Why Abbott could lose the ‘unloseable’ election
- Thread starter evand
- Start date
I don't think they would change to Joe Hockey. He came third in the last ballot and his view on climate science is very different to TA's.
No such thing....the public never get to vote for the PM....they can only vote for their local member.
The PM is decided by the parliamentary team in power at the time. It happens of course a lot more in opposition as they jostle for position.
We've seen this amply demonstrated with all parties.
Labor - Keating knocked off Hawke....public had no say in the PM.
Labor - Gillard knocked off Rudd........public had no say in the PM.
Liberals - Howard remained in power the whole time, as did Fraser during the Lib years.
In opposition, we've seen Brenda Nelson put up, then Malcolm Turnbull, then Abbott. The public had no say in any of that.
Greens - Brown stepped down and Milne took over - the public didn't get to vote for that.
As I've written before, this poll of "who is your preferred PM" is a nonsense....we never get to vote on that.
All that we can do as electors is have a squizz at the policies of the parties prior to the election and select the one that best aligns to what we want to see. Rarely does one party fully align with everything that we want....there are going to be individual policies that every single person agrees or disagrees with. To expect anything else is unreasonable. With a matrix of policies and 20 million personalities thrown together, you are never going to get exact matches.
One must go with the party that most aligns with your views.
These people that chase the Leaders and hang off their every word, as filtered by the media spin, rather than reading the detailed policies of each party on offer, need their heads read.
Yes that's the theory. Someone like myself that lives in a Blue Ribbon Liberal seat represented by the invisible man fully understands this. However, IMHO there is a growing percentage of the population that consider the Federal poll as a popularity contest between leaders. Like a Presidential campaign.
It is obvious he means a PM with a low personal popularity rating as the leader of a party voted into power. Pretty clear i thought.
I was having a look at the Federal lower house pendulum the other day, especially after the latest poll (which I place no weight on) which suggested the final two party preferred (2PP) vote was going to be 56 / 44.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think (because 1 vote stripped off Labor and sent to the coalition) accounts for literally 2 votes. I may have that fluffed up.
Anyway, if you take that as the basis, that would mean every Labor federal seat that is held with a margin less than 12.0% is under threat. The list is long....amounting to a loss of 46 seats.
If I do have it fluffed up, and 56 / 44 equates to only seats with margins less than 6.0% under threat, that equates to still a hefty 24 seats. There are 25 seats in the 6.0% zone held by the ALP, but I'm almost certain Adam Bandt from the Greens in Melbourne will be kicked out and the Labor candidate returned.....due to the Liberals preferencing Labor instead of the Greens this time.
For the purposes of this post, let's use the more conservative 24 seats version.
Based on that, my prediction for the House of Reps would go from what it looks like now ;
Before Election
Labor................72 seats
Liberal...............44 seats
LNQ..................21 seats
Greens................1 seat
Nationals.............6 seats
WA Nationals........1 seat
Country Liberals....1 seat
Independents.......4 seats
Total...............150 seats
To form Govt, Labor appoints 1 seat to be the Speaker, leaving it with { 71 + 1 Green + 3 Indys }, a 75 / 74 majority on the floor plus control of the Chair.
TO
After Election
Labor................48 seats
Liberal...............61 seats
LNQ..................28 seats
Greens................0 seats
Nationals.............9 seats
WA Nationals........0 seats
Country Liberals....2 seats
Independents.......2 seats
Total...............150 seats
To form Govt, the coalition appoints 1 seat to be the Speaker, probably a Lib leaving it with { 60 + 28 + 9 + 2 + 1 Indy }, a 100 / 49 majority on the floor plus control of the Chair.
Could be wrong of course....but it's looking very ugly for Labor. Kevin Rudd would be the sole Queenslander sitting on the Labor side of the house in opposition. Perhaps that explains why he is keeping his distance from the faceless men of Labor.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think (because 1 vote stripped off Labor and sent to the coalition) accounts for literally 2 votes. I may have that fluffed up.
Anyway, if you take that as the basis, that would mean every Labor federal seat that is held with a margin less than 12.0% is under threat. The list is long....amounting to a loss of 46 seats.
If I do have it fluffed up, and 56 / 44 equates to only seats with margins less than 6.0% under threat, that equates to still a hefty 24 seats. There are 25 seats in the 6.0% zone held by the ALP, but I'm almost certain Adam Bandt from the Greens in Melbourne will be kicked out and the Labor candidate returned.....due to the Liberals preferencing Labor instead of the Greens this time.
For the purposes of this post, let's use the more conservative 24 seats version.
Based on that, my prediction for the House of Reps would go from what it looks like now ;
Before Election
Labor................72 seats
Liberal...............44 seats
LNQ..................21 seats
Greens................1 seat
Nationals.............6 seats
WA Nationals........1 seat
Country Liberals....1 seat
Independents.......4 seats
Total...............150 seats
To form Govt, Labor appoints 1 seat to be the Speaker, leaving it with { 71 + 1 Green + 3 Indys }, a 75 / 74 majority on the floor plus control of the Chair.
TO
After Election
Labor................48 seats
Liberal...............61 seats
LNQ..................28 seats
Greens................0 seats
Nationals.............9 seats
WA Nationals........0 seats
Country Liberals....2 seats
Independents.......2 seats
Total...............150 seats
To form Govt, the coalition appoints 1 seat to be the Speaker, probably a Lib leaving it with { 60 + 28 + 9 + 2 + 1 Indy }, a 100 / 49 majority on the floor plus control of the Chair.
Could be wrong of course....but it's looking very ugly for Labor. Kevin Rudd would be the sole Queenslander sitting on the Labor side of the house in opposition. Perhaps that explains why he is keeping his distance from the faceless men of Labor.
Someone sent me a link to this article from August 2010. Nowhere in here does the PM say there will be no carbon tax. In fact she says there will be one.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983
Can anyone come up with 'there will be no carbon tax under any government that I lead' line? Thanks
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983
Can anyone come up with 'there will be no carbon tax under any government that I lead' line? Thanks
Oh FFS.
Two seconds on Google.................
What am I hearing here??????????????????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pzSvSCUZo
I found that YouTube clip in 1.5 seconds. Its edited (as you can tell) and taken entirely taken out of context.
The rest of the transcript is "but I will be introducing a carbon price. Only polluters are paying the carbon tax"
It has been an ALP policy since before 2007 that a scheme to trade and cap carbon be put in place. We don't have a tax, it is a price on carbon certificates which will then turn into a tradeable commodity.
I support any initiative that will protect our children from ever increasing carbon pollution as business can't and won't regulate itself.
Its edited (as you can tell) and taken entirely taken out of context.The rest of the transcript is "but I will be introducing a carbon price. Only polluters are paying the carbon tax"
It has been an ALP policy since before 2007 that a scheme to trade and cap carbon be put in place. We don't have a tax, it is a price on carbon certificates which will then turn into a tradeable commodity.
I support any initiative that will protect our children from ever increasing carbon pollution as business can't and won't regulate itself.
even in that article she says "I rule out a carbon tax".
I'm not against it, and I dont really understand why its such an issue (plenty of election promises broken on both side).... plenty of "non-core promises" from the Coalition.
but I think its futile to argue that she never said it!
I'm not against it, and I dont really understand why its such an issue (plenty of election promises broken on both side).... plenty of "non-core promises" from the Coalition.
but I think its futile to argue that she never said it!
I found that YouTube clip in 1.5 seconds.
How can you take "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" out of context.
She lied.
here is some of Wayne Swan perpetuating the same lie..perhaps he was being taken out of context too....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xOXhD6euwo
and the congratulations when it was passed...because the greens forced their hand and they really didnt want it...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-12/accusations-fly-as-carbon-bills-pass/3551822
No two ways about it - she lied.
The distinguishing feature is the magnitude or significance of the promise. Clearly, the Carbon Tax is a major part of policy and that is why people are angry at the about-face on its implementation.
How come labor will get so many seats. After the damage Juliar has done to this country how can anyone even consider voting labor unless they hate the country.
This post would summerize your understanding of the Labor Party.
How original, how cliche.
then address the topic please, this is the second time you've avoided doing so.
please explain what is cliche about an internal poll showing labor will be decimated at the polls?
i only put it up to balance the views put forward in the title of the thread.
