The Coalition in peril? Howard to be dumped? (1 Viewer)

[Iron]

I couldn't agree more. But I thought that original comment was a bit alarmist. Climate change is of great importance, but to say that the leaders of Australia (with less than 1% of the world's population) ignoring climate change will doom the planet is a bit over the top. Also this thread is about the Coalitions election chances. But I can definately understand your outrage.

I care not for the thread!
Australia could be a huge role-model for the world. We've historically been very persuasive internationally. See Evatt and the UN, or Keating and APEC. The Coalition's peril is hope for the world. Like the proverbial Churchill, id rather go down fighting and embrace my existential doom than deny, deny, deny.
I’m sure you’re immune to the debate, as are most. Trusty apathy and a retreat to the self can always be relied on in such times. But we're talking about
The destruction of natural resources, especially food
The limited supply of fossil fuels, fresh water, and farmland
The explosion of poor health and mass epidemics

This dwarfs everything the government stands for.

The WHO has estimated 150,000 deaths and 5million illnesses - annually - to be linked to climate change - set to double in under 25yrs.
It means fierce competition for resources such as fish, rivers, arable land, with nuclear states. Siberia for Britain. Drought for America. More severe storms. Refugee crisis. Non-western states would turn to drugs, terrorism, illegal arms against the West which knowingly, selfishly perpetuates their poverty.
All this is allowed? Allowed by a mindless public, blind to poverty, accepting of American unilateralism, shamelessly material, switched off to anything outside their immediate satisfaction, and turning inward via politically powerful Christian fundamentalism which welcomes all this as the fulfilment of the prophesy.

 

[Omnidragon]

They'll be in more peril if they dump Howard. I think the ideal team would be Howard-Rudd.

 

[Rafy]

And you would be guessing. I think pretty much everyone knows, at least subconsciously, who they are voting for weeks before hand.
If you go by the federal government's definition of what it means to be "employed".
Illusion.

http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/?p=8
Usually almost 50% of voters will make their mind up during the election campaign.

 

[jb_nc]

That poll doesn't get to the bottom of the situation. Polls are dodgey at the best of times, but this one doesn't analyse people enough. People will answer "the day before" when they really have *really* decided weeks before hand. It's not really a question people can answer in a poll.

a sample of size of 500+ accurately represents the sentiments of 40-60 million people +/- 4 per cent

statistics101

 

[Serius]

I know a lot of people think that, but remember the small things add up. I actually thought, while it was obvious posturing, that it was quite genius, reduce costs/reduce electrical bills/ reduce consumption on quite a large scale.

MATHS TIME!

Average Flourescent Bulb = 25W for equiv 100W Incandescent.

Okay so automatic saving of 75W per bulb.

Number Crunching time. Average house has say, 5 rooms, all with one bulb. For statistics sake let's say that each was a 100W incandescent that has been replaced by a Flourescent.

500W versus 125W - Extrapolating this further

Say they're both on for 10 hours a day, for sanity's sake

Incandescent = 5 kW Hours
Flourescent = 1.25 kW hours

Massive difference. I know it's not energy standards for appliances and that, but it does multiply out nicely and show a MASSIVE saving

Imagine if a million people did this similar scenario


Incandescent = 5 MILLION kilowatt hours a day
Flourescent = 1.25 MILLION kilowatt hours.

You see it does actually multiply out nicely over time, it's simple yet efficient... so the engineer in me finds it elegant *embarassed*

Some people from my local council come over to our house and fitted out every socket with a flourenent globe. Then they gave a stack of spares for when those run out. For free. Apparently they are doing this all over, so it looks like the scheme is in place now.

 

[Sparcod]

Polls may be accurate at representing the sentiments of the electorate at a particular point in time. Of course as many people have pointed out they fail to take into account those that are undecided and those that will change their mind before election day. Thats why 2pp figures of 60 - 40 Rudd are unrealistic. For starters they have derived this figure by ignoring those that said they were undecided or gave no answer.

As I've said before, the betting markets are a much better predictive tool. They show it is currently a very even race. I'm very confident that if Rudd wins it will not be with anything near 59% of the 2PP vote.

I don't think that Rudd would win based on those results if elections were held today. Yes, he's got a lead but whether he becomes PM or not depends on the number of marginal Liberal seats that he steals. Rudd needs about 15 of them which happens to be a very big number.

Remember Mark Latham? Half the opinion polls back then had predicted that he would win.

As I said, it's a question which cannot be accurately answered by way of a Poll.

I agree (at least in this case). If the 2PP polls (with a very large number of people surveyed) were conducted on the night before an election and they revealed it to be something like 80:20 (very, very unlikely), I'd certainly have confidence that Labor would win.

 

[kokodamonkey]

I don't think that Rudd would win based on those results if elections were held today. Yes, he's got a lead but whether he becomes PM or not depends on the number of marginal Liberal seats that he steals. Rudd needs about 15 of them which happens to be a very big number.

Remember Mark Latham? Half the opinion polls back then had predicted that he would win.

You have to remember most of these polls are done in labour seats.. and yes Mark latham was ahead in the polls too. trust me. John Howard is the smartest politician of his time and i dont see him losing an election any time soon.

 

[Triangulum]

You have to remember most of these polls are done in labour seats.. and yes Mark latham was ahead in the polls too.

Most of the polls are done in Labor seats? What gives you that impression?

 

[_dhj_]

kokoda, what does John Howard's cock taste like?

Because i'm pretty sure you would have tasted it enough times to give us a succinct description of its taste.

A rather tasteless post one must say. You don't have to be on the same side of politics as Howard to admire his tenacity and cunning.

 

[pete_mate]

I know a lot of people think that, but remember the small things add up. I actually thought, while it was obvious posturing, that it was quite genius, reduce costs/reduce electrical bills/ reduce consumption on quite a large scale.

MATHS TIME!

Average Flourescent Bulb = 25W for equiv 100W Incandescent.

Okay so automatic saving of 75W per bulb.

Number Crunching time. Average house has say, 5 rooms, all with one bulb. For statistics sake let's say that each was a 100W incandescent that has been replaced by a Flourescent.

500W versus 125W - Extrapolating this further

Say they're both on for 10 hours a day, for sanity's sake

Incandescent = 5 kW Hours
Flourescent = 1.25 kW hours

Massive difference. I know it's not energy standards for appliances and that, but it does multiply out nicely and show a MASSIVE saving

Imagine if a million people did this similar scenario


Incandescent = 5 MILLION kilowatt hours a day
Flourescent = 1.25 MILLION kilowatt hours.

You see it does actually multiply out nicely over time, it's simple yet efficient... so the engineer in me finds it elegant *embarassed*

yeah but flourescent lightbulbs piss me off, feel like autopsy lights

 

[Sparcod]

Well said. As much as I disagree with Howard in general he is a ingenius politican. Although I think some of his tactics were less than admirable, for instance the 2004 interest rates scare campaign, it was no worse the the NSW ALP's scare campaign this year about Work Choices and Peter Debnams past which had absolutely no relevance.

When you put moral considerations asside and assess his "tenacity and cunning" I don't see how you could argue that Howard is anything less than brilliant.

The interest rates scare campaign was just absurd because at times, they kept on pointing out the high interest rates of 10-15 years ago when it has very little relevance today. These days, Howard-supporters basically use that ONE argument to suggest why Labor won't be good at handling the economy.

The reason why NSW ALP ran scare campaigns, in my opinion, was because Peter Debnam was a strong supporter of WorkChoices and that a number of Labor-voters thought that NSW would soon follow the federal government.

 

[frog12986]

These days, Howard-supporters basically use that ONE argument to suggest why Labor won't be good at handling the economy.

.

It is usually more related to the more fiscally elaborate approach to economic management (i.e. expenditure), primarily due to their approach to social policy..

 

[frog12986]

The reason why NSW ALP ran scare campaigns, in my opinion, was because Peter Debnam was a strong supporter of WorkChoices and that a number of Labor-voters thought that NSW would soon follow the federal government.

Which of course was deceitful, as the private sector industrial relations powers were absorbed by the federal system as a result of the corporations powers following the High Court decision..

 

[Sparcod]

It is usually more related to the more fiscally elaborate approach to economic management (i.e. expenditure), primarily due to their approach to social policy..

Whose approach?

Which of course was deceitful, as the private sector industrial relations powers were absorbed by the federal system as a result of the corporations powers following the High Court decision..

In other words, Peter Debnam was John Howard's scapegoat. He was punished by voters, for some reason, for supporting John Howard's workplace laws.

There were also other reasons for Peter Debnam's downfall as well.

 

[frog12986]

In other words, Peter Debnam was John Howard's scapegoat. He was punished by voters, for some reason, for supporting John Howard's workplace laws.

There were also other reasons for Peter Debnam's downfall as well.

Debnam was his own downfall, as was the 1999 Election. A swing of 5% (or near enough) whilst positive for the Coalition was well below what was required. Any person that suggests the state election was lost due to workplace reform is reading too far into the issue. The vast swings against the government in many seats indicated that it did not play as a pivotal issue as suggested (particularly in the Hunter region which is Labor and Union heartland)..

Inept leadership, haphazard and wafer thin policies, a lack of campaign funds along with a poorly managed campaign were the overwhelming factors in the election result.

 

[Sparcod]

That was what I meant by "other reasons". You've got it covered.