Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
trainspotter said:
Well DERRRRRRRRRR ! That's what preferences are for!
Click to expand...

BUT, my point is Abbott doesn't have the luxury of a majority of first preference as some seem to think, in either the reps or senate to get rid of the damn carbon tax. He needs the support of PUP and others to achieve that.

In that respect he's in the same position as the previous government, hogtied in the senate.

If he tends to lose 'popular' support for whatever reason, even a little bit, Palmer and the 'others' will feed off that to demand more for trade offs that they want before agreeing to pass anything.

The risk that some 'blue bloods' seem to be badly underestimating is that if the Lib popularity falls, their first preference falls and second preferences are less relevant in the reps. They simply won't keep him in government with a small minority of the vote that the senate system throws up.

What was one of the surprises of the 2013 election? Was it not a substantial break from traditional preference flows, not so many going to Abbotts coalition? Why do you think that was so?

By the way... what happened in the previous election? Hmmmmmm ??? Care to go and get some FACTS about that? Who won the primary vote but some dodgy deals with 4 independents gave the balance of power to whom again?
Click to expand...

I'll forgive you for your ignorance, because you've been away and probably haven't researched my previous posts to see that I was a strong critic of those independents supporting Gillard... but as just said, Abbott is facing a similar problem, except that he still doesn't have a majority on first preference.

Before you start cherry picking first of all you must have a cherry to pick. :cry:
Click to expand...

So, lets look at some significant 'cherry' FACTS.

2010 election: Labor got 38% of first preference, Coalition 43%. Neither got a majority.

2013 election: Labor 33% of first preference, Lib 32% & Coalition 45%. No majority. Abbott got less than half of what left Labor.

So lets look at some sobering FACTS about how preferences can work against you, even when you appear to be far ahead of your competition on first preferences. Think about how Palmer won Fairfax for example.
Labor : 18.24%
Palmer : 26.49%
LNP : 41.32%​

So, what would be the lesson about preferences?
  1. You may have a significant core support, first preference... but if you are more widely disliked or not tolerated, that's about all you'll get.
  2. If you are more widely liked/tolerated, and not on the top of many peoples hate list, you will win the majority on preferences.
The raw bottom line FACT is that Abbott has his minority hard core support, but is not appealing to the rest to get enough of the preferences to win a majority control of government.

To get the carbon tax, the main drag on our economy, gone they need to tred a bit more softly to win over more who supported Labor or others previously, because they obviously thought more of, or tolerated a more socialist approach (despite leadership problems) than Big L Liberalism.

While the leadership was a significant drag on Labors vote, undoubtedly the Carbon Tax that Gillard introduced and the right faction of Labor ignoring the grass roots (as evidenced by the recent leadership poll) was what tipped most normally Labor voters off to 'others' more than the coalition.

My warning is Labor's more socialist policies are tolerated by more than Big L Liberilism. You are kidding yourself if you think economic rationalism will win them over longer term. What they don't tolerate is unstable leadership especially, corruption and right faction dominance.

I'd even venture to speculate that once the leadership stabilises more will tolerate Labor even with an ETS if they get rid of the carbon tax. That's why I say Abbott needs to tred a bit softly at least until the carbon tax is gone.
 
drsmith said:
And today, a policy announcement from the government on entitlement claims,



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-...rnment-prepares-to-announce-new-rules/5080914
Click to expand...


Nothing.............


Abbott's expenses crackdown: shades of grey to stay

Special Minister of State Michael Ronaldson said it best when he was asked how politicians' dodgy travel claims would be investigated under the new, supposedly tough, rules.

The changes do little to shed light on the grey areas of expense claims.

"Nothing has changed in that regard," he said.
Click to expand...


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...rey-to-stay-20131109-2x8ec.html#ixzz2k8N1ON5R
 
Torture

No comment: government silent over fate of asylum seekers

Fairfax Media attended the weekly media briefing by Immigration Minister Scott Morrison on Friday - now the only opportunity to seek answers from the government on its asylum seeker policy, known as Operation Sovereign Borders. The following is an edited transcript of some of the questions put to Mr Morrison and Lieutenant-General Angus Campbell, the commander in charge of the operation:

Q: What’s become of that boat of asylum seekers?
Campbell: "I will not comment further in relation to on-water matters. Thank you."
Advertisement

Q: Are they on their way to Christmas island now?
Morrison: "These matters continue to be dealt with in the practice we have been adopting for the last eight weeks under Operation Sovereign Borders and we'll continue to do it the way we have been doing it."

Q: Do you consider this to be matter of public importance?
Morrison: "What is important is that the people who were the subject of our assistance are all accounted for and I'm sure all Australians will be pleased to know that is the case."

Q: But in terms of making a judgment, if those asylum seekers do come to Australia, doesn't that mean that your turn back the boats policy is…?
Morrison: "You've made a whole bunch of presumptions there which I'm not about to speculate on."

Q: Was Australia the first to respond to the asylum seekers' distress call?
Morrison: "What occurs in these situations is where we get a request for assistance and if we're in a position to do so, we do."
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/no-c...lum-seekers-20131109-2x8a1.html#ixzz2k8O3Xw00
 
Oh dear the lefties are in a tiz because Tony is doing such a great job :D


1/ The fate of the asylum seekers is non of your business.

2/ Travel claims issue is now being addressed by Abbott, unfortunately he cant expedite justice being administered to the dodgy ex PM Gillard in relation to a number of matters nor recover the countless squillions blown by Rudd on his self promotion tours all over the globe.
 
Whiskers, Abbott leads a COALITION government and they went to the election as a coalition. You need to add the primary votes of both liberal and national. Time to stop cherry picking data to suit your propaganda.

And labor received the lowest primary vote in around 100 years AND the libs won many more seats.
No matter his you spin it, labor were licked at this election and the majority voted for border security to be fixed and repeal of carbon tax among other things.

And yet lefties both here and in the media are crowing that the government have had a setback with ONE boat. What a slap in the face to democracy and the will of the majority.
 
sails said:
Whiskers, Abbott leads a COALITION government and they went to the election as a coalition. You need to add the primary votes of both liberal and national.
Click to expand...

If you look closely at my post and checked it against the AEC... you would find I did!

Please correct me with your actual numbers to support your claim that I got them wrong.

If you would read a bit wider you might notice I support more Nationals type policies... the coalition too. But that doesn't mean I'm going to throw myself under a train to save a leader when they loose the plot... and you might notice there are some pretty serious rifts appearing already between the Nationals, more moderate Libs and the Big L Liberal elements of the Lib party... not to mention the rift Abbott created in foreign relations with Indonesia and the trade, terrorism and regional security implications to follow from that.

Since you think anyone who disagrees with your (and Mr Burns et al) very poor mathematical and analytical skills are a 'lefty'... you must be a 'Rightie' one of those parasitic Big L Liberals who multi-nationalise the world to dictate by cooperation via deceptively infiltrating tentacles into what people thought were their elected representatives of government, to deceive the people and takeover the government.

God help all us middle of the road Aussies not aligned to or blind sighted by any political party, if you, Mr Burns et al political comments are typical examples of the ability and morality of the Libs membership. You will p!ss off sooo many of those 2% that swung to the coalition with a lot of very marginal seats before your ego has a chance to pop, your arrogance will have us back at the election polls before you know it.
 
Whiskers said:
I'll forgive you for your ignorance, because you've been away and probably haven't researched my previous posts to see that I was a strong critic of those independents supporting Gillard... but as just said, Abbott is facing a similar problem, except that he still doesn't have a majority on first preference.
Click to expand...

:cry: *white noise* :cry: *monkey poo flinging* :cry: more argumentum ad hominem is what I expected from you. COALITION - Go look it up in the dictionary.
 
Whiskers said:
...I'll forgive you for your ignorance, because you've been away and probably haven't researched my previous posts to see that I was a strong critic of those independents supporting Gillard...
Click to expand...

Good grief - who would actually wade through your extremely verbose posts full of your own bias unless they agreed with your bias? Pretty rude to expect people to research what you post. There is no obligation on anyone here to research what anyone posts.

Of course you can post your opinion here but that doesn't mean that others will bother to read such lengthy posts full of your own biases. But interestingly, you then attack others with whom you do not agree for posting their opinion.

Crazy...
 
sails said:
Good grief - who would actually wade through your extremely verbose posts full of your own bias unless they agreed with your bias?
Click to expand...

Well you can't seem to resist!... as confirmed by your very descriptive 'bias'

Pretty rude to expect people to research what you post. There is no obligation on anyone here to research what anyone posts.
Click to expand...

No, but there is an obligation on you to research your facts if you are going to paint me or others in a certain bias.

Of course you can post your opinion here but that doesn't mean that others will bother to read such lengthy posts full of your own biases.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered!

But interestingly, you then attack others with whom you do not agree for posting their opinion.

Crazy...
Click to expand...

Well, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

It's called communication, dialogue or even debate, if you disagree with me.

All require a certain amount of communication skill and ability to research to be persuasive. Apparently you can't be bothered putting in the effort!

I'm happy to be corrected on any data if you can show me where I got it wrong.
 
trainspotter said:
:cry: *white noise* :cry: *monkey poo flinging* :cry: more argumentum ad hominem is what I expected from you. COALITION - Go look it up in the dictionary.
Click to expand...

Well "argumentum" as you call it, but communication, dialogue or even debate is what makes the world go around, gives people depth of perspective and understanding of what makes the world go around.

But one needs to be willing to read to understand, TS.

If you don't want or won't accept your opinion being critiqued, you have no right expressing one!

If you don't have the attention span, knowledge, skill and willingness to do the research... you have no right to denigrate those who do, without doing similar effort!

Just to paraphrase I detailed the effect of preferences with the "Coatition"... but if you don't get a substantial first preference for the House of Reps, you will have a lot of trouble winning government. What I said was:

What was one of the surprises of the 2013 election? Was it not a substantial break from traditional preference flows, not so many going to Abbotts coalition? Why do you think that was so?​

You will also note the coalition is an amalgam of Libs and Nationals in some states and LNP in others. The Coalition while holding atm, is not cast in stone. There has been serious splits in the past and there are certainly rifts in the current coalition not the least of which has caused quite a number of defections to independents taking the majority of the vote with them, and there have even been a couple of offshoots to new parties, such as PUP.

You might have noticed that for the most part these splits are because they disagree with the far right Big L Liberal influence in the LNP. You might also have noticed that they tend to be more middle of the road and willing to support more moderate Labor policies than extreme right Lib policies.

The trouble Abbott (and co) will have is his far right agenda could split off more individual MP's or even state branches back to the original Lib and Nationals base and stand candidates against each other again. That would make it nigh impossible for Abbot and the right wing Big L Libs to secure government.

What about "COALITION"... that's what about the coalition!

Think it can't happen... have a look at the history.

Think it won't happen... it is happening, with Palmer and the defectors to independents... it's just that you don't see it happening and festering for further rifts in the coalition.
 
Whiskers said:
Well "argumentum" as you call it, but communication, dialogue or even debate is what makes the world go around, gives people depth of perspective and understanding of what makes the world go around.

But one needs to be willing to read to understand, TS.

If you don't want or won't accept your opinion being critiqued, you have no right expressing one!

If you don't have the attention span, knowledge, skill and willingness to do the research... you have no right to denigrate those who do, without doing similar effort!

Just to paraphrase I detailed the effect of preferences with the "Coatition"... but if you don't get a substantial first preference for the House of Reps, you will have a lot of trouble winning government. What I said was:

What was one of the surprises of the 2013 election? Was it not a substantial break from traditional preference flows, not so many going to Abbotts coalition? Why do you think that was so?​

You will also note the coalition is an amalgam of Libs and Nationals in some states and LNP in others. The Coalition while holding atm, is not cast in stone. There has been serious splits in the past and there are certainly rifts in the current coalition not the least of which has caused quite a number of defections to independents taking the majority of the vote with them, and there have even been a couple of offshoots to new parties, such as PUP.

You might have noticed that for the most part these splits are because they disagree with the far right Big L Liberal influence in the LNP. You might also have noticed that they tend to be more middle of the road and willing to support more moderate Labor policies than extreme right Lib policies.

The trouble Abbott (and co) will have is his far right agenda could split off more individual MP's or even state branches back to the original Lib and Nationals base and stand candidates against each other again. That would make it nigh impossible for Abbot and the right wing Big L Libs to secure government.

What about "COALITION"... that's what about the coalition!

Think it can't happen... have a look at the history.

Think it won't happen... it is happening, with Palmer and the defectors to independents... it's just that you don't see it happening and festering for further rifts in the coalition.
Click to expand...

Like sails said ... Good grief man. You have lost the plot ! DON'T FEED THE TROLL !!!
 
sails said:
And what about when labor voted for their new leader and it cost around $200,000 to fly labor MPs to Canberra twice so they could vote.

Talk about a gravy plane. That should have been alp expense.

Why so one sided on expenses, IF?

Taxpayers slugged $200,000 to fly MPs to Canberra for ALP leadership meetings
Click to expand...

Yep and the Coalition can show us all how they are different...........like they said they would adults ..........not.

So still waiting for some one to find the budget emergency
 
IFocus said:
Yep and the Coalition can show us all how they are different...........like they said they would adults ..........not.

So still waiting for some one to find the budget emergency
Click to expand...


Trying to change the subject now?

Don't like being reminded about labor's gravy planes?
 
Top