"I for one welcome our insect overlords" - The Politics Thread

[true believer]

CENTRAL COAST MATTERS
For local central coast matters, McKinna and Bracken had an influence, but only to guarantee the seats to the Liberals.
Robertson is a narrow Liberal win. This is in no small way due to McKinna's 9% - taken from Labor and the Liberals, but more from Labor - flowing mostly to the Liberals.
Dobell is still very tight, but the Liberal will most likely win. Bracken's 8% is a big factor here too.
These guys weren't independents; they were shills. They did a deal to guarantee that tight contests will swing to the Liberals.
I'd have had a lot more respect for Lawrie in particular if he had actually asked the parties to speak to a set of issues he identified rather than just mouthing meaningless motherhood statements and then doing a deal with the Libs. He's either a patsy or (if he thought he was a chance of winning) a dope.

outstanding ,this encapsulates mckinna and Co in a nut shell
I will forever see mckinna as a liberal party stooge .
the Mariners as a club have tainted there name . once being able to
draw money from either side of politics for football.
im afraid that now the ALP will see the mariners as a liberal party puppet.

 

[FFC Mariner]

Parties pour money into the Mariners and/or anything else in a targeted attempt to win votes.

If either thought chucking money at us would help, they would do it.

Robertson would have gone regardless of Lawrie.

 

[dibo]

Robertson would have gone regardless of Lawrie.

No, it wouldn't *necessarily* have gone.

3.5% 2pp swing. Lawrie polled 8.9%. Labor's vote dropped 4.2%, but the Libs went down too. And yet the 2PP vote swung over to the Libs. McKinna was a vehicle to pick up votes from Labor and the Greens and truck them over to the Libs.

The Libs needed a hand; they have had a ridiculous factional fight that meant the party machine is divided and they were set to have a repeat of 2010 (where they didn't just fail to even match the statewide swing; they went backwards).

The national and statewide swings were on; they may well have won the seat, but they obviously got a big hand from McKinna.

 

[true believer]

Robertson would have gone regardless of Lawrie.

with McKenna polling over 6,000 votes .that's very debatable .
one thing for sure .the club has placed itself off the fence

 

[Forum Phoenix]

I reckon Plibersek might be a smokie for it. She was *excellent* on ABC last night, she's been a good health minister, she's a good local member and she's a clear speaker. She's not tainted by any of the leadership malarky, and she's as Labor as the day is long.

Ha, this is who I'm desperately hoping will get the job. Terrific debater. She's been brilliant time and again. Tougher and smarter than Julia. Far more composed and balanced than Rudd. No ego, a lot of passion, and more charismatic than any of the others imho with the possible exception of Shorten. Personally I think a follow up female leader would be a brilliant move for labour. Coincidence that the Abbott campaign surrounded him with women and released their paid parental leave on steroids scheme. They knew where his achilles heel lay. I don't think Australia needs ten years. And if losing now, means having Tanya instead of kevin as PM, that's a pretty decent tonic.

I wouldn't mind seeing a gay atheist asian in Penny Wong too I know I know.... but i think she's definitely one of the smartest politicians in the country. I would have said she perhaps might lack some of the charisma required... but when I compare her to Tony, Kevin or Julia, that argument completely falls apart.

Otherwise I do like Shorten, but I agree with FFC. Not a wise idea.

 

[hasbeen]

Not sure about Tanya Plibersek, I think she's more suited to a role as a Social Worker than PM. My money is on Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel.

 

[dibo]

Another constructive contribution

 

[hasbeen]

Yeh, and about as funny as you changing the thread title ...

 

[true believer]

how good is tanya

 

[rbakersmith]

No, it wouldn't *necessarily* have gone.

3.5% 2pp swing. Lawrie polled 8.9%. Labor's vote dropped 4.2%, but the Libs went down too. And yet the 2PP vote swung over to the Libs. McKinna was a vehicle to pick up votes from Labor and the Greens and truck them over to the Libs.

The Libs needed a hand; they have had a ridiculous factional fight that meant the party machine is divided and they were set to have a repeat of 2010 (where they didn't just fail to even match the statewide swing; they went backwards).

The national and statewide swings were on; they may well have won the seat, but they obviously got a big hand from McKinna.

Robertson wouldn't have necessarily gone to the Libs without McKinna, but it was highly likely - on a 1% margin Wicks only needed a few thousand 2PP votes to swing her way and they could have easily come through the Palmer United candidate.

 

[dibo]

I'm not saying it wouldn't have gone Lib, just that Lawrie guaranteed it did.

 

[midfielder]

This time I will use names rather than nick names …

As a swinging vote I am proud to say I have voted for every winning PM except Julia, and every state Premier. I treat my vote as a right and not a family handed down path to follow, I come from a very ALP family. Not saying those that belong to a party or always vote the same way are wrong but for me the right to choose is important.

What we get in Tony is yet to be seen, as you are never sure what a person will be like nor their government until they are in Government. Tony has been called over the last four years almost every name and he is said to have many character flaws… Maybe that’s politics …. The time has come to put to the test whether is good bad or indifferent…

I have posted before I don’t see much real difference between the two major parties and look for who I think can do the best job. A brief view of why I voted for who; Gough Vietnam { I did not want to go], Malcom the ALP aside from Hayden where in a shambles, Bob the libs had just ran out of ideas and Bob had lots of new ideas, Paul Hewson just wanted to change so much so fast he scared me, John the time had come and I liked his ideas of choice, Kevin the Libs were looking tied and Kevin looked like he was a cross between Bob & John, Tony the first time through the ALP was an internal mess, Tony this time as I saw it the ALP would do any deal to stay in power and the constant attack on Tony grew sad and tied.

I have no idea whether Tony will be good or bad, as many have said the senate will be a huge challenge.

Advise to ALP & Greens… I am the person you need not the rusted on hard core cheer leaders …so I offer what may change my mind … I should point out I took the ABC compass test a couple of times and my policy direction were Green, Libs, ALP…

Both the Greens and ALP, need to start to talk about policy the constant character attack on Tony have not swayed me one bit if anything was negative for the Greens and ALP…

Greens you need some decent and practical economic polices your ideals are great but your ideas on making them work are plain stupid …. However get some decent economic plans in place and you will go far, stay as you are and you will go the way of the Democrat’s ..

ALP pick a leader and bunker down and develop policy most importantly reduce the influence of the Trade Unions on policy … whether you wanta admit it or not to many members of the ALP have union backgrounds in one way or another… Also learn how to debate rather than bully HHHHMMMmmmm to the rusted on when Julia made her famous speech and Kevin did his slap down of the Christian Minster over gays, especially the Christian Minster thing on Q & A those inside the tent where cheering I guess at how the other side was slain …. Me I tho he has a right to an opinion and its not an uncommon opinion … where is the debate -- to change my mind, yelling an making me feel small IMO [maybe I am getting old] is not the way to do it…

For me there have been three excellent PM’s and they are in this order, Bob, John & Paul… the rest bay and large varying levels good and bad … The worst government again my opinion was the last labour government, I accept the WFC happen on their watch… however they by and large stopped economic reform something that all previous government had been doing… as I said the WFC happened but so did a huge mining investment and mining revenues … others are welcome to judge for themselves …

Tony as I said is unknown as are all PM’s when we elect them… the one I tho would fail the most was John and he turned out to be IMO the second best … I for one hopes he is a success not because I support the Libs but it’s better that way… So I wish him and his team good luck and hope he is a good PM…

AS for my advice to the Greens and ALP take it with a grain of salt …. It’s not meant to take sides just giving you how this one swinging voter thinks…

 

[FFC Mariner]

Watching Hawke on Sky on Saturday night made me realise what a hollow shell today's party is.

I genuinely thought Juia would translate her performance into being a good PM, how wrong I was on that one.

Rudd comes across as a delusional megalomaniac , his concession speech was cringeworthy.

The next leader won't be the one who wins Government so they need a reformer. Someone who understands the true values of the party and will oversee the massive overhaul from the ground up that is needed.

 

[Forum Phoenix]

Not sure about Tanya Plibersek, I think she's more suited to a role as a Social Worker than PM. My money is on Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel.

Yeah, wouldn't want a polly that shows a strong instinct towards caring for people. Disastrous.

 

[hasbeen]

Good to see the Monty Python reference there. Would that be a Norwegian Blue?

 

[dibo]

Congratulating yourself for a funny, funny joke (that's not even yours)?

 

[hasbeen]

What crawled up your arse? Still, not a lot to laugh about eh, when Labor is still in-fighting like there's no tomorrow. Why don't you put your hand up for the job, you're certainly well suited. And as for me laughing at my own joke, I didn't steal the thread title did I? Stick to your serious politics mate, you're a lousy comedian.

 

[midfielder]

D

No Federal Gov has ever lost at the first election... meaning I guess unless the Libs are beyond hopeless they will be in for two terms...IYO will the next ALP leader be someone to re build or someone to be leader over say 6 years...

My outside pick would be a Bill Shorten leader Penny Wong [2IC] ... if it was a 6 year plan .. if a 3 * 3 plan ... Albo as leader with Shorten as 2IC...

 

[dibo]

Good to see the Libs' first substantive act as a Government being to sack a properly appointed diplomat for being of the opposite political stripe.

What would have been said if Rudd had in 2007 immediately recalled Amanda Vanstone from Rome and refused to appoint Brendan Nelson, Tim Fischer and Alexander Downer to their diplomatic posts?

Their first political act is to attempt to browbeat Labor into 'respecting their mandate' to get rid of the price on carbon pollution.

I fully expect Labor to provide as much assistance to the incoming government as Abbott himself provided when he tore down a leader *and* went back on the position his party took to the previous election *and* ignored the then government's mandate to introduce the carbon price back in 2009.

In 2007, at least 88% of the people voted for parties promising to introduce a price on carbon (Labor, Liberal, Green, Democrats). The Libs ignored the position they took to the previous election, not just the clearly expressed wish of the vast majority of the people. The only recognised party opposed was the Nationals with their 7%.

In 2013, roughly 52% of people voted for parties promising to repeal a price on carbon (Liberals, Nationals, LNP, CLP, PUP, KAP). That's nowhere near as clear, especially when 42% of people voted for parties promising to keep a price on carbon (Labor, Greens).

If we expect politicians to stand for something, we have to expect that that means they'll continue to stand for something after an election, and not just cave in because a bare majority of the people voted for parties who happen to have in their platform one thing or another. Neither Labor nor the Greens can cave on carbon pricing; they went to the people promising these things and they can't walk away from that. They're not bound to their opponents' platforms, or else when WorkChoices Mk.II comes around they'll have to vote for that too (N.B: The Liberals certainly opposed the repeal of WorkChoices, even though that was *the* issue of the 2007 election).

Abbott's going to learn that governing is harder than three word slogans on endless loop. He's going to have to do some work, and he's going to have to negotiate and compromise, because that's how governing works.

 

[dibo]

No Federal Gov has ever lost at the first election

Not quite right.

Fisher's Labor government (when formed in 1910 it was the first majority Federal government and the world's first Labor majority government) lost its first election in 1913.

Joseph Cook formed government for the Commonwealth Liberal Party, which in turn failed at a double-dissolution in 2014, where Fisher again prevailed.

The Labor party split in that term over conscription, the rat Billy Hughes took over as Prime Minister in 1915 and won as a Nationalist in 1917.

Scullin's Labor government was formed in 1929 but fell in 1931 when the party split over the way to deal with the depression.

Doesn't happen often, usually caused by some internal catastrophe and hasn't happened in more than 80 years, but there have been near misses since.

Every new government (if it hasn't lost) has had a reduced majority second time around.

In recent memory, Whitlam nearly lost, Hawke had his wings clipped, Howard nearly lost and Gillard lost her majority.

Howard lost the national 2PP vote and suffered an enormous swing (4.6%, taking him down to 49.02% 2PP) against him, and he was only saved by a very, very good marginal seats campaign. Gillard won the national 2PP (*just* - a 2.6% swing took her down to 50.12%) but lost more seats.

For Abbott in 2016 (or sooner if he calls a DD), a 3.35% swing will take him back to 50-50, a uniform swing of about 4% takes him below a majority of seats.

There'll be a post election polling bump as everyone clamours to be sided with the winner, but if his Commission of Audit recommends slashing yet more jobs, if his backbench starts getting agitated for another course of WorkChoices, if the budget doesn't magically leap into surplus or if the boats don't suddenly stop he might have more trouble than he thinks.