What influences your vote...?

[HappyHammer]

DISCLAIMER: I understand politics is not to be discussed and I'm not asking for political preferences just what influences the way people vote which is more of a human nature question.


I just read this in the SMH and I thought it was interesting and wondered what influenced the way people vote.


"Voters don't experience the economy in terms of national indicators or treasury statistics," he says.
Good point. The figures politicians, economists and commentators quote to summarise the state of the macro economy - figures for economic growth, unemployment, inflation and real wage growth - don't mean much to most people. They judge the state of the economy by the state of their own affairs.
And here's another good point. Luntz says voters "see the economy through the lens of cost of living: how much it costs to own a home, rent an apartment, buy groceries and fill up at the petrol station".

I must admit that for me it has generally been whats likely to be in my best interest financially, lower income tax, employment opportunities. Since moving to the country my perspective hasn't changed but my focus is less on having more and more on the security of what I have due to living in a smaller community with less opportunities than the big smoke.

HH.

[Gingermick]

My years spent being an exploited dole buldger.

[bitingmidge]

Kevin07 knows only too well.

That's how he's going to reduce greenhouse gases by reducing the amount of fossil fuel we use, AND make petrol cheaper!

I'll vote for whoever Mel and Kochie reckon are OK.

P
:wink:

[BazzaDLB]

I'll vote along party lines for the one who best provide for the future of our past and serving veterans.

Strange how the second major party has now committed to index T&PI and other veteran 'entitlements' to the higher of CPI or MTAWE after the first party committed to doing it.

Up until now they would not have a bar of it - I guess they need our vote after all!!!

[Sebastiaan56]

I'll vote for the one that is going to do the least damage. The one that will use the military responsibly (not for an oil grab), that will look after environment and endangered species, that looks further out than one electoral cycle and doesnt rely on spin but responsible policy.

When I find a party like that I'll let you know, until then "expletive deleted" will appear on my ballot

[pawnhead]

There's only two things that are certain (death and taxes), and there are only two things that you have to do in this country. Vote, and fill out a census. You don't even have to pay taxes if you live as a hermit in a cave eating witchetty grubs.

I can see the reasoning behind a census, but you shouldn't have to vote if you don't want to. If you don't care enough to, then the people who do care carry more influence which is the way that it should be.

It's true, especially in my case, that your vote makes no difference. I'm in a blue ribbon Liberal seat and I'm damned if I'm going to waste my time going to the polls. I'm tempted to write on my letter of explanation that I just couldn't be bothered, but I don't want a fine, so I'll just make up some BS like I always do.

Call me a deadbeat if you want. :q

I suspect that this will be a long thread.

[SPIRIT]

someone that will keep us out of wars
spend real money teaching our kid and looking after our old

[Rossluck]

I'll vote for the one that is going to do the least damage. The one that will use the military responsibly (not for an oil grab), that will look after environment and endangered species, that looks further out than one electoral cycle and doesnt rely on spin but responsible policy.

When I find a party like that I'll let you know, until then "expletive deleted" will appear on my ballot


Sebastiaan, I want what you're smoking. I agree, but we are stuck with a two party system, so you should maybe look to the Greens and then trust that they'll send the preferences the right way.

What I'm influenced by, in addition to what Sebastiaan said, is that the party I'm voting for doesn't have the "born to rule" private school boys club mentality. (damn, now I've gone too far, sorry):wink:.You did.

[Andy Mac]

I'll vote for the one without a proven track record of lying, deceit, broken promises and general political manouvering.

[bitingmidge]

I'll vote for the one without a proven track record of lying, deceit, broken promises and general political manouvering.

I'm not a member of the CWA, so I don't have to vote.

P
:D:D:D

[fred.n]

first party to hand me some polictical carp, dosen't get my vote
it then goes in decending order till I get in the door!
whoevers left......wins

[Big Shed]

I'll vote for the one without a proven track record of lying, deceit, broken promises and general political manouvering.

So you're not voting this year then?:no:

[Baz]

Don't vote! it only encourages the bastards.
Cheers
Barry

[Andy Mac]

So you're not voting this year then?:no:

Prolly right there, just some folk just seem to think they can do it all so blatantly and we don't realise or care or something. ...

[Brown Dog]

It's true, especially in my case, that your vote makes no difference. I'm in a blue ribbon Liberal seat and I'm damned if I'm going to waste my time going to the polls.


Im in the same situation as Pawnhead....my vote means stuff all. I live in a seat that requires one of the largest swings in the state to change the sitting member.

But seeing as I have to vote...I always follow a piece of advice my old man (who worked with politicians face to face every day until he retired) gave me.....always vote for the party in opposition :D.

cheers
BD:rolleyes:

[Toolin Around]

There's only two things that are certain (death and taxes), and there are only two things that you have to do in this country. Vote, and fill out a census. You don't even have to pay taxes if you live as a hermit in a cave eating witchetty grubs.

I can see the reasoning behind a census, but you shouldn't have to vote if you don't want to. If you don't care enough to, then the people who do care carry more influence which is the way that it should be.

It's true, especially in my case, that your vote makes no difference. I'm in a blue ribbon Liberal seat and I'm damned if I'm going to waste my time going to the polls. I'm tempted to write on my letter of explanation that I just couldn't be bothered, but I don't want a fine, so I'll just make up some BS like I always do.

Call me a deadbeat if you want. :q

I suspect that this will be a long thread.

For me there's only one thing I have to do - I'm not allowed to vote.

[DavidG]

Who ever I think will do the least damage. :~

[Sebastiaan56]

Im in the same situation as Pawnhead....my vote means stuff all. I live in a seat that requires one of the largest swings in the state to change the sitting member.

But seeing as I have to vote...I always follow a piece of advice my old man (who worked with politicians face to face every day until he retired) gave me.....always vote for the party in opposition :D.

cheers
BD:rolleyes:

Ive had similar advice in the past, if you are in a marginal seat vote for whomever you want, if you are in a safe seat vote against the sitting member. That way more seats will become marginal and hopefully we will get their attention.

[Honorary Bloke]

Not to stir a possum, but I simply cannot understand mandatory voting. It strikes me as absolutely ludicrous. At least here the people who don't give a toss don't influence the outcome. :?

[HappyHammer]

Not to stir a possum, but I simply cannot understand mandatory voting. It strikes me as absolutely ludicrous. At least here the people who don't give a toss don't influence the outcome. :?
I think it's good 'cause no-one can bitch and moan they didn't have thier say at the ballot box. It also makes some, not all, think about it rather than sit on their fat butts and do nothing.

I think a compulsory vote in the US would throw up some interesting outcomes like a female or black president.

HH.

[Gra]

Not to stir a possum, but I simply cannot understand mandatory voting. It strikes me as absolutely ludicrous. At least here the people who don't give a toss don't influence the outcome. :?


I think it's good 'cause no-one can bitch and moan they didn't have thier say at the ballot box. It also makes some, not all, think about it rather than sit on their fat butts and do nothing.

I think a compulsory vote in the US would throw up some interesting outcomes like a female or black president.

HH.

Not voting is their say at the ballot box, Though I will say it isnt compulsory voting. It is compulsory attendance to a polling booth. once you have had your name marked off the roll you can legally proceed to the ballot boxes and insert the blank voting sheet into the ballot box.

[Big Shed]

Not to stir a possum, but I simply cannot understand mandatory voting. It strikes me as absolutely ludicrous. At least here the people who don't give a toss don't influence the outcome. :?

It also does away with the "ferrying" system, here the parties don't have to transport reluctant and/or unwilling voters to the polling booth.

Having only willing/interested voters doesn't necessarily ensure that an intelligent leader is elected, your fearless leader just attended an OPEC meeting in Austria:2tsup:

[Waldo]

G'day,

A strong history of economic management - only only party offers that :2tsup: , the other yobbos had my folks paying 19% on their home loan. :((

If the economy is in the right hands everything else follows after that.

[Ashore]

I live in proberly the only seat to have always voted labour, :(( we have never had any other federal member and as such get stuff all , one mob know they are going to get in and the other mob know they wont .
So in the house of reps always vote against them hoping one day we will be a swinging seat :cool:
In the senate I go for who I feel will do the best job for Australia :2tsup:

[johnc]

We are similar to ashore in a rock solid NP/Lib electorate with the NP holding the federal seat for decades. You've got to wonder if we put a labor bloke in for a term how it would effect funding of the region next time round.

Waldo don't get to excited about interest rates they ended up being broken as a result of the 19% cracking the inflation nut, not by anything the current lot did. We also have a massive current account deficit and have undergone a period of housing inflation both of which put structural weaknesses into the economy. These can't be slated to one party and are not really on the radar at the moment, and wont be while we remain in a resources boom.

My vote will be to the party with some vision to the future on global warming and some plan to reduce our current account problems which means less consumption of overseas goods and more home grown production. A bit more honesty and a lot less spin would go down well also.

John

[Ashore]

A bit more honesty and a lot less spin would go down well also.

John
From politions " tell him he dreaming"
:D

[Waldo]

We also have a massive current account deficit and have undergone a period of housing inflation both of which put structural weaknesses into the economy. John

G'day John,

But we've paid off the inherited national debt from business reports that I've seen, it's the states that still have us in debt - Victoria being the worst. Housing, well that's not a political responsibility of either of the two major parties - unless you include stamp duty - which is a state thing.

[Gra]

Housing, well that's not a political responsibility of either of the two major parties - unless you include stamp duty - which is a state thing.

Unless their policies have caused the housing inflation, then it is their responsibility. The problem is the solution would be political suicide, so no-one will ever do it

[woodbe]

some vision to the future on global warming and
some plan to reduce our current account problems which means
less consumption of overseas goods and more home grown production.
A bit more honesty and a lot less spin would go down well also.
John

Well, you won't be voting for either of the major parties then!

Hate to say it, but I vote for the party I hate the least, and I often vote for an outsider who might be prepared to make a stand, but they hardly ever get up.

woodbe.

[q9]

the other yobbos had my folks paying 19% on their home loan. :((


Is that actually better or worse now? You need to remember that back then, the average loan was a lot less money - so to achieve the same effect, then interest rates had to be higher. They don't need to rise that high any more to have quite massive impacts on repayments.

To illustrate - 19% of $100,000 is $19,000

7.8% of $250,000 is $19,500

Yes, inflation and wage growth complicates things a bit, but you'd have to agree, focusing on the rate alone is rather pointless.

[Sebastiaan56]

G'day John,

But we've paid off the inherited national debt from business reports that I've seen, it's the states that still have us in debt - Victoria being the worst. Housing, well that's not a political responsibility of either of the two major parties - unless you include stamp duty - which is a state thing.

And the States are down on revenue, 8% PA from memory, ANU did a study. Makes them all the more vunerable and reliant on gaming taxes. Also sitting on a 13bil surplus is theft as far as I can tell. The Aus economy is only strong because of commodity prices, any government could manage that.

The national debt has been transferred into personal debt, while the surplus grows to embarrassing proportions, go figure.... nah these guys are crooks. Their super is OK, but ask any pensioner or war vet about the economy.

[Poppa]

There are three main issues that are influencing my vote this year:

1. Iraq. Can't cop the fawning attitude that we've adopted to the US in this war. I hate it, awful. Really affects me.

2. Work Choices. I believe that small businesses needed some changes to legislation, but I believe that the Work Choices legislation is several steps too far, and will lead to (has lead to) the abuse of workers by employers and a surge in the strength of unions as the workers realise that this legislation leaves them so exposed.

3. The tax system. Costello has been in charge of the tax system for a long time now, and it is steadily getting more complicated and convoluted rather than less. Some of the changes to the super laws are a big step in the right direction, but way too little and way too late for my money.

So guess which way I'm not voting!

[Clinton1]

The ABC's Boyer (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/boyerlectures/default.htm) lectures might help in understanding "the recession we had to have", and in particular to put it into perspective and to see the the 'mechanics' of both the recession and the responses to it.

There's a lot more to it than Labour getting us into it and the Liberals getting us out.... in fact my statement is simplistic and just plain wrong, as wrong as suggesting that the Libs are responsible for the current strength in the Australian economy.

What influences my vote? I mostly give a kickin the ????? dependant on who deserves it most, as there seems very little to reward.

[Sturdee]

My choice is very simple. My local member is Kevin Andrews.

I hate what he has done in overturning NT laws on euthanasia, what he has done to Centrelink whilst he was minister for that portfolio, the creation of workchoices and how that has destroyed many safeguards workers had and the latest debacle as immigration minister.

Hence my vote is against him. If that means the Howard government goes so much the better.


Peter.

[johnc]

Well said by Peter couldn't agree more. The argument over who has the most debt is a political one. Canberra has indeed paid off all debt, in part no doubt helped by flogging off assets and strong tax revenues. As a share of total tax take Canberra has been increasing its percentage over the states. It should not be forgotten that the states handed over their right to the feds to levy income taxes in the 1940's and in return received a share of the total tax take. In the years before GST this led to some states subsidising others, allowing smaller states to survive. Come GST Canberra cunningly decided the states would pick up GST revenues and this now means Canberra is sitting on a higher percentage of the tax take and effectively starving the states. Part of the GST deal was for the states to abolish some taxes, although the ones sent to the bin was for the greater good it has left the states with a smaller tax base.

In one way debt is not a bad thing if it is used on infrastructure projects building up the country and it could be argued that at a Federal level we have become lazy and are not investing in the country.

However we have borrowed heavily from overseas to fund our ballooning housing prices and economic growth, but it is the private sector that has taken on the debt. If we have a period of housing deflation and higher interest rates we will find our wonderfully managed economy has developed some major structural weaknesses in terms of household exposure to debt and interest rates and that has a direct effect on economic growth. A certain amount of our growth is coming from the metals boom and some from heavy borrowings it would be wrong to think however we are being well managed on the basis that the current ratbags can balance the books. Anyone should be able to do that in times like these.

John.

[Shedgirl]

Eyebrows.

[Ashore]

In one way debt is not a bad thing if it is used on infrastructure projects building up the country .

Just remember Gough , and who gets the commission on the loan :cool:

[Sebastiaan56]

Just remember Gough , and who gets the commission on the loan :cool:

Remember Menzies, remember Fraser. These parties bear little resemblance to their political forebears. They turn members and policies continuously in the battle to get in or stay in. The liberalism of Fraser is very different to that of Howard. Im sure that applies to the other mob as well. They will do what the polling tels them will win the most votes, just watch the backflips on both sides. Neither has an idealogical base anymore.

Makes smaller perties much more appealling as at least you know what you are voting for.

[johnc]

Just remember Gough , and who gets the commission on the loan :cool:

Also remember no one got the commission because the loan did not go ahead, and Gough ended up with egg all over his face.

[TEEJAY]

What influences my vote?

Track record, and a good memory of the past with either in power.

[Big Shed]

Makes smaller perties much more appealling as at least you know what you are voting for.




To do that we need proportional representation, not the anachronistic system inherited from the Poms, based on electorates. What is the sense of electorates, the elected member doesn't represent his/her electorate anyway, only votes the party line.

One vote, one value I say.

I have lived in electorates where you can run a donkey and it will get elected, first in a very safe liberal seat, now in a very safe labor seat.

Any system that results in a government getting elected with less than 50% of the vote is broke.

If it can be done for the senate, not quite proportional but at least per state it is, then it can be done for the lower house.

Phew, got that off my chest:rolleyes:

[Gra]

What influences my vote?

Track record, and a good memory of the past with either in power.

So your voting informal then :U

[Ashore]

Remember Menzies, remember Fraser. These parties bear little resemblance to their political forebears. They turn members and policies continuously in the battle to get in or stay in. The liberalism of Fraser is very different to that of Howard. Im sure that applies to the other mob as well. They will do what the polling tels them will win the most votes, just watch the backflips on both sides. Neither has an idealogical base anymore.

Makes smaller perties much more appealling as at least you know what you are voting for.

Was not trying top just point at labour rather to comment on John's comment that foriegn debt can be a good thing, where I agree infrastructure projects are good, but the way we fund is needs close scrutiny espically if someone is getting a backhander regardless of there political party. :D

[Glen]

THe first party to put in set terms of government and put a stop to all this phony campaining that goes on, with us having to wait for the current PM to decide when its most advantagous for their party to go to the polls would be a good start.

[Sebastiaan56]

Was not trying top just point at labour rather to comment on John's comment that foriegn debt can be a good thing, where I agree infrastructure projects are good, but the way we fund is needs close scrutiny espically if someone is getting a backhander regardless of there political party. :D

Quite agree, none of them are squeaky clean, and corruption is corruption, and war crimes are war crimes. My issue is the market research driven policies of the twin L's, they are so close on most things that the only difference is the age of the leaders, Johnys baggage and what ever dirt can be dug up and thrown at Kev. Doesnt make the muster for semi intelligent debate on where Aus should be going. Aus politics is a policy free zone in most cases. Get rid of Dorothy Dixers for a start.

I agree with Shed, one vote one value, put the twin L's back in their hole's. I wont vote informal (waste of a precious opinion) but will make a few comments on the ballot. I understand all non offensive ballot comments have to be recorded.

Maybe we need a woodworkers interest party, there would be enough members here and other various forums to get the membership, ally with some wacko's and provide a forumite with a pension befitting the interest.

[pawnhead]

Quite agree, none of them are squeaky clean, I reckon both the major parties are guilty of screwing over (http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/cartoons/new/2004-07-31%20Timor%20Sea%20Gas%20Treaty%20smell%20unpublished%20450272.JPG) East Timor. :((

[rod@plasterbrok]

Economic management.

My belief is that if the economy is well managed the effects will flow through to every other aspect of life.

A badly managed economy ala Whitlam, destroys any ability to provide real benefits to society.

Another key aspect for me is employment. Small businesses need to be able to employ people that fit in well with their staff. One bad egg that cant be dismissed can destroy a small business. Unfair dissmissal laws are critical to on going employment in the small business arena.

I lost a million dollar business simply because I could not fire anybody in the 80's when we lost a case in the disputes board without them even hearing the evidence. The rouge elements that we were forced to employ by the Unions simply did no work! Knowing full well we could do nothing about it. I may as well have shoved $90,000 a week down the drain.

Any one who has been on the recieving end of this type of union thuggery will know exactly what I mean.

This leaves a sour taste in your mouth for life.

[Ashore]

but will make a few comments on the ballot. I understand all non offensive ballot comments have to be recorded.


Sorry mate but any marks other than the ticks or numbers asked for make the balot paper scrap ring you local electrol office and ask if you are still unsure :2tsup:

[astrid]

So after an age of small, insular, me focused politics some bods want to know where we're going?
come back paul all is forgiven!

astrid

[masoth]

All dogs can bite - I think I'll vote for the one with the bluntest teeth.:((

The intentional informal Voters and those who don't vote, who I know, annoy the P out of me - they whinge about every decision made by any level of government then claim no responsibity. Hypocrisy.

soth

[Frank&Earnest]

To do that we need proportional representation, not the anachronistic system inherited from the Poms, based on electorates. What is the sense of electorates, the elected member doesn't represent his/her electorate anyway, only votes the party line.

One vote, one value I say.

I have lived in electorates where you can run a donkey and it will get elected, first in a very safe liberal seat, now in a very safe labor seat.

Any system that results in a government getting elected with less than 50% of the vote is broke.

If it can be done for the senate, not quite proportional but at least per state it is, then it can be done for the lower house.

Phew, got that off my chest:rolleyes:

My sentiments entirely. With a proviso: there has to be a mechanism to simplify the result by rolling up the votes given to parties that do not reach a cut off point, e.g. 5%, otherwise every government is to be made by a coalition of parties very likely to stay together or break apart on the basis of negotiated paybacks. Look at Italy to see the other side of the coin.
Until that happens, I agree with all those who said that the most intelligent thing to do is to vote against the sitting member, especially so in safe seats.

[Frank&Earnest]

[quote=Sebastiaan56;588777]
I wont vote informal (waste of a precious opinion) but will make a few comments on the ballot. I understand all non offensive ballot comments have to be recorded.

quote]

Could you please confirm this? I was under the impression that any comments invalidate the vote.

[masoth]

[quote=Sebastiaan56;588777]
I wont vote informal (waste of a precious opinion) but will make a few comments on the ballot. I understand all non offensive ballot comments have to be recorded.

quote]

Could you please confirm this? I was under the impression that any comments invalidate the vote.


F&E - ANY and ALL marks, other than numbering, makes the Ballot Paper invalid. Of this I'm 99% certain.

soth

[Big Shed]

My sentiments entirely. With a proviso: there has to be a mechanism to simplify the result by rolling up the votes given to parties that do not reach a cut off point, e.g. 5%, otherwise every government is to be made by a coalition of parties very likely to stay together or break apart on the basis of negotiated paybacks. Look at Italy to see the other side of the coin.
Until that happens, I agree with all those who said that the most intelligent thing to do is to vote against the sitting member, especially so in safe seats.

F&E, only just saw your reply, have been away for a week or so (in your part of the world actually).
Whilst I don't disagree with your basic sentiment cut off points, 5% is a big ask. Remember that at present we can have members in the Senate that achieve a lot less of the overall vote. Brian Haradine springs to mind and the squilllions he was able to syphon of to Tasmania using simple blackmail techniques:(.
As for coalitions, there is nothing wrong with coalitions, we have one at present and we have had them before, where govts could not govern in their own right without independents or the Democrats etc. If you think about it, if one electorate returns an independent, happens all the time, then that member has achieved a lot less than 5% of the national vote.

Your example of Italy is a valid one, but there are likewise successful coalition govts, the Netherlands and Germany spring to mind.

With our current, very much outdated model, we can have a govt elected with less than 50% of the vote, I'd rather see a coalition where a wider cross-section of the population is represented.

Like I said before, if it can work for the Senate it can work for the lower house.

[woodbe]

I can't see the point of venting on the ballot paper. No-one is going to read it, and it invalidates the vote.

woodbe.

[masher]

http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/scrutineers_handbook/5formality_of_votes.htm

Formality checks

There are two tests for formality of ballot papers. These are:

whether the ballot paper is authentic and does not identify the voter; and
whether the voter has performed his or her duty in marking the ballot paper sufficiently well for it to be accepted. Authenticity tests

To be accepted as formal, a ballot paper:

must be authenticated by the official mark or the initials of the issuing officer, or must, in the opinion of the DRO, be an authentic ballot paper;
must not have any unauthorised writing on it that could identify the voter; and
must, in the case of a declaration vote (http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/scrutineers_handbook/glossary.htm#dv), have been enclosed in a declaration envelope. Acceptable numbering

(a whole lot of stuff about different numbering plans that are valid or invalid)

.


Reading that, it looks lik as long as your "unauthorised writing" cannot identify you, they can't invalidate your vote.

Whether or not they record your rantings/venting/opinion is another matter...

[Studley 2436]

Is that actually better or worse now? You need to remember that back then, the average loan was a lot less money - so to achieve the same effect, then interest rates had to be higher. They don't need to rise that high any more to have quite massive impacts on repayments.

To illustrate - 19% of $100,000 is $19,000

7.8% of $250,000 is $19,500

Yes, inflation and wage growth complicates things a bit, but you'd have to agree, focusing on the rate alone is rather pointless.

However you are comparing 1987 dollars to 2007 dollars. Due to inflation those old dollars are worth a lot more.

The housing boom in prices has got more to do with State Governments not releasing enough land. Demand is simply greater than supply. Federal Governments can't do that much about it.

Have to agree sort of with Honorary Bloke mandatory voting isn't all good for the system. You get the Donkey Vote as a result amongst other problems such as people who don't care and don't know either about the policies or the polliticians and will hinder the best one getting in.

Of course in places where there is optional voting the parties work really hard to get a message out there to inflame the populace into voting for them. I think in the US the Republicans used the Abortion laws as a means of getting their supporters out in a recent enough election. I don't think this is entirely good either. You could see people voting based on very minor and insignificant things and important things are overlooked. Very likely there isn't a very good sollution to the issue.

Something that bugs me a bit is the Media's huge influence. To succeed you have to be a real media bunny. Being a Journo yourself helps. Bob Carr was Mike Rann and Clare Martin too. Peter Beatie is a real media tart also. Kevin Rudd also is very good at producing the 5 second sound bite. This annoys me because I want more substance from our politicians.

Studley

[Frank&Earnest]

Brian Haradine springs to mind and the squilllions he was able to syphon of to Tasmania using simple blackmail techniques:(.

I think you made my point for me!:) To be fair, though, Harradine seems to have been a reasonably ethical person, for MP standards.




Your example of Italy is a valid one, but there are likewise successful coalition govts, the Netherlands and Germany spring to mind.


Again, you are supporting my point: Germany has the cutoff point I am talking about. This notwithstanding, they had a stalemate at the last election, and everybody was wondering if they were going the way of Italy.



Like I said before, if it can work for the Senate it can work for the lower house.
The Senate is muddled up by the non-proportionality of State representation. If you really want one person one vote, that would have to go also.

[Frank&Earnest]

[quote=masher;605539]
To be accepted as formal, a ballot paper:

must not have any unauthorised writing on it that could identify the voter;Reading that, it looks lik as long as your "unauthorised writing" cannot identify you, they can't invalidate your vote.

[quote]

Every booth official will cover their posterior by invalidating any handwriting on the basis that it could be recognised by somebody. Maybe you could try gluing words cut from newspapers....:D

[astrid]

have been a scrutineer for years
as long as your voting intention is clear your vote is valid
you dont even have to fill all the boxes
votes in doubt are refered to the booth captain who is trained by the electoral office

this is to prevent scrutineers nit picking when the results are close
anything seriously disputed in a close call is refereed to the electoral office
astrid

[HappyHammer]

Income tax reductions.....got me:B

HH.

[astrid]

just think of the money we could save if we didnt have to pay for privete medical, school books and general doc and dentist bills.
id save a lot more than 14 pw
put it into health and education and bugger a $14 tax cut.
this wont even pay for the fruit my son eats, at current prices.
this would really help the "battler" (My definition of which is those supporting there families on less than $50,00 pa, not those "Battling" to send kids to private schools:roll:) without lining the pockets of those with a much larger disposable income.
astrid

[HappyHammer]

just think of the money we could save if we didnt have to pay for privete medical, school books and general doc and dentist bills.
Yeah that would be nice but that will never happen under Kevin Blair because the income tax increases to pay for it would be too unpopular.:U

Sorry Astrid I have an aversion to income tax that's all, and the intention to reduce it rather than the likelihood of it increasing buys my vote.:B

HH.

[Ashore]

just think of the money we could save if we didnt have to pay for privete medical, school books and general doc and dentist bills.
id save a lot more than 14 pw
put it into health and education and bugger a $14 tax cut.
this wont even pay for the fruit my son eats, at current prices.
this would really help the "battler" (My definition of which is those supporting there families on less than $50,00 pa, not those "Battling" to send kids to private schools:roll:) without lining the pockets of those with a much larger disposable income.
astrid
I dont pay private medical
My doctor Bulk bills
And on my income I wont get anywear near $14 a week
Are there any families on $5000 pa :no:
Private schools include catholic schools and a lot of people with incomes under the national average send there kids there, imagine the chaos and cost if all private schools were closed tomorrow , how much would it then cost the tax payers to give all Australian kids an education,
Put the money into health and education in a perfect world maybe, but in our world it would just mean the states would reduce the amount they put in and there wouldn't be any overall improvement.:cool:

[Big Shed]

Private schools include catholic schools and a lot of people with incomes under the national average send there kids there, imagine the chaos and cost if all private schools were closed tomorrow , how much would it then cost the tax payers to give all Australian kids an education,
Put the money into health and education in a perfect world maybe, but in our world it would just mean the states would reduce the amount they put in and there wouldn't be any overall improvement.:cool:


Just to put that sort of money in perspective, it costs the Federal and State govts about twice as much to educate a child in a public school as it costs them in a private school, (roughly $10,000 vs $5000pa). So if the govt stops paying for children in private schools, 90% will finish up in the public system, thereby doubling the cost to the govt. People often forget that the parents that send their children to a private school effectively pay extra tax, voluntarily.

Mr Latham tried this sort of "class warfare" and didn't get too many votes out of it!

[astrid]

If you read my post, I didnt say anything about reduced funding to private schools.
I just suggested putting the dough into state schools and health.
and if your doc bulk bills your lucky.
and as you know full well I wasnt talking about the ordinary catholic school which I am well aware can cost as little as 400 per term
astrid

[Ashore]

If you read my post, I didnt say anything about reduced funding to private schools.
I just suggested putting the dough into state schools and health.
and if your doc bulk bills your lucky.
and as you know full well I wasnt talking about the ordinary catholic school which I am well aware can cost as little as 400 per term
astrid
And if you read my post i never suggested you said to reduce funding to private schools.
I was not aware you were not talking about catholic schools my point was that there are battlers who send their children to private schools and there are other battlers that send their kids not just catholic schools but other more expensive private schools , they go without just to give their kids an advantage they never had, , and though it may only be fruit money to you these promised tax cuts mean a great deal to them and to get back on topic may influnce their vote as it has HH.

[Gingermick]

No one is going to increase income tax.
Why have these buggers held onto all this money and decent policy till now? Why not 5 years ago

[RETIRED]

Keep to the topic.

[astrid]

what influences my vote
a party that sees further than the next 20 years
infastructure, climate change initiatives, investment into research,
good schools and education for everyone including especially the original settlers

astrid

[Frank&Earnest]

what influences my vote
a party that sees further than the next 20 years



I would be happy with one that sees further than the next 2 months. Or knows not only what needs to be done for the distant future but also what needs to be done today.

[HappyHammer]

especially the original settlers
Do you mean the aborigines? Just checking the era you're referring to... :U

HH.

[Sebastiaan56]

Well its a whole three days in and the intensive mud has begun. At this rate Im not going to vote for any of them. I know its supposed to be a winning tactic but I really resent my vote being demeaned by the use of personal attacks, scare tactics and bribes to buy me.

I am so glad we get community TV and Radio where I live. I dont have to allow them to force feed me lust for power.

[rod1949]

The one who will;
1. Bring our pay packet tax and fuel tax down to be the same as GST.
2. Utilise the hunderds of square kilometres of area that is currently being wasted and will assist in the reduction of greenhouse gas ie our house roofs with the installation of solar panels to generate electricty with the installation being at absolutly no cost to the house owner.

[silentC]

Tax cuts don't help anyone. All they do is drive interest rates up. I'd prefer they spent the money improving services. You know, the stuff governments are supposed to do for us.

Unfortunately what influences my vote is more a fear of what the other nutters will do if they get into power.

[munruben]

What influences my vote?
A government that doesn't give hand-outs to those in the community that don't want to, or wont work. A government that can make provisions for us to be able to use water like we use to and come up with a better solution to the water shortage than "install a water tank"
A government that looks to the future and not continuously blames previous governments for their own failings in governing the country. Today is today, lets solve the problems we have now and try to build a better country for the future not worry about where the past governments went wrong. It is so easy to be prudent in hindsight.
A government that gives us the incentive to work hard so we can all share in the benefits of this prosperous country.

[wheelinround]

What influences my vote?
A government that doesn't give hand-outs to those in the community that don't want to, or wont work.

I agree John so lets stop paying government employees this would help the economy heaps.

Nothing influences my vote but the counters of the votes who can't count helps.

[LotteBum]

What influences my vote?

A good balance between environmental and economic policies - not to mention ALL policies. It appears that most parties have one agenda - be it workers, businesses, families or environment. What's wrong with balanced politics?

Whilst I like the economic management by Howard & Costello, they barely have any environmental policy and this really needs to come into play whilst we have such a strong economy. I'm a climate change skeptic, but I don't like pollution and something needs to be done ASAP.

A government that, rather than give handouts to farmers, gave them incentives to steer their business in an alternative direction, would gain huge credibility in my opinion. 99% of Australian land is not suitable for farming, and never has been, thus those currently farming much of this land should be encouraged to partake in a diversity of sustainable ventures, with some government assistance, for example. Renewable energy, carbon trading schemes (ie. Tree planting), not to mention more sustainable crops such as perhaps bamboo or hemp, and I'm sure there are many others. Further to this, export of our produce is at disgusting levels, given the state of our overfarmed, overused land. This really needs to be capped - live export in particular. Once again, I'm not saying that farmers should be asked to fork out for all of this, and educate themselves. I'm saying that the government should stop giving them handouts and rather invest in the long term viability of 'working the land' in this barren country.

Further to this, I am of the opinion that families get screwed quite a bit. Daycare, for what it is, is ludicrously expensive and state education is a joke. Once we are adults, it seems fair to be able to choose whether we have private or public healthcare, education etc. as we choose where our money goes, but it seems stupidly unfair to me, that some children receive an advantage over others, because their parents can afford to send them to private school (it should be noted that our children will go to private school - what I'm saying is that it's not fair for the other chilren).

I also think that a good idea for the government is to set an example. It irritates me no end that MP's drive around in 6 - sometimes even 8 cylinder cars. They should be driving small(er) cars and definitely not fuel guzzling 6 or 8 cylinder beasts.

I guess the environment is a major influence for me, but overall, I like a good balance.

Lotte

[silentC]

Daycare, for what it is, is ludicrously expensive
Both our kids are in school now but at one stage they were both in day care twice a week. We found that as middle income earners it was reasonable and quite well subsidised. The more you earn, the more it costs. My sister, being a low income earner, was paying substantially less at the same place.


it seems stupidly unfair to me, that some children receive an advantage over others, because their parents can afford to send them to private school
Some people would say that if there were no advantages, it would be pointless being rich. :)

[JeffG.]

There was about a half-hour special on the Australian elections on NPR last week. In particular the influence of environmental issues was of interest.

Perhaps we will pull our heads out of our butts as well, though I wouldn't count on it. We go through fresh water like there is no tomorrow.

And +1 on the education. Its easier for smart people to make money - who would have thunk it? Then tax those rich private school bastages to pay for better public schools. Trust me, I understand. The tax collector has gripped me by the huevos so tight my eyes are watering. I pay $6k a year just for the school system and I don't even have kids!! Money well spent though, we have a good public school system in my area. My theory is educated snot-nosed punks are less likely to rob me at gunpoint.

At least you have issues, over hear its about the senator who got caught playing footsie with a police officer in the bathroom stall. Someone explain to me why the deviants always become politicians. What is the common trait?

:U:U

What the heck is a dole buldger?

[Ashore]

What the heck is a dole buldger?
Over here if you are unemployed there is government assistance of money , cheep housing and other assistance until you can find work so you don't starve , its commonly called " The Dole" from I believe it being doled out to you each fortnight or so
Now a dole bludger is someone who gets all he/she can in the form of assistance and lives on it for as long as they can without trying to find employment , or someone who is happy to accept the government assistance and work on the side for cash and not declair it , we seem to have a large number of young and not so young who move to the costal arears where the surfing is good and the jobs scarce , these people are usually referred to as " Dole Bludgers" that is they accept the dole but are too lazy to work.:no:

[munruben]

I agree John so lets stop paying government employees this would help the economy heaps.I like that Wheelin:D

[Studley 2436]

OK now stick with me for a few moments. Health and Education are state responsibilities so the Federal Government is greatly limited in the outcomes it can achieve.

Income tax discourages people earning. Surely we want people to be encouraged to earn more thereby increasing the national wealth. If the national wealth is larger then we would have more money for schools and hospitals.

Schools and hospitals are a real problem as by and large they are monopolies controlled by state governments. If they were to bring in public exams for every school year and to allow the school principal (actually would be better if there were an administrator to manage the school and a principal to manage teaching) to run the school as in hiring and firing teachers staff there would be a better outcome. A curiculum would be really good too. So much seems to be made up by what the individual teacher wants to teach. To much art and not enough reading writing and arithmitic to my mind. However this is not something that the Federal Government has the power over.

Health likewise. Ever sat in an Emergency ward for 4 or 5 hours and then finally see a doctor who is concerned about "your whole health". Damn lady I have put my fingers through a Table Saw I wanted rapid consultation and I'll worry about the unhealthy things I do like drink more than one beer a day tomorrow! I have and were the system be subjected to market forces rather than cosy deals between the union and the minister it would be much much better.

Again this is not a Fedaral issue unless they remove powers from the states, and considering the mess the states have made over water and the Commonwealth inability to make much headway on that you can imagine if they got in and tried to fix Health Education and Transport. We are still all on different gauge rail can you believe that?

Income tax cuts are great as the individual is much more capable of making a good decision about what to do with the money than any politician or bureacrat. Suppose people pay down their mortgages with the tax cut. Suddenly it forces interest rates down rather than up. Those who say it must increase rates are making assumptions.

Studley

[Gra]

Both our kids are in school now but at one stage they were both in day care twice a week. We found that as middle income earners it was reasonable and quite well subsidised. The more you earn, the more it costs. My sister, being a low income earner, was paying substantially less at the same place.

Lucky you.... My wife had to turn down a promotion as it wasnt worth it. it would have involved more days at work, so more day of the kids in childcare. The pay diffence didnt cover the extra childcare. in fact my wife works as a theatre nurse three days a week for about $50 a week after childcare:~. She has to keep working or she looses her registration and will have to do a uni course to return to work. so we are in a no win situation were she works for basically nothing They wonder why there is a shortage of nurses. It aint rocket science, about 90% of nurses are women, women traditionally look after the kids, so who usually gives up their job if it becomes uneconomical...

[Gra]

Income tax cuts are great as the individual is much more capable of making a good decision about what to do with the money than any politician or bureacrat. Suppose people pay down their mortgages with the tax cut. Suddenly it forces interest rates down rather than up. Those who say it must increase rates are making assumptions.

Studley

The problem is they wont.... It will be spent on a new plasma or the such in most cases...

So Hospitals and schools are a state issue. Well fix it, federalise it. what are we one country or or 6 ? While we are at it federalise the police and road laws.

[Studley 2436]

yeah Gra I hear you and you might be right but we just don't know. Plenty of people realise that if they can get some extra into their mortgage it will pay off big time down the track. Not all do it is true but I would still say it is better to just leave people with their own money rather than run it through government and back to people from there.

Studley

[Rossluck]

My view is that Australia has always been a nation that vacillates between our attenuated version of the left and the right. It's a pretty clever system and indicates that the average Australian intuitively knows a lot more about politics than most politicians realise.

I always vote Labor or for the Greens (with preferences going to Labor), so I'm not really going to be influenced by this election campaign.

But if I were to be influenced, what I hate is the game of politics that pollies play. ALL of them. For instance, as I've watched John Howard over the past six months my estimation of him has dropped a bit. He should, in my opinion, have taken on a more statesman like role (a Malcolm Fraser type of persona) rather than showing himself to be a pure political animal.

He and Costello have done a good job (I hate to admit) with the economy, and we can all feel that. But we have Johnny metaphorically racing around like a boxer trying to smash Kevin Rudd's face instead of maintaining his dignity as a very successful prime minister. I for one am disappointed.

[q9]

its commonly called " The Dole" from I believe it being doled out to you each fortnight or so

Actually, just to be finnicky :)

Dole comes from DOL - the Department of Labor - which is a US Department, similar I guess to what our old DSS used to be...

Carry on :p

[silentC]

The pay diffence didnt cover the extra childcare
Yes, if the missus had taken on a full time job, our combined income would have increased to the point where we'd be getting virtually no assistance from the goverment for child care and it would not be worthwhile.


Those who say it must increase rates are making assumptions.
I'd say they are making educated guesses. I heard another guy say it on the 7.30 report tonight. Since the last election we've had three tax cuts and four interest rate rises. May not be cause and effect but if not, it's a symptom of the same disease.

[q9]

I'd say they are making educated guesses. I heard another guy say it on the 7.30 report tonight. Since the last election we've had three tax cuts and four interest rate rises. May not be cause and effect but if not, it's a symptom of the same disease.

The reason the Reserve raises rates is to slow consumption/spending/borrowing. They do this to keep inflation within the target range. So the more the government gives back to us, the more the Reserve wants us not to spend it.

It is interesting that so many people see high interest rates ONLY as only a bad thing...

[silentC]

They are a bad thing when people lose their houses because of them.

Look at it this way: say the government decided to spend their surplus on improving services. They're still injecting money into the economy, which is what fiscal policy is all about, by paying more wages and building more infrastructure. It creates jobs, gets borderline unemployed off the books, and most importantly, helps people who need those services but are currently missing out.

On the other hand, if they give us a tax cut, that means that middle to high income earners get an extra wad of disposable income, which they will happily spend on satisfying their own whims. How many people actually put the extra on the mortgage? A few might but I bet that the type of people who will benefit most from tax cuts will use the money for other things. People on low incomes will get bugger all, if anything.

I think anybody who buys it is gullible in the extreme.

[glock40sw]

G'day,

A strong history of economic management - only only party offers that :2tsup: , the other yobbos had my folks paying 19% on their home loan. :((

If the economy is in the right hands everything else follows after that.

G'day.
I'm with Waldo on this one. Even though Jackboot Johnie took away some of my Guns, The country does seen to be more prosporous. Hell Unemployment is so low, we cannot get staff. We need about 5 people ASAP with virtually no-one looking for a job. Up until a few months ago, we were inundated with jobseekers. Now?....Nothing.
Anybody want a job???:2tsup:

Climate change is a furffy. Just a touchy feely warn and fuzzy for the do-gooders.
Workchoices....All our people have signed up and all are very happy with the result. A lot depends on the honesty of the employer and employee. I don't trust the Unions as far as I can spit. The only time we see a union rep is when an election is due or when they want to put union fees up.

[silentC]

Climate change is a furffy
I wouldn't say it's a furphy. It's pretty much a proven fact that the climate is changing. The only debatable issues are whether we are contributing and whether we can do anything about it.

[Sebastiaan56]

So Hospitals and schools are a state issue. Well fix it, federalise it. what are we one country or or 6 ? While we are at it federalise the police and road laws.

I agree Gra, Australia would work a whole lot better if we did get rid of a layer of government. The whole "L" stand off between the states and feds is an embaressment and impediment. All sides are guilty of politics first, Australia second. If they really had a service mentality they would have worked out how to get along. This forms an essential part of kindergarten education, I am stuck explaining to my kids why they argue so much when its not OK to kick your brother....


He and Costello have done a good job (I hate to admit) with the economy, and we can all feel that. But we have Johnny metaphorically racing around like a boxer trying to smash Kevin Rudd's face instead of maintaining his dignity as a very successful prime minister. I for one am disappointed.

Agree Ross, after how many years he still appears to prefer the day to day infighting to behaving as a senior statesman. A pity really as he has given so much of his life to the country but doesnt seem to be able to move on with dignity. If he wins the stoush over leadership will be on again and I reckon that the leadership change will become a "non core promise". Wonder how long Kev can maintain the pretense of dignity. Maybe Sunday night will tell.


Climate change is a furffy

The Northwest passage opened this year for the first time in recent history, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070917-northwest-passage.html One heck of a furphy, sorry no links to the ABC this time,

[silentC]

When I see Kevin Rudd being interviewed, I'm just not convinced. He always sounds as though he is reeling off a pre-prepared comment. There's something a bit contrived in the way he talks. Maybe it's just the way he is.

[Waldo]

Wonder how long Kev can maintain the pretense of dignity.

:?

He's a smug git in my book, with broad grand plans but no detail. Who pops the word "fair dinkum" in every phrase tryng to appeal to the "masses" - I hope Australia is a lot smarter than that.

[HappyHammer]

Yes, if the missus had taken on a full time job, our combined income would have increased to the point where we'd be getting virtually no assistance from the goverment for child care and it would not be worthwhile.

I'm pretty sure we're in the same boat as you and we got a nice surprise in our tax return this year for the childcare we'd paid, two kids 5 days a week.

HH.

[silentC]

Trouble is it can go both ways. One year I earned more than expected and so we had to pay some back - deducted from the tax return. It wasn't very much, but it was still unexpected.

[HappyHammer]

Don't think you have to pay child care benefit back I think there are only two ranges....


If your family income is $35 478 or less you may be able to get the maximum rate of Child Care Benefit for approved care.


<TABLE id=formattable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5><CAPTION>
Table 1:
Maximum rate for non-school child

</CAPTION><TBODY><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TH width="33%">Number of children in care</TH><TH width="33%">Per week (for 50 hours of care)</TH><TH width="33%">Per hour for each child</TH></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD width="33%">1</TD><TD width="33%">$168.50</TD><TD width="33%">$3.37</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD width="33%">2</TD><TD width="33%">$352.17 ($176.08 per child)</TD><TD width="33%">$3.52</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD width="33%">3</TD><TD width="33%">$549.63 ($183.21 per child)</TD><TD width="33%">$3.66</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Maximum rate for a school child is 85 per cent of the maximum non-school child rate.


The minimum applies if you are over one of these bands

<TABLE id=formattable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5><CAPTION>Table 2:
Income limit beyond which only the minimum rate of Child Care Benefit is paid

</CAPTION><TBODY><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TH>Number of Children in care</TH><TH>Yearly family income</TH></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD>1</TD><TD>$108 434</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD>2</TD><TD>$115 900</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD>3</TD><TD>$131 570
add $23 031 for each extra child in care

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


The minimum is....


<TABLE id=formattable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5><CAPTION>
Table 3:
Minimum Rates of Child Care Benefit - Non-school child

</CAPTION><TBODY><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TH>Per hour each child</TH><TH>Maximum per week for each child
(for 50 hours a week)

</TH></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD>$0.564</TD><TD>$28.20



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
So everyone gets something.

HH.

[silentC]

I don't deal with the details, so not really sure what it was all about. All I know is that she has to tell them how much my salary is expected to be and from that they determine the amount of the payment. One year we got it wrong and had to pay some back. Maybe it was something else, but definitely child-related.