By Joffa - 21 Mar 2015 11:16 PM
Why we are backing NSW Premier Mike Baird
Date March 21, 2015 - 9:06PM
EDITORIAL
The voters of NSW face a difficult choice on March 28: between risk and safety.
They can choose to support an untried Labor leader who, while exceeding even his own expectations of performance and doing well to explain his modest policy offerings, nonetheless leads a party that has not used the past four years wisely. Nor has it reformed enough. Labor is still tied to unions and factional mates who place their interests ahead of the state's and the voters'.
But what about the risk of Premier Mike Baird's privatisation plan for the state's electricity poles and wires?
To his credit, Mr Baird has taken his highly unpopular policy to the people. In the face of a dishonest scare campaign by Labor and unions alleging power prices will rise under the deal, the Premier has made a strong case for leasing the 49 per cent of assets to unlock billions in funds for major projects. Still, he has questions to answer about his office's role in the handling of a report by investment bank UBS that concluded the the privatisation would be bad for the budget.
Advertisement
Voters are also concerned about coal seam gas exploration and that the nation's biggest infrastructure project, the $14.4 billion WestConnex motorway plan, is not as good as it seems on paper.
Opinion polling in key seats for The Sun-Herald by ReachTEL shows that voters are torn on all these issues. The results in the new inner Sydney seat of Newtown, Strathfield - where Labor corruption whistle-blower Jodi Mackay is running - and Ballina on the north coast suggest the allocation of preferences will be crucial to the outcome of these seats, and voters are not listening to the government's message on privatisation.
Such is voter unease that the election for the upper house looms as crucial for either party to prosecute its agenda. The Sun-Herald implores voters to think wisely before following party diktat on preferences or supporting micro parties without knowing their background or platform. Then again, voters should recognise that for the past four years, with Labor in disarray following its landslide defeat in 2011, the most effective and extensive opposition has come from the upper house.
Labor's failure to rebuild until recently means that while the party is relying on some good health and education policy ideas, others are undeveloped. In addition, the NSW Labor leader did not have to face the voters before entering the upper house and now faces them for the first time as he tries to switch to the safe Labor electorate of Auburn in the lower house. He has never been a minister, either.
Voters should consider carefully whether it is worth the risk of going back to Labor when the alternative is to choose the safety of a Coalition government which, for all the clouds of corruption and reluctance to reform political donations laws thoroughly, has performed well on the economy.
Mr Baird ran the Treasury portfolio confidently, has had almost a year as Premier and remains very popular. And his popularity is likely to offset any policy reservations including about privatisation.
He retains a keen interest in social justice, notwithstanding the views of some in his party. In February the Fairfax-Ipsos poll put his approval rating at 60 per cent, even with the privatisation support running at 23 per cent and rising to just 47 per cent if the proceeds were used for infrastructure.
The Premier has more political capital upon which he can draw. Barring the emergence of misbehaviour linked to the UBS privatisation report, voters are entitled to trust Mr Baird to deliver on his platform with safety and surety. He also offers the best chance of giving NSW a strong voice in limiting the power of an increasingly dysfunctional and erratic federal government.
In 2015 Mr Foley remains a risk. In 2019, however, with more policy work and internal Labor Party reform, his time may come.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-editorial/why-we-are-backing-nsw-premier-mike-baird-20150321-1m4c2j.html
|
By Lastbroadcast - 6 Apr 2015 5:01 PM
pv4 wrote:Lastbroadcast wrote:pv4 wrote:The actual thing of voting for South Park is solely a reference from the show Community.
But for my reasoning about voting informal, I wrote this elsewhere, cbf re-writing:
Went to my local school to vote Sat and there were people handing out pamphlets for Independent, Labour, CDP and Greens. A guy asked "is there anyone handing out Liberal sheets" and they all laughed and said no, libs didn't bother with this place, and the old guy handing out the Greens forms said "Liberal are only a small party anyway" and it got a bit of a laugh. But moral of the story is Independent seemed to have Lake Mac wrapped up so much that Liberals didn't even bother taking it seriously, as did few of the other parties. Even if I had enough interest to take proper consideration into voting, my choices were limited enough.
In the end I decided to informal vote. I will happily admit I didn't have the interest enough to delve deep enough to find out which issues each of my local members did or didn't stand for. I find a big problem with the voting public is a heap of people seem to vote for a party solely because their grandparents did their whole lives, or some ingrained notion that certain parties are for certain things without even checking if their local member does or doesn't stand for that.
For instance, one would casually assume Greens stand for everything environment. But I listened to an interview with the Greens guy running for my local and when asked his 3 big issues, his first and most important was how he was pro-voluntary-euthanasia. I'd bet there were a heap of people who didn't delve deep enough to find out what each person stood for that still wouldn't have a clue that he stood for that issue.
I see uneducated voters as a huge issue. I know a tonne of people who voted against Liberal in the last election solely because they saw the picture comparing Tony Abbott to Gollum, and thought he looked creepy. So my solution that I offer to everyone is: only vote if you've done the research to know what you're voting for. And if you don't know, don't vote (ie informal). That way, a true indication of what my local, informed community want, will be voted in.
When I decide to take enough interest to feel educated enough on issues and my local members and exactly what they stand for, I'll happily vote formally. Until then, I choose to leave it to the mature members of my community who are educated enough to make informed decisions. Or until all the "my family has always voted labour... my dad told me to vote liberal.. I like god so will vote the christian party" people subscribe to my informal-until-educated view, I'll leave it to them too. It's disappointing that you say that. I actually think this was one of the more significant state elections in a while, in a policy sense. Baird wanted to do a massive infrastructure spend, but wanted to effectively sell off control of 49pc of the poles and wires to do it. It was a big policy to either agree or disagree with. There were also a number of big environmental issues on the table this time, like what to do about Coal Seam Gas, and whether or not Westconnex should be built. On the Central Coast and hunter you also had the problem of what to do with the corrupt liberal MPs who were done in by ICAC. I voted Labor but I respect Baird for actually treating the electorate like grown ups for once, by putting something big and controversial to us and asking for endorsement. But my local was wrapped up by the independent. so much so that Liberal got a law student who they didn't even bother putting posters up for to run. All the candidates that took my electorate seriously were all opposed to selling the wires off, and there was sfa else to vote about in my area.
I still don't think that's a reason to vote informal. You could always vote 1 for your preferred (or least hated) party or candidate and then exhaust your vote.
Besides, there was also an upper house election where you could have voted for a whole number of different parties and policy platforms. Baird looks like he will be able to pass his poles and wires bill because Fred Nile won a seat and is ready to negotiate. If you were pro-privatisation your vote would still have made a big difference there.
I just hate this attitude that people have, where you disengage from a choice because you're not inspired by it. In our democracy there is almost always a choice, unlike America where they just have two pro-corporate parties. There is always a better or a worse option, even if that difference is slight.
Edited by lastbroadcast: 6/4/2015 05:02:56 PM
|
|