Jump to content

Australian Federal Election 2022


Jerry_Atrick
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's November, 2021 and there is little chance the Aussie government will be calling a snap election. This will probably be the first for a while were the parliament sitting will go near or to full term (longer, if SFM had his way). May is the deadline as I understand, which is 6 months away.

 

The latest Newspoll by The Australian (https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/newspoll) has Labor ahead on a two-party preferred basis, however, has SFM as the more desirable PM over AA. Although this is obviously a Murdoch paper, it is not at odds with what else I have read (probably also from Murdoch press).

 

It is too early to predict anything other than a close tussle. The LNP tacticians will be hunkered down at the moment, concocting the next charade to play on the Aussie public. Labor's tacticians will be plotting the demise and looking for the lessons to learn from the Shorten disaster. As much as I seem to like AA (as much as anyone can like a mainstream pollie), I have no doubt it is his appointment that is making the race tighter than it needs to be. Having said that, I have not seen anything of the shadow treasurer or other shadow cabinet in public. Is it because the media just focus on AA of the opposition, or is it because they are quiet achievers?

 

Interestingly, on my youtube feed, I will get the occasional suggestion of a Sky News or PM flick, but from the ALP side of the fence, I normally get a Kevin Rudd flick. Although I have been recently getting some from Julian Hill MP. This is the latest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci-CUCF3oSo. He seems articulate, has some character and potential leadership qualities. I checked his Wikipedia entry and sadly, I don't think Australia is ready for him as a potential PM - he is gay. Ironically, Ireland, a staunch Catholic country were ready for a gay Taoiseach (PM). Can you imagine the Murdoch press on a gay candidate?

 

Is there someone in the Labor party that has the charisma and tenacity of Hawke and Keating? Is there going to be another snap leadership change?

 

How about other political parties - what are their chances of upsetting the apple cart to result in a minority government?

 

Ordering the popcorn.. too early to place a bet just yet...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

How about other political parties - what are their chances of upsetting the apple cart to result in a minority government?

NO. Australians are too conservative in their politics to consider electing independents in large numbers or a minor party countrywide. It's a two horse race as always.

 

5 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Is it because the media just focus on AA of the opposition, or is it because they are quiet achievers?

Obviously it is because the Murdoch media is only interested in bolstering one Party, and their nod to "equal time" requires them to have at least one speaker form the other side, so they only give Albo a few seconds. However, if you notice, it seems that it is only ever the Prime Minister or Premier who appears to make announcements - (Health Ministers with COVID excepted). This strikes me as a complete abandonment of the accepted practice of delegation. If it's only ever going to be the Leader making announcements, why do we have Ministers? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

 

Is there someone in the Labor party that has the charisma and tenacity of Hawke and Keating?

She’s been there for years, quietly holding the bastards to account, always articulate and sensible. She is widely respected across political divides and might be the best leader this nation ever had.

 

Penny Wong.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But SHE is in the SENATE.  Sorry for shouting but it's important.. Jerry living where you do you probably have Buckley's chance of getting the truth of politics HERE . Try subscribing to the New Dailyfor a start. Guardian has gone off the rails a bit. Murdoch runs the show. The Australian is his BIG Gun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to ask a question, but I don't mean to offend anyone's political leaning, so please take it in the same way that one would ask a follower of another religion what it is in that religion that draws them to it.

 

So here's the question: What is it that draws the "average" Australian, whose source of income is the sale of their mental or physical inputs to a task set by a business owner, to support the Party of the bosses and not the Party of the toilers?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to mention Compulsory voting in the context of your question. IT was introduced to stop the BOSS from stopping workers from voting by not releasing them from a roster on Polling day. . 

  Some Churches make it quite   clear not to vote a certain way.. .

 Individuals DO respond to policies that benefit THEM, even IF they are aware that it's not good for the Nation or good policy.

   Secret ballot policy  is a prime requirement as you should be able to

vote freely and without fear or favour. No one can BUY your vote if the vote is secret.

   The party of the bosses is probably outdated. It's now the Party that favours BIG CAPITAL and pretends  the discredited mantra that the Market will fix everything. BIG Capital leads to monopolies and NO real competition. Nev

 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no longer a party of the bosses. The major parties are all the same in that regard. And a large proportion of voters own small businesses, or aspire to, or work in one and want it to succeed. The old days of Bundy-punching assembly line workers are gone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

There is no longer a party of the bosses. The major parties are all the same in that regard. And a large proportion of voters own small businesses, or aspire to, or work in one and want it to succeed...

I suspect that was a prime motivation for the privatisation policies of the Howard government in particular; converting Labor-leaning employees into Liberal-leaning small business operators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, facthunter said:

But SHE is in the SENATE.  Sorry for shouting but it's important…

Yes Nev, but more than one Senator has been quickly moved to the Lower House to become PM. 
Much as I admire Penny, I seriously doubt she can ever get the gig, given the conservative nature of the national electorate.
Rudd’s parting gift to the LNP was to make changing Labor leader a months-long public process, so we’re stuck with Albo.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, facthunter said:

But SHE is in the SENATE.  Sorry for shouting but it's important.. Jerry living where you do you probably have Buckley's chance of getting the truth of politics HERE . Try subscribing to the New Dailyfor a start. Guardian has gone off the rails a bit. Murdoch runs the show. The Australian is his BIG Gun

That's not an impossible hurdle.  According to the Parliamentary Education Office it's only tradition and convention that the PM is from the House of Representatives.

Even if it was insisted on, she could give up her senate seat and be parachuted into a safe Labor seat to run for the reps.  Bit of a risk, but if they really wanted to do it, they could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

a large proportion of voters own small businesses, or aspire to, or work in one and want it to succeed.

No doubt that we are a nation of small business, but ask any "small" business owner and they will let you know how taxation, licences, fees and compliance with the minutiae of workplace regulations sucks the profits from their business. That's why I can't reconcile with the thought of those people continuing to support governments that oppress them financially. 

 

The small business owner - one with a handful of employees - could do more for their employees if governments stopped skimming the cream off their profits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Australia is too conservative to, by and large, vote beyond the main parties. That is understandable, as the practicalities of a bunch of independents being able to agree on most matters to a point where they could elect a leader who would have the support of the house is unlikely. However, it is sad that the electorate, despite the progress of time and the influx of immigration remains wedded to the white male being able to lead the country. Not that a white male can't lead the country - but it does restrict the pool from which a choice can be made. One can argue that people vote for their constituency candidate and not the party/leader, or that people vote for the party irrespective of leader. The former is almost always false, while the latter is mostly true, but there are enough swingers to allow for a change of government. In which case, what is it that motivates these swingers from swinging blue to red and vice versa?

 

Obviously the press has a lot to do with it, and the bias is stark. Sadly, too many people fail to look behind the headlines, and most of those that do, rarely go further than the print under the headlines. The pillory of Gillard has probably turned all women, especially of opposition (be that Labor, Greens, etc) of wanting to run for anything but a senior ministerial post. Again, Australia loses out, because it is one less segment that talent can be drawn from. 

 

In these fora, which admittedly is probably a limited demographic, what are the policy priorities? Of the main policy areas (economy, education, health, justice, defence, environment, etc), what are the policies that would drive you to vote one way or another? Or is it purely the man (let's face it, it will be a man) at the top?

 

For me, integrity not only of the person, but the party is paramount, as without it, there is no hope of any policy being implemented properly. All pollies lie, that is a given. But some carry it off better than others.

 

So, say, one of the minor party's policies more or less hit your target.. would you vote for them, or would you think it a wasted vote and go for one of the bigger parties that aligned closer to your ideals? And what if you were in a safe seat for the other party? Would you consider a vote for your party wasted and vote for the other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Marty_d said:

That's not an impossible hurdle.  According to the Parliamentary Education Office it's only tradition and convention that the PM is from the House of Representatives.

John Gorton is a good example. He was Prime Minister for three weeks while a senator. Then he resigned his senate seat and was Prime Minister for another three weeks while not being a member of either house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the first criteria we meet is our political cultural heritage. If Grandad supported Labor, Dad would have, and so there's a strong likelihood that son will, too.

 

A minor party might have a policy or two that you agree with, but in the end you will vote for the party which has more of the policies that align best with your ideas.

 

Do you give up if you are in a safe sat for the mob you don't like and give up and vote for them? Well, Howard got tossed when his electorate turned away from him. In an election, you pays your money and take your chances.  Upsets do happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like father, like son,

Not on my teaching, all my children are , were told to choose their own religion  And politics.

One self employed, one or two nurses, most working for wages.

Who they vote for is not my concern,  I don,t even ask or talk politics with them.

I,ll not pick their partners.

Its all up to them. 

spacesailor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

So, say, one of the minor party's policies more or less hit your target.. would you vote for them, or would you think it a wasted vote and go for one of the bigger parties that aligned closer to your ideals? And what if you were in a safe seat for the other party? Would you consider a vote for your party wasted and vote for the other?

That's the rub, isn't it.

I'm probably more aligned with Green than Labor, but I hardly ever vote Green, because I want to get the LNP out and with all the shenanigans about preferences I figure it's usually just safer to vote for Labor.

I'm in a fairly safe Labor seat anyway - Franklin has been Labor since 1993, except for when Harry Quick went independent for a couple of months in 2007.  Which I guess means I really should spread my vote around the progressive side a bit more, but there's the risk that if you get complacent the other side could get in.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marty - your response gives some credence to my theory... People vote for their party more to keep the other party out than to get their party in. I have to be honest, when I first observed it, I was very surprised, but my ex-fiancee's father exemplified it. When he said my vote to a minor party was wasted, my question to him was how else do you send a signal that a part of the country are seeking an alternative? If you're in a safe Labor seat, why not send a message you want them to implement more Green policies? (it's a philosophical question rather than a criticism).

 

But, it is the only way I can explain why SFM and Trump and the like are elected.. regardless of one's political bias, these are two recent examples of where most objective people would have issues with them as leaders  - although, to be fair, on this Forum, some expressed distrust in Shorten, and, well, to be honest. Hilary Clinton was no model candidate, either.


The more I watch this guy, the more I like him (from a political perspective, that is). I still shake my head in disbelief at the system they are bringing in.. And for Pauline to say those on welfare don;t have a say in how to spend it.. what happened to that old saying about the right to a pension - you payed your taxes...

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez! I didn't know about this government benefit. It's horrendous. And hearing which parties are involved makes me quake. Cole and Woolworths writing your shopping list? Already both companies are restricting the scope of products they stock, and squeezing manufacturers to make and package goods under house name. You can bet your left one that Aldi, IGA and independents won't be on the approved list. And 

 

But getting back to topic, that's a strong speech by Mr Hill. It's too bad that his voice is not broadcast outside the Chamber. If it was, it might cause people to think. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it may be possible for a Senate member to be PM The function of the Houses makes it pretty difficult to have one from the Senate (which is a house of review and forms many committees of enquiry etc, while the House of reps is where the legistation is initially presented.)

   INDIVIDUALS are elected to the Lower house representing each electorate, but the manner of getting there in the SENATE is different as the Party DECIDES who the candidates are and in what order they are allocated collective votes. in a specific, State The Senate also  doesn't have a voter base to candidate ratio . (moving allocated boundaries to adjust the number if required). There's more TAS senators per person there than say NSW and Eric Abetz has the #1 spot so he's virtually guaranteed election. as  was Corey Bernardi is SA. Keating used to refer to the Senate as "Unrepresentative Swill", rather disrespectfully. as He was frequently want to do. Nev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Aussie bloke who used to work for me and has since become a mate (despite his perversion for the Melbourne Football Club) used to bang on about how bas the MSM, including the ABC, BBC, etc were.. in that they sold a narrative rather than told the news. I have to admit, I thought he was off his rocker, but I didn't really subscribe to alternate sources as I do now.

 

If what Julian Hill says is true, forget the subs, this cashless pension card is nothing short of shameful - and well - heading towards China or worse (think WWII and Germany).

 

And you learn a new thing every day.. Didn't realise the PM (or the leader of the Executive Council) could come form the senate.. well. according to s. 64. they can be outside of parliament for a max of 3 month (hence the Gorton thing.. although I only remember him advertising Holden Statesman cars).

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, facthunter said:

Eric Abetz has the #1 spot so he's virtually guaranteed election. as  was Corey Bernardi is SA. Keating used to refer to the Senate as "Unrepresentative Swill", rather disrespectfully. as He was frequently want to do. Nev.

He has been in the past, but I think they just dumped him this year - https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/08/eric-abetz-dropped-to-third-spot-on-liberal-partys-tasmanian-senate-ticket

 

As for unrepresentative swill, that's not too far from the truth.  Especially when you see blokes like that nazi getting in with 19 votes.

Edited by Marty_d
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's time to 'fess up and admit that the generations born in the 20th Century have let down their descendants of the 21st. We got sucked into a culture of cultural and military imperialism,  and several other "-isms". We allowed the manufacturers and financiers to rule the roost, and as a result we have ended up dissing Mother Nature and fermenting hate amongst ourselves. 

 

We know that we of the 20th Century can't cure the diseased Earth we created, but anthropologist have labelled Homo sapiens the Toolmaking Ape. Solving problems of survival has been the hallmark of the Family of Man since Australopithecus afarensis some 3.4 million years ago. So, what tools can we hand on to our descendants? Well, there are many, from historic records, the Scientific Method to that great means of communication and research, the Internet.

 

What we must spend our last breaths doing is  to call on our children, and children's children to use the tools we made in the 20th Century to Learn! Learn! Learn! Mankind will cure Mother Nature, but only by the application of an increase in knowledge. Maybe one thing we should teach them is to be cynical of false prophets. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect (Matthew 24:24) {Just using a useful source of bon mots that suit the theme of the thread}

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...