but not the students. In a private school, the environment around a student can be fully altered. They can employ the best teachers, create the best facilities and most importantly, they can accept or deny students at their own will. Punishments in public schools are not met with the same severity and no matter how good the facilities are or how good the teachers are, the students themselves will ultimately decide whether they will be able to have a good education.

Rather than working out where the funding goes, perhaps the government should be looking at the education system in whole and stop thinking that money will fix everything.

One step in the right direction would be placing more emphasis on identifying failing students (and teachers and schools for that matter) and rectifying the problems. Either by providing remedial classes for those falling behind so as they can catch up or by identifying underachieving teachers and schools and working out what needs to be done to fix the problem. If that involves closing schools or firing poor teachers then so be it.

Hmmm, how are governments remembered, by the Prime Ministers name (i.e. the Howard government, the Keating government, the Hawke government, the Frasier government, the Whitlam government, the Menzies government) or by the tressures name?? Hmmm when governments are remembered for leaving their mark on Australia, who's legacy is remembered, the prime ministers (i.e. Howard’s legacy, Keating’s legacy, Hawke’s legacy, Frasier’s legacy, Whitlam’s legacy, Menzies legacy) or the treasures? Hmmm who do we see as our head of government and the leader of the nation the Prime Minister or the treasurer?
Your right guys! I got it wrong, the Prime Minister doesn’t run the country :rolleyes:

On that point of goverments being remembered, I don't think I can name anything spectacular on any Australian government. Why is it that neither Latham nor Howard seem like a leader. Regardless of their policies, to me, neither seems to be an image of the leader of a great country like Australia. I can't work out why. They just appear to be politicians or businessmen rather. They don't exactly show "leadership". I know the U.S.A. has had some great leaders, when is Australia going to see a leader with a greater vision? When are we actually going to get a Prime Minister that we can be proud of and remember? I mean, Tony Blair is better and he's an Englishman. Is it something I've missed or Australia just doesn't produce politicians like other countries?

On that point of goverments being remembered, I don't think I can name anything spectacular on any Australian government. Why is it that neither Latham nor Howard seem like a leader. Regardless of their policies, to me, neither seems to be an image of the leader of a great country like Australia. I can't work out why. They just appear to be politicians or businessmen rather. They don't exactly show "leadership". I know the U.S.A. has had some great leaders, when is Australia going to see a leader with a greater vision? When are we actually going to get a Prime Minister that we can be proud of and remember? I mean, Tony Blair is better and he's an Englishman. Is it something I've missed or Australia just doesn't produce politicians like other countries?

I never thought about it before, but I cant really think of any great leaders. Obviously they all do some part but only enough to qualify for an AUstralian history lesson. I suppose you are right. Good point!!!!

I can't vote yet.. 2 more years.. but right now i'd probably vote for Howard cause latham just looks funny.

Then I'll vote for labor next time for lower HECS fees :)

As a student in a private school I don't think funding should be shifted from one school to another. Most private schools have a lot of funding simply because there are a lot of people going to the school. More students= more funding. Therefore its easy to look at the statistics and think that private schools are getting too much but they arent. It think the main reason private schools cost more is because the teachers are paid more. After all, good things cost a lot of money.

My family isn't very rich and the only reason I go to a private school is because I received a scholarship but if fees continue to grow, less people will be able to attend private schools as not everyone is as rich as you think they are. Some families are spending all of their money for their childrens education and have little left over.

Well why don't I go to a public school? Simply put, many public schools suck... In Victoria theres Melb High and Macrob that are very good public schools and thats about it. Furthermore, the only reason those schools are good is because they are selective.

But anyway, private school funding shouldn't really be that important of an issue. If u look at the statistics. Federal school funding is like what, 10% of what the state gives? So it doesn't really matter anyway.

P.s. Go Jeff Kennet lol

Oi, what about University High? You know... right across from Melbourne University? First high school to have an acceleration program (gifted students kept out of the mainstream, and who go straight from year 9 to year 11)? Home to the brand new GTAC building with new facilities... that students from all the schools in the area have been coming to use?

Ok, yeah. So I am biased. Not only do I go to Uni High, I was also in the acceleration program... but even ignoring the bias, it's a pretty damn good school.

..........
Thank you. I understand your perspective. I even once shared it until I looked at it from a different angle. I appreciate someone voicing their opinion, even one opposite to mine, without resorting to name calling.

I won't address any specific points because I'd need to spend rather a lot of time thinking about them first, and I'm all sleepy as well. To be honest, my opinion on this is obviously not well-researched (because otherwise I'd have no problem reeling off some responses). I guess I'll need to go look at the figures in more detail. I might very well end up agreeing with you.

And to be honest, I'm not nearly as anti-private schools as this debate is making me out to be. I do think that funding needs to be changed around so that all schools get an equal (overall) amount of funding. Once that's achieved, I don't care if parents want to pay extra for a better education.

And now I think about it, I'm one of those people that's always claiming that just throwing money at problems doesn't fix it, so I should probably rethink this stance completely. Hum.

And wow, would you look at that. Someone convinced to reconsider their stance. Due to intelligent debate. On the NationStates Forum. Quick, someone, contact the press.

*wanders off to think about things... and when I say that, I actually mean 'sleep'*

Oi, what about University High? You know... right across from Melbourne University? First high school to have an acceleration program (gifted students kept out of the mainstream, and who go straight from year 9 to year 11)? Home to the brand new GTAC building with new facilities... that students from all the schools in the area have been coming to use?

Ok, yeah. So I am biased. Not only do I go to Uni High, I was also in the acceleration program... but even ignoring the bias, it's a pretty damn good school.

lol I only named the top 2 cause I don'tknow the rest. University High doesn't have a uniform does it? That's awesome if you get to wear casual clothes. Uniforms are a waste of money...

....
Why should wealthy children be punished for wanting a private education? Public schools do need MORE funding, but this shoul not be taken from private schools, it should be an extra injection of funds to public schools. The extra funding should be put towards regular testing of students to make sure they are reaching the standards of education to progress through their schooling. The extra funding combined with the fact that those in private education remain there means that the extra funds will have a greater effect on the education system. Thats the big picture. Latham's Robin Hood mentality does nothing to improve public education, it just makes private school students the scapegoats for past underachivement in the public system due to a lack of answerability by schools, teachers and state education departments.

Yes, every child will be punished by giving less assistance to private schools. Increasing the number of students in the public system means the strain on the system and its resources increase. This then means that the costs (funded by the taxpayer) for public education increases. The subsidies for private schools actually mean more money is available per student for public education.

(numbers refer to points in bold, in order):
1. I totally agree with this really... it just doesn't seem likely. I'd rather see funds shifted and weighted (although I need to look into the figures before I go off all half-cocked again... ugh >.<), than see schools totally neglected because the government doesn't want to announce tax increases, or take the funds from somewhere else.

2. This I can't really agree with - everything I've read about the No-Child-Left-Behind reform (it was a reform, right? I hope I'm using the right word) suggests that more rigid standards of testing don't in fact improve test scores. And I know first hand that tests (I have my exams coming up) cause enough stress to be totally demotivating (and now we only deal with two a year). Time spent on tests detracts from time that can be better spent going over the information. I think a better way to spend extra funds would be investing in alternate methods of teaching - it's been proven (according to my year 12 psychology books, anyway) that people don't all learn the same way. Some learn best through hearing information, others by writing it out. Still others learn best using a hands on approach, and some have truly weird things, like association with scents and environment. If students could be split into learning-type groups early on, and taught according to that, I think it would lead to much more efficient students. I could add more (I have an ideal school system, that could only exist with semi-unlimited funds... fun to talk about, but more than a little off topic).

3. Agree with this (assuming your facts and figures check out ;). I think this is what I need to look into in much more detail.

lol I only named the top 2 cause I don'tknow the rest. University High doesn't have a uniform does it? That's awesome if you get to wear casual clothes. Uniforms are a waste of money...

Nope, no uniforms for us. It's kind of good and bad though. Because, well, guys in school uniforms amuse me greatly, but girls in uniform don't. And, *I* like being able to choose what I wear... but when I see people wearing neon pink legwarmers and fluro yellow tube tops... at the SAME TIME... well, my retinas start ranting about destroying the human race.

Which probably isn't a good thing.

We have sports uniforms though (green and white tops and black pants... ugh, thank god I'm done with sport). Those were a pain because not only were we forced to wear them for sport, but we were forced to change into them during class (weren't allowed to wear them to school, even if we had sport first session), and forced to change out of the *after* sport... damn dictatorial sports faculty *shakes fist*.

know the U.S.A. has had some great leaders, when is Australia going to see a leader with a greater vision?

America has had 2 great leaders in the past century, both of them were named Roosevelt. The rest of their leaders haven't been great, but they have had 2 of the greatest public speakers the world has ever seen for much of the past 25 years. Reagan was of average intelligence and basically stylish front man, Clinton's lack of integrity astounding even for a politician. Atm the best public speaker around is probably Blair.

Hmmm when governments are remembered for leaving their mark on Australia, who's legacy is remembered, the prime ministers (i.e. Howard’s legacy, Keating’s legacy, Hawke’s legacy, Frasier’s legacy, Whitlam’s legacy, Menzies legacy) or the treasures? Hmmm who do we see as our head of government and the leader of the nation the Prime Minister or the treasurer?

Since when does perception have anything to do with reality? Anyone who thinks Hawke had a great deal to do with labor's 1980 economic policy needs to pull their head out of their arse, Hawke wasn't smart enough to come up with that, it was entirely Keating.

I never thought about it before, but I cant really think of any great leaders. Obviously they all do some part but only enough to qualify for an AUstralian history lesson. I suppose you are right. Good point!!!!

Sir Robert Menzies was probably the only one, the education system though is run by people who don't exactly think the founder of the Liberal party should be honoured, hoho

Sir Robert Menzies was probably the only one, the education system though is run by people who don't exactly think the founder of the Liberal party should be honoured, hoho

That must be why the largest building at Monash University's main campus is named the "Menzies building" :P

University != School

We aren't americans :P

Wouldnt surprise me if his high school had a building named after him either though.

But i doubt you could do a poly sci arts degree and not hear about Menzies.

Actually, even in high-school, I learned about Menzies...

Though no buildings named after him. Or any other pollies for that matter.

on the plus side, most recent american preaidents are remembered for the wrong reasons.

JFK, what's he remembered for? being a man whore and getting himself shot.

Nixon? I'm not a crook either

Clinton? well as time goes by, Monica might be about the only thing they remember.

Reagan stands alone as much of the Soviet final collapse is attributed to him and his hard lined policies, his name will long be remembered.

Most people outside America wouldn't know who "Ike" is, although if you ever study WW2, I'm sure you would.

Hawke wasn't smart enough to come up with that, it was entirely Keating.

Yeah your right again mate, Hawke was a dumb fuck, that’s why he got a Rhode scholarship and won every election he contested as PM. After all, only dumb people are allowed to win Rhode scholarships. Keating was wayyy smarter then Hawke, in fact Keating didn’t even need to go to university he was so smart! I am lucky that once again you have pointed out the truth of the matter, people who don’t go to uni are much smarter then those dumb Rhode scholarly types :rolleyes:

i know very little history, i had to learn about the old PMs in yr6 but dont remember ANYTHING i learnt anymore, hell, i learnt more from that add campaign last year (edmund barton: first PM)

the only thing i know about menzies is what he looked like and that he holds a beer drinking record at cambridge university in london... ;)

On that point of goverments being remembered, I don't think I can name anything spectacular on any Australian government.

I'm not getting back into this debate, due to a politics essay I have to do on neo-conservatism (I've noticed a few neo-conservatives here), but I thought I'd just point out one thing.
Whether you liked him or not, Gough Whitlam was a VERY memorable prime-minister. Modest too :p
I think the things he did for education were great.

"God save the queen... because nobody's going to save the Govenor General" - Gough Whitlam.

Keating was wayyy smarter then Hawke, in fact Keating didn’t even need to go to university he was so smart!

You are correct, Keating's economic papers while as treasurer would have earned him 2 economics ph.d's (not 1, but 2) according to quite a few people who have said ph.d's themselves... (I'm sure you know that the people who decide whether u get a ph.d are those people who have them). It was also Keating who won international acclaim for the economic reforms, I wonder why that was.... And yet he also works as an economics professor...

Hawke was a masterful public speaker in the Clintonesque mold (who also happened to have a rhodes scholarship).

Yeah your right again mate, Hawke was a dumb fuck, that’s why he got a Rhode scholarship and won every election he contested as PM.

How often have parties lost elections unless spurred by an economic recession or disaster? Not for 30-40 years, this could be the first for a very long time, probably not though.

Sarcasm is lost on you. Anyway the fact remains that the Prime Minister runs the country. If you want to believe otherwise please do, but don't be surprised if people can not take you seriously if you fail to recognise something as b.a.s.i.c. as this.

Sarcasm is lost on you. Anyway the fact remains that the Prime Minister runs the country. If you want to believe otherwise please do, but don't be surprised if people can not take you seriously if you fail to recognise something as b.a.s.i.c. as this.

Yet it is you who doesn't understand the difference between a president and a prime minister.

The executive in the US - The President of the USA
The executive in Australia - The Cabinet

It is the executive who runs the country.

However in both countries, the primary responsibility of the economy is the treasurer, however in the US, the president IS the treasurer.

The prime minister leads his party, and certainly has input, he however does not "run the country".

You may remember (but I doubt it) that John Howard wouldn't allow the idea of an American style president to enter the republic referendum as he believed this sort of consolidation of power to be distinctly harmful.

It's not my fault you don't understand how our political system works.

As for the "who do you trust to run your economy", the reason that the liberal party is targetting latham vs howard is because of the preferred PM polls. Do you think I honestly believe the crap in the ad campaigns by either party? not one bit, I just think Latham's policies and his green sucking are ridiculous.

I dont' understand the Greens at all. They seem to just be proposing to do whatever popular opinion wants. They want to shut down nuclear reactors. How the hell is that "green"? Nuclear power is cheap and clean, as opposed to fossil fuels and gasses, which are the only real alternative.

(Tonnes and tonnes of wind farms is not an answer yet. They are too expensive and have a very low benefit/cost ratio)

If private schools received the same amount of funding as public schools, and private schools also get the benefit of changing fess, then it would create a 2 tier education system. Private schools would be dramatically better off! Why would anyone want to send their kids to public schools if this was the case? Private schools should get no public funding. If people want to send their kids to private schools then good on them, they putting a higher dollar value on the religious values that are taught in the private system, but the tax payer should not have to pay for other peoples religious preferences. If by not funding the private sector then more people stay in the public sector then well and good, I do not see a problem with it.

I refuse to fund a business and I refuse to fund a school simply because someone wants their kids taught different religious beliefs.


Not all private schools are religouse schools by the way, and don't you think it would be better if they both recieved the same funding, some private schools are in desperate need of funding and the other richer schools can use whatever money they have left to pay for all their luxuries.

Why is it that when ever I arrive everyone stops argueing?
Anyway, question: Does anyone here actually like Family First, and are they going to make it past this election?

...Thats what Australian politicians do, something goes wrong they throw money at it.

And that's different from any other politician, how?

Oh...I think I know what's happening now...my thread is dying, it nearly made it all the way to the elections.
Well, if this might be the last reply on my thread I would like to finish with...LABOUR YEAH!!!! and...DOWN WITH FAMILY FIRST...
thank you for your time...unless you put a reply in after this post, which you can do this post was only put here in case the thread was dying...LABOUR!!!

And that's different from any other politician, how?

Yeah, has there been one politicion in our life that did anything good?
...oh and I take back my earlier statement...I thought my thread was dying

How can people say we don't have memorable or great leaders here in Oz?

I think we are all forgetting about poor ol' Harold Holt. Now he was a man!

If this is the final post I would like to endorse the Coalition to win. If anyone is unsure about why just look at my posts or the issues at face value without the political spin.

How can people say we don't have memorable or great leaders here in Oz?

I think we are all forgetting about poor ol' Harold Holt. Now he was a man!

Yes...yes, Harold was a man...

I haven't followed this entire thread, but I would just like to put my penny's worth in:

Private schools are a nessessary part of the school system; the public system cannot handle all of the students in the nation, therefore private school are required to keep the education system at the high level that it is.
Also, as I think someone said, not all private school are church schools. True, a lot (dare I say most) are, but you can't just assume that they all are.

To the person who said that the Prime Minister does not run the country; sorry but to a large extend he does. Take foreign policy for example, Alexander Downer is the Foreign Minister, yet it is within Howard's power to override Downer and to impliment his own foreign policy and no-one can stop him.
However if you really wanted to come down to it - Govenor-General Major General Michael Jeffery is the one who gives everything royal assention! Technically he can stop anything he wants!

And the Greens DO have a place in this election - don't be so quick to count them out. With the Democrats self-destructing, people who are disallusioned with the two major parties are turning to the Greens this election (people who otherwise would be voting Democrat). And as the Democrats held the balance of power in the Senate...

As a student I am stereotypically a Labor voter (especially as I do not want to 25% increase in HECS). However this election I will be voting Green, because I recognise the bipartisanship on a lot of issues, and when you really think about it - both parties are just as bad as each other.
Also, although I prefer Latham to Howard, I recognise that an election is about parties, not people, and I do not like the way that the unions pull Labor's strings.

If this is the final post I would like to endorse the Coalition to win.

I hope you're wrong, we shall find out tomorrow

I haven't followed this entire thread, but I would just like to put my penny's worth in:

Private schools are a nessessary part of the school system; the public system cannot handle all of the students in the nation, therefore private school are required to keep the education system at the high level that it is.
Also, as I think someone said, not all private school are church schools. True, a lot (dare I say most) are, but you can't just assume that they all are.




True, and might I add that many of these religouse private schools are currently struggling for money, so they at least deserve more funding.

As a student I am stereotypically a Labor voter (especially as I do not want to 25% increase in HECS). However this election I will be voting Green, because I recognise the bipartisanship on a lot of issues, and when you really think about it - both parties are just as bad as each other.
Also, although I prefer Latham to Howard, I recognise that an election is about parties, not people, and I do not like the way that the unions pull Labor's strings.

So who are you voting for? Lathem or Bob Brown?

While my views dont agree with yours Krikaroo, I think this has turned into a great thread with some great discussion.

Ok, I'm leaving now.
I'll be checking my thread tomorrow morning...unless I go along to the voting places (they have suasage sizzles there!). When I get back I want to see many last minute wanna-change-your-political-mind arguments. Oh, and don't forget: VOTE Labour! (or any other party that isn't Libral)

I would vote labour (if I was old enough).
I noticed that Private School Funding was a big topic here. I go to one, and I like many others at my school, agree with Latham's policies on money. I guess it is a bit ironic, how we want stuff that will make things worse for us, but at the school I go to, everyone is fairly equalitarian.
And you should've heard what we thought about the Iraq War! This one bloke stood up said a pretty bland speech about how the Invasion was Wrong, and when he finished, it took ages for the applause and shouts of approval to die down.
Generally, though, I don't like the way Howard has run things while he has been in office, so any other direction is good for me!

I won't address any specific points because I'd need to spend rather a lot of time thinking about them first, and I'm all sleepy as well. To be honest, my opinion on this is obviously not well-researched (because otherwise I'd have no problem reeling off some responses). I guess I'll need to go look at the figures in more detail. I might very well end up agreeing with you.

And to be honest, I'm not nearly as anti-private schools as this debate is making me out to be. I do think that funding needs to be changed around so that all schools get an equal (overall) amount of funding. Once that's achieved, I don't care if parents want to pay extra for a better education.

And now I think about it, I'm one of those people that's always claiming that just throwing money at problems doesn't fix it, so I should probably rethink this stance completely. Hum.

I agree with you that funding needs to be re-arranged in so far as more money needs to be injected into public schools. This should not be at the expense of students at private schools. As I mentioned, I once shared your views on this matter to the point that the thought of taxpayer's money going to a private school angered me. Then someone pointed out the bigger picture and I changed my views completely. It wasn't on NationStates forum though! :p

And wow, would you look at that. Someone convinced to reconsider their stance. Due to intelligent debate. On the NationStates Forum. Quick, someone, contact the press.

*wanders off to think about things... and when I say that, I actually mean 'sleep'*
:eek: I told the press...they did not believe me!

(numbers refer to points in bold, in order):
1. I totally agree with this really... it just doesn't seem likely. I'd rather see funds shifted and weighted (although I need to look into the figures before I go off all half-cocked again... ugh >.<), than see schools totally neglected because the government doesn't want to announce tax increases, or take the funds from somewhere else.

I am biased in the sense that I feel that an education is the most important thing to enable a child to succeed in life. We have a surplus currently that could easily be invested in education. Again, thats just my biased opinion!

2. This I can't really agree with - everything I've read about the No-Child-Left-Behind reform (it was a reform, right? I hope I'm using the right word) suggests that more rigid standards of testing don't in fact improve test scores. And I know first hand that tests (I have my exams coming up) cause enough stress to be totally demotivating (and now we only deal with two a year). Time spent on tests detracts from time that can be better spent going over the information. I think a better way to spend extra funds would be investing in alternate methods of teaching - it's been proven (according to my year 12 psychology books, anyway) that people don't all learn the same way. Some learn best through hearing information, others by writing it out. Still others learn best using a hands on approach, and some have truly weird things, like association with scents and environment. If students could be split into learning-type groups early on, and taught according to that, I think it would lead to much more efficient students. I could add more (I have an ideal school system, that could only exist with semi-unlimited funds... fun to talk about, but more than a little off topic).

The testing I was alluding too was not so much academic testing in the form of exams. But rather a testing regime to identify students with learning diifficulties. Perhaps your ideas with regards to learning techiniques (I know this is true as I have known people who learn much better by hearing info and others by writing or visualising information) could then be employed to assist the children who are struggling to keep up. Anyway, I think the education system should be held more accountable for students' performance to ensure that children leaving school have the literacy and mathmatical skills necessary to gain employment.

3. Agree with this (assuming your facts and figures check out ;). I think this is what I need to look into in much more detail.

I await your verdict! ;) I would be interested in what you find and what you think about the information.

Vote labour! Labour's policies on education and environment kick the ass of the Lib policies (think HECs fees/more funding for govt schools and Tasmania's old growth forests). Also, Howard's been making friends with the Family First party which claim to have no connection to religion and yet had suggested we see brothels and places of gambling as "satan's strongholds" which is just silly.

Plus, Howard's pissed me off by trying to win votes by suggesting interest rates will rise under a Labour govt, which is utter crud.


If only I was old enough to vote. :P

I hope you're wrong, we shall find out tomorrow

Coalition - 1:5 odds on favourite

Labour - 3:1 odds against

Same bookie odds as last time.

Vote labour! Labour's policies on education and environment kick the ass of the Lib policies (think HECs fees/more funding for govt schools and Tasmania's old growth forests). Also, Howard's been making friends with the Family First party which claim to have no connection to religion and yet had suggested we see brothels and places of gambling as "satan's strongholds" which is just silly.

Plus, Howard's pissed me off by trying to win votes by suggesting interest rates will rise under a Labour govt, which is utter crud.


If only I was old enough to vote. :P

What a lovely little rendition of all the politcal taglines. Look beneath the taglines, read, research, think for yourself.

Coalition - 1:5 odds on favourite

Labour - 3:1 odds against

Same bookie odds as last time.

Lets hope they are right.

Ok, so I have to admit that i haven't read EVERYTHING in this thread...
But, I have a few little comments to make.

Firstly...
I go to a private school. I have gone to a private school all my life. And I know that my parents aren't the wealthiest people. However I also know that my parents pay their fair share of tax. They pay a lot more than the average australian. They also have made the choice to send me to a private school. This is their choice. They know that some people believe you are flushing money down the toliet. However, They believe it is worth it. So I dont see why they should suffer if private schools receive les funding under a Latham Government. They probably pay more tax than a parent who sends their child to a public school. So why should my school suffer by recieving less funding??

sorry, i know im ranting and im probably making no sense. im on the phone, so its hard to concentrate :P

anyway, if i could vote, which i cant, i think i would find it very difficult. I hate what howard has done to this country, and i dont agree with the majority of his policies. however, the private schools funding issue has given me the shits with latham. i love all his other policies, this one just kinda sucks a little

The prime minister leads his party, and certainly has input, he however does not "run the country".


Poor wording on my part perhaps. The Prime Minister runs/leads/etc etc the country more then the anyone else.

"Members of parliament are elected to exercise the power of government. In our system that is dominated by political parties, the party with the majority in the House of Representatives forms the government. The majority party selects a executive, a group of ministers called the cabinet, which is responsible for the government of the country and whose function it is to initiate and decide on policy, and manage a department. Cabinet is at the very centre of political power. Because it is seen as dealing with the major problems of the nation, making far-reaching decisions, cabinet is at the centre of public attention as well. Cabinet’s role has taken on an added significance since government has increased its involvement in the affairs of the community. Ministers and the Prime Minister in particular wield considerable power as decision makers, party leaders and national figures. With ministers assuming greater responsibility there was a tendency for attention support and criticism to focus on a particular person. The Prime Minister assumes the essential role of leadership of the government, leadership of the party which holds government and by default leadership of the nation. The Prime ministers role is the clearly dominant figure and had developed in to much more then merely a 'first among equals'."

“The Prime Minister enjoys many powers in his role as 'first amongst equals' over and above other ministers. He enjoys the extra media and public attention that comes with the office. He enjoys the power of patronage. He has the final decision on the date of the federal election. And he enjoys an obvious advantage though the resources of other departments. The department of Prime minister has grown considerably as the functions of government and number of departments have grown, and there has been a need for knowledge of the wide variety of programs that are being undertaken. A second source of policy advice has made it easier to assess departmental proposals and set priorities, which has inturn added to the influence the Prime Minister holds over the cabinet. Although the department of Prime Minister remains relatively small with less then 400 staff, most of these are senior officials able to access the proposals of their counterparts in other departments. The department of Prime Ministers encompassing role has led to criticism that it gives the PM powers that are not compatible with the Westminster system of collective responsibly.”

The Prime Minister more then anyone else makes or approves the decisions and takes responsibility for the decisions of the government of the day. (On the side note I know Howard doesn’t take responsibility for anything but technically Prime Ministers with any sense of decency should)


You may remember (but I doubt it) that John Howard wouldn't allow the idea of an American style president to enter the republic referendum as he believed this sort of consolidation of power to be distinctly harmful.


Everyone knows that Howard worded the question so that he would get the outcome he desired, not for any other reason.


As for the "who do you trust to run your economy", the reason that the liberal party is targetting latham vs howard is because of the preferred PM polls. Do you think I honestly believe the crap in the ad campaigns by either party? not one bit, I just think Latham's policies and his green sucking are ridiculous.

What bit don’t you understand? The liberals are selling the Howard government team, with Howard as the leader. If Costello was the leader they would be selling the Costello team with Costello as the leader. Costello may be treasurer however any major policy decisions have to be approved by the PM.

I'd say Labour. I think Howard is an ass.

Costello may be treasurer however any major policy decisions have to be approved by the PM.

the word yes takes a lot of effort, laugh.

Howard's record as treasurer was pretty horrendous *laugh*

Everyone knows that Howard worded the question so that he would get the outcome he desired, not for any other reason.

In hindsight, I came to realise Howard's view.

The American style president is a horrible system, where all the "ministers" are nothing more than employees of the president, hence incapable of ever expressing a differing view to the president.

Howard made the question about the republic a silly and specific question about one specific model that we already knew at the time a majority of Australians did not want. If he was serious about what he was doing would have broken the referendum up in to a number of stages, the first ask if Australians wanted to become a republic (which polling seems to indicate Australians do want). Plain and simple, the models and their various strengths and weaknesses could have been better explain to the public and more time taken for education of the electorate before the next steps in the process.

In regards to the American system I can see what your saying about them having to hold the same sort of views as the president, however it also allows policy experts to be chosen, of course this brings the problem that experts often have a narrow view in relation to a particular field of policy. Each system has their strong and weak points, and I personally favour the system which didn’t get up because it changes out system the least, however I've got a feeling that in the future we aren’t going to get a model over the line unless the public have more input.

Anyways, remember to vote everyone, I’m off to hand out how to vote cards. take it easy :)

REMINDER: before everyone votes today, remember to fill out all the boxes and put the party you don't want in at the very bottom (eg. Family First).

REMINDER: before everyone votes today, remember to fill out all the boxes and put the party you don't want in at the very bottom (eg. Family First).

Indeed, fill out all the boxes and put the GREENS LAST. If you a making a protest vote make it for an independent...not the Greens.

So who are you voting for? Lathem or Bob Brown?

Krikaroo, sorry I was unclear, I voted Green.