2019 Federal Election Thread

 
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
So in this case you'd rather them to break the law and deliver tax cuts without the motion to pass through Parliament?

Do you have any evidence they lied, no zip! Just dribble! You both have been around long enough how such events occur.
Good God, man; I'm not talking about this one isolated instance. I am talking about a lifetime of experience, living in Australia, close to the action, and having seen more broken political promises than you've had hot dinners.
Valvegear
The post wasn't about a global history of broken political promises, it was about the tax cuts planned for this year. Please stay focused!

Sponsored advertisement

  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Maybe.......

The number of senate seats held by each state should be more accurately reflected by the states population???

As I see it, proportionally Senate seat wise, Tasmania should be reduced from 6 to 4 seats, SA and WA should be reduced from 6 to 5 seats. In order to maintain a 40 seat Senate, both Vic and QLD should increase from 6 to 7 seats, and NSW from 6 to 8 seats.

IMHO, this better represents the proportional spread of the country's population AND as such, is a better reflection of influence earned per capita.

To believe otherwise, is to advocate that the more populous states populations opinion, is worth less than those of less populous states.
Respectfully, I submit that it is NOT.

Some may say that's unfair. Really, what's the basis for comparison??? Should we open the can of worms about return of GST revenue????

Regards
davesvline
Agree, but good luck with that. Guess who has to agree to dilute their say in the govt, Tas!

Yes in another 20 years time
- NSW will have 10-15m people, 12 members in the senate, so 1m people per MP
- Tassie will be still lucky to have 100k per member

If the Taswegians and SA's don't agree to dilute their vote, their senators should at least get paid less. Looking at you SHY!
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

Maybe.......

The number of senate seats held by each state should be more accurately reflected by the states population???

As I see it, proportionally Senate seat wise, Tasmania should be reduced from 6 to 4 seats, SA and WA should be reduced from 6 to 5 seats. In order to maintain a 40 seat Senate, both Vic and QLD should increase from 6 to 7 seats, and NSW from 6 to 8 seats.

IMHO, this better represents the proportional spread of the country's population AND as such, is a better reflection of influence earned per capita.

To believe otherwise, is to advocate that the more populous states populations opinion, is worth less than those of less populous states.
Respectfully, I submit that it is NOT.

Some may say that's unfair. Really, what's the basis for comparison??? Should we open the can of worms about return of GST revenue????

Regards
davesvline
To change the representation of states in the Senate would require a 'triple majority' in a constitutional referendum - i.e. a majority of the vote in the whole nation, a majority of the vote in a majority of the states, and a majority of the vote in any state which would be adversely affected.

What else would you propose be included in the deal in order to win support from voters in the states due to lose representation?

In any case, senators end up representing their parties more than their states. Aside from a handful of minor party seats, the total representation from the 2016 election did result in giving the parties roughly fair representation. Of all the constitutional amendments worth considering any time soon, this would certainly not be in the top ten and would be lucky to make it into the top twenty.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
The post wasn't about a global history of broken political promises, it was about the tax cuts planned for this year. Please stay focused!
RTT_Rules
Yes,sir!  
By the way, when were you made a Moderator?
It may come as a ghastly shock to you to realise that not every post needs to pertain to one that you have made. The  thread is entitled 2019 Federal Election, and I, and others, will post opinions which are apposite. Please understand that you, like all of us, are a little frond in a big pond. Feel free to post your opinions, but stick your instructions somewhere uncomfortable.
  Transtopic Assistant Commissioner

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 gearing
No, 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.
Aaron
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.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

Any disenfranchisement debate should consider the fact that The Greens get 10% of the vote yet only have 1 seat in the House of Reps, whereas the Nationals get 5% of the vote and have 16 seats in the House of Reps, including ministries or shadow ministries. It is what it is.

None of the above, repeat none, should be interpreted as support for The Greens (or Barnaby Joyce).
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

Tony Abbott came into government with 90 seats, an increase of 18.  ....................................
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

Any disenfranchisement debate should consider the fact that The Greens get 10% of the vote yet only have 1 seat in the House of Reps, whereas the Nationals get 5% of the vote and have 16 seats in the House of Reps, including ministries or shadow ministries. It is what it is.

None of the above, repeat none, should be interpreted as support for The Greens (or Barnaby Joyce).
kitchgp
The Greens make up for it by their over-representation in the Senate.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

That's their point. Introduce the above suggested Senate voting, or something similar, into the House Of Reps.

PS: They only have 9 seats in the Senate. 10% of the 76 Senate seats = 7.6.
  Transtopic Assistant Commissioner

To change the representation of states in the Senate would require a 'triple majority' in a constitutional referendum - i.e. a majority of the vote in the whole nation, a majority of the vote in a majority of the states, and a majority of the vote in any state which would be adversely affected.

What else would you propose be included in the deal in order to win support from voters in the states due to lose representation?

In any case, senators end up representing their parties more than their states. Aside from a handful of minor party seats, the total representation from the 2016 election did result in giving the parties roughly fair representation. Of all the constitutional amendments worth considering any time soon, this would certainly not be in the top ten and would be lucky to make it into the top twenty.
justapassenger
I agree.  I can't understand why this issue has even been raised.  It's of no consequence, unless you want to blow up the concept of the Commonwealth.  It's just not going to happen.  Let's not forget that the original concept of the Senate was for each then Colonial State to have equal representation to balance the proportional representation in the House of Representatives favouring the larger States.  This was an essential prerequisite to get the smaller States on board.  It's no different today and is not even worth discussing.
  Transtopic Assistant Commissioner

Tony Abbott came into government with 90 seats, an increase of 18.  ....................................
kitchgp
That was a landslide!
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
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 gearing
No, 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.
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.
Transtopic
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.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
The post wasn't about a global history of broken political promises, it was about the tax cuts planned for this year. Please stay focused!
Yes,sir!  
By the way, when were you made a Moderator?
It may come as a ghastly shock to you to realise that not every post needs to pertain to one that you have made. The  thread is entitled 2019 Federal Election, and I, and others, will post opinions which are apposite. Please understand that you, like all of us, are a little frond in a big pond. Feel free to post your opinions, but stick your instructions somewhere uncomfortable.
Valvegear
Oh come on, you've done this before and failed.

One person says something
I respond on topic
You go 100milies in the other direction
I remind you thats not what I was talking about
Then come with crap like about
You then continue to harp about god knows what for reasons only know to those who reside inside Valveland while never actually responding to my original comment (because doesn't suit, you cannot remember, whatever).

Yes, topics diverge away from the original topic, but critising someones post on one topic as if they wrote on something completely different is a bit, mmm.....

So, whatever!
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

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.
Aaron
I'd say that backslide is the word you're looking for Wink

Shorten's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is something we've not witnessed since Hewson in 1993.
Aaron
Add that to his previous history of orchestrating the knifings of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, and it's plain to see why the ALP needs to do whatever it can to get Shorten out of the parliament before the year is out.

They probably need to go a step further and PNG him from public involvement with the party like the Libs did to Hewson, at least for a couple of election cycles to avoid a repeat of the Kevin Rudd catastrophe and give whoever comes next a clear run for a while.

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?
Aaron
Any swing to an incumbent government at any time needs to be taken seriously in Australia, as the general tendency in Australia is for governments to win office with a large swing and gradually lose ground at each election after that until they are eventually wiped out.

I wonder, though, whether the size of the swing (now +0.92% as counting of pre-poll and declaration votes has progressed) is an indicator that Australian politics has become further polarised, leaving a smaller middle ground which can be contested by both parties? The last time there was a swing of less than 1% in either direction was ten elections ago in 1990.
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
1990 had a small swing away from Hawke to Peacock, but prior to 1993 the previous swing to an incumbent government was in 1966 - that might not be entirely true, it was a very quick look, but it was certainly a significant swing at nearly 5% 2PP.

I didn’t realise Holt was quite that popular. Maybe the KGB had some influence...
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Oh come on, you've done this before and failed.

One person says something

I respond on topic

You go 100milies in the other direction

I remind you thats not what I was talking about

Then come with crap like about

You then continue to harp about god knows what for reasons only know to those who reside inside Valveland while never actually responding to my original comment (because doesn't suit, you cannot remember, whatever).

Yes, topics diverge away from the original topic, but critising someones post on one topic as if they wrote on something completely different is a bit, mmm.....

So, whatever!
RTT_Rules


Son; if you want to throw your weight around, go and do it with your Arab slaves in Dubai instead of trying it here. Thoughts and opinions are frequently inspired by one post and lead to another thought being posted.  Either learn to live with it, or start your own forum with your own rules.
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Arab slaves in Dubai? Ever been there? The slaves in Dubai are the expats not the arabs mate.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Albo will not be challenged for the leadership of the ALP.  He is the only applicant.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
Maybe this presumptuous lot should be subject to the efficiency dividend??

Who the hell does the ABC think it is, and what they provide for the money the suck out of the taxpayer ??

Maybe the "we're selling it" story needs to be floated. That ought to have these turds stop looking the gift horse in the mouth.

IIRC reading somewhere, Defence is the only other department that's fought and won some of its arguments for funding freezes or increases as opposed to a cut like many other departments.

Perhaps it's timely to remind the ABC of its effing place amoungst others with their hands out from the public purse, AND this high and mighty view they seem to have on entitlement that makes them more worthy than other recipients.

I'd actually like a breakdown of where they spend the coin. IMHO, as a taxpayer, we're entitled to know.


Regards
davesvline

I'm so over people whinging about the ABC Exclamation

Have a look at the ABC's Annual Report for further information...

It's usually the same right wingers who only watch commercial TV, never watch ABC programs nor listen to ABC radio and because THEY prefer to watch the lower quality offerings on the commercial stations or programs the ABC cannot afford they think what's the ABC in existence for Question

They are never convinced the numerous enquiries (Hanson's last one a few months ago)into alleged ABC bias are a myth and it's only because the ABC audience is generally on the land rural, or for those living in the cities, better informed and educated and have a low tolerance for most of the commercial offerings.

If you don't want to contribute to the ABC...bad luck. You also contribute to childcare, medicare, education, infrastructure, defence, social security etc. even though you may not be a direct benefactor of these services...quality, government funded programming, information and education through the ABC is a basic component of these essential services.

Mike.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
It looks like lies to me and isn't a very good start for this new government.
I think it's pretty obvious that all politicians, as soon as they are elected, believe that they have a God-given right to lie through their teeth.
Valvegear

I must emphasise here...NOT the Victorian Andrews government, which has set a very high benchmark for maintaining honesty in government.

Mike.
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

Maybe this presumptuous lot should be subject to the efficiency dividend??

Who the hell does the ABC think it is, and what they provide for the money the suck out of the taxpayer ??

Maybe the "we're selling it" story needs to be floated. That ought to have these turds stop looking the gift horse in the mouth.

IIRC reading somewhere, Defence is the only other department that's fought and won some of its arguments for funding freezes or increases as opposed to a cut like many other departments.

Perhaps it's timely to remind the ABC of its effing place amoungst others with their hands out from the public purse, AND this high and mighty view they seem to have on entitlement that makes them more worthy than other recipients.

I'd actually like a breakdown of where they spend the coin. IMHO, as a taxpayer, we're entitled to know.


Regards

I'm so over people whinging about the ABC Exclamation

Have a look at the ABC's Annual Report for further information...

It's usually the same right wingers who only watch commercial TV, never watch ABC programs nor listen to ABC radio and because THEY prefer to watch the lower quality offerings on the commercial stations or programs the ABC cannot afford they think what's the ABC in existence for Question

They are never convinced the numerous enquiries (Hanson's last one a few months ago)into alleged ABC bias are a myth and it's only because the ABC audience is generally on the land rural, or for those living in the cities, better informed and educated and have a low tolerance for most of the commercial offerings.

If you don't want to contribute to the ABC...bad luck. You also contribute to childcare, medicare, education, infrastructure, defence, social security etc. even though you may not be a direct benefactor of these services...quality, government funded programming, information and education through the ABC is a basic component of these essential services.

Mike.
The Vinelander
My kids would be very upset if ABC Kids was axed.  I like listening to the rural programs too, and they have a lot of good stuff on their website and RN that you'll never see on a commercial media site.

That said, I can't watch Q&A anymore and I'm sometimes a bit cheesed off with their inner-city echo chamber bias out of Ultimo.  And don't get me started about SBS.  That station seems to have forgotten its charter and the first letter no longer means "Special" but rather something else....
  Dangersdan707 Chief Commissioner

Location: On a Thing with Internet
Maybe this presumptuous lot should be subject to the efficiency dividend??

Who the hell does the ABC think it is, and what they provide for the money the suck out of the taxpayer ??

Maybe the "we're selling it" story needs to be floated. That ought to have these turds stop looking the gift horse in the mouth.

IIRC reading somewhere, Defence is the only other department that's fought and won some of its arguments for funding freezes or increases as opposed to a cut like many other departments.

Perhaps it's timely to remind the ABC of its effing place amoungst others with their hands out from the public purse, AND this high and mighty view they seem to have on entitlement that makes them more worthy than other recipients.

I'd actually like a breakdown of where they spend the coin. IMHO, as a taxpayer, we're entitled to know.


Regards

I'm so over people whinging about the ABC Exclamation

Have a look at the ABC's Annual Report for further information...

It's usually the same right wingers who only watch commercial TV, never watch ABC programs nor listen to ABC radio and because THEY prefer to watch the lower quality offerings on the commercial stations or programs the ABC cannot afford they think what's the ABC in existence for Question

They are never convinced the numerous enquiries (Hanson's last one a few months ago)into alleged ABC bias are a myth and it's only because the ABC audience is generally on the land rural, or for those living in the cities, better informed and educated and have a low tolerance for most of the commercial offerings.

If you don't want to contribute to the ABC...bad luck. You also contribute to childcare, medicare, education, infrastructure, defence, social security etc. even though you may not be a direct benefactor of these services...quality, government funded programming, information and education through the ABC is a basic component of these essential services.

Mike.
My kids would be very upset if ABC Kids was axed.  I like listening to the rural programs too, and they have a lot of good stuff on their website and RN that you'll never see on a commercial media site.

That said, I can't watch Q&A anymore and I'm sometimes a bit cheesed off with their inner-city echo chamber bias out of Ultimo.  And don't get me started about SBS.  That station seems to have forgotten its charter and the first letter no longer means "Special" but rather something else....
Carnot
Yeh, I was Annoyed when ABC 2 was transformed from the weird Documentary/Alternative channel that had a lot of interesting stuff like Louis Thourux Documentries and weird stuff about Drugs and the internet, into a smeg comedy channel.

SBS barely plays anything a foreign languages anymore with the acceptation of the morning International News Broadcasts and the occasional Replay of Downfall. It has lost its way.don get me started on SBS Viceland...
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Sex Tape is playing on the SBS at the moment which is definitely a foreign made show. Smile
  Groundrelay Chief Commissioner

Location: Surrounded by Trolls!
Safe to assume Albo will be the next Labor Leader. The 'o' bloke v 'o' bloke Laughing

Predictably the public service is set to be squeezed because there's got to be more blood left there. If they try hard enough we could end up with just contractors and consultants, i.e. perfect Liberal Party socialism.

Now if global trade keeps on declining, if interest rates hit rock bottom, if wages do nothing, if the housing market remains lethargic, (and no rain), ScoMo will need a few more miracles.
  Dangersdan707 Chief Commissioner

Location: On a Thing with Internet
Sex Tape is playing on the SBS at the moment which is definitely a foreign made show. Smile
bevans
What language is it in?

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: