Because the Labor party have lost their way, especially since they have been hijacked by the socialists and greens.
I'm not following here. Labor have always been a socialist party from day dot, they're supposed to be for the working person, and stand for a "fair go". I'm also interested in how you've come to the conclusion that they've been hijacked by greens. Is this because they might care for the environment a bit more than Liberal do?
After the last 6 years this election is too important in my opinion to vote for independents, and besides none of the independents are worth voting for.
So it's better to vote for the enemy or the totally unknown? It'd be smarter to simply cast a dud vote.
I would class myself as a swinging voter - I will even admit I voted informal in the past couple of elections, but I believe that if we get another 3-4 years of the present bunch of clowns Australia will be a basket case like many countries. I don't particularly agree with all of Abbott's policies but I believe they are the only votable option at the moment.
Liberal don't have any policies. None have been released to date, but fair enough - it's your vote.
I'm curious how you actually know that Labor will leave us with more debt after the next term. Most of the ministers who have made the decisions you are berating have resigned after the last leadership spill, which saw Rudd returned. How long has he been in office for since the spill? Is it long enough to make that decision already?
What exactly are the Liberal Party offering other than slogans and diatribe against Labor? I'm yet to see any policies come from them, and I think this is where the real danger lies. The fact that Abbott repeatedly says that there is no cause to announce any policies until after
the election because he'll have a mandate, is a real cause for concern. It's basically a way of him saying that he'll do what he likes with our money - is this a good scenario to let ourselves into?
How about "Workchoices"? I know Abbott has said that it's dead and buried, but he has let it slip on more than one occasion afterwards that it could well be on the agenda still. If I were a betting man, I'd say it'll be re-introduced under a different name. I know that Abbott's personal friend Gina Rinehardt is after cheaper workers for her mines (she's currently shopping in Africa for them)...What are the odds it would come back under Abbott, presuming he gets in? It's our workplace conditions and entitlements that are at risk. For those of us on lower wages, those conditions and entitlements are of high value. Why should they be taken away from us?
The fact that Abbott also allows his religous beliefs to govern his decision making is of a major concern - how can anyone get a fair go if it's against his beliefs? He's saying now that he'll give heterosexual couples a $200 bonus if they wed. What about gay people - why isn't their marriage allowed to be legal, and where is their $200 bonus? If that's not descrimination, I don't know what is. Will his religious convictions be a cause for him to spend public money on privately run Catholic schools, and hospitals? It's the public that don't have private health that will suffer. I must admit that I'm a big fan of public health - it's saved my life on two seperate occasions. But if it were privately run, I'd be in either massive debt or pushing up daisies through not being able to afford the surgery.
The Liberals are too much of an enigma when it comes to any sensible policy. I see a lot of slogans, but precious little else from them. There's simply too many gaffes from leading members in the media, and too much unknown about them to place any sort of faith in them. There are simply too many questions that need answering before they become close to being any sort of realistic alternative. It also doesn't help that their leader is a complete idiot, who has been caught lying by the media on numerous occasions. Maybe if Turnball was still leader of the Libs, things would be slightly different. At least Turnball had some brains, and a social conscience.
I'm afraid it's a case of "Better the Devil you know, than the Devil you don't" for me.