Title: Labor or Liberal
Description: Help me decide...
Mykle - June 18, 2005 04:08 PM (GMT)
Okay, I have a keen interest in politics and I'd like to do something in the field as a career. The time has come to choose either Young Labor or Young Liberal, and I dont really know. I prefer the social policies of Labor, but I despise their connections to the arcane unions. Unions suck, you should see the paintings in the AWU - guys fighting their way out of tunnels and shit. I respect the basic principles of the unions, but hate what they've become and their bullshit mentality. I like the Liberals economic policies but I'm not a fan of Howard's conservative policies. Having said that, Costello will be much more progressive when he becomes leader.
What should I choose? I've signed up for both and been to a couple of Labor engagements, but I havent actually signed up to any branch yet.
Texta - June 18, 2005 05:58 PM (GMT)
Mykle - June 18, 2005 10:57 PM (GMT)
haha.
Seriously though.
:P
Nah, I'd actually like to be able to get something done, rather than sit there on my beliefs never actually having them implemented. Sometimes, you've got to compromise your shit to ensure that the bulk of it is heard.
So no Greens.
Hello - June 18, 2005 11:10 PM (GMT)
I don't think it really matters. In either party you're gonna have a bitch of a time getting your voice heard. Anyways, I'm of the understanding that there isn't a huge emphasis on the unions within Labor nowadays...? Maybe I'm wrong (I haven't held a huge interest in politics for close to 2 years now). Onto the Libs, Costello could very well be the devil. I liken him to the evil president candidate in Stephen King's The Dead Zone. Further, I'd never choose to side with the libs, just because BIG BUSINESS CAN SUCK MY NUTS.
Mykle - June 18, 2005 11:20 PM (GMT)
Well for the branch conferences, the attendance has to be 50% branch members and 50% union members, which is too fucked up.
Unions, in their current iteration, are the scum of the earth. Just like big business. It seems the top and bottom of the business world are corrupt and evil. Wonder how that works....
quartz_donkey - June 18, 2005 11:23 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Hello @ Jun 19 2005, 09:10 AM) |
| I don't think it really matters. In either party you're gonna have a bitch of a time getting your voice heard. Anyways, I'm of the understanding that there isn't a huge emphasis on the unions within Labor nowadays...? Maybe I'm wrong (I haven't held a huge interest in politics for close to 2 years now). Onto the Libs, Costello could very well be the devil. I liken him to the evil president candidate in Stephen King's The Dead Zone. Further, I'd never choose to side with the libs, just because BIG BUSINESS CAN SUCK MY NUTS. |
I agree with hello here. No awards system, pffft to you liberals(the most inapproite name since spiderman was a girl and had the powers of a gnat).
One minimun wage with annaul holidays, unpaid parent leave,minium hours a week and maybe some sick days not certain on that though. No over time pay, no weekend rates, no shift rates and you might be like me, able to be fired at the drop of a hat. Bring on July 1st.
Beast - June 19, 2005 01:45 AM (GMT)
Without unions we would not have - nor would ever have had any kind of working rights. There would be no expected working hours, no uniform pay, no sick leave, bosses could fire you at any time for anything at all, no overtime or weekend rates. No workers compensation if you get hurt or injured on the job.
I think you're being overly exaggerative in your comments about unions - of course there are some fuckheads in unions - many of which are in positions of power because one of the characteristics of a fuckhead is a lust for power.
I'd still suggest that you join labor, although really it's hard to see you having a great career in politics if you don't know which party to join and you turn to an internet forum to figure it out. I'd suggest you go read a lot about Australia's political history and a lot about political science and make your own mind up - that way you'll be making a decision based on your own opinions and not on other peoples.
~DC - June 19, 2005 07:31 AM (GMT)
borgster101 - June 20, 2005 05:16 AM (GMT)
Which policies and philosphies do you strongly believe in? I'm not going to tell you either one party or the other, both have good intentions (they're not evil) but are based on different values.
You have to understand what your values are and which party more closely refelcts them, once you understand what you believe in, the choice should be obvious.
Sytadel - June 20, 2005 07:39 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Mykle @ Jun 19 2005, 08:57 AM) |
Nah, I'd actually like to be able to get something done, rather than sit there on my beliefs never actually having them implemented. Sometimes, you've got to compromise your shit to ensure that the bulk of it is heard. So no Greens. |
That logic is why the bloody greens will never get elected ;(
Not sure how it works outside of WA, but here we have a preferential voting system. That way I can put Greens #1, but if they don't win then my vote goes to Labor. Just such that my vote isn't wasted I guess. I haven't had to vote for the PM yet (missed out by two days!) so I'm not sure how that works.
I vote Labor over here because Liberal just seems to fling shit and propoganda. I am a capitalist, but I don't like dickheads either =(
Mykle - June 20, 2005 07:52 AM (GMT)
Greens dont get elected because noone give a fuck about the environment. :P
Stevorooni - June 20, 2005 10:47 PM (GMT)
Beast - June 21, 2005 12:00 AM (GMT)
The goal of the Greens is not to hold government - and it probably won't be that goal for a long time. Rather it's about putting a particular view (ie conservation) into parliament and making sure that the governments are accountable - especially on an environmental level.
Loach - June 22, 2005 03:08 PM (GMT)
The Greens aren't all about the environment these days anyway. They've pretty much replaced the role of the Democrats who are useless these days. A small party can have a lot of influence if they hold the balance of power.
I've deleted all the stuff I wrote about Liberal vs Labor because it's pretty similar to what you wrote in the first post.
Mykle - June 24, 2005 05:53 AM (GMT)
Yeah old-school Democrats were awesome - moderates who held the balance.
Pazuzu - June 30, 2005 02:51 PM (GMT)
Well the thing to remember about the Liberals is that they are 19th Century Liberals, not this new-age hippy lower case "l" liberal mentality we have inherited from America. They believe in complete and global free trade, a good education for everyone and one or two other things of lesser import. Labor, in Australia at least, is a party which is currently in need of desperate changes if it is to keep up with the Coalition, or even just the Liberals. For one thing it can't even spell its name correctly. But more seriously, it is trapped within a shell of unionism which it is struggling to remove itself from, but it seems that at least on the national level this is virtually impossible.
I'm a National Party person because at heart I'm an anarchist (can you imagine the complete chaos if a bunch of famers inherit the nation? It would be magnificient!), which by association makes me a Liberal. However if I had to chose between Labor and Liberal on a rational level I'd take the Liberals because they have the more sound policies, the cleaner image, the experience and have guided us as a nation into a number of profitable agreements with the USA and China, two things I can't argue with. Concerning the Greens and the Democrats - I dislike the Greens because I dislike Bob Brown and his various piss-weak policies concerning a variety of things (for some examples just visit the Green's website), and concerning the Democrats I think we should let the dead die quietly.
But if you are after a real policy alternative you can always try one of my political parties: Do As I Say (and the associated penis-cannon) or the Australian Imperialist League (where we colonise/conquor South East Asia).
Having rediscovered his old membership here,
Pazuzu.
Loach - June 30, 2005 04:13 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Pazuzu @ Jul 1 2005, 12:51 AM) |
| [Liberals] believe in ... a good education for everyone |
Would you be willing to expand on that one?
| QUOTE (First few points of Greens education policy document) |
The Australian Greens support: 1.1 society’s obligation to ensure that all people have access to free, well-funded and high quality, life-long public education and training in early childhood, schools, technical and further education (TAFE) colleges and universities 1.2 society’s collective obligation to protect the rights of children and young people and to ensure that their educational needs are met at all levels by a quality public education system that is available, without charge, to all 1.3 public education as an important investment in the future and in a more just and equitable society 1.4 equity, diversity and innovation in educational opportunities for all Australians
|
Pazuzu - June 30, 2005 04:27 PM (GMT)
It has always been my understanding of John Stuart Mill, the definitive Liberal philosopher, that key to his concepts of promoting free trade and free speech is that of education. This stems from the views of Comte and the Utilitarians (a philosophical movement) who felt that in order to effect change in things we must educate people.
Also, concerning the Liberal Party of Australia and education, here are their official "beliefs":
http://www.liberal.org.au/default.cfm?action=4&page=1I quote especially "We believe in equal opportunity for all Australians; and the encouragement and facilitation of wealth so that all may enjoy the highest possible standards of living, health, education and social justice."
Hoping that explained things,
Pazuzu.
Loach - June 30, 2005 05:20 PM (GMT)
I guess it's a case of actions speak louder than words. I can't say I follow politics as closely as I should, but the current Liberal government doesn't seem to be aimed at equality in any of those areas as far as I can see.
Economic rationalism doesn't always provide the highest standard of living. A free market is unlikely to produce the optimum amount of any public good - education, health etc.
Pazuzu - June 30, 2005 06:04 PM (GMT)
I would argue otherwise, but such is the way of interactions between Liberals and those with Socialist tendencies. I suppose the simplest way of resolving this is to come to a gentleman's agreement of agreeing to disagree. However if you want to have a full-blown argument you'll have to wait a few hours as it is 4:00 am and I'm mighty tired.
The mighty tired,
Pazuzu.