Support NeoGAF

[Rubixcuba]

Yeah I mean why the early election would be held. I wasn't asking you to justify calling it crazy, which I definitely agree with.

I suppose another reason for it would be to allow a compete policy reset for the Liberals. Symbolise new direction, new frontbench of Turnbull/Bishop and play the incumbency card against Labor.

Average Australian will probably be annoyed at having to vote twice in 12 months due to the recent and upcoming state elections. It would be the fifth election for Novocastrians haha.

 

[Dryk]

It's like Christmas

We're facing the very real possibility that Tony Abbott could destroy the Coalition. Fucking amazing.

 

[hidys]

It's like Christmas

They're bluffing.

 

[DrSlek]

We're facing the very real possibility that Tony Abbott could destroy the Coalition. Fucking amazing.

I think that's very unlikely....though its lovely to dream. According to graphs I've seen neither the Liberal party or Nationals have ever outpolled Labor. They can only win elections by teaming up.

 

[manipulate]

lol, what the shit is going on.

Seriously though, they should leave the lizard prime minister alone. He's a democratically elected lizard. And people that say "this isn't the US! you don't vote for a prime minister!" are being really silly, because the evident truth is that everyone votes based on who's the party leader at the time

 

[Mr. Tone]

They're bluffing.

Yeah, you're probably right. It's nice to dream, though...

 

[Dryk]

I think that's very unlikely....though its lovely to dream. According to graphs I've seen neither the Liberal party or Nationals have ever outpolled Labor. They can only win elections by teaming up.

After the previous LNP spill I try to take seemingly crazy threats from their MPs at face value. Though even if it did break apart they'd still vote the same way.

Seriously though, they should leave the lizard prime minister alone. He's a democratically elected lizard. And people that say "this isn't the US! you don't vote for a prime minister!" are being really silly, because the evident truth is that everyone votes based on who's the party leader at the time

There's an argument to be made that because everyone subscribes to that notion it has power and that's sort of true, but it's still a fundamental misunderstand of how a political party is supposed to work. And just because everyone does it doesn't make it not a fucking stupid way to vote.

 

[manipulate]

ps - for the ignorant (e.g. myself), why is barnaby joyce the public face of the Nationals? Why is the actual leader never in media?

 

[HowZatOZ]

Haha the Liberal party is crumbling so quickly it's hard to keep up. They have been leaning far too right and the citizens of Australia are waking up to that leaning. We need more conscious decisions focusing on propping our future up without killing off the non-wealthy, and Liberals aren't doing any of that.

 

[Dryk]

ps - for the ignorant (e.g. myself), why is barnaby joyce the public face of the Nationals? Why is the actual leader never in media?

Because people know who Joyce is, can't say the same for Truss

 

[Fredescu]

I suppose another reason for it would be to allow a compete policy reset for the Liberals. Symbolise new direction, new frontbench of Turnbull/Bishop and play the incumbency card against Labor.

I don't see much evidence that anyone in the Libs actually want a new policy direction.

They're bluffing.

They're not bluffing, that's his way of saying they don't want Turnbull to go too far left or the Nationals will lose their base, which is probably true.

 

[bobnowhere]

ps - for the ignorant (e.g. myself), why is barnaby joyce the public face of the Nationals? Why is the actual leader never in media?

Warren Truss isn't a well man, speculation is he might not last too much longer(not dying, just unwell) and have to or choose to leave Parliament.

 

[hidys]

I don't see much evidence that anyone in the Libs actually want a new policy direction.




They're not bluffing, that's his way of saying they don't want Turnbull to go too far left or the Nationals will lose their base, which is probably true.

Given the wonderful people putting the spill motion forward I highly doubt that's going to happen.

And even if it did they won't break the agreement.

They would be nothing without the Liberals.

 

[Fredescu]

Given the wonderful people putting the spill motion forward I highly doubt that's going to happen.

Agreed.

And even if it did they won't break the agreement.

They would be nothing without the Liberals.

If the Liberals paint themselves into an unelectable corner, they could. I think there are plenty of rural seats where the Nats are held in higher esteem than the Libs.

 

[manipulate]

There's an argument to be made that because everyone subscribes to that notion it has power and that's sort of true, but it's still a fundamental misunderstand of how a political party is supposed to work. And just because everyone does it doesn't make it not a fucking stupid way to vote.

it's not though? the policies/platform of a party always change when the leader changes, so if you vote for a party, what are you actually voting for? an abstract notion of ..something? why is this more intelligent than voting for a leader, who represents something material policy-wise at the very least?

also, even if it was stupid, it doesn't change reality, and it's reality

 

[mjontrix]

straya

Oh wow...

That quote - wonder how shocked they'll be when they discover water is halal...

 

[hidys]

If the Liberals paint themselves into an unelectable corner, they could. I think there are plenty of rural seats where the Nats are held in higher esteem than the Libs.

A slightly more socially liberal LNP is not going to lose what are some of the safest seats in the country. If anything Turnbull is better for them in their more marginal seats.

 

[Aarglefarg]

The weather at parliament house is indecisive.

 

[Beaniedude]

Well here comes Abbott.

Edit:

Apparently Bishop is standing with Abbott.
He's going on about the fact that we aren't Labor and that we shouldn't change leaders...


And then he's gone.

 

[senahorse]

To be fair, I hadn't heard of it for most of my life either, until Grant Denyer copped shit for saying it on Dancing With the Stars or something. Surprised you didn't remember that (although I didn't think it happened as long ago as 2007 :/)

Probably because I haven't watched FTA programming in close to 10 years, I try to block it out as much as possible

 

[mjontrix]

Here we goooooooooooooooooooo.

 

[HowZatOZ]

Heh, he is feeling that heat hard. It is clear the party room is eager to get rid of him otherwise he wouldn't be pleading for his party to stand against the spill. Tuesday is going to be so interesting.

 

[Aarglefarg]

Here it went.

 

[hidys]

He's going down fighting.

And it's done wow I literally just typed that sentence and it was over.

BTW when Abbott says Bishop will stand with him I don't believe him.

 

[Shaneus]

What happened?!?

 

[hidys]

What happened?!?

He will face the ballot head on.

And that's it.

 

[mjontrix]

What happened?!?

Bishop supports him apparently - so Murdoch is probably pissing his pants atm.

The horse he's now backing is a dud, so this may very well spell the end of the Murdoch empire in Australia.

All parties win in that case!

 

[manipulate]

Wtf are the libs doing this?? It seems so dumb. Even if Abbott loses next election (still completely up in the air), this will poison their brand for way longer

 

[Rubixcuba]

Bishop standing with Abbott is pretty significant. Wonder who Turnbull would stand with?

 

[senahorse]

Maybe that means Turnbull doesn't have the numbers, Bish doing what's good for Bish. Joe Hockey remains happy.

 

[Shaneus]

Wtf are the libs doing this?? It seems so dumb. Even if Abbott loses next election (still completely up in the air), this will poison their brand for way longer

Abbott did a pretty damn good job of that on his own, didn't he?

 

[Rubixcuba]

Maybe that means Turnbull doesn't have the numbers, Bish doing what's good for Bish. Joe Hockey remains happy.

Labor even happier. Liberals look bitterly divided and Abbott still spectacularly unpopular.

 

[senahorse]

Wtf are the libs doing this?? It seems so dumb. Even if Abbott loses next election (still completely up in the air), this will poison their brand for way longer

The public hates Abbott, they (LNP) saw what happened in the last couple of state elections and they are worried about their jobs.

 

[Fredescu]

A slightly more socially liberal LNP is not going to lose what are some of the safest seats in the country. If anything Turnbull is better for them in their more marginal seats.

"Slightly" more, no. It's definitely a matter of degrees, and while obviously Joyce is reminding them of that, I'm sure there's a hypothetical Lib platform that could lose them rural and therefore National Party support. So I don't think "bluffing" is the right word.

 

[hidys]

"Slightly" more, no. It's definitely a matter of degrees, and while obviously Joyce is reminding them of that, I'm sure there's a hypothetical Lib platform that could lose them rural and therefore National Party support. So I don't think "bluffing" is the right word.

It is when the chances of them actually doing it are virtually none. It would have to be a very significant shift in policy for the National Party to do anything.

 

[Dastardly Jerks]

*jotting down notes* Liberals aren't... Labor... Party...

 

[Shaneus]

I honestly can't see that many Libs going against Abbott. Do we know which members might sway towards which potential Lib leader, being Turnbull or Abbott?

 

[hidys]

I honestly can't see that many Libs going against Abbott. Do we know which members might sway towards which potential Lib leader, being Turnbull or Abbott?

The Liberal Party will go towards whoever will win them the next election.

That person isn't Abbott.

 

[Shaneus]

Luke Simpkins' email.

 

[HowZatOZ]

I want John Howard back. Can he be lifted in on a chopper into Question Time?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aTHRVhuWylE

 

[Fredescu]

It is when the chances of them actually doing it are virtually none. It would have to be a very significant shift in policy for the National Party to do anything.

I agree with what you're saying apart from the word you're applying to it, which is a boring argument, so I'll drop it. Agreed there's no chance of it happening, because there's no chance of any major change of direction no matter who the face of it is. I think what is on the nose with the voters is the entire Liberal party philosophy. Here's hoping anyway.

 

[wonzo]

It's like Christmas

will never happen (unless truss really does retire this year and joyce becomes the new nat leader and even then…) but a man can dream

 

[Fredescu]

A handy place to follow the action: http://spill2015.crikey.com.au/

 

[Mr. Tone]

I want John Howard back. Can he be lifted in on a chopper into Question Time?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aTHRVhuWylE

What about

 

[legend166]

Agreed.



If the Liberals paint themselves into an unelectable corner, they could. I think there are plenty of rural seats where the Nats are held in higher esteem than the Libs.

If the Coalition actually disbanded, the best the Nationals could hope for is to be a right wing version of the Greens, i.e. snag a senate seat or two, but effectively just a preference feeding party to the Liberals.

Wtf are the libs doing this?? It seems so dumb. Even if Abbott loses next election (still completely up in the air), this will poison their brand for way longer

I think the idea of 'poisoning brands' in terms of a political party is old hat now. It seems to be easier than ever to come back from the hole. Look at the Libs after 07 election - floundering around (remember when Brendan Nelson was the leader?) and looking like they'd be in the wilderness for a long time. Three years later and Labor only managed to form a minority government by the skin of their teeth. Next election they were gone.

Then after '13, the Libs looked in total control - Labor had apparently 'poisoned their brand' so much that the Libs were a shoe-in for the next election at least. And now here we are.

Honestly, I think it's a bad development. As if politicians weren't short sighted enough before, things can change so quickly now it's basically impossible to get anyone to govern with the long term future in mind. We really need to change to four year terms.

Funnily enough, it seems to have happened due to two people with seemingly very similar personalities and governing styles, Rudd and Abbott, completely failing to govern as part of a cohesive party. Dudes need to realise we don't have an executive branch in Australia.

 

[mjontrix]

Holy crap sky news - you could just see Ross Cameron die inside as he spoke.

Damn.

He supports Abbott personally, but politically he has to go.

And Malcolm turnball is the conservative choice.

 

[hidys]

Interviewing a Pro-Abbott mp on ABC24.

 

[legend166]

I feel like a lot of the left (I know people hate that term, usually cause people say it with vitriol, but I'm not meaning it like that) who have this weird crush on Turnbull are going to be pretty surprised if he becomes PM. He's basically Mitt Romney without the Mormonism.

 

[manipulate]

I think the idea of 'poisoning brands' in terms of a political party is old hat now. It seems to be easier than ever to come back from the hole. Look at the Libs after 07 election - floundering around (remember when Brendan Nelson was the leader?) and looking like they'd be in the wilderness for a long time. Three years later and Labor only managed to form a minority government by the skin of their teeth. Next election they were gone.

Then after '13, the Libs looked in total control - Labor had apparently 'poisoned their brand' so much that the Libs were a shoe-in for the next election at least. And now here we are.

Honestly, I think it's a bad development. As if politicians weren't short sighted enough before, things can change so quickly now it's basically impossible to get anyone to govern with the long term future in mind. We really need to change to four year terms.

Funnily enough, it seems to have happened due to two people with seemingly very similar personalities and governing styles, Rudd and Abbott, completely failing to govern as part of a cohesive party. Dudes need to realise we don't have an executive branch in Australia.

Yeah, you're right I think, my instincts are probably wrong. My immediate reaction was bemusement as they've had an obvious example of the destructiveness of this strategy sitting in front of them for the past five years. But I think you're right, it'll all be forgotten in a couple of years, and that indeed is kind of alarming

edit:

I feel like a lot of the left (I know people hate that term, usually cause people say it with vitriol, but I'm not meaning it like that) who have this weird crush on Turnbull are going to be pretty surprised if he becomes PM. He's basically Mitt Romney without the Mormonism.

I don't really understand what Turnbull's base is going to be. His appeal seems much too narrow for a federal election.

 

[bobnowhere]

Interviewing a Pro-Abbott mp on ABC24.

Sounds like a mental-midget to me. Of course he's firmly pro-Abbott.

Edit: Wait adult nappies? Hahahahahahahahhahahha, this guy might make a good treasurer.