Shaitan said:
I really, really dislike the situation as i don't think it is as common as you believe it to be.
I'll grant you that in some cases, yes, such a situation exists and economic management would have been of some (hopefully not all) importance to those when voting in the election.
So what is your theory as to why Howard won like he did? Economy/housing boom/interest rates was the single most telling factor in the election.
Bizarre. I do understand this concept (It's far too simple not to understand and is rather dull),
"But people, or at least i do, struggle to fathom how it (the election result) can be based solely on economic-self interest."
Yes, truely bizzare.
but i also understand that there are many below the poverty line, on whom the economy would have little to no affect by adjusting interest rate levels and so forth.
Those people need to be looked after and supported as well.
Not everybody is thinking 'Gee, i hope I/R levels stay relatively low so i can invest in my second property, and my children can profit from that'.
Many are hoping for a way out of their predicament such as impoverishment and yes some economic factors - like more employment.
You seem to be straying from the point though - yes we know these people exist but more people like the ones I descibed exist and majority wins out. If the majority were the battlers you talk about and voted in Latham, I would understand why. But the majority aren't like that. You don't seem to be able to accept that middle class people don't think like battlers.
Ahh, but in a democracy, shouldn't everybody's voice be heard, not just the majority?
You are pretty much accusing me of not looking at the 'bigger picture' and you think i cannot understand why people would want I/R levels low.
Quite funny really, you are doing the exact same as my saying you do not take into account those who cannot benefit from strong economic management, other than rising employment.
Love the punch line. Your entire argument is a bitter one, refusing to actually consider my opinion.
Errr.... Yes, of course i cannot comprehend those who think differently to me [/sarcasm].
"But people, or at least i do, struggle to fathom how it (the election result) can be based solely on economic-self interest."
And just one more thing: You want people to stop voting for their self interest and vote for someone else's self interest (i.e. battlers). Do you not realise how ridiculous your argument is?
The fact i believe is that, many people who would have voted in Howard on strong economic management (which as i've said is quite justified) would have already been quite well off if they're considering an investment with a secondary home... Did they really need that extra $10,000 a year? A lot of people are business-corporate folk already earning quite a large sum of money.
It's a bit rich you expecting one group forego their self interest for the sake of the other group.
I also find it interesting you seem to think i had a different stance on the election, given i told you in my first or second post that i'm currently in the 'family position' and am purchasing a house with a very restricted budget.
Ouch. SO let me get this straight, law enforcement, well-being and the health of citizens isn't of upmost importance to a government?
That's what i cannot understand, as i put it in my original post - Why do people put the economy ahead of basic values, such as, education and health.
2. When people get something that is desirable (in this case growth, wealth, and security) they don't want to let it go easily.
3. Latham didn't offer anything much better, if at all.
It is no good having a low rate of inflation, a low current account deficit, a stable dollar and low-medium interest rate levels, if there is increasing crime (due to lack of education and health) which promotes things such as drug use etc, which all have a negative impact on our society. You cannot simply turn a blind eye to this kind of stuff, as it is prevalent to many suburbs in Melbourne. And if such a situation exists, well it is almost impossible to have good employment growth, unless of course, one hour working per week for mum or dad in the garden (brushing up the area so their clients can come to see them at home) categorises you as an employed person.
