|
Post by Yassir Rebob on Feb 23, 2016 22:10:03 GMT 10
Yassir, I've conceded that the landslide is off the table. Labor would even have a remote chance of winning ... and yet ... and yet ... one thing is holding them back. You're about a week late in your thinking, Shorten has Turnbulls measure now, just look at Turnbulls rapid unhinging. Policies will, at last, determine the election.
|
|
|
Post by Yassir Rebob on Feb 24, 2016 9:46:55 GMT 10
Sadly, the PM's huge popularity lead will determine the election result. No it wont. He is floundering big time. Remember how much his popularity tanked as oppo during ute-gate.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 26, 2016 15:21:32 GMT 10
He never will be missed ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2016 17:22:21 GMT 10
Next Pyne and Roy boy...Morrison the hapless hopeless treasurer...??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2016 20:03:04 GMT 10
1983 Malcolm Fraser hand over to Labor, and economy ranked 20th in the world.
!996 Paul Keating hand over to Liberal an economy ranked 6th in the world.
2007 John Howard and Liberal hand back an economy that has slipped back to 10th place in the world.
2013 Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd hand back to the Liberal Party, the best performing economy in the world.
Does this narrow it down for you...??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2016 20:55:41 GMT 10
In 1996 - Paul Keating's Labor Government handed John Howard and the Liberal Party an economy ranked 6th in the world.
The tax system had been overhauled, the public service had been trimmed to size and the budget returned to structural surplus after decades of deficits.
In 2007 - Eleven and a half years later, John Howard's Liberal Coalition government left Australia with negligent investment in education, health, infrastructure, and productivity, multiple structural deficiencies in the budget, a miserable $44 billion worth of net assets, and a global economic rating that had slipped back to 10th place.
And this is the man Malcolm Turnbull turns to for tax advice?
Between 2004 and 2007, the mining boom and a robust economy added $334 billion to the budget surplus. Of this , the Howard Government had spent, or gave away in tax cuts $314 billion, or 94%.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2016 21:15:48 GMT 10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2016 21:32:07 GMT 10
While Turnbull fails to deliver any policy direction, deranged Abbott is rewriting history declaring his 2014 budget (which cut the dole to anyone under 30 for 6 months) is a "badge of honour" was "fundamentally fair" and would have won him the next election.
Abbott also insist he and Hockey "had been careful not to break any promises".
The same treacherous idiot who sold Australia out with the China Free Trade Agreement has just abused China for not sharing Australia's "values" .
Tony Abbott warns South China Sea stability at risk, takes swipe at 'values' of communist nation.
www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-26/tony-abbott-lashes-china-for-not-sharing-australia-values/7204258
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 10, 2016 11:20:44 GMT 10
Hmmm Ponto posts a series of c & p's (this is now effectively the cut & paste board so I bow to the creeping illiteracy. At least they were all text and germane to the thread so credit where credit is due) and Yorick responds with the inevitable cartoon. Which is a pity because it's been a constant refrain of Yorick that Turnbull is cruising towards an inevitable election win while Shorten Labor is languishing, in fact bouncing along the bottom. If that is the case, and I don't for a moment accept that it is, why are the Liberals busily sandbagging seats in every state? They're sandbagging like buggery in SA and pork barreling like mad to save Pyne, and also in Qld where they stand to lose seats - even to the point of replicating Gillard's stunt of drafting a former Premier. It may work for them. I still reckon the election is Turnbull's to lose. But they're not talking in terms of taking Labor seats, just sandbagging the ones they think they can hold. Sounds like a government on the defensive in an election year to me.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 10, 2016 11:43:49 GMT 10
No response to the post - mind you Yorick was good enough to copy & paste my post complete with text so thanks are in order. But he never responds to an argument or an analysis of issues. Not ever. Pity. He used to. All he can do these days is post pikkies. And make no mistake, the critiques I post contain no personal attacks. Just issues. Ignore the inevitable cut & paste pikkie which he will pretend is a "response". It'll just further confirm my point.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 10, 2016 11:46:00 GMT 10
QED
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 10, 2016 11:50:20 GMT 10
I never thought I'd be able to sneer in Latin. Woo hoo!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 10, 2016 12:32:52 GMT 10
Text! Yorick actually responded in text! Original! Sentences with verbs 'n' everything! I'm just too excited even to think about Yorick's sneer (ah yes, gentle reader!) that I should leave the board and consort with the likes of Matt & Skippy
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 10, 2016 14:19:57 GMT 10
Text, sentences with pronouns, verbs, nouns, subject, predicate - even propositional phrases and subordinate clauses!! A tour de force, Yorick. Yea, verily and in sooth you surpass yourself. (Pim stands and solemnly applauds Yorick's erudition). But Yorick you forget one thing in your on-board hubris which has only been matched in my experience by the egregious and appalling Jockstrap: I go where I please and post where I please with no reference to you. Tu comprends? Non? Tant pis!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 10, 2016 15:31:21 GMT 10
Sneer? You call that a sneer? You devalue the word, Yorick. If you fear my sneer then indeed and forsooth beware my sneer, for I have not yet begun to sneer!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2016 18:50:25 GMT 10
As it happens to be Capt' Sneero my earlier informative facts post's were copied but simply typed and not pasted as unable to C&P from the original image, and as an attachment the image was too small to read. And so what if someone wants to C&P an article or cartoon or facts, in fact a quick squiz at one of Yorick's cartoons can be informative as to what is happening in the news, that one may have missed seeing or reading about. The board is not what it was with debate and so has turned into an expression board of peoples opinion or interest shown in a C&P....get used it as you yourself will often C&P an article......and besides you don't need to be known as Capt' Sneero... And not all of us have given up on Labor....
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 10, 2016 20:31:59 GMT 10
Have I given up on Labor? Did I say I had? Oh gawd you're not getting into that telling porkies thing again are ya?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2016 21:17:40 GMT 10
I don't tell porkies....and the reference to giving up on Labor wasn't about you more the fact that I (along with Yassir) had not given up on Labor's chances, we have been consistent Labor can turn it around albeit Shorto needs to improve on his preferred PM rating, and besides you do have the opinion that Labor will lose the next election wots the beef.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2016 9:39:28 GMT 10
Turnbull has no answer or policies other than to run a scare campaign against Labors costed policies.
If not for Shorto's liability in not addressing the Rudd/Gillard issue ....Labor would win.
As they say a week is a long time in politics and it ain't over yet or don't count your chickens before they quack.
|
|
|
Post by sonex on Mar 11, 2016 9:58:07 GMT 10
Turnbull has no answer or policies other than to run a scare campaign against Labors costed policies. If not for Shorto's liability in not addressing the Rudd/Gillard issue ....Labor would win. As they say a week is a long time in politics and it ain't over yet or don't count your chickens before they quack. Ponto I cannot agree with you that Shorten should bring up the Rudd/Gillard issue. The old saying "let sleeping dogs lie" is a good one sometimes and is in this case. "Sleeping dogs lie" means " to warn someone that they should not talk about a bad situation that most people have forgotten about", this may not be forgotten but there is no point in giving the Libs fresh ammunition to stir it all up again. He should only emphasize the good stuff and not talk about the bad stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2016 6:53:13 GMT 10
I see your point Sonex and its a valid one, yet it remains Shorto has credibility issues, residue from the Rudd and Gillard affair, and is reflected in preferred PM polls.
Given that despite preferred PM polls that favours Turnips (all big on top, pointy and narrow below) and disapproves of Shorto Labor is closing the gap and has a chance to win the next election after preferences, now if Shorto had of dealt with 'the issue' earlier it would be no doubt as to a win.
Such as it is if Shorten had of dealt with the issue and Labor loses he would still remain as Labor leader rather than being necked after.
If by chance Labor wins the next poll I still think Shorten should deal with the issue....earning the trust of the people to carry Labors vision forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 10:53:06 GMT 10
Company tax cut when companies are not paying tax.....proof again the LNP have no idea.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 23, 2016 13:17:37 GMT 10
Expect a "trickle down" budget in May and, when you wipe away the union-bashing smokescreen which the Turnbull Liberals hope will get them across the line (when will they learn that ever since 1929 whenever Liberals - and their predecessors, the UAP and before them the Nationalists - fight an election on industrial relations, it costs them electorally), you'll discover that all the Coalition have to offer in 2016 is "trickle down" economics. I'll be honest here: Hawke/Keating with their deregulation, their privatisations and their floating of the $A were all about "trickle down" as well. And it worked back then to set up the Australian economy for the boom that was coming. The whole idea of "trickle down" is "a rising tide lifts all boats". And in Hawke/Keating's day the international tide was on the rise. So much so that when the big dividends of all that deregulation, privatisation and float the currency came flooding in during the Howard/Costello years ... Howard pissed it all up against a wall in tax cuts and middle class welfare. But those days are over. There's no "rising tide" anymore that will "lift all boats". Hawke/Keating did more than any other government before or since to surrender powers to the market that had hitherto belonged to the government. It was classic "trickle down". But times and circumstances have changed and so has the issue of the role of government. And this is the sleeper issue of these elections - the role of government. Should government be bigger or smaller? Shorten Labor gets it but if you listen to Turnbull and Scott Morrison (I refuse to label him with the blokey familiar "ScoMo", he doesn't deserve it) the Liberals are still banging on about small government and tax cuts as if somehow we could get back to the Howard years where Budget time was like dividend time for the middle class punters out there. If that's what they're basing their election strategy on then they deserve to lose. And if they get returned to government they'll find themselves dealing with a 45th parliament which will be very different from the 44th. Let me tell you, for example, that in Adelaide Nick Xenophon is expected to be returned to the Senate (that was always a no-brainer) and bring two other Xenophon Senators with him. One at the expense of the Greens and the other at the expense of that Family First guy Bob Day. No loss! In addition I'd say the Liberal-held seats of Boothby and Sturt are in play. Sturt!!! Oh please let Christopher Pyne lose his seat! Oh please please please! With sugar on top! I promise to be a good boy and eat my spinach!! Look at your own State. Any impressive Independents/Xenophon candidates/Greens standing in electorates where the incumbent is in a shaky position? I can think of a few in NSW - Labor as well as Coalition. Will Adam Bandt end up having another Green colleague in the Reps? Will Cathy McGowan fend off the attempt by the appalling Sophie Mirabella at a comeback in Indi? My money's on Cathy. Will Barnaby keep Tony Windsor in retirement? And is that the point? Is the real point that a Windsor candidacy in New England will keep Barnaby too busy defending his home turf and prevent him from campaigning nation-wide as Deputy Prime Minister? This is going to be a cracker of an election, no matter who ends up in government. I won't be part of the campaign because I leave for England in mid-May and won't get back until the end of July. So I'll be casting a postal vote. I won't be in London around July 2 so I won't be able to queue up & vote absentee at Australia House in the Strand along with all the other expats - damnit! I'd love to do that! - but I have an address that I can have the postal ballot papers sent to. I've been the postal votes guy in other ALP campaigns and know how it works. Basically you hand all the logistical problems involved in you getting the ballot papers in time to cast a vote to the candidate that you intend to vote for. So if you intend to vote Liberal you contact the Liberal candidate's campaign team and they'll take your details and bend over backwards to get you the ballot papers. I know that in my case Kate Ellis is on a small margin so she'll be after every vote. I love elections. I love voting!
|
|
|
Post by Yassir Rebob on Mar 23, 2016 13:57:20 GMT 10
Yep, I seriously doubt it will be the electoral walkover that Yorrick will have you believe it will be
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 23, 2016 16:42:38 GMT 10
The only way Turnbull can justify himself to a sizable rump of the Liberal Party and all of the National Party for having put the Coalition through the trauma of replicating Labor’s trick of ousting a first term prime minister is by winning a landslide victory against the Labor Party. If he fails to substantially increase the majority Abbott won in 2013, or if under Turnbull the Coalition are returned to government but with a reduced majority, then it will beg the question: why put the Coalition through the wringer in September 2015? Abbott of course is already arguing that under him they'd be on course to an election win with the negative sub-text about Turnbull and the last thing Turnbull needs now and in the future is for that line to gain even a skerrick of credibility. Which is why Turnbull has left it late to stomp on Abbott. Every successful prime minister from Bob Menzies on has made it part of his winning political strategy to identify his enemies on his own side and to do one of two things: either promote 'em so that they were beholden to the PM or pack them off somewhere as Ambassador. Bob Hawke kept Bill Hayden close by making him Foreign Minister and then gave him the G-G's gig. John Howard packed Andrew Peacock off to Washington as Ambassador for a long stint. They never had any trouble from either of them. But Tony Abbott still in the House of Representatives obsessing about his "legacy" and giving Labor loads of material for their election campaign attack ads? Laura Tingle has a piece in today's Fin Review arguing that Tony Abbott can't help himself. The guy's a loose cannon. Malcolm Turnbull should have dealt with that bloke months ago and you have to wonder if it isn't all a bit too late now.
So where does that leave Malcolm Turnbull? With economic policy settings that are all about Howard-era tax cuts nostalgia and Ronald Reagan-era "trickle down" monetarism, social policies on things like same sex marriage that poll after poll demonstrate are out of touch with a large majority of the country, and antediluvian policies on the environment. He needs to repudiate Abbott but can't as long as he remains hostage to Abbott. So what's left? A good old union-bash. When was the last time that the Liberals won a landslide on the issue of union-bashing?
|
|