Australian Federal Election- July 2, 2016

[Vega]

What does Palmer United even stand for? (Clive Palmer reminds me of Jim Justice for some reason but I don't know much about him)

That's a rather curious comparison, but he's more like Trump (and I hate comparing international political figures to one another) if you want a connection like that.

He's a decidedly conservative "Australian party" style politician who build up a small following that dissolved nearly immediately after he was elected.

[BaconBacon96]

Palmer may have originally been a Liberal member but his party had no ideological direction whatsoever.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Palmer is a mindless and narcissistic populist. He only launched a party due to his hurt ego in relation to the collapse of his relationship with the Liberal Party.

[morgieb]

What does Palmer United even stand for? (Clive Palmer reminds me of Jim Justice for some reason but I don't know much about him)

Nothing.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

ReachTEL - 50-50

Ipsos

Primary
LNP: 42% (-1)
ALP: 36% (+2)
GRN: 13% (-1)

TPP
LNP: 49% (-2)
ALP: 51% (+2)

Approval
Turnbull: 45% (-3)
Shorten: 41% (+1)

Disapproval
Turnbull: 43% (+4)
Shorten: 47% (+1)

Preferred PM
Turnbull: 47% (-2)
Shorten: 30% (-1)

[Pandaguineapig]

I'm not all that familiar with Australian politics, why is shorten so unpopular?

[Knives]

I'm not all that familiar with Australian politics, why is shorten so unpopular?

He always has been, people see him as a union hack, he's not that attractive and isn't that great of a speaker. The only reason this election has been close however, is because he's lead his team well - as an opposition they've dictated policy discussion and developed some of the best policy from an opposition. Similarly, he's got an incredibly talented team behind him who don't want to be in opposition anymore. On the other hand, Turnbull was the polar opposite of Shorten, he was popular, well spoken, attractive but those wheels are falling off because he doesn't have the policy or team to back him up.

This will be a close election, but the Libs will most likely win even if they don't win the popular vote.

[Ebowed]

"Put the Liberals where they put you - LAST"

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's also worth noting that opposition leaders, especially first-term ones are almost always unpopular. Because first-term Governments are usually given a lot of latitude and opposition leaders are not given a lot of air.

Turnbull was popular, very much like Shorten under Abbott, because of who he wasn't. People really do forget how awful he was as Opposition Leader. He's really no different, but Turnbull came into office with a combination of relief for being rid of Abbott and a lot of genuine good will. But by making deal with the right of his party and by doing so, being seen to abandon his own brand. It's interesting to note, that yes, Turnbull's personal ratings have been sliding, Shorten's have been on an upward trajectory since Jan/Feb. Ipsos' numbers have been the outliers for quite a while.

[MaxQue]

Is it possible there will be no majority in the House?

[Phony Moderate]

Is it possible there will be no majority in the House?

Of course; the current prediction above only has to be one seat out for it to happen.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Is it possible there will be no majority in the House?

It's more likely than either an ALP majority or a strong Coalition result.

[Vega]

Is it possible there will be no majority in the House?

Hung parliaments aren't as interesting as in other countries, but assuming the chasm between Labor and a majority isn't too large, I imagine the Greens will once again give them at least confidence and supply.

[Knives]

I'd rather we got to another election than work with the Greens.

[Vega]

I'd rather we got to another election than work with the Greens.

But if Labor's coffers are close to empty, which I think they will likely be, and other reasons, they likely will have to in some confidence and supply scheme.

They really seem damned if they do, damned if they don't either way.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'd rather we got to another election than work with the Greens.

But if Labor's coffers are close to empty, which I think they will likely be, and other reasons, they likely will have to in some confidence and supply scheme.

They really seem damned if they do, damned if they don't either way.

Huh? Confidence and supply is largely a formality. The only way for a Government to form is for the Governor General to be assured that the Government can undertake the basic functions of Government. Some cross-benchers, like Wilkie have said they'd not undertake a formal arrangement, but would guarantee supply.

We'll see what the Labor costings are showing later this month.

Also (insert all caveats about basically released internal electorate polling)... a poll out of the PM's seat is showing him at 58-42 TPP, down from 68-32 in 2013.

[Vosem]

Labor needs ~51%-ish on the national 2PP to win, right?

It also seems to me that the NXT is likelier to hold the balance of power after the election than the Greens are, especially in the House but possibly in the Senate as well.

[Knives]

Labor needs ~51%-ish on the national 2PP to win, right?

It also seems to me that the NXT is likelier to hold the balance of power after the election than the Greens are, especially in the House but possibly in the Senate as well.

If Labor's primary is below 38 they probs won't win in their own right.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Labor needs ~51%-ish on the national 2PP to win, right?

It also seems to me that the NXT is likelier to hold the balance of power after the election than the Greens are, especially in the House but possibly in the Senate as well.

If Labor's primary is below 38 they probs won't win in their own right.

Yeah - the ALP primary needs to be above 38.

[Ebowed]

I'd rather we got to another election than work with the Greens.

Wow, really?

That reminds me, it's a good time to mention that one of the advantages to voting out the Coalition will be saving millions of dollars on a pointless, non-binding, divisive plebiscite on equal rights.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'd rather we got to another election than work with the Greens.

Wow, really?

That reminds me, it's a good time to mention that one of the advantages to voting out the Coalition will be saving millions of dollars on a pointless, non-binding, divisive plebiscite on equal rights.

There's a lot of people within the ALP who believe that the alliance with the Greens is what killed the Gillard Government (hello Carbon Price). I disagree, and I think that we need to work closer on those issues where we can find common ground. But there's a strong view that the Greens are electoral poison in middle-Australia.

And, absolutely - it's a good argument too. "Vote Labor and save over half a billion dollars in direct and indirect costs"

[Knives]

I'd rather we got to another election than work with the Greens.

Wow, really?

That reminds me, it's a good time to mention that one of the advantages to voting out the Coalition will be saving millions of dollars on a pointless, non-binding, divisive plebiscite on equal rights.

The Greens have a reckless asylum seeker policy and limited understanding of free market economics, they don't deserve to ever being government. They have a basic grasp of industrial relations laws and instead win votes by proposing unrealistic policies. Their voters are largely people who will never face the difficulties of someone who survives on welfare, instead they use their vote as something to identify as, this is incredibly problematic and serves to disenfranchise the poorest Australians. We need a strong left-wing opposition, not a fragmented one which is what the Greens are seeking to create.

[Vega]

I'd rather we got to another election than work with the Greens.

Wow, really?

That reminds me, it's a good time to mention that one of the advantages to voting out the Coalition will be saving millions of dollars on a pointless, non-binding, divisive plebiscite on equal rights.

The Greens have a reckless asylum seeker policy and limited understanding of free market economics, they don't deserve to ever being government. They have a basic grasp of industrial relations laws and instead win votes by proposing unrealistic policies. Their voters are largely people who will never face the difficulties of someone who survives on welfare, instead they use their vote as something to identify as, this is incredibly problematic and serves to disenfranchise the poorest Australians. We need a strong left-wing opposition, not a fragmented one which is what the Greens are seeking to create.

Most of their policies don't seem that unique to themselves, and look familiar to other left wing parties in other countries. I don't think they are that insane.

[Ebowed]

I'd rather we got to another election than work with the Greens.

Wow, really?

That reminds me, it's a good time to mention that one of the advantages to voting out the Coalition will be saving millions of dollars on a pointless, non-binding, divisive plebiscite on equal rights.

The Greens have a reckless asylum seeker policy and limited understanding of free market economics, they don't deserve to ever being government. ... Their voters are largely people who will never face the difficulties of someone who survives on welfare

I wasn't going to respond to this since it appears we don't agree on much, but I just wanted to rebut the claim that greens are immune to economic policies that hurt the poor.  One of the precise reasons they are doing so well with under 30s is because of deteriorating employment conditions.  Our workforce is now more than half casual, with nearly all jobs added in the last year only part time.  We have a massive under-employment problem which the major parties are not yet willing to acknowledge.  It doesn't make sense that the only options available to someone in the hospitality industry are either 55 hours a week with no paid overtime, no holidays or sick leave, or 20 hours a week at a legal minimum wage but still without penalty rates* or the security that comes with working, at least, 35 hours.  On top of that, if you work part time in a major city, invariably more than half of your income now goes toward rent and transport costs.  So I suspect that economics are driving the support for the Greens a lot more than you think.

*Labor & Greens constant bloviating about protecting penalty rates is especially hurtful because it feels like our sector is being entirely ignored.  You really end up wondering if they think we actually DO get paid penalty rates, or if they just don't care about us because we're at the bottom of the food chain.

[Knives]

I'd rather we got to another election than work with the Greens.

Wow, really?

That reminds me, it's a good time to mention that one of the advantages to voting out the Coalition will be saving millions of dollars on a pointless, non-binding, divisive plebiscite on equal rights.

The Greens have a reckless asylum seeker policy and limited understanding of free market economics, they don't deserve to ever being government. ... Their voters are largely people who will never face the difficulties of someone who survives on welfare

I wasn't going to respond to this since it appears we don't agree on much, but I just wanted to rebut the claim that greens are immune to economic policies that hurt the poor.  One of the precise reasons they are doing so well with under 30s is because of deteriorating employment conditions.  Our workforce is now more than half casual, with nearly all jobs added in the last year only part time.  We have a massive under-employment problem which the major parties are not yet willing to acknowledge.  It doesn't make sense that the only options available to someone in the hospitality industry are either 55 hours a week with no paid overtime, no holidays or sick leave, or 20 hours a week at a legal minimum wage but still without penalty rates* or the security that comes with working, at least, 35 hours.  On top of that, if you work part time in a major city, invariably more than half of your income now goes toward rent and transport costs.  So I suspect that economics are driving the support for the Greens a lot more than you think.

*Labor & Greens constant bloviating about protecting penalty rates is especially hurtful because it feels like our sector is being entirely ignored.  You really end up wondering if they think we actually DO get paid penalty rates, or if they just don't care about us because we're at the bottom of the food chain.

While that may be true for some voters, most Greens voters are not voting based on economics - some may. But the reality is, the issues of the inner city are dwarfed by those in the outer suburbs, where the Greens response almost always is "BUILD PT" but that obviously doesn't fix ice issues, mortgage pressures, childcare costs ect ect. I was unfair to categorise Greens like that, I simply meant their voters issues aren't necessarily the same as most who vote based on economics/hit-pocket.