-
@rotated said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
Whoever ran their campaign needs to understand that bleeding an inner-city seat or two to the Greens is fine when you chase the middle and earn another 10-20 seats everywhere else.
Two things:
They can't bleed their senate vote to the Greens, particularly under the new system.
Unfortunately those 1 or 2 inner city seats often must be saved as traditionally high ranking members come from those types of seats. Defending Kooyong was a non-negotiable for the Coalition as losing the sitting treasurer was unacceptable.
This could be an issue if Albanesi becomes leader. His seat is very close to going Green and he's in danger of losing it if he doesn't pander to those voters. What can he actually do with the party as a whole then when he's toast if they shift right?
Another example is Malcolm Turnbull. With a "purple" electorate, his policies were at odds with both the party and voters outside of Wentworth who weren't driving Porshe Cayans.
In other words it's a major risk having a leader in a marginal electorate, particularly if the population of said electorate is very different to the nation as a whole.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Politics:
Waleed Aly had a decent piece in NYT about the election, basically along the lines of: Morrison & Co were right; people don't feel threatened enough for an actual change.
Why do you read anything that wånk stain writes? Bet he managed to insert a reference to Christchurch as well. The guy is scum.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
This could be an issue if Albanesi becomes leader. His seat is very close to going Green and he's in danger of losing it if he doesn't pander to those voters. What can he actually do with the party as a whole then when he's toast if they shift right?
You must be thinking of another Albanese - he wins his seat on first preferences. Grayndler is as safe as it gets.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
Why do you read anything that wånk stain writes? Bet he managed to insert a reference to Christchurch as well. The guy is scum.
Well I kind of expected that response as you're clearly not a fan of his. And yes, there was a reference to Christchurch which I'm sure you'll find distasteful, but makes sense when you consider he's arguing this election wasn't like Trump, Brexit, or other "right-wing" campaigns in recent times. It is a useful quote in that context:
MELBOURNE, Australia — Ahead of Australia’s general election on Saturday, one party had campaigned on the idea that politics and the economy were rigged in favor of the elites. It attacked its opponent relentlessly for siding with the “top end of town.” It insisted that things needed to be shaken up to stop serving multinational corporations and vested interests. That party lost.
The results were surprising. The center-right coalition, led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, remained in power against the opposition Labor party, which had led in every poll for years. But aside from being an upset, the election here shared little in common with Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, the Brexit referendum or other populist insurgencies around the world.
This was a campaign in which the politics of race, xenophobia and immigration played almost no part. (That’s probably because of the atmosphere after terrorist attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand, in March.) There was nothing in Mr. Morrison’s election pitch, perhaps other than continued support for coal mining, that seemed particularly aimed at rousing right-wing voters. Even on climate change, a major election issue on which there was some distance between the parties, Mr. Morrison argued his party was acting sufficiently — not dismissing it as some elite conspiracy. No, the lesson from Australia’s election isn’t that this country is right-wing but that it’s conservative — as in cautious.
There is a quote widely attributed to Bruce Lee that states “Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own.”
Therefore, I find it useful to read multiple sources in forming my own opinion. On social media I follow a fairly broad section of the middle, excluding the militant end of the Greens and the Nazis. Sometimes it results in a circular argument, sometimes it results in a useful point being made. Minds may not necessariy be changed, but consideration is useful.
If you're going to simply reject something because of the messenger, then you're going to miss bits that might be useful.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
Why do you read anything that wånk stain writes? Bet he managed to insert a reference to Christchurch as well. The guy is scum.
Well I kind of expected that response as you're clearly not a fan of his. And yes, there was a reference to Christchurch which I'm sure you'll find distasteful, but makes sense when you consider he's arguing this election wasn't like Trump, Brexit, or other "right-wing" campaigns in recent times. It is a useful quote in that context:
MELBOURNE, Australia — Ahead of Australia’s general election on Saturday, one party had campaigned on the idea that politics and the economy were rigged in favor of the elites. It attacked its opponent relentlessly for siding with the “top end of town.” It insisted that things needed to be shaken up to stop serving multinational corporations and vested interests. That party lost.
The results were surprising. The center-right coalition, led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, remained in power against the opposition Labor party, which had led in every poll for years. But aside from being an upset, the election here shared little in common with Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, the Brexit referendum or other populist insurgencies around the world.
This was a campaign in which the politics of race, xenophobia and immigration played almost no part. (That’s probably because of the atmosphere after terrorist attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand, in March.) There was nothing in Mr. Morrison’s election pitch, perhaps other than continued support for coal mining, that seemed particularly aimed at rousing right-wing voters. Even on climate change, a major election issue on which there was some distance between the parties, Mr. Morrison argued his party was acting sufficiently — not dismissing it as some elite conspiracy. No, the lesson from Australia’s election isn’t that this country is right-wing but that it’s conservative — as in cautious.
There is a quote widely attributed to Bruce Lee that states “Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own.”
Therefore, I find it useful to read multiple sources in forming my own opinion. On social media I follow a fairly broad section of the middle, excluding the militant end of the Greens and the Nazis. Sometimes it results in a circular argument, sometimes it results in a useful point being made. Minds may not necessariy be changed, but consideration is useful.
If you're going to simply reject something because of the messenger, then you're going to miss bits that might be useful.
Interesting take . He’s still human garbage though
-
@jegga said in Aussie Politics:
Interesting take . He’s still human garbage though
Off Topic: Have you seen him on Offsiders? I didn't realise he was such a passionate footy fan. Also brings a legal angle to it. You can not like someone but still respect what they say.
He's a Melbourne Storm fan though, so defo human garbage.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
Why do you read anything that wånk stain writes? Bet he managed to insert a reference to Christchurch as well. The guy is scum.
Well I kind of expected that response as you're clearly not a fan of his. And yes, there was a reference to Christchurch which I'm sure you'll find distasteful, but makes sense when you consider he's arguing this election wasn't like Trump, Brexit, or other "right-wing" campaigns in recent times. It is a useful quote in that context:
MELBOURNE, Australia — Ahead of Australia’s general election on Saturday, one party had campaigned on the idea that politics and the economy were rigged in favor of the elites. It attacked its opponent relentlessly for siding with the “top end of town.” It insisted that things needed to be shaken up to stop serving multinational corporations and vested interests. That party lost.
The results were surprising. The center-right coalition, led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, remained in power against the opposition Labor party, which had led in every poll for years. But aside from being an upset, the election here shared little in common with Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, the Brexit referendum or other populist insurgencies around the world.
This was a campaign in which the politics of race, xenophobia and immigration played almost no part. (That’s probably because of the atmosphere after terrorist attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand, in March.) There was nothing in Mr. Morrison’s election pitch, perhaps other than continued support for coal mining, that seemed particularly aimed at rousing right-wing voters. Even on climate change, a major election issue on which there was some distance between the parties, Mr. Morrison argued his party was acting sufficiently — not dismissing it as some elite conspiracy. No, the lesson from Australia’s election isn’t that this country is right-wing but that it’s conservative — as in cautious.
There is a quote widely attributed to Bruce Lee that states “Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own.”
Therefore, I find it useful to read multiple sources in forming my own opinion. On social media I follow a fairly broad section of the middle, excluding the militant end of the Greens and the Nazis. Sometimes it results in a circular argument, sometimes it results in a useful point being made. Minds may not necessariy be changed, but consideration is useful.
If you're going to simply reject something because of the messenger, then you're going to miss bits that might be useful.
I read plenty of different sources. For instance, I read online Norwegian content each day and that would be left of the ABC on many occasions. But I don't see any value in reading anything written by Squalid, in the same way as I wouldn't read anything by Pauline Hanson or Fraser Anning.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
This could be an issue if Albanesi becomes leader. His seat is very close to going Green and he's in danger of losing it if he doesn't pander to those voters. What can he actually do with the party as a whole then when he's toast if they shift right?
You must be thinking of another Albanese - he wins his seat on first preferences. Grayndler is as safe as it gets.
Hmmm, fair enough. I recall there being a scare in 2013 that he might be in trouble but he seems safe enough. But it is a Greenish seat and what Labor don't need right now is a move to the left.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
Hmmm, fair enough. I recall there being a scare in 2013 that he might be in trouble but he seems safe enough. But it is a Greenish seat and what Labor don't need right now is a move to the left.
You are right 2PP in the seat is Labor vs Greens (albeit barely). Greens have consistently polled between 15-25%, that is extremely fertile ground to work from.
-
@rotated said in Aussie Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
Hmmm, fair enough. I recall there being a scare in 2013 that he might be in trouble but he seems safe enough. But it is a Greenish seat and what Labor don't need right now is a move to the left.
You are right 2PP in the seat is Labor vs Greens (albeit barely). Greens have consistently polled between 15-25%, that is extremely fertile ground to work from.
The Greens candidate in Grayndler has gone backwards in every election since 2010. Despite their campaign, Albanese secured a swing of more than fiver per cent. As PM he'd have an even larger profile.
-
I think putting the election result down to a single issue is a bit silly. As is the idea that Morrison swept to power and Shorten was soundly rejected by the electorate.
The margin in this election was still relatively fine. Morrison has a very slim majority. And I'd argue that Labor actually lost this election in northern Tasmania and Victoria. Queensland was always going to be a shit show for them (although nobody thought it would be bad enough to lose Longman and be in trouble in Lilley).
What was interesting was the seats that Labor should have held/picked up down south - losing Bass and Braddon, and failing to win Chisolm, La Trobe, and pick up a slightly safer Lib seat like Flinders or Deakin. A difference of just five seats takes Morrison back to 73, and Labor up to 72 where they stand a realistic shot at forming power.
It's easy enough to look at Queensland and bring it back to mining, climate, tax etc. But Victoria? This is the state that elected Dan Andrews in a landslide. Climate was clearly an issue on the agenda, and yet the Liberals held seats they were predicted to lose.
I don't think there is one answer as to why that happened, but I think taxation and the economy was higher on the list than climate in driving Victorian votes, and probably northern Tassie too.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Politics:
I think putting the election result down to a single issue is a bit silly. As is the idea that Morrison swept to power and Shorten was soundly rejected by the electorate.
The margin in this election was still relatively fine. Morrison has a very slim majority. And I'd argue that Labor actually lost this election in northern Tasmania and Victoria. Queensland was always going to be a shit show for them (although nobody thought it would be bad enough to lose Longman and be in trouble in Lilley).
What was interesting was the seats that Labor should have held/picked up down south - losing Bass and Braddon, and failing to win Chisolm, La Trobe, and pick up a slightly safer Lib seat like Flinders or Deakin. A difference of just five seats takes Morrison back to 73, and Labor up to 72 where they stand a realistic shot at forming power.
It's easy enough to look at Queensland and bring it back to mining, climate, tax etc. But Victoria? This is the state that elected Dan Andrews in a landslide. Climate was clearly an issue on the agenda, and yet the Liberals held seats they were predicted to lose.
I don't think there is one answer as to why that happened, but I think taxation and the economy was higher on the list than climate in driving Victorian votes, and probably northern Tassie too.
But was Andrews elected because of climate or because a shit load is being done in Victoria at the moment? For all his faults my understanding is that he has kicked off a heap of projects and the wheels are turning nicely. Cranes and construction everywhere are always a good look. Makes people think that things are getting accomplished.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
But was Andrews elected because of climate or because a shit load is being done in Victoria at the moment? For all his faults my understanding is that he has kicked off a heap of projects and the wheels are turning nicely. Cranes and construction everywhere are always a good look. Makes people think that things are getting accomplished.
Oh of course there were a lot of factors at play there too. But Andrews, I'd wager, is the most left-wing leader in this country by a margin. He's very vocal in his views on climate, LGBT rights, etc.
-
Additionally: Andrews survived a period in which a coal shutdown happened at Hazelwood, and it wasn't exactly a just transition (5 months). According to Victorians I know, the bloke leading the other side was seen as a bit of a fluffybunny, as well as the infighting in State Lib ranks.
@barbarian said in Aussie Politics:
nobody thought it would be bad enough to lose Longman
They only held it by 0.8% after a 7.7% swing to ALP last time.
@barbarian said in Aussie Politics:
The margin in this election was still relatively fine.
81.5% counted at this point with totals as:
Coalition: 5,291,757
Labor: 4,255,694
Greens: 1,248,527
Others: 1,862,323 (I think)
Informal: 724,708
TOTAL: 13,383,009That's a fair whack of informals.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Politics:
Coalition: 5,291,757
Labor: 4,255,694
Greens: 1,248,527WTF is wrong with people? I wonder how many of those are protest votes vs those who are spastics.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
But was Andrews elected because of climate or because a shit load is being done in Victoria at the moment? For all his faults my understanding is that he has kicked off a heap of projects and the wheels are turning nicely. Cranes and construction everywhere are always a good look. Makes people think that things are getting accomplished.
Oh of course there were a lot of factors at play there too. But Andrews, I'd wager, is the most left-wing leader in this country by a margin. He's very vocal in his views on climate, LGBT rights, etc.
For sure, but Victoria is pretty left-wing isn't it? Actually while Labor obviously have a Qld problem, the Libs appear to have a Victoria problem. Not much blue there.
As an aside it was great to see Julia Banks humiliated. Would be difficult to find a more self entitled cry-baby in politics. Awesome captain's pick there Malcolm.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Politics:
For sure, but Victoria is pretty left-wing isn't it?
Yeah I suppose that's my point in a way, trying to counter the idea that Labor were killed by their approach to climate change.
If that was the central election issue, I would have expected a much better result for them in Victoria than what they achieved, given the way that state generally leans.
The fact they didn't swing wildly to Labor illustrates to me that economic factors may have been more prominent there.
-
When you're an attention seeking fluffybunny drowning in self pity and hyperbole
-
@antipodean it's extremely doubtful there were any blokes that would have happily had a beer with an insufferable twat like that anyway so I don't think his life is going to change much.
Aussie Politics