The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

[scblack]

Yes, I do think that some people vote without any concious engagement. I live in a fairly safe seat and work with young people...you want brainless sheep? PM me your address and I'll post you a few.

You live in a working class city, the braindead ones there are not likely to be voting Conservative, which JohnU seems to imagine.

Are these the same guys who are buying a Commodore and not a Falcon (or vice versa) 'cause that's what their dad drove?

 

[scblack]

That's pretty much the exact problem with trickle-down economics. You give more money to the rich, and they save it, which takes it out of the economy (effectively). You give more money to the poor, and they will spend it. That puts it back into the economy, stimulates economic activity, encourages more investment because suddenly there are more Widgets 2.0 being bought than before.

It also takes people off the Govt largesse - if you earn more, you (in theory) don't need as much financial assistance from the Govt. That frees up more cash for infrastructure, schools, health etc.

It seems you don't understand what business tax cuts actually means.

It is not a handout of cash. If you give money to the poor, like little Kevvy Rudd's cash handouts, then yes, the poor will spend their cash on pokies, cigarettes and beer. Call that economic stimulus if you wish.

Tax cuts to business just mean the company pays a little less tax at year end. Unless owners specifically change their withdrawals from the business, those extra funds stay in the business. (Not saying it will for all businesses but for many it will be the case). The extra funds may make owners more confident, prompting them to employ more staff, maybe replace the old ute, or try that new stock line to boost sales. Those actions will boost the economy, and be a continual boost as the business may grow. A cash handout is a once-off increase if it is just spent on more beer.

As Nerf Herder has shown, not all business owners are wealthy AT ALL. Many struggle daily, and a tax cut will help many of them grow.

 

[pink poodle]

You live in a working class city, the braindead ones there are not likely to be voting Conservative, which JohnU seems to imagine.

Are these the same guys who are buying a Commodore and not a Falcon (or vice versa) 'cause that's what their dad drove?

It think the falcon vs commodore argument died down a bit when "working class" people could afford a BMW. I don't think it is fair to refer to Newcastle as a conglomerate braindead unthinking voters on the whole. It's just a few of us:

http://www.aec.gov.au/profiles/nsw/newcastle.htm

 

[scblack]

It think the falcon vs commodore argument died down a bit when "working class" people could afford a BMW. I don't think it is fair to refer to Newcastle as a conglomerate braindead unthinking voters on the whole. It's just a few of us:

http://www.aec.gov.au/profiles/nsw/newcastle.htm

Hey, it's your call to class them as brainless sheep. Don't fob that off on me.:shocked:

 

[pink poodle]

It is not a handout of cash. If you give money to the poor, like little Kevvy Rudd's cash handouts, then yes, the poor will spend their cash on pokies, cigarettes and beer. Call that economic stimulus if you wish.

A stroke of genius. Those items are mostly locally made, locally delivered, and heavily taxed. Plus they are all addictive, the easiest way to build a customer base. Stimulated economic activity? Yes. Raise tax surplus? Yes. Are you just jealous that you didn't get some beer money? Kev was giving it away! Personally I purchased an imported heavily reduced stereo from David Jones with the few pennies I received. I would argue that my actions in the situation were far more negative on the economy that the scenario you describe.

 

[pink poodle]

Hey, it's your call to class them as brainless sheep. Don't fob that off on me.:shocked:

You said braindead. I'm just looking at the facts unbiased...

In their defence, the city did try the "other side" once. In the state parliament and council...that ended with 6 (I think it was) by elections, a huge ICAC investigation, and a strong return to voting "form" (safety blanket?). All at a substantial cost to the tax payer and disruption to governance (I was going to say service delivery but we all know that is just a dream). Sometimes it is better the devil you know.

 

[c3024446]

I have no idea why Newcastle and the surrounding area continually votes Labor. For a population like we have, surely more money should be thrown this way. I vote Liberal to make my seat a bit closer to being marginal…..

Why would Labor promise anything when they win the seats without trying, and the Libs don’t bother promising anything since they’ll never win. I thought something was changing after 2011, but with the ICAC thing - that has set that plan back 10 years probably.

 

[pink poodle]

I have no idea why Newcastle and the surrounding area continually votes Labor. For a population like we have, surely more money should be thrown this way. I vote Liberal to make my seat a bit closer to being marginal…..

Why would Labor promise anything when they win the seats without trying, and the Libs don’t bother promising anything since they’ll never win. I thought something was changing after 2011, but with the ICAC thing - that has set that plan back 10 years probably.

We have so much advantage being the safest seat that ever got safe...oh wait. I do agree that we stand to gain nothing as a seat, and will continue that way for the foreseeable future. I think you underestimate how far back the ICAC fiasco has put us, I'd go 50 years at least. Just watch the never ending train line debacle for a nice clear demonstration. I expect that will be an ongoing clumsy eyesore and promise black hole for the next decade, with neither major political party bringing it to a completion.

 

[Calvin27]

I have no idea why Newcastle and the surrounding area continually votes Labor. For a population like we have, surely more money should be thrown this way. I vote Liberal to make my seat a bit closer to being marginal…..

I think you'd find that the older generation are much more 'rusted on' than newer generations. Areas like Port Melbourne (Melbourne ports) and Brunswick (Willis ) are labor strongholds despite one being an affluent suburb more likely to be liberal and the other being a greenie lefty type demographic. The problem is most people only see the facade and the street life but fail to see the thousands of pnsioners who live behind those streets and never come out and have never changed their vote in their entire life since they were dock workers or whatever. The opposite is also true of liberal safe seats.

 

[pharmaboy]

We have so much advantage being the safest seat that ever got safe...oh wait. I do agree that we stand to gain nothing as a seat, and will continue that way for the foreseeable future. I think you underestimate how far back the ICAC fiasco has put us, I'd go 50 years at least. Just watch the never ending train line debacle for a nice clear demonstration. I expect that will be an ongoing clumsy eyesore and promise black hole for the next decade, with neither major political party bringing it to a completion.

The seat of Newcastle in the state election wasn't really a win for the Libs - that was a fluke of 2 things - Tate bowing out early and flipping his preferences and Macquarie St with their candidate and the left wing team splitting the ALP vote

The ICAC is only a fiasco because there is almost no effort or care of the populace to understand anything. When it comes to politics, novacastrians are up there with the most ignorant on the planet - probably vying with Louisiana for brain dead levels of knowledge.

 

[pink poodle]

The seat of Newcastle in the state election wasn't really a win for the Libs - that was a fluke of 2 things - Tate bowing out early and flipping his preferences and Macquarie St with their candidate and the left wing team splitting the ALP vote

The ICAC is only a fiasco because there is almost no effort or care of the populace to understand anything. When it comes to politics, novacastrians are up there with the most ignorant on the planet - probably vying with Louisiana for brain dead levels of knowledge.

Sorry Mr McCoy I don't understand your post. Are you saying the ICAC fiasco is even deeper and bigger than we know? Or that despite very clear laws in place to prevent it, developers should be allowed to (in a clandestine fashion) be allowed to make significant unreported donations to liberal campaigns? Unless of course this really was just a case of laying out more carpet.

The corrupt and expired Labor government and the beloved Tate pretty much handed it to them...even then I was surprised that the Labor guy didn't get up.

 

[pharmaboy]

Principally there is a vast difference between corruption and breaking a state law

 

[pink poodle]

Principally there is a vast difference between corruption and breaking a state law

Mr Watson SC would agree, but likely contest your position. The behaviour was both corrupt and illegal.

Though if I remember correctly your defence had nothing to do with corrupt vs not corrupt...it was that you could do as you wished because you were rich. That position was rejected by the high court.

 

[pharmaboy]

Mr Watson SC would agree, but likely contest your position. The behaviour was both corrupt and illegal.

Though if I remember correctly your defence had nothing to do with corrupt vs not corrupt...it was that you could do as you wished because you were rich. That position was rejected by the high court.

C'mon don't misrepresent the high court case.

"Corruption is a form of dishonest or unethical conduct by a person entrusted with a position of authority, often to acquire personal benefit"

In this case, the donator was in a position of authority not the receiver - further there has been not even a hint of personal benefit being asked for, inferred or delivered. Indeed it was unethical because he knew it was illegal, hence the cash nature of the political donation. Because of that it isn't a bribe and he received no benefit, and certainly no more benefit than any other donator to any political party.

When you start to include anything illegal within a political context, you dilute the gravity and meaning of corruption. Eddie Obeid was corrupt, but potentially hasn't broken a law , but we know that is corruption, and classicly so.

It's not irrelevant that it was only in that term of the labor govt that donations by developers to political parties was banned and I think only in NSW. It would have seemed as a law to have some political motivation to strangle the opposition of funds while leaving Union donations untouched, though not an argument easily won in public post hoc.

 

[pink poodle]

C'mon don't misrepresent the high court case.

"Corruption is a form of dishonest or unethical conduct by a person entrusted with a position of authority, often to acquire personal benefit"

In this case, the donator was in a position of authority not the receiver - further there has been not even a hint of personal benefit being asked for, inferred or delivered. Indeed it was unethical because he knew it was illegal, hence the cash nature of the political donation. Because of that it isn't a bribe and he received no benefit, and certainly no more benefit than any other donator to any political party.

When you start to include anything illegal within a political context, you dilute the gravity and meaning of corruption. Eddie Obeid was corrupt, but potentially hasn't broken a law , but we know that is corruption, and classicly so.

It's not irrelevant that it was only in that term of the labor govt that donations by developers to political parties was banned and I think only in NSW. It would have seemed as a law to have some political motivation to strangle the opposition of funds while leaving Union donations untouched, though not an argument easily won in public post hoc.

The Labor party did bring that law in, but they were as developer deep as the Libs. Both parties have a long history of association with greed.

Let's see...the Lord Mayor (owner of a fairly large development company and other developers) "donate" illegally to all the local Liberal members' campaigns, and don't expect anything in return? I struggle to believe. If this was not an attempt to gain advantage by deceit...

The high court case was basically, in less colourful language, that despite owning/running/leading/making money out of a property development company (and associated companies and trusts etc) the individual was not a property developer and was thus able to make those donations. That concept was rejected by the high court. Talk about clutching at straws.

Funny thing on Eddie in the SMH recently. The staffers that has hung him out to dry is now going soft. (Hazed paraphrase here) Eddie only asked him to contact the person seeking negotiation on behalf of the business owners in circular quay, nothing more...hmmmm. So much has been made of this specific event, that one would hope the prosecution has more arrows in the quiver.

 

[Dozer]

You fuckwits. This is from a page that has information on how to vote for the upcoming election:

"Postal vote application forms will be available from this page in mid-July".

 

[pink poodle]

You fuckwits. This is from a page that has information on how to vote for the upcoming election:

"Postal vote application forms will be available from this page in mid-July".

For the truly swinging voters...

 

[link1896]

Thanks for the link, that was interesting...even if ran by that notorious pinko left-wing red red red commie institution, the ABC! Anyway turns out I am more left than the greens but not as progressive. Small margins on both. I would've liked some more depth to the questions.

Interesting results.

 

[pink poodle]

Interesting results. View attachment 329739

You conservative cracker!

 

[fimpBIKES]

I have no idea why Newcastle and the surrounding area continually votes Labor. For a population like we have, surely more money should be thrown this way. I vote Liberal to make my seat a bit closer to being marginal…..

Why would Labor promise anything when they win the seats without trying, and the Libs don’t bother promising anything since they’ll never win. I thought something was changing after 2011, but with the ICAC thing - that has set that plan back 10 years probably.

see my post above, I agree and always when I have doubt over who to vote for I vote for the marginal option

its selfish and shows a direct disregard for the nations future as a whole, but that is the system that we are presented with when the vote comes about.