Why should I vote?

[Cypher]

Boat ppl are an issue because they entering our nation illegally. So really that was a silly question. The question you should have asked is whether or not we should grant a larger proportion of our immigration intake to refugees? This question is contentious and a difficult moral question at that - because at the end of the day, dont we as Australian citizens want to be inviting "quality/skilled" people into our nation who will contribute more money in the form of TAX so that we can build an even STRONGER nation. Not these boat people, as you call them, who may be generalised as "lower-skilled/poor" people who will only create a burden to our society and become another welfare case.

Rider of Fast you need to do some research. Refugees can apply for asylum - regardless of the way they enter the country. There is no 'queue' for refugees as they are admitted in the humanitarian intake - not the immigration intake. Most boat people turn out to be valid refugees.

Yes, skilled migrants do solve a short-term skills shortage and in the short term contribute to tax. But there are two long term problems. We have a lot of people already in Australia who are not getting skilled, becuase business is not investing in training them. A lot of young people are missing out becuase business is looking for a quick and cheap fix (while unemployment is pretty low overall, youth unemployment is unacceptably high). With this process, we will always have a skills shortage.

Secondly a lot of migrants bring out their families, many of which do not contribute to the tax pool and put costs on our society. Becuase debt is a dirty word, various governments have not been investing in infrastructure to support this immigration.

Australia takes in a tiny amount of refugees, but a large amount of skilled migrants. I'd like to see Australia become more compassionate and take in more refugees and skill up youths to fill our skill shortages.

And if you think your vote is worthless or compulsory voting annoying look at those countries that do not have elections or fair elections. Our system may be expensive and personally annoying on the day, but still miles ahead of Myanmar, Zimbabwe and others. Your vote is a precious thing!

 

[Adrian]

I do have a job on 7.30 Report.

What's your point exactly?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


Anyway, separation of church and state is a very valid democratical argument.
Saying that Labor and Liberals are the same party is not.

LNP did not apologise
LNP did not sign Kyoto

The stance on immigration is different
The stance on workers rights is different
The stance on environmental policy is different. (although the outcome is the same thus far, with a total majority we'd be paying for CO2 by now)
The stance on economic management is different.
The stance on higher education and research is different.
The stance on investment in schooling, health and infrastructure is different.
The stance on separation of church and state is different (although the cuprits would not want to admit that)
The stance on medical procedures and medical legal rights is different.
Stance on development of culturally and environmentally sensitive areas is different.
Stance on taxation and tax breaks is different.
The stance on television and internet censorship is different.

Just to name a few.

Besides which there are many other valid political parties that are available to support and have a different viewpoint in parliament expressed during debates and introduction of legislation.

In my opinion, a null vote or a refusal to vote is a declaration of detachment from Australian society and its' democratic governmental system. If you believe in the secs parties policy, vote for them. If you believe in the gun party's policy, vote for them. If you believe in the white australia party, vote for them. And if you're an anarchist, burn something in your backyard and listen to the Sex pistols.

www.maps.google.com - search item: "Nauru".... You can't argue that thats not a pretty good reason to put them there... OH AND, not to mention we alraedy have an existing establishment there which is more than reparable.

And also not to mention that the best recognised asylum processing facilities were built onshore and offshore under Howard and that somewhere in the vicinity of 90% of people processed at Nauru ended up getting genuine asylum status and were moved quietly to the mainland while Howard was still in power...

 

[Arete]

If you are genuinely being persecuted (over 90% of boat arrivals are granted refugee status) and willing to risk your life to apply for asylum in Australia (SIEV X sank - 353 dead, 2007), do you really think that how and where we process you matters - if you even have a chance to work it out beforehand?

IMO process them as efficiently and quickly as possible so genuine refugees (being granted refugee status doesn't automatically get you an Australian visa - you may be resettled in another country) can get on with their lives and fraudluent refugees can be pissed off home and not given a bed at a cost of $2k a night to the Australian taxpayer.

 

[void]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3C1ua_RyX4

 

[Rider_of_Fast]

Ok @ Arete & Adrian.

Maybe the point should be to try and help these nations become "better" at a "grass-roots level" so that their people don't want to flee to seek asylum elsewhere. But then this has a tendency to be counter-productive and we are seen as neo-classical liberlisers (I think thats the term), trying to inflict our democracy upon others.

It just seems a smidgee unfair that tax-payers should look after the welfare of non-citizens (or potential future citizens; however u look at it) when we have enough dramas at home with our own people such as the evermore becoming extinct Indigenous peoples.

Anyway, Ive just pretty much left uni into FT work and tax is starting to hurt when used poorly - so thats where my frustrations are coming from. I hope thats fair enough.

 

[Arete]

Ok @ Arete & Adrian.

Maybe the point should be to try and help these nations become "better" at a "grass-roots level" so that their people don't want to flee to seek asylum elsewhere.

Have a look at the Abbott stance on foriegn aid (although he recently promised to match the ALP's promise of 0.5% of gross GDP - I don't believe either of them)

 

[gerg]

Ok @ Arete & Adrian.

Maybe the point should be to try and help these nations become "better" at a "grass-roots level" so that their people don't want to flee to seek asylum elsewhere. But then this has a tendency to be counter-productive and we are seen as neo-classical liberlisers (I think thats the term), trying to inflict our democracy upon others.

It just seems a smidgee unfair that tax-payers should look after the welfare of non-citizens (or potential future citizens; however u look at it) when we have enough dramas at home with our own people such as the evermore becoming extinct Indigenous peoples.

Anyway, Ive just pretty much left uni into FT work and tax is starting to hurt when used poorly - so thats where my frustrations are coming from. I hope thats fair enough.

So.... you are unhappy with the way our taxes are spent so rather than our taxes being wasted on 'boat people' you would prefer our taxes being spent on aid to foreign countries.

IMO half the reason LIB's have a good economic record is because they sell off all the Government owned assets. Lets not forget the mining boom either. IMO the way the economy operates has absolutely nothing to do with who is in power.

 

[Rider_of_Fast]

IMO the way the economy operates has absolutely nothing to do with who is in power.

No thats not true. Surely it does. Its like in the share market, a company which has a large market cap makes a decisive move of sorts (buy, sell, hold etc) it impacts all the other players in that industry and if it is of such large size it will impact on other (indirect) industries/sectors also.

Similarly, this is how the govt impacts our economy. Being such a large player, if not the largest, if they make a wrong move (fiscally speaking), people who are in the industry (albeit the ecomony as a whole) in which they intrude with their policy are negatively effected. Take for example those companies who purchased large amounts of pink bats and were then left out of pocket due to the policy disaster that ensued from the home insulation scheme.

Why else are both key parties making such a BIG deal about being the better economic manager? Clearly they do have an impact on the way the economy operates...

 

[Cypher]

IMO the way the economy operates has absolutely nothing to do with who is in power.

Particular since government lost control at setting interest rates. Look at the experience the Americans had. Their governments set the interest rates and they kept them too low for too long. Bam! Now they are looking at a double dip recession.

Our government handed control to an independant board and we have had gentle tweaks since.

However governments do have an impact on economy. They set out major reforms (like our bank regulations, which kept our banks strong during the GFC) - that was labour by the way. The stimulus package did have a beneficial effect on our economy - also labour. Governments also decide what infrastructure to spend on - or not. The Carr government (labour also) was infamous for not investing in new infrastructure, but paying of debt and getting that wonderful AAA rating. Who gives a F@#k about AAA ratings when it takes forever to get to work (no investment in public transport), the health system is shite and education/skills training is very wobbly? Look at what they have done to NSW.

So yes, governments can affect the economy through policy and they can get it right and wrong all at the same time. I dislike it when people say labour/liberal are bad economic managers, when clearly both parties have done some really good economic work, and some that is down right awful.

I think the only thing you could say is that a single platform party (like the sex party or the gun party) are likely to be poor economic managers. If there was an accountants/economist party well, that would be different.

 

[Knopey]

Hey why isn't Nick Xenophon running again as a senator for SA? Or is he under a party name now that I don't know.

edit: nope doesnt seem to be...

 

[MasterOfReality]

IMO half the reason LIB's have a good economic record is because they sell off all the Government owned assets. Lets not forget the mining boom either. IMO the way the economy operates has absolutely nothing to do with who is in power.

Actually....

Privatisation - this is the ALP's baby. After all they are the party that sold Qantas, ANL, CSL and Commonwealth Bank. Even their state ALP counterparts are keen to get on the bandwagon. Just about everything up here in QLD is up for sale and remember NSW and their electricity debacle?

What about the mining boom? It started in 2005, really took off in 2006 and Howard was booted in 2007. Its influence on the previous government's record is minimal.

 

[smeck]

................Yes, unbiased reporting by the ABC is always seen by the Liberal party and its followers as biased................

The ABC has been caught many times put a rather left tilt on it's reporting. If I recall something like 110 complaints were made to the watchdog by Howard's ministers and 27 or so were upheld. Those are figures from memory, thus not overly reliable, but there is a history on non-objective reporting that only gets more attention when the new ABC 24hr News channel plays a recorded show instead of crossing Live to an Abbott speech.

Granted Abbott probably had nothing to say, but neither did Gillard and she was broadcast live. The ABC are not the devil, but they're aren't angels either.

...........clip.............

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. People have long credited Keating's fire sales of public assets to Howard, the scary thing is even selling assets Keating couldn't produce a surplus. He made some world class reforms, but a capable economic manager he never was.

 

[gerg]

No thats not true. Surely it does. Its like in the share market, a company which has a large market cap makes a decisive move of sorts (buy, sell, hold etc) it impacts all the other players in that industry and if it is of such large size it will impact on other (indirect) industries/sectors also.

Similarly, this is how the govt impacts our economy. Being such a large player, if not the largest, if they make a wrong move (fiscally speaking), people who are in the industry (albeit the ecomony as a whole) in which they intrude with their policy are negatively effected. Take for example those companies who purchased large amounts of pink bats and were then left out of pocket due to the policy disaster that ensued from the home insulation scheme.

Why else are both key parties making such a BIG deal about being the better economic manager? Clearly they do have an impact on the way the economy operates...

This ^ is why talking politics is fraught with danger. You are telling me that my opinion is wrong... There's no right and wrong opinions just differences.

 

[RCOH]

The ABC has been caught many times put a rather left tilt on it's reporting. If I recall something like 110 complaints were made to the watchdog by Howard's ministers and 27 or so were upheld. Those are figures from memory, thus not overly reliable, but there is a history on non-objective reporting that only gets more attention when the new ABC 24hr News channel plays a recorded show instead of crossing Live to an Abbott speech.

Granted Abbott probably had nothing to say, but neither did Gillard and she was broadcast live. The ABC are not the devil, but they're aren't angels either.

.

You may call me bias, but it was 17 complaints upheld from 68, and it was over the ABC's reporting of the Iraq war/invasion in 2003 . All 68 complaints were made by former Liberal communications minister Richard Alston.

And then there was this independent finding, that ABC was actually bias towards the coalition:

http://www.theage.com.au/business/study-finds-abc-bias-leans-towards-coalition-20090902-f8gm.html

 

[muskimo]

i may have missed it trying to speed read through the 6pages, (it was quick to get 6 pages already) anyways, in other countries people kill, bomb, riot, do all kinds of colorful funky stuff to have the ability/ option to vote, im only young and am delited to have that option, to have a say in where the country heads.

Yes it does get a bit much they promise the world and deliver budgy smugglers or rangas, and even tree huggers, (just to name the front runners). though its as simple as vote for the one that works best for your situation, ie; if your like me and work an emense amount of hours and are sick of getting a kick in the face from the tax department stealing 600+ dollars just because your the HARD worker or greedy worker, your choice, then might be an option of looking at labour that wants to make over time tax free. (im not saying i vote labour either, though anything to keep one particular party out is fine)

or if you dont like boat people vote liberal. thought i feel he is taking it a little far. but hey his the front man for them.

any way vote for what you feel works best for you.

and remember the CEC is another option too.

 

[smeck]

You may call me bias, but it was 17 complaints upheld from 68, and it was over the ABC's reporting of the Iraq war/invasion in 2003 ..............

I'll happily stand corrected.

Honestly I'm not overly concerned either way. The ABC is to the Right what News Limited is to the Left, something to demonise be it right or wrong. My dissappointment is that these days journalists are more interested in the headline than the story. You can see the enthusiasm or the aggression in many news presenters when they interview certain people or discuss certain topics. I'm not accusing the ABC of predetermined political bias, but it does appear to be an organisation staffed by people with left wing virtues in key positions and often strong Labor ties, Kerry O'Brien, Maxine McKew, Claire Martin, Bob Carr, Barrie Cassidy to name a few. Virginia Trolli probably doesn't help your cause.

 

[Rider_of_Fast]

My dissappointment is that these days journalists are more interested in the headline than the story. You can see the enthusiasm or the aggression in many news presenters when they interview certain people or discuss certain topics. I'm not accusing the ABC of predetermined political bias, but it does appear to be an organisation staffed by people with left wing virtues in key positions and often strong Labor ties, Kerry O'Brien, Maxine McKew, Claire Martin, Bob Carr, Barrie Cassidy to name a few. Virginia Trolli probably doesn't help your cause.

It is a sad state of affairs.

 

[RCOH]

I'll happily stand corrected.

Honestly I'm not overly concerned either way. The ABC is to the Right what News Limited is to the Left, something to demonise be it right or wrong. My dissappointment is that these days journalists are more interested in the headline than the story. You can see the enthusiasm or the aggression in many news presenters when they interview certain people or discuss certain topics. I'm not accusing the ABC of predetermined political bias, but it does appear to be an organisation staffed by people with left wing virtues in key positions and often strong Labor ties, Kerry O'Brien, Maxine McKew, Claire Martin, Bob Carr, Barrie Cassidy to name a few. Virginia Trolli probably doesn't help your cause.

I am not overly concerned either...and by all accounts Virginia Trioli is a.....not too nice of a person.

 

[RCOH]

It is a sad state of affairs.

I don't really want to go into it too much, as I have actual work to do( sabotaging the election for Abbott, don't tell anyone), but the amount of checking ABC journos & producers have to put their stories through in order to quell any possibility of bias accusations is quite substantial.

 

[Purt]

I don't understand what you are so afraid of... you seem to be too captivated by the spin of not only the ALP but what you see and hear in the media. You should get a job with Kerry on 7:30 Report!

TA said in the National Press Club address today a very valid point, it was something along the lines of... "If the incumbent govt saw itself as a successful leading party worth keeping in power, then why did it axe its elected leader KRudd just before fresh elections?"... This statement among others, surely puts forward a very valid point for the public to sack Gillard & Co.

Again, it comes back to the fear-mongering among us who cry out all this bull shit about TA being a religious anti-gay radical fanatic, but c'mon people, in the 3 years that ALP has been in power have they legislated gay marriage? NO. Will they in the coming 3 years if elected? NO. Whats the diff between the 2.

At the end of the day, there is NOT ALL THAT MUCH DIFFERENCE between the ALP and LNP - the difference lies in the success rate of 1 party (namely; LNP - based on past performance ie. A+ score card for 11 yrs in power) as opposed to a hopeless and useless lot of people who talk a lot and don't act on any thing in any way (namely; ALP - home insulation = FAIL, ETS = FAIL, Gillard Halls = FAIL, Bridge the Gap = FAIL, Grocery & Fuel Watch = FAIL ......Ive got more but this is already bringing me to tears).

So, to tie this back in with the question: "Why should I vote?"

Answer: Simple - To get the FAILURES out!

Ps. Remember voting Greens isn't good enough (they give their preferences to Labor so that means a Greens vote is as good as a Labor vote).

For those who have no idea on politics, don't just vote Labor because the bias media of Australia seems to back them all the time - please if you have no interest/idea or scope of Australian politics put in a DONKEY VOTE!!! (just tick your name off at the polling booth and put in a blank form)... old Latho actually had a good point here!

First thing I would do if I were elected - I'd turn Australia into a true democracy and make it non-compulsory to vote! Surely thats what a true democracy is about.

Oh wow, hypocrite much.