A new party: What key policies (if any) would win you over?

[Smiling Buddha]

Some people will never stop voting for Coalition or Labor (or Greens). Some people might swap between these parties but would never vote for a new/minor party.

This thread is intended for those posters who don't fall into either category above. I'm curious to learn what key policies might entice you to vote 1, at least in the Senate if not in the House, for a new/minor party should one emerge on a platform you agree with.

We've seen somewhat similar threads before, but most of them have been centred on what people would do if they led the nation, while a couple have focused on general policy wishlists (see here and here).

What I'm interested in is what policies a new/minor party would have to propose for you to vote for them, even if you knew they were unlikely to form government any time soon (if ever). What issues are so important to you (and that you feel the major parties are ignoring) that you would vote accordingly if a party was running with a solution you believed in?

If you are somebody who has only one policy that would be enough to win your vote, list only that policy. If you are somebody who would have to see four specific policies to win your vote, list all four. And so on.

Assume that whatever policies this hypothetical party takes to the election are their only policies and they commit to voting with the government of the day on any issues outside of their specific policy agenda (i.e. if you list 'lower corp tax' and '2% gdp defence spending', you are saying you would vote for a party that goes to the election with these two issues as its platform and promises to vote with the government of the day on all other issues).

Bear in mind of course that we have a preferential voting system in Australia so even if you were to vote for this hypothetical party and they failed to win a seat, you can still preference your favourite major party and your vote is worth just as much as if you had voted 1 for them in the first place. If nothing else your vote would be recorded as support for the platform of the new/minor party which might sway future policy promises of other parties (including the majors).

As usual I will post my own thoughts later in the thread so as not to slant the thread's discussion.

 

[noddy]

Came across this lady & the Centre Party the other day, some of her views i agree with others i don't.

http://www.thecentreparty.com.au/index.php

 

[Seeds]

Any of these policies on their own would do it:

Introduction of wealth tax in place of income tax (net taxes remain the same)

Removal of negative gearing on housing

Removal of superannuation tax rorts for high income earners.

100% increase in education spending to be paid for by a halving of defence spending and an increase in the GST

Removal of all subsidies to established private industries (manufacturing, mining and anyone else)

There are probably many more as well

 

[Fire]

Socially liberal, economically centrist.

Any policies stemming from that would make me happy.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Not so much any policies in particular but a commitment to using actual experts on reviewing areas of government and then actually implementing what they recommend would be nice.

What we get now is either biased hacks doing purely ideological reviews that get largely implemented (basically any review the current government's done) or reviews by experts that get almost entirely ignored (Rudd was a big one for this). Promoting expertise and having the political will to use that advice would be a big tick in my book.

 

[clogged]

Not so much any policies in particular but a commitment to using actual experts on reviewing areas of government and then actually implementing what they recommend would be nice.

What we get now is either biased hacks doing purely ideological reviews that get largely implemented (basically any review the current government's done) or reviews by experts that get almost entirely ignored (Rudd was a big one for this). Promoting expertise and having the political will to use that advice would be a big tick in my book.

Depends on the kind of expertise, doesn't it?

 

[Scotland]

Rip up all the tax legislation and start again.

Rip up all the welfare legislation and start again.

Abandon social engineering and go back to basics, ie providing necessary infrastructure and services.

Introduce greater transparency and accountibility for govt depts, tenders, use of revenue etc.

Reform fuel excise tax to an infrastructure (payable by road users) and environmental (payable by all) component.

 

[Mofra]

Properly fund the ATO and reduce tax avoidance mechanisms (family trusts, looking in your direction).

Drastically reduce the power of OBPR in the PMs Office - would cut out 20% of public service red tape overnight.

Millions of dollars allocated to the Western Bulldogs for training/facilities

 

[Admiral Byng]

Someone prepared to make massive structural changes (economically speaking) to housing.

The cost of housing is a massive structural impediment to our economy. The cost of housing is why we have middle class welfare. It generally means families where both parents have to work to afford a mortgage. It means all the other support like family tax concessions, childcare, education rebates, parenting leave etc, without which families would struggle to make ends meet while most of their income goes in keeping a roof over their head.

What drives it? We have a system where people can purchase residential housing as an investment, reduce their tax burden through negative gearing, and then make up their losses through capital gains when they sell it, which again is taxed more lightly. The banks are killing it in profits. For many people investing in housing is the path to building wealth. So there's a huge vested interest in maintaining the system.

Any government with a policy to make structural changes to this area of the economy will need to have a huge public investment in housing to make up the shortfall in supply as investors send their money elsewhere.

So it will never happen.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Depends on the kind of expertise, doesn't it?

I would say that a worthy review should be undertaken by a group that contains people with experience in a broad range of areas important to the review or listens to people with that experience if they're not directly on the panel.

For example if you're reviewing the RET you'd want to have people with knowledge of climate science, grid management, the economics of clean energy, the effect on current generators, etc. Instead we've got a climate denier who resorts to every debunked myth about renewable energy and climate change there is reviewing whether we should have a renewable energy target. This is despite there being an organisation containing a wide range of experts on the area set up by the government with a statutory obligation to perform that review already. Similarly the commission of audit had a businessman recommending that we should have copayments for GP visits based on incorrect data and without actually speaking to doctors. I'm sorry but there's no rational argument to suggest those reviews have even a fraction of the expertise going into them that they should.

 

[telsor]

The first would be to convince me that they have realistic, workable ideas rather than just ideology (which rules the greens out).

The second would be to convince me that they can/will genuinely work towards them.

 

[pjcrows]

Tax the churches (and I am in no way "anti religion")

 

[Smiling Buddha]

For me it would be simple.

1) End negative gearing. No ifs, no buts. Costing our country in more ways than the $5b annual hit to the bottom line. I don't blame anybody with their snout in the trough for opposing the change but for everybody else this is a nightmare we ought to be ending as soon as possible.

2) Bring back technical schools. Would solve several problems in one hit. Give kids skills they want, take non-academic kids out of regular schools, put a big dent in the skills shortage. Rudd floated this prior to 2007 and iirc it was very popular.

3) National plebiscite on immigration numbers. If Australians decide to cap/reduce immigration, let them; it should be their choice. If they decide not to, then they can deal with the consequences. Either way, put the decision in the hands of Australians. We can all afford to put aside one saturday morning to vote on one of the biggest issues which will shape the future of the country.

I would vote 1 for any party which ran on any of these platforms, and would hand out HTV cards for them if they ran on two or more. If they ran on all three I would donate money to their cause. And somehow I think such a party might be popular.

 

[Taylor]

I'd like to see education funding reform so that those who choose to study a subject like ancient poetry at university aren't contributed towards at the same level that someone studying engineering/medicine/nursing etc is. I think that it will cause problems for people who plan to corner themselves into an extremely narrow window of employment but nothing would stop them still studying it, they would need to fund it themselves.

The fundamental side of it is that certain occupations are more productive and rewarding for the nation and people should be encouraged into those fields.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Jesus Buddha, "Bring back technical schools". I had to suffer this piss poor excuse for an education that set me up for a career as a tradie or factory fodder. Anyone with a skerrick of academic ability was shunted off into the maths/science stream. My only crime was that my folks were poor (and a little bit of inverted snobbery on my part, which excluded me from applying for scholarships).

Would definitely scrap NG

 

[Footy Smarts]

I'd like to see education funding reform so that those who choose to study a subject like ancient poetry at university aren't contributed towards at the same level that someone studying engineering/medicine/nursing etc is. I think that it will cause problems for people who plan to corner themselves into an extremely narrow window of employment but nothing would stop them still studying it, they would need to fund it themselves.

The fundamental side of it is that certain occupations are more productive and rewarding for the nation and people should be encouraged into those fields.

That's already done. Graduating one student under a CSP in medicine costs the government vastly more than graduating a CSP place in arts due to the massive difference in fees. That also doesn't take into account that even with universities charging far more for a medical degree than an arts degree the arts degree is still massively subsidising the medical degree because there is barely any cost in running an arts degree. I don't really agree with the characterisation of them being useless but at least arts degrees are dirt cheap.

 

[noddy]

For me it would be simple.
2) Bring back technical schools. Would solve several problems in one hit. Give kids skills they want, take non-academic kids out of regular schools, put a big dent in the skills shortage. Rudd floated this prior to 2007 and iirc it was very popular.
.

Would love to see the return of Tech schools went to one myself a few years back.

For me the number one item would be a high class education for all & i would like to see the powers that be to make it more attractive for males to choose teaching courses rather than leave it for mainly for the females especially at the primary school level.

 

[Scotland]

For me it would be simple.

1) End negative gearing. No ifs, no buts. Costing our country in more ways than the $5b annual hit to the bottom line. I don't blame anybody with their snout in the trough for opposing the change but for everybody else this is a nightmare we ought to be ending as soon as possible.

I would sell this with sweeteners to encourage investment into productive ventures.

It's staggering how people just don't get that having the most expensive housing makes us comparatively worse off and that our tax system discourages investment away from things that actually create jobs, generate income etc. Why would you invest in a business etc. when you can just buy a 20 year old house, write off the losses and wait for immigration-fuelled population growth to appreciate its value?

2) Bring back technical schools. Would solve several problems in one hit. Give kids skills they want, take non-academic kids out of regular schools, put a big dent in the skills shortage. Rudd floated this prior to 2007 and iirc it was very popular.

I would make TAFE or technical schools or whatever you want to call it PAYG.

I went to uni and walked away with a degree and tens of thousands of dollars of debt. My mate did an apprenticeship. He walked away with a trade qualification having been paid (marginally more than slave labour) for his time.

The problem with TAFE/apprenticeships from a govt perspective is that the onus is largely on the private sector to take on apprentices and you don't get anything much in the way of revenue like you do with uni students. Why not move towards a system where plumbers, chippies, sparkies etc. contribute towards their own qualifications in order to get better training, resources etc?

3) National plebiscite on immigration numbers. If Australians decide to cap/reduce immigration, let them; it should be their choice. If they decide not to, then they can deal with the consequences. Either way, put the decision in the hands of Australians. We can all afford to put aside one saturday morning to vote on one of the biggest issues which will shape the future of the country.

I'd take it out of the hands of the people. The people are stupid. I'd set a sustainable population target and start ramming home the (obvious, I would've thought) idea that the population can't continue to grow forever and ever.

 

[Taylor]

That's already done. Graduating one student under a CSP in medicine costs the government vastly more than graduating a CSP place in arts due to the massive difference in fees. That also doesn't take into account that even with universities charging far more for a medical degree than an arts degree the arts degree is still massively subsidising the medical degree because there is barely any cost in running an arts degree. I don't really agree with the characterisation of them being useless but at least arts degrees are dirt cheap.

How cheap is the arts degree if it doesn't lead to gainful employment?

 

[The Speaker]

One new party to cover those who feel left out at the moment is unlikely to work. Vast ideological differences betwen them.

 

[clogged]

I would say that a worthy review should be undertaken by a group that contains people with experience in a broad range of areas important to the review or listens to people with that experience if they're not directly on the panel.

For example if you're reviewing the RET you'd want to have people with knowledge of climate science, grid management, the economics of clean energy, the effect on current generators, etc. Instead we've got a climate denier who resorts to every debunked myth about renewable energy and climate change there is reviewing whether we should have a renewable energy target. This is despite there being an organisation containing a wide range of experts on the area set up by the government with a statutory obligation to perform that review already. Similarly the commission of audit had a businessman recommending that we should have copayments for GP visits based on incorrect data and without actually speaking to doctors. I'm sorry but there's no rational argument to suggest those reviews have even a fraction of the expertise going into them that they should.

I understand that, but I'm not purely sold on a technocratic party.

I think there is an unquantifiable finesse to politics and policy. Expert and data based policy has its risks.

 

[Footy Smarts]

How cheap is the arts degree if it doesn't lead to gainful employment?

That's a myth. Sure they might not be the best degrees in terms of job prospects but they're a lot better then no degree.

Interestingly the following article shows research that found that in the US arts were among the worst college majors in terms of earnings. Yet 30-56 year olds with arts majors had an unemployment rate about 2% below the general population and earnings around double the median wage. Overall arts graduates do much, much better than the population as a whole.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/collegeprose/2012/10/29/does-your-major-matter/

 

[Footy Smarts]

I understand that, but I'm not purely sold on a technocratic party.

I think there is an unquantifiable finesse to politics and policy. Expert and data based policy has its risks.

I'm not promoting a pure technocracy. But getting experts in for reviews would be a start. Then not just immediately ditching 95% of the recommendations in the too hard basket would be nice too. Of course politically this might be fraught but they'd win me over.

 

[checkraiseulite]

Jesus Buddha, "Bring back technical schools". I had to suffer this piss poor excuse for an education that set me up for a career as a tradie or factory fodder. Anyone with a skerrick of academic ability was shunted off into the maths/science stream. My only crime was that my folks were poor (and a little bit of inverted snobbery on my part, which excluded me from applying for scholarships).

lol wut

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Jesus Buddha, "Bring back technical schools". I had to suffer this piss poor excuse for an education that set me up for a career as a tradie or factory fodder.

That is what most public schools are today, except that 18yos fresh out of school have a hard time finding an apprenticeship (unless they know somebody) because they have learned no practical skills in their 13 years of school. Off to retail, call centres or factories for a large portion of them. Unless they want to do a preap course at tafe which they could have been doing instead of 'english', 'general maths', 'sport/HPE' and [insert bullshit elective here] for the past several years.

The German education system makes so much more sense than ours, it isn't funny. I'm not calling for that kind of radical change; just a few tech schools dotted around the place where kids who are clearly going nowhere academically by, say, the end of Y8 can transfer to learn skills they might actually use in the workforce - and leave the kids who want to continue booklearning alone.