Hardly a convincing response. You're entitled to your opinions as much as I am mine, but don't serve up that crap about it being a "landslide" win for the LNP. Less than a 1% swing is irrelevant in the scheme of things. I'm not disputing the result and the right of the LNP to govern, but merely suggesting some reasons why Labor failed and where they could have done better. Your dismissive condescending attitude just demonstrates how biased you are and your opinions should be treated accordingly. It is now up to the LNP to demonstrate that they can meet the challenges facing the country over the next three years in both environmental and fiscal terms. With no vision for the future, other than maintaining the status quo, I have my doubts. See you in three years.
Let's get a grip here. It was hardly an overwhelming endorsement of the LNP in spite of the unexpected result. They are only likely to marginally improve their position on the 2016 election. The reality is that the electorate is evenly split between the two major parties. Both suffered a reduction in their primary vote. It wasn't a landslide as some would like to make out.It's a lot more of a coalition endorsement than it is an ALP one! A coalition marginal increase of two seats, and 0.7% 2PP overall swing to them is significantly better than the ALP who will be returning to Parliament house with a net loss of two seats, and a -0.7% 2PP swing to their credit.
Both suffered a nett loss in primary vote, but Labor suffered worse and The Greens went backwards too, and at least LNP, Nationals and Country Liberals all had a nett increase in primary vote.
It was a landslide of sorts, just not the type you're used to seeing. Many thought the ALP would win buy up to 10 seats (some by more), not entirely unreasonable thoughts given the polling, yet they end up at -2 seats - it's a backwards landslide.
In hindsight, I think Labor failed in not grandfathering their franking credits policy, similar to their policy on negative gearingNo, it was just a rubbish policy. Labor failed to keep a dumb idea consigned to the bin of dumb ideas, instead somehow letting it escape into the open. Their negative gearing policy was equally silly.
Lots of Australians are not in the position to be paid dividends on shares or negatively gear property, but the idea of changing those rules was never going to have mass appeal. Why? Because although almost to a person, Australians hate rich people and the financial breaks they get, but 'taxing' these breaks is seldom as popular as Labor or The Greens or the other communist groups would like. Why? Because almost all those same people that are not in the position to receive share dividends or own multiple properties aspire to one day have those things, and they don't want to be taxed on it then.
'Grandfathering' it is even worse! Why vote today to not tax someone already getting it, so that one day when I get it I have to pay? How dumb do you want your voters to be?
they failed to communicate effectively with the coal mining communities in both Qld and NSW in providing a policy for maintaining employment in transitioning from the a fossil fuel economy to renewables.They communicated with these people perfectly well! These are the exact people I mention above likely to be in the position (maybe even now) in the future to receive those things that the ALP wanted to tax or otherwise change the rules on. The people in those communities were communicated to and understood very well, precisely why the ALP didn't get nary a seat there.
The re-elected LNP is sooner or later going to have to face up to the reality that the continued drain on the budget because of middle class welfare, such as negative gearing and franking credits refunds, is no longer sustainable if it wants to maintain services which the community expects. They drag up the old chestnut of cutting the public service to balance the budget, but that will soon translate into public anger that the level of services deteriorates. They are bereft of any vision for reform in the future other than maintaining the status quo. Let's see how that pans out in the next three years.I suspect the 'middle class welfare' as you call it will be well kept, it's the middle class that won the election, mostly because all Labor could do was tell those middle class how tough they'd make it for them if they were elected.
I said it was a reverse landslide. We have a government that I do not think was seriously considering the possibility of being reelected achieving an increased majority.
When you are thinking you are going to get potentially double digit gains in seats, and multiple percent 2PP vote increases and you come away with a nett loss in both seats and primary vote, you have the antithesis of a landslide. Hence why in the context of the ALP's perspective I called it a backwards landslide, and not a landslide for the LNP. Shorten's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is something we've not witnessed since Hewson in 1993.
In the context of this election, and the period since the previous election ANY positive swing to the incumbent government was always going to be hugely relevant to the scheme of things (NB this was also the case in 1993 and was equally relevant to the time). If the swing to the LNP is so irrelevant, why is it still being spoken about?
I am not biased in this election, I didn't vote for anyone, I have not voted in any election since 2007 election. I found the entire proceedings of this election spectacularly inane.
I have always been a keen observer of the numbers and statistics in elections, I follow the US presidential elections for the same single reason, they're numerically interesting. I am completely amazed at the way this election turned out, and I am going to actually have to partially rekindle my 'friendships' within both the Liberal and Labor party so that I can see some more comprehensive data.