What will sway your vote?

Reading posts I think a lot of us on this board are pretty much going to vote along our main party lines. I know that even when it came to the state vote and time to get rid of Anna I found difficulty actually making a mark in a box labelled "Liberal" but that is me and I am happy to be left wing.

I have to admit that even if Kev grew 9 inch fangs and was caught with his teeth in Simon Crean's neck I would be voting ABBA Anybody But Bloody Abbott.

But let us look at the policies anyway and see if there is anything any party can offer (Hey Don't forget Clive) that might sway us to vote for that party

 

You know, you would be considered to be an ALP turn coat. As I find it difficult to debate somebody who simply votes the party, without thought or consideration, I must ask.

What policies do you consider will be debated? Asylum-seekers? That is definitely on the cards as Rudd has already began his scare campaign on that one.

Maybe the economic debate? What policies do the ALP have to promote the economy in consideration that the mining boom is over?

How about the jobs debate? Do you consider that making unions and business cooperative to be conducive to jobs, considering both have different agendas?

I ask this of you as a strong ALP supporter, you should be able to supply the answers to these questions.

Maybe instead of just saying that you want to discuss policy you might actually point to a policy you want to debate. Not having a shot, but as I am definitely not a party voter, I made the mistake of voting Rudd previously. I would be very interested in knowing what policy you consider to be the all-important swinging vote grabber.

 

This is not about me and mate you are coming perilously close to a personal attack

This is about discussing ISSUES.

 

Sorry you think so. I was not intending such as to why I stated "Not having a shot" As stated You are a strong ALP supporter (by your own comment) and I would suggest you have far better indication of their policy. I don't want to debate somebody about policy that simply blindly votes ALP because they are the ALP.

I do note however, that you did change your vote when it was necessary because of dismal failure of party in your state, thus I am assuming that you do have some consideration of policy rather than party.

So, If you think I was having a shot at you personally... I do apologise. But I was not intending such.

That is actually my point, while these parties continue to claim they want to discuss the policies they continue on with gutter politics and complete attempts at mislead the policies of their opposite number. This is why I asked to point to a policy or set of policies you want to debate.

So instead of being indignant over a simple joke (the turn coat thing), let us get this going. What policies do you want to discuss? Ball is in your court

 

I will definitely not be voting ALP, they've put up a 21 year old University student as the candidate, clearly they consider my electorate un-winnable, which to be fair it probably is. Don't even know who the any of the other candidates are.

 

This makes it difficult to have an election on policy at least in your seat. I did not think the ALP would stretch to this already.

 

All parties do it, getting candidates to run in safe opposition seats is not that easy. I doubt most people even know who their candidates are before election day. But personally I don't want to vote for someone who even in government will just sit on the backbench and be ignored by his party. Don't even know who the Greens candidate is, I'm definitely not voting for family first, and there weren't any independents last time around. Slim pickings really.

 

Problem is that no matter who they put in, you will rarely see them. It is realities of the situation many people never meet their candidate ever. But how do you vote for policy when you have no real candidate. One of the main problems with a safe seat, that electorate is usually last to get anything. Money (especially when short) is always sent to marginal seats to secure that vote, no matter what side of politics you’re on. It is an extraordinary candidate who gets things rolling in a safe seat but not impossible. I have seen it on a few occasions. I feel sorry for your situation, I feel every seat should be marginal to get governments listening to the people.

 

Well I have the mad hatter as the number one alternative to the two major parties. Not a bad choice considering some other electorates and their choice of candidate. Never know, if the polls are right, his party may have the balance of power. Good god ! We may actually get some spending up this way. Like everyone else we badly need upgrades in health, education, and infrastructure. Considering how much money is dragged out of the area, we see very little return. The ALP have thrown the towel in and put up some nobody and the Libs have done likewise.

From a national point of view, it comes down to a few things. Ability to run the country, for me niether are better or worse than the other. Save your party bias retoric, I niether care for it or consider it. Social policy. I think the ALP are ahead in this regard although a bit more responsible management would be nice. Financially. I think the Libs are far more responsible with expenditure, although I wouldn't say they are streets ahead. As far as stable government is concerned, well I think we all know the answer here.

I don't much get into personality as a consideration. The fact that people say they can't vote Abbott cause they hate him. Unless you know him personally, how the hell can you say you hate him. All the rubbish about Gillards big bum or awkward walk, really annoyed me. She could of been the elephant man, if she was good at her job then she deserved her job. Personality voting has become a bad disease in this country and quite frankly I see it destroying us.

leave the tribalism out of it. It is not a football game, it is far less serious than that ! Lol.

 

Economic issues is the biggy! Labor by all standards win hands down in all honesty despite certain rhetoric!

I'll be voting based on which party has the clearest vision for our future! I think those of us that have a centre left lean are drawn to Turnbull! Yes, he is one man but it is quite obvious the vision and values of the "leader" of a party are the directions the party generally move in! Abbott has not presented a clear vision for australia and seems happy to tackle the vote winning side issues such as asylum seekers rather than issues that will shape us as a nation collectively!

Okay, I won't be voting for the coalition this time around but certainly would consider them in the future dependant on the leader and vision! Turnbull would turn my voting world upside down but would still wait to see what he presents holistically!

 

I’m sick of waiting for clear policy from the coalition.

All the negativity and gains made through gutter politics has just been slam dunked by putting Kevin O’lemon back at the helm. Sophie Mirabella summed up the coalition on Q&A last night – attack the opposition and offer nothing else.

Rudd will appeal to all those that are sick to death of the last 3 years.

As far as Gillard goes, the NBN, Disability Insurance, school funding, carbon tax are all reforms her supports should be happy with – they just couldn’t sell the message.

The coalition has dithered too long in the negative and now they seem to have nothing to sell – but STOP THE BOATS!!

 

Which is why Kevin got back in. Julia might have o a better, calmer debater but she could not sell oxygen to an astronaut on his last tank.

 

Her ridiculous “men in blue ties” speech didn’t help – her PR people are morons.

 

I think Abbott has the same PR fools.

I mean would you not be shouting the obvious from the rooftops. Rudd is temporary, he will be replaced at their earliest convienience.

A few policy particulars would help no doubt as well. Once KRudd confirms an election date then policies may roll out on both sides.

I wont hold my breath.

 

NBN policy is one that is very important. Look I wouldn't vote conservative in a fit and I'm not keen on the Greens for various reasons although their general policy approach has some attraction in it for me. I will vote Labor regardless. I'm glad I don't live in Griffith (my seat is Port Adelaide so Labor will coast in here). But back to the NBN. For me it sums up the faults with the Coalition. Half-arsed it is. They have simply proposed their policy to differentiate themselves from the government's NBN policy. In doing so they have shown that they will chuck out good policy simply to make that differentiation.

The Coalition is not interested in the ordinary person, except at election time. They represent the big end of town and the agrarian socialists in the NP. Their laissez-faire approach to economics is not going to work in today's global economy, the domestic economy must be managed, not be allowed to blindly grope in the dark. The Coalition has a fetish for budget surpluses and unfortunately Labor has been sucked into that one as well. They seem to think that the government's balance sheet has no connection with the actual economy. This is that laissez-faire approach, keep government out of managing the economy and let it sort itself out. That ways spells disaster. The lazy Howard-Costello laissez-faire approach worked okay during the resources boom, it will not work now that the boom is slowing. Government must manage the economy, as Keating put it, they have to pull the levers.

I've read the Coalition's policy booklet. It tells me nothing. No policies, just airy aspirations.

 

Diuretic I agree with your comment regarding the NBN, although I believe there was little thought put into the planning of this and the pitfalls that were to follow. However let us not half finish something this costly and this important. Lets finish it properly and then try to pay it off. No point paying off some kind of hybrid set up that isn't really your ass or your elbow.

Having said this I think you may be showing your bias in relation to the comment regarding the coalition, the big end of town, and the people. Personally I do not see any differentiation between either party in this respect. For me it is two peas in a pod. Same destination, different tracks. For me, both parties put themselves and their parties first. Surely this last couple of weeks would indicate such. An election looming, economy starting to slow and all the Labor party can think of is what ? Julia or Kevin. Schoolyard at best and highly embarrassing on an international level.

I have said this once before and I will say it again...... Once the party becomes more important than the people, the people really do have a serious problem on their hands.

What we have here is two parties that have become corporations. Wake up, NEITHER give a rats about the people !

 

Kevin Rudd is who "the people" wanted, not what the party wanted.

 

Neither did the knitting fiasco. Geeze of all the PR flops that one was a grandaddy belly flop of all time!

 

Rubbish. They wanted him so they stood a chance. Like a tetanus needle, you don't want it but you know you need it so you give in and have it. If the party did not want him he would not be there.

 

LOL - absolutely

 

So they stood a chance... of getting elected... by "the people", because "the people" wanted him as leader of the party. The only reason they wanted him, is because he's popular, with... "the people".

 

But it was still what the party wanted. He was not where he is now without the party looking out for themselves. The Party. The people are just part of the process. I distinctly remember that he was tossed out for the "good of the country", now they want to tell us he has been re instated for "the good of the country". WTF.

The truth is, they re instated K Rudd for the good of themselves.

 

The good of the country is plausible! I mean, Abbott is who they fear collectively and unitedly!!

 

Well some do TV. lol.

That is not the point I am making. The point is that these two parties hold themselves higher than the people. I call it government corporations. Their first priority is protecting the brand at all costs. Re instating someone, and to use your term, that they collectively agreed was not good for the country only to tell us he is NOW good for the country, to me is a prime example of protecting the brand.

TV you yourself in the past have acknowledged the fact he is an unstable influence on the party. So why would they want him back ? So now by saying he is what is good for the country, are they saying Gillard wasn't ? Seeing as they were polar opposites.

Protecting the Brand ??

 

Bottom line is that you cannot effect the change/do the job unless you first GET the job.