AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Newspoll 2PP: Two-party preferred: Coalition ​50​ (-3​)​, Labor 50 (+3)

I think we're seeing that trend emerge.

30eEul4.gif
 
God it would be hilarious to see the libs get turfed out so soon. Shorten doesn't exactly inspire confidence, but then again the last few PMs (except Gillard) have all been about personality so we might as well go for someone who is boring.
 
Yeah. Labor seem to be building a list of policies that in principle do well to illustrate the difference between conservatives implementing policies to suit themselves/their next employers as consultants, and those which seek to redress imbalance.

It's not that Labor are perfect; far from it (e.g. offshore incarceration) but they're not as bad as LNP.

It was encapsulated in a similar fashion far better than I with regards to UK tories and their fantasy international trade rules:

It has been but it's direction of travel towards an unaccountable low democracy organisation bent on trashing everything it is built on for corps is something that feels really ominous to me today let alone what it might look like in a generation.

...

The way any worsenings are brought via in are also insidious in their nature.

Instead of actively making things worse it'll just be unaffordable to make things good via the threat of suits by companies.

It's a capitalists wet dream.
Click to expand...
 
Wow, not only have they pulled even on 2PP, support for restricting negative gearing to first homes is 47-31. Shorten might have picked a winner.

Most of all its bizarre to see someone put forward policy for the first time in months and the Australian electorate respond positively.
 
The Honeymoon is Over Baby!

I'm not sure what the Coalitions plan was, did they really think they could put out a glossy advertising campaign about "innovation" and then vacate the economic field until May solely relying on the PM's charisma to tide them over? He's constantly getting battered by the looney right in his own party and now by the electorate for not standing for or even being able to make a decision about anything at all.

Morrison is even beyond Hockey levels out of his depth and you can see his happy clapping, you're successful and rich because god loves you more Hillsong nonsense slipping out at the edges.
 
Who even has more conviction out of a slightly fired up Bill Shorten and a completely broken Malcolm Turnbull? This is a weird world I don't understand.
 
Morrison as Treasurer is just a hilariously poor fit.

I dunno he might have studied some economics at uni, but his two biggest hits prior to becoming Treasurer were the Where the Bloody Hell are you campaign during his time as director of Tourism Australia and getting beat 82-8 for preselection for his seat until the Daily Telegraph defamed his opponent out of the way for him. A career of failing upwards is putting it lightly.

He seems to have been made Treasurer on the back of his popularity in disappearing the boat people, perhaps forgetting that Treasurers can't get away with answering operational matters to questions about budgets, and that if you're only political quality is nebulous populist appeal you probably don't want to take the job of Treasurer since they tend to end up being some of the most reviled people in the country.
 
Yeah Morrison is a very poor performer.

He had a rep as some kind of kid genius, but has been incredibly weak. Very Hockey-like actually.
 
danm999 said:
Wow, not only have they pulled even on 2PP, support for restricting negative gearing to first homes is 47-31. Shorten might have picked a winner.

Most of all its bizarre to see someone put forward policy for the first time in months and the Australian electorate respond positively.
Click to expand...
Turnbull's argument against the negative gearing proposal is hilarious in itself in the first place. "It'll reduce the price of houses so the only benefit of buying them is for people wanting to live in them". Where's his ivory back scratcher?
 
bobnowhere said:
The Honeymoon is Over Baby!

I'm not sure what the Coalitions plan was, did they really think they could put out a glossy advertising campaign about "innovation" and then vacate the economic field until May solely relying on the PM's charisma to tide them over? He's constantly getting battered by the looney right in his own party and now by the electorate for not standing for or even being able to make a decision about anything at all.

Morrison is even beyond Hockey levels out of his depth and you can see his happy clapping, you're successful and rich because god loves you more Hillsong nonsense slipping out at the edges.
Click to expand...

They haven't had an economic policy since 2006, and the slogans for carbon and mining taxes don't count as policy.

Shaneus said:
Turnbull's argument against the negative gearing proposal is hilarious in itself in the first place. "It'll reduce the price of houses so the only benefit of buying them is for people wanting to live in them". Where's his ivory back scratcher?
Click to expand...

Wherever his servant left it.
 
POWERSPHERE said:
Im a political dummy, but why couldnt Scott Ludlum run for PM? Labors a laughing stock, Liberals are gross, wheres our Bernie Sanders?
Click to expand...

Ludlam is a member of the Greens, and a Senator.

Australia has two houses of parliament: the house of reps, and the senate.
Government is formed by the largest party/coalition of parties in the house of reps
Prime Minister is the leader of the largest party in the house of reps.

To win government in the house of reps, you need to win something like 76 seats total (I think there are ~150 seats total).

The Greens have historically won a grand total of 1 lower house seat (Adam Bandt in Melbourne).

They would need to win approximately 40 more, and see Labor win about 35 to form a coalition and that is about as likely as Wii U outselling PS4.

As for our closest thing to Bernie Sanders:

Anthony Albanese is the closest plausible life-democratic socialist (Shaneus will correct me). As for people who are authentically intelligent dem-socs, then you come back to Scott Ludlam.
 
POWERSPHERE said:
Im a political dummy, but why couldnt Scott Ludlum run for PM? Labors a laughing stock, Liberals are gross, wheres our Bernie Sanders?
Click to expand...

You don't really "run" for PM. All it means is you're the leader of the group with the biggest block of votes in the House of Representatives that forms government. So why couldn't Scott run for PM like Turnbull or Shorten?

1) He's in the Senate. I guess he could run in the House in the next election but the Greens would be stupid too, he got re-elected to Senate last year and his term still has years on it.

2) Unless something earth shattering happens, the Greens won't have more seats in the House than Labor or the Liberals and be able to form government.

The Greens will try and maintain their status as kingmakers in the Senate, and try to win more inner city seats from Labor and rural seats concerned about things like CSG from the Libs.
 
Uggh Morrison in question time equating the moment you buy a house and put the key in the door being similar to the depreciation that comes when you buy a new car and drive it off the lot.

Why why why did they think he was right for the job? Or is Malcolm a secret genius and knew he was a threat that could be neutralised like this.
 
So I think the Senate voting reform proposal is alright and seems like a long time coming.

I'm pretty happy I won't have to number every box bellow the line to ensure that I don't elect some bizarre party I've never heard of.

And I was just want to say that it annoys the shit out of me that we have to have in discussion about whether or not blackface is racist in 2016. This country drives me insane sometimes.
 
bomma_man said:
And the states don't have the power to legislate on it.

And we don't have a constitutional bill of rights.
Click to expand...

That's not strictly true. The thing preventing states legislating is Howard's amendment rather than an inherent lack of jurisdiction. That's why states can legislate Civil Unions. So the reason is that Howard was an asshat.

I'm not sure a bill of rights would help either. It seems unlikely we'd have gotten an American Civil War Amendment at the time it would have been drafted and that's what the whole thing hinges on in the US.
 
Wow, the government is desperate to clean out the micro-parties, aren't they? If this backfires and more third parties end up in the senate, it'll be the funniest shit.
 
Candescence said:
Wow, the government is desperate to clean out the micro-parties, aren't they? If this backfires and more third parties end up in the senate, it'll be the funniest shit.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest that actually won't happen though.

People would actually need to vote for the same party.
 
Well, some of the more fringe elements, sure. A more organized party with a less single-issue name might actually get some ground, though. But I'm betting popular senators like Ricky Muir and Lambie will probably stay now that their constituencies have seen what they can do in the upper house.
 
Candescence said:
Well, some of the more fringe elements, sure. A more organized party with a less single-issue name might actually get some ground, though. But I'm betting popular senators like Ricky Muir and Lambie will probably stay now that their constituencies have seen what they can do in the upper house.
Click to expand...

Ricky Muir has no chance of winning re-election. Lambie probably will though. But I really can't see how new figures from non-established parties will enter the senate, with the exception of a Nick Xenophon party. An election is only a short while away and I don't think there is enough time to establish a successful party that could overcome the new Senate voting system.
 
hidys said:
Ricky Muir has no chance of winning re-election. Lambie probably will though. But I really can't see how new figures from non-established parties will enter the senate, with the exception of a Nick Xenophon party. An election is only a short while away and I don't think there is enough time to establish a successful party that could overcome the new Senate voting system.
Click to expand...

You have to number (at least) 6 boxes (but most people will number the minimum). So given that in Queensland and the NT conservative voters will have one box, Labor voters will generally have 1 or 2 (depending on how much they hate the Greens ), otherwise the big 3 will generally have 2 each. That still leaves 4 or 5 boxes so if you've got a name that's know you've got a decent chance of attracting enough votes to get a seat. I could see Lazarus getting re-elected in Queensland for example.

Not sure how this works in a double dissolution, I assume you'd have to number 12 instead of 6 ? If you still only have to number 6 that's going to favour the major parties a bit.

The main thing that's going to murder smaller parties is the vote saving provision that still counts above the line votes with only 1 number. If that's permanent and people know that happens you're going to see an effective Vote 1 system and that's going to be very bad for anyone except the Coalition (who usually don't run in the same seats).


ETA - So not looking forward to digging through the micro parties to find out who's names and policies are actually related to fill out my 6 though. Libertarians using Stealth and Maniacs using Patriotism are annoying.
 
Elaugaufein said:
That's not strictly true. The thing preventing states legislating is Howard's amendment rather than an inherent lack of jurisdiction. That's why states can legislate Civil Unions. So the reason is that Howard was an asshat.

I'm not sure a bill of rights would help either. It seems unlikely we'd have gotten an American Civil War Amendment at the time it would have been drafted and that's what the whole thing hinges on in the US.
Click to expand...

They don't have the power under section 109 :p

iirc gay marriage was also legalised through the courts in Canada and South Aftica, both of whom have bills of rights dating from around the time that labor wanted one here.
 
Turnbull showing real leadership deferring to Bernardi and Christensen's calls for a review into the Safe Schools program. Guess that lovely speech about not tolerating homophobia a few days ago was all talk.
 
So, dumb American poling my head in. Is this whole Turnbull a situation where he's the Last Sane Man (despite bad economic policies) but the rest of his party has gone so far off the rails that he can't save them?

Because from what I've read, Turnbull seems like the kind of guy who if he had even 5 or 10 other MP's like him could easily win an election, but when he has to name idiots like Morrison to front bench positions, he's essentially walking into a boxing ring with one arm tied behind his back and blindfolded.
 
I'm staggered that turnbull is apparently hostage enough to these idiotic conservatives who can't stand apparently that schools might potentially be safe places for lgbt kids.

"Eleven-year-olds should not be persuaded into thinking they are sexually attracted to other people," he told ABC TV.

"What happened to allowing children to be children, to make mistakes, to learn resilience, climb trees, scrape their knees and learn how to deal with each other without being indoctrinated into a program most parents simply don't want."
Click to expand...

INDOCTRINATION! INDOCTRINATION INTO KNOWING ABOUT GENDER STUFF! WATCH THE FLASHING LIGHTS BOYS

The Australian Christian Lobby welcomed Mr Turnbull's decision.

Their managing director Lyle Shelton said bullying children was unacceptable, but the Safe Schools program went way beyond the purview of an anti-bullying program.

"Parents expect their children to be safe at school but encouraging boys who identify as girls to use the girls bathrooms and share school camp accommodation is not the way to do this," Mr Shelton said.

Mr Shelton said many parliamentarians were unaware of what Safe Schools promotes to children as young as four.

"Telling four-year-olds that no one can tell you what gender you are is confusing and indoctrination in contested and dangerous gender theory," he said.

"Safe Schools tells children they must have access to the Minus 18 website which instructs girls in chest binding so their breasts are flattened and penis tucking for boys."
Click to expand...

The fucking horror! girls might bind their chests! boys might put their bits in between their legs!

fuck off back to the stone age, wankers
 
JesseEwiak said:
So, dumb American poling my head in. Is this whole Turnbull a situation where he's the Last Sane Man (despite bad economic policies) but the rest of his party has gone so far off the rails that he can't save them?

Because from what I've read, Turnbull seems like the kind of guy who if he had even 5 or 10 other MP's like him could easily win an election, but when he has to name idiots like Morrison to front bench positions, he's essentially walking into a boxing ring with one arm tied behind his back and blindfolded.
Click to expand...

He could probably do better and rack up some symbolic wins like a vote on marriage equality, and some sort of action on climate change, but the majority of his party is still absolutely intransigent on any sort of economic reform that isn't disproportionately aimed at lower income earners.

Like the Tea Party in the USA, they made an absolutely huge deal about the budget deficit for the past few years, attempting to pass a budget back in 2014 that was almost Dickensian in its details (and full of stuff they explicitly promised the public they wouldn't do at the election) and the public bucked hard.

Ever since then they've been paralysed.
 
Jintor said:
I'm staggered that turnbull is apparently hostage enough to these idiotic conservatives who can't stand apparently that schools might potentially be safe places for lgbt kids.



INDOCTRINATION! INDOCTRINATION INTO KNOWING ABOUT GENDER STUFF! WATCH THE FLASHING LIGHTS BOYS



The fucking horror! girls might bind their chests! boys might put their bits in between their legs!

fuck off back to the stone age, wankers
Click to expand...

If you want to stop indoctrination in schools then stop funding chaplains and private schools more than public ones.
 
Erica Betz about to come up on The Drum to talk about the damage treating LGBTQIA people with respect has caused to society! Ought to be fun.

Edit: Promotes Penis tucking and chest binding! Girls in boys toilets and vice versa!
 
danm999 said:
He could probably do better and rack up some symbolic wins like a vote on marriage equality, and some sort of action on climate change, but the majority of his party is still absolutely intransigent on any sort of economic reform that isn't disproportionately aimed at lower income earners.

Like the Tea Party in the USA, they made an absolutely huge deal about the budget deficit for the past few years, attempting to pass a budget back in 2014 that was almost Dickensian in its details (and full of stuff they explicitly promised the public they wouldn't do at the election) and the public bucked hard.

Ever since then they've been paralysed.
Click to expand...

Yeah , the reason has changed though. While it was still Abbott they had no political capital left (he spent it all and then some with the first budget). Turnbull has some capital but Abbott's faction in the party is determined to hold the line which prevents him doing anything he could spend that capital on (since his capital comes from being perceived as different).

Its really dumb though because you don't even have to aim economic reform at the poor, seemingly fair stuff like cutting everyone's tax rate by 2% benefits you more the richer you are since more of its discretionary. They shoot themselves in the foot by adding transparently punitive to the poor / favourable to the rich stuff. They probably could have gotten away with raising the GST for example if they hadn't decided to restrict states from using the increased revenue to make up for the health and education funding they cut and required it to go to tax breaks (a double helping of regressive tax policy).
 
I'm guessing Turnbull also got pressure from his own faction not to raise the GST in the end.

Many of the 54 MPs who backed him in the spill were those in very shaky swing seats from the unlikely to be repeated 2013 blowout who realized they were doomed if Abbott kept on as leader.

Similarly raising GST for them would probably mean electoral defeat, and while Malcolm might not care about that, recent events prove he doesn't have a great hold on the party. So losing even a handful of MPs from his faction might have meant he'd have trouble maintaining the leadership.

Of course that also presents a problem for him going forward in that this Coalition coalition is made up of people who might have lost numbers after an election, whilst the right wing of the party tends to be concentrated in safer seats that can easily wait him out.

It's why the Coalition is a horribly divided party that currently can't move forward with much, because it may work to the detriment or benefit of the other faction (see also marriage equality), and why Bill Shorten of all people was about to beat them to the finish line in a policy debate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sports betting |OT|
7
10K
Hideous Snake replied
ItalianGAF |OT| - Italia
3
940
Azzurri replied
Food |OT| GAFeteria
2
77
17K
SLoWMoTIoN replied
Love Boat 2 [Mafia] |OT| Electric Boogalove
97 98 99 100 101
5K
287K
Zippedpinhead replied
  • Locked
What relaxes you the most?
0
4K
Halo is Back replied
Top Bottom