Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paxter

Aussie Thread: Democracy Sausage

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Morrison will get another term at least, this is somehow going to last as long as Howards government.

And be just as fucking depressing as the Howard years were, at least for me. This day has really been a shit sandwich - started off looking at shit in my 91 year old auntie's blocked toilet and ended the day looking at shit on the ABC. Really should have had another glass of wine at dinner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jeor said:

Albo or Plibersek might stand a chance, they both have good name recognition and are pretty popular.

Wong or Bowen as deputy leader maybe.

I think Albo has the charisma but scare tactics have proven pretty effective here and he'll get painted as a radical. I don't think Plibs will even throw her hat in at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a premonition of three years of zero policy proposals, with Morrison and Albo trying to out-bloke each other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a result like this, Labor might have to do a deal with the devil and try a strong right faction leader. Sort of a Tony Blair-type figure and out-Liberal the Liberal Party. Sort of in the same way that Turnbull won government from a position a little more to the left than most Liberals were comfortable with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jeor said:

On a result like this, Labor might have to do a deal with the devil and try a strong right faction leader. Sort of a Tony Blair-type figure and out-Liberal the Liberal Party. Sort of in the same way that Turnbull won government from a position a little more to the left than most Liberals were comfortable with.

Shorten wasn't exactly from the left of the party though. They did try put up some progressive policies but thats a question of what rather than who. They'll just see their vote collapse to the greens if they completely abandon that because whether we're delusional or not, the left are sick of faillures to advance progressive causes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shorten did come from the right faction but the policies he was putting forward could be construed as being left-wing (closing the tax loopholes on the rich etc, spending more money on health/education etc). Which I thought would have been a vote winner.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right, Shorten WAS the right faction leader. Albo was the lefty (thinking back on when they were going at it for the Labor leadership).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

22 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Do the”woke” bunch on this site ever consider that maybe THEY are the extremists, who are out of touch with the normal, middle class, traditional values voter?

 

I'm a middle-of-road voter who leans left (voted Turnbull last election, ALP this time).

As dumb as I think the term "woke" is (seriously, does the internet need to come up with a new tag every 15 minutes?), I do believe that the almost incessant berating about certain "progressive" issues like "equality" and climate change (issues I generally agree with) I think actually plays negatively on many voters and they'll seek to vote for whoever may, in their eyes, counteract some of these issues that almost feel like they're being rammed down our throats. I credit it is a factor to Trump's victory in 2016.

Even I get annoyed sometimes when I switch on the news and get 3 reports in a row about "a lack of women in this" or "it's a white man's club".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Progressive policies generally do have to push up against the natural human tendency to avoid change.

Unless you're suffering or feel great injustice, I feel like the average human being will opt for the comfort of sticking with the status quo. If that's true, I guess that favours incumbent governments as well as conservative ones.

It seems unfair, but progressive parties have to convince the electorate that change is needed, whereas conservative parties generally get let off on this point. I think that's why conservative parties are so much more successful at running scare campaigns than progressive ones, which tend to be more substantive on policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jeor that's true when the government is truly conservative in the sense of opposing change, that is not the modern coalition who try to make radical changes to society. They just get to frame it as not actually being changes.

Things like robodebts have utterly wrecked people and it's not remotely fair or just and it's not the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, karaddin said:

@Jeor that's true when the government is truly conservative in the sense of opposing change, that is not the modern coalition who try to make radical changes to society. They just get to frame it as not actually being changes.

Of course, there will be variations - I was just speaking more generally. I think we see in the USA that "conservative" governments are in fact radical administrations that want to change things up for the benefit of the rich and to widen the inequality gap. I wouldn't want to see us go that way although we are taking baby steps in that direction, which is a little worrying.

Bill Shorten concedes and also resigns the leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Jeor said:

Progressive policies generally do have to push up against the natural human tendency to avoid change.

Unless you're suffering or feel great injustice, I feel like the average human being will opt for the comfort of sticking with the status quo. If that's true, I guess that favours incumbent governments as well as conservative ones.

It seems unfair, but progressive parties have to convince the electorate that change is needed, whereas conservative parties generally get let off on this point. I think that's why conservative parties are so much more successful at running scare campaigns than progressive ones, which tend to be more substantive on policy.

Fair points and I can see the merit.

The challenge though is getting the message across without ridiculing or neglecting swathes of people and sometimes it can feel that way when they seem to push certain agendas a bit too forcefully.

It always gets me when, for instance, people openly criticize something for having too many white men (or something along those lines). We are a predominately white country, when you push an agenda that appears to go against half of the (by far) largest demographic, it will not go in your favor when you then go for a popularity contest like an election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other potential bright side for Labour, at the next election, is that NZ Labour was facing down a dismal showing in the 2017 election just 2 months out and National winning an unprecedented 4th consecutive term. There was even talk of Labour no longer being the 2nd major party, but just another 3rd party. Then Andrew Little fell on his sword and Jacinda was anointed, and bing bang boom Labour suddenly does well enough to form the next govt and is now the party with the biggest vote share in the polls in the middle of the term*.

The thing I'm not sure about is whether the trick only worked because Jacinda was a big refreshing surprise right at the start of campaigning, or if she would have secured Labour even more seats if she'd had more time.

 

 

 

*National also lost its well liked Prime Minister a year before the election, I guess because he got bored or got a better offer, because he just up and left National with it's arse hanging out? And they elected someone to lead them who had lost the election last time he was leader, and then replaced him after the election with someone who just does not appeal to voters. It wasn't all the Jacinda effect, is what I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lokisnow said:

What are the chances Russia tampered with this election like they did in the U.S. and the brexit elections?

I would say minimal.

1) Conservatives inside Australia are not particularly fond of Russia.
2) Australia (unlike the UK or US) doesn't play much inside Russia's sphere of influence.

So I don't really see what Russia would get out of it, and I haven't heard a hint of it.

A far greater threat for dabbling in internal Australian politics is China, who are aggressively expanding their influence into south eastern Asia. They also have a large immigrant population inside Australia and are our largest trading partner. But they're not particularly fond of the conservative parties here either as they tend towards anti-chinese xenophobia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just a few stray observations:

- Labor has won majority government at just a single federal election since 1993. That’s one victory in 26 years.

- Palmer didn’t win a single seat, but he surely had a major impact on the result with his voters directing preferences to the LNP. One Nation also got a big primary vote in Queensland.

- The decision to turf Turnbull paid a massive dividend in Queensland. The Longman by-election win actually hurt Labor in the long term because it showed that MT couldn’t hold on to marginal Qld seats. 

- Labor’s “united team” made no difference. And that same unity will actually be a problem if/when Labor try to tilt rightwards in the next three years. How can the new leader be credible when they stood behind Shorten’s progressivism?

- The Senate could be very tricky for Morrison, with the Greens picking up seats in most states. A lot depends on how these last few seats in doubt fall.

- And we always knew this but: “it’s the economy, stupid”. Labor can’t hope to win government unless and until they get the electorate to trust them on the economy. 

One thing I can’t quite work out: what on earth happened in Tas and Vic? I can understand Qld but I’m surprised at seats actually flipping to the Libs in Tas.

Edited by Paxter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Paxter said:

One thing I can’t quite work out: what on earth happened in Tas and Vic? I can understand Qld but I’m surprised to seats actually flipping to the Libs in Tas.

Tasmania has always been volatile and marginal. I think I read that Bass has flipped in 7 of the last 9 elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Jeor said:

Tasmania has always been volatile and marginal. I think I read that Bass has flipped in 7 of the last 9 elections.

Yeah fair enough. I guess I’m wondering more at the possible narratives there and why Shorten’s progressive platform fell so flat. And the same question re: Victoria. 

ETA: On the question about external influences on this election - look closer to home than Russia or China. The Murdoch press was a major factor. I don’t necessarily “blame” the media for this result though - this is on Australians who gobble that stuff up like no tomorrow.

And another stray observation: in a weird way this was a great night for Tony Abbott. He lost his seat, but he showed that a Liberal party cast more in his image than Turnbull’s would have electoral success.

Edited by Paxter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Victoria is a confusing case, especially after Vic Labour/Daniel Andrews smashed it at the state election last year.

We've now seen strong Lib seats swing to the left and working class/mortgage belt seats swing to Libs. It's really been a baffling election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Skyrazer said:

Victoria is a confusing case, especially after Vic Labour/Daniel Andrews smashed it at the state election last year.

We've now seen strong Lib seats swing to the left and working class/mortgage belt seats swing to Libs. It's really been a baffling election.

I think the former can be explained by the ascendency of climate politics in those seats. But I don’t really get the latter! I can only assume that Shorten and his progressive economic agenda was the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×