Support NeoGAF

[D.Lo]

Can he challenge? What did the rules Rudd introduced do?

Rudd's rules just need a rank and file vote, and you need 60% of MPs to agree to a ballot to force it. But he can call for one.

Bill seems to have been making some moves to try and stay on as leader after the election, but he must know his limp apparatchik goose is cooked.

 

[Fredescu]

I think Rudd's rules included an automatic re election for the leader after an election defeat too.

 

[bobnowhere]

I think Rudd's rules included an automatic re election for the leader after an election defeat too.

Yeah I think that's right. After an election loss both leadership positions are automatically spilled. I imagine in the Senate as well.

Assuming everything goes as expected on Saturday, Turnbull returned with a reduced majority it will be interesting to see how the Coalition will respond to the Labor leadership process. In 2013 Abbott went silent for weeks and the news was dominated by Shorten Vs. Albo and the Labor party probably came out of the process looking more transparent and democratic immediately putting Abbott on the back foot.

This time I imagine Turnbull will start work day one assuming we don't have another cross-bench negotiation followed by excruciating press conferences where the others announce who they are supporting. They will need to manage the time between the election and the first time Parliament sits a lot better than 2013 even with the obvious benefit of incumbency.

 

[Candescence]

In the case of the Libs returning to government but Turnbull getting removed, I hope Turnbull decides to take his ball and go home by splitting from the Libs along with some of the moderates and making his own party. The chaos that would ensue would be spectacular.

 

[darkace]

I can't see Turnbull doing that should he lose. He's too old. I imagine he'd go the 'elder statesman' route.

 

[Elaugaufein]

In the case of the Libs returning to government but Turnbull getting removed, I hope Turnbull decides to take his ball and go home by splitting from the Libs along with some of the moderates and making his own party. The chaos that would ensue would be spectacular.

They have no reason to remove him if he gets returned with a reduced majority because it'll be the Abbott faction that gets trimmed less and Turnbull has already demonstrated he'll concede to their desires in such circumstances (and he's still by far the most popular figurehead they've got). They'll be able to push the same policy as always but with a more popular leader and less blowback for them. Its winning all the way down.

 

[Arksy]

In the case of the Libs returning to government but Turnbull getting removed, I hope Turnbull decides to take his ball and go home by splitting from the Libs along with some of the moderates and making his own party. The chaos that would ensue would be spectacular.

After seeing first hand what's happening in the UK I think that us Aussies do political instability a lot better.

We also do weather a lot better, jesus fucking christ.

 

[Candescence]

They have no reason to remove him if he gets returned with a reduced majority because it'll be the Abbott faction that gets trimmed less and Turnbull has already demonstrated he'll concede to their desires in such circumstances (and he's still by far the most popular figurehead they've got). They'll be able to push the same policy as always but with a more popular leader and less blowback for them. Its winning all the way down.

The problem with Turnbull is that he'll go back to being essentially a lame duck leader, since he'll have an even more troublesome senate and a lowered majority, and that's assuming he doesn't end up with a hung parliament, and that's on top of being wedged between his own beliefs and the right-wing. It'll be the paralysis of the last eight months all over again.

 

[Elaugaufein]

After seeing first hand what's happening in the UK I think that us Aussies do political instability a lot better.

We also do weather a lot better, jesus fucking christ.

We're more used to it I think and see the benefits more often. The one time in my life a government got a completely subservient Senate Howard used it to shoot himself and his party in the foot. Compared to that uncertainty has a certain attraction. Trumbull should actually be pretty grateful to the current Senate since if Abbott's original budget had made it through he'd likely either never have challenged Abbott or be losing right now.

 

[Shaneus]

I just noticed a Turnbull/Liberal ad on this page. Is it wrong that I reported it because it "slows down the site"? Because technically it's true.

 

[Candescence]

Also, latest Playground Politics episode has a stinger with Richard DiNatalie basically saying that he watches the show and finds it funny, he even laughed at the "get back in your own bed" running gag spoken right in his face. That's pretty sweet.

 

[danm999]

The problem with Turnbull is that he'll go back to being essentially a lame duck leader, since he'll have an even more troublesome senate and a lowered majority, and that's assuming he doesn't end up with a hung parliament, and that's on top of being wedged between his own beliefs and the right-wing. It'll be the paralysis of the last eight months all over again.

Wouldn't be shocked if he wants to secretly lose. He was given a Parliamentary majority and public opinion polls you can only dream of and did nothing for months and months. Imagine how it'll be when his standing is reduced!

 

[bobnowhere]

Tehehehehe...

 

[Elaugaufein]

Wouldn't be shocked if he wants to secretly lose. He was given a Parliamentary majority and public opinion polls you can only dream of and did nothing for months and months. Imagine how it'll be when his standing is reduced!

But he didn't really have a parliamentary majority. Without the Nationals he couldn't even form government (and the Nationals are both Climate Change Denialists and hard right socially) and once you take away the hard right of the Liberals he'd be even worse off. That's why he did nothing. He literally didn't have the numbers to do anything except carry on Abbott's policy.

 

[Shaneus]

So, who watched 4 Corners last night? Stark contrast in interviewing compared to Sales' pissweak efforts on 7:30 last week.

Turnbull came off as somewhat robotic, even talking down to Ferguson and rarely straying from his script. Shorten was far better, and only went into press conference mode a handful of times.

Q&A was quite the shitshow, Plibersek didn't look anywhere near as bad as Cormannator nor Jones. And that woman who couldn't stop rabbiting on.

 

[Yagharek]

The clue in not watching qanda is when Alan jones is on.

 

[Yagharek]

Ok watching four corners now.

I love Sarah Ferguson's no nonsense style.

 

[bobnowhere]

Ok watching four corners now.

I love Sarah Ferguson's no nonsense style.

Neither leaders came out of it looking great. Shorten seemed pretty resigned and frustrated and Turnbull waffled and feigned indignation at the very suggestion that he sold his soul for the leadership.

 

[Shaneus]

Neither leaders came out of it looking great. Shorten seemed pretty resigned and frustrated and Turnbull waffled and feigned indignation at the very suggestion that he sold his soul for the leadership.

I'm wondering if we should take solace in that Turnbull will likely win this weekend, but without enough of a majority to do anything, or we should hope Shorten makes it.

Side question: Am I wrong in thinking that even when tophat says they would lead with a stable majority government, they are including the Nationals in that "majority", and in that respect are not unlike Labor and any potential alliance they may concoct with the Greens? And that's not including the Libs other internal faction, the extreme far-right. So the LNP are closer to being three separate factions, none of which are likely to get anything passed.

Guess we should just resolve ourselves to another term of government where almost literally nothing gets done.

At least Barnaby will likely be kicked out.

 

[elfinke]

I'm wondering if we should take solace in that Turnbull will likely win this weekend, but without enough of a majority to do anything, or we should hope Shorten makes it.

...

At least Barnaby will likely be kicked out.

I had a moment when I folded my green paper and I was double checking all my markings on it, where I realised that out of the 10 people running in the New England, BJ is merely only 'middle-of-the-road' shitty relative to about half of them. Faint praise I guess... I still did my bit to vote him out, but man, what a ballot paper!

It's a bit hard to get a read at the moment. The NE is pretty conservative and there is still a large bunch of very superficial mouth breathers who haven't forgiven the 'nasty, treacherous traitor Windbag' for his 'backstab of the electorate' in 2010 (paraphrasing Facebook here). The bookies still have BJ as a short-priced favourite, for example.

 

[Bernbaum]

Ok watching four corners now.

I love Sarah Ferguson's no nonsense style.

She's great. Say what you will about either candidate but I'm at least thankful that both are each somewhat intelligent and the political distinctions between them are clear, even if they come across as uninspiring. Neither are Tony Abbot which is a big plus.

Also: http://democracysausage.org

 

[darkace]

She's great. Say what you will about either candidate but I'm at least thankful that both are each somewhat intelligent and the political distinctions between them are clear, even if they come across as uninspiring. Neither are Tony Abbot which is a big plus.

Also: http://democracysausage.org

Sausages and cake available at my polling booth. What a time to be alive.

 

[bobnowhere]

I'm midway between two booths, one with sausages and cake the other uncommitted at this time. Made my choice easy!

 

[Jintor]

What are the origins of the democracy sausage anyway?

 

[oipic]

Not a confirmed sausage within cooee of home - it's going to be a dark day in many ways.

Albo will be a fine opposition leader if that plays out, but the challenge for Labor will then be to manoeuvre trump card Plibersek into position for the wars to come.

 

[Yagharek]

She's great. Say what you will about either candidate but I'm at least thankful that both are each somewhat intelligent and the political distinctions between them are clear, even if they come across as uninspiring. Neither are Tony Abbot which is a big plus.

Also: http://democracysausage.org

This is pretty much it. Neither of them are nutjobs but there are a few in parliament with some clout nonetheless.

I liked Shorten's acknowledgment today that the right wing lunatics in Trump, Farage and Boris Johnson are a byproduct of a low threshold for political discourse and a high factor of inequality between the poorer and wealthier regions in a given country.

Regardless of this week's result it would be nice to see a few crazies like Bernadi, Christensen and Abetz out of a job. Perhaps then we might see a move back towards measured discussion instead of shallow rhetoric from cormann, morrison and turnbull who really ought to know better.

 

[Brutalitops]

This Medicare scare campaign from Labor is pretty shit. I live in a very very Labor slanted electorate and even the people here didn't eat that part up.

I mean, I know politicians lie a lot, but the way Turnbull immediately shut that down made a lot of people here believe him.

Side note, I really dig that it seems Malcolm and Bill kind of like each other, or have some respect at least. It's nice seeing them shake hands without looking murderous and making comments to each other across the table during question time. Basically

Spoiler

I ship them

 

[bobnowhere]

Looks like there is some panic in Coalition ranks that Rob Oakeshott could win Cowper. Malcolm had to be deployed to sandbag on local radio!

Michael Danby is probably going to lose the unloseable seat of Melbourne Ports to either The Greens or The Liberal Party. It would probably be an easy Green victory but Danby is preferencing Liberal over Green against the will of the party. Melbourne Ports has been red since 1906. The Labor Left are really going to have to up their game in inner city seats or they are all going to turn green soon. Kowtowing to the centre right isn't working internally or externally.

This Medicare scare campaign from Labor is pretty shit. I live in a very very Labor slanted electorate and even the people here didn't eat that part up.

I mean, I know politicians lie a lot, but the way Turnbull immediately shut that down made a lot of people here believe him.

Side note, I really dig that it seems Malcolm and Bill kind of like each other, or have some respect at least. It's nice seeing them shake hands without looking murderous and making comments to each other across the table during question time. Basically

Spoiler

I ship them

I thought that too after the press called them on it last week and rolled out the new AMA guy, a Lib. But from today's essential:

Maybe it is biting, no point changing course now, all in or get laughed out. Interestingly there have been huge numbers of pre-poll and postals already well above the last election so...

 

[darkace]

Yes but how likely are they to privatise Medicare Essential.

 

[Fredescu]

Whether it's Medicare or not, there is 100% chance that they will cut some essential service or other. You can take "Medicare" as symbolic if you like.

 

[legend166]

I'm wondering if we should take solace in that Turnbull will likely win this weekend, but without enough of a majority to do anything, or we should hope Shorten makes it.

Side question: Am I wrong in thinking that even when tophat says they would lead with a stable majority government, they are including the Nationals in that "majority", and in that respect are not unlike Labor and any potential alliance they may concoct with the Greens? And that's not including the Libs other internal faction, the extreme far-right. So the LNP are closer to being three separate factions, none of which are likely to get anything passed.

Guess we should just resolve ourselves to another term of government where almost literally nothing gets done.

At least Barnaby will likely be kicked out.

Of course he's including the Nationals. And it's completely different to Labor and the Greens, starting with the fact they been a Coalition for decades.

 

[legend166]

We should rivatize everything!

How did they manage to forget the p twice AND use the incorrect Australian spelling?

 

[Fredescu]

How did they manage to forget the p twice AND use the incorrect Australian spelling?

You were making a subconscious point about poor funding for public education.

 

[legend166]

You were making a subconscious point about poor funding for public education.

Wait, I mean the incorrect American spelling.

It's privatisation, right? With an s?

 

[Fredescu]

Tis, but I had to google to be sure.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I just think it's pathetic the Labor party prefers scaremongering over Medicare when they should have gone hammer and tongs over the NBN instead. Malcolm's mixed tech model is an absolute disaster but Labor party isn't willing to exploit this.

 

[Fredescu]

Medicare and NBN are issues for two different demographics. One of them needs buses and billboards, the other doesn't.

 

[darkace]

One's a patent lie while the other isn't.

 

[Fredescu]

Every single one of them would privatise Medicare if they could, and they'll white ant their way toward it with every budget. Tanya says it best: https://twitter.com/tanya_plibersek/status/747596975835492353/video/1

But sure, it's a lie. The libs love spending money on the public service. Love it.

 

[Bernbaum]

One outcome from Shorten's accusations on Medicare is that Turnbull is now on record for saying they won't privatise Medicare. Cue Labor ads at future elections with sound bites from Turnbull the moment they go anywhere near Medicare.

 

[darkace]

It's irrelevant whether or not they love it. It wont happen. Ever. They would be lucky to get 40% of the 2PP in the next election, and they wont hold the numbers in the Senate even if they wanted to.

A co-payment isn't privatisation, it's originally an ALP policy. Freezing the rebate isn't either, originally an ALP policy as well. Nor is reducing the scope of Medicare rebates, that's what the system already does to cost control. It's how single-payer systems control costs, along with wait times. It also had next to no impact on the level of diagnostics bulk-billed, it was just the private sector gorging on the government trough.

They might privatise the payment system, but it doesn't serve a purpose being in public hands. It's largely just fluff.

The LNP won't privatise medicare ever.

 

[Fredescu]

It's irrelevant whether or not they love it.

It's not irrelevant since that forms the bulk of Labor's claims. You'd be extremely naive to think "Malcolm Turnbull wants to privatise Medicare" is a lie. It is 100% true. It is also 100% true that he won't do it. Welcome to politics.

It is symbolic for the white anting of public health funding and you should be fucking pissed off about it if you support a public health system.

 

[darkace]

It's not irrelevant since that forms the bulk of Labor's claims. You'd be extremely naive to think "Malcolm Turnbull wants to privatise Medicare" is a lie. It is 100% true. It is also 100% true that he won't do it. Welcome to politics.

It is symbolic for the white anting of public health funding and you should be fucking pissed off about it if you support a public health system.

I do think MT doesn't want to privatise Medicare. The only people who do are fringe extremists.

I do think MT wants Medicare to be sustainable. 7% real growth isn't sustainable. If you can think of a way to control costs without a copayment or further denial of service, then the government is all ears.

 

[Fredescu]

I do think MT wants Medicare to be sustainable. 7% real growth isn't sustainable. If you can think of a way to control costs without a copayment or further denial of service, then the government is all ears.

If he cared at all about the "sustainability" of public spending he would not have major tax cuts as a core promise. He wants to cut spending permanently, and reduce the ability of future governments to reverse it.

 

[darkace]

If he cared at all about the "sustainability" of public spending he would not have major tax cuts as a core promise. He wants to cut spending permanently, and reduce the ability of future governments to reverse it.

The tax cuts are funded through other tax increases and spending cuts. It's making the tax system more efficient, not engaging in some reaganesque 'theyll fund themselves' nonsense.

 

[Fredescu]

The tax cuts are funded through other tax increases and spending cuts.

Yo.

 

[darkace]

Yo.

Are you implying all government spending is good?

He's not cutting Medicare to pay for the tax cuts. He's cutting less efficient spending.

The sustainability of public healthcare spending and the efficiency of our tax system are two entirely different beasts.

 

[Fredescu]

No, I'm implying that you're agreeing with me. If you can cut spending from certain areas and "raise taxes", why use it to fund a company tax cut which has proven to benefit no one but the rich*, when you could instead use it to fund public health. But tragically funding public health is "unsustainable" while tax breaks for the rich are inherently good.


* https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/03/23/all-hail-the-economic-panacea-of-company-tax-cuts/

That's probably paywalled so some bits:

the idea has been called “the great incidence hoax”. It’s simply not demonstrably true — there is no evidence from anywhere in the world that the incidence of corporate tax primarily falls on workers. In fact, according to a study by the US Congressional Budget Office, 75% of the burden of corporate tax falls on capital, not workers. At the very least, according to a study by prominent US economics professor, “there is simply no clear and persuasive evidence of a link between corporate taxation and wages.”

That’s consistent with the claim that cutting corporate tax rates is good for economic growth — there’s little evidence for even a marginal increase in economic growth from corporate tax cuts either.

If you look at the UK, where company tax cuts have been a centrepiece of the Cameron government’s tax policies, the evidence is mixed as well. Company tax was cut in the UK from 28% in 2010 to 20% by 2015. From the start of 2010, quarterly GDP grew by a total of 12.6% to the fourth quarter of 2015 (400 billion pounds to 450.5 billion pounds). In the same period, the Australian economy grew by nearly 17% (from quarterly GDP of $356.6 billion in the March quarter of 2010 to $415.2 billion in the fourth quarter of last year). Indeed, UK GDP only exceeded its pre-GFC level in the second quarter of 2013 (GDP there fell 6.1% from the first quarter of 2008 to the second quarter of 2009). Australian GDP never fell below its pre-GFC level.

Spoiler

But yeah, I agree that public health care is going to be super expensive for a while with the aging population. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest Turnbull's concern for this as a problem is genuine though.

 

[darkace]

I'm normally a fan of crikey, but that's not a good article. There are many, many studies showing the burden of company tax falls on workers.

And even if we accept it majority falls on capital, it's still the least efficient federal tax. CGT is almost entirely paid by the rich, and it's far more efficient. Cutting company tax for CGT would be a pareto improvement without affecting the progressivity of the tax system at all.

I also don't think the location of people's hearts matter. I'd never accuse Shorten of not fighting for Medicare, but I don't think his campaign is the best for the long term health of the system.

I personally love Medicare, and want it available for all low income Australians for the majority of needs, but I still think a copayment or the like would be good policy provided protections are in place for the most vulnerable. All about those long term outcomes.

 

[Omikron]

So. 2.3 billion in savings from 'welfare fraud'. Hmm.