Australian Politics (1 Viewer)

[BlackDragon]

I wasn't ranting, I just wish there was more public debate about this issue.

 

[badquinton304]

lol at crazy lady on Q&A
"titstorm" implies poor attitude to women

 

[Lentern]

Gerard Henderson in the SMH today thinks Rudd should stop talking about the ETS. Essentially the ETS is a lost battle at least for the time being and it will just look pathetic to the voters to keep flogging this dead horse.

It falls to few people to suggest that a coalition with Tony Abbott as leader, Nick Minchin as senate leader and Barnaby Joyce in the shadow cabinet, the coalition will get traction if the environment remains the story of the day.

The polls narrowing under Tony Abbot do not signify a voter preference for Abbott they signify a voter preference for an organised liberal party. 99% of people now believe that if the coalition win the next election Tony Abbott will be prime minister. In November last year people were wary that the alternative prime ministers included Kevin Andrews, Peter Dutton and Andrew Robb to say nothing of Hockey, Abbott and Turnbull. The voters are rewarding the coalition for settling on an environmental position for the time being but by no means have they settled on the winning one.

 

[Slidey]

The polls narrowing under Tony Abbot

One poll. Newspoll. Which has shown this 'narrowing' twice before. Not replicated in the 3 or 4 other similar polls, and not repeated by the Newspoll a fortnight later.

Essentially a deliberately doctored poll to garner media attention. Not surprising since it is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Still, a hint of reality to it. 52 and 53% are far more logical figures for Labours 2 party preferred vote than the meteoric 55% to 60% usually reported by all the poll agencies (including Newspoll)

Consider that last election, Labour won by a near-landslide 52.5%, and if repeated next election would be a true landslide (especially in the Senate, though hopefully not to the point that they gain majority).

 

[Lentern]

One poll. Newspoll. Which has shown this 'narrowing' twice before. Not replicated in the 3 or 4 other similar polls, and not repeated by the Newspoll a fortnight later.

Essentially a deliberately doctored poll to garner media attention. Not surprising since it is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Still, a hint of reality to it. 52 and 53% are far more logical figures for Labours 2 party preferred vote than the meteoric 55% to 60% usually reported by all the poll agencies (including Newspoll)

Consider that last election, Labour won by a near-landslide 52.5%, and if repeated next election would be a true landslide (especially in the Senate, though hopefully not to the point that they gain majority).

I would be astonished if Newspoll, Galaxy or Nielsen did anything dodgy with their polls to the extent your implying but I take your point that any such narrowing has been insignificant and thus far short lived.

I'll say there has been a "general improvement" in the polls for the coalition and reiterate that far from being a consequence of "straight talking, man of action Tony Abbott" its a consequence of having six months or reasonable stability ahead of them. Oh and I think the 53% is a very conservative figure for Tony Abbott. Mark Latham's election was slightly under 2004 and 2007 were both slightly under 53% and on the first occasion the government was much more vulnerable than Rudd's is, the second occasion the coalition was much more stable (and incumbent) than Abbott is. Under Turnbull I thought they could pull back to where Howard left of thereabouts, under Abbott(throw in Barnaby and Minchin) and I'd expect 1 and half percent swing at an absolute minimum.

 

[Slidey]

I would be astonished if Newspoll, Galaxy or Nielsen did anything dodgy with their polls to the extent your implying but I take your point that any such narrowing has been insignificant and thus far short lived.

I'll say there has been a "general improvement" in the polls for the coalition and reiterate that far from being a consequence of "straight talking, man of action Tony Abbott" its a consequence of having six months or reasonable stability ahead of them. Oh and I think the 53% is a very conservative figure for Tony Abbott. Mark Latham's election was slightly under 2004 and 2007 were both slightly under 53% and on the first occasion the government was much more vulnerable than Rudd's is, the second occasion the coalition was much more stable (and incumbent) than Abbott is. Under Turnbull I thought they could pull back to where Howard left of thereabouts, under Abbott(throw in Barnaby and Minchin) and I'd expect 1 and half percent swing at an absolute minimum.

"The Australian reports the latest fortnightly Newspoll has Labor’s two-party lead at 53-47, up from 52-48 last time. Both parties have dropped a point on the primary vote, Labor to 39 per cent and the Coalition to 40 per cent, with the Greens steady on 12 per cent. Kevin Rudd’s personal ratings are now those of a political mortal: his approval is steady on 50 per cent, but his disapproval has crept up another two points to 40 per cent. Tony Abbott’s dicey ratings have improved, his approval up three to 44 per cent and disapproval down two to 37 per cent. Rudd’s lead as preferred prime minister is down from 58-26 to 55-27, equalling a poll conducted during Malcolm Turnbull’s brief honeymoon as the narrowest margin since the government was elected."

That more people find Tony Abbott appealing than Malcolm Turnbull absolutely disgusts me.

 

[badquinton304]

That more people find Tony Abbott appealing than Malcolm Turnbull absolutely disgusts me.

New and exciting factor with a short memory is to blame.

 

[Lentern]

"The Australian reports the latest fortnightly Newspoll has Labor’s two-party lead at 53-47, up from 52-48 last time. Both parties have dropped a point on the primary vote, Labor to 39 per cent and the Coalition to 40 per cent, with the Greens steady on 12 per cent. Kevin Rudd’s personal ratings are now those of a political mortal: his approval is steady on 50 per cent, but his disapproval has crept up another two points to 40 per cent. Tony Abbott’s dicey ratings have improved, his approval up three to 44 per cent and disapproval down two to 37 per cent. Rudd’s lead as preferred prime minister is down from 58-26 to 55-27, equalling a poll conducted during Malcolm Turnbull’s brief honeymoon as the narrowest margin since the government was elected."

That more people find Tony Abbott appealing than Malcolm Turnbull absolutely disgusts me.

Abbotts "honeymoon" period is coinciding with the beginning of the election year. Abbott doesn't beat Abbott any more than Latham beats Beazley. The whole "man of action" "straight talking" stuff will get him decent approval ratings and will also lead to him getting thumped in a general election.

 

[Slidey]

The Greens are now polling at the same level as Labour in Tasmania: about 22%. That might seem like bad news for Labour, but the Liberals are only polling 30%. Most of the rest are undecided, but since the swing is against the Liberals, it can be estimated that Labour and the Greens would benefit from the undecideds.

It will be very interesting to see if the Greens outpoll Labour at the next Tasmania election. I'm not sure what that would mean. Surely not a Grand Coalition between Labour and Liberal? The thing is, each party dislikes the other other - the Greens dislike both because they've formed coalition with each one before and been betrayed by both (especially over destruction of rainforests), and Labour and Liberal dislike eachother for obvious reasons.

Does anybody with more knowledge of Tasmania political history have any insight?

And to anybody who thinks this poll is bogus: unlikely. The Greens got 17% of the vote last Tasmanian election.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/tasmanian-greens-surge-20100224-p3np.html
Or:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...vote-in-tasmania/story-e6frgczx-1225834053319

 

[Lentern]

The Greens are now polling at the same level as Labour in Tasmania: about 22%. That might seem like bad news for Labour, but the Liberals are only polling 30%. Most of the rest are undecided, but since the swing is against the Liberals, it can be estimated that Labour and the Greens would benefit from the undecideds.

It will be very interesting to see if the Greens outpoll Labour at the next Tasmania election. I'm not sure what that would mean. Surely not a Grand Coalition between Labour and Liberal? The thing is, each party dislikes the other other - the Greens dislike both because they've formed coalition with each one before and been betrayed by both (especially over destruction of rainforests), and Labour and Liberal dislike eachother for obvious reasons.

Does anybody with more knowledge of Tasmania political history have any insight?

And to anybody who thinks this poll is bogus: unlikely. The Greens got 17% of the vote last Tasmanian election.

Tasmanian Greens surge
Or:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...vote-in-Tasmania/story-e6frgczx-1225834053319

First off if the Greens won the largest number of seats well they'd be the government. The ALP will not support a liberal government, there's wriggle room for a possible national party/labor coalition but it won't happen.

If the coalition have the biggest share of seats which is what I expect I believe the Greens will support their forming a government but remain on the cross-bench. They will not want to be lumped in with a decaying, stale old labor government.

 

[3cho_Syk3s]

Lentern a true Liberal right there, well done mate.

I could never really see the Labor Party form a coalition with the Greens, they just don't have that sort of joint relationship as the Liberal/National coalition seem to have when they are together. The Labor Party is way too focused on the Workers and Unions where the Greens are too busy with their environmental issues. To top it off, Pete Garrett was demoted which I laugh at because he is careless with his insulation promises and to make this even more fun for us Liberals, Kevin Rudd was the originator with Garrett on this matter, where people died from electrocution. So if in the Federal Government, it is a somewhat Coalition with the Greens and Labor, they are doing very poorly at making it work and should really do something to change it before we all kick them out on their butts in the next election.

 

[Lentern]

Lentern a true Liberal right there, well done mate.

I could never really see the Labor Party form a coalition with the Greens, they just don't have that sort of joint relationship as the Liberal/National coalition seem to have when they are together. The Labor Party is way too focused on the Workers and Unions where the Greens are too busy with their environmental issues. To top it off, Pete Garrett was demoted which I laugh at because he is careless with his insulation promises and to make this even more fun for us Liberals, Kevin Rudd was the originator with Garrett on this matter, where people died from electrocution. So if in the Federal Government, it is a somewhat Coalition with the Greens and Labor, they are doing very poorly at making it work and should really do something to change it before we all kick them out on their butts in the next election.

Yeah that's exactly what I'm not. References to "decaying/stale" labor governments is a commentary on how they're being received. I have virtually no clue about the Bartlett government, it took me six months to find out Paul Lennon was no longer running the place.

They could be hugely popular for all I know, my assertion has to do with the fact that it is a twelve year old government on its third premier and west minister governments tend to get quite unpopular around that point. NSW labor despite using largely the same rhetoric and same policy approaches as Bob Carr did around the turn of the century are the least popular government this nation has seen since the dying days of the Queensland National Party government. The tori opposition in England are content to say nothing and wait at the moment with good reason. I suspect the Queensland government in two years time will be every bit as popular as this NSW one and as such the Tasmanian Greens will not want it one their resume' that they prolonged the life of the current government.

 

[3cho_Syk3s]

Yeah that's exactly what I'm not. References to "decaying/stale" labor governments is a commentary on how they're being received. I have virtually no clue about the Bartlett government, it took me six months to find out Paul Lennon was no longer running the place.

They could be hugely popular for all I know, my assertion has to do with the fact that it is a twelve year old government on its third premier and west minister governments tend to get quite unpopular around that point. NSW labor despite using largely the same rhetoric and same policy approaches as Bob Carr did around the turn of the century are the least popular government this nation has seen since the dying days of the Queensland National Party government. The tori opposition in England are content to say nothing and wait at the moment with good reason. I suspect the Queensland government in two years time will be every bit as popular as this NSW one and as such the Tasmanian Greens will not want it one their resume' that they prolonged the life of the current government.

Well your point on long serving governments is quite true, like the Howard Government. It was a good government but it came to a point being in for 12 years was a little too long for the Australian People but also it was because of work-choices in which I believe, I am just stating what I have heard about it don't flame me on it i just heard it was that which was the fall of the Howard reign.

 

[Lentern]

Well your point on long serving governments is quite true, like the Howard Government. It was a good government but it came to a point being in for 12 years was a little too long for the Australian People but also it was because of work-choices in which I believe, I am just stating what I have heard about it don't flame me on it i just heard it was that which was the fall of the Howard reign.

Oh my word no, it would be fairly unequivocal if I were flaming.

 

[SpoonSamba]

GO THE GReENZ BreW

 

[Slidey]

Lentern a true Liberal right there, well done mate.

I could never really see the Labor Party form a coalition with the Greens, they just don't have that sort of joint relationship as the Liberal/National coalition seem to have when they are together. The Labor Party is way too focused on the Workers and Unions where the Greens are too busy with their environmental issues. To top it off, Pete Garrett was demoted which I laugh at because he is careless with his insulation promises and to make this even more fun for us Liberals, Kevin Rudd was the originator with Garrett on this matter, where people died from electrocution. So if in the Federal Government, it is a somewhat Coalition with the Greens and Labor, they are doing very poorly at making it work and should really do something to change it before we all kick them out on their butts in the next election.

The Greens and Labour are completely distinct parties. They don't form any coalition, and likely never will (in the next decade) for ideological and political reasons. Ideologically speaking, Labour has very little interest in the environment, and perhaps even less interest in civil rights (Internet censorship anyone? Gay marriage? Drug policy?).

The Nationals and Liberals aren't even distinct parties in many elections and it's rare indeed to see the Nationals vote against the Libs (though it does happen).

The rise of the Greens simply means a three-party system. This isn't particularly new to Australian politics, however, since the Democrats and Nationals (and sometimes others) have held this position at various points in history.

What's interesting this time is that the Greens clearly delineate themselves from the other parties - they sell themselves as an alternative, where the Democrats sold themselves simply as a balance to the main parties, and the Nationals freely share their voter pool with Liberal, hampering growth. So given the demographics of Australia and the structure of the Greens party it's not hard to surmise they'll be a permanent fixture in the power structure of parliament for decades to come, barring any major scandals or world-changing events.

 

[Slidey]

I am preferencing Liberal (after Greens of course).

As much as I despise Tony Abbott, I cannot stomach the thought of Australia passing Internet censorship, as Rudd fully intends to do.

Fuck I miss Turnbull.

 

[Garygaz]

I am preferencing Liberal (after Greens of course).

As much as I despise Tony Abbott, I cannot stomach the thought of Australia passing Internet censorship, as Rudd fully intends to do.

Fuck I miss Turnbull.

I can't even come up with the words to describe how insanely frustrated politics at all levels make me. Abbot is a conservative idiot, Rudd has a cabinet full of no-brainers, I haven't heard an educated thing come out of the Greens mouths in years, Xenephon is a media-whore, the Nationals are so narrow-minded. Mash all this into Parliament House and you've got a lose-lose situation. I can honestly say I don't even want to vote for anyone, none of them are in the least inspiring.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I'll be voting Shooters Party in the senate.

Lower house, I'll just spoil my ballot.

 

[SylviaB]

why not liberal democratic