Australian Elections Results

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
It's probably worth ignoring people who cry 'communists' or 'Marxists' or any other dirty word at anything but their own flawed ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you aware of the history of the Labour Party? Of the trade union ideology?

Until the liberal government put a stop to it, trade unions blackmailed employers and universities into forcing their employees to join and pay them money against their will. Furthermore, they regularly used intimidation tactics, some illegal, on people and businesses who disagreed with their strikes or policies. They also outlawed private bargaining in the workplace, destroying productivity and meritocracy. These people are pigs who have no concern for freedom of association and choice.

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of the implications of a Labour government over Liberal; they are slim.

[/ QUOTE ]
History disagrees with you. Their stated policies have some significant differences, and that's under the promise that Labour has "cleaned up their act" and become "economic conservatives", something I don't think is possible given their promises of ponies, and massive trade union representation, a high proportion of which are communist leaning.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] It demonstrates the insignificance of the austrailian election!

[/ QUOTE ]

[zasterguava]

Are you aware of the trade union history/ideology in your own country? (I think your from USA?). Trade union does NOT = commie ratbags. There are, for example in New Jersey, plentry of right-wing trade union organisations that seek to improve worker conditions and organise the work-force free of communist ideology.

But your right of course: the masters / owners and government are paticularly adequate at ensuring the well being, liberty and freedom of workers. God forbid worker organisations act according to circumstances and have direct influence within government. We can't have a whiff of direct democracy can we? No, that would be dirty communism... Economic freedom and the preservation of private power is the libertarianism we must follow and have been propogated to do so.

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
There are, for example in New Jersey, plentry of right-wing trade union organisations that seek to improve worker conditions and organise the work-force free of communist ideology.


[/ QUOTE ]

How?

Phil153,

Just topically reading some new stories, it says your new government was elected on a platform of addressing climate change. What exactly made Howard so unpopular in just a year and how is Rudd going to solve this "issue". Why is climate change even a big issue - nothing else to worry about?

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, they regularly used intimidation tactics, some illegal, on people and businesses who disagreed with their strikes or policies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not confining trade union activity to Australia; there have been instances of the forementioned that I wholeheartedly support. See The Chartists, wiki or even the UK miners strike against Thatcher.

Certainly, it would be treacherous and downright stupid to condemn all instancs of illegal uses of force by workers against private power and government, certainly if we are to consider the full history of trade unionism.

[Phil153]

I'm Australian, from Noosa. Sorry for the confusion.

I'm not that well versed on US trade unions, but Australian trade unions are particularly bad. Forcing the majority of the population to join a union and pay them their hard earned money is unforgivable, especially when they harm productivity, social freedom and the reward of individual merit in the process. The proof that people don't want anything to do with unions lies in the fact that membership has dropped to just 16% since the Liberal government gave people back their basic human rights. Yet the very people populating the Labour Party right now (70%) were the leaders in forcing their will on the Australian population through blackmail and intimidation.

Do you believe in freedom of association or not?

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly, it would be treacherous and downright stupid to condemn all instancs of illegal uses of force by workers against private power and government, certainly if we are to consider the full history of trade unionism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course not. I'm all for people voluntarily joining unions and striking if they so choose. You're missing the point. It's the tactics used on individual workers that are the problem, both directly against those choosing private bargaining and their own conditions and indirectly by forcing companies, industries and universities to expel or sack people who refuse to join a union. Forcing your communist ideology onto individuals who want nothing to do with unions (most of the Australian population) is unforgivable. These are the pigs who are now in power.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe in freedom of association or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the right-wing Libertarianism sense, NO, I strongly oppose it. I support the liberty and freedom of all individuals and oppose anything which corrupts, exploits and demoralises human development which a free reign over workers would guarentee. The irony is that under freedom of association in the right-wing libertarian sense the freedom, or at least ability, to associate would be demolished by conscious efforts from the newfound ever-powerful unobligated private power.

But do I support the freedom to associate in regards to how everyone should regard the term; yes. I'm a libertarian, just not one that subscribes to the right-wing free-market version which negates equality and liberty that is unique to the US. Is that a popular position to take on this forum, no? Do I care? nope!

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil153,

Just topically reading some new stories, it says your new government was elected on a platform of addressing climate change. What exactly made Howard so unpopular in just a year and how is Rudd going to solve this "issue". Why is climate change even a big issue - nothing else to worry about?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think it was a huge issue, although it obviously appeals to a subset of voters.

The main issue was a fear campaign about the relaxing of industrial relations laws, allowing employers to more easily sack workers (we have significant worker protections here) and allowing workers greater freedom in making workplace agreements. The Australian economy has been doing very well for a decade and many people have forgotten what recession, unemployment, high interest rates and higher taxes feel like. They simply want more for themselves and Rudd promised it - the communist ideology where everyone has great medical care, the best education system in the world paid for with public money, and so on. We can't afford these things of course, not while keeping economic conservatism, which was also promised (lol). Rightly or wrongly that's what they want and that's what they voted for, although they'll wake up to a nasty reality in a year or two.

There is also a great hatred for John Howard, especially among young people. They see him as a meddling old grandpa, and his competitor was a younger, hipper kind of guy.

I think that covers it.

[HP]

btw for the Americans reading this thread, haven't seen this mentioned so far:

Labour (the party that just won) are more like American Democrats,

Liberal are more like American Republicans

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
What a terrible result. For those who don't know, the winners are the Labour Party, 70% of whose members are former trade union officials. They're basically communists who believe in increasingly socialized services, massive budget deficits and no respect for freedom of association. A labour victory basically means an end to economic conservatism and responsible economic reform which as kept Australia going strong for the last 11 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

What planet is this from? While things turned bad towards the end of Keating's tenure, the Hawke government was a candidate for best government we have ever had in economic terms. A refresher:

[ QUOTE ]
Among other things, the Hawke Government floated the Australian dollar, deregulated the financial system, dismantled the tariff system, privatised state sector industries, ended subsidisation of loss-making industries, and sold off the state-owned Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't sound much like rampaging communists to me. And who was treasurer in the government which preceded them? Oh right, it was Howard. How did he do?

[ QUOTE ]
During Howard's tenure as treasurer, inflation had peaked at 12.5% in September 1982, and interest rates peaked at 22% on 8 April 1982.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the top marginal tax rate was 70% - which was promptly slashed by Hawke/Keating. And what reforms have we had in the modern Howard government? There was the GST, a bit of dabbling in privatisation, and AWAs and WorkChoices. Labor is not proposing to repeal any of this except WorkChoices, which is pretty weak sauce anyway. Meanwhile, the size of government has been relentlessly expanding. According to the OECD:

[ QUOTE ]
Over the past 10 years of John Howard's Government, the personal income tax burden in Australia had risen from 11.7 per cent to 12.6per cent of GDP.

This has reversed gains made during the previous Labor government, during which there was a lowering of the personal tax burden between 1985 and 1995.

[/ QUOTE ]

A rough calculation by LDP candidate Terje Petersen indicates that:

[ QUOTE ]
With the latest budget figures now out I did a quick back of the envelope calculation to find that our Federal government services now costs us 34% more than it did a decade ago. That’s after adjusting for population and inflation and omitting the GST cost component.

[/ QUOTE ]

Labor ran this election on a platform of spending less than the Coalition and cutting down on government bureaucracy with their vaunted "razor gang". Now might be a good time for you to check up on whether Liberal rhetoric matches up with the facts.