Domestic Politics

[NewConvert]

Nothing wrong with a minority government. Indeed such a result will most likely give the electorate a really good chance to assess the parties and their corresponding  leadership. For starters the leadership will have to be serious about negotiating across the political spectrum - no more my way or the highway. If they can't negotiate then the public will see how well they can wedge or whether they have the interest of governing first. Secondly they will have to negotiate internally as any rogue element will make them lose their majority. Of course the rogue elements will need to keep themselves in check as well and not do a Geoff Shaw. Their debating skills will need to be very sharp. So its now over to Turnbull and Shorten.

[Deeming]

9 hours ago, Tesla said:

Not looking good for senate, good call Deeming looks like it will be Hinch for Vic, unless there is more than 1 minor since major parties vote is so low. A bunch of other minors on a little over 1% so I guess it will be all about preferences if there is going to be more than 1 minor party senator, maybe even 2 Hinch.

Green line for me

[Deeming]

On 24 June 2016 at 8:45 AM, Deeming said:

But for Vic my guess is we will end up with:
Labor: 4
Greens: 2
Coalition: 4
Hinch: 1 (got the #1 spot on the ballot, will get a high personal vote and on both Labor and Coalitions HTV)
A Conservative Party most likely FF (2nd on Coalition'S HTV), then Australian Christians or DLP): 1

Labor has 4.1 quotas = 4 Senators

Greens 1.5 quotas that's probably enough for 2 Senators

Coalition has 4.19 quota = 4 Senators

Hinch has 0.78 quota = 1 senator based on preferences

Last senate spot goes to whoever has the highest percentage of a quota from the left overs. I think the conservatives will have it. Then which one goes to who has the highest total currently FF.

[Tesla]

4 hours ago, Deeming said:

Labor has 4.1 quotas = 4 Senators

Greens 1.5 quotas that's probably enough for 2 Senators

Coalition has 4.19 quota = 4 Senators

Hinch has 0.78 quota = 1 senator based on preferences

Last senate spot goes to whoever has the highest percentage of a quota from the left overs. I think the conservatives will have it. Then which one goes to who has the highest total currently FF.

Looking at it now I think you're right, I can't see it being anything but FF, they have preferences coming in from all the right leaning minor parties (which almost adds up to 1 quota itself) as well as the Coalition. I think a 2nd Hinch was a legitimate threat apart from that the Coalition have FF above Hinch, rules out a 2nd Hinch.

You never know with the preferences, but without spending too much time looking at it, seems pretty clear cut that it will be FF based off the htv cards.

 

Quick look at NSW, looks like One Nation has fuck all preferences, while CDP has so many, shouldn't be One Nation you'd think.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Tesla

[Tesla]

LMAO what did I just watch

 

 

[thisphantomfortress]

10 minutes ago, Tesla said:

LMAO what did I just watch

 

 

But I don't want raspberry in my chocolate cake. 

Fuck really don't want to wait until Tuesday for this. And they say history doesn't repeat.

#9yearswithoutleadership

[Deeming]

58 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

But I don't want raspberry in my chocolate cake. 

Fuck really don't want to wait until Tuesday for this. And they say history doesn't repeat.

#9yearswithoutleadership

I wonder how many people would take back their votes for KRudd if they could now knowing all the instability and PM Merry-go-round that has followed? 

[thisphantomfortress]

3 minutes ago, Deeming said:

I wonder how many people would take back their votes for KRudd if they could now knowing all the instability and PM Merry-go-round that has followed? 

I think they'd have been more inclined to support Howard if they knew Rudd was a megalomaniac not the sweet dweb he made himself out to be.

[Tesla]

Pls Peter Cosgrove another election.

[NewConvert]

50 minutes ago, Tesla said:

Pls Peter Cosgrove another election.

We are a long way from that. The AEC will close the election in a fortnight, then the coalition will be given an opportunity to form government after a protracted period of negotiations, then the ALP will go through the whole charade (admittedly this can happen concurrently) and then if neither party wins, they can have another election depending on the advice from MT. The parties would have their coffers quite low and so it would be a shorter period, three weeks and then we get to experience it all over again. I still expect MT to form government with Katter extracting his ton of taxpayer flesh. Yeah you are right lets have another election.

[HeartFc]

This election are like my balls, hung low as fuck and swinging left and right. 

[NewConvert]

A quick question regarding the betting markets versus the polls and what has actually happened. Last I heard prior to the election was that the betting markets were giving really short odds to the coalition to win whilst the ALP had blown out to about $8. What would be the assessment of the results?

[HeartFc]

1 hour ago, NewConvert said:

A quick question regarding the betting markets versus the polls and what has actually happened. Last I heard prior to the election was that the betting markets were giving really short odds to the coalition to win whilst the ALP had blown out to about $8. What would be the assessment of the results?

Polls are part of it but I reckon the Brexit result made it very unlikely for the opposition to win. In the past its been rare that the ruling government is changed when theres economic uncertainty in the markets. The bookies actually fucked up anyway coz before the brexit result the odds were still way too short for the coalition. I just think they dropped the ball and they've done the same in The Untied States. Trump was paying $26.00 about 10 months ago and he's still $3.75. WTF is Hillary doing so short at $1.30?

 

EDIT: I don't think they like giving odds on politics so they make the odds look silly so people don't touch them. They needs to offer them to stay ahead of the competition but I think they know they have no idea and hope everyone just sticks to sports betting and the donkey races. 

Edited July 4, 2016 by HeartFc

[hedaik]

1 hour ago, NewConvert said:

A quick question regarding the betting markets versus the polls and what has actually happened. Last I heard prior to the election was that the betting markets were giving really short odds to the coalition to win whilst the ALP had blown out to about $8. What would be the assessment of the results?

A lot of non-Lib voters thought that the Libs would win. 

[Deeming]

5 minutes ago, hedaik said:

A lot of non-Lib voters thought that the Libs would win. 

That's because they did not appreciate the level of dislike that most Liberal supporters have for Turnbull and because they trusted the media's love of Turnbull which doe not translate to middle Australia.

[thisphantomfortress]

54 minutes ago, Deeming said:

That's because they did not appreciate the level of dislike that most Liberal supporters have for Turnbull and because they trusted the media's love of Turnbull which doe not translate to middle Australia.

TBH I was guilty of this and I must say you have called this all along. The conservative element of the Libs is a lot stronger than we thought

[Tesla]

3 hours ago, NewConvert said:

A quick question regarding the betting markets versus the polls and what has actually happened. Last I heard prior to the election was that the betting markets were giving really short odds to the coalition to win whilst the ALP had blown out to about $8. What would be the assessment of the results?

I don't think anything was wrong with the odds, they only meant there was a 70% or so chance that the Coalition would win.

Actually, given how confident the media, politicians, etc where the Coalition would win, I think the fact the bookmakers only had them as a 70% chance to win shows maybe they had a better idea than most that what has happened had a decent chance of occurring.

The thing is, there is always an assumption that the Coalition will win even with a 50-50 vote, what's happened currently is they're under 50%, and I think the assertion that a 50-50 vote would mean an outright Coalition win is not necessarily true any more by the look of things, I'm guessing the unforeseen NXT numbers are part of that and maybe the ununiform swing as well.

Even the AEC made the mistake of not realising it would be Liberals vs NXT in the TTP in some SA seats rather than Liberal vs Labor. That has really been the factor that has lead to this tight result.

 

1 hour ago, Deeming said:

That's because they did not appreciate the level of dislike that most Liberal supporters have for Turnbull and because they trusted the media's love of Turnbull which doe not translate to middle Australia.

That's one way to look at it. The other is that if the less popular Abbott was still in charge this would have been a clear cut loss. It's not the people voting for the far right parties that's costing the Coalition the election, it's the vote in SA for NXT. And given that NXT voted with the Greens the vast majority of the time during the current government (despite their assertions they're a centrist party), I doubt people who don't like Turnbull are switching from the Coalition to NXT.

Let's not forget, Abbott made the (correct) call to stop subsidising the car industry, which hurt SA. Abbott was hardly making it a secret he would make the (probably correct) call to not build the subs in Australia, Turnbull reversed it, a big win for SA. I really don't think Turnbull is to blame for losing seats to NXT, could only have been worse under Abbott.

Edited July 4, 2016 by Tesla

[cadete]

24 minutes ago, Tesla said:

I don't think anything was wrong with the odds, they only meant there was a 70% or so chance that the Coalition would win.

Actually, given how confident the media, politicians, etc where the Coalition would win, I think the fact the bookmakers only had them as a 70% chance to win shows maybe they had a better idea than most that what has happened had a decent chance of occurring.

The thing is, everyone was under the assumption that the Coalition would win even with a 50-50 vote, so polls showing 50-50 or 50.5 for the Coalition weren't an issue. What's happened currently is they're under 50%, and I think the assertion that a 50-50 vote would mean an outright Coalition win is not necessarily true any more by the look of things, I'm guessing the unforeseen NXT numbers are part of that and maybe the ununiform swing as well.

 

That's one way to look at it. The other is that if the less popular Abbott was still in charge this would have been a clear cut loss. It's not the people voting for the far right parties that's costing the Coalition the election, it's the vote in SA for NXT. And given that NXT voted with the Greens the vast majority of the time during the current government (despite their assertions they're a centrist party), I doubt people who don't like Turnball are switching from the Coalition to NXT.

I am sorry but you are completely and totally wrong there... that is exactly what PPL did.

Most of the votes for NXT are not for lefty policy reasons in fact many of these PPL would not even looked into the Policies they voted for State Nationalist Reasons because they think the Party sticks up for SA who always gets snubbed, hence why they seats they took were from the Liberals not the ALP. Same with Lambie in TAS and Pauline Hanson in QLD, and how WA (The worst state for state pride) got behind her as well.

Small State Pride is something PPL from NSW and VIC never get but its a major factor at Federal Elections, esp when PPL are disillusioned with the Major Parties. If you just look at the States where the new wacko Senators/MP's have been elected from only one comes from Victoria or NSW in Derryn Hinch who was the first name on the Vic Senate Ballot Paper.

The reality is that at least half of these nutcases that voted for State Pride would have stayed on with Abbott with his constant barrage about National Pride and Abbott probably would have more normal PPL hating him more than ever but still enough votes from normal Liberal Voters and importantly these nutty nationalist types to have a two/three seat majority.

Turnbull fucked up... he basically did a Rudd (As in he thought he was smarter than everyone who had come before him in the Australian Political System) by thinking he could win a election as a Liberal by seeking out votes from the urban centre left when he should have followed the template to winning an election as Liberal a and keeping a few Regional Right Wing Nationalists onside. The fact that the Nationals out performed the Libs and that Joyce retained this seat further illustrates this point.

 

Edited July 4, 2016 by cadete

[NewConvert]

15 minutes ago, Tesla said:

I don't think anything was wrong with the odds, they only meant there was a 70% or so chance that the Coalition would win.

Actually, given how confident the media, politicians, etc where the Coalition would win, I think the fact the bookmakers only had them as a 70% chance to win shows maybe they had a better idea than most that what has happened had a decent chance of occurring.

The thing is, there is always an assumption that the Coalition will win even with a 50-50 vote, what's happened currently is they're under 50%, and I think the assertion that a 50-50 vote would mean an outright Coalition win is not necessarily true any more by the look of things, I'm guessing the unforeseen NXT numbers are part of that and maybe the ununiform swing as well.

Even the AEC made the mistake of not realising it would be Liberals vs NXT in the TTP in some SA seats rather than Liberal vs Labor. That has really been the factor that has lead to this tight result.

 

That's one way to look at it. The other is that if the less popular Abbott was still in charge this would have been a clear cut loss. It's not the people voting for the far right parties that's costing the Coalition the election, it's the vote in SA for NXT. And given that NXT voted with the Greens the vast majority of the time during the current government (despite their assertions they're a centrist party), I doubt people who don't like Turnball are switching from the Coalition to NXT.

NXT polled a lot higher than most people thought he would. Maybe for the next election due in about 6 weeks time the AEC and Antony Green would expand their software to include NXT and the independents.

I also think that because the media and the bookies were so confident that the Coalition would win, many people did not vote for the Coalition and voted elsewhere because they wanted a more balanced parliament. Way back in 1999 when Steve Bracks toppled Kennett, I was talking to some Liberal party people outside the polling place (nice couple about to retire, ran their own business) and they were hoping that the ALP could make a show of it because they felt uncomfortable with the state coalition having such an absolute majority.

I have said it before that the Liberals made a mistake in rolling Abbott. If he had led the coalition to a defeat (and the polls at that stage were showing tat was going to be the case) then that would have been the end of the matter for the policy sector that he represents. As it stands now the Liberals are divided ideologically with the main battle ground being in NSW. With Rudd, the parliamentary members just couldn't work with him so the split was over personality and since both Rudd and Gillard are gone the split is now a thing of the past. Ideological splits can last decades - for example the DLP vs the ALP.

[Deeming]

20 minutes ago, Tesla said:

That's one way to look at it. The other is that if the less popular Abbott was still in charge this would have been a clear cut loss. It's not the people voting for the far right parties that's costing the Coalition the election, it's the vote in SA for NXT. And given that NXT voted with the Greens the vast majority of the time during the current government (despite their assertions they're a centrist party), I doubt people who don't like Turnball are switching from the Coalition to NXT.

I'm not convinced Abbott would have lost. He is a much better campaigner than Turnbull and he has always been underestimated by the media. He's also more popular in Western Sydney where there was a number of Liberal losses. But I am not saying he would have won either. I am fairly sure he would have lessened the Senate losses and it wouldn't have fractured the party like what has happened now.

NXT will only pick up 1 maybe 2 seats. SA voters have always loved to be different to the other states - it was the HQ of the Democrats when they were around. NXT is now the credible alternative to the Democrats.

Tassie lost the Liberals seats - GetUp had a big campaign down there bringing in volunteers and paid staff.
 

Once results are final I will do a proper comparison of the swings for/against Team Abbott vs Team Turnbull but on a glance Team Turnbull siffered greater losses. As it is the 2 main house of reps backers left in the Liberal Party lost their seats to big swings Peter Hendy - Eden-Monaro (-6.44) and Wyatt Roy – Longman (-8.45)

[Tesla]

6 minutes ago, cadete said:

I am sorry but you are completely and totally wrong there... that is exactly what PPL did.

Most of the votes for NXT are not for lefty policy reasons in fact many of these PPL would not even looked into the Policies they voted for State Nationalist Reasons because they think the Party sticks up for SA who always gets snubbed, hence why they seats they took were from the Liberals not the ALP. Same with Lambie in TAS and Pauline Hanson in QLD, and how WA (The worst state for state pride) got behind her as well.

Small State Pride is something PPL from NSW and VIC never get but its a major factor at Federal Elections, esp when PPL are disillusioned with the Major Parties. If you just look at the States where the new wacko Senators/MP's have been elected from only one comes from Victoria or NSW in Derryn Hinch who was the first name on the Vic Senate Ballot Paper.

The reality is that at least half of these nutcases that voted for State Pride would have stayed on with Abbott with his constant barrage about National Pride and Abbott probably would have more normal PPL hating him more than ever but still enough votes from normal Liberal Voters and importantly these nutty nationalist types to have a two/three seat majority.

Turnbull fucked up... he basically did a Rudd (As in he thought he was smarter than everyone who had come before him in the Australian Political System) by thinking he could win a election as a Liberal by seeking out votes from the left when he should have followed the template to winning an election as Liberal a and keeping a few Right Winger Nationalists onside. The fact that the Nationals out performed the Libs and that Joyce retained this seat further illustrates this point.

 

You quoted me before I added my last paragraph about manufacturing jobs. A large reason for NXT's popularity is their platform of keeping manufacturing jobs in SA, and Abbott destroyed manufacturing jobs in SA (correctly so), while Turnbull saved them. I really don't see how Abbott would have been more popular in SA when he is the one that pissed off SA to begin with. Isn't that why he got thrown out anyway? Because a lot of SA Liberals turned on him out of fear of getting destroyed in SA?

As for the other states, you might be right, but how many of those One Nation, Nationals, and other right wing parties votes are just former PUP votes?

Edited July 4, 2016 by Tesla

[Tesla]

2 minutes ago, Deeming said:

I'm not convinced Abbott would have lost. He is a much better campaigner than Turnbull and he has always been underestimated by the media. He's also more popular in Western Sydney where there was a number of Liberal losses. But I am not saying he would have won either. I am fairly sure he would have lessened the Senate losses and it wouldn't have fractured the party like what has happened now.

NXT will only pick up 1 maybe 2 seats. SA voters have always loved to be different to the other states - it was the HQ of the Democrats when they were around. NXT is now the credible alternative to the Democrats.

Tassie lost the Liberals seats - GetUp had a big campaign down there bringing in volunteers and paid staff.
 

Once results are final I will do a proper comparison of the swings for/against Team Abbott vs Team Turnbull but on a glance Team Turnbull siffered greater losses. As it is the 2 main house of reps backers left in the Liberal Party lost their seats to big swings Peter Hendy - Eden-Monaro (-6.44) and Wyatt Roy – Longman (-8.45)

Looks like they will pick up 2, which might be the difference between majority gov and minority gov. Haven't really looked into it, but have their preferences sent any Lib seats to Labor? What about if the vote was worse in SA, would many more seats have been lost?

You may be correct about the upper house, but the last election paved the way for this and with a DD it doesn't take a lot of votes. I'm guessing a lot of One Nation's votes are PUP votes and seems both major parties have struggled in the senate which is a sign of how disillusioned people are with both major parties. Having FF and CDP in the senate isn't a major issue for the Liberals I would think, FF doesn't really seem different from the right wing faction of the Liberal party and I assume CDP is similar. It's the One nation seats that would hurt.

I don't know, maybe overall it wouldn't have been worse under Abbott but I can't see it being much better either.

Maybe just a sign of the times TBH, I think there is a clear split between right-leaning voters in the country currently, so perhaps the Liberal party being fractured shouldn't be a surprise.

[cadete]

Deeming summed it up...

Abbott's record still stands as invincible as a Campaigner in that as an Opposition Leader he drew with Gillard in 2010 and romped home against Rudd in 2013. Yes - His campaign would have made ALP voters and Greens voters and the Facebook World hate even more but those types would never have voted for him anyway. 

He would have scrapped in for sure and it would have been a shit day for the Libs... but it still would have been far better than Turnbull's effort who actually tried to pander to these voters who never vote for the Libs instead of those who might actually vote Liberal.

Also let's remember Howard just won one of his elections in a shiity manner... and it only made him stronger.

Edited July 4, 2016 by cadete

[Tesla]

32 minutes ago, cadete said:

Deeming summed it up...

Abbott's record still stands as invincible as a Campaigner in that as an Opposition Leader he drew with Gillard in 2010 and romped home against Rudd in 2013. Yes - His campaign would have made ALP voters and Greens voters and the Facebook World hate even more but those types would never have voted for him anyway. 

He would have scrapped in for sure and it would have been a shit day for the Libs... but it still would have been far better than Turnbull's effort who actually tried to pander to these voters who never vote for the Libs instead of those who might actually vote Liberal.

Also let's remember Howard just won one of his elections in a shiity manner... and it only made him stronger.

Maybe you're right but this is what I don't get with your logic, so perhaps you or Deeming could explain.

If it's people choosing between Liberal and NXT, as I said in my above post I don't see it happening given that Abbott destroyed manufacturing jobs in SA while Turnbull saved them.

If it's people choosing between Liberal and some other party on the right, I do agree with your logic. But who did these people vote for in the lower house and how many seats were lost? It's had an impact on the upper house, but the lower house? Excluding seats going to the Nationals since that's irrelevant for who will govern. Seems only one seat was lost to an independent. And any seats lost to Labor wouldn't have been due to people voting for a right-leaning minor party since the preferences would have come back to Libs.

So it seems you're saying that people are voting for Labor instead of Liberals because Turnbull is leader rather than Abbott. But why?

Edited July 4, 2016 by Tesla

[Deeming]

12 minutes ago, Tesla said:

So it seems you're saying that people are voting for Labor instead of Liberals because Turnbull is leader rather than Abbott. But why?

Yes and No. Both factors in Turnbulls loss.

Yes - Liberal who left

Some Liberals were so pissed-off at the knifing of Abbott plus the installation of Turnbull they could not bear the thought of voting for Turnbull so they voted Labor. They really wanted to punish the MPs who they feel betrayed the party's beliefs and values. The thinking being 'Why support a party if it betray's everything it is meant to stand for'? Rather punish the party and hopefully it changes or hope a new Conservative party rises.
 

No - Liberals who remained
A number of Liberal members I know put in a lot this election (money and man-power) but I suspect not as much as they would have if Abbott was PM and not as many people put in effort this time round. Less money and less man-power. Campaigns need both to win.
A simple example. On FB at the state election there were FB profile pics available for all the Liberal candidates. It had the candidates photo with text 'I'm supporting {NAME}  - Liberal for {SEAT}'. Almost all Liberals I know changed their pics to these profiles for a good few weeks before election day. They had these profile pics for this election too but as well as the candidates pic it had Turnbull's face next to theirs. Very few Liberals changed their pics to these. Another thing is members chose carefully who to support - Fiona Scott NSW lost her seat because Liberals in the area deserted her for what they saw as her betrayal of Abbott she had a massive loss of man power and funds. In Vic MPs like Michael Sukkar and Alan Tudge - Abbott backers had swings towards them and I think it was because they had greater support within the party.

[cadete]

Even with his unpopularity amongst some being able to say they had stuck through the term with their PM would have helped the Liberals at the election, IMO to the point of a two to three seat majority.

[Deeming]

2 minutes ago, cadete said:

Even with his unpopularity amongst some being able to say they had stuck through the term with their PM would have helped the Liberals at the election, IMO to the point of a two to three seat majority.

Absolutely was a big factor.

One anecdote. In the last couple of weeks before the election I was handing out some of the free Liberal shopping bags at Western suburbs shopping centres. One night I had a working class woman come up to me quite angry/frustrated "I'd been a Labor supporter all my life! 20 years I voted for Labor, but Julia wrecked that! I get Turnbull being a businessman and Australia needs to be run more like a business these days but replacing the Prime Minister is just not right. You don't replace who you elected. They are just as bad as one another". So a Labor voter, switched to being a Liberal voter because of the knifing of Rudd by Gillard and now presumably switched back because the Liberals were just as bad. I suspect many people were thinking this.

[Tesla]

22 minutes ago, Deeming said:

Yes and No. Both factors in Turnbulls loss.

Yes - Liberal who left

Some Liberals were so pissed-off at the knifing of Abbott plus the installation of Turnbull they could not bear the thought of voting for Turnbull so they voted Labor. They really wanted to punish the MPs who they feel betrayed the party's beliefs and values. The thinking being 'Why support a party if it betray's everything it is meant to stand for'? Rather punish the party and hopefully it changes or hope a new Conservative party rises.
 

No - Liberals who remained
A number of Liberal members I know put in a lot this election (money and man-power) but I suspect not as much as they would have if Abbott was PM and not as many people put in effort this time round. Less money and less man-power. Campaigns need both to win.
A simple example. On FB at the state election there were FB profile pics available for all the Liberal candidates. It had the candidates photo with text 'I'm supporting {NAME}  - Liberal for {SEAT}'. Almost all Liberals I know changed their pics to these profiles for a good few weeks before election day. They had these profile pics for this election too but as well as the candidates pic it had Turnbull's face next to theirs. Very few Liberals changed their pics to these. Another thing is members chose carefully who to support - Fiona Scott NSW lost her seat because Liberals in the area deserted her for what they saw as her betrayal of Abbott she had a massive loss of man power and funds. In Vic MPs like Michael Sukkar and Alan Tudge - Abbott backers had swings towards them and I think it was because they had greater support within the party.

 

14 minutes ago, cadete said:

Even with his unpopularity amongst some being able to say they had stuck through the term with their PM would have helped the Liberals at the election, IMO to the point of a two to three seat majority.

Both of those are good points. I suppose we'll never know what difference it would have made, the only thing we can say for sure is this is a disaster

Honestly i'm probably between Abbot and Turnbull ideologically, as well as being different from both of them in some areas, so my support for Turnbull wasn't really to do with ideology, especially since he wasn't able to pursue his ideology anyway. My support for him is that I just saw him as a better candidate for PM. I hope Abbott returns to the cabinet if the Coalition does form government, because he has been a good servant and I'm sure he is a very competent cabinet member.

There are people out there who know fuck all about politics and are just voting for either who seems like the better bloke, or who looks the part of PM more, and Turnbull wins on both those accounts. He also isn't prone to blunders like Abbott and can talk himself out of almost anything, unlike Abbott. I even had one person tell me they voted for Turnbull over Shorten because he is more handsome and because Shorten always looks angry and depressed while Turnbull always looks happy etc. (this was from a heterosexual male btw).

But dumping a leader half way through the term when the reason you were elected is because of the other party's instability was always a dubious call and Deeming makes a good point about the affects of pissing off Liberal members that I didn't really think about. 

FWIW, I have no issue with Turnbull having to go after this result, apart from that it's not going to be a good move if government can be formed or even if we're heading back to the polls, I think everyone is sick of instability. 

Edited July 4, 2016 by Tesla

[Tesla]

Hmm Glenn Druery reckons the 12th Vic seat will be One Nation or one of Sex or Animal Justice, seemed very hard to beat FF on last check but not going to argue with the preference whisperer.

He has said LDP will get 12th in Qld and Anthony Green has put them up as a good chance as well.

Apparently CDP and LDP is quite tight in NSW, I would have thought CDP had it but we'll see.

[NewConvert]

50 minutes ago, Tesla said:

 

Both of those are good points. I suppose we'll never know what difference it would have made, the only thing we can say for sure is this is a disaster

Honestly i'm probably between Abbot and Turnbull ideologically, as well as being different from both of them in some areas, so my support for Turnbull wasn't really to do with ideology, especially since he wasn't able to pursue his ideology anyway. My support for him is that I just saw him as a better candidate for PM. I hope Abbott returns to the cabinet if the Coalition does form government, because he has been a good servant and I'm sure he is a very competent cabinet member.

There are people out there who know fuck all about politics and are just voting for either who seems like the better bloke, or who looks the part of PM more, and Turnbull wins on both those accounts. He also isn't prone to blunders like Abbott and can talk himself out of almost anything, unlike Abbott. I even had one person tell me they voted for Turnbull over Shorten because he is more handsome and because Shorten always looks angry and depressed while Turnbull always looks happy etc. (this was from a heterosexual male btw).

But dumping a leader half way through the term when the reason you were elected is because of the other party's instability was always a dubious call and Deeming makes a good point about the affects of pissing off Liberal members that I didn't really think about. 

FWIW, I have no issue with Turnbull having to go after this result, apart from that it's not going to be a good move if government can be formed or even if we're heading back to the polls, I think everyone is sick of instability. 

As for Abbott's competency I have two personal anecdotes: the first one is the conservative friend of mine who is a representative for his professional association, I asked him what was he like as a health minister and what policies did he develop. His response was that the only policy that he developed was a half arsed orthodontist assistance package which had no budget controls and was excessively rorted and Howard/Costello killed it because of the cost to the budget. I would also add that Costello was not too complimentary of Abbot in his political memoir. The second was my sis-in-law who had to work directly with the minister because she worked in a private hospital. Privately, she had nothing positive to say about his role as a minister.

About looking the part - that is a requirement for any leadership position. The ability to convince someone to follow you just by your decorum. I have not seen the movie 8 Mile but I have read that decorum is what makes eminem win at the end.

You are right about dumping a leader prior to the election was not a good look. Although you have to say that when Hawke rolled Hayden there were no repercussions.

One thing that annoys me is that the leader is sacrosanct because they were the leader that won the election. This is the Westminster system and not the American presidential system. The parliament can change leaders when it deems it right to do so.

I do think that government can be formed by either party but serious negotiations will not occur until the seats are fully declared by the AEC. The question will be how long the political parties will negotiate with the cross benches and how much is extracted. So far Cathy McGowan as said that she is willing to confidence motions but she will vote on each piece of legislation individually. The other possibility will be how the opposition behaves - basically if they take the route of opposing anything and everything then the pressure will be on the independents. Otherwise a new election will need to be called and here the pressure will be on the coalition because will Turnbull stay or go? Who will become leader? Can the new leader unify the party with only weeks to go before the election and convince the electorate?

[NewConvert]

Right now everyone is understandably piling it on MT. But what do people think of Morrison's performance as treasurer and during the campaign?

I am on the opposite side to Morrison policy wise so I won't comment on his performance as treasurer. His performance during the campaign I would have to say is the worst I have seen since John Howard was treasurer to Malcolm Fraser. He was overly aggressive without the charm of Costello or Keating, he always seems ill at ease when being questioned - I've never thought I'd say this but I missed Costello's campaigning.

Should he be moved on from treasury if someone else becomes leader?

[Tesla]

36 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

Right now everyone is understandably piling it on MT. But what do people think of Morrison's performance as treasurer and during the campaign?

I am on the opposite side to Morrison policy wise so I won't comment on his performance as treasurer. His performance during the campaign I would have to say is the worst I have seen since John Howard was treasurer to Malcolm Fraser. He was overly aggressive without the charm of Costello or Keating, he always seems ill at ease when being questioned - I've never thought I'd say this but I missed Costello's campaigning.

Should he be moved on from treasury if someone else becomes leader?

He will probably become leader if there is a change, unless Liberals do what Labor did and bring back Abbott.

I just hope no one has the bright idea of trying to make Julie Bishop leader, gonna be a

Unless once all the media start rightfully bagging her out they're accused of misogyny, because that's the only reason you could have anything against a women, and all the SJWs abandon the Greens and vote for Coalition    

Edited July 4, 2016 by Tesla

[Shahanga]

19 hours ago, NewConvert said:

A quick question regarding the betting markets versus the polls and what has actually happened. Last I heard prior to the election was that the betting markets were giving really short odds to the coalition to win whilst the ALP had blown out to about $8. What would be the assessment of the results?

2 days before coalition lengthened a tad and labour came in to 6.0, with hung parliament coming in a little as well. They were odds for a result prior to midnight.

Says betting not as accurate as I thought it might be, but still a decent guide.

[Tesla]

18 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

2 days before coalition lengthened a tad and labour came in to 6.0, with hung parliament coming in a little as well. They were odds for a result prior to midnight.

Says betting not as accurate as I thought it might be, but still a decent guide.

Not really, the odds could have been $1.01 for the Coalition, and it still wouldn't mean it was inaccurate. That would still imply 5-6% chance of the Coalition not winning outright majority, and while 5% may sound low, it still happens 1 in 20 times on average. Like I said earlier it was around 70% going off the odds I saw, so a 30% chance that they wouldn't win an outright majority.

Just because the less likely outcome has occurred doesn't mean you can make a conclusion about the accuracy of the odds when your sample size is only 1. Maybe if you looked at the odds of 200 elections and their results you could make a conclusion like that, but not from 1.

 

[NewConvert]

12 hours ago, Tesla said:

He will probably become leader if there is a change, unless Liberals do what Labor did and bring back Abbott.

I just hope no one has the bright idea of trying to make Julie Bishop leader, gonna be a

Unless once all the media start rightfully bagging her out they're accused of misogyny, because that's the only reason you could have anything against a women, and all the SJWs abandon the Greens and vote for Coalition    

Which brings forth the other question, when MT is replaced who could possibly be the candidates. I agree that Morrison would have to be the front runner but he does not like being questioned by anyone other than Hadlee/Jones. That will not come across very well. I also think that he didn't perform (as in media appearances) so well under pressure as treasurer. Bishop had a stint as shadow treasurer and could not cut it. I can't see her coping that well being leader and having to be briefed across all portfolios. And then there is who?

1 hour ago, Shahanga said:

2 days before coalition lengthened a tad and labour came in to 6.0, with hung parliament coming in a little as well. They were odds for a result prior to midnight.

Says betting not as accurate as I thought it might be, but still a decent guide.

But then the question of what is better polls or betting markets becomes mute because both are a decent guide. Personally I think that they are doing different things so a straight comparison is not appropriate.

28 minutes ago, Tesla said:

Not really, the odds could have been $1.01 for the Coalition, and it still wouldn't mean it was inaccurate. That would still imply 5-6% chance of the Coalition not winning outright majority, and while 5% may sound low, it still happens 1 in 20 times on average. Like I said earlier it was around 70% going off the odds I saw, so a 30% chance that they wouldn't win an outright majority.

Just because the less likely outcome has occurred doesn't mean you can make a conclusion about the accuracy of the odds when your sample size is only 1. Maybe if you looked at the odds of 200 elections and their results you could make a conclusion like that, but not from 1.

 

I wish Australia was bigger so that they could do a reasonable size poll for every seat. Say about 700 respondents per seat.

[Deeming]

18 hours ago, Deeming said:

Once results are final I will do a proper comparison of the swings for/against Team Abbott vs Team Turnbull but on a glance Team Turnbull siffered greater losses. As it is the 2 main house of reps backers left in the Liberal Party lost their seats to big swings Peter Hendy - Eden-Monaro (-6.44) and Wyatt Roy – Longman (-8.45)

Turnbull had 6 main backers for the coup. Three from the house of reps and three senators. The Senators were safe from being removed by the rank and file but all three members from the house of reps were taken out.

[Shahanga]

58 minutes ago, Deeming said:

Turnbull had 6 main backers for the coup. Three from the house of reps and three senators. The Senators were safe from being removed by the rank and file but all three members from the house of reps were taken out.

Really? Says it all doesn't it. Honestly why you appoint a leader because they were most popular with the set who would never vote for you is beyond me. It's reassuring to see my views in the matter were not unique.

Its a bit like Simon Crean. I thought he was great. Fat lot of good that did him.

[NewConvert]

Both Eden-Monaro and Longman have always been marginal swapping between Labor and Liberal. It was only the 2013 election that made these seats appear safe. Also Abbott supporters have the safe seats. Prior to the elections I remarked to my brother that even if there is a modest swing to the ALP, the seats most likely to fall were those that supported MT. From the other side of the political spectrum, I don't think there is room in the Liberal party for people like Sir Henry Bolte or Rupert Hamer anymore as the conservative faction have ensured that all their candidates are in safe seats.

On 3AW Andrew Bolt and Neil Mitchell are claiming that Scott Morrison is boycotting their programs because he does not like being questioned. I wonder how Scott Morrison will deal with those two if he became leader.

[cadete]

20 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

Both Eden-Monaro and Longman have always been marginal swapping between Labor and Liberal. It was only the 2013 election that made these seats appear safe. Also Abbott supporters have the safe seats. Prior to the elections I remarked to my brother that even if there is a modest swing to the ALP, the seats most likely to fall were those that supported MT. From the other side of the political spectrum, I don't think there is room in the Liberal party for people like Sir Henry Bolte or Rupert Hamer anymore as the conservative faction have ensured that all their candidates are in safe seats.

On 3AW Andrew Bolt and Neil Mitchell are claiming that Scott Morrison is boycotting their programs because he does not like being questioned. I wonder how Scott Morrison will deal with those two if he became leader.

Morrison and Bishop were Mal's personal knifers... 

They will either continue with Malcolm himself or push back into the other direction whether it be Abbott or someone else.

[NewConvert]

Now that Hanson is in the senate along with one possible sidekick or maybe more, how long before they all go their separate ways? Ditto NXT?