Federal Election

[Marty_d]

...with lesser people who don't think ahead

The "lesser people who don't think ahead" just voted in the LNP.

 

Sure you may get a few extra dollars from the LNP. Just hope your kids don't need a good state school education, have to go to hospital or want a planet to live on after climate change decimates it.

 

Have a laugh at the loser lefties guys - it's everyone who loses out in the end with this mob in power. Thankfully MrRabbott lost his seat. Just wish that Christensen and Dutton were given the ar*se too, but unfortunately QLD seems to embrace short-termism more than the rest of the country.

 

Meanwhile Clive Palmer spent $60 million and didn't win a single seat. Maybe he should have just paid his workers instead?

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Jerry,Where do I return your $20 stake and $1 winnings?

 

And why has it taken Labor supporters here until 9:30 am to post? Because we have been steeling ourselves for a return to 12-hour, six-day working weeks of mid-Victorian times. No social service support, no ability to get a living wage rate for our labour, no affordable health care. Energy prices making the use of ICE cars prohibitive and Beijing-style air quality .

 

My electorate had a 2% increase in Liberal vote. Next time you fly into Camden, from the direction of Bankstown or Parramatta, note the $750,000-per-dwelling slums of the 22nd Century.

OME - It was fortold in the statistics.. I have little idea of the politics involved in this election - who promised what, etc. But I do know that there is a lot of wheeling, dealing and back-room caniving goes on such that whatever was promised is difficult to make happen if it upsets those with real power. If true democracy was at work, Trump wouldhave his wall, Brexit would have happened by now and the Vice Chancellor of Austria would be facing criminal charges.. As would Trump and Bush Jnr. And possibly Howard... My point is, even if Shorten did get uin, would he have been able to achieve everything he wanted?

 

I have skimmed this article (https://www.theage.com.au/federal-election-2019/after-morrison-s-miracle-we-coalition-mps-still-have-lessons-to-learn-20190519-p51oz8.html) and there one one paragraph that particularly stood out:

 

"Day after day, I met or heard from retirees who had calculated what an end to the franking credit refunds would mean for their incomes. Many were genuinely upset they had sought to do the right thing for their retirement and were being castigated as rich retirees expecting a handout. It was these divisive politics of envy that motivated so many to vote against Labor. " This was one reason why I thought Shorten would lose it.. Bob Hawke's mantra and election motto was "Bringing Australia Together" Its one thing snitching at the opposition, but marginalising a whole segment of the electorate - and let's face it - a growing segment and one that we are all destined to - has rarely, if ever won an election.

 

It is time for a change - but that change is not about Labor or LNP; it is about a change in the way we think politics, growth, wealth, etc. It's not about going to socialism or communism - no way.. I call it more caring capitalism - those of us who are fortunate enough to have done very well should have the spoils - the question is proportionality.. what is the difference is someone has $50m, $500m or $5bn to their every day life? I know someone who has been on the BRW Top 200 list a couple of times. Of course he doesn't like tax - who does.. but his motto was always I would rather pay 50% tax on 100m income than 5% tax in onf a 50K income.

 

 

[Methusala]

I think that the sensible side of politics are going to have to learn from the most successful practitioners of politics in Australia. As the Libs have their partners, the Nationals, to take care of a less "sophisticated" rural mob, so the Labor party must align with the Greens.

 

Labor can truly represent the industrial wing while the Greens can pursue the inner city voters. It cannot be denied that the conservatives play politics with ruthless efficiency.

 

 

[old man emu]

In the early part of this conversation, I raised the point of the effect of Millenials on the election. At that time, I queried if the conservatives had alienated the Millenials by opposing and delaying action on same sex marriage. Last night I asked my son, a Millenial, why his generation had not rebelled. His reply was that Millenials were entrepreneurial, looking to establish their own financial stability, so that any threat of increased taxation, increased basic wage levels, or other dickering with the Economy put the wind up their intentions. Basically, the Millenials followed the piper who played the tune of self interest.

 

My son grew up in a one-income family. He saw the way his parents struggled to make ends meet. Last night he was telling his son that he would buy one of these:

 

[ATTACH]50087._xfImport[/ATTACH], It's the glove of Thanos and costs $189.00. And I was going to ask him and his sister to chip in to buy my wife some expensive perfume for he birthday, since I could not raise the necessary myself.

 

[willedoo]

I think that the sensible side of politics are going to have to learn from the most successful practitioners of politics in Australia. As the Libs have their partners, the Nationals, to take care of a less "sophisticated" rural mob, so the Labor party must align with the Greens.Labor can truly represent the industrial wing while the Greens can pursue the inner city voters. It cannot be denied that the conservatives play politics with ruthless efficiency.

Only my opinion, but I think a formal Labor/Green coalition might scare a few voters away. As it stands, Labor gets almost all the Green preference votes, and in a seat where Greens are ahead of Labor, the Greens would likely get the Labor preference votes. They're getting each others votes towards their tally now, so I can't see a formal alliance providing new voters on top of that.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Only my opinion, but I think a formal Labor/Green coalition might scare a few voters away. As it stands, Labor gets almost all the Green preference votes, and in a seat where Greens are ahead of Labor, the Greens would likely get the Labor preference votes. They're getting each others votes towards their tally now, so I can't see a formal alliance providing new voters on top of that.

A labor Greens alliance would scare away a big part of the Labor support base. And even more of the swinging voters who might vote Labor if it had attractive policies and leadership. They despise the Greens.

 

 

[old man emu]

A Labor/Greens alliance would be a marriage of convenience and built on sandy foundations.

 

 

[Yenn]

All the pollsters were tipping a great Labor victory, in a similar way to the USA election where Clinton was assured of victory and the UK Brexit.

 

What is really happening now is that the voters are believing the polls and voting to get their preferred outcome, rather than trying to send a message and relying on others to vote sensibly.

 

We are never going to get good pollies until we change the system. First past the post works for me. Preferential voting just ensures we get the poorest representation possible.

 

 

[Marty_d]

...and similar to the USA and Brexit, common sense went out the window.

 

Unfortunately those who say a Labor/Green alliance may be right - preferences will flow anyway and a formal alliance may turn off voters.

 

Seems we only have 2 centre/left progressive parties and a whole raft of far-right ones. Makes it hard to get anything positive done.

 

 

[old man emu]

Unfortunately, in my electorate, the winning candidate romped home and didn't need preferences. It was good to see a first-timer independent beat the Greens and the Right Wingers by sizable margins to take third place. The 6000 informal votes didn't help anybody.

 

What is really happening now is that the voters are believing the polls and voting to get their preferred outcome,

Indicating that polls are forms of self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

 

[red750]

People are telling the pollsters one thing then voting differently just to stuff up the polls.

 

 

[old man emu]

Another reason for the poll failure may be that pollsters had too many educated people in their samples. People with higher levels of education are probably more likely to respond to surveys than those with lower levels. If there is not a large difference between the attitudes of those with a high level of education, and those without, pollsters will be fine. If there is a big difference, as it appears in this election, pollsters can miss badly. If you sort the seats by two party swing, those seats that swung to Labor tended to be highly educated seats in the cities, while those that swung biggest to the Coalition were regional electorates. It is clear from the results that Morrison had a much better connection with those with a lower degree of educational attainment.

 

This is a shattering defeat for Bill Shorten and Labor. The lesson will be not to take big policies, such as a strong climate change target or abolition of franking credit cash refunds, to an election where they can be mercilessly attacked by the opposition. The next Labor opposition will pursue a “small target” policy. Labor’s defeat is also a disaster for meaningful climate change action. Voters don’t want real action on climate change if it is perceived to cost the economy. The only way the Western world is going to get rid of right-wing governments is if an economic crash occurs that is blamed on right-wing policies, such as Trump’s trade war or a no-deal Brexit.

 

BY Adrian Beaumont

 

Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

 

 

[pmccarthy]

So Lib voters are too dumb to respond? Another interpretation is that the pollsters cannot call mobiles, only land lines, and the Labor voters haven’t realised they don’t need theirs anymore!

 

 

[octave]

I have a hypothesis. Please don't think I am trying to make political points. The perceived headline of each parties campaign could be perhaps summed up this way. One party promising to put more money into hospitals and schools and to tackle future problems but perhaps they won't cut tax and may reduce some benefits vs the other party saying we won't spend more on those things but we will make sure you get a few extra in tax relief. This is an oversimplification but perhaps some people are too embarrassed to tell the pollster that they place there own self-interest above more social orientated goals. To put it more crudely if someone publicly offered me $50 and said you can keep it or help improve education or the health system I would find it hard to say "nope I want the $50" As I say just a hypothesis with no evidence.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Self interest trumped society.

 

I agree polls were swayed by wish but in reality their greed won out.

 

Also the amount of lie ads by Palmer were millions spent to prop up the LNP.

 

I was even getting ads every 10 mins on web, even on Sunday.

 

 

[robinsm]

The politicians won or lost the election, not the polls. Blame who you like for labours defeat, the matter is that they lost the unloosable election. Incompetence comes into play there somewhere. The people of Australia arent stupid, they elect the government, not polsters or self opinionated commentators.

 

 

[Marty_d]

The politicians won or lost the election, not the polls. Blame who you like for labours defeat, the matter is that they lost the unloosable election. Incompetence comes into play there somewhere. The people of Australia arent stupid, they elect the government, not polsters or self opinionated commentators.

Just because the people of Australia elect the government, doesn't mean they're not stupid.

 

 

[spacesailor]

". I'm not sure what the virtues of minority government are, probably not many." Like the Whitlam government !.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[robinsm]

so you are a person of Oz as well...what does that say about your choices...lol.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I was listenting to MMM last night (well Monday morning, Aus time) and with respect to Clive Palmer, I think Eddie McGuire hit the nail on the head. The $60m was an investment in keeping Labor out - whether it had an impact or not, who knows - but it was not about getting him in. Under the guise of him running, he was able to avoid the charge that he was just smearing for business interests, But, with the LNP taking a more lax approach to mining, it is going to be worth a lot more than $60M to him - as far as he is concerned, it is a good investment. I tend to think that may be the better theory...

 

As for the shock win.. history is littered with failed attempts at winning elections on a divisive campaign when one only has a slender margin in the polls and my guess would be that being the less preferred PM, people in the end didn't trust him to do what he said anyway. Combined with an onslaught, and regarldess of how smart or dumb people are, throw enough mud and some of it will stick - it is not suprising that Labor did a Paul Hewson and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

I am using a statistically poor sample, but the two Aussies I work with are pretty well educated and are very happy with the result. As I said, I am not sure of who promised what, but these two blokes are educated although their whole life centres around the economy (well, we all do work in a bank).

 

 

[old man emu]

Of course your work colleagues are happy. Their lives revolve around money. That has been the basis of the LNP strategy - scare the battlers with stories that Labor will rob them blind. The LNP campaign targeted the two bottom levels of the Hierarchy of Needs - the need for food and shelter and the need to feel safe.

 

[ATTACH]50090._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

 

Until those needs are fulfilled, people cannot allocate time and effort to the emotionally driven aspects of life. That's why all political campaigns focus on reducing taxation and controlling spending. If a Party tries to campaign on the more esoteric higher levels of the hierarchy, they are doomed to failure. Voters don’t want real change if it is perceived to cost them money, which is the modern means of meeting the needs of the two bottom levels.

 

I ask why your colleagues chose to leave the land of their birth to travel to another land to satisfy their higher level needs. The answer is that they are disciples of Mammom.

 

[gareth lacey]

Of course your work colleagues are happy. Their lives revolve around money. That has been the basis of the LNP strategy - scare the battlers with stories that Labor will rob them blind. The LNP campaign targeted the two bottom levels of the Hierarchy of Needs - the need for food and shelter and the need to feel safe.

[ATTACH=full]4104[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

Until those needs are fulfilled, people cannot allocate time and effort to the emotionally driven aspects of life. That's why all political campaigns focus on reducing taxation and controlling spending. If a Party tries to campaign on the more esoteric higher levels of the hierarchy, they are doomed to failure. Voters don’t want real change if it is perceived to cost them money, which is the modern means of meeting the needs of the two bottom levels.

 

I ask why your colleagues chose to leave the land of their birth to travel to another land to satisfy their higher level needs. The answer is that they are disciples of Mammom.

Lets all try and live without it money tgat is

 

 

[Methusala]

The LNP have succeeded with the greatest scare campaign that I have witnessed in 50 years' active observation of Aussie politics. The hapless voters, informed as usual by the corporate owned media, have scored an own goal and sentenced Australia to 3 more lost years. Scummo has "won" the election with a policy vacuum and backed by a useless dog's body of cross purposed followers - scarcely cool from his triumph he resorts to battlefield aims such as repealing the "medivac" law. Voters must be educated and they seem to prefer self-inflicted torture to any exercise of thinking.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Lets all try and live without it money tgat is

It'd be a sight easier than living without a livable environment, which the Libs (and obviously a lot of Australians) don't prioritise at all.

 

 

[old man emu]

It's ironic that the Libs were peddling the yarn that Labor in 2020 would put our children and our children's children in debt into the 22nd Century, yet the Libs are prepared to let our children's children try to live on a polluted planet.