Job Discussion Forums

[le0n]

My prediction is John Howard will be returned. He is a very savy politition and will as always play to the hip pocket nerve.

The generation after me is known as The Baby Boomers and the one following is the Me generation.

Think of nothing excect themselves. Not our country or their kids future.

This isn't what made Australia strong.

[Aramas]

If you're correct, and a proven liar, cheat, demagogue and ar*e-licker is re-elected then I will have to seriously look at my options for citizenship in a decent country. Even a developing country would do, as long as I can renounce my citizenship of this vile perversion of Australia. Brasil looks nice. They're as poor as church-mice, but at least they get along with their neighbours. They don't have concentration camps, do they? They seem to have cut back on culling street kids, so they can't be all bad.

If I were diagnosed with a terminal illness I would be tempted to clean house American-style - starting with the front bench. At least shooting right-wingers has the pleasant side effect of getting rid of the vast majority of serial killers, rapists and paedophiles

[mcNug]

Glad to see, a lot of other Australians feel the same way I do. I haven't lived there for some time, and my need to get away was part of the reason for me getting involved in ESL in the first place. John Howard is one of the most repulsive individuals in politics. The things that have happened in Australia, especially since his "reign" have made me ashamed, sickened and downright depressed. I won't be returning there to live again, and if John Howard gets re-elected, my parents will probably leave too. But yes, I will be placing a vote, and depending on the outcome, I may not vote again.

[deezy]

I don't know whether any other Aussie has noticed this with John Howard but it's the number one reason so many of us don't trust him. He never....(correction ...I have never seen him) has eye contact when he talks. He thus gives the impression of being shifty, cunning, a lier, etc. etc. Of course he's none of those things, he's a terrific, home-grown, honest, Aussie boy who wants the best for his country. Isn't he? Isn't he?

He's done so much for the education system, for asylum seekers, for young mothers, for the health system, - oh and not to mention our older people, - now we are told that we can carry on working after retirement age, till we drop dead if we want, isn't that nice for us? No sitting on the veranda watching the sun go down for us any more. We have to keep going. Unless, of course, we are John Howard, and have a hugely inflated pension to look forward to.

Latham may be looking through rose-coloured glasses, but, hell, you never know, he can't be any worse.

[Tonester]

As I do know that this topic is a highly sensitive one I'm going to try and be as balanced as I can here. As an Australian myself, I really feel that both sides and thus both candidates have their good and bad points. I feel that John Howard has a lot of experience as a politician and he has introduced many controversial policies (note that I am not a fan of either man so do not misunderstand me as a fanatic for these policies) such as the GST, continuing Mandatory Detentions for illegal immigrants and backing George W Bush in his war against terror. A lot of people are also worried about Medicare and its probable end and worry because he has been dishonest and I think that that is understandable.

Latham is good at appealing to the Aussie battlers just like Labor has done in line with their tradition. He says many good things and feels able to back them up but I am concerned that if he does get elected, how will he be able to do as he says he will; no doubt that his policies will cost money and it has to come from somewhere; Johnny Taxpayer of course. I am also concerned that if he does get elected; I wonder if he would do a good job as past (I don't mean all but some) Labor leaderships have made big mistakes before which almost or did cost the country dearly. One example would be Whitlam's reforms which pleased a lot of people but when the money ran out some of his ministers secretly tried to put Australia in debt to other countries (the Loans affair). There was also the matter where Latham when he was the mayor of Liverpool accused but later cleared of financial mismangement which that alone can make people question whether he could do his job responsibly if elected.

That being said, I do not think that Latham would do the same but the doubt still remains. I admit that Whitlam is ancient history but it is still part of the country' history.

But then again; it is a hard decision indeed. You either vote for a person who in the world is seen as George W Bush's lap dog, a liar and ruthless due to refugee detention policies and Medicare but seasoned as a politician or vote for a person who says nice things but doubts exist as to whether he could do the job properly nor do his job without putting Australia into debt like one of his predecessors tried to do.

Please forgive me if this post sounds like a radical right-wing or a left-wing conservative point of view but I just wanted to point out that in the end it all becomes a situation where you really have to listen to your conscience and vote for either person despite the fears either way and just think as to who you really think will be a better leader in the long term. I personally think it is a hard decision indeed and I'm pleased to not have to vote in this election having been in Japan since late last year because I would really be concerned at the ballot booth.

I hope that I have been balanced in this post and if I have written anything that is or sounds in any way off the mark please don't hesitate to correct me or clarify anything I've written as I have never been big on politics as a whole.

[le0n]

I'm voting Labor in the House of Reps and Greens in the Senate.

Balanced ?

[atomic_donut]

I would call myself a classic ALP voter... with parents migrated to Australia form the 1950s from southern Europe, and they always have been ALP voters. I am voting for the ALP in both houses, but I have a feeling that they will not get across the line on election day. However, my disliking about John Howard is that over the years, while he proven to be a savvy politician (must come from his background of graduating with a Bachelor of Law degree and formerly being a solicitor as well as being elected to parliament in 1974, the second longest current serving member of the House of Reps.), he has given Australians based overseas a bad name, because of our ""Yes George Dubya, anything you say, George Dubya". When will it dawn on him that leaders of other nations don't give a damn about John Howard, regardless of his outspoken support?

In the 1980s, as opposition leader, he has commented that Asian migration should be slowed, refused to endorse sanctions against an apartheid-led government in South Africa prior to Nelson Mandela's release and not even heeded calls by his so-called mentor (and probably favourite Spice Girl I might add) Margaret Thatcher to back off a little. When opposition leader again, he declared that the GST will nenver ever be introduced as policy because of its lack of popularity in the 1993 election loss, yet in 2000, what did we get introduced to? He had no problem with releasing pictures and images in trying to prove that kids were being thrown overboard during the Tampa crisis without disclosing the full content of conversations discussed, yet had the nerve to have a go at the media for taking one photo of his daughter at her wedding. He has adopted a "Let's Push with Bush" attitude regarding the latest invasion of Iraq and in willing to be a deputy dog in the Asia-Pacific region with complete disregard as to how Australians feel (especially those abroad that are working in areas that could be sensitive to such matters) and he has the demeanor of resembling a middle-class butler, or at the least, a hobbit. Both Tony Blair and George W. Bush fronted up to hearings regarding the legitimacy of intelligence reports on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but has John Howard done so? No, he has a holier than thou attitude stating that it is not justified. The longer he is in charge of Australia, the greater the longing I have to get out as soon as possible. He is the Cliff Richard of Australian politics. I fear that he will get over the line simply because of Mark Latham's inexperience as leader of the opposition. Yet my real concern is that when it is time for JoHo to retire, Peter Costello will be passed on as leader and the mantle will be given to Health Minister Tony Abbott. John Howard has apprently repeatedly said that this election is about trust...how can we trust him?

In saying all of that, Mark Latham, as idealistic as he is about social matters, is not seen to be prime ministerial material. Yes, Gough Whitlam is his hero, and yes, Mark Latham appeals to the battlers because he himself grew up out of public housing surroundings and a single parent family for many years of his life, something which people in this country can identify with. But I can understand why there would be some that doubt him as an alternative PM because he may be seen as too much of a yob in some respects. He has an unsavoury past, and he has changed his mind a couple of times on matters such as foreign policy, but he surely could not put us in a worse position as Howard as done with regards to relations with our neighbours.

Tonester, well done for being balanced in your view, especially in bringing up the Loans affair scandal, and how the ALP attempted to finance it with backing from the Ba'athist Party in Iraq. Yes that cost Australia dearly, but Medicare was Whitlam's brainchild, as was the decision to recall the troops from Vietnam, along with the decision to put greater emphasis on public education, as both Simon Crean and Kim Beazley's fathers worked under the Whitlam administration. My understanding is that Whitlam had careless minsters, as well as making some shocking decisions himself (thinking specifically of allowing Suharto's army from Indonesia to march into East Timor unopposed). I am just wondering how much do you know about the Bottom of the Harbour scheme when John Howard was Treasurer under Malcolm Fraser? My knowledge of that is not that great.


Honestly, if I owned a dog that resembled Howard, it would be flushed.

[dmb]

So when we talk about the axis of evil we are referring to Bush-Blair-Howard?

[KCA420]

edit

[Tonester]

[atomic_donut]

Tonester, thanks for the website link. Maybe the modern day sequel to the Bottom of the Harbour scheme was the Patrick Stevedore fiasco in 1998, where training SAS troops in Abu Dubai and using non-union labour such as from the National Farmers Federation to replace striking dock workers in Melbourne was the answer? Peter Reith got away with murder on that one. He went raving and ranting about how unproductive the wharfies were, yet didn't actually reveal that in terms of cargo removed daily in terms of tonnes, Australia was 2nd only to Singapore in our region, and that is because Singapore has a higher level of technology.

DMB, maybe according to past history, the French should be thrown in with that lot too according to some of the stuff they got away with in countries like Algeria. I know that France opposed the war in Iraq, but their past is far from clean.

List of political terms I do not want to hear again once the election is over - "national security", "national interest", "underdog", "ease the squeeze", "trust", "credibility"...has anybody else got other terms to add?

[guru]

I'm not risking my life to vote, so I will not.

If I were to vote, I would not vote for Latham, because he is unaware of the aging population problem in Australia. Howard is moving toward user pays for medicare, yet Latham wants to pour more money into the system. In 20 years there will be so many people on social security and not many in the workforce. It is therefore realistic for labour to tax the workers even more to subsidize the greater percentage that do not work. Bring back Crean or Beazelt I say. Get someone who can balance a budget. If all we have is the experience of the failings of the Liverpool council then the future does not look bright.

[atomic_donut]

Guru,

Maybe the problem with bringing back Crean is that he spoke too much in union terms and wasn't listener-friendly..his voice droned on a bit in speech and he lacked the charm of someone like Bob Hawke in gettingdifferent interests together. Bob Hawke had more charisma as a leader of both the ACTU and Labor Party. Beazley has plenty of experience, but he was seen as a lemon. Personally, I thought he would have been an ideal leader. He probably would have won the 2001 election based on Australian domestic issues and you are right, he woul dhave made a good leader of Australia, if not for the Tampa crisis and the September 11th terrorist attacks. They clearly shifted the agenda of the previous election. I was watching some ABC TV program last night with a panel discussing the chances of Mark Latham winning. The consensus was that while he is seen as charismatic, honest and bold, the electorate does not know enough about him to trust him with the Prime Ministership, nd may say "give him 3 more years in opposition because he is still a work in progress". Even Gough Whitlam (who is Latham's idol, you can say) needed 2 elections to become leader.

Perhaps I am wrong in looking at that side of it, guru. I am no political expert, but I suppose everyone has an opinion.

[le0n]

It's about 9.30pm. 3 1/2 hours since the polls closed and vote counting started and it looks almost definate little Johnny will be returned.

Long live Prime Minister Peter Costello.

Beep

[ls650]