Australia General Discussion

[morgieb]

I really cannot see how the Liberals can keep Abbott until the next election, I mean he's a disaster and drags the government down so much. However, there only viable alternative is Bishop but she's so successful because she's been able to distance herself from the Libs. I feel like the Vic results have changed the game,  I mean it has really put all governments on notice. Campbell Newman must be incredibly nervous seeing those results and his numbers in polling despite the ridiculous amount of seats he holds.

I do kinda agree, but as you said, who can replace him? Bishop only looks good because she's in a position where you can't do that much damage, in other positions she's been the definition of mediocrity. Morrison would piss off too many swinging voters IMO. Hockey is toxic, Pyne is laughable. I don't see the party turning towards Turnbull either (though of course if they did, he'd beat Shorten fairly easily IMO).

[checkers]

Any sign of a spill against Newman in QLD? His numbers are shocking.

I can't think of anyone with a high enough profile to replace him. He's actually gone up in the polls recently, though, as the result of his new strategy where he avoids appearing in the news as much as possible.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Newman is too close to the election. He'll probably lose his seat, but the Government will likely be re-elected. So it kind of solves their Newman problem.

As for Federally... the idea of a leadership spill against the sitting PM is something they would rather lose an election than do. My view is that only way a leadership change happens is if it's perceived to be voluntary and succession already determined.

Turnbull has seriously damaged his credibility with the ABC/SBS stuff, plus I think he's electorally damaged for at least the medium-term. Bishop strikes me as the ONLY legitimate short-term (as in, until the next election) option for a change. It would require a major reshuffle, Hockey, Pyne, Dutton, Johnson and probably Corman need to be shifted or just outright demoted. But it also fundamentally requires policy changes, the Budget strategy not only needs to killed, it needs to be buried, cremated and shot off into the sun on a rocket. They also need a massive mea culpa that they were wrong.

What's the likelihood of this? Hmmm?

They need a grand gesture that "hurts" their people. They need to claw back some money from high-end super concessions (keep in mind the super concessions cost the Budget the same as the aged-pension), move off the surplus pledge etc etc. It should be noted that without direct Government spending Australia has come very close to recessionary conditions for most of this year. Hence why the OECD has warned Australia that the economy cannot afford deeper cuts in government spending.

[BaconBacon96]

I was one of those people who thought it would be incredibly unlikely for the government to lose power after one term. Except now it looks like they're falling apart already, much sooner than Labor did.

[Ebowed]

I was one of those people who thought it would be incredibly unlikely for the government to lose power after one term. Except now it looks like they're falling apart already, much sooner than Labor did.

Yes, at first I thought they'd win re-election.  Then when his government was actually as stupid as I'd .. maybe hoped for, I figured they'd get all of the crazy out before the next election.  But it just seems like constant gaffes and bad news with these guys.

It's just too bad that Bill Shorten is in charge of Labor.  Not selecting Anthony Albanese remains a missed opportunity indeed.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I was one of those people who thought it would be incredibly unlikely for the government to lose power after one term. Except now it looks like they're falling apart already, much sooner than Labor did.

Yes, at first I thought they'd win re-election.  Then when his government was actually as stupid as I'd .. maybe hoped for, I figured they'd get all of the crazy out before the next election.  But it just seems like constant gaffes and bad news with these guys.

It's just too bad that Bill Shorten is in charge of Labor.  Not selecting Anthony Albanese remains a missed opportunity indeed.

I'm certainly not of the view that they're going to lose... but over the past few weeks, it's kind of settled in my mind that a one-term government is a realistic scenario.

Putting everything policy-wise aside... MYEFO will be out in a fortnight and it's going to be a nightmare for the Government, the deficit is going to be a lot larger and net debt is going to be a WHOLE lot bigger. They've got two sitting days left before February... they're not getting anything of worth out of the Senate. So, by the time Parliament sits to deal with the 2014-15 Budget, they'll be three months away from the Government having to deliver the 2015-16 Budget.

The Budget will have no room for ANYTHING, there is no money for sweeteners, and they will need to deal with a deteriorating bottom-line. So the next Budget will have to be just as harsh, if not harsher, than this one, if they actually intend to project a surplus at any point in the estimates.

So add this into this Government's almost magical capacity to shoot themselves in the foot.

Even though I voted for Albo in the leadership ballot last year... Shorten has been EXACTLY the leader the ALP needed. They don't need fire and brimstone, they need stable, steady and calm. He's VASTLY exceed my expectations of him.

[Barnes]

I should think that the Liberals learned at least enough from the constant Labor leadership debacle that it's best to avoid these things if possible. What I'm getting at mainly is that Abbott would probably pull a Kev and attempt to undermine whomever replaces him at every corner.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I should think that the Liberals learned at least enough from the constant Labor leadership debacle that it's best to avoid these things if possible. What I'm getting at mainly is that Abbott would probably pull a Kev and attempt to undermine whoever replaces him at every corner.

It would depend on the circumstances. Abbott is much more a party guy than Rudd is, so he'd not want to harm the party. People who know him, argued that the reason why he was so aggressive against Turnbull of the climate stuff was a) he doesn't really buy it b) he thought they needed to provide a contrast and red-meat for their voters.

So I wouldn't expect Abbott to Rudd whomever a successor turned out to be. If the leader were Turnbull? Which is highly unlikely, I can see the right making his life miserable. But anyone else and it was done cleanly? Probably not much else.

[Platypus]

The mutterings I've been hearing since before the election are still floating around, although the plan isn't working.

The idea was that Abbott would get everything that the coalition has been wanting to do for 20+ years done, cop the hatred, and in late 2015/early 2016 be medically required to resign. Bishop, free of any of the electoral negatives from the Liberal ideological actions, would step up and be a moderate voice that would get them through the election with no major damage, after passing hugely unpopular measures.

Except the measures are more than hugely unpopular, and in the large part, they haven't be successfully implemented.

-----------

Part of me wants to just call that a conspiracy, but I've heard it from a dozen sources, and sources with no links to each other. Admittedly, all but one from well and truly outside the coalition, most of them from the politically active left. It seems almost too neat. But if it ever was the plan, it's failing spectacularly.

The NSW and WA redistributions still need to happen, but basically Labor needs 21 seats, and they're not all that hard to get.

14 Within 3%:

8 NSW: Banks 1.83, Barton 0.31, Dobell 0.68 (and this was Craig Thompson's seat, so that slim margin is realistically much slimmer) , Eden-Monaro 0.61, Gilmore 2.65 (although this is an aberration I suspect), Lindsay 2.99%, Page 2.52, Reid 0.85

2 QLD: Capricornia 0.77, Petrie 0.53%

1 SA: Hindmarsh 1.89

2 TAS: Braddon 2.56, Lyons 1.22

1 NT: Solomon 1.40

10 Within 5%:

2 NSW: Macquarie 4.48, Robertson 3.00

3 VIC: Corangamite 3.94, Deakin 3.18, LaTrobe 4.01

3 QLD: Bonner 3.69, Brisbane 4.28, Forde 4.38

1 WA: Hasluck 4.87

1 TAS: Bass 4.04

Add in Bennelong which will likely become significantly more ALP friendly if the redistribution does what is expected and removes Hunter, shifting other seats down into the North of Sydney, and pushing Bennelong west, and the new WA seat which will likely come from potentially friendly areas on Western Perth (friendly in a WA relative sense), or at least make Swan and Hasluck friendlier to the ALP, and the loss of Hunter can kind of be called a wash I think. I also think the Victorian seats of Aston (8.20%), Casey (7.17%), and especially Dunkley (5.57%) are sneaky chances, as Abbott and company seem to have governed like the exact opposite of what would be wished for by Victorian moderates. That said, the Libs did manage to pick up seats in Victoria in 2013, although they lost 2010 largely because of not being able at the time to convince the people of seats like Deakin, La Trobe, and Corangamite to tolerate and trust Abbott.

It's not an easy road to travel when you require a uniform 4.3% swing against a first term government to be elected (insert asterisk for redistributions), but it's not impossible either - especially against this particular government.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I actually think you'll very sharp snap-backs in SA and VIC. I also think the swing in QLD might be sharper than the national average.

[morgieb]

I actually think you'll very sharp snap-backs in SA and VIC. I also think the swing in QLD might be sharper than the national average.

I can't agree with South Australia and Victoria. They have Labor governments, whereas the others will likely have Coalition governments, so therefore less of a reason to give the government a kicking.

I'm liking Queensland for a huge snap-back, although given how right-wing the state is I'm not convinced.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I actually think you'll very sharp snap-backs in SA and VIC. I also think the swing in QLD might be sharper than the national average.

I can't agree with South Australia and Victoria. They have Labor governments, whereas the others will likely have Coalition governments, so therefore less of a reason to give the government a kicking.

I'm liking Queensland for a huge snap-back, although given how right-wing the state is I'm not convinced.

You see, this is the argument that I've never understood. Queensland had a Labor Government for all but 18 months in a near 22 year period. Queensland is not especially conservative, they are parochial and populist (which, especially for those of us in the southern states, looks conservative). They'll vote for whomever is doing the best at presenting that image.

In relation to VIC and SA, I think it has much less to do with their Governments, but what the natural equilibrium in their states are. One could argue that QLD and NSW kind of hit the extent of their natural swing in 2010. Yes, the LNP picked up 8 seats in NSW, but if you look at the margins and their circumstances, they picked off the low-hanging fruit like Robertson, Lindsay, Banks ... all with margins under 2%. Where were the biggest swings ALP -> LNP in NSW? The seats where the sitting members got swings to them, counter to the state-wide trend in 2010- Eden-Monaro, Dobell and Page. This has left the LNP with a clump of seats

The other is to look at TAS - the ALP did incredibly well there in 2010 - big swing to the ALP. So what happens in 2013 - massive swing back. It was the same in VIC and SA - big swing to the ALP in 2010, but massive swing back to the LNP in 2013. The reason why the LNP only picked up 1 seat in SA and 3 in VIC was due to the sheer lack of genuine marginal seats. So you could get a pretty decent 5-7% swing in SA, VIC and TAS and only gain 4-6 seats combined. You get a 2% swing in NSW would net 5, assuming a uniformish swing.

The Government, of the 17 seats they won from the ALP directly (including Dobell) 14 of them are on margins of 3% or less, nationally, as Hugh pointed out.


So that's a complex way of arguing that VIC and SA are prime for a swing back, due to having reached the extent of the natural swing cycle. Much like NSW and QLD did in 2010, hence why the LNP was only able to pick up the scraps there and those seats that bucked the trends in 2010. Keep in mind, people assumed W.Sydney was going to be a blood-bath... look at Fowler it swung hard in 2010 and swing back to the ALP in 2013 by 8% (? I think).

[Platypus]

The problem with SA is that beyond Hindmarsh, you need really very significant swings to start looking at an of the other seats. I happen to agree that SA will be just about the worst performing state for the coalition come the next election (Victoria the other candidate), but the only other seat under 10% is Boothby (7.12, and as much a chance as Casey). Big swings to Labor in seats they already hold are distinctly possible - 7 percent plus swings in seats to the North of Adelaide (Wakefield, Port Adelaide, Makin) would not be a surprise whatsoever - but there'd have to be a very peculiar result to see the ALP gain more than 2 seats in the state, and even that's a tall order.

That said, it is seats like Boothby than could assist the ALP in going down the populist route demanded by SE Queensland and Western Sydney too heavily. Every Boothby and LaTrobe is one less Forde or Lindsay, and while LaTrobe and Lindsay have a hell of a lot in common, I tend to think  the 4.01 for LaTrobe is far more manageable than the 2.99 for Lindsay. LaTrobe can be swung without too many sweeteners, simply by reminding the voters of the ideology and incompetence of the Coalition; Lindsay will vote for whoever will stop the boats and build a train station or two. Not to say the voters in outer western Sydney are less intelligent than in outer eastern Melbourne, because that's not the case, just that the communities have different expectations from politics and politicians, and this particular government is much further from meeting those expectations in the context of Melbourne's outer East.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

ACT Chief Minister to resign, effective Wednesday to seek Senate seat.

[Platypus]

Damn, I was hoping it was headed to Andrew Barr. He'll end up as Chief Minister I suppose?

[morgieb]

Damn, I was hoping it was headed to Andrew Barr. He'll end up as Chief Minister I suppose?

It's probably more significant for him to be Chief Minister rather than Senator, tbh.

[Platypus]

It's not the best use of his talents, though, and while the symbolism is nice and all, it doesn't really outweigh the influence he would have longer term as a senator.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yeah, Barr will be CM.

I think Barr sees a couple of elements as important. First, Shorten and Wong tapped Gallagher... which means powers in the right and left asked her. It is expected that she will we get through unopposed, which means both Barr and Corbell will likely get up unopposed. The second is the political statement of the first openly-gay head of government in Australia. Andrew sees the history in that and is very, very aware of the impact of that.

[Hifly]

Andrew Barr is now the first ACT Chief Minister from the Right faction in history (as well as the first gay CM).

[morgieb]

So it looks like Labor are favourites to gain Fisher.

OUCH.

[Talleyrand]

So it looks like Labor are favourites to gain Fisher.

OUCH.

Amazing!!!!!!!!!

In addition, another ReachTel poll shows Campbell Newman down 45-55 in Ashgrove. Time to finally announce he's switching seats?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Xenephon's starting his own party apparently. Cause he saw how that went so well for Bob Katter...

[morgieb]

Xenephon's starting his own party apparently. Cause he saw how that went so well for Bob Katter...

I think Xenophon's niche won't be gagged by a Clive Palmer type though

Plus also, he's in the Upper House so the issues that harmed Katter won't really affect him as much.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Xenephon's starting his own party apparently. Cause he saw how that went so well for Bob Katter...

I think Xenophon's niche won't be gagged by a Clive Palmer type though

Plus also, he's in the Upper House so the issues that harmed Katter won't really affect him as much.

But the key question is...

Will he be so egotistical to name it after himself?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Xenephon's starting his own party apparently. Cause he saw how that went so well for Bob Katter...

I think Xenophon's niche won't be gagged by a Clive Palmer type though

Plus also, he's in the Upper House so the issues that harmed Katter won't really affect him as much.

But the key question is...

Will he be so egotistical to name it after himself?

Yes - it's the "NXT" - Nick Xenephon Team. I was hoping for it to be called the Xenomorphs, myself