The Australian Liberal/National Coalition is better than the ALP (Aus. Federal)
Debate Rounds (3)
The Coalition is far more transparent than the ALP, the ALP have had many leadership spills which is unfair to the Australian public, we elect a government to serve us, it is incredibly hard foe the government to serve us when the ALP constantly changes the leadership team and the cabinet!
Thank you to Pro for introducing a debate topic about Australian politics.
As instigator, Pro has the burden of proof to demonstrate that:
1. The ALP is killing small businesses. I shall argue the contrary, that small businesses have survived under the ALP government, despite the global financial crisis;
2. That the ALP is particularly prone to changing its leadership team and cabinet. I will argue that both major political parties have been very changeable in recent years;
3. That leadership changes make it difficult for the government to serve us. I'll be interested in seeing Pro's evidence for this.
Because Pro has the burden of proof, I don't need to introduce any of my own arguments, I only need to disprove his.
However, I do have an argument against the coalition government, and it is this:
The ALP have introduced the Carbon tax, they wish to increase the GST to 12 percent, they increased company tax and they have introduced a plethora of more green tape in the past 6 years. Under a coalition government they will scrap the carbon tax , reduce company tax and keep GST to 10 percent and will reduce green tape to ensure the survival the small business, without small business Australia WILL collapse. A key reason why Australia survived the GFC was due to our mining which the ALP is killing through the introduction of the Carbon tax, the mining tax and royalties.
The ALP drastically changed their leadership team whilst they were in government " there was a full shuffle of the cabinet in almost one day whilst the coalition on the other hand has had the same cabinet for a while now. A political party should not have a massive change of cabinet whilst they Parliament is still sitting and if they are in power i.e. being the government unless with a proper exemption and a by election should be held
Of course it is hard for the government to serve us if there are constant leadership changes as that means there is an internal battle inside the political party and that is not what politicians are elected to do. Who you vote for is who you should get, it is absolutely absurd that the ALP in 2007 states that their leader is Kevin Rudd however then they change to Julia Gillard. Then in 2010 the ALP states that their leader is Julia Gillard however then they change to Kevin Rudd.
In 2010 Julia Gillard promised no carbon tax, then in 2011 she lied to the Australian people and introduced the carbon tax. How can you possibly argue that the ALP who lies and is deceitful is better than the Liberal/National coalition who is truthful and fair more transparent.
And I fail to see what is wrong with or the satirical nature of that picture can"t a man care for his health?
The carbon tax and changing your mind
Con argues that Gillard was "deceitful" because she changed her position on carbon pricing for political reasons. But Tony Abbott has done exactly the same thing. Here he is praising the idea and explaining it in simple terms (first video). Of course, now he is Prime Minister, the carbon tax is the first thing he will get rid of (1).
There is no difference between the political parties in this regard.
On small business
The carbon tax is only on big business, and so is the mining tax. The revenue from these taxes funds a range of benefits to small business, including tax relief (2). When the coalition repeals these taxes, they need to make up the revenue somehow, and that will probably come as hardship for ordinary Australians, while big business and mining magnates enjoy more profit.
Certainly, the ALP has not "killed" small business. Pro has provided no evidence whatsoever that this is the case.
Tony Abbott in speedos
Con argues that there is no reason why a man shouldn't put on Speedos and a bonnet and go swimming in the sea. I completely agree. My argument is against the man himself rather than his outfits. I chose that particular photos because it rouses in me something of the visceral horror that I experience when I read or hear some of the things he says.
For instance, here are some comments from our new Prime Minister.
On consensual sex and marriage:
"I think there does need to be give and take on both sides, and this idea that sex is kind of a woman's right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man's right to demand I think they are both they both need to be moderated, so to speak." (3)
"Mr Speaker, we have a bizarre double standard; a bizarre double standard in this country where some-one who kills a pregnant woman's baby is guilty of murder, but a woman who aborts an unborn baby is simply exercising choice." (4)
On Aboriginal Australia:
'There may not be a great job for [Aboriginal men and women] but whatever there is, they just have to do it, and if it's picking up rubbish around the community, it just has to be done,'(5)
(see video 2)
(see video 3)
On changes in leadership
Pro argues that the coalition is "better" because it hasn't changed its leadership as frequently as the ALP. In fact, the liberal party has had as many leaders as the ALP (three) since the 2007 election, and so the two parties are equal in this regard.
However, I question the idea that changing leadership is necessarily bad for Australia. If the leadership isn't working, changing leaders could be the best option.
Skinger7 forfeited this round.
Pro had the burden to prove that the coalition is better than the ALP. He failed to provide any evidence that this is so. Moreover, when faced with the prospect of defending Tony Abbott, quite naturally he forfeited.
None of this matters, though, compared with the fate of Australia in the hands of the Abbott for the next three years. And his cabinet of 19 rich white middle-aged men, and Julie Bishop.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.