Labor's policies best reflect our values

Date
September 6, 2013

The Age has long held that policy, not personality, is the core of our democracy. It is on this basis that we advocate a vote for Labor in the federal election on Saturday. We do so fully acknowledging that the Coalition under Tony Abbott has run a disciplined and competent campaign, and that after six years of Labor government the electorate is wary and weary of Labor's infighting. Yet we cannot endorse a party that advocates policies with which we fundamentally disagree.

As our readers know, we support Labor's national broadband network strategy, its commitment to increasing the superannuation guarantee levy, its Gonski schools funding plan, and its shift from a carbon price to an emissions trading scheme. We also support the deal it forged between business and environmentalists that led to areas of Tasmania's western wilderness being added to the World Heritage Area. In our view, these programs are initiatives towards generational change. They are visionary, forward-thinking and nation-building, not gimmicks devised to meet a three-year election cycle.

Yet the Coalition would curb the scope of the NBN and defer the higher superannuation guarantee levy, despite the patent need to save as the population ages. The Coalition has failed to commit to the fifth and sixth years of funding on Gonski, the years of maximum investment, and it would claw back Tasmania's World Heritage wilderness listing.

We deplore both major parties' policies on asylum seekers but support Labor's plan to increase Australia's humanitarian intake. The Coalition would cut it. Underscoring the Coalition's heartless approach is its proposal to slice $4.5 billion from Australia's foreign aid budget. Importantly, the Coalition has back-tracked disgracefully on climate change. Its commitment to reducing Australia's carbon emissions is now precariously linked to budget affordability. Climate change has moved beyond being a moral question. It is a fundamental economic imperative.

Advertisement
Looking ahead, neither Labor nor the Coalition has seized us with a comprehensive vision for Australia's economic direction. Both have offered sound but limited strategies, targeted to different ends. The map for the longer term, though, is missing. While the Coalition would build new roads, it shies from expanding public transport networks. We are disheartened, too, by the Coalition's vaguely defined savings plans, such as cutting 12,000 jobs from the public sector. At the same time, we are bewildered by its profligate proposals, including handing $16 million to Cadbury to update a chocolate factory. The ultimate largesse, though, is its paid parental leave scheme. It beggars belief that the Coalition, which contends the budget is in a national emergency, would happily dole out parental payments of up to $75,000 without any reference to equity and absent of any means testing.

Labor has its own clutch of opportunistic, ill-conceived policies: on northern Australia and the Garden Island naval base, for instance. On economic management it rests on its laurels, pointing to its performance through the financial crisis. It is now 2013, and recent growth has been muted by weakness in the mining sector and a widespread lack of confidence among consumers and businesses. Managing the budget back to surplus is a long-term project requiring a steady hand on revenue and savings, but it is not the be-all and end-all of economic management.

Just before the 2010 election, The Age called for a vision for this nation's future, saying neither Labor nor the Coalition had inspired voters and the campaign had been hallmarked by ''diminished expectations, small targets and vapid slogans''. Sadly, it has been the same again in 2013. Fatuous and hollow sloganeering by the Coalition has been met with jib-jab policy on the run by Labor.

On the issue of trust, the Coalition's own actions leave us with significant reservations. It has obfuscated and ducked critical issues, deliberately keeping voters uninformed about its savings plans or revenue-raising initiatives. Worse has been its breathtaking arrogance in cynically delaying until the last minute its policy costings - this, from the party that drafted the charter of budget honesty. When it comes to trusting Labor, we appreciate the public's confidence may be so undone that a change of government could prove to be a circuit-breaker, injecting a short-term sense of stability. But The Age values policies above political opportunism; we do not advocate a vote simply for the sake of change.

The Age believes in economic and social progress, in liberty and justice, in equity and compassion, and openness of government. We believe the role of government is to build a strong, fair nation for future generations, and not to pander to sectional interests. It is with these values in mind that we endorse the Labor Party in this important election.

Poll: Who will you vote for in the lower house?
Poll form
Labor


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-editorial/labors-policies-best-reflect-our-values-20130905-2t828.html#ixzz2e3OsywrL

Pretty much this.

Voting for LNP as a way of not voting for Labour is also one of the most idiotic things ever.

-PB

You lefties crack me up. Not one bit of anger at the worst government in our recent history. Not a bit of it saved for Rudd, Gillard and the party apparatchiks who got you to where you are today - unelectable.

Your mob spent six years in government and have gone to the people in this election not on their record but with a massive anti-Abbott fear campaign.

That proves Labor has no solution for Australia. It's time to well and truly give them the boot until they sort their own internal shit out and decide what they're about and what they stand for.

Edited by thupercoach: 6/9/2013 07:10:03 AM

Edited by thupercoach: 6/9/2013 07:11:25 AM

Totally agree thuper ("totes" in Gen Y lefty rhetoric).

Without a solid six point plan the Labour Party are useless.

Those missing six points will cost them this election.

-PB

Agree +1,000,000

when Gillard was toppled by KRUDD and the dysfunctional tards, i thought at that time that is was a good thing for labor and KRUDD would be a better option for Labor in this election......now i think the opposite, i really think Gillard would have done a better job and she would have put in a better show than KRUDD.......she had momentum and consistency and with the right spin she would have gained far more traction...her problem (besides poor policy implementation)was her spin guy Tierney......

This is a much better worded, more insightful way of saying what I was attempting to at the top of this page (or maybe last page). Labour needs to look at themselves and ask exactly why they're going into tomorrow "knowing full well" they're going to lose - and ask why, and then fix why.

Maybe in a very basic way of looking at it, it's like how I let my football team sort out who takes the penalties - we decide on the first taker somehow (maybe a vote, maybe the first to run up), and he keeps taking them until he misses, then it's the next persons turn. Liberal looks like it'll get a shot at a penalty as of tomorrow, and they may miss the target massively - but while labour will sit there with their arms crossed, they shouldn't forget that they missed their penalty in the first place to allow liberal to have a shot.

#footballmetaphors

So if we take out the past and deal with the present (for both parties), can someone actually give me a policy vs policy reason why LNP would be the superior vote.

Don't debate semantics, don't make it a Rudd v Abbott discussion.

Show me how LNP are the superior party.



-PB

You're totally right paulbagz. If you want to run the country successfully you need a real plan not just a dysfunctional set of visions and a hope and a prayer everything magically falls into place. Six point plans are better than no plans at all.

Exactly.

Why have a ream sized document when you can have a glossy ten page booklet.

-PB

TBH paul

i don't think they are a superior party.....they are both seriously flawed

i think the problem with voters is they were promised a lot and delivered poorly....

when you build expectations to high disappointment is often magnified....

I just had a look at this website

http://politicalaustralia.com.au/

And they're nearly the same policy-by-policy, having just had a quick skim.

Depends how much you like reading fantasy.

And that is where I totally agree with you, it's just a shame that like the US, we are essentially locked into a two horse race although this election looks to be interesting (for the Senate anyway) with a few dark horses throw in the mix.

It's also a shame that some of those dark horses are crazy whackjobs like Clive Palmer.

Same goes for promises. We have a very badly flood prone piece of road here in Townsville that is one of our main access points to the airport and inroads to the CBD and it has been an election promise for as long as I can remember (20+ years). It is finally starting work in two weeks time.

P.S. That is one of your best posts on this thread batfink.

-PB

Please expand on that (in detail if you could), I am honestly interested.

-PB

Well Paul, having a big policy document and lots of big fancy impressive words in it doesn't necessitate those policies must be better. The actually efficacy of policy is in delivering its desired outcomes not the paper its written on. Often the simplest laid bare plans without all the unnecessary waffle and contrived detail are the most effective.

Agreed.

But how does that settle that Labour's policy is worse then the LNPs?

LNP says they will stop the boats, but *how* are they going to? How is that a cost effective measure?

Why are there holes in their costing figures that don't add up?

EDIT: Further to that, the economy is one of the main policy battlegrounds at the moment yet LNP budgeting documents only provide a $6b for the budget bottom line over the next 4 years, yet the rhetoric is that they are the savior of the surplus.

-PB

Edited by paulbagzFC: 6/9/2013 10:55:43 AM

Anyone?

I thought the rhetoric was that they were going to deliver massive cuts and impose cruel austerity measures? Yes the economy is important and Liberals will chart a course back to budget surplus but it will take years if not decades to pay off Labors debt. In the meantime we need to continue to spend money investing in stimulus measure like the corporate tax cut and PPL to get the economy cranking again.

If you think the Liberals are all about cutting and burning and don't have a "vision for the future" like Labor then you had the wrong idea.

In regards to whose policies are better well perhaps the better question is who do you trust more to deliver on their promises. You can't really weigh up policy v policy without the backdrop of the last six years because any party could promise the world and simply change their minds once they got into government. I simply feel Labors policy outlook is overambitious and unrealistic while Liberals has got the mix of savings and spending spot on. Labors platform is far more entertaining and trendy but people don't think they can deliver on it.

Trying to re-create a baby boomer-esque era won't equal the economy cranking, definitely not with the PPL plan that they have.

And as for cutting and burning statement, have you flicked through their costings that I linked above?

That's exactly what they are doing, cutting and burning.

-PB

So basically you're angry at the fact they changed leaders.


The negative campaign started about 5 years ago.


Despite the fact that they had perceived dysfunctional leadership, the government were able to implement a number of progressive policies around climate change, education reform, taxation and disability care just off the top of my head.

My main criticism of Labor was in the early days where they took the whole "mandate" idea too far and got little done as a result. It's interesting that Abbott is using the same bullshit line and I hope they don't have senate control to see what happens.

C'mon Joffy this is a loaded question and clearly you have already made your mind up. Perhaps your powers of logic aren't strong enough to understand why Labor aren't fit to run the country.

I can't vote liberal, because my local member isn't running.

Is there anyone that can answer why they're voting for their local labour member as opposed to their local liberal member, based on their local policies?

Does anyone else get *really* annoyed anytime someone posts talking about the "Labour Party"?

On the topic, does anyone know *why* they use the American spelling?



I think it pretty much one sentence that both ALP and LNP voters will agree on is this - "Tony Abbott plans are for a more prosperous and more selfish future for Australia".

The PPL plan they are adopting similar to the one they have in other OECD countries is proven to unlock the potential of women in the workforce and grow the economy, I suggest you do some research.

Of course a tax cut stimulates the economy as that money is reinvested in jobs which lowers the unemployment rate and more employment participation is essential to growing the economy. Australia has a high corporate tax rate compared to other OECD nations, even "socialist" countries like Sweden, Denmark etc.

Regarding your accusation of the Liberals "cutting and burning"..

Macroeconomics director of budget and forecasting Stephen Anthony says both major parties appear to have released costings that are broadly credible and have offset spending measures with savings during the campaign period.

"It is possible to nit-pick about assumptions but, overall, at least in terms of the overarching impact on the budget bottom line, both sides have acted fairly responsibly," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-05/foreign-aid-cops-244bn-hit-as-coalition-releases-costings/4938218

If you did not get it by now 6 years of stuff ups, what chance do you have understanding anything now, just read The Age (only paper in Australia still believes Kev should be the PM again) watch the ABC and coexist in the parallel universe with your Labor mates.

Why I'm voting for my local labor member over my liberal member doesn't actually have anything to do with policies. I'm doing it for 2 reasons. 1) I know the guy personally, have done for years, and trust him. 2) He's not a racist.

1) I've received about 4 letters a week from the Libs candidate vs 1 a week from ALP. Political mail and flyers piss me off.

2) There's a lot of suggestion that the Libs plan to divert money away from infrastructure development that has been planned in Perth. We're mostly in the dark because Libs have left it so late releasing the costings.


But aside from thinking the Abbott 'team' hasn't done anywhere near enough to have present a coherent argument as to why it deserves to replace the current government (that the current government should be replaced... yes. That the Coalition should replace them... not quite) I'll probably vote for my local Lib candidate because I think he'll be a more valuable contributor to his party than our ALP candidate will be to hers.

Six years of stuff ups, such as?

Interesting. I've had 2 flyers each day for the last 2 weeks from our local Labour guy. I assume 2 because they assume there's two different sets of people living in my house - but each day it's a different flyer

I'm in Christopher Pyne's electorate and Labor (and the other parties) have put in virtually no effort in trying to win this seat.

I won't be voting for Chris for the following reasons:
1. He tends to focus his attention to the blue bloods in the southern part of the electorate rather than where I live.
2. I don't like his political style
3. His voice annoys me :lol: (ok not so serious that one)

I'm actually voting for minor parties in both the House of Reps (with prefs to Labor) and in the senate. I disagree with the way whole boat people issue is being handled by both parties.