Australian election
- Thread starter HughJass
- Start date
The Gardener
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 25
At least you still seem to have a "choice".
Here the elections don't mean anything anymore. Just two factions of the corporatocracy party.
It's like the elections in the USSR. Except the rhetoric is slicker.
Here the elections don't mean anything anymore. Just two factions of the corporatocracy party.
It's like the elections in the USSR. Except the rhetoric is slicker.
Really? I haven't really had time to follow the Australian elections (but do have time to lurk in this forum... :shock: ) I was pretty surprised by K Rudd's quick fall from grace. He seemed like a pretty impressive guy, and seemed to represent a side of Australia not often remembered by northern hemisphere stereotypers.. i.e. compassionate, liberal, and open-minded.
Back to business as usual then...how long was Howard PM for?
Back to business as usual then...how long was Howard PM for?
HughJass
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 3
FSHGLD said:
Unforunatly it turned out he couldn't sell policy for sh*t, was a raving mad power hungry control freak who completley disrespected his cabinet (and the party) and sounded more and more scripted as time went on.
He seemed like a good thing in '07. I couldn't bare his habitual moralising on just about everything.
11 hideously long years. His carbon copy is hare's breath away from captaining the ship (the result was a hung parliament).
Greens got a great result- they'll have 9 seats in the senate and 1 in the lower house. The God-fearing Monarchists on the right wing must be bristling.
Will be interesting to see how this fares, it's certainly broken up the bordem of the usual elections we have here.
somone uk
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 6
there is 1 thing i don't get about some australians,
This:
australia is 1 of the least densly populated countries on earth, there is no way you could call Australia "full"
i can see that both parties have this massive nonsence immigration policy but i can see tony abbot being a bigger idiot for also opposing stem cell research, a position i thought died in 2006 because only a moron would oppose it
but also i have to hate the australian labour party because of this guy:
the notorious destroyer of the Australian video games
in contrast i would probibly vote for the greens but i do think anti GM usually has an ignorant nature but i see them as the least of the 3 evils
This:
australia is 1 of the least densly populated countries on earth, there is no way you could call Australia "full"
i can see that both parties have this massive nonsence immigration policy but i can see tony abbot being a bigger idiot for also opposing stem cell research, a position i thought died in 2006 because only a moron would oppose it
but also i have to hate the australian labour party because of this guy:
the notorious destroyer of the Australian video games
in contrast i would probibly vote for the greens but i do think anti GM usually has an ignorant nature but i see them as the least of the 3 evils
HughJass
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 3
somone uk said:there is 1 thing i don't get about some australians,
This:
australia is 1 of the least densly populated countries on earth, there is no way you could call Australia "full"
Germaine Greer attributes Australia's xenophobia to Australians knowing that immigrants work harder than they do thus reducing job oppertunities for them etc. That's probably true at least to some degree, I can't think of any other explanation for it unless it's just left over white supremecy stuff from foundation.
It was so embarrasing to have the issue of asylum seekers (mostly Afghans and Tamils) or 'boat people' as they are annoyingly referred to- I guess it helps dehumanize them- as one of the main issues of the election.The conservatives, which are basically the Australian Tea Party, were promising to stop them coming here and even turn their boats around. It gained them plenty of traction with voters. It's quite something to watch the idea of preventing refugees fleeing warzones become acceptable policy.
I don't know if you mean restrictive when you say nonsense, but both the labor and liberal parties have allowed quite large immigration into the country, they're lobbied heavily by the business sector as it saves them having to invest in training and education. Howard allowed record numbers of immigrants in, even though he was and still is regarded by his supporters and easily duped swing voters as being hardline on the issue.
That's the right wing (and dominant wing) of labour parties for you. They delivered a survellience state to the UK and they want to filter the internet here.
Hairforever
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 2
That aussie labour leader looks well dodgy in my opinion (where did they find her? She makes Gordon Brown seem palatable). Bush would be better by comparison. Why not open up a bit and have a third party like we do in the UK. We can export the BNP to you if you like?
Well that doesn't really relate to how Australia progressed under his term.FSHGLD said:
@someone uk, that's a stupid bumper sticker you see on random cars here. And it's really directed to people of a non Anglo-Saxon background, who are the main immigrants to this country.
I personally think immigration should be encouraged, it's a good way for a country to prosper in the long run (look at the US). But most people seem to have issues that the immigrants are of a non Anglo-Saxon background, hence most would not know English and would have a difficult time learning it too. But the opportunities their children would be presented with and seeing how a lot of children from immigrant parents go on to make something of themselves and contribute to this nations prosperity, is reason enough to allow them in ('boat people' and all).
^^I meant progressing economically.
I do think that the environment matters however, and while I'm not familiar with what exactly the Kyoto protocol specifies, I don't think that we/our respective countries should sacrifice themselves, or sacrifice our life styles for such matters. I recognise carbon emissions need to be reduced but not at our expense.
I do think that the environment matters however, and while I'm not familiar with what exactly the Kyoto protocol specifies, I don't think that we/our respective countries should sacrifice themselves, or sacrifice our life styles for such matters. I recognise carbon emissions need to be reduced but not at our expense.
HughJass
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 3
Draco88 said:
You have to be taking the piss. You honestly don't believe that inaction on this issue represents an even bigger threat to our lifestyles?
Maybe I'm just not seeing how un-Australian it is to question the wisdom of a lifestyle based on unrestrained consumption in a world with finite resources, better just to heat the globe to melting point! :shakehead:
Labor minority government it is. Let's see if they can actually do something about emissions trading this time round.