OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Bandwagon]

Surely not everyone who votes a certain way at an election agrees with every thing that a parties say. I think mandates to do most of what a party wants to do if elected are bullshit, as in reality that don't have a mandate to do f**k all.

I think this is partially true, there's usually a few headline policies that a party could legitimately claim a mandate on, and there are others which are not so much.

The reality for Labor is that more people in the country wanted LNP to be the Government at the last election than them, and less than 1/3rd of the voting public believed that Labor was the best option, but the voting system in Australia meant that a small majority of the country decided they would prefer to have Labor over the LNP.

Yeah mate this is just right wing cope. It assumes people who have voted left don't truly understand how the preference system work, or don't care, whilst it also assumes that Liberal and National voters do.

IE, By grouping the coalition you assume ( rightly ) that a Nationals voter is also voting for a Liberal PM, because that's the reality, but then in this you are claiming that say a Greens voter who preferences Labor over the Liberals doesn't understand that their vote is a fair chance of being directed to a Labor government, which is a f**king nonsense.

We have a preferential voting system, and it delivers the government that a majority prefer, that's it mate. If they changed the system, and removed preferential voting, well knowing that minor parties aren't going to form government, then wouldn't you think that many people would treat their vote differently?

 

[Bandwagon]

Outside of Hawke as PM (who had more about him than just being a PM as head of Labor), Labor will be in government for only 14 years in the 80 years since the end of the second World War at the time of the next election.

..............outside of Labor's longest serving PM.....just f**king lolz mate.

 

[Chipmunk]

The popular mainstream media is largely right leaning (News Corp, commercial TV news channels), and will propagate whatever their corporate/paying masters want them to - which is also usually right-leaning.

I think News Corp is obviously right leaning (they don't claim to be anything else), whereas the ABC is left-leaning (although they would claim to be anything but). Nine/Fairfax, SevenWest I'd say are in the middle and pretty mainstream down the centre on most things, which is why they don't allow either side to get too crazy. No one really cares what Channel 10 is.

 

[Chipmunk]

..............outside of Labor's longest serving PM.....just f**king lolz mate.

My point was that I think quite a few people probably voted for him simply because of him, and not necessarily because of the party he belonged to at the time. I'm not sure you could say that about any other PM we've had though.

 

[the phantom menace]

I think News Corp is obviously right leaning (they don't claim to be anything else), whereas the ABC is left-leaning (although they would claim to be anything but). Nine/Fairfax, SevenWest I'd say are in the middle and pretty mainstream down the centre on most things, which is why they don't allow either side to get too crazy. No one really cares what Channel 10 is.

I'd have to say 7 news and current affairs is pretty right of centre these days.

 

[Chipmunk]

Yeah mate this is just right wing cope. It assumes people who have voted left don't truly understand how the preference system work, or don't care, whilst it also assumes that Liberal and National voters do.

IE, By grouping the coalition you assume ( rightly ) that a Nationals voter is also voting for a Liberal PM, because that's the reality, but then in this you are claiming that say a Greens voter who preferences Labor over the Liberals doesn't understand that their vote is a fair chance of being directed to a Labor government, which is a f**king nonsense.

We have a preferential voting system, and it delivers the government that a majority prefer, that's it mate. If they changed the system, and removed preferential voting, well knowing that minor parties aren't going to form government, then wouldn't you think that many people would treat their vote differently?

Certainly not suggesting that people on the left don't understand the preferential system, I'd actually say they understand it far better than the people on the right. People who vote Liberal and National don't really get the choice to vote for either Liberal or National except in a couple of instances at each election, and in the Senate only get one option. A Liberal or National voter in most instances is voting for the other without even getting the choice, because they are an official coalition once they get to parliament.

Having said that, according to people in the party system, 80% of the voters vote according to the How To Vote cards. I find this stat staggering to be honest. I can't believe anyone even considers looking at a How To Vote card.

 

[Bandwagon]

It doesn't follow from your (correct) statement that "less than 1/3rd of the voting public believed that Labor was the best option" which then is/always will indeed be true for any one party.

No, this statement is incorrect, as per above, a minor party voter fully understands they are not voting in a government when they vote Green/PUP/One Nation etc, so to assume they haven't a preference as to which of the actual options is the best option, particularly in light of the fact that preferential voting literally tells us their preference, is just daft.

 

[Bandwagon]

Certainly not suggesting that people on the left don't understand the preferential system, I'd actually say they understand it far better than the people on the right. People who vote Liberal and National don't really get the choice to vote for either Liberal or National except in a couple of instances at each election, and in the Senate only get one option. A Liberal or National voter in most instances is voting for the other without even getting the choice, because they are an official coalition once they get to parliament.

Having said that, according to people in the party system, 80% of the voters vote according to the How To Vote cards. I find this stat staggering to be honest. I can't believe anyone even considers looking at a How To Vote card.

Plenty of folks voted One Nation / Clive / independent and preferenced the Libs / Nats.

 

[Chipmunk]

Agree with what you've said there... but I think that means you have to rethink your wording of "The reality for Labor is that more people in the country wanted LNP to be the Government at the last election than them".

It doesn't follow from your (correct) statement that "less than 1/3rd of the voting public believed that Labor was the best option" which then is/always will indeed be true for any one party (even if you extend the definition to count LNP as "one" party).

In short, you'd have to add and then average the voting percentages for Libs and Nats (given you've said they generally don't contest seats against each other), rather than add them together, before comparing to Labor percentage.

The last election was the least amount who voted for either major party in history. Back in the 70's it was something like 95% of people voted Liberal/National/Labor. It was also the least amount of people (as a percentage) who voted Labor since something like 1910. I can't see this continual trend away from the major parties changing to be honest, and I doubt it will get above 70% again.

The issue for both parties at the next election is that it is unlikely either will form a majority. With the departure of McGowan in WA, it is has already been shown by the recent WA state by-election that it was just McGowan who they were really voting for in the past, and not really voting Labor at all. He being around alone won Labor all the seats in WA (and perhaps a bit of a back-hander at ScoMo and his attitude towards WA). I suspect Liberal will win back most, if not all, of the seats they lost at the last federal election in WA (maybe with the exception of Curtin, which will remain Teal). That alone brings Labor back into minority without even considering anywhere else may change. However, the wealthier city elites have found their independent people to follow now and Liberal will struggle to ever get those seats back. History shows, that as long as you don't piss off your electorate (i.e. Windsor and Oakeshot in traditional National Party voting areas siding with Labor), once an electorate goes independent it is often hard to get it back, so I can't see the Coalition getting a majority at the next election either.

Going forward into the future, both Albo and Plibersek's seats will go Green once they retire, and I can see the Greens eventually getting the seat of Canberra (or Pocock if he wants to make the move to the lower house - I doubt it) making it more difficult for them to.

Liberal and Labor will now just battle it out in the suburbs.

 

[Chipmunk]

Plenty of folks voted One Nation / Clive / independent and preferenced the Libs / Nats.

I'm sure they did, what is your point?

 

[Bandwagon]

My point was that I think quite a few people probably voted for him simply because of him, and not necessarily because of the party he belonged to at the time. I'm not sure you could say that about any other PM we've had though.

Again though, your post discounted it because the leader was personally popular, Keatings win over Hewson says hi.

 

[Bandwagon]

I'm sure they did, what is your point?

That right leaning voters do indeed have the opportunity to preference, and do so in reasonable numbers, just as left leaning voters do.

 

[Chipmunk]

Again though, your post discounted it because the leader was personally popular, Keatings win over Hewson says hi.

You don't win elections from opposition by introducing new taxes. Both Keating and ScoMo were kissed on the arse as a result. Neither was actually popular, just more popular than having new taxes.

 

[Bandwagon]

You don't win elections from opposition by introducing new taxes. Both Keating and ScoMo were kissed on the arse as a result. Neither was actually popular, just more popular than having new taxes.

The point is Keating wasn't exactly what you'd call personally popular, yet still won. But yes I agree on the whole too much policy type argument ( new taxes were only a portion of a lot of policy in those examples )

The other point I'd make going back to your original post is even though you chose to exclude Hawke's years from Labors count, I note you didn't choose to also remove those years from your total when making a comparison.

Labor will be in government for only 14 years in the 80 years since the end of the second World War at the time of the next election.

so not only did you arbitrarily ignore 13 years of Labor governments, you totaled it in such a way as to infer that during those 13 years Labor weren't in government.

 

[Eelogical]

Some people think it’s important enough to be a stand alone issue.

BTW, money should not be argued as a reason not to hold this referendum or to hide it amongst the papers in the next federal election. Labor were in for 5 mins and have literally shaved billions off ad hock irresponsible spending.

Also $334m is nothing these days. FFS there is a bike path out my way along Doncaster Ave near the racetrack going from Kensington to Centennial Park that is costing $325m !

Labor’s ‘rorts and waste’ audit to deliver $10bn in savings to federal budget

Government will also shuffle funds and axe Coalition projects to free up $11bn for their own policy priorities

www.theguardian.com

Morrison government spent $20.8bn on consultants and outsourcing public service in final year, audit finds

The equivalent of 54,000 full-time staff were employed by the federal government in 2021-22, or 37% of the actual workforce

www.theguardian.com

I wish I had $334+ million to piss up against the wall.

 

[Chipmunk]

The other point I'd make going back to your original post is even though you chose to exclude Hawke's years from Labors count, I note you didn't choose to also remove those years from your total when making a comparison.

so not only did you arbitrarily ignore 13 years of Labor governments, you totaled it in such a way as to infer that during those 13 years Labor weren't in government.

Fair call, I should've excluded the Hawke years from the total with my comment. Hawke was only in for 9 of the 13 years though. I think I included the Keating years in the years I mentioned in the original comment.

 

[Bandwagon]

Fair call, I should've excluded the Hawke years from the total with my comment. Hawke was only in for 9 of the 13 years though. I think I included the Keating years in the years I mentioned in the original comment.

If you did it doesn't add up. It's 27 years total to now ( thereabouts )

Infosheet 22 - Political parties

Infosheet 22 - Political parties

www.aph.gov.au

 

[the phantom menace]

So there's been 23 years of Labor governments in my lifetime I think?
Whitlam 3 years
Hawke 10 years
Keating 3 years
Rudd-Gillard-Rudd 6 years
Albo 1 year (and counting)

 

[Bandwagon]

So there's been 23 years of Labor governments in my lifetime I think?
Whitlam 3 years
Hawke 10 years
Keating 3 years
Rudd-Gillard-Rudd 6 years
Albo 1 year (and counting)

Yeah same, and 32 of Liberal/National.

So fun fact, the average age in Australia is 39 years or thereabouts

Profile of Australia's population

Australia@s population was 26.6 million at 30 June 2023, having grown around 1.4% a year on average over the past 3 decades, from 17.6 million at 30 June 1993.

www.aihw.gov.au

Which means that for the average Australian lifetime it's been close to 50/50 on which major's been in government

20.5 18.5 now, by the time the next election rolls around, it'll literally be 20.5 - 20.5 years, so not a dead rubber!

 

[Chipmunk]

If you did it doesn't add up. It's 27 years total to now ( thereabouts )

Infosheet 22 - Political parties

Infosheet 22 - Political parties

www.aph.gov.au

So there's been 23 years of Labor governments in my lifetime I think?
Whitlam 3 years
Hawke 10 years
Keating 3 years
Rudd-Gillard-Rudd 6 years
Albo 1 year (and counting)

I think you'll find between the end of WW2 and the next election in 2025 it is
Chifley - 4 years
Whitlam - 3 years
Hawke - 9 years
Keating - 4 years
Rudd/Gillard/Rudd - 6 years
Also - 3 years

So excluding the 9 year Hawke era it will be 20 out of 71 years, or 29 out of 80 with Hawke included.