Australian Federal Election
-
<p>So, how do we feel about the ALP basically getting free advertising through union funded attack ads on the LNP? I have seen more union advertising than from any other source this election. And they don't appear to be held to account for anything they say. </p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="592136" data-time="1466984090"><p>So, how do we feel about the ALP basically getting free advertising through union funded attack ads on the LNP? I have seen more union advertising than from any other source this election. And they don't appear to be held to account for anything they say.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Speaking of advertising, the Gonski posters that you see at some schools and are around are in green. All finding by the AEU (for the ALP) but it looks like Greens advertising. <br><br>
In the seat of Higgins on the weekend and the Greens were really hammering it. It's safe Liberal territory. Peter Costello held it for eons and Kelly O'Dwyer now holds it still with a good margin. But there are some "green" areas like Prahran and parts of Sth Yarra. The Greens candidate is Jason Ball and he has a bit of profile as a footy player and was an advocate for LGBTI related issues. <br><br>
I don't think they win but it's more a long term strategy of setting a platform for next election. <br><br>
Greens likely to win the seat of Batman off ALP. David Feeney will be wondering how a top 10 ALP held seats in terms of 1st preference votes is basically gone because of his stuff up. -
<p>I think Shorten's message on the Libs and 'selling Medicare' is way off base, and smacks of desperation to me. Hope it hurts him at the ballot box, it's a ridiculous claim.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Think Brexit will help Turnbull, the economic messages will only get louder this week and this plays right into the hands of the Libs.</p> -
I've just watched him get taken to task on his medicare scare campaign. Apparently it's okay to outright lie about the privatisation of medicare if you make your own definition of privatisation.
-
Shorten is coming across like a bit of a fluffybunny actually. No real answers, just "that guy is worse" soundbites and lies.
-
MEDISCARE<br><br>
Shorten is looking quite desperate. More so than I have ever seen from him before in his political and union life. <br><br>
Turnbull is as well but not so much as Billy. <br><br>
Sure there's a huge amount at stake for both, but I think it's catching up to him. <br><br>
Shorten hates losing anything. He literally will say or promise anything to not lose - duh he's a politician you say. But in my experience not all are like that. Some still stick to their principles and actually can say No, it's not currently a priority etc. -
<p>Interesting comment in an editorial by Joe Hildebrand today (he chaired the facebook debate)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"Ultimately we have two sensible, centrist leaders who, in an effort to placate the hard edge of their parties, are obliged to pretend to be at war"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think there is a lot in that. Left freely to lead their own parties in their own manner, i think the two of them would come up with the same (ish) policies. However given the real power in both parties is not actually held by the leaders, we end up with the shit storm of hyperbolic adversarial waffle we currently have masquerading as an election campaign. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Can anybody think of what either party actually stands for, other than being in power?</p> -
<p>Mariner's point is valid - its basically a reflection of the fact that all the screaming and shouting on both sides isn't really over anything that serious.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Its always funny for people to talk about the budget deficit being a thing when we're a nation with a shitload of real estate debt.</p> -
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="592742" data-time="1467158679">
<div>
<p>In that vein - bit of anarchy arising on FB</p>
<p> </p>
<p><img src="http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/public/style_images/master/attachicon.gif" alt="attachicon.gif"><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=2046'>votebox2.jpg</a></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>You'd think if you went to that trouble, you'd know that Federal elections are every three years, not four...</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="592747" data-time="1467160374">
<div>
<p>No. Bill managed to top it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href=''></a></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Is that the one where he was quoting Turnbull, but forgot Malcs was talking about the Labor party? Hilarious</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="592733" data-time="1467156953"><p>
Can anybody think of what either party actually stands for, other than being in power?</p></blockquote>
<br>
I know what they stand for and there is a stark contrast. I'm not talking about rhetoric because they seem to say the same thing "strong economy" "jobs" blah blah. <br><br>
I think that whilst on the surface they might seem centrist, the problem both of the majors have (and it's been going on for years) is that they're too scared to govern in a way that would translate what they really stand for. <br><br>
The Workchoices "boogie man" or the CPRS "no go zone" linger large in what are risk adverse campaigns that have many scratching their heads thinking "ohh it doesn't really matter, life will go on" and cynicism reigns supreme. Small target campaigns are all the craze.... -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="592803" data-time="1467176826">
<div>
<p>I know what they stand for and there is a stark contrast. I'm not talking about rhetoric because they seem to say the same thing "strong economy" "jobs" blah blah.<br><br>
I think that whilst on the surface they might seem centrist, the problem both of the majors have (and it's been going on for years) is that they're too scared to govern in a way that would translate what they really stand for.<br><br>
The Workchoices "boogie man" or the CPRS "no go zone" linger large in what are risk adverse campaigns that have many scratching their heads thinking "ohh it doesn't really matter, life will go on" and cynicism reigns supreme. Small target campaigns are all the craze....</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I know what they traditionally stand for, my questions was more do they stand for that now?</p> -
<p><img src="https://scontent.fmel1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13076742_1122692091085755_1509748980344423768_n.jpg?oh=eadc8bcd979a1252ad9b1906256d6792&oe=57EC7516" alt="13076742_1122692091085755_15097489803444"></p>