Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[Tigerdon]

I'm at Palm Cove and have the internet speed of dial up…

Is the election a draw? Are we now into Golden Point...?

Far out it's hard to get info in FNQ...

They've gone to the bunker. On field decision is hung parliament.

…like normal, The on field refs can't make a decision

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

LNP were two seats behind at one point. Where's Inglis to kick a field goal when you need him?

 

[Abraham]

The LNP would have been slaughtered with Abbott there. Turnbull was their best bet because while he alienated the far right, he would have made up reasonable ground in centrist voters, and some from the centre left who are disenfranchised with the ALP.

I actually disagree, on the basis that it would have been an entirely different election had Abbott been involved.

Turnbull literally did not land a glove on Shorten for the entire campaign.

Abbott would have turned it into a political streetfight on issues like asylum seekers, border control, national debt, and union corruption. Issues that resonate with voters and that the Coalition has an undeniably better record on. Everybody knows negative campaigns work better than positive ones (well everybody except Malcolm Turnbull and whoever was his campaign director).

Not saying Abbott would have necessarily won, but he would have given Bill Shorten a bloodied nose and two black eyes in the process. After all, Abbott has beaten Labor in two previous elections, and its not outside the realms of possibility that he could have done so again against a dud opposition leader like Shorten.

Turnbull on the other hand … where do you start? His posh progressive lefty image lost him the vote across working class Sydney, and he didn't pull across any greens/labor voters who would never vote for the liberals anyway. He was a dud Liberal leader in 2009, and he stuck true to form in 2016.

 

[Snake]

The LNP would have been slaughtered with Abbott there. Turnbull was their best bet because while he alienated the far right, he would have made up reasonable ground in centrist voters, and some from the centre left who are disenfranchised with the ALP.

I actually disagree, on the basis that it would have been an entirely different election had Abbott been involved.

Turnbull literally did not land a glove on Shorten for the entire campaign.

Abbott would have turned it into a political streetfight on issues like asylum seekers, border control, national debt, and union corruption. Issues that resonate with voters and that the Coalition has an undeniably better record on. Everybody knows negative campaigns work better than positive ones (well everybody except Malcolm Turnbull and whoever was his campaign director).

Not saying Abbott would have necessarily won, but he would have given Bill Shorten a bloodied nose and two black eyes in the process. After all, Abbott has beaten Labor in two previous elections, and its not outside the realms of possibility that he could have done so again against a dud opposition leader like Shorten.

Turnbull on the other hand … where do you start? His posh progressive lefty image lost him the vote across working class Sydney, and he didn't pull across any greens/labor voters who would never vote for the liberals anyway. He was a dud Liberal leader in 2009, and he stuck true to form in 2016.

Abbott had Western Sydney in the bag, he always had Shortens measure.., what is done is done .. Unfortunately the electorate did not like
the real reality that Abbott spoke off. It will
not be to long that the realities of living above our means comes home and let me tell you it is going to be ugly, the young generations will
be damaged and badly On a side note Abbott will be PM again one day .

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

The LNP would have been slaughtered with Abbott there. Turnbull was their best bet because while he alienated the far right, he would have made up reasonable ground in centrist voters, and some from the centre left who are disenfranchised with the ALP.

I actually disagree, on the basis that it would have been an entirely different election had Abbott been involved.

Turnbull literally did not land a glove on Shorten for the entire campaign.

Abbott would have turned it into a political streetfight on issues like asylum seekers, border control, national debt, and union corruption. Issues that resonate with voters and that the Coalition has an undeniably better record on. Everybody knows negative campaigns work better than positive ones (well everybody except Malcolm Turnbull and whoever was his campaign director).

Not saying Abbott would have necessarily won, but he would have given Bill Shorten a bloodied nose and two black eyes in the process. After all, Abbott has beaten Labor in two previous elections, and its not outside the realms of possibility that he could have done so again against a dud opposition leader like Shorten.

Turnbull on the other hand … where do you start? His posh progressive lefty image lost him the vote across working class Sydney, and he didn't pull across any greens/labor voters who would never vote for the liberals anyway. He was a dud Liberal leader in 2009, and he stuck true to form in 2016.

Well the ABC's Vote Compass would suggest otherwise:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-16/vote-compass-malcolm-turnbull-tony-abbott/7413770

And before you shriek "OMG, leftist ABC what a surprise," have a read of the article first.

46% of Coalition voters were either somewhat or much less likely to vote Coalition if Abbott were still there.

I'm the far right would have swallowed "Ummmm ahhhh Stop the boats, ummmmm ahhhh axe the tax," though.

 

[Yossarian]

Some of you are a bit delusional about Abbot's supposed popularity. He would have been crunched in a general election. People formed an opinion on him at it wasn't good. There was a reason nobody was complaining about his removal during the election.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Some of you are a bit delusional about Abbot's supposed popularity. He would have been crunched in a general election. People formed an opinion kn him at it wasn't food. There was a reason nobody was complaining about his removal during the election.

Let's not be disingenuous. Andrew Bolt, Paul Murray and Piers Akerman were devastated.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

I'm at Palm Cove and have the internet speed of dial up…

Is the election a draw? Are we now into Golden Point...?

Far out it's hard to get info in FNQ...[/quote

Geez youre doing it tough .
Has to be one of the nicest places in qld
Half your luck

 

[Abraham]

Well the ABC's Vote Compass would suggest otherwise:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-16/vote-compass-malcolm-turnbull-tony-abbott/7413770

And before you shriek "OMG, leftist ABC what a surprise," have a read of the article first.

46% of Coalition voters were either somewhat or much less likely to vote Coalition if Abbott were still there.

I'm the far right would have swallowed "Ummmm ahhhh Stop the boats, ummmmm ahhhh axe the tax," though.

The article, regardless of who wrote it, does not deal with what I discussed. It has also been proved wrong, with the benefit of hindsight showing that where it mattered, in the marginal seats, it did matter to voters that Abbott was axed - big time!

It was also written a month and a half ago, before Turnbull dished out the most limp wristed and ineffective election campaign in living memory.

I pointed out that Abbott would have fought tooth and nail and hammered home the slogans and one liners. You may laugh at "axe the tax" and "stop the boats", but they delivered him a landslide victory only 30 months ago.

The same way that dumb Australians swallowed the "Privatise Medicare" scare campaign that Labor unleashed, this is simply what the bogan majority respond to. All Turnbull could come up with during an 8 week campaign was to reduce Super benefits to an aging population, and to Tax Companies less. The bloke is a political myth who should have stuck to the boardroom.

We simply don't know how the Coalition would have fared under Abbott, but his election form shows without a shadow of a doubt he would have given the campaign a massive shake and gone down scratching and scraping like the best of them, unlike the bloke who knifed him in the back.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

Haven't heard much from Piers Ackerman and Miranda Devine yet.
Ackerman has probably become wedged in his lounge and cant get to the tv to see the news.
Poor old Miranda, is probably in denial , and has gone off to berate any 4 wheel drive owners that have the misfortune to cross her path,

 

[Yossarian]

Some of you are a bit delusional about Abbot's supposed popularity. He would have been crunched in a general election. People formed an opinion kn him at it wasn't food. There was a reason nobody was complaining about his removal during the election.

Let's not be disingenuous. Andrew Bolt, Paul Murray and Piers Akerman were devastated.

That's true. AJ too.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Well the ABC's Vote Compass would suggest otherwise:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-16/vote-compass-malcolm-turnbull-tony-abbott/7413770

And before you shriek "OMG, leftist ABC what a surprise," have a read of the article first.

46% of Coalition voters were either somewhat or much less likely to vote Coalition if Abbott were still there.

I'm the far right would have swallowed "Ummmm ahhhh Stop the boats, ummmmm ahhhh axe the tax," though.

The article, regardless of who wrote it, does not deal with what I discussed. It has also been proved wrong, with the benefit of hindsight showing that where it mattered, in the marginal seats, it did matter to voters that Abbott was axed - big time!

It was also written a month and a half ago, before Turnbull dished out the most limp wristed and ineffective election campaign in living memory.

I pointed out that Abbott would have fought tooth and nail and hammered home the slogans and one liners. You may laugh at "axe the tax" and "stop the boats", but they delivered him a landslide victory only 30 months ago.

The same way that dumb Australians swallowed the "Privatise Medicare" scare campaign that Labor unleashed, this is simply what the bogan majority respond to. All Turnbull could come up with during an 8 week campaign was to reduce Super benefits to an aging population, and to Tax Companies less. The bloke is a political myth who should have stuck to the boardroom.

We simply don't know how the Coalition would have fared under Abbott, but his election form shows without a shadow of a doubt he would have given the campaign a massive shake and gone down scratching and scraping like the best of them, unlike the bloke who knifed him in the back.

I didn't care about the Medicare scaremongering. The LNP will try to privatise certain facets of it (testing etc,) but the Australian public will never allow it. You'd actually find that I am a supporter of a co-payment for high earning Australians while leaving the system free for low income earners, pensioners and children.

I'm more concerned about this myth that the LNP are great economic managers whom have managed to get the country into even further debt under their watch. Their answer is not to take the money from TNC's and major businesses who dodge tax but from those who need it most.

I didn't vote for either party, I was hoping for a wider spread in both houses, which looks to be the case at least in the Senate. A wider range of opinions is what is required to break the strangehold that the ALP and LNP have on Australian politics and introduce some bipartisanship back into politics.

 

[Abraham]

I didn't care about the Medicare scaremongering. The LNP will try to privatise certain facets of it (testing etc,) but the Australian public will never allow it. You'd actually find that I am a supporter of a co-payment for high earning Australians while leaving the system free for low income earners, pensioners and children.

I'm more concerned about this myth that the LNP are great economic managers whom have managed to get the country into even further debt under their watch. Their answer is not to take the money from TNC's and major businesses who dodge tax but from those who need it most.

I didn't vote for either party, I was hoping for a wider spread in both houses, which looks to be the case at least in the Senate. A wider range of opinions is what is required to break the strangehold that the ALP and LNP have on Australian politics and introduce some bipartisanship back into politics.

Sorry when I said the "bogan majority", I wasn't referring to your username. Just that the majority of Australians are either politically ignorant or lack any form of common sense.

I mean the fact that so many people got duped into believing that you could privatise a scheme that has zero revenue and billions of dollars worth of outgoings, it is just laughable. What next, we privatise the dole or the pension?

People just saw the words "privatise" and "medicare" together, and shat their pants.

But in any case, my point is that dumping Abbott was a major mistake by the Coalition, as they lost the moral high ground that was pivotal to getting them elected in the first place, and has shown them to be no less politically opportunistic and narcissistic than their Labor foes. The result simply did not justify the gamble.

They got what they deserved in the polls, and I hope this is the end of the prime ministerial merry-go round that saw us have 6 PMs in 5 years.

 

[Gary_Bakerloo]

I mean the fact that so many people got duped into believing that you could privatise a scheme that has zero revenue and billions of dollars worth of outgoings, it is just laughable. What next, we privatise the dole or the pension?

Why can't the payments administration be privatised?

Using random numbers, let's say the administration process costs the government $1b. Why couldn't they tender to the private sector who could do it for say $500m?

 

[Saturnalia]

I mean the fact that so many people got duped into believing that you could privatise a scheme that has zero revenue and billions of dollars worth of outgoings, it is just laughable. What next, we privatise the dole or the pension?

Why can't the payments administration be privatised?

Using random numbers, let's say the administration process costs the government $1b. Why couldn't they tender to the private sector who could do it for say $500m?

I'll do it for $20m.

And handing over public services to the private sector is how we ended up with Telstra and now the defunct NBN.

As a general rule. If it's cheaper, there's usually a reason why.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I didn't care about the Medicare scaremongering. The LNP will try to privatise certain facets of it (testing etc,) but the Australian public will never allow it. You'd actually find that I am a supporter of a co-payment for high earning Australians while leaving the system free for low income earners, pensioners and children.

I'm more concerned about this myth that the LNP are great economic managers whom have managed to get the country into even further debt under their watch. Their answer is not to take the money from TNC's and major businesses who dodge tax but from those who need it most.

I didn't vote for either party, I was hoping for a wider spread in both houses, which looks to be the case at least in the Senate. A wider range of opinions is what is required to break the strangehold that the ALP and LNP have on Australian politics and introduce some bipartisanship back into politics.

Sorry when I said the "bogan majority", I wasn't referring to your username. Just that the majority of Australians are either politically ignorant or lack any form of common sense.

I mean the fact that so many people got duped into believing that you could privatise a scheme that has zero revenue and billions of dollars worth of outgoings, it is just laughable. What next, we privatise the dole or the pension?

People just saw the words "privatise" and "medicare" together, and shat their pants.

But in any case, my point is that dumping Abbott was a major mistake by the Coalition, as they lost the moral high ground that was pivotal to getting them elected in the first place, and has shown them to be no less politically opportunistic and narcissistic than their Labor foes. The result simply did not justify the gamble.

They got what they deserved in the polls, and I hope this is the end of the prime ministerial merry-go round that saw us have 6 PMs in 5 years.

I know what you were driving at Abe, no offence taken. I think both majors have a lot to answer for of late. They are both largely disingenuous however at the moment it seems that negative politicking is the way election cycles roll. Rather than tell you our vision for the future, we'll tell you how shit the opposition is and you elect us on our ability to sling mud.

 

[Tim Sheens]

I didn't care about the Medicare scaremongering. The LNP will try to privatise certain facets of it (testing etc,) but the Australian public will never allow it. You'd actually find that I am a supporter of a co-payment for high earning Australians while leaving the system free for low income earners, pensioners and children.

I'm more concerned about this myth that the LNP are great economic managers whom have managed to get the country into even further debt under their watch. Their answer is not to take the money from TNC's and major businesses who dodge tax but from those who need it most.

I didn't vote for either party, I was hoping for a wider spread in both houses, which looks to be the case at least in the Senate. A wider range of opinions is what is required to break the strangehold that the ALP and LNP have on Australian politics and introduce some bipartisanship back into politics.

Sorry when I said the "bogan majority", I wasn't referring to your username. Just that the majority of Australians are either politically ignorant or lack any form of common sense.

I mean the fact that so many people got duped into believing that you could privatise a scheme that has zero revenue and billions of dollars worth of outgoings, it is just laughable. What next, we privatise the dole or the pension?

People just saw the words "privatise" and "medicare" together, and shat their pants.

But in any case, my point is that dumping Abbott was a major mistake by the Coalition, as they lost the moral high ground that was pivotal to getting them elected in the first place, and has shown them to be no less politically opportunistic and narcissistic than their Labor foes. The result simply did not justify the gamble.

They got what they deserved in the polls, and I hope this is the end of the prime ministerial merry-go round that saw us have 6 PMs in 5 years.

I know what you were driving at Abe, no offence taken. I think both majors have a lot to answer for of late. They are both largely disingenuous however at the moment it seems that negative politicking is the way election cycles roll. Rather than tell you our vision for the future, we'll tell you how s*** the opposition is and you elect us on our ability to sling mud.

There was plenty of vision on the table for mine, though little or none from the incumbents, other than the three word slogan of Jobs and Growth that we all heard adnauseum with an occasional reference to unions, their economic record (which as you alluded to of late is actually terrible) and stability.

Abbott would not have lead them to the election either way, Turnbull or not as he had lost nearly all bar the right and even most of the Bogans Abe wrote of, other than sticker lovers and those that protest in balaclavas etcetera.

The vast majority of Aussies are worried about the environment and want something done about it, which took a leadership challenge to stop their policy that was going way in the other direction. We now want checks and balances in parliament via smaller groups and individuals, as the right was just shown where they could stick the double dissolution and their trust us, yet take from the needy policies.

At least we won't have to hear the word mandate for a while.

 

[Abraham]

Why can't the payments administration be privatised?

Using random numbers, let's say the administration process costs the government $1b. Why couldn't they tender to the private sector who could do it for say $500m?

The Medicare back office should be privatised asap, as it's the most inefficient and costly system imaginable.

However that's not what labor's lies focussed on, which was that somewhere in the universe there exists a private organisation that would buy Medicare, make $0.00 revenue, and bleed money forever more.

 

[Yossarian]

This mentality that the private sector is more efficient is mostly false. People complain about the public sector and passively support cuts and then whinge about declining service standards

 

[guyofthetiger]

The LNP would have been slaughtered with Abbott there. Turnbull was their best bet because while he alienated the far right, he would have made up reasonable ground in centrist voters, and some from the centre left who are disenfranchised with the ALP.

I actually disagree, on the basis that it would have been an entirely different election had Abbott been involved.

Turnbull literally did not land a glove on Shorten for the entire campaign.

Abbott would have turned it into a political streetfight on issues like asylum seekers, border control, national debt, and union corruption. Issues that resonate with voters and that the Coalition has an undeniably better record on. Everybody knows negative campaigns work better than positive ones (well everybody except Malcolm Turnbull and whoever was his campaign director).

Not saying Abbott would have necessarily won, but he would have given Bill Shorten a bloodied nose and two black eyes in the process. After all, Abbott has beaten Labor in two previous elections, and its not outside the realms of possibility that he could have done so again against a dud opposition leader like Shorten.

Turnbull on the other hand … where do you start? His posh progressive lefty image lost him the vote across working class Sydney, and he didn't pull across any greens/labor voters who would never vote for the liberals anyway. He was a dud Liberal leader in 2009, and he stuck true to form in 2016.

For these reasons, even if Turnbull does form a majority, his job is on the line…