The Australian politics thread

[Burgey]

Love this thread in election years.

early days yet, but are people decided yet as to how they'll vote. Obviously we have some very open minded guys here who'll probaby only decide in the booth on the day (howard, Steds, social, Burgey, looking at you), but quite a few of us arent rusted on either way. Would be interested to know what people think now and whether it changes.

At the moment i'm voting ALP federally and for the Libs in the Vic election. The Vic state gov needs to change. I think Rudd and Gillard have done well enough to deserve a second term, and are more credible on issues I'm interested in (cue choking splutters of ire from some) and the idea of Abbott and Joyce as the country's leaders frightens me.

Thanks for your call Matt...

Yes the federal Labor government have done a sterling job, keeping the perils of world-wide recession from Australia's doorstep, keeping interest rates low and unemployment and inflation at sustainable levels. Moreover, the wonderous social reforms carried out by Ruddy and La Jule so far are the best the country's had since the halcyon days of Bob and Paul. And of course, there's more to come - the big health care reform in the budget and the second round of education spending to name but two.

And yes, I agree, Abbott and Joyce are dangerous, not to mention Bronwyn, Kevin Andrews, and Sophie Mirabella to name a few. Their climate policy is a joke, they've abandoned the economy as a battleground and are so busy securing their base they've forgotten that elections are won in the middle ground.

So certainly, I think you're a very very bright fellow to be voting Labor federally. Let me send you and the Mrs out for dinner to some restaurant which neither you nor I would otherwise go within a bull's roar of, but they're sponsors of mine, so off you go.

Great to know you're listening.

I'm not Alan Jones...

[Craig]

If I were to vote in this election, I don't know where I stand as there are bits and pieces of both parties that I don't agree with. I don't see myself as that I'm 'working class' so therefore I have to vote Labor, nor do I consider my a Liberal man.

Yep that fence is starting to get uncomfortable.

[howardj]

Garrett's got to go over Batt-gate.

Joyce has got to go...because he just has to.

[Burgey]

Garrett's got to go over Batt-gate.

Joyce has got to go...because he just has to.

No way Garrett will go, not after the standards set in recent times.

I think, sadly, ministerial responsibility is virtually dead, unless you're caught with your hand in the till.

[James90]

Completely undecided at the moment. I don't necessarily like Abbott and think the Libs are shambles, but am completely opposed to the internet censorship legislation that I don't know I could vote for the ALP in conscience. Rudd is a ****, too.

The internet censor is something that if you disagree with you tend to take the media beat-up and false information that's floating around about it because it's convenient to the argument. I'm ideologically opposed to it so I was pleased when the list of banned websites was leaked and am very open to people saying that it's only being tested on small servers. The sad thing is that when you look deeper at expert opinion and the trial, the filter has actually been really well prepared and may actually not break the internet.

I've been told me a member of the parliamentary caucus that, "it's undoubtedly unpopular but it's not a vote changer at the next election. When the public goes looking for a reason to vote the ALP out, it'll come back as a reminder but it's not a big vote changer."

As someone who's exposed to the youth voter on a very regular basis, I couldn't disagree more. In fact I can see the ALP in the seat I live in (Ryan) making huge progress on the climate change debate but still losing the youth vote because Michael Johnson is harping on about censorship.

[James90]

Garrett's got to go over Batt-gate.

Joyce has got to go...because he just has to.

Yep. Anyone who gives anyone money to successfully stimulate the economy and create jobs is instantly responsible when someone breaks the rules.

I am far more concerned about the singles who are now able to have surrogate children. It's hard enough being brought up in a single parent home, but for a parent to willingly do that to their child is cruel.

Yeah. I can just see singles lining up to have a child that they know they won't be able to care for. And it'll just get the stamp of approval straight away.

Anna Bligh's far left agenda shall surely come to an end at the next state election. But damn that seems like a long time away.

Mmm...privatising the rail and the ports, refusing to decriminalise abortion even after a woman is being prosecuted and increasing the price of public transport. What a crazy lefty.

Love this thread in election years.

early days yet, but are people decided yet as to how they'll vote. Obviously we have some very open minded guys here who'll probaby only decide in the booth on the day (howard, Steds, social, Burgey, looking at you), but quite a few of us arent rusted on either way. Would be interested to know what people think now and whether it changes.

At the moment i'm voting ALP federally and for the Libs in the Vic election. The Vic state gov needs to change. I think Rudd and Gillard have done well enough to deserve a second term, and are more credible on issues I'm interested in (cue choking splutters of ire from some) and the idea of Abbott and Joyce as the country's leaders frightens me.

You're kidding right? Tell me one good policy that Ted Baillieu has had.

[Mr Casson]

Politics has made you cynical Stedders.

[James90]

Spending 75% of your day answering phone calls from racists and climate change deniers will do that to you.

Seeing both Rudd and Abbott get media time also makes me lose faith in democracy. WE WANT GOUGH!

[Mr Casson]

Spending 75% of your day answering phone calls from racists and climate change deniers will do that to you.

Any chance of a job outside of Queensland then?

[James90]

Some of them—heterosexual couples who are either
de facto or married—may have been trying to have children for some time and for a medical or genetic
reason they cannot have a child and they might not be able to adopt a child. That is a very clear medical
reason for that situation to happen. However, now it is a broad social qualification as well for those
people who, because of lifestyle, would not normally expect to have a child. With this legislation, they
can say, ‘Okay, we’re going to do that.’ We have basically now got designer families.

Lawrence Springborn (LNP)

Under the Family (Surrogacy) Bill 2009 put forward by the LNP, it would be illegal for homosexual
couples and singles to go through this program. We make that point very, very clear. It is not our right to
put a child in that situation. How dare we use our position in this chamber to bring in a law to allow that
to happen? It disgusts me.

Ray Hopper (LNP)

Gay people may make a choice about their sexual preference and lifestyle. Children rely on us to
make choices for them. That is the whole gist of this: children rely on us to make choices for them.

Ray Hopper (LNP)

And that was only the first two speakers.

[vic_orthdox]

Brumby is a sniff of being outed Kennett-style at the election.

[Mr Casson]

I can't see much wrong with what Hopper said - whether or not you like what he says I don't think his argument is worthy of discarding altogether, so picking a couple of soundbytes that make him sound like an autocrat is probably going overboard.

Although I have to confess to being somewhat amused by that quote from Springborg. 'Those people who, because of lifestyle, would not normally expect to have a child' makes it sound like there are gay people out there who accidentally have babies.

[Mr Casson]

Brumby is a sniff of being outed Kennett-style at the election.

Really? I didn't know Kennett was gay. Seems an odd time to bring it up as well, what with this debate over surrogacy laws.

[James90]

How dare we legislate to say who can or cannot raise a child solely based on their sexuality or marital status.

Also. Many queer people kill themselves because they're not accepted by wider society and are disowned by their families. Do you honestly think someone would "choose" to do that?

[Mr Casson]

How dare we legislate to say who can or cannot raise a child solely based on their sexuality or marital status.

I'm just saying it might not be as simple as you make it sound, and using an emotive way of speaking to get your point across really doesn't make it any more substantive.