13-06-2016 09:32 AM - edited 13-06-2016 09:34 AM
Voters don't like Shorten and don't trust Turnbull.
The problem for our country when an election becomes a choice between big party leaders perceived to be “bad versus worse” is that voters look elsewhere.
Unlike US voters who have primary campaigns, Australian voters can’t support insurgencies inside the main parties so express their dismay with politics-as-usual by voting for independents and minor parties — and that’s why I think we are cruising for a total disaster in the Senate unless something changes.
The most confident prediction anyone can make so far, with 25 per cent of voters opting for neither the Coalition nor Labor, is that the new Senate will be even more populist than the last.
MORE than halfway through this interminable election campaign, it’s obvious that many Labor voters don’t like Bill Shorten and many Liberal and National voters are still not sold on Malcolm Turnbull.
It’s clear how Shorten is trying to deal with this: by spending more on health and education to win back Labor’s base and by making extravagant promises on climate change to woo the Greens.
It’s not so clear how Turnbull is responding: he’ll be pleased the campaign is back on economic turf but he still hasn’t moved enough of the uncommitted vote to his side of the ledger and his superannuation changes still tell the Liberal base you don’t really matter because you have nowhere else to go.
The problem for our country when an election becomes a choice between big party leaders perceived to be “bad versus worse” is that voters look elsewhere.
Unlike US voters who have primary campaigns, Australian voters can’t support insurgencies inside the main parties so express their dismay with politics-as-usual by voting for independents and minor parties — and that’s why I think we are cruising for a total disaster in the Senate unless something changes.
The most confident prediction anyone can make so far, with 25 per cent of voters opting for neither the Coalition nor Labor, is that the new Senate will be even more populist than the last.
This should worry every Australian who elects a government to get on with governing because an obstructionist Senate means that securing the economic reform and budget repair our country needs will be harder than ever.
Federal elections almost always turn on who can best be trusted to keep our economy strong and our country safe. While the government should be returned, particularly after Labor’s release of a disastrous 10-year budget forecast last week, neither side has a credible plan for budget repair, even though we know we can’t endlessly live on the nation’s credit card.
Neither side has a credible tax reform plan, even though lower, simpler, fairer taxes are essential for our long-term prosperity. Labor actually thinks that taxes are too low, although it insists the only people who need to pay more are rich investors, big companies and smokers.
The Coalition accepts that taxes are too high but is paying for a company tax cut in 10 years’ time with a superannuation tax increase now.
Both sides accept that the deficit has to be dealt with but, petrified by the sabotage of the 2014 budget, neither is prepared to take anything away from anyone — except from self-funded retirees whom the Coalition thinks it can’t lose and Labor thinks it can’t win.
National security is not being talked about at all even though Russia continues to threaten its neighbours, China is increasingly throwing its weight around in our region, Islamic extremists are still threatening “death to the infidel” on the battlefields of the Middle East and the streets of Europe, and the US has never looked less strong and less certain. Defence does get a mention from the Coalition but only as a job creation scheme for South Australia.
It is clear that the Government has had a good week but a lot of that is because the Opposition has had a shocker. Yet when an election is contested on the economic playing field, it tilts to the Coalition’s advantage.
With three weeks to go, the unusually high vote parked with “other” is an opportunity for both leaders. Neither side has cut through. For Shorten, he’s still dogged by the baggage of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years and he’s not trusted on the economy.
On the evidence of this campaign so far, neither leader appears to have really grabbed the campaign by the throat. It is there for the taking and with it, a large block of Australians who have parked their vote with ‘other’ in almost every published poll.
For Labor, I fear its folly with 10-year policies and a worsening budget position over the forward estimates will be seen by voters as just the latest way of avoiding hard decisions now. Shorten has to take this head on (and deal with his premier ‘mates’ who are blowing up his campaign).
For the Coalition, it is a dual ask — more policy detail so that voters can make an informed decision, and a prime minister out in the media more often so that we can hear his pitch directly and get to know the man. Both parties have to trust us and have an honest conversation.
We’re not fools and ultimately we don’t respect those who treat us as if we were. The trouble when politicians won’t trust the people is that the people won’t trust the politicians either.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/peta-credlin-voters-dont-like-bill-shorten-and-dont-trust-malcolm-t...
Sorry for the huge C&P, but the link will take you to a paywall, so I copied the whole article.
I have nothing but distaste for either leader, but not sure who else there is that could have a chance getting in.
on 26-06-2016 06:59 PM
......and now there are talks for an early general election in the Autumn....http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/early-general-election-calls-new-8271961
It just gets better.
on 26-06-2016 07:04 PM
A well constructed but meaningless pro-government jingle of more than three words
I,ll pay you that lot. I havnt got time to address all of your well articuted ideas, but just loved your last line.
If you really knew me, you would know I havnt got a lot of time for either of the majors. As I said in an earlier post I agonised over wether to put the Liberals or Labour last on my voting ticket, behind Ricky Muir and the Shooters Party.
Wheres the sex party when you need them.
on 26-06-2016 07:15 PM
@chameleon54 wrote:
A well constructed but meaningless pro-government jingle of more than three words
I,ll pay you that lot. I havnt got time to address all of your well articuted ideas, but just loved your last line.
If you really knew me, you would know I havnt got a lot of time for either of the majors. As I said in an earlier post I agonised over wether to put the Liberals or Labour last on my voting ticket, behind Ricky Muir and the Shooters Party.
Wheres the sex party when you need them.
And just a reminder to check my post number 27. on this thread. I HAVE ALREADY VOTED AND PUT THE LIBERALS LAST ON MY SLIP.
Hardly the actions of a Pro Government Jingler
on 26-06-2016 07:18 PM
well, hands up those who think we live in the best country in the world (those of us living in australia)
if malcom gets elected and gets control of the senate, it will be interesting how many of the things blocked by the senate in the last 3 years get another run.
if labor win, unlikely, will we be worse off? dunno, wait and see.
on 26-06-2016 07:53 PM
@***super_nova*** wrote:The average full-time wage was last year $74,724 before tax. If full time base wage teacher was costing your school $123,000 inclusive of add ons, I do not know who you are employing because the average pay for a High School Teacher is AU$61,819 per year. Most people move on to other jobs if they have more than 20 years' experience in this career because the range of teacher salary is AU$43,898 - AU$89,604, and they can earn more elsewhere. Maybe living in a small town you think that this sort of wages are huge, but in big cities where you need to have at least $1,000,000 to be able to buy a house , and rents are many hundreds of dollars, unless you are content to commute for hours every day (and that is also not cheap). $80k is not much for a family to live on; it certainly does not provide many luxuries.
Like you I was suprised at how expensive it was to employ an extra teacher. While we were not given a break down of the cost, there were a couple of exceptional circumstance payments that would have contributed to the cost. As a rural school the teachers where given an extra % of pay to encourage them to go to the "remote" rural area. They where also given an extra housing allowance.
Even taking this into account the normal add ons for superannuation, sick leave, holiday pay, long service leave, maternity leave etc, must be costing employers an absolute packet.
on 26-06-2016 08:01 PM
@chameleon54 wrote:
@***super_nova*** wrote:The average full-time wage was last year $74,724 before tax. If full time base wage teacher was costing your school $123,000 inclusive of add ons, I do not know who you are employing because the average pay for a High School Teacher is AU$61,819 per year. Most people move on to other jobs if they have more than 20 years' experience in this career because the range of teacher salary is AU$43,898 - AU$89,604, and they can earn more elsewhere. Maybe living in a small town you think that this sort of wages are huge, but in big cities where you need to have at least $1,000,000 to be able to buy a house , and rents are many hundreds of dollars, unless you are content to commute for hours every day (and that is also not cheap). $80k is not much for a family to live on; it certainly does not provide many luxuries.
Again, I would not argue with you on this. BUT one of the critical reasons housing has become so expensive is that wages are so high. If everyone earned 30% less it is likely ( everything else being equel ) housing prices would eventually come down to match wages affordabilty.
The reason that housing prices are high is that it is a highly attractive tax deduction (Negative Gearing) for the "average wage earner " who earn over 80k according according to the Government. But they never seem to mention that this 80k is Taxable Income not their total income.. A family whose total income is less than the average wage has Buckley's chance of owning their own home, Unless, they have rich parents to help them out. Then there are heaps of other every day cost to be paid. If the Goverment wins the election and control of the Senate I bet the Medical co-payments, increase GST and further cuts to benefits will be back on the cards.
26-06-2016 08:40 PM - edited 26-06-2016 08:42 PM
Like you I do have some reservations about Negative gearing on housing. Yes it helps to provide rental accomodation for people who dont own their own homes, but it undoubtably squeezes many out of home ownership, forcing them into the rental market.
Another major problem is that many people have unrealistic expectations of what their first home should be. The desire for the new McMansion with all the bells and whistles in a nice suburb, while having annual OS holidays and frothy coffees, three times a day, means that many young people will never own their own homes.
If they where satisfied to forgo the OS holiday, save some money ( whats that & how do you spell it ???? ), buy a 1950,s cream brick, two bedroom house in a mediocre suburb and work up from there, they may have a lot more success.
on 26-06-2016 08:44 PM
on 26-06-2016 09:32 PM
on 26-06-2016 09:44 PM
Where's Bright.ton42's input in all of this, or have I missed it ? She appears to be an expert on UK politics, and that Sturgeon bint in particular. We are all bowing to her superior knowledge.