Support NeoGAF

[bobnowhere]

Interesting. My electorate is Durack which I thought was a safe Liberal seat.

You'd think that would be more of a Lib/Nat contest! Though....


State by state Ipsos:

• SA Federal 2 Party Preferred: L/NP 48 (-2) ALP 52 (+2)
• WA Federal 2 Party Preferred: L/NP 44 (-5) ALP 56 (+5) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• QLD Federal 2 Party Preferred: L/NP 55 (-3) ALP 45 (+3)
• VIC Federal 2 Party Preferred: L/NP 41 (-7) ALP 59 (+7)
• NSW Federal 2 Party Preferred: L/NP 52 (+2) ALP 48 (-2)

Tasmania, NT and the ACT don't exist.

Amazingly ridiculous result in WA though not convinced the Greens are polling at 20%.

ATM the Labor still won't win enough seats in QLD and NSW to form government even with big wins in VIC and WA, but jeez Turnbull what exactly was the point of you? He'll still probably flop across the line on these numbers but with no authority or mandate to speak of. Will get rolled inside a year.

 

[30yearsofhurt]

Look at those state MoEs though.
This poll isn't worth the time it took to look at it.

 

[Elaugaufein]

You'd think that would be more of a Lib/Nat contest! Though....


State by state Ipsos:

• SA Federal 2 Party Preferred: L/NP 48 (-2) ALP 52 (+2)
• WA Federal 2 Party Preferred: L/NP 44 (-5) ALP 56 (+5) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• QLD Federal 2 Party Preferred: L/NP 55 (-3) ALP 45 (+3)
• VIC Federal 2 Party Preferred: L/NP 41 (-7) ALP 59 (+7)
• NSW Federal 2 Party Preferred: L/NP 52 (+2) ALP 48 (-2)

Tasmania, NT and the ACT don't exist.


Amazingly ridiculous result in WA though not convinced the Greens are polling at 20%.

ATM the Labor still won't win enough seats in QLD and NSW to form government even with big wins in VIC and WA, but jeez Turnbull what exactly was the point of you? He'll still probably flop across the line on these numbers but with no authority or mandate to speak of. Will get rolled inside a year.

I'd expect the 20% to be too high but the Greens vote in polls in WA has consistently been way above historical expectation since the second Senate election where Labor decided to put Bullock first and Ludlam really raised his profile.

 

[Yagharek]

Sounds like the same poll I got last week. I'm in jagajaga. Pretty safe labor you would think.

Safe from everything except 94a of standing orders

 

[bomma_man]

Does anyone, in retrospect, think that the 2010 spill was anything but dumb?

 

[Elaugaufein]

Does anyone, in retrospect, think that the 2010 spill was anything but dumb?

That was the one where Gillard knifed Rudd yes ?

I'm sure internally it made sense since Rudd was apparently a nightmarish micromanager noone wanted to work with but in terms of public perception it was definitely dumb since none of that came across to the populous.

 

[30yearsofhurt]

That was the one where Gillard knifed Rudd yes ?

I'm sure internally it made sense since Rudd was apparently a nightmarish micromanager noone wanted to work with but in terms of public perception it was definitely dumb since none of that came across to the populous.

A lot of stories about how bad he was. He had to go. And a lot sooner then he did.
The ALP should have known better than make him leader in the first place.
Replacing him with one the the least convincing communicators we've ever seen was an even bigger mistake. Gillard was a great administrator and was a highly capable PM but people don't vote on your demonstrated ability. They vote for someone they like.

 

[Candescence]

Gillard would've been fine if Labor hadn't axed a popular prime minister completely out of the blue with absolutely no hint or attempt to make the case for it beforehand. Whether they should have axed Rudd was one thing, but Labor went about it in the worst possible way. And they still came running back to him when things were at their bleakest, which to be fair was actually a good decision - it didn't save them the election, but it certainly reduced the bloodbath.

But really, while Abbot made things worse, Labor being back in opposition is their own fault. They should've just grit their teeth and waited for a good time to depose Rudd when the public might've been fine with it, or actually planned the fucking coup right.

But in any case, I still would've preferred the Rudd/Gillard administration over yet another Howard term.

 

[bobnowhere]

Can't wait for the online facebook debate. Just imagine if there was technical difficulties!

 

[bobnowhere]

Pretty rough inteview from Turnbull on 7.30 earlier. Looked unwell and wasn't even in the same league as Leigh Sales.

 

[Dryk]

The one thing that the LNP got right in this term was properly seeding the coup against Abbott. I had heard the rumours about Rudd around that time but they weren't spread anywhere near widely enough for things to play out any differently.

 

[elfinke]

Pretty rough inteview from Turnbull on 7.30 earlier. Looked unwell and wasn't even in the same league as Leigh Sales.

Yep he was, in internet parlance, legit shook.

 

[bananabread]

Just watched that 730 interview, Turnbull does not look well and was struggling to dodge every question while staying on message. Not a great look.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4478428.htm

Link for those interested.

 

[AdventureRacing]

Pretty rough inteview from Turnbull on 7.30 earlier. Looked unwell and wasn't even in the same league as Leigh Sales.

Which politicians are really? It seems like pretty much everyone who goes on there gets embarrassed. I like Leigh sales but I feel it says more about our politicians than anything. It's fun to see someone actually throw some tough questions at them and know how to follow up when they try and dodge.

 

[darkace]

Just watched that 730 interview, Turnbull does not look well and was struggling to dodge every question while staying on message. Not a great look.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4478428.htm

Link for those interested.

Jesus Christ that first question Leigh. Aren't you meant to warm them up before you go straight for the throat.

Good interview though, Turnbull isn't looking good.

Although he is right about the economy being in transition. You can't judge the LNP on the performance of the economy over the last 3 years.

 

[Candescence]

Not completely, no, but you can fault them for their handling of said transition. Mining, for example, has cratered and yet governments are trying to fuel further investment despite new coal mines being financially nonviable instead of actually spearheading a transition towards renewable energy and giving miners a pathway to working in that industry. And let's not forget the dumpster fire that's the Coalition's version of the NBN, which is going to cripple innovation, not bolster it like Labor's plan would've.

Delusion and denial has caused the government to faff about when it should be focusing on pushing Australia's primary industries away from mining and housing investment and towards other industries that Australia might actually be able to be competitive in.

 

[Shaneus]

Just watched that 730 interview, Turnbull does not look well and was struggling to dodge every question while staying on message. Not a great look.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4478428.htm

Link for those interested.

I missed the start of it, but from what I saw, even the softball questions he was totally fumbling on. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Abbott and even Hockey were better at fronting these sorts of things than Top-hat Turnbull is.

If he and Shorten get in a proper debate, he'll get decimated. Hopefully now Shorten is appearing on #qanda, Turnbull will too. I reckon Bill would do okay, but Malcolm would go to pieces like the car in his namesake movie:

Edit: I wanted to punch the TV when this happened:

LEIGH SALES: You explain in what way. For someone who's listening tonight, as I said, dad's a policeman, mum's a teacher - what does it mean when you say stronger economic growth will benefit them?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it means that they will have the benefit - they'll have - if they're working for the Government, they will have a government which has more revenues that is better able to support them. If they're not working for the Government - and I know I'm here at the Government broadcaster, but most people don't work for the Government, most people work for business - a stronger economic growth, stronger economy means better prospects for the business and better prospects for the employees of that business. That's why every dollar of tax cuts produces $4 of extra value in the economy in GDP, and most of that, between two-thirds and three-quarters, goes to labour or employees. And Chris Murphy confirmed that today. It's - but it's very well understood. And by the way, it was very well understood by Mr Shorten only a few years ago, not to speak of the great Labor Treasurer and Prime Minister, Paul Keating.

Ugh.

 

[darkace]

I missed the start of it, but from what I saw, even the softball questions he was totally fumbling on. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Abbott and even Hockey were better at fronting these sorts of things than Top-hat Turnbull is.

If he and Shorten get in a proper debate, he'll get decimated. Hopefully now Shorten is appearing on #qanda, Turnbull will too. I reckon Bill would do okay, but Malcolm would go to pieces like the car in his namesake movie:

Edit: I wanted to punch the TV when this happened:


Ugh.

I mean he's right. He's literally just quoting Treasury here.

Not completely, no, but you can fault them for their handling of said transition. Mining, for example, has cratered and yet governments are trying to fuel further investment despite new coal mines being financially nonviable instead of actually spearheading a transition towards renewable energy and giving miners a pathway to working in that industry. And let's not forget the dumpster fire that's the Coalition's version of the NBN, which is going to cripple innovation, not bolster it like Labor's plan would've.

Delusion and denial has caused the government to faff about when it should be focusing on pushing Australia's primary industries away from mining and housing investment and towards other industries that Australia might actually be able to be competitive in.

There's not a whole lot the government can do to speed this transition. An NBN wouldn't have had an impact for years. Carbon tax only incentivises industry by making more competitive industry less viable.

ALP or LNP would have seen below-par economic outcomes in this period. Global lethargy + transitioning economy = pain. The fact our unemployment peaked at like 6% is a testament to the inherent strength of our economy more than anything.

 

[bobnowhere]

At least it wasn't Sarah Ferguson!

"Now, you've just delivered that budget," Ms Ferguson said. "It's a budget with a new tax, with levies, with co-payments. Is it liberating for a politician to decide election promises don't matter?"

Andrew Hastie has been sacked by the Army [reserve] for refusing to remove the pictures of him in uniform. The ADF has a firm policy against politicisation and had a Labor candidate remove photos of him in uniform as well last week.

Couldn't happen to a nicer chap, immediately blamed David Morrison for it as well. Can't expect too much from a young-earth creationist thinking wise.

 

[Candescence]

There's not a whole lot the government can do to speed this transition. An NBN wouldn't have had an impact for years. Carbon tax only incentivises industry by making more competitive industry less viable.

An immediate impact wouldn't have mattered, a full FTTP NBN would be making back what it cost to build it anyway (whereas the current government model probably won't), and I never mentioned a carbon tax (which was working in any case) or a carbon market (which might be the ideal climate mitigation scheme), I was thinking more along the lines of ARENA, the renewable energy target and other funds to encourage renewables investment, which has also dropped considerably because of the government's hostility towards renewable energy. Limited renewables investment is entirely the government's fault.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I mean he's right. He's literally just quoting Treasury here.



There's not a whole lot the government can do to speed this transition. An NBN wouldn't have had an impact for years. Carbon tax only incentivises industry by making more competitive industry less viable.

ALP or LNP would have seen below-par economic outcomes in this period. Global lethargy + transitioning economy = pain. The fact our unemployment peaked at like 6% is a testament to the inherent strength of our economy more than anything.

That's a little misleading about a carbon tax, it doesn't make them less viable precisely, it makes them more reflecive of their true cost since it's charging them for the purpose of negating the damage to the environment they are causing and the resulting problems that they would otherwise get to socialize. There's lots of costs that businesses will socialize the ever living crap out of (transport infrastructure, communication infrastructure, education, training, employees they aren't paying a living wage (relative to hours worked), waste management, provision of utilities, disaster management, stable trade instruments, bankruptcy cleanup , reducing the costs of an employees retirement (through the super environment and pension), environmental harm ) and then pretend the resulting profit is theirs and theirs alone.

 

[darkace]

An immediate impact wouldn't have mattered, a full FTTP NBN would be making back what it cost to build it anyway (whereas the current government model probably won't), and I never mentioned a carbon tax (which was working in any case) or a carbon market (which might be the ideal climate mitigation scheme), I was thinking more along the lines of ARENA, the renewable energy target and other funds to encourage renewables investment, which has also dropped considerably because of the government's hostility towards renewable energy. Limited renewables investment is entirely the government's fault.

It's largely irrelevant without a carbon tax (which is the ideal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax). These funds will be misappropriated if the market hasn't set the right price for the externality.

I don't have a problem with government encouraged renewables energy investment given the inherent advantage established industry has, provided it's complemented with a carbon tax. Doing it without a carbon tax is like trying to empty a bucket with an eye-dropper under a tap.

That's a little misleading about a carbon tax, it doesn't make them less viable precisely, it makes them more reflecive of their true cost since it's charging them for the purpose of negating the damage to the environment they are causing and the resulting problems that they would otherwise get to socialize.

Which makes them less viable. Call a spade a spade. Yes it will hurt industry. But the outcomes are worth it, as otherwise we get to play out a tragedy of the commons.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I'm pretty sure that the inherent viability of a thing shouldn't assume it gets to socialize costs and privatize profits. If we assume I get to socialize my losses I can be immensely profitable personally just by gambling my money on the longest odds (with commensurate payouts) that I can find. I still wouldn't say that's a viable model.

 

[darkace]

If we assume I get to socialize my losses I can be immensely profitable personally just by gambling my money on the longest odds (with commensurate payouts) that I can find. I still wouldn't say that's a viable model.

Why not? If you can profit off of this that's a good thing as you're providing a service in demand. It's only when this produces a negative externality that this becomes problematic.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Why not? If you can profit off of this that's a good thing as you're providing a service in demand. It's only when this produces a negative externality that this becomes problematic.

The negative externality is my losses (which I am socializing) because if I constantly take 99% failure odds in hopes of getting 100 x payouts, you're going to be bailing me out a lot before I become profitable (which I off course get to keep for myself because I'm an innovator) ie every time I multiple my money by 100 society gets a debt of 99 my initial investment.

 

[darkace]

The negative externality is my losses (which I am socializing) because if I constantly take 99% failure odds in hopes of getting 100 x payouts, you're going to be bailing me out a lot before I become profitable (which I off course get to keep for myself because I'm an innovator) ie every time I multiple my money by 100 society gets a debt of 99 my initial investment.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say. How could I use society to socialise my losses 99 times so I make a large profit once? What's a practical example of this?

 

[Elaugaufein]

I really don't understand what you're trying to say. How could I use society to socialise my losses 99 times so I make a large profit once? What's a practical example of this?

I'm saying that's effectively how these "viable" industries operate. They pass their negative externalities off to society , but argue they should get to keep all their profit. It's very easy to be profitable/viable if someone else has to pay your debts.

 

[darkace]

I'm saying that's effectively how these "viable" industries operate. They pass their negative externalities off to society , but argue they should get to keep all their profit. It's very easy to be profitable/viable if someone else has to pay your debts.

They profit because they provide a service. An negative externality is something not priced into the cost of the service provision. Smoking and its effect on the health service, energy generation and its effect on the environment, and junk food and aforementioned health service, for instance.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at while talking about viable industries. Our industries are viable because the service they're providing are in demand. The vast majority aren't being taxpayer subsidised.

 

[Elaugaufein]

They profit because they provide a service. An negative externality is something not priced into the cost of the service provision. Smoking and its effect on the health service, energy generation and its effect on the environment, and junk food and aforementioned health service, for instance.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at while talking about viable industries. Our industries are viable because the service they're providing are in demand. The vast majority aren't being taxpayer subsidised.

But they are taxpayer subsidized (indirectly) because it's the taxpayer who ends up paying for the negative externalities. You get a much better view of the "true" viability of this service if it has to pay for its own negative externalities. There's nothing "unfair" in making a company pay for these costs so that the true price of their provision of the service is actually properly visible. So if Carbon Producing industries become less viable when they have to pay for their negative climate change effects it's not making them less viable (in any absolute terms) it's instead making their non-viability more explicit.

 

[darkace]

But they are taxpayer subsidized (indirectly) because it's the taxpayer who ends up paying for the negative externalities. You get a much better view of the "true" viability of this service if it has to pay for its own negative externalities. There's nothing "unfair" in making a company pay for these costs so that the true price of their provision of the service is actually properly visible. So if Carbon Producing industries become less viable when they have to pay for their negative climate change effects it's not making them less viable (in any absolute terms) it's instead making their non-viability more explicit.

This is just semantics. It's like calling a carbon tax a 'price on carbon' instead. It's still a tax. And showing they're non-viable through government intervention is making them less viable. Directly. It's just that this is what we want.

 

[Elaugaufein]

This is just semantics. It's like calling a carbon tax a 'price on carbon' instead. It's still a tax. And showing they're non-viable through government intervention is making them less viable. Directly. It's just that this is what we want.

Yes, it does make them less viable than they currently are in market terms. I think what we're arguing is whether a market "distorted"* by effective implicit government intervention (through subsidizing externalities) is more or less problematic than a market "distorted" by explicit government intervention to remove the prior.

*I'm not sure that distorted is the right word in either of these cases. The market largely assumes the former so it's not really a distortion by modern economic standards and in the second case I find it difficult to view correcting a distortion as a distortion.

 

[bobnowhere]

Rob Oakeshott is making a come back as well

 

[Yagharek]

Rob Oakeshott is making a come back as well

Sensational.

 

[elfinke]

George Christiansen... what a chap.

Interested to see what the polling looks like for Rob to have thrown his lot back in the ring. Glad he has though.

 

[Yagharek]

Ive only skimmed headlines today but Labor are apparently going for the 2014 Hockey budget plan of newstart delayed til 25yoa. If theyre going full dumb-dumb, what's the point of the ALP? Not being the identikit to the LNP? Not having Bernadi?

In that case it's even more crucial that the balance of power in both houses lies with a mix of independents, Greens, NXT.

That's about all I hope for out of this election: a mandate which must be earnt by negotiation and compromise rather than sheer bloody assertion of rights to govern unimpeded.

 

[elfinke]

about all I hope for out of this election: a mandate which must be earnt by negotiation and compromise rather than sheer bloody assertion of rights to govern unimpeded.

Agreed. With apologies to Tim Minchin though, the word with an 'n', an 'i' and a 'g' in it had been very difficult to say, much less follow through on for the major parties since JG.

 

[bobnowhere]

George Christiansen... what a chap.

Interested to see what the polling looks like for Rob to have thrown his lot back in the ring. Glad he has though.

Turtles? Or has he done something else stupid in the last couple of days?

Edit:

Reachtel Poll: Seat of Grey 2 Party Preferred: LIB 46 (-17.5 from 2013) NXT 54! Grey is the all the rest that's left of SA seat.

 

[Jintor]

http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...s/news-story/2abf2bd29308e4889f6aef1da88bcad0

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[bomma_man]

http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...s/news-story/2abf2bd29308e4889f6aef1da88bcad0

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Could be a master stroke politically but maaaan.

 

[elfinke]

http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...s/news-story/2abf2bd29308e4889f6aef1da88bcad0

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Indeed. The "L" in each of the major parties names sure is getting a workout at the moment.

 

[darkace]

http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...s/news-story/2abf2bd29308e4889f6aef1da88bcad0

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Good.

 

[roosters93]

I thought it was already tied to the CPI?

 

[bobnowhere]

I thought it was already tied to the CPI?

Yeah I'm not quite sure what is going on, it's always been CPI. They are backing a drop from 54k to 51k (whatevs, it was like 25k in my day) and removing a discount for doing science, math and teaching (super duper dumb) but they have never charged interest on HECS debt.

 

[Candescence]

So Nick Xenophon's team may actually win multiple lower house seats, including the ultra-lib seat of Grey, according to ReachTel. Hoo, boy.

 

[Dryk]

So Nick Xenophon's team may actually win multiple lower house seats, including the ultra-lib seat of Grey, according to ReachTel. Hoo, boy.

I'm looking forward to finding out which particular brand of crazy the winning candidates turn out to be this time

 

[bobnowhere]

I'm looking forward to finding out which particular brand of crazy the winning candidates turn out to be this time

Most of the candidates seem like disaffected ex-libs, a bit like Nick to be honest. I suspect whatever happens, what's good for Nick is what will happen.

Looks like Australia has it's very own Anthony Weiner/Carlos Danger in NT minister Nathan Barrett. Been sending explicit videos of himself to a constituent. He resigned before being pushed, what a comedy of disasters the NT government is.

Lols and now a Liberal candidate for Calwell has had to resign as he owns a brothel in Frankston! Very safe labor seat, but jeez can the Victorian Liberal party pick 'em!

 

[Elaugaufein]

So in light of the fact there's 38 parties on the Queensland Senate Paper has anyone done any research into the more "obscure"* parties ? I'll start crawling websites and checking past positions next week myself probably.

Also for my personal education does anyone know why the hell the Sex Party and HEMP party share a Senate Grouping in QLD ? I don't think its particularly ideologically weird (the party positions are similar) but its certainly unusual in practice.

Also my god is the Queensland lower house party ticket for my electorate sad, the LNP is literally in the middle of my list of preferences and it still won't even matter because my best case scenario is that the Liberals win because only Katter and One Nation have odds better than a chocolate tea kettle in hell of winning.

*Ie deliberately misnamed parties , parties with a vague name and not widely known policy positions, etc ?

ETA - I'm actually sort of missing GVT since they at least gave you some idea of the actual political allegiances of some of the troll parties. Should have kept the requirement for parties to have to provide copies of the How to Vote cards they plan to hand out.

ETA2 - Can I also mention how annoying it is trying to work out the political position of parties on certain issues where they make a broad statement about an issue and then append a but that's so vaguely written as to make the entire thing utterly meaningless ?

Most of the candidates seem like disaffected ex-libs, a bit like Nick to be honest. I suspect whatever happens, what's good for Nick is what will happen.

Looks like Australia has it's very own Anthony Weiner/Carlos Danger in NT minister Nathan Barrett. Been sending explicit videos of himself to a constituent. He resigned before being pushed, what a comedy of disasters the NT government is.

Lols and now a Liberal candidate for Calwell has had to resign as he owns a brothel in Frankston! Very safe labor seat, but jeez can the Victorian Liberal party pick 'em!

I am inclined to agree with you in South Australia , because what's good for Nick in SA is likely good for NXT candidates who want to keep their seats. It'll be interesting if he gets someone elected in other states though because half of what he's running on is local populism which means you could get some epic splits.

 

[bobnowhere]

So in light of the fact there's 38 parties on the Queensland Senate Paper has anyone done any research into the more "obscure"* parties ? I'll start crawling websites and checking past positions next week myself probably.

Also for my personal education does anyone know why the hell the Sex Party and HEMP party share a Senate Grouping in QLD ? I don't think its particularly ideologically weird (the party positions are similar) but its certainly unusual in practice.

Also my god is the Queensland lower house party ticket for my electorate sad, the LNP is literally in the middle of my list of preferences and it still won't even matter because my best case scenario is that the Liberals win because only Katter and One Nation have odds better than a chocolate tea kettle in hell of winning.

*Ie deliberately misnamed parties , parties with a vague name and not widely known policy positions, etc ?

ETA - I'm actually sort of missing GVT since they at least gave you some idea of the actual political allegiances of some of the troll parties. Should have kept the requirement for parties to have to provide copies of the How to Vote cards they plan to hand out.

ETA2 - Can I also mention how annoying it is trying to work out the political position of parties on certain issues where they make a broad statement about an issue and then append a but that's so vaguely written as to make the entire thing utterly meaningless ?

You need to watch out for the first on the ticket, The Health Party!

Policies include:

- “Natural medicine should be placed on an equal footing with pharmaceutical medicine."
- There is conspiracy regarding radio waves produced by electronic devices, and scientists are "hijacking" information about electromagnetic safety.
- Fluoride is a "toxic chemical waste product that is classified as class 6 poison and should not be placed into public water supplies."
- In the above, Health Australia is not referring to natural medicines that have been scientifically proven and are recognised by medical experts. The following quote gives a better idea: “The Health Australia Party (HAP) was formed in 2015 to respond to the well funded, sustained and coordinated attacks on natural medicine in Australia which have placed our homeopathic profession at risk”
- Also, Chemtrails are real!

In other news Andrew Hastie has totally forgotten he owns a house as well!

I wonder what the group noun for candidates would be? An Error of candidates? A Disaster of Candidates? A Misfourtune of Candidates? A Hopelessness of Candidates?

 

[Dead Man]

A bumble of candidates?

 

[Aarglefarg]

A Cacophony of Candidates.

Also eww at the 'health party.