Some Numbers I Threw Together

[Skye]

Is the labor party more liberal than the "liberal" party?

In the typical american usage, yes. The Labor party supports public spending in healthcare, welfare, education, etc, which are often identified as liberal policies. These are, to me, more accurately termed socialist policies, and the party calls itself a social democrat party. On top of that it is supported largely by the trade unions, and blue collar workers are its traditional voting base.

[Douglas]

In the typical american usage, yes. The Labor party supports public spending in healthcare, welfare, education, etc, which are often identified as liberal policies. These are, to me, more accurately termed socialist policies, and the party calls itself a social democrat party. On top of that it is supported largely by the trade unions, and blue collar workers are its traditional voting base.

Thanks Skye, seems like your labor party is similar to our democratic party, complete with the support of the unions.

[Tetrahedrite]

Interesting. Are you saying he (Howard) sits to the left of the moderate democrats? Surely he can't be to the left of the "far left" dems.

 

Is the labor party more liberal than the "liberal" party?

 

As skye said, the Australian Labor Party sits just to the left of the Liberals/Nationals, although they are quickly closing the gap. Some of their policies are almost identical.

 

Where the main difference lies is that Labor believes that a country as rich as ours shouldn't chuck the sick, disabled, infirm and disadvantage to the dogs because they can't get high paying jobs. We used to have a universal system of free health care for all, free education for all, and a safety net for the disadvantaged. These things are quickly going down the drain in favour of a "user pays" system, where the richer you are, the better health care and education you get.

As for how conservative our whole political environment is, in my opinion, all five of our major paties (Liberals, Nationals, Labor, Democrats, Greens) all have more compasionate policies towards the people they represent than the two major US parties. I have to qualify this by saying that this is based on my observations and not on any statistical source

[JohnB]

We used to have a universal system of free health care for all, free education for all, and a safety net for the disadvantaged.

We also had 10% unemployment, Home Loan Interest Rates at 17%, Inflation in the double digits and a great big Deficit.

Where the main difference lies is that Labor believes that a country as rich as ours shouldn't chuck the sick, disabled, infirm and disadvantage to the dogs because they can't get high paying jobs.

At least now, more people can get jobs.

 

Tetra, I think you and I must be at the opposite ends of our political spectrum. Won't stop me from agreeing with Labour occasionally though. I don't agree with the full sale of Telstra for example, I just don't see how it could be good for the nation. (Especially when Telstra defines 14.4k internet as "adequate". They have got to be joking.)

 

The problem is that Labour couldn't run a Lemonade Stand in the Simpson Desert, hence they run up huge debts to cover their policies. On the other side, the Liberals are far better economic managers, but sometimes they forget that pure numbers don't tell all the story.

 

I would like to see some sort of "middle" party, combining the best points of both. I, personally, would vote for a party made up of housewives. They have a heart and they can balance a budget. Of course, telling the Navy they can't have a new Destroyer "Because I said so, that's why" may cause some problems.

 

The main issue I have with Labour is the Union involvement. The Unions, who represent only some 19% of the workforce have 60% say in the formulation of party policy. Said formation being binding on all Labour pollies. I feel this is undemocratic and unfair to the grassroots party members. It also means that under a Labour government, the Representatives we vote for are not the Government. The true government is the unelected Caucus controlled by unions.

 

The Liberal's executive can only advise the Parlimentary wing as to policy.

[Aardvark]

What do you guys think about the Australian states treatment of Aboriginals?

[YT2095]

I for one can`t comment, I have no Un-Biased data with which to form an opinion.

[Aardvark]

I'm particularly interested in the opinions of the Australians in the forum.

 

Going to the horses mouth.

[Tetrahedrite]

We also had 10% unemployment' date=' Home Loan Interest Rates at 17%, Inflation in the double digits and a great big Deficit.

 

At least now, more people can [b']get[/b] jobs.

 

Tetra, I think you and I must be at the opposite ends of our political spectrum. Won't stop me from agreeing with Labour occasionally though. I don't agree with the full sale of Telstra for example, I just don't see how it could be good for the nation. (Especially when Telstra defines 14.4k internet as "adequate". They have got to be joking.)

 

The problem is that Labour couldn't run a Lemonade Stand in the Simpson Desert, hence they run up huge debts to cover their policies. On the other side, the Liberals are far better economic managers, but sometimes they forget that pure numbers don't tell all the story.

 

I would like to see some sort of "middle" party, combining the best points of both. I, personally, would vote for a party made up of housewives. They have a heart and they can balance a budget. Of course, telling the Navy they can't have a new Destroyer "Because I said so, that's why" may cause some problems.

 

The main issue I have with Labour is the Union involvement. The Unions, who represent only some 19% of the workforce have 60% say in the formulation of party policy. Said formation being binding on all Labour pollies. I feel this is undemocratic and unfair to the grassroots party members. It also means that under a Labour government, the Representatives we vote for are not the Government. The true government is the unelected Caucus controlled by unions.

 

The Liberal's executive can only advise the Parlimentary wing as to policy.

 

I agree with a lot of what you have said here, but unlike most, I don't have a short memory. John Howard has lost all integrity in my mind. Australia was once considered a good, safe, responsible, compasionate country but I fear the Liberals are leading down a path from which we will never return.

Australia now has the second biggest gap between rich and poor in the industrialised world, behind the US. We have the second highest rate of casuals in the work force, behind the US. Our public hospitals and public schools are in a terrible state via lack of funding. My campus at UWS (a science based campus) is being shut down because the governments new funding formula means that science is too expensive to run. We are a much bigger target for terrorists now than ever before. The government talks of invading sovereign countries in our region. And most dispicable of all, we keep children in detention for up to two years for something they had no choice in. As someone said (I don't know who, but its stuck in my mind) "We don't live in an economy, we live in a society). The economy is important, but it shouldn't be the only consideration. I don't wan't our country to become Americanised (no offense to anyone here) where near on everything is run by corporations (even the government, apparently) because their motive is always profit, above all else.

The government has full control of the senate now, and you can be sure that when people voted for the Liberals they weren't voting for the full sale of Telstra, the destruction of worker's rights and the death of independent media; these issues were hardly even mentioned during the campaign. I fear the next three years, the government can pass any legislation it desires, without scrutiny of any type. This is bad for our country.

 

P.S. Although they are out dated now, the Union Movement has done enormous good in Australia in the last 100 years via improved working conditions and safety and better pay for all (not just union members). They can be obstructive at times, but their overall philosophy, that the workers are important as well as making profits, is in my view honourable.

 

P.P.S I make no apologies for being what our US colleagues would call "liberal". I see right wing policies as bordering on selfish and blind-sited, and as I have stated before countries as rich as our own who can't look after their sick, disabled and disadvantaged are in my view morally defunct.

[Tetrahedrite]

What do you guys think about the Australian states treatment of Aboriginals?

 

This issue is an extension of what I have said in my previous post. For the first time in my memory, Aboriginal issues were not mentioned at all during the election campaign.

In answer to your question, I think most of the responsibility for Aboriginal health, welfare, housing etc comes from the federal government, not the states. The record of all federal governments over the years has been dispicable. I do not have time to go into all issues, you could write a book on them.

Did you know that Australia is the only country in recent history to commit complete genocide? Every single indiginous person living in Tasmania was wiped out or moved during the early 19th century.

[Aardvark]

Thanks for that post, it's always interesting to hear straight from the horses mouth.

 

Australian politics is very interesting, i think the mandatory voting rule has have a big impact. Ironically a lot of working class types tend to be quite culturaly conservative and as they all vote now that has strongly effected Australian politics. John Howard seems to have struck a cord with the people by appealing over the heads of the metropolitian elites. The Labour party is in danger of allowing itself to be marginalised.

 

Does that analysis make any sense to you or am i misreading the situation?

 

 

I don't wan't our country to become Americanised (no offense to anyone here)

 

On a purely subjective note, Australia seemed to be much more Americanised than New Zealand. New Zealand felt almost like an idealized version of a happier England while Australia felt a bit more like a good version of Texas. Hope i haven't offended you!

[Tetrahedrite]

Thanks for that post' date=' it's always interesting to hear straight from the horses mouth.

 

Australian politics is very interesting, i think the mandatory voting rule has have a big impact. Ironically a lot of working class types tend to be quite culturaly conservative and as they all vote now that has strongly effected Australian politics. John Howard seems to have struck a cord with the people by appealing over the heads of the metropolitian elites. The Labour party is in danger of allowing itself to be marginalised.

 

Does that analysis make any sense to you or am i misreading the situation?

 

On a purely subjective note, Australia seemed to be much more Americanised than New Zealand. New Zealand felt almost like an idealized version of a happier England while Australia felt a bit more like a good version of Texas. Hope i haven't offended you![/quote']

 

I would say this is fairly correct. The interest rate in Australia has been fairly low over the past couple of years and people have been buying up big. Average household debt is higher than ever. The government ran an extremely effective scare campaign about interest going up if Labor got into power (which is a blatent lie, but the Howard government are expert liers!) and this hit a nerve with a lot of voters who swallowed the crap.

 

Its funny you mention compulsory voting, now that Howard has full control of the senate there is talk about making it non-compulsory (which obviously favors conservative parties). My feeling is that most people would reject a change to the voting system, it is less easily corupted than an American style system.

 

I agree - the NZ prime minister Helen Clarke has more balls (metaphorically speaking) than Howard and will stand up to the US.

[Aardvark]

Its funny you mention compulsory voting' date=' now that Howard has full control of the senate there is talk about making it non-compulsory (which obviously favors conservative parties). [/quote']

 

On the face of it non compulsory voting would favour the conservative parties. However, i got the impression that compulsory voting was having the counter intuitive effect of making politics in Australia more rather than less conservative.

 

It seemed that the innate cultural conservatism of the working classes was a big influence, just look at the support Pauline Hanson mobilised. John Howard appears able to appeal to that, leaving the Labour party dependant on a narrower support base.

 

Ironically making voting non complusory might influence the centre of politics to move a bit more back to the left.

[Tetrahedrite]

On the face of it non compulsory voting would favour the conservative parties. However' date=' i got the impression that compulsory voting was having the counter intuitive effect of making politics in Australia more rather than less conservative.

 

It seemed that the innate cultural conservatism of the working classes was a big influence, just look at the support Pauline Hanson mobilised. John Howard appears able to appeal to that, leaving the Labour party dependant on a narrower support base.

 

Ironically making voting non complusory might influence the centre of politics to move a bit more back to the left.[/quote']

 

This is an interesting observation you make, however I still believe that an altered voting system would favour the right. Pauline Hanson got here biggest support from regional and rural areas. These people would probably show up at polling booths in great numbers, as would older Australians and the middle to upper classes who are traditionally conservative voters. Working and lower classes, minority groups and young voters are probably less likely to show up, traditionally these people vote labor. This may seem a bit nit-picky but avery small swing in the Australian political landscape may have enormous effects.

For example, in the 2001 election the labor party actually recieved over 50% of the two party prefered vote but did not win enough seats to gain power.

 

BTW Where are you located, you seem to know a fair bit about aussie politics?

[john5746]

Atm' date=' Gore commited political suicide when he started the civil war in Florida.

 

Notice that Kerry bowed out graciously, he made political points.

 

Richard Nixon lost to JFK in 1960, Nixon too, bowed out graciously, yet made a comeback in '68 and won.

 

I don't think Kerry is finished, I think you'll see him battling Hillary in the '08 primaries..........and perhaps wiping the floor with her.[/quote']

 

Gore should have contested the whole state of Florida - < 600 votes? Kerry was correct to concede.

 

I am glad the repubs got more senate seats. I want action. No more complaints about liberals. Just do it.

[JohnB]

The government ran an extremely effective scare campaign about interest going up if Labor got into power (which is a blatent lie, but the Howard government are expert liers!)

Tetra, I must disagree with this. In the past 30 odd years we have had three major Labour Governments. Whitlam, Hawke and Keating. Interest rates, unemployment and inflation got extremely high under all three. (And Keating gave us "The Recession we had to have".) The odds were greatly in favour of history repeating itself.

 

As an aside, those I know were not so much against Mark Latham, but if we got him, we got Simon Crean as Treasurer, and that seemed to scare the hell out of them.

 

Concerning Pauline, (I'm a Queenslander) I think the main reason for her support (which as you say was mostly from the rural sector) was simply that they didn't like Labour and felt the Nationals had sold them out. You'll note that Pauline didn't get up in the Senate for Queensland.

 

The other part was that there was such a scream against her, and the tactics used were so dispicable, it almost became a point of honour to piss off the southerners. You know what we're like. The more groups in Sydney and Melbourne screamed "You can't do that", the more Queenslanders felt that we should, just to show you.

 

Of course, after that first election, we had made our point, (and One Nation) were so bloody inept) so we felt quite safe in getting rid of them.

 

I kind of like the Compulsory voting. At least, maybe, people might think about things. (Although there is always the "Donkey vote" ) It concerns me that if voting was voluntary, we would see Australian politics split into camps like the yanks are. I really wouldn't like to see our politics descend to the depths of "debate" of the last US election. It's come close sometimes, but that is more the exception rather than the rule.

 

I think voluntary would actually benefit the left rather than right for the simple reason that only the left side has a ready made organised powerbase, the Unions. This is a fair block of people who can be mobilised, I can't really think of any similar conservative group. The CWA and the like possibly, but their influence is severely limited.

 

The biggest problem with our system is that you don't need more than 50% of the vote to win. You only need just over 50% of the vote in just over 50% of the seats. This problem works against both parties. In a recent Qld election, the Libs got some 30% of the vote, but won only about 3 seats. I think the whole thing needs an overhaul, but so far haven't heard any really workable suggestions.

 

Before you get too hot about Howard invading someone, I suggest you go back through the demands of Kim Beazley, Opposition Leader at the time of the Timor Crisis. He demanded at the time that Australian troops enter ET before getting approval from the Indonesian Government.

 

Australian combat troops landing in a Province of a Sovereign Nation without the permission of said nation? That sounds like an invasion to me. Actually, it sounds like an Act of War. If Beazley had been PM, we would have been at war with Indonesia. Big nation, big military, where the hell would we put that many POW's?

[Aardvark]

BTW Where are you located' date=' you seem to know a fair bit about aussie politics?[/quote']

 

Just back in Britain from a year working in Oz. Great country, hoping to go back asap. (Love the camels!)

[Tetrahedrite]

Just back in Britain from a year working in Oz. Great country, hoping to go back asap. (Love the camels!)

 

(Love the camels!)

[Aardvark]

(Love the camels!)

 

Australia has some of the best camels in the world. Imported by Afghans in the 19th century. They are disease free and geneticaly better than the inbred Arabian camels.

 

Australia exports camels to Arabs for racing and to Indonesia for eating.

 

They don't require as much water as cattle reducing the need for water holes on stations which reduces the number of ferals such as foxes and pigs. Their feet are soft compared with cattle so reducing damage to vegetation.

 

Drought resistant, environmentaly friendly, at the start of a great economic future, intelligent and just great to know.