Aussie Politics: Please post your response (No stamp needed)

[Skyrazer]

I really want the LNP to lose Wentworth and go up in flames from losing their majority as I thought Turnbull was a decent PM. Far from perfect, but compared to the current crop in Parliament....

[Paxter]

On 9/14/2018 at 4:42 PM, Skyrazer said:

I really want the LNP to lose Wentworth and go up in flames from losing their majority as I thought Turnbull was a decent PM. Far from perfect, but compared to the current crop in Parliament....

It will be an interesting contest (especially with Phelps in the mix) but the conventional wisdom seems to be that the challengers will find it difficult to produce the necessary swing in a blue-ribbon electorate.

And it is difficult to compare Wentworth with Wagga due to the specific circumstances in Wagga (a sitting member resigning due to corruption allegations). 

[The Anti-Targ]

On 9/14/2018 at 4:45 PM, Stubby said:

The Liberals are apparently shit scared that she will run. 

I assume that means she'd bleed votes from the Libs more than Labour?

[Stubby]

No they are actually worried that she will win.

 

[Squab]

6 minutes ago, Stubby said:

No they are actually worried that she will win.

 

The left seem to be pushing her case so theres probably a worry in some of the libs but they are by no means a united idealogical or even opinionated block, i highly doubt they are all worried. How does a left leaning west australian know whats happening internally with the libs regading a Sydney by-election?

On 9/14/2018 at 4:42 PM, Skyrazer said:

I really want the LNP to lose Wentworth and go up in flames from losing their majority as I thought Turnbull was a decent PM. Far from perfect, but compared to the current crop in Parliament....

Hopefully its not too personal a question but would you have voted for the coalition if malcolm was still prime minister? did you last time? I think ultimately he got rolled because he is popular with people that would never vote for the coalition. Explains why his popularity was so high but his party was so far behind in the polls.

[Jeor]

5 hours ago, Squab said:

Hopefully its not too personal a question but would you have voted for the coalition if malcolm was still prime minister? did you last time? I think ultimately he got rolled because he is popular with people that would never vote for the coalition. Explains why his popularity was so high but his party was so far behind in the polls.

I know you're asking @Skyrazer and not me, but for what it's worth I've voted for the Coalition (Liberals) in each of the Federal elections (since 2004 when I was eligible to vote), so from that point of view Turnbull wouldn't have swung my vote. However, I did like Turnbull as he's closer to the moderate wing of the party. While I'm clearly not an independent voter (given my voting record), I would consider myself a moderate Liberal.

All that being said I do think these days personality of the leader counts. If Dutton were leading the party I would have seriously considered switching to Labor. If Labor had someone more attractive than Shorten I would consider it too, e.g. Plibersek or Albo might give me food for thought. I think if I had been old enough to vote back then I might have voted for Paul Keating. I also voted Labor with my first two state elections (leaders being Bob Carr and Morris Iemma).

[Stubby]

Jeor, what is it about Shorten that you don't like?  Why is it that you find him unattractive?

[karaddin]

On 9/20/2018 at 11:29 AM, Stubby said:

No they are actually worried that she will win.

 

I've thought that the right independent was the best chance of taking out the seat. I think Alex Greenwich would have been the number one pick for that, but he's clearly not interested - I've heard he's a dual citizen and probably doesn't want to give it up. Kerryn Phelps would probably have been my #2 pick.

My Dad has an old school conservative mindset. He's long been jaded with the Coalition, but actively dislikes Labor and the personalities that tend to dominate in it so he winds up wasting his vote when he feels he can't vote for the Coalition. He told me that he's voting Labor in the next election because the behaviour of this government is just an utter farce, and that's overriding strong dislike of Shorten. I'm not sure what your issues with him are Jeor, but this is the first chance we've had in 10 years to be voting for a party that isn't dominated by a strong leader - if you're disgusted with the Coalition I'd ask you to reconsider. If your mindset is anything like my Dads then the current Coalition doesn't serve that in any way - they're corrupt (generally not crossing the line to illegally corrupt, but corrupt) and radical. There's nothing remotely conservative about what they want to do to the country unless you're using decades in the past as your baseline for "the current situation" that you want to conserve.

[Jeor]

My dislike of Shorten isn't anything in particular; it's just one of those things (I'm sure for everything that I'm about to say next there are corresponding fluffs on the Coalition side). He's made a few gaffes, e.g. the absurd "rolled gold guarantee" that no Labor politicinas had citizenship problems, and his pretty offensive "Employ Australians First" ad that featured basically all white people (I'm ethnically Chinese).

In trying to think about why I've historically been a Liberal voter, I think it comes down to Labor's way of using class warfare (and yes, I know the Coalition do it too). My parents emigrated here from Singapore when me and my siblings were born. We were reasonably well-off, but not incredibly wealthy, and both parents worked long hours to send my brother and I to a private school because (like many migrant families) they put their children's education at the top of their priority list.

In those formative years, I was turned off by Labor because I constantly heard cheap attacks against rich private school kids and parents characterising us as wealthy Kerry Packer-type families siphoning off government funds while we sip champagne (the debate about government money going to private schools is, I think, a bit more nuanced than it seems*). In my experience, the majority of private school kids came from families like ours; two working parents and lots of sacrifice. And rightly or wrongly, I grew up with the belief that the Coalition generally liked and helped people who tried to get ahead (or at least more than Labor did). There's not a lot between them, but the Coalition are a tad more socially conservative and economically liberal, which goes with my personal leanings.

In terms of being disgusted with the Coalition, I would have been more disgusted if Dutton had become the leader (in which case I probably would have flipped). Morrison on the other hand I find more palatable. And for all the (deserved) opprobrium over the Coalition's ridiculous "stop the boats" policy, which is probably my biggest bugbear with them, Labor aren't exactly offering much of an alternative; Shorten's quoted as much that he'll continue the Coalition policies.

*EDIT: To explain my private school remark, fully one third of the population goes to a non-government school. That's clearly not all Richie Rich families. Also, the government spends less money per student in a private school than in a public school. If no support were offered, fewer students would go to private schools and therefore they would go to public schools where they cost the government more per head. So theoretically there's a good reason why some government money should go to private schools. Of course, the actual level can still be debated but I don't think it should be zero.

[Paxter]

On 9/20/2018 at 11:57 AM, Squab said:

The left seem to be pushing her case so theres probably a worry in some of the libs but they are by no means a united idealogical or even opinionated block, i highly doubt they are all worried. How does a left leaning west australian know whats happening internally with the libs regading a Sydney by-election?

The Libs would surely be somewhat concerned. Personally, I think they will end up holding on to the seat fairly easily, but you can't completely dismiss the local polling evidence :

Quote

A poll of 400 voters conducted for would-be Liberal candidate Peter King put the party's support at 36 per cent, Labor at 29 per cent, Greens at 16 per cent and an unidentified independent at 18 per cent.

 

On 9/21/2018 at 10:11 PM, Jeor said:

In terms of being disgusted with the Coalition, I would have been more disgusted if Dutton had become the leader (in which case I probably would have flipped). Morrison on the other hand I find more palatable. And for all the (deserved) opprobrium over the Coalition's ridiculous "stop the boats" policy, which is probably my biggest bugbear with them, Labor aren't exactly offering much of an alternative; Shorten's quoted as much that he'll continue the Coalition policies.

I think this is an exaggeration. Shorten has flagged in the past that he would, for instance, countenance a 'NZ solution' to the ongoing detention of asylum seekers. I know it's not a full-blown reversion to the Rudd-era policy framework, but is that not a material policy change worthy of voter attention?

[Jeor]

8 hours ago, Paxter said:

I think this is an exaggeration. Shorten has flagged in the past that he would, for instance, countenance a 'NZ solution' to the ongoing detention of asylum seekers. I know it's not a full-blown reversion to the Rudd-era policy framework, but is that not a material policy change worthy of voter attention?

I just searched the Labor policy and it still reads pretty populist, xenophobic and not much different:

"We will never let the people smugglers back in business...Labor believes in strong borders, offshore processing, regional settlement and turnbacks when safe to do so...The way to Australia through irregular means by boat is closed. Labor will not do anything to provide the people smugglers with a market to exploit vulnerable people....As such, bringing people from offshore regional processing centres to Australia is not an option."

There's nothing about closing offshore detention or turnbacks. Regarding the NZ solution, it's really not that different - after all, didn't the Liberals do exactly that with the US instead? (the Trump "bad deal") Labor even reference it on that policy page:

"Labor has called on the Liberal Government to accept New Zealand's offer to resettle eligible refugees from Manus and Nauru and negotiate conditions similar to the US refugee resettlement agreement to prevent people smugglers exploiting vulnerable people. If the Government was able to negotiate conditions for the US deal, they should be able to negotiate them for any deal with NZ. Labor has repeatedly called on the Liberal Government to release the details of the US refugee resettlement agreement."

To me, it seems that Labor are basically just saying, "We'll do exactly what the Coalition are doing but we'll make some deals to send these people to other countries. The Libs did it once, we'll do it too." Which still means we're at the mercy of persuading other countries to take them; not a particularly coherent or long-lasting solution.

To their credit, they do talk about (at the bottom) appointing a children's advocate and increasing the annual intake of refugees (though with a generous dilatory timescale to 2025). I'll listen closely at the next election buildup to see how it all plays out. I'm sure it will (unfortunately) be a big political topic again.

[Paxter]

1 hour ago, Jeor said:

I just searched the Labor policy and it still reads pretty populist, xenophobic and not much different:

"We will never let the people smugglers back in business...Labor believes in strong borders, offshore processing, regional settlement and turnbacks when safe to do so...The way to Australia through irregular means by boat is closed. Labor will not do anything to provide the people smugglers with a market to exploit vulnerable people....As such, bringing people from offshore regional processing centres to Australia is not an option."

There's nothing about closing offshore detention or turnbacks. Regarding the NZ solution, it's really not that different - after all, didn't the Liberals do exactly that with the US instead? (the Trump "bad deal") Labor even reference it on that policy page:

"Labor has called on the Liberal Government to accept New Zealand's offer to resettle eligible refugees from Manus and Nauru and negotiate conditions similar to the US refugee resettlement agreement to prevent people smugglers exploiting vulnerable people. If the Government was able to negotiate conditions for the US deal, they should be able to negotiate them for any deal with NZ. Labor has repeatedly called on the Liberal Government to release the details of the US refugee resettlement agreement."

To me, it seems that Labor are basically just saying, "We'll do exactly what the Coalition are doing but we'll make some deals to send these people to other countries. The Libs did it once, we'll do it too." Which still means we're at the mercy of persuading other countries to take them; not a particularly coherent or long-lasting solution.

To their credit, they do talk about (at the bottom) appointing a children's advocate and increasing the annual intake of refugees (though with a generous dilatory timescale to 2025). I'll listen closely at the next election buildup to see how it all plays out. I'm sure it will (unfortunately) be a big political topic again.

Thanks for reminding me why I don’t vote for the two majors! Obviously Labor are not proposing a policy that I (or international law) finds acceptable. 

But I don’t think you can equate the Coalition’s US deal (mostly inoperative since Trump) with Ardern’s offer, expressly rejected by the Libs. Vote Liberal and you’ll never know how those individuals’ lives could be turned around with a New Zealand visa. Maybe as much an improvement as Dutton’s au pairs’...

[Skyrazer]

On 9/20/2018 at 11:57 AM, Squab said:

Hopefully its not too personal a question but would you have voted for the coalition if malcolm was still prime minister? did you last time? I think ultimately he got rolled because he is popular with people that would never vote for the coalition. Explains why his popularity was so high but his party was so far behind in the polls.

I would consider voting LNP at the next election if Turnbull was still PM, yes. Now though, I'd vote Labor even if I don't particularly support them just to spite the LNP for the complete nonsense that has happened. Speaking as a non-aligned voter, I imagine my sentiments are shared with many other swing-voters.

Last election? I....well lets just say I derped out a bit and forgot to vote (I won't get into the details ), but I was leaning towards Turnbull/LNP and most likely would have voted in their favour had I gotten off my useless ass and voted....

What I don't get is - surely the LNP understand that elections are won by not scaring/alienating/upsetting the middle ground? For this reason, Turnbull (being a moderate) was always a sensible candidate to pull them through an election and it showed in the preferred PM polls. Yet we see a degree of radicalising going on which is now completely destabilising the electoral middle-ground (and even parts of their own turf) which will only spell doom for them at the next election. Previous spiels have always been about survival and election viability. This latest spiel just looks like a bunch of personal/political vendettas and ideological absudity and it's just completely baffling.

We've had our fair share of political lows, it almost feels like they're purposely aiming to set an even lower low.

[Paxter]

9 hours ago, Skyrazer said:

What I don't get is - surely the LNP understand that elections are won by not scaring/alienating/upsetting the middle ground?

They seem to be more worried about their right flank than the centre ground. Which, to be honest, is quite understandable in places like Qld.

As I've mentioned before, Morrison is not a bad unity candidate and could be a tough opponent for Shorten. 

[Skyrazer]

14 hours ago, Paxter said:

They seem to be more worried about their right flank than the centre ground. Which, to be honest, is quite understandable in places like Qld.

I'm not sure if losing some Qld seats to some conservative independents is worse than losing a bunch of mortgage/migrant belt seats to Labor.

[Jeor]

I think they belatedly realised that by going for Morrison instead of Dutton. As Pax has mentioned, Morrison is probably not a bad moderate replacement in the sense that he might give Shorten a good fight, even though he has one arm tied behind his back because of the fallout from this whole Liberal party politics affair. I don't think there's much doubt Shorten is going to win, Morrison just has to hope the electorate has a short memory by the time they go to the polls and that Shorten makes a few big gaffes.

Pax, re: the asylum seekers - yes, taking the NZ offer would be better for the people currently in detention and it's weird why the Coalition wouldn't have taken it. Notwithstanding the individual lives clearly affected by such a decision, in the grand scheme of things it's a very specific, small-scale difference and not what I would call a "macro" policy difference. All that being said, I'll keep an open mind on the issue. I know neither party is going to offer a major change (for fear of the other side gaining the vaunted court of public opinion on this one) but I hope there will be a sensible debate about it in the leadup to the next election.

[Stubby]

7 hours ago, Jeor said:

Pax, re: the asylum seekers - yes, taking the NZ offer would be better for the people currently in detention and it's weird why the Coalition wouldn't have taken it.

Because they see it as capitulating to the people smugglers.  Never mind that the people stuck on Nauru are slowly deteriorating medically.  But this is the level of heartlessness that I have come to associate with modern conservatives.

[Paxter]

16 hours ago, Stubby said:

Because they see it as capitulating to the people smugglers.  Never mind that the people stuck on Nauru are slowly deteriorating medically.  But this is the level of heartlessness that I have come to associate with modern conservatives.

And this coming from the side of politics that lectures people about the importance of Christian values!

On a totally different subject: WTF is up with the media landscape in Australia at the moment? Whether it's Murdoch's influence, the 2GB shock jocks, the Fairfax-Nine merger and now the craziness at the ABC...is it just me or are things more of a mess than normal?

[Stubby]

3 hours ago, Paxter said:

And this coming from the side of politics that lectures people about the importance of Christian values!

On a totally different subject: WTF is up with the media landscape in Australia at the moment? Whether it's Murdoch's influence, the 2GB shock jocks, the Fairfax-Nine merger and now the craziness at the ABC...is it just me or are things more of a mess than normal?

The LNP hates how the media puts them to proof, mate.  They know their positions are based on ideology and not evidence, so they blame the media.

[Skyrazer]

Yeah and it looks like Milne has just resigned (as he should). I wonder where this leaves Guthrie now as it makes it look like her "sacking" was completely unwarranted.