ELECTION OPINION: Vote Liberal for real change
City of Sydney councillor Christine Forster
You only have one vote on September 7 and this election is the most important in a generation.
For many of us in the GLBTI community marriage equality is a key political issue at a federal level and the positions of the two major parties on this important question are virtually the same. Both are leaving it up to their new members of parliament to decide, after the election.
On all other issues there is a clear choice. The Liberal National Party leadership team is united, stable and experienced. Unlike Labor, they haven鈥檛 spent the last three years wondering who the leader is that will get them re-elected 鈥� they鈥檝e spent that time preparing a genuine plan for Australia鈥檚 future.
The Coalition has committed to providing two million new jobs, lowering taxes and cutting red tape for businesses large and small. Unlike the big-spending Labor government, the LNP will work to get the budget back in the black and address the debt problem which is now spiralling out of control. The LNP has committed to building infrastructure in Sydney and around the country. It will also work to improve health care and education services by cooperating with the states to devolve decision-making to the local level, rather than concentrating power with a bureaucracy in Canberra.
A Coalition government will stop the boats by implementing a suite of proven policies which will dissuade people smugglers.
On marriage equality the Leader of the Opposition, my brother Tony Abbott, has been clear that he does not support change to the Marriage Act, but has also said it would be a matter for the party room.
鈥淚n the end, all democratic political parties over time reflect the will of the society that produces them,鈥� he said during the leader鈥檚 debate in Brisbane. 鈥淚 take a conservative position on it myself鈥ut I don鈥檛 believe that I can necessarily impose my view on society鈥marriage equality] will be a matter for our party, for our Coalition, if it were to come up in a future parliament.鈥�
Marriage equality has been a contentious issue in democratic Western societies, but in our two most closely allied nations, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, the push to achieve the reform has happened under the conservative side of politics, and it鈥檚 likely to be the same here.聽 Liberal candidates like Sean O鈥機onnor in Sydney, Kevin Ekendahl in Melbourne Ports and many others within the party are championing marriage equality and are pushing for our federal party room to have a conscience vote.
The Liberal Party has a proud history and a proven track record of leading change. The Liberals had the first woman elected to federal parliament, the first Indigenous Australian elected to federal parliament, the first out gay person elected to the New South Wales Lower House. Our party values individuals and embraces reform. A vote for the Liberals is a vote for real change.
it was the liberals who had the marriage act changed in the first place!
You’re a pathetic puppet Christine.
Someone had best contact Ms Forster and let her know that Tony Abbott has hacked her account. It’s the only feasible explanation I can think of for this sort of nonsense.
The hide of this woman to come here and preach the anti-equality party – complete with racist boat rhetoric – on a gay website. F*ck off, Christine. Grow some balls and make a difference.
AND how can you sit there and type this with a straight face:
“Both are leaving it up to their new members of parliament to decide, after the election.”
Um. NO. They’re NOT. Sorry to bring FACTS into this, but your biggoted brother won’t allow even a conscience vote.
Dear Christine,
Please seek a qualified psychotherapist. For your sake… and OURS.
How as a LGBT individual can you support this rubbish. Im horrified to think what your brother is going to do to this country.
Firstly it seems its ok to act like a dog to women. Coz Tony does
Secondly it seems ok to not worry about what the nation wants and to cosy up to the Christian Lobby. Wheres separation of church and state?
God help us all if he wins on Saturday but I will be voting labor to get Abbotts slimy paws out of parliament.
I’m only old enough to remember one Liberal government- the Howard era. Let’s have a look at some of the ‘real change’ spearheaded by that cabinet.
1) An introduction of a tax on Goods and Services, despite assurances that that would never, ever be implemented under John Howard.
2) New refugee actions condemned by the United Nations (continued under the Rudd and Gillard cabinets)
3) Participation in the globally condemned ‘War on Terror.’
4) Changing the definition of marriage in the constitution between “Two people” to “one man and one woman”
5) A steadfast refusal to apologise for the Stolen Generation.
6) Repeated cuts of education.
7) Repeated cuts to public broadcasting.
8) Denial of the existence of and refusal to act on climate change.
9) Introduction of ‘Work Choices.’
The problem, Ms Forster, with using phrases like ‘real change’ is that it does not indicate whether these changes will be positive or negative for a the community at large. It is an empty phrase, and any government will change what their predecessors did, or even what they did themselves in the previous term.
Nothing you or Mr Abbott has offered is better than what Mr Rudd or Ms Milne offer. It is all just ‘maybes’ and ‘we’ll see’ dressed up as legislation.
How could any self-respecting poof fall for this rubbish??? One has to wonder whether your brother has pushed you back in the closet Christine!!
They will create 2 million more jobs? According to the ABS there aren’t even that many unemployed people in Australia!
The Libs Stop the Boat policies are not proven, it just so happened that those policies were put into effect the same time refugee numbers dropped WORLDWIDE!
Yes a vote for Liberals is a vote for change, but a change from what? Action on climate change? Low interest rates? Higher wages? Continued economic growth? Low unemployment?
Forgive the length of this, but you’ve all had your say – I’m responding to you all…in no specific order.
1. The majority of you fail to embrace the core principles of our community, that being acceptance and inclusion for all. We are diverse, with broad views. Some want marriage equality for their own reasons, some want it for others, and equally just as many dont care either way. This is a fact.
2. The fact that many of you here (not all, but many) have failed to mount legible cogent arguments is an insult. Reduce yourself to personal insults without raising valid opposition just makes you look stupid…I’m sure you’re not, but you do nothing to progress your own cause by being abusive.
3. Emotion certainly comes into the marriage equality debate, and I get that not everyone will agree. However anyone who thinks that changes to the marriage act will happen just because Tony moves to allow Coalition members a conscience vote is delusional. More than 50% of the Labor party voted against it. The Greens cant enact change alone with no (or one) lower house seats. You must take EVERY SINGLE person with you – you cant fight these battles on a party political platform. And you cannot drag people to do something they are not comfortable with.
4. Honesty is the most credible thing we can demand. When we know someone’s real views, we can act to change them. When someone conceals their views, as some members of parliament have over the last few years, we misdirect our energy towards the wrong people, or fight against view that are unchangeable. You have to at least respect that Tony is being honest. You know what view you are fighting to change. You cant say this for many politicians.
5. Think beyond face value here. Christine is asking you to trust. She know’s more than you about her brother’s views, and more than you about what she can influence.
6. Regardless of the “leader” of the party’s position, when both parties have less than 50% support for marriage equality, Christine is right – the positions of the two major parties are broadly the same – not in support – regardless of the 60+% community support. Look at your local member, ask them what they support, and vote based on that if it means so much to you. But dont judge everyone based on purely what the leader supports. Any idiot will tell you that if there is enough groundswell within a party for change, the leader either goes with that groundswell, or they kick the leader out.
7. Anyone who thinks that Labor will achieve marriage equality within 100 days even with a Coalition conscience vote is an idiot. Rudd is being populist – getting people to vote for him with a “promise” he wont be able to keep. And the promise is only to put legislation to the parliament – not to achieve marriage equality. So the community will be disappointed again by a vote that is destined to fail coming before the parliament.
8. Gillard didnt support marriage equality, not did Rudd, yet Rudd backflips (I’m not criticising the backflip) in the leadup to his run for leadership. Forgive my cynicism. He certainly sounded passionate enough to disrespect another’s views enough to belittle them on national TV on Monday night – so perhaps his conversion is genuine. But he did have 6 years as part of the current govt to achieve this, and didnt. His govt had a semi-functional majority in the house, with the support of the Greens in the Senate also. If he wanted marriage equality, he didnt need the Coalition support, he/Gillard could have done it by being a leader and directing a yes vote for Labor (as a leader is entitled to), instead of supporting a conscience vote, ensuring it would fail because not only the Coalition voted against it, but more than half of the Labor party did as well.
9. Lastly, you are all fools if you think that you should vote in this election according to who supports marriage equality. A previous gay member of pariiament (a WA Senator) who came to power on a single policy platform lost his seat after one senate term because he was incapable of achieving anything else. Now I wont judge why that was the case – whether it was personal capability, personal motivation, party support, whatever – I dont know. But if you think that this is the only compelling issue of this (or any election), you are completely self-centred and delusional. I want marriage equality as much as the rest of you, and much less for the legal recognition of my 15 year relationship with my partner, more so for being able to tell the young people around us that they are normal. But I also recognise there are a few dozen other policy areas that are important to me – health, education, defence, finances, taxes etc. that all flavour my vote. Marriage equality a piece of the puzzle, but I can guarantee if marriage equality was achieved tomorrow yet your taxes rose, or any number of other factors changed, you’d be equally unhappy.
You insult your own intelligence when you reduce yourself to this petty divisive name calling. It’s undignified, and shameful, and not in the spirit of our community. Get over yourselves. Give Christine a break. There arent many of you who have the guts, the fortitude, the resiliance, or the character to represent their community with more than just a single platform. Christine does. Respectfully disagree. But drop the abuse and bullying.
Shane, you can have your own opinion, but you cannot have your own facts. Twice in your comments you have stated that more than 50% of ALP MPs don’t support marriage equality/more than 50% voted against marriage equality. THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. There was a vote on this in Federal Parliament in 2012. And guess what, the majority of ALP MPs in the House of Reps, and the majority of ALP Senators, voted in favour of marriage equality, which obviously means that more than 50% overall voted yes. Don’t believe me? Go and do some research and look at the hansard before you write uninformed comments. And that result was achieved under a PM who was opposed to marriage equality – now that there is a leader in favour, this figure is likely to be higher still. I will gladly take more than 50% of MPs voting in favour versus ZERO MPs voting in favour (which coincidentally is the Coalition’s ‘scorecard’).
As for your fourth point, that is exactly the point – the Coalition are not telling the public what they will do on marriage equality. They have said that they will only decide whether to even have a conscience vote AFTER the election. That is not being upfront with the people who care about this important social policy question – the Coalition are not telling us their “real views” on this before people cast their vote. Surely you can agree that this is a problem in a democracy?
“Reduce yourself to personal insults without raising valid opposition just makes you look stupid.”
“Anyone who thinks that Labor will achieve marriage equality within 100 days even with a Coalition conscience vote is an idiot.”
“Lastly, you are all fools if you think that you should vote in this election according to who supports marriage equality.”
“You insult your own intelligence when you reduce yourself to this petty divisive name calling.”
“But drop the abuse and bullying.”
WOW ! I want some of Christines medication. She is so so delusional she will do and say anything. Im so confused with the Abbott family Im starting to think Margie is a drag queen , Tony is a fluffer and Christine is actually straight. As for the “lame gay church loser ” daughters that must appear everywhere with “daggy dad.” god forbid. these people are a complete and total embarrassment. god help us come election day…its a race to the bottom.(yes I know )
Would you talk about your nieces in the same Tony did on Big Brother?
Does your brother look you in the eye when he basically tells you that you are not allowed to marry the person you love Christine? What a load of navel gazing rubbish this piece is. The Noalition is the go to party for racists and bigots now. I saw ample evidence of that on your lousy brother’s Facebook page. Shame shame shame!
I am a liberal and I am gay. Of course I’m disappointed the party has not yet embraced change yet but I completely agree and respect Chris’s perspective and see the door is slightly ajar.
For those of you so hateful in your attacks you should know you do our cause no good. This is an ongoing challenge to win the hearts and minds of all Australians. If any people who didn’t live in Darlinghurst actually read this website they would be appalled and turn off our issue.
In terms of Kevin Rudd, I believe he was rude and behaved appallingly on Q&A and surely we all know that he is playing politics and couldn’t give two-hoots for the plight of the gay community. Just because Abbott doesn’t support marriage equality doesn’t mean he is homophobic and doesn’t care. His sister is gay and he has shown unbelievable support for a number of years. Have your siblings shown that level of support?
So can we try and work together on this rather than attack each other. We want to get an outcome here and bad manners and bitchiness will not advance the cause.
Neil
Whilst I agree hateful discource is not helpful perhaps its worth remembering that LGBTI youth are far more likely to self harm. Many of us know people who have or tried to suicide. Two organisations have been in the forefront of the attitudes that cause people to do this. The Right (Many in the liberal party – though of course not all; Malcolm Turnball comes to mind of course) – including the changing of the marriage act by John Howard to ensure we cant marry – and who even today just called Marriage equality “Nonsense”. Senator Cory of course doesnt help. Can I go on. The other organisations that brutalise Gays and cause people to self harm is of course the churches. And need I note that Tony Abbott trained in a seminary and is a confidant of Archbishop Pell has has not been backwards about opposing LGBTI rights. And I might add Abbott even tried to Deny his meetings with Pell. And I would note that its reasonable to be concerned about this. As health minister on several occasions WE DO know about Abbott made decisions based on Catholic doctrine rather than medical advice and John Howard had to overrule him and Abbott has already announced that he will abolish the watchdog that montors how the catholic church spends the vast sums of many the government gives the church each year. Something Pell has been particularly campaigning for. So given the Harm these organisations have done to our community. The people who have died or even those bashed – thanks to inflamatory statements that validate homophobia and especially given how tight Abbott and the church is – Can you blame people for being heated. If you had lost a partner of a friend because of these people – how would you feel ?
I agree gay suicide is a terrible thing and as an gay man I do everything I can to make a difference in my sphere of influence. However, I’m not convinced Marriage Equality is a solution.
Neil
I would say you are perhaps right Marriage equality is not the answer. The end to discrimination and shame – is the answer. Whilst some churches tell people they will go to hell for being Gay. Whilst Senators like Cory Bernardi tell us our families are second class – these all combine (with other messages) to tell young LGBTI youth they are inferiour. Marriage equality wont fix that issue – but every bit of progress helps and make no mistake – it will help. We have seen enormous progress in my lifetime. If you go to a community forum you will see an interesting but heartening progression. Amongst the older LGBTI people – its common to hear stories of being beaten and thrown out of home. In my generation – its more discrimination (I personally saw such incidents) and verbal harrasment (although I know people who werepoofta bashed. In the younger generation – its better again. Their more often out at school – unless they go to a religious school. BUT not always. and its still an issue. And I can attest personally (do to volunteer work I do) to many suicides and suicide attempts. Shocking numbers. Marriage equality will send a message saying – we think you are as good as anyone else – and that WILL help. Its another step. Recently the minister of a large (and very powerful) pentecostal worldwide church said in a sermon that they had churches in countries where marriage equality was law – and as a result they had to think about how they had treated gays and what that all meant to them for a church. This was a HUGE step for this church. I know of a number of suicides from young people at that church (attendance is in the tens of 000’s)) so marriage equality DOES make a difference. It will literally save lives. And lets talk about what marriage really is for a moment. Marriage in the bible is in fact many things. It includes Polygamy. Rape. Capturing woman my force. the Possession of your dead brothers wife to continue the line. David and Solomon were Righteous before god and had many many wives and concubines. Not suggesting we do that. Just saying. Our marriage is a pick and choose one and thats OK. Marriage through history has often been aaranged. More about property or alliances than love. Indeed there are many recorded cases of Male Male marriages in premodern europe (and Im not talking homosexual marriage but Im talking about alliances etc) It was not uncommon (See John Boswell’s works on the matter for many documented cases of this) Marriage itself was NOT a sacrement until quite late …. so for about 1200 years after christ – marriage had nothing to do with church OR state. IT was during the protestant reformation in a battle over various matters – that Martin Luther said Marriage was a civil matter and so the church retaliated by making it a sacrement. The end result is – its not both. BUT although we use one word… YOU need to also realise that when the government says marriage and an anglican minister says marriage and a catholic minister says marriage – they are talking about different things. Same word – but actually a different thing – and thats what a lot of confusion and objection is about. The government is talking about legal rights. in this case – there ARE certain legal rights given to parents that are ONLY given in the marriage act. Untill we have marriage equality – Children (Yes – think of the children) are exposed to risk . This could be solved – but changing it to Civil union – and making it non gender specific. Problem solved but right now- there are rights same sex families NEED and dont have. However the church is talking about a sacrement and they dont even agree between themselves. So the state will marry a Christian and a Bhuddist. Some churches will NOT do that (see – different thing) But some churches would marry that couple and some wouldnt. Some churches recognise divorce. Some dont. So I can marry in a catholic church – get a divorce – and marry again in an anglican church and that marriage wont be recognised by the catholic church. see a problem here ? Although we use the same term – they are not talking about the same thing at all…All the “marriages” are different. So Let the state give us marriage equality. The church doesnt recognise the law now (as far as marriage goes) when it doesnt suit them (e.g. divorce) so as long as they arent forced to marry LGBTI people (and I would argue they shouldnt HAVE to) then they shouldnt be able to prevent our equal legal rights OR our freedom of religion to marry in the churches that think we should be able to marry. Whether you agree or not. How does MY marrying in MY church harm you. Why should your religion trump mine ? that seems the worst kind of slippery slope to me…..
” Have your siblings shown that level of support?”
Er yes they have and they even believe I should be allowed to marry the person I love. Shock horror!
There were even Jews who voted for the nazi party last century
didn’t save them from the ovens though.
Are u on drugs Christine? Your homophobic brother is not virtually the same as the Prime Minister when it comes to marriage equality and LGBTI issues.
it is not just about Marriage Equality. Under a Labor commonwealth government over 3 million dollars have been given to addressing mental health and suicide prevention in the LGBTI community. This national strategic approach is a world first. Over 4 million dollars to improving the care of LGBTI elders in aged care facilitlies and an LGBTI aged care strategy. The passing of legislation to extend the coverage of the anti-discrimantion laws to ensure federal protections on the grounds of 鈥榮exual orientation鈥�, 鈥榞ender identity鈥�, 鈥榠ntersex status鈥� and 鈥榤arital or relationship status鈥�. The granting of secretariat funding for a national LGBTI health alliance. The majority of these initiatives were either criticised or opposed by the Liberal opposition.
Obviously Christine’s article is for LGBTI people who have a broader national interest view of the election, people actually interested in economic, governmental competence and stability in Australia. Not the bullies who want to shut up anyone who says what they don’t agree with, or the very closed-minded people who think they are fighting against closed-mindedness. Good on Christine for saying her piece. Good on her!!
Which is no doubt why she addresses things like the lack of policy costings. The fact the Howard Government (of which Abbott was a member) had record high taxes and has been deemed by the IMF as the most wastefully spending government in Australian history (and yes even comparing with this one).
Or why she addresses why Dr John Hewson (ex leader of the liberal party with two masters degrees AND a PhD in Economics) says of the Current LNP Policies that they have no substance and are based only on fear – and that they risk a bigger melt down than the GFC ! Lets not talk about Malcolm Frasers Opinion…. Nor of the many Other economists that say the LNP plan will plunge us into recession.
She mentions the boats but conveniently ignores the 70% increase in worldwide refugee numbers that happened in just the single year AFTER Howard left (let alone the increases in following years) – that just might have had something to do with the increased numbers we are seeing. This suggests they are either treating us as dumb or fibbing or they dont understand the problem. None of those is great.
How ever even though the Economic record of the Howard government is clear (it was a disaster – look at the AUD exchange rate for example and how world wide confidence in our economy surged as soon as he left) or the fact that productity went from 0.7% under howard to 2.4% now ….. The real point is – its Christine that focuses not on economic issues (why should they – the facts are against them) and she talks mostly on marriage equality. Of course – the facts on that are against them also.
When you’re a government that makes money, you are also allowed to spend money. This govt has made fuck-all from their mining tax (even though they’ve spent ahead of actually making the money), and the Carbon tax is NOT doing anything for emissions here in Australia, the only way we meet our 5% 2020 target is by purchasing carbon credits abroad! (fraud on the people much?). Anyone who suggests the Coalition’s policies will lead Australia into a recession either hasn’t read those policies, is mindlessly partisan, or is just being silly and trying to see how many soft-minded people will fall for their daft arguments. We know from hard experience what this govt has been like when it comes to economic management, we know how many PM’s they’ve had in 2 terms and how many ministers they’ve had in core economic ministries. We don’t need an article from a London or American ‘economist’ to tell us what we’ve experienced ourselves here as Australians. How dare they? When their own economies are pretty much fucked (though now recovering). Hewson lost the 1993 ‘unloseable’ election, and Fraser is now a Greens-convert, I don’t think we should place much emphasis on their assessments of Coalition policy… and of course, on asylum seekers, the “push-factors” arguments you’ve made have since been abandoned by the government for an unconscionable PNG policy which sends and resettles LGBTI people in a country where they could be jailed for 14 years! Please.
HHmme
Lets see
If you look at say – the OECD Debt as a % Of GDP (a good independant source) you well see debt under howard was as high as 18%. Even with the GFC stimilus spending – this government has never got close to reaching debt at those levels.
In addition – when Labor came in – the debt declined until the GFC – it took a spike due to the stimulus. I would not that the first stimuls tranche was unanimously voted on by both LNP and Labor – and the Second – there was only a slight difference in opinion. The LNP DID want to spend 20% less on the stimulus – BUT what they wanted to do is set up an special department to administer the payments. That takes public servants, computers etc etc No costing on this was done. It also would have delayed the stimulus. Those that tried that appraoch overseas – failed – speed was the critical factor. Still By the time you add in the extra time and the extra personel – the best estimates suggest second tranche would have been 10% less but a high degree of likelyhood a third tranche would have been needed which would mean far more debt now. We cant know of course – What we do know is that we have the THIRD LOWEST DEBT in the developed world and that only two countries in the world had one month or less of negative GDP growth – one being us – and the other doing the same as we did. No other method worked in stopping recession. Coutnries that had large surplesses – Still in recession. Countries with no debt – still in recession. Only the two contries that rapidly deployed the stimulus and at a high % of GDP had no recession. Thats the case. You might believe something else might have worked – but i would suggest asking an economist if it was tried. Many different things WERE tried. ONLY 2 countries succeeded.
Now I quoted a number of Economists. Not just one. Many of them are australian. In fact – quite a few were australian. And a number were overseas. And I might point out – our economy is (as you are so knowledgeable about economists – you will know this) very dependent on trade – so the opinoion of overseas companies and businesses and governments is actually quite important to the success of our economy. Thats why I suggest you look up the exchange rate – say the dollar against the pound. You will notice a sharp drop shortly after john howard came to power. That tells you that banks and government all over the world think Australia has become a bad risk. You willl notice that once he loses office – it rises sharply – as banks and government all around the world regain confidence in us as a trading partner. But of course many stats back that up. Productivity under howard was was 2.1% for the first few years and for the last few years of his government it was down to 0.7%. Appaling. (EVEN with the GFC and world wide recession its been at 2.4% under labor) and and whilst you dont like the opinion of those overseas – we need that trade – and this government is the first to get AAA ratings from all 3 ratings agencies (I spose its a good time to note that the Spiraling debt under the LNP in WA has put them at risk of losing the states AAA rating and QLD has the fastest growing unemployment rate in the country – when under labor it was at a 40 year low) I mean its not hard to find australian economist saying – Labor have been pretty good. (of course – they look at hard data) For axample – the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling found the cost of living had actually risen by just 1.7% in the year to June, well below the long-term annual average of 2.9%, and that household incomes had risen on average by 2.8% over the same timeframe, leaving households, on average, better off. [then we were before Labor was in]. When howard was in power – 13.5 days per 000 employees were lost per quarter. Under labor that figer is down to 4.9 (36% of the days lost figure under Howard). Labor have actually reduced welfare spending by tougheening the means test AND reducing the amount paid. (which is one reason why the Countries debt – barring the GFC stimulus) has been continually dropping under labor. Of course – The IMF (oh those horrible foreigners again) noted that the howard government was the most wastefully spending government in our history. in fact – John Howard Was the highest taxing government – but hit a record low on infrastructure spending. He also did a huge firesale on assets. He didnt pay off the debt. in fact he laft quite a large debt and surplus are TWO different things and what he did was sell assets to make a budget surplus. Thats like selling your house to pay off your credit card. Its not very sustainable.(its worth. Houses consume money and many of the assets he sold were MAKING money) Do you see a pattern here. Maybe one of these people or sources could be wrong – but all them – experts in their field and all say the same thing. Labor did well. the Howard Government was an economic disaster. This is a party that cant even release their costings. What does THAT tell you. in 2010 – after the election – it turned out there was an 11.5 Billion dollar hole in their costings. It also turned out they had breached accounting standards to get those costings. This election Again we dont get costings… and saul eslake – estimates a $30 billion dollar hole (yes he works for Bank of america – but I think you need to check where he works including 14 years as cheif economist for ANZ bank and for PWC in melbourne) Hes not foreigner. He understands the australian side and the world side. BUT we use his figures because – the LNP havent released costings. Tell me would you invest all your money with a business that had a history of hiding their books and when their books did come to light – had breaches of accounting standards – and accounting errors in the billions – and then they come to you and say – we want all your money – but we wont show you the costings for the new business. THATS what the LNP is doing . exactly….. now they all say there are brilliant minds there in the LNP. Hockey. Turnball. The trouble is – they arent setting the policies. The people who are – dont get economics. Clearly dont get economics. They arent even right wing. Abbots direct action policy is a large government, high regulation plan. Its a left wing style expensive, high employment plan. No conservative shoould be voting for that. You stick a price on carbon and let the market work it out. Government shouldnt be involved. THATS what John Howard designed in 2004 energy white paper and thats the ETS. Thats what economists dislike about abbott and the policies.
Jay
Are you seriously thinking that the Banks; Australian like Westpac – which have issued reports that have vindicated Labor Economic management, and overseas banks Like Bank of America – that have issued costings and statements. The OECD which collects normalised (that is standard) statistics on countries all around the world – and the ratings agancies – whose profitability depend 100% on the accuracy of their information. The economists that publish in the Right wing – economist Magazine (which is a world wide organisation complete with Economic Intelligence Gathering networks – which IT sells and which it relies on the accuracy of its information in order to survive) and all the businesses and governments that fled the Currency under the LNP government and pushed it to record High levels under this government. That ALL of them Banks, Governments. Information Organisations. International Organisations. ALL of them – are in some plot. Or occams razor. Maybe what they all say agree because its right…. and perhaps – you need to go and read some economic journals and not say.. the daily terrorgraph written by someone with no economic training – AND who has an interest not in the best economic outcome – but in what is best for his employer only ? Or better yet – some of the newer economic courses … where Labors’ success (and there few failures) are now taught as being the gold standard of one of only two countries to grow during the GFC. Oh and NOT one country that followed the LNP’s plans avoided severe recession or depression. Seems like I would be wary about this generation of the LNP. They have a bad track record.
One final note – you dismiss Hewson and Fraser. BUT does it occur to you that they havent changed – but the LNP has. (In fact that is the case) …. Labor’s policies are quite right wing (economically speaking. For example – the ETS – was from John Howards 2004 energy white paper. And the cutting of Welfare benefits and the tightening of means testing which significantly reduced welfare costs from the Howard largesses – are actually more Right Wing in philosphy than left wing. Similarly – many of the LNP’s policies (and yes – economists read them in all their detail over and over again … and then discuss them again and again) are actually large government expensive policies. Left Wing style Policies. So if are economically conservative. The reason Economists and banks and the like are supporting Labor – is because they are WHAT the LNP used to be. The problem is the LNP at the moment Doesnt know what it is. Its literally – the NOALITION. Rather than a series of conservative policies. Its got a series of NO policies – created just to differentiate itself from Labor EVEN if that policy is idealogically at odds with what the LNP should stand for. whilst Abbott and the far right are in control – the LNP is not “Liberal” is lost. Work through the policies and ask yourself. Not is it good or bad. BUT is it a small government, low cost policy. Should the government even be doing that. See how many dont fit conservative ideology.
Labor is “big-spending”, Christine?
According to The Guardian, over the election campaign, each leader has personally promised this much as of September 3:
Rudd: $2.4 billion.
Abbott: $15.9 billion.
Christine, can you please ask your liar of a brother what he is going to cut to fund his spending spree; what his full costings are; and identify who is set to lose if he wins?
One thing I am very sure of! I will never, ever vote conservative! Don Dunstan and Bob Brown my political heroes!
The does seem to be a clear Choice. The last time the LNP was in power – Tax rates hit a historic high – sitting at about 29 to 30% of GDP. Under Labor its 25% OF GDP – so its a choice of High taxes or Low taxes. (AS Ross Gittins says “When you see the list of tax hikes that accompany Abbott’s grand tax-cutting gesture, it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence he could keep taxes down in a way none of his predecessors has managed to.” we are told the Coalition has a plan for Jobs – but Nobel Prize winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz says of the LNP’s Plan “cutting public spending by $70 billion from an economy the size of Australia’s over a four-year period could reduce GDP growth by around 2 per cent and cost up to 90,000 jobs. Even the Economist Magazine – for the first time – says that Abbotts platform is defective and recommends rudd instead. Lets NOT talk about the fact that we havent seen costings yet – and that the 2010 Policies – turned out to have an $11.5 hole in them AND it turned out they breached accounting standards. Now in this election we cant see the costings. However Saul Eslake of bank of america Notes that Abbott has a Long term History of making Bad economic choices and as best he can tell (on the small information we have been given) there is a $30 Billion dollar Hole in the Coalitions costings. As for the LNP having a track record of change – that MAY have been true once – but I would note they are known as the Noalition for a reason now… and let of course lets think about the Bank of America’s Note that “highlights the potential for “significant and ongoing tensions” in an Abbott government between its “genuine economic liberals”, such as shadow treasurer Joe Hockey, and those who are “more sceptical about markets … including in many cases Tony Abbott as Prime Minister”. and points out that similar tensions in the Fraser government resulted in a “singular lack of economic policy achievements”. This is the sort of CHANGE we can expect ?? (and Dont get me started on the NBN – with the Internet Sector growing at over 7% PA, larger than retail, larger than Iron ore exports and the largest potential for Jobs – and will be earning Trillions for the country – and the LNP want to give us a solution of 10s of MBPS where in many countries now 100 MBPS is standard and 1000 MBPS is already being rolled out in some places. Thats not a party for change. Thats a party to KILL business. As for Marriage Equality – frankly – The choice is Clearer – Greens, or Pirates, or Labor even. The LNP – its a bit late to be convincing. In 1982 – when Labor got in we were ranked 20th economy in the world. When Howard got – we were ranked 6th. When he left – we had slipped back to 10th – we have shot back up the list again under the list AND have the third lowest debt in the developed world… and without mass firesales. Thats good management
Christin’s two-faced scum of a brother Tony Abbott has previously described marriage equality as such an “important issue” that he plans to do absolutely nothing about it, having already thwarted a proper conscience vote on it. Now we hear that, on the campaign trail with John Howard, Abbott has described marriage equality as “nonsense”. I for one am tired of hearing Christine making limp excuses for Tony Abbott. I think she is being used. How can she look her fellow LGBT in the eyes and urge them to vote for the manipulative condescending deceitful piece of papist spawn that is Tony Abbott? Is her brother’s career and ambition more important that the equal rights and dignity of her fellow Australians?? SHAME!
I sincerely doubt Christine is being used. More likely she simply doesn’t care about anyone less privileged than herself. Considering she is related to Tony Abbott and was doubtless raised with the same moral compass, it’s not all that surprising.
Where is your self respect Christine? Abbott’s sustained and ruthless attack on gays and lesbians hasn’t raised any flags for you?
What a load of hogwash. Shame on you, Christine!
seriously? they’ve had years to formulate their plans.. (apparently all those years of saying ‘no’ to everything was part of the process) and yet when it comes to details of the plans??? anyone? two million jobs? how and where?….stop the boats?? how? you gonna shoot them out of the water? The Liberal Party does have proud history of leading change but unfortunately Tony Abbott doesn’t
Christine, you’re not just wrong, you’re a liar. Labor has marriage equality as part of their national platform … have you fascists got that far yet? Just because the first female, indigenous, or gay MPs were libs … Doesn’t make you true reformers. Policies are what matter … and from the beginning, every major step forward in social policy (Including rights for LGBTI people) has been made by a Labor govt. The one decent thing you guys ever did was gun control. Congrats. Now f* off
Abbott wouldn’t change his mind during this past term because the Coalition was elected on a platform that support ed no change to the Marriage Act.
Going into an election he is now saying it won’t be discussed before the election but after. Even though they’ll again have been elected on a platform that does not support equality.
A carrot to the LGBTI community, particularly those who are fed up with Labor, ‘vote for us and we might change our minds’. The contempt at politicising our rights and then using it against us…
The Greens are the only major party who we can know for sure will vote for our rights. They’ve supported us for a very long time, where the other two still have very outspoken members who oppose equality.
Don’t be fooled by a friendly face and an empty promise. Vote for a party or a candidate based on their proven record. Otherwise we will indeed have the real change Abbott is promising. And we will regret it.
I’m not buying it Christine. Sorry. I think Mr Abbot has had ample opportunity to, at the very least, commit to allowing Coalition MP’s a conscience vote. If he can’t at least give this pre-election commitment without hiding behind the same old slogan, “it’s a matter for a post election party room” (What a cop out!) then he doesn’t deserve our vote. The Australian people want it (Over 60% support), LGBTI people and our families deserve equality and he had the opportunity to give a conscience vote last year but refused. He has dragged this out because it conflicts with his religious beliefs and he has caused much angst and pain to so many as a result. I, for one, won’t be taking the risk with my vote. (Not that it will matter based on the current polls) – Thanks for the read though :)
The second paragraph in this op-ed is rubbish. No, Ms Forster, the positions of the two major parties on this important question are NOT virtually the same. One major party has a party platform in favour of marriage equality, rules which guarantee its MPs a conscience vote, a majority of sitting MPs who voted in favour of marriage equality just last year, a Prime Minister who supports it, and a commitment to reintroduce a Bill within 100 days. The other – your brother’s Coalition – has left it up to whoever is elected at this election to decide whether to even have a conscience vote (with the possibility that there is not a conscience vote/all its MPs are forced to vote against), a Leader who continues to oppose marriage equality, and who does not expect a Bill to even arise in the next Parliament, and not a single sitting MP who voted for marriage equality in 2012 (despite Liberals always saying that backbenchers can vote freely on every Bill). I don’t know what your definition of ‘virtually the same’ is, but it is in no dictionary that I can find.
Would Christine like to comment on her brother’s BFFs comments about how marriage equality is “nonsense”?
The Coalition being positioned as a viable option for queer voters? Surely this is a joke?
No, it’s her that is the joke.