The election thread - Will the new PM last a full term - who will you futilely vote for?

Who will you vote for?

  • Liberals

    Votes: 13 20.0%
  • Labor

    Votes: 25 38.5%
  • Nationals

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Greens

    Votes: 16 24.6%
  • Independant

    Votes: 4 6.2%
  • The Reason Party

    Votes: 4 6.2%
  • Shooters and Fishers Party

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • One Nation

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Donkey/Invalid vote

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Total voters
    65

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
So who are you going to vote for?

Give explanations if you wish. That is, why you vote for X or even why you won't vote for Y.

Please do not abuse anyone for their opinion, no matter how misguided you may think it is. Remember this is (supposed to be) a DEMOCRATIC country, so if you wish to DISCUSS somebody else's choice, do it constructively!!

Please, no posts like "I'm too young" or "Politics is for dickheads". Nobody cares.

If there is a party that I haven't posted that you are going to vote for, please post it. If there are enough people posting the same party (shooters, grey power, etc) I will amend the poll accordingly.

Is there an MTB party? I'm sure there would be enough MTBers out there willing to join a party if one was started to represent their interests!

And off we go...........

[wombat edit: nationals added]
 
Last edited:

S.

ex offender
Re: Official 2004 election poll and thread.

johnny said:
Please, no posts like "I'm too young" or "Politics is for dickheads". Nobody cares.
Nobody cares that nobody cares, so.... politics is for dickheads :)
 

Dane

Likes Dirt
as yet i'm undecided... however i'm leaning away from the liberals, not particularly impressed with howard, although i can't help but think he's been ok with our economy. i'm going to possibly consider voting under the line.

Dane
 

danv

Likes Dirt
Re: Official 2004 election poll and thread.

johnny said:
If there is a party that I haven't posted that you are going to vote for, please post it. If there are enough people posting the same party (shooters, grey power, etc) I will amend the poll accordingly.
...........
Umm, the Nationals? edit - I wouldn't vote for them, but they're a bit of a major player...

Do you think we should vote (on this pole) for who we would vote for in the 2004 federal election, even if we aren't planning to vote, or aren't eligible? (like most the people on this forum who are <18)
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
Re: Official 2004 election poll and thread.

danv said:
johnny said:
If there is a party that I haven't posted that you are going to vote for, please post it. If there are enough people posting the same party (shooters, grey power, etc) I will amend the poll accordingly.
...........
Umm, the Nationals?

Do you think we should vote (on this pole) for who we would vote for in the 2004 federal election, even if we aren't planning to vote, or aren't eligible? (like most the people on this forum who are <18)
I can't adjust the polls anymore for some reason....?

I guess anyone can use the poll, it will show what peoples sentiments are.

Why can't I adjust the poll?
 

Dane

Likes Dirt
Re: Official 2004 election poll and thread.

johnny said:
Why can't I adjust the poll?
you'll have to get a mod to do it! it won't let you edit it for some reason, i guess its just how phpBB works.
 

Cave Dweller

Eats Squid
iLikeBasS said:
although i can't help but think he's been ok with our economy.
That is the greatest misconception in Australia at the moment. We are more effected by America and other world influences such as the price of oil then we are any particular government.

Im probably voting Greens so that Australia can ratify Kyoto and hence leave a half decent world to future generations. Libs are going last on my ballot paper.
 

S.

ex offender
Cave Dweller said:
Im probably voting Greens so that Australia can ratify Kyoto and hence leave a half decent world to future generations.
Somewhat on the topic... we were doing some stuff on "sustainable engineering" at uni yesterday, and the Kyoto protocol came up. According to numerous sources (I believe including CSIRO), the world is going to need much more extreme measures than Kyoto in place, within the next 50 years. I believe a large part of this is going to come from civil and social engineering rather than economic factors. Renewable energy etc is still SO expensive that to incorporate it, it has to be introduced as a fully integrated part of life, rather than installing a few wind farms here and there and maybe a solar panel to heat your pool. Houses, buildings and moreso cities are going to have to become much better designed. Efficient public transport is going to become a huge factor IMO, and in a lot of ways we're going to have to go backwards to go forwards. I believe that to fully realise (literally) the kind of efficiency we're going to need, we're going to have to go back to 19th century approaches of not doing anything half-arsed. Putting more buses on the road isn't the answer. Building train lines however, might be. Proper design on large scales (think whole cities) will become necessary to efficiently house, transport and generally accomodate our population. In some ways, communism works better for this kind of stuff because there's way less economic factors (namely privatisation and private development) to interfere with actually getting shit done.

[/rant]
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
S. said:
Cave Dweller said:
Im probably voting Greens so that Australia can ratify Kyoto and hence leave a half decent world to future generations.
Somewhat on the topic... we were doing some stuff on "sustainable engineering" at uni yesterday, and the Kyoto protocol came up. According to numerous sources (I believe including CSIRO), the world is going to need much more extreme measures than Kyoto in place, within the next 50 years. I believe a large part of this is going to come from civil and social engineering rather than economic factors. Renewable energy etc is still SO expensive that to incorporate it, it has to be introduced as a fully integrated part of life, rather than installing a few wind farms here and there and maybe a solar panel to heat your pool. Houses, buildings and moreso cities are going to have to become much better designed. Efficient public transport is going to become a huge factor IMO, and in a lot of ways we're going to have to go backwards to go forwards. I believe that to fully realise (literally) the kind of efficiency we're going to need, we're going to have to go back to 19th century approaches of not doing anything half-arsed. Putting more buses on the road isn't the answer. Building train lines however, might be. Proper design on large scales (think whole cities) will become necessary to efficiently house, transport and generally accomodate our population. In some ways, communism works better for this kind of stuff because there's way less economic factors (namely privatisation and private development) to interfere with actually getting shit done.

[/rant]
So, does the fact that the Howard government allocated 80% of it's energy budget into coal and only 2% into renewable energy, that includes R&D, piss you off? It does me.
 

Cave Dweller

Eats Squid
S. said:
Somewhat on the topic... we were doing some stuff on "sustainable engineering" at uni yesterday, and the Kyoto protocol came up. According to numerous sources (I believe including CSIRO), the world is going to need much more extreme measures than Kyoto in place, within the next 50 years. I believe a large part of this is going to come from civil and social engineering rather than economic factors. Renewable energy etc is still SO expensive that to incorporate it, it has to be introduced as a fully integrated part of life, rather than installing a few wind farms here and there and maybe a solar panel to heat your pool. Houses, buildings and moreso cities are going to have to become much better designed. Efficient public transport is going to become a huge factor IMO, and in a lot of ways we're going to have to go backwards to go forwards. I believe that to fully realise (literally) the kind of efficiency we're going to need, we're going to have to go back to 19th century approaches of not doing anything half-arsed. Putting more buses on the road isn't the answer. Building train lines however, might be. Proper design on large scales (think whole cities) will become necessary to efficiently house, transport and generally accomodate our population. In some ways, communism works better for this kind of stuff because there's way less economic factors (namely privatisation and private development) to interfere with actually getting shit done.

[/rant]
I agree completely socket, but in general, people are way more worried about their mortgage, shares prices and the cost of oil for their cars then anything else, and cooperations are only interested in turning a quick buck whatever the cost.

I am really afraid that things are too late for the humen race. But not to worry, the earth will recover once we, the cancer of the earth, have been exterminated.
 

Cave Dweller

Eats Squid
johnny said:
So, does the fact that the Howard government allocated 80% of it's energy budget into coal and only 2% into renewable energy, that includes R&D, piss you off? It does me.
Yes, yes it does. I wonder how much the coal companies contribute to his election fund. What a fucking retard.

There is an old indian cree saying from the 1900's that sums all this up perfectly.

"It is only once the last tree has died, the last river poisoned or the last fish caught that man kind will realise he can not eat money".
 

Daver

Kung Fu Panda
Cave Dweller said:
johnny said:
So, does the fact that the Howard government allocated 80% of it's energy budget into coal and only 2% into renewable energy, that includes R&D, piss you off? It does me.
Yes, yes it does. I wonder how much the coal companies contribute to his election fund. What a fucking retard.

There is an old indian cree saying from the 1900's that sums all this up perfectly.

"It is only once the last tree has died, the last river poisoned or the last fish caught that man kind will realise he can not eat money".
I agree totally, but i'm more scared of what Labor will do... The greens are great to turn to in this area, but i can't see them being economically viable.
 

Carlin

Likes Bikes and Dirt
I'm voting Green 1, Liberal last.

And I am going to say: F--k the economy.

Some things are more important, and I don't just mean environmental policy, but international relations, health care, and education to name a few.
 

rhyno

Likes Dirt
greens for me too. some people on here think that if the greens get power (at some stage in the future) then all the mountain bike trails will be closed. that won't happen on a federal level, maybe if your local MP is green but not federal. Greens are all for more bike lanes on roads, i'm for that, as well as renewable energy, land conservation; all the good things in life.
 

bazza

look at me
most importantly if we get some greens in seats at least than there will be some pressure for the environment to be catered for. after all it is what makes us who we are. lets see how well our v8 450kw cars cope when we have no atmosphere and no oil......something drastic does need to be done. if i was 18 i would probably seek my independent, than greens. however i miss out on voting by a month.
 

Ryan

Radministrator
Labor in the lower house because it's the only realistic way to get rid of Johnny being that we're locked into what's effectively a 2 party system where a vote for a minor party is a wasted vote.

I'll vote Greens in the senate though, someone has to be there to keep the bastards honest and since the Dem's are so keen on self-destructing in the most public and humiliating way possible it looks like that someone will have to be the Greens.
 

S.

ex offender
johnny said:
So, does the fact that the Howard government allocated 80% of it's energy budget into coal and only 2% into renewable energy, that includes R&D, piss you off? It does me.
Nah, not really. I didn't know about it :D
 

S.

ex offender
rhyno said:
greens for me too. some people on here think that if the greens get power (at some stage in the future) then all the mountain bike trails will be closed. that won't happen on a federal level, maybe if your local MP is green but not federal. Greens are all for more bike lanes on roads, i'm for that, as well as renewable energy, land conservation; all the good things in life.
I'd like to get one thing straight: bike lanes are often simply a menace to traffic, especially if they're not planned properly. More does not necessarily = better. My local council (possibly THE dumbest people on earth) installed a few bike lanes recently. However, they managed to intelligently pick the steepest, hilliest NON-ARTERIAL roads to do it on. In other words, they've turned a number of formerly 4-lane roads (2 each way, in case you have different terminology) into 2 lane roads (because they have a parking lane as well as the bike lane, to take up a whole lane in total). Since you're not allowed to drive in the bike lane (well duh), motorists now have queues twice as long at the lights, get effectively double the traffic, etc etc, which simply clogs up the system. And because they put them on the most bike-unfriendly roads to begin with, you never even see cyclists on them anyway! I'd say I'm one of the more frequent cyclists around my area (and I have to ride in the direction of said roads quite often, to get to train stations) but believe me I go to great lengths to avoid having to ride along said roads. Simply pushing for a higher quota of bike lanes is a waste of time - bike PATHS are far more helpful IMO (except when you also get my local council building a bike path that heads into the city alongside the eastern freeway, then comes to a dead halt 5km from the end of the freeway... what the fuck WERE you thinking?!) because they don't clog traffic up even more. Personally I have no problem commuting on non-bike-lane'd roads, I quite enjoy the challenge of dodging traffic (seriously - bike paths are pretty boring).
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
S. said:
rhyno said:
greens for me too. some people on here think that if the greens get power (at some stage in the future) then all the mountain bike trails will be closed. that won't happen on a federal level, maybe if your local MP is green but not federal. Greens are all for more bike lanes on roads, i'm for that, as well as renewable energy, land conservation; all the good things in life.
I'd like to get one thing straight: bike lanes are often simply a menace to traffic, especially if they're not planned properly. More does not necessarily = better. My local council (possibly THE dumbest people on earth) installed a few bike lanes recently. However, they managed to intelligently pick the steepest, hilliest NON-ARTERIAL roads to do it on. In other words, they've turned a number of formerly 4-lane roads (2 each way, in case you have different terminology) into 2 lane roads (because they have a parking lane as well as the bike lane, to take up a whole lane in total). Since you're not allowed to drive in the bike lane (well duh), motorists now have queues twice as long at the lights, get effectively double the traffic, etc etc, which simply clogs up the system. And because they put them on the most bike-unfriendly roads to begin with, you never even see cyclists on them anyway! I'd say I'm one of the more frequent cyclists around my area (and I have to ride in the direction of said roads quite often, to get to train stations) but believe me I go to great lengths to avoid having to ride along said roads. Simply pushing for a higher quota of bike lanes is a waste of time - bike PATHS are far more helpful IMO (except when you also get my local council building a bike path that heads into the city alongside the eastern freeway, then comes to a dead halt 5km from the end of the freeway... what the fuck WERE you thinking?!) because they don't clog traffic up even more. Personally I have no problem commuting on non-bike-lane'd roads, I quite enjoy the challenge of dodging traffic (seriously - bike paths are pretty boring).
Amsterdam has the best bike lane/path deal I've ever seen. It's like a separate road for bikes altogether with lanes and all! It's so effecient and there doesn't seem to be many overweight people (best looking ladies in the world......after Helsinki :!: ). Ad hoc and random bike lanes are probably more dangerous than just sharing the road.
 
Top