Aussie Elections - What a Dilemma.

[icyfroth]

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.

[***super_nova***]

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

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.

---

If the investors with negative gearing intentions did not buy, somebody who wants to live in the place could and then they wold not need to rent.  So young people would be paying off their own house instead of somebody else's.

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

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

---

I do not know about McMansions; when I go to visit my friends in the country, I drive through new developments and they are all quite small houses, almost like terrace houses, all squashed on tiny blocks.  They are miles out from city, and they are considerably cheaper than "a 1950s cream brick, two bedroom house".  The 1950s  "mediocre" suburbs are close to the city, quite in demand, and not cheap at all.  The time of run down places that could be fixed is long past. 

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

If they where satisfied to forgo the OS holiday, save some money

---

Not sure why do you think that everybody goes on o/s holidays,although Bali and other Asian destinations are often very cheap if booked well ahead.

[colic2bullsgirlore]

I have voted in the same electorate all my life albeit a little changed from boundary redistribution.

The electorate was last held by a party other than by Country Party or Nationals in 1964.

Heartsucker and rabbit turned up at the Macksville RSL on Tuesday. I last saw them both there at Phil Hughes funeral.

They copped a fair bit of stick this time and bid a hasty retreat

I have never ever been "polled" because the seat was considered safe. Heartsucker, the incumbent, has rarely been seen

on the hustings as there was no chance of defeat.

The latest redistribution means that Rob Oakeshott can run for the seat of Cowper against heartsucker.

I have now been "polled" threee four times this week..... when they ask who I am voting for I keep on mumbling

Oakeshott Oakeshott Oakeshott... the drone on the other end of the phone back burbles "Boats, hung parliaments,

deceit Oakeshott labor stooged reformed country party flipdick"... "Oakeshottt, Oakeshott, Oakeshott" I continue to

chant...

The questions continue.

They appear to be steering my thoughts to roll over and vote for the coalition... 

As the phone polls have progressed the inquisitors appear to becoming more frenzied

.... strangely over their voice I can hear what sounds like clogs trembling on the floor ......

The "national" scare ads running against Oakeshott rather then espousing their own policies are wearing thin in the

community. They are full of BS.

Telling blatant pork pies will never win my vote.

Democracy with only two real choices is not democracy..... google duopoly

duopoly

djuːˈɒpəli/

noun

noun: duopoly; plural noun: duopolies

1. a situation in which two suppliers dominate the market for a commodity or service.

   
   democracy
   dɪˈmɒkrəsi/
   noun
   noun: democracy
   
   a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives

   The idea of democracy is that the elected representative becomes your advocate

   ....... not that the elected representative advocates to you the party stance........ and you like it or lump it

[colic2bullsgirlore]

http://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/public_funding/index.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Australia

Many voters use elections to reaffirm their party allegiance.[1]

Party affiliation has declined in recent decades.

Voters who voted for the same party each election made up 72% of the electorate in 1967.

This figure had declined to 45% by 2007.[17]

Minor parties have played a greater role in the politics of Australia since proportional representation was progressively introduced.[12]

Elections in Australia are seen by parties as a chance to develop and refine policies.[1]

Rather than a procedure where the best policies win the day, elections are contests where parties fight for power.

Elections are not part of the process in which specific decisions on policy are made.

Control of policy and platforms are wholly determined within the party

Party launches and funding

So, what's with these glamorous party launches????

Well its all to do with funding..... the pollies can legitiamtely use our money before the party launch to promote their

policies. Howver once the  party campaign has been launched they need to spring for it themselves...... hence the very

late big two launch for this election... they both wanted to mazimize their use of public funds and minimize the use of

their own... and they wonder why voters are disillusioned ????

[***super_nova***]

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

---

At our currenmt point in the ecenomic cycle we need the Liberals ecenomic management. One would hope the world ecenomies will eventually heal and at that point a Labour government will definately be needed to address the social inequalities implemented by the Liberals.

---

Australia still does not have a debt problem, despite the fact that LNP managed to increase it significantly  in the past 3 years.  The debt  was 19.5 per cent of GDP in  2015.  Nothing like Greece or Spain or other countries that are in trouble.    The problem with your theory is that  Liberals  are taking money out of our economy and giving tax cuts to business which may or may not bring it back into the economy.  

When Labor gave $1000 to all pensioners  (NOT all people)  they went and spent it, because poor people have long lists of what they need, so if they get the extra they spend it, and they spend it locally.  That immediately fuels the economy, gives boosts to local shops.  People who are already well off and get a tax cut may as well take the European or US holidays and spend the extra money o/s.

By the way, only less than 5% of the school halls and other projects had some problems, and some were not serious, although all the problems were very well publicised.  Have you ever built anything?  There are always going to be some problems with construction.  Again, these projects kept people in jobs, and money in communities.  All those people working on these projects could have been drawing unemployment benefits. 

[chameleon54]

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

---

At our currenmt point in the ecenomic cycle we need the Liberals ecenomic management. One would hope the world ecenomies will eventually heal and at that point a Labour government will definately be needed to address the social inequalities implemented by the Liberals.

---

Australia still does not have a debt problem, despite the fact that LNP managed to increase it significantly  in the past 3 years.  The debt  was 19.5 per cent of GDP in  2015.  Nothing like Greece or Spain or other countries that are in trouble.    The problem with your theory is that  Liberals  are taking money out of our economy and giving tax cuts to business which may or may not bring it back into the economy.  

Agreed -   In times of ecenomic unrest,  business is unlikely to suddenly expand and employ more people. They are much more liely to retire debt, offer share buy backs or increase dividend payments to share holders or save profits if privately owned.

When Labor gave $1000 to all pensioners  (NOT all people)  they went and spent it, because poor people have long lists of what they need, so if they get the extra they spend it, and they spend it locally.  That immediately fuels the economy, gives boosts to local shops.  People who are already well off and get a tax cut may as well take the European or US holidays and spend the extra money o/s.

Again I agree - my previous post expressed similar sentiments. This policy was instrumental in preventing a melt down in the Australian retail sector.

By the way, only less than 5% of the school halls and other projects had some problems, and some were not serious, although all the problems were very well publicised.  Have you ever built anything?  There are always going to be some problems with construction.  Again, these projects kept people in jobs, and money in communities.  All those people working on these projects could have been drawing unemployment benefits. 

Have I ever built anything. ??? I was a licenced builder working in the construction industry at the time of the school halls fiasco. I was sub contracting for one of our states larger builders and saw the rorts, overpricing and poor policy decisions first hand. I dont know where you got the 5% figure from but I can only assume the official figures are a gross underestimate and under reporting of what acually went on.

Have I ever built anything ?????   During the property boom I purchased a number of run down houses ( some advertised as demolition jobs ) and rebuilt them myself, re-roofing, jacking up walls and pouring new foundations, tiling kitchens and bathrooms, rebuilding crumbling chimneys and restoring broken stained glass windows.. I ended up with five rental houses.

Have I ever built anything ????  I grew up on building sites as my grandfather was always building something. Basically I have spent most of my life building things and continue to do so today. The current project is a 15 mtr. by 9 mtr. by 5 mtr. high farm shed built out of recycled scraps.  ...........Super-nova .....Have you ever built anything ?????

Despite the rorting, waste and poor policy decisions that accompanied the school halls programme I still believe the programme had some merit as I noted in my previous post.

Basically I agree with much of what you say. I dont think the Liberals are gods gift to politics. They are just the party who is best equiped to lead us through the current global, ecenomic uncertianty.

---

[go-tazz]

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

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.

---

Which has put the rents up to levels that are too high and pushes some out of renting a house.

Our son was living at a place in Portland which was on a couple of acres and it was over grown and a real

mess,(it hadn't been rented for over 3 years).

He cleaned it all up,fixed the sheds and fences but stopped short of doing the house as he discovered it had

asbestos,(the real estate agents were very happy with him).

The owners came down and saw how good the place looked and he was given a notice that the rent was going

up $20 per week as he "made" the value go up.

He promptly gave notice and found another place that suits him better.

The previous house is still empty and the yard is starting to over grow again.

Rents for houses here are from $240 to $480 per week,(which means in some cases the tenant would be 

paying close to the full mortgage on the place).

[tezza2844]

 Basically I agree with much of what you say. I dont think the Liberals are gods gift to politics. They are just the party who is best equiped to lead us through the current global, ecenomic uncertianty.

---

 Well I beg to differ when  you look at some of their past achievements. I think they would struggle to manage a chook raffle.

 Maintaining foreign exchange reserves is a critical area of economic management. Australia’s reserves once dropped disastrously during a three-month period – by 55 per cent from $80.3 billion down to $35.9 billion.

The hapless treasurer then was:  

Peter Costello when  John Howard was PM in mid 2007.

According to a speech in January by Treasury chief John Fraser – appointed by Tony Abbott in 2014 – Australia’s current structural deficit and debt problems began when?

In the 2000s, when the Howard Government squandered the mining boom revenue.

Only once has Australia’s gross debt increased by more than $14 billion in one month.

This was in  May 2016, to finance massive tax evasion.

“Part of our plan is big trade export deals. We have opened up huge markets in Asia which are driving investment and growth.”  Who was prime minister when Australia’s exports plummeted and the trade deficits exceeded $2.5 billion for a disastrous 11 months straight?

Malcolm Turnbull

Two extraordinarily costly blunders by Australian treasurers are very well-kept secrets. One was $4.5 billion lost gambling on foreign exchange markets. The second was selling most of Australia’s gold reserves at near rock bottom prices just before the price rose spectacularly. Both handed billions to foreign speculators. Coincidentally – or maybe not – they happened under the same treasurer.

 Peter Costello

 In 2013 the heads of Treasury and the Finance Department set out their non-partisan deficit forecasts for the next three years: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (in their pre-election economic and fiscal outlook [PEFO]). It projected total deficits of -$24.5 billion.  What were the actual deficits the Coalition has delivered, according to the 2016 non-partisan PEFO?

$115.0 billion, a worse outcome by 470 per cent.

According to Malcolm Turnbull, a key strategy  “... to ensure that we remain a first-world economy is trade."

Which of these is true?

(a) Australia’s worst-ever trade deficit was in April 2015, just 19 months after the Coalition took office.

(b) the monthly result for March 2016 was the thirteenth consecutive deficit above $2.0 billion – first time ever.

(c) Australia’s longest run of deficits – 78 months – began in April 2002 and continued through the last six years of the Howard Government until October 2008.

 all of the above.

 Which of these prestigious international journals expressed dismay at Australia’s alarming economic collapse since Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison replaced their predecessors?

(a) Le Figaro, France.(b) The Telegraph, UK.(c) The Wall Street Journal, USA.(d) Reuters, worldwide.(e) The Straits Times, Singapore.(f) The New Zealand Herald, NZ.(g) Chicago Tribune, USA.

all of the above

Who were treasurer and prime minister when Australia first achieved triple A credit ratings with all three international agencies?

Wayne Swan when Julia Gillard was PM in 2011

[chameleon54]

Either you got that lot straight off the Labour parties propaganda site or you have got too much time on your hands  

[tezza2844]

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

Either you got that lot straight off the Labour parties propaganda site or you have got too much time on your hands  

---

Neither, but sorry that a few home facts upset you so much. But keep plugging on about the Goverments  claim about being the best economics  managers

[myoclon1cjerk]

We all know that economic management is best left in the hands of the conservatives. Got any idea who was the last Republican president to deliver a budget surplus? Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961. 😄 2016 sees a return to surplus. The first time since Bill Clinton's presidency.