2013 Federal Election: 7 September 2013

[IFocus]

Looking beyond the election, primary support for Labor is now chronically poor.

An Abbott government will take care of that.

Interesting re Abbott and future surpluses, what a fraud I guess Australia will have to get used to that ( Abbott = Fraud) over the next three years.

 

[Julia]

Primary: Labor 33 (down 4); Coalition 46 (down 1)

Did Labor's primary get down that far under Julia Gillard? I can't remember.

If it didn't, can't you imagine the gnashing of teeth and blood letting behind the scenes in Labor at present!

 

[Logique]

Did Labor's primary get down that far under Julia Gillard? I can't remember.

If it didn't, can't you imagine the gnashing of teeth and blood letting behind the scenes in Labor at present!

From memory, the Gillard government spent large amounts of time at around 31% primary vote. But the Rudd trend is down, so we could hit 7 Sept with Labor back at 31%.

A lot of media commentators seem more friendly to the Coalition than previously.

 

[noco]

Did Labor's primary get down that far under Julia Gillard? I can't remember.

If it didn't, can't you imagine the gnashing of teeth and blood letting behind the scenes in Labor at present!

I can recall Gillard down to 29% at one stage.

 

[drsmith]

The tide is also turning for Labor on Essential Media.

52% 2PP support for the Coalition compared to 50% last week on two weekly averages. Essential have also done a weekly intention and that's 53% in favour of the Coalition.

http://essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport

 

[IFocus]

An Abbott government will take care of that.

Interesting re Abbott and future surpluses, what a fraud I guess Australia will have to get used to that ( Abbott = Fraud) over the next three years.

Ross Gittins

Worth a read on the great big taxes Abbott will need.

Why taxes would rise under Abbott

lection campaigns have become works of fantasy where, to enter the spirit of things, you have to suspend disbelief. And the greatest unreality this time is Tony Abbott's claim the budget can be returned to surplus in the coming decade while taxes go down, not up.

To most people the idea of permanently paying less tax is hugely attractive. And Abbott is promising to abolish the carbon tax and the mining tax, cut the company tax rate by 1.5 percentage points and abandon Labor's plan to end tax concessions for company cars. All this would cost about $28 billion over four years.

So what reason is there to doubt he would deliver a lasting reduction in taxes? Simply his promise to get the budget back to surplus - plus the knowledge government spending is set to grow strongly in the next decade.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/why-taxes-would-rise-under-abbott-20130901-2sytp.html#ixzz2djloQQaw

 

[Wysiwyg]

It is now a foregone conclusion. The Labor Party, of which I support, have *botched their opportunity to govern Australia wisely. Mr. Sneaky and Mr. Nasty have the helm.

* botch (bch)
tr.v. botched, botch·ing, botch·es
1. To ruin through clumsiness.

2. To make or perform clumsily; bungle.

 

[SeekingYields]

Just a question of by how much now for the Coalition. Labor should be focused on limiting the number of seats they are going to lose otherwise they are going to find it impossible to regain power after 3 years.

 

[sptrawler]

Ross Gittins

Worth a read on the great big taxes Abbott will need.

Why taxes would rise under Abbott


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/why-taxes-would-rise-under-abbott-20130901-2sytp.html#ixzz2djloQQaw

It's nice to see someone still reads Gittens.lol

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realise, if you have billions of debt, and you are still running a defecit.
There will be an increase in taxes and a decrease in spending to fix it.
Or you can just keep racking up the problem, sooner or later you have to fix it.

Despite what Kev says, what a waste of a oxygen.

 

[sails]

Just a question of by how much now for the Coalition. Labor should be focused on limiting the number of seats they are going to lose otherwise they are going to find it impossible to regain power after 3 years.

You want them back in after three year to trash the place again and start running up more deficits and debt? Goodness,I hope not!

 

[Wysiwyg]

You want them back in after three year to trash the place again and start running up more deficits and debt? Goodness,I hope not!

When Labor learns how to balance a budget then they may get another chance. People in Australia are not doing it tough.

Doing it tough is when you bludge for unemployment benefits, have kids you can't afford to maintain and take on too much debt (mortgage, cars). The day Commonwealth Government stops supporting individual life choices (babies, child care, schooling, dole bludging) then Australia can collectively move forward.

 

[sptrawler]

Why the hell would you vote for Labor when they approve this sort of assett stripping.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/18754597/woodside-confirms-floating-option-for-browse/

Why allow these companies to develop offshore processing of our gas, then sell it overseas. We must be the dumbest nation on earth.IMO

 

[bunyip]

Ross Gittins

Worth a read on the great big taxes Abbott will need.

Why taxes would rise under Abbott


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/why-taxes-would-rise-under-abbott-20130901-2sytp.html#ixzz2djloQQaw

And you don’t think Labor will need ‘great big taxes’ if they win??!!
Hell, Rudd has already introduced a bunch of new taxes in the short time since he became PM again. And then there are the numerous taxes he and Gillard introduced over the last six years.
Considering the big debt and big budget deficits that six years of Labor government have produced, are you really so blind that you can’t see what Rudd will need to do if he’s ever going to address the mess that his incompetence has created?

 

[Judd]

In the House of Reps, my first preference will be towards some obscure no-hope party simply to deny either of the majors my $2.50 they get for preference votes.

in the Senate, the same for first (below the line) and then split #2 or #3 for the obscure party, then the majors. I don't like the way the preference deals re applied for above the line voting for the Senate. It's how people are elected when they get less than 2% of the vote.

 

[bunyip]

That takes the cake bunyip. However one of his co-conspirators in the untruths and deceit games, Treasurer Chris Bowen, came close when he said the other day;

"You have to campaign as you intend to govern".

The poor fool should have kept that quiet.

I’m very disappointed in Chris Bowen. I used to consider him one of the more decent members of the Labor Party. But recently he’s degraded himself by becoming just another lying, grubby little bastard like Rudd and Wong and the rest of them.

I wonder if some of these people will be able to look back on their political careers once they retire, and truthfully say “I’m proud of having conducted myself with honesty and integrity when I was in politics”.

 

[Tink]

I will be celebrating too, bunyip.

How anyone could even consider voting this pack of self serving idiots beats me. Six years and they still cant work out their direction.

Rudds campaign made me cringe, full of lies, and am waiting the next mass exodus of how the poor Kevin had such a hard life yet treats people like trash.
Never seen him do anything for charity.
All talk, no action.

One thing his wife said that was true, he went out to buy one thing and came back with everything except what he said -- the country was run the same way.

 

[Logique]

In the House of Reps, my first preference will be towards some obscure no-hope party simply to deny either of the majors my $2.50 they get for preference votes.

in the Senate, the same for first (below the line) and then split #2 or #3 for the obscure party, then the majors. I don't like the way the preference deals re applied for above the line voting for the Senate. It's how people are elected when they get less than 2% of the vote.

That's interesting Judd, it's 2.50 for each first preference vote, is that how it works?

 

[noco]

Just a question of by how much now for the Coalition. Labor should be focused on limiting the number of seats they are going to lose otherwise they are going to find it impossible to regain power after 3 years.

I would say they will be lucky to win back government in the next 9 years.

Labor have lost most of their major players in parliament and are liksly to lose more after Saturday.

 

[Judd]

That's interesting Judd, it's 2.50 for each first preference vote, is that how it works?

Yeah, if the party gets 4% or more of first preference then it gets money (ours) per vote. It's what I did last time as well. I believe the price per vote is around that amount but I could be wrong.

Remember the recent kerfuffle when both parties wanted to increase that amount form the public purse - and make the legislation retrospective?

 

[IFocus]

It's nice to see someone still reads Gittens.lol

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realise, if you have billions of debt, and you are still running a defecit.
There will be an increase in taxes and a decrease in spending to fix it.
Or you can just keep racking up the problem, sooner or later you have to fix it.

Despite what Kev says, what a waste of a oxygen.

Hmmmm you seem to miss the point on the surplus there is no difference between Labor and Abbott.

Abbott has run away from the quick return to surplus apparently thats in the Coalitions DNA......BS

Howard and Costello you know those absolute economic geniuses (read a couple of mugs who got lucky) who sold $70 bil of assets, increased government spending well above 2% in a revenue expansion surely lay the ground for Abbott's grand plan which he hasn't told you about.

Abbott has a massive spend and tax program the very thing all the rabid Abbott fans here criticize Labor for.

Looking forward to the next three years BTW its going to cost most of you money.