Howard vs Rudd

[VHSLX3300]

This has been recently all over the papers and news so I thought id get some opinions here. Question is Howard vs Rudd ? Who would you prefer for pm

[Jon Z]

Rudd ftw, it's time for a change

[Zuicider]

howard cos i get a kick of seeing the doofy lil wanker on the news making a fool of him self and speaking in prepriamary lanuage

[Marco-EFIVL]

I guess there aren't many liberal voters here.



Change for the sake of change is often the least logical reason for change itself to occur.

[SICK SS]

RUDD to get rid of these bloody IR laws

[holden#1]

I don't like Rudd.
I will vote for labour in the next election though.

[Julie]

I'd prefer neither to be honest but when u have to pick the better of the 2 I would go with Howard.

[Jon Z]

I guess there aren't many liberal voters here.



Change for the sake of change is often the least logical reason for change itself to occur.

your right on that one lol. I think there are lots of reasons why there need to be a change this time (and that you will probably see it at the election), just no need to get into it here cause the argument will go on forever

[MYSS94]

I voted Rudd!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am not a liberal or a labor man - however, i think we are definately overdue for a change.
And i like what he's on about.
Bringing the troops home/I.R

[Reaper]

I think Rudd's biggest difficulty is overcoming Gillard who in my opinion is not electable as deputy PM (way too far left). The Liberal party will go after her at the election.

Kevin Rudd seems to have some good ideas and seems to present himself very well. I think Howard is setting him up somewhat over the global warming issue and also over Iraq.

The one thing to keep in mind is that whoever gets in, the IR laws will stay and at the most will be fiddled around the edges. Labor will miraculously discover that they can't be repealed if they win office just the same as they backed away from their GST pledge.

Cheers,
Reaper

[knowledge_is_power]

Hmm, politics are one big can of worms. I vote Howard, as he is the devil we know. Labour are making some big change promises which the public may like but is not necessarily good for the country. Just like the IR reform and the GST, both liberal and labour alike wanted them, but labour opposed them to try and win some votes. While I think Rudd is the best labour leader they have had in a long time, I would rather someone I knew and was used to.

'better the devil you know than the devil you don't'

Maybe little johny could use this as his election slogan

[Spaced]

Anyone is better than Howard. I know all polies lie and I don't expect anything different from Rudd than we have seen from Howard. A change is definately overdue. Also just watching the political machines going Rudd has had Howard on the back foot more times in a month than Beazley ever did.

[Taso]

Hmm, politics are one big can of worms. I vote Howard, as he is the devil we know. Labour are making some big change promises which the public may like but is not necessarily good for the country. Just like the IR reform and the GST, both liberal and labour alike wanted them, but labour opposed them to try and win some votes. While I think Rudd is the best labour leader they have had in a long time, I would rather someone I knew and was used to.

'better the devil you know than the devil you don't'

Maybe little johny could use this as his election slogan

But if we voted by this policy, we would never have a change of Govt!!!

[fabz]

Its time for a new lier the olds ones wearing thin IMO hahahah

[bangers]

after seeing how much the state labor govt has f#cked up i sure as hell am not voting them in for federal. go johnnie!!!!!!!!!

[VHSLX3300]

lol dont start me on john coward..gst, house prices, ir laws, iraq, tamper, iraq everyone goes on about interest rates now but look at the price of houses compared to now and then

[HotSSV]

lol dont start me on john coward..gst, house prices, ir laws, iraq, tamper, iraq everyone goes on about interest rates now but look at the price of houses compared to now and then

I have only seen things that are negative to Howard. What about the income tax cuts I know I see more out of my income, bringing Australia back in to the green and not is deficit, increased trade bring the price of importable goods down.

Interest rates are controlled by the buying and selling of products not the government so changing to Rudd isn't going to see the price of house or interest rate coming down. It is caused by supply and demand.

I'm sick of hearing about the ill treatment of refugees it doesn't matter what government does what it is still going to be bad in the eyes of different people and the same with the wars. we have been involved in many wars allying with different countries and it only seems to be middle eastern wars that cause the most outcry.. I'm not saying war is good but standing up for the people that can't is worth something or isn't that the Australian way anymore.

[MasterOfReality]

Howard.

I don't like Howard or his Iraq policy, but I give them top marks for income tax cuts, immigration policy, IR reform etc. Cant bring myself to vote for a party that has strong ties to and is controlled by thugs (i.e. trade union officials). Besides, I have too much respect for my wallet to vote Labor.

Labor's primary target when trying to raise revenue is high income earners, so I am obviously not going to support a party or leader that advocates such rubbish.

[MikesVT]

I vote me for PM

No no... I'm going Howard...

I think Rudd is all talk, he's the new guy, fresh blood, he's trying to impress everyone... I don't think he's PM material

Howards been in power how many years now? He knows who things are run.. Sure I dont agree with all his policies or views etc, but I personally think he is the better option for this country

[SICK SS]

labour has to get control of the senit before they can get rid of the new ir laws but they can roll them back and if howard gets re elected he is bringing in some scarey IR changes wich will effect every one espicaly if u like ur pubic holidays sickys anual leave long service leace and just goes on and on

[Reaper]

lol dont start me on john coward..gst, house prices, ir laws, iraq, tamper, iraq everyone goes on about interest rates now but look at the price of houses compared to now and then

And what would you suggest Gov.Co should have done about it??? Also, what would you say to the hundreds of thousands of people who have made good money from property over the last 10 years? Should we regulate our housing market so that you can get a bargain?

It's interesting to note that buying a house in Victoria at the median price of $360,000 costs a shade under $20,000 in stamp duty and other government charges that goes on top of the purchase price. (I didn't even get a receipt in return!). The bulk of that cost (nearly 3/4 from memory) is in state government stamp duty which has nothing to do with the federal government.

It's easy to bitch about the GovCo (any level) from the sidelines and everybody likes to take a free kick. It's an entirely different story when you are sitting in the chair with the controls trying to run the place without sending it bankrupt.

Cheers,

Reaper

[Reaper]

labour has to get control of the senit before they can get rid of the new ir laws but they can roll them back

Labor would need control of both houses of Parlament (sp?) to make any changes - either get rid of it or roll it back. That control might include the co-operation of some of the minor parties such as the Greens (God help us if they ever get the balance of power!) or independents.

and if howard gets re elected he is bringing in some scarey IR changes wich will effect every one espicaly if u like ur pubic holidays sickys anual leave long service leace and just goes on and on

Oh - he is???? What are they or are you just making this up???? I think you have been smoking your green tabaccy pipe a little much.

Reaper

[HotSSV]

^ ^ ^ ^
your dreaming if you think labour is going to roll back the IR laws.

[SICK SS]

Labor would need control of both houses of Parlament (sp?) to make any changes - either get rid of it or roll it back. That control might include the co-operation of some of the minor parties such as the Greens (God help us if they ever get the balance of power!) or independents.



Oh - he is???? What are they or are you just making this up???? I think you have been smoking your green tabaccy pipe a little much.

Reaper

First im not smoking anything and i see you run a business wich is why u like these laws, under the Award system, Australians have twenty pay and conditions standards that are protected under law. After this Bill is passed, they’ll have just five.

But the Prime Minister hopes that by just talking about the five and how they’re “protected by law” we won’t notice what’s happening to the other fifteen entitlements that can now be removed at the stroke of a pen – rights like holiday leave, redundancy pay and penalty rates.

A second example relates to employees’ rights to protection from unfair dismissal. The ads tell us that employees’ rights against unlawful dismissal are “protected by law” – hoping to confuse people about the difference between unlawful and unfair dismissal rights.

An honest information campaign would tell people about the difference between the two sets of rights, and tell them that for 99% of workplaces, the Bill will abolish unfair dismissal rights. Instead, there’s no mention of what’s being taken away – just the misleading impression that nothing is changing.

Take a third example – the examples the Government cites to show the benefits of enterprise agreements. The ads suggest that to enjoy the flexibility of these agreements, we need to change the bargaining laws. But the fact is that the flexibility to improve work practices and getting higher pay is already in the system. It’s been there in part since 1991, and in full since 1994. It’s what has underpinned the growth in real wages for 15 years.

The truth is that the Bill doesn’t make it any easier to increase pay – it just makes it easier to cut take-home pay, because employers don’t need to compensate workers for taking away entitlements like penalty rates, holiday pay, and shift loading.

[J_D]

And what would you suggest Gov.Co should have done about it??? Also, what would you say to the hundreds of thousands of people who have made good money from property over the last 10 years? Should we regulate our housing market so that you can get a bargain?

It's interesting to note that buying a house in Victoria at the median price of $360,000 costs a shade under $20,000 in stamp duty and other government charges that goes on top of the purchase price. (I didn't even get a receipt in return!). The bulk of that cost (nearly 3/4 from memory) is in state government stamp duty which has nothing to do with the federal government.

It's easy to bitch about the GovCo (any level) from the sidelines and everybody likes to take a free kick. It's an entirely different story when you are sitting in the chair with the controls trying to run the place without sending it bankrupt.

Cheers,

Reaper

I take it you were one of the lucky ones who managed to take advantage of low house prices. It should be everyones right to own a house at a reasonable price not just a right of the rich, which it is fast becoming in this country. Think about that. Australia has the most amount of land per person in the world yet families are living in tents because they cant afford to buy or even rent a house. That is disgraceful for a first world country.

You dont need to regulate the system to improve housing affordability, you just need to take some of the control away from the developers who are gouging everyone who is buying property ATM. This would be easily accomplished if the govt would go back to sub-dividing land to sell to individuals instead of selling it to a corporation for a few thousand dollars an acre so they can sell it for $100,000 or more for 400-600 square meters and if they would build more govt housing to bring down rental prices.