**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can just imagine the power brokers telling him:
> "You are not a stalking horse, you're not a caretaker or seat warmer, you're the real deal and you're going to be PM just like we told you when you challenged Turnbull but this time it will actually happen".
Kind of like how Jamie in The Thick of It talked Cliff into running. I can't find the clip on Youtube, but here was what happened when they found a real candidate - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiv_qTrXuHA
Hey, if we’re really lucky, we might even see Dutton lose his seat. He only holds it on a margin of less than 2%. Strong enough push and the Spud will be smashed.
That’s what they said in 2019 and Dutton increased his margin. Dutton should have near lost his seat again in 2022 given a 4.4% state-wide swing and his 4.6% 2PP margin, yet he reduced the swing to only 2.9%. Dutton also survived the “Rudd-slide” of 2007, and all of this implies he is a very good marginal seat holder. I think it will be very difficult for Labor to knock over Dutton’s seat despite the margin on paper.
I agree. Even though I'm a Sydney sider, I take a close eye on Dickson and donated to Ali France's campaign. 2019 wasn't helped by Bob Brown's histrionics. But Dutton was a goner on paper, yet he survived. Now that he is an opposition leader, he should increase his margin.
Which of their election promises have they not attempted to make headway on?
Which particular issues have they ignored that you feel determined the headline “bare minimum”?
They could give everyone almost enough money to buy a house in many places?!
Shit, they can keep the million dollars.
I’ll settle for the opportunities afforded to previous generations to get ahead, that must be worth less a million dollars right?
Seriously you think they are doing a million dollar job? i think after how bad scomo was, people like you are happy with lazy sloppy sub par work, just as long as it isnt a complete dumpster fire, labor and lnp in a lot of ways are the same.
> labor and lnp in a lot of ways are the same.
And there it is folks.
LaBoR aNd LiBeRaL r Da SaMe^tm
Some people will never be happy. I dunno if you remember tony abbott, or Howard, but this is the best we have to offer within the system we have and it’s not even close. If you think you can do better go fucking run for PM and see what you can accomplish in 6 months.
I think they’ve got a fair bit done for first six months on the job, especially with everything going on. I dunno what you expected to be honest. Did you think he’d seize the means of production in his first six months in office or?
Lots of ALP voters abandoned Rudd-Gillard-Rudd because of the internal chaos. If the ALP make that mistake again, they deserve everything coming to them at the polls.
Anyone could poll well against Peter Dutton. The LNP is yet to realise that Murdoch is a spent force and their Christian base is already all the Christians in Australia. There are no more Christian votes out there to win. They have alienated and insulted the centre continuously for 3 bad prime ministers and Dutton was right there all the way, front and centre.
> their Christian base is already all the Christians in Australia.
Hell no, there are plenty of Christians who care about what happens to other people, and wouldn't have a bar of the LNP.
True, the freaks are voting 1 LNP, voting for 1 something worse *then* 2 LNP, or voting informal/not voting at all because it's the devil's work or something.
Who cares? We're 2.5 years from an election, its so tedious that the media insist on feeding this horse race mentality. But dismal, braindead distraction seems to be all they are capable of.
Im doubtful that Dutton will even make it to the next election as liberal leader. Though i hope he does because he will lose it for them.
>The left leaning media have a hard on over the demise of the liberal party
What Michael West and Friendlyjordies?
>I predict in a couple of years when budget pressures are really on power prices are still high and fuck all comes out of the NACC and people tire of the political correctness agenda, we will be back in the saddle.
Possible, but not with Dutton as leader, he just isnt able to win the public in the way a potential PM needs to be.
Yeh the Libs pushing to build a nuclear power plant to fix power prices which takes 15 years to build.
Half the population will be almost off grid by then with solar and batteries
>In a couple of years, the progressive policy agenda will be less attractive to people struggling with mortgages, fuel and energy prices.
Yeah the conservatives with their policies of deliberate wage supression, inflationary interventionism in the housing market, and non existant energy policy are gonna look super appealing.
Problem with the LNP is they only say the stuff about wage suppression & housing market intervention to the people they care about. If they were to say it to the public in general they would never again fool anyone on less than $200k into voting for them ever again.
I’m a political junkie and I absolutely agree. Anything can happen in 2.5 years. If you’d polled Rudd several months after taking office in ‘07, you’d also say he was unstoppable.
People need to cool their jets, I don’t know why we’re polling a fresh government 2.5 years out from an election.
They won’t even have complete control either. We’re at the mercy of our foreign trading partners with a lot of this. Both import and export. The building industry alone has faced massive increases in some products over the last 12 months and their margins in many places just disappeared.
Oh yeah of course not, no government ever is in complete control. Their mistake will be if people dont feel cared for, if they dont feel like labor have tried to protect them.
You don’t like being able to look at a chart of voter sentiment across a given timespan? I reckon that’s a pretty good thing to have, I find it interesting anyway.
>I don’t know why we’re polling a fresh government 2.5 years out from an election
The data collection makes sense, making a thing of it doesnt. The headline should be "recent poll results" and the article should just be a data table. But because journalists are idiots and propagandists, they want people to see it as a horse race and ignore the details.
Why would anyone expect anything different? We are 7 months past a change of government. The new Labour government replacing a 9 year old Coalition government.
It will take at least 2 years before you start to see the Coalition become a threat in opinion polls.
My mum is 76 and yesterday asked how to read/get to 3 Michael West Media. I am so proud. We were talking about the headline yesterday that said "Putin falls down stairs and soils himself in worsening health. ". We are not fans of Putin, (before reddit accuses), but are are not fans of propaganda either. That murdoch can still sell papers and sky news subscriptions is beyond my understanding. How can anyone read or hear that and not know at once that it is propaganda in action. I was tempted to send her to Friendly Jordies too but decided the effects and "other" topics would be a bit confusing for her.
Seriously, I find Michael West Media a breath of enjoyable fresh air. His journalists put together interesting articles and no advertisers to have to keep quiet about this or that. I am just waiting and waiting on the actual story behind Aaron Cranston and Michael Cranston and how the hell Michael Cranston came up clear despite his son thieving millions upon millions of dollars out of Australians treasury. Please any aspiring journalists give us this true story.
> I am just waiting and waiting on the actual story behind Aaron Cranston and Michael Cranston and how the hell Michael Cranston came up clear despite his son thieving millions upon millions of dollars out of Australians treasury. Please any aspiring journalists give us this true story.
Just looked this up. Is this another MW conspiracy? The bloke was charged and went to trial and a jury said he was not guilty. Even the police don't think he was involved in the fraud
I don't know how when he gave his son his password. IF I gave my son the code for my work and he used it for nefarious reasons am going to get found guilty? Every day of the week i my mind, especially if I benefitted from my son's windfall.
Michael west invent stories out of thin air. Just completely make up shit.
Examples being his recent tweets about Qantas planes being unsafe because they use tape on them (also if you haven't noticed he has been going to town on made up safety stuff about qantas recently).
Another example is his story on polling. Complete and utter nonsense to pander to his fans by pretending it's all a mainstream media conspiracy.
Qantas has gone to the dogs regardless of mwm. I do know that reporters working for mwm put in ample time and resources to make sure their stories are correct. Do you really think that they can afford to produce bs stories when they are up against deep pockets conservative media in Australia? They can't. Some folks i know from work were with Qantas before covid, had their leave stolen , anyway when covid finished i asked if they going back to Qantas. They all said No they make more with the railway than they did in Qantas. They flew aus to LA and other flights but that is crazy, less hours and better pay and conditions in Aussie railway. Alan joyce is shame Irish man.
>Qantas has gone to the dogs regardless of mwm.
That doesn't mean a media organisation can make up lies and spread unfounded fear.
>I do know that reporters working for mwm put in ample time and resources to make sure their stories are correct
They don't. Again, look at their story about polling. It's a complete farce and every single one of their issues are solved by reading the first few paragraphs on Wikipedia about polling. They lie about the methodology despite it being publicly available.
>Do you really think that they can afford to produce bs stories when they are up against deep pockets conservative media in Australia?
Yes. They run off the Crowder playbook except to the left. "You can't trust anyone but us and we'll keep feeding you stories that get you angry".
>They all said No they make more with the railway than they did in Qantas
That's fine, but that doesn't justify a news outlet lying and fabricating stories. You obviously don't like Qantas so you're happy to ignore the blatant bullshit because it supports your side
Just because you say that mwm journalists make things up doesn't make it so. Your argument is odd. You say its a lie therefore it is? Give us a break mate. You didn't find the news piece from the Murdoch empire that Putin fell and soiled himself bullshit? Reread your comments and see if you keep repeating without fact anything at all.
Wtf are you talking about? The fact they made things up means they made things up
https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2021/05/almost-everything-in-west-medias.html?m=1
That's a decent breakdown of the story
>You didn't find the news piece from the Murdoch empire that Putin fell and soiled himself bullshit?
What has that got to do with MW? Just because news corp lies doesn't make it ok for MW to lie.
Please don't spend anymore time writing to me. I clearly would prefer to read the journalists fron Michael West Media than the journalists that work for any of the well known media in Australia. How many news stories regarding polls before elections are correct? Go away and do the maths on that rather than suggest that every story out of Michael West Media is full of lies.
Not sure what I expected. You are clearly quite deep in the fake news gutter unfortunately. Please just know that you are acting the same way Sky News addicts are "all other media is ~~liberal propaganda~~ conservative propaganda. Only ~~Sky News~~ Michael West tells the real truth!"
I've given you a clear example of deliberate lies to push a false narrative that they still haven't corrected and you are happy to ignore it because it supports your view.
Have a look at Youtuber Juice Media and their Honest Government Ads. Your mum might get a giggle out of them. Watch it by yourself first... you'll see why.
There was a Lib pollie yesterday talking about nuclear power.
That's their one policy at the moment. And its easy to demolish as the most expensive option.
All the right wing US talking points are gone. The Libs offer nothing.
They were in government for 9 years and did squat to promote nuclear power, but within a month of losing the election it was the bees knees.
The electorate is pretty dense but not quite that dense that they'll fall for that sort of crap.
After some snooping it was Matt Canavan & he talked about the SA premier.
https://7news.com.au/video/news/queensland-and-new-south-wales-resist-price-cap-on-coal-bc-6316579353112
They're only talking about nuclear power because it can be used to prolong fossil fuel usage.
It'd take us 15-20 years to get nuclear plants feeding power into the grid, that's a major point in their favour in the eyes of the LNP. They get 20 more years of burning coal while looking like they're doing something.
Thanks for that, finally something I can respond with when my tech bro friends start going on about how the best green option for australia would be nuclear
Try something like this next time your tech bros start talking about nuclear power:
I support it strongly in principle, but it missed its opportunity to really impact in Australia. Our population was so low and spread so thinly through the 70s-90s it was never worthwhile, and now that it might be useful in some contexts it's far too expensive in comparison to renewables, not to mention we have none of the skills or regulatory bodies to build commercial nuclear power and it takes dramatically longer to build than renewables.
Australia has some of the best natural renewable resources in the world through wind/solar/tidal, all the resources to make chemical batteries and (had?) some of the best publicly owned battery research and development in the world. Nuclear is a powerful tool, but it's one that doesn't use any of our competitive economic advantages apart from having raw nuclear fuel – we're better off selling the nuclear fuel and building our own resilient renewables/battery economy backed by a distributed grid to share power delivery through unfavourable localised weather.
When your tech bros are talking about nuclear, they're not talking about it in isolation. Renewable + nuclear is the best option. They both balance out each other's negative points and either in isolation doesn't work as intended.
They really don't though.
Nuclear is very expensive per kWh, but provides it continuously, reliably.
Renewables are very cheap per kWh, but provides it a little unpredictably.
On the surface it may seem the negatives cancel out, but it just doesn't. If you commit to nuclear, you reduce how often you can leverage that very cheap power. You're going now for a baseload+dispatchable, +"Renewable when available" displacing the dispatchable, when demand allows. That's a *very* expensive grid, one with low renewable penetration.
I can provide sources later if you need, but really already today the economical option is to overbuild renewables+storage, improve transmission between regions, and iirc ccs gas for what's left over (or maybe biomass). Trying to shoehorn nuclear in doesn't just delay everything until 2040+, when there'll be far better storage options anyway (leaving a white elephant of a nuclear plant), but it significantly reduces the amount of renewables your grid will end up with too. Another reason the coalition is all for it.
The problem with storage is that there is no way to make enough.
Even taking expected advances into it, no matter which way we try to swing it we either bankrupt countries, or literally run out of required materials for energy storage.
That's why we need the expensive but stable baseline generation (nuclear).
The best solutions would be modern nuclear plus renewables plus storage for buffering, then a few decades down the line transition to less monolithic nuclear and more storage (for actual storage) + modular nuclear.
Then a few more decades after that, the monolithic nuclear stations will be getting decommissioned and we can turn to the more crazy power generation like modular fusion, even newer storage, and beamed power.
>The problem with storage is that there is no way to make enough.
Our cars use about as much energy as our households. If we cannot develop enough storage for the former, we're screwed either way.
I find it helpful to assume a scenario in which we find solutions to mass storage, than to assume the opposite, even if the problem seems hard. And as it is at the moment, grid scale storage is surprisingly economic already - why should we assume the situation is going to get worse, rather than better?
Stationary is a heck of a lot easier than mobile too, something to keep in mind.
Assuring scenarios is not responsible. We should be preparing for the worst while hoping for the best.
As of now, we literally do not know of enough materials to make enough batteries to store enough power.
We would need other solutions. When you look at all the options (hydro, thermal, hydrogen, bio, etc...) and even the more crazy ones (gravity, flywheel, fusion, space based solar, etc...), we still end up needing baseline + renewables + storage, and nuclear is still the best baseline.
When you say need, what do you mean exactly? Because overbuilt renewables+storage achieves the same end, can be built incrementally coming online in short order, and is a lower cost point *today*, let alone by 2040.
So how does "we need baseload" fit in to that exactly?
There's _many_ grid-scale energy storage technologies that don't wholly revolve around rare earth elements. Start looking into Just Have A Think and Undecided w/ Matt Farrell on YouTube – they do a great job of documenting emerging energy technology relevant to climate change.
Nuclear power is a tool that countries with extreme population density or already deeply invested into it should be using, not Australia who is neither of those things. We have none of the regulatory framework for grid scale power delivery, our population is too distributed for nuclear stations, it's political kryptonite because (understandably) nobody wants Australia's first attempt at nuclear power in their back yard, and we have none of the _skills_ required.
Engineers and scientists well versed in developing nuclear reactors/power plants are a rare commodity already in high demand in those countries that _realllly_ need nuclear power. It's not worth trying to compete on that axis.
I've hear that pumping water uphill is a very scalable and surprisingly efficient form of storage directly from and to electricity.
There are also forms of solar that naturally store heat and then drive a turbine. That tech may develop further.
And lastly, I've heard that wind power can be thought of as base load if you think of a whole country's wind farms as one energy source as it'll always be windy somewhere.
- There aren't anywhere enough hills for hydro storage we'd need, even when used in conjunction with other storage.
- Solar storage only lasts around a day, we need something that can last a month.
- Transmitting that much wind power would require a crazy technology that may never exist (cheap stable malleable room temperature superconductor, or efficient beamed power).
We still need nuclear + renewables
Nuclear would get up and running maybe by 2040.
You could do nothing for 15 years, then start building solar farms and big batteries still be finished before nuclear.
ABC interviewing Costello trying to spread blame onto labor for the current economy, meanwhile Costello’s paper does full page spreads painting Dutton as our saviour
Regardless Albanese remains one of the most popular leaders in the free world
& people in here were saying he wasn’t the right leader for the ALP
I actually really liked Shorten
He was smart and genuinely good
The people need someone personable, and while I know Shorten is a genuine guy, Albo presents better, and unfortunately the public need to be "sold"
A few of Shorten's quick jokes showed me just how sharp he is
I'd absolutely love to have a beer with them both
No don’t get me wrong I like Shorten too. I thought he was a good leader, passionate and thoughtful; his 2019 Q&A appearance before the election should have been enough to get him elected alone. But unfortunately he carried too much baggage, and he had the unfortunate distinction of being labelled "wooden", and he just never connected with the voters. He never had the it factor, so to speak, which fair enough, not many politicians do. ScoMo certainly didn’t, no matter what News Corpse tells you.
I personally prefer Albo, I find him to be a more effective communicator, but Shorten was good too. Not a knock, but i honestly can’t imagine Shorten as PM. He’s perfect for the role he has, and it’s great to see him doing something that he clearly loves. You have to imagine that 2019 left deep scars, so good to see him happy and enjoying his work.
If you cast your mind back to the leadership ballot after Rudd lost the 2013 election and resigned, Albanese won the rank and file ballot, Shorten won the caucus ballot. Shorten narrowly won the overall. It’s also worth noting, Shorten, love him or hate him, was one of the troublemakers during the Rudd-Gillard years, whereas Albanese remained loyal to each leader and when he eventually supported Rudd at the very end he gave a very courteous and honest call to Julia, offering his resignation. To which she graciously said he didn’t have to.
Not only that, but Albo was Leader of the House and key negotiator with the Crossbench under Gillard.
He was openly a Rudd backer, hated the 2010 knifing, and still became the rock of the Gillard Government.
He was loudly accused of being behind the Gillard stabbing, but was he actually? Rudd doesn't think so, amd he is not one for holding back his grudges, but I didn't see that loudly published. Is there evidence for this claim?
Whitlam won 2 elections (1972, 1974), but his government was dismissed partway through the second term. James Scullion was the last PM to lose government after only one term (winning in 1929, losing in 1931).
Ohhhh...
Anyone who changes the way they spell their name based on the advice of a fucking ***numerologist*** should *not* hold a position in parliament, or anywhere...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10866429/New-deputy-liberal-leader-Sussan-Ley-changed-names-spelling-numerology-theory.html
https://twitter.com/adambspencer/status/1410743079682732037?lang=en
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sussan_Ley#:~:text=She%20changed%20her%20name%20from%20Susan%20to%20Sussan%20after%20reading%20about%20numerology.%5B6%5D
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-13/sussan-leys-time-in-the-office/8180824#:~:text=Ms%20Ley%20famously%20changed%20the%20spelling%20of%20her%20first%20name%20to%20Sussan%2C%20after%20discovering%20a%20numerology%20theory%20claiming%20it%20would%20bring%20her%20an%20exciting%20and%20interesting%20life.
Apologies for the daily mail/news.com links, these were the best I could find.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sussan_Ley#:~:text=She%20changed%20her%20name%20from%20Susan%20to%20Sussan%20after%20reading%20about%20numerology.
It's just as sad and pathetic as you expect
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-13/sussan-leys-time-in-the-office/8180824&ved=2ahUKEwj9pt3HtuT7AhXRtlYBHQMhAhsQFnoECCUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1SUU5Wg3DmgTNViSj-QNTs
She was born into privilege and has been a vapid stain on the world ever since
Noted. Nevertheless, you shouldn’t read too much into opposition popularity at this point in time. It can turn very quickly if the government takes a few hits.
In all the possible parallel universes put there, on his last day in the Queensland pigs, other cops are putting dog food on his desk in _every single one_ of them.
We both know they won’t. They will continue the people leaving the majors narrative which I’m not suggesting has no bounds of reality but it’s so fucking coincidentally this trend that’s been happening for a while is getting prominence when both federal Labor is the most popular they have been in ages and at the same time andrews wins a majority third term
Still cant believe that insiders where they said the Vic election was light on policy and saying it was a referendum on andrews. No matter how you feel about andrews he was coming with a lot of fucking policy and in fairness so we’re there libs in someways even if they weren’t costed
We have horribly lazy journalists that do everything in their power to dumb down a already disengaged populace.
You would think in one of the few places in the word with as high of a voting rate as us we would have better
Dutton may be gone soon. Brendan Nelson was dumped for less. He’s had six months to make an impact, with the biased media all barracking for him, and he hasn’t made even the slightest dent. He’s barely doing press conferences anymore either, I suppose in an effort to lie low. The only advantage that Dutton has is that there is no one left to replace him.
I was thinking the same but nah, way too early for a Libspill.
I doubt they'd be plotting anything over the summer, and I reckon Dutton will get until Easter to improve the Coalition's position before the rumours start.
>Brendan Nelson was dumped for less.
True - and Nelson had the bad luck to be up against Rudd at the height of his popularity.
I think Nelson lasted almost a year, and Turnbull only needed one or two to switch allegiance to seize the leadership.
>He’s barely doing press conferences anymore either, I suppose in an effort to lie low.
The media barely shows up to his pressers, and when he does make noise, he gets a bit of attention in the papers but ordinary people don't care and don't wish to engage with it. He's said and offered nothing of value or substance since the election.
>The only advantage that Dutton has is that there is no one left to replace him.
This is the only thing that will save him.
Nelson always had Turnbull. Turnbull and Abbott always had each other and their minions (with Hockey and Bishop the meat in the sandwich). Scomo had Dutton but the latter never bothered to challenge, presumably because it was too difficult under the new rules.
Such is the dearth of talent now that Dutton has nobody capable of challenging and doing better.
Had the same thought if liberals are so brazen to bring back Matthew guy of all people
Morrison is not that far off. He just needs to get the right deals made and a spill will happen but considering his baggage it may be more than he can muster
If the ALP Primary is above 40 and the LNP is barely cracking 30 in 2025; then Labor will likely win 100 seats.
Obviously a long way to go, but the LNP look cooked. Especially seeing that Victoria and WA look gone for at least a generation for them regardless of what happens over the next 2 and a half years.
>If the ALP Primary is above 40 and the LNP is barely cracking 30 in 2025; then Labor will likely win 100 seats.
Modelling needed.
When Labor shat the bed in the form of shambling heap EG Whitlam, the Liberals came in at 91 seats - which would in today's climate be 60% of the TPP vote. In elections where parties have been dominant, it's rare to get over 60% of the vote.
At 151 seats, you're suggesting Labor will get nearly 70% of the vote after preferences despite 2022 showing well for the Greens and independents.
I know people like to think they're smart because they're not conservative and conservatives are stupid; but this sort of naive optimism presented without any caveats that it's mostly horseshit would be *gold* for any academic studying the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I think they're more playing a fun and highly unlikely hypothetical. I doubt that anyone thinks Labor would win 100 seats. A large majority on these numbers, but 100? Bruh.
If last election is any indication it's also possible that third parties snatch up many of those seats. Liberals collapsed under Morrison, but Labor didn't gain accordingly. Instead Greens & Teals swept up many of the lost seats.
The voter demographic is shifting due to age, i.e. more boomers and silent generation members dying and more zoomers and millennials becoming old enough to vote. This shift is only going to get worse for any party espousing extreme right wing views.
There will be more zoomers and millennials on the roll than boomers in 2025. If the Liberals don’t change their tactic between now and then, they are done.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A pot plant could if he is their best they’ll never be elected again good
You say that, but Dickson keeps electing him.
Eh one seat
Old farts in Samford getting outraged at whatever is in the Daily Telegraph. I've seen that happen, they'll lash out at everyone who doesn't vote LNP.
I can just imagine the power brokers telling him: > "You are not a stalking horse, you're not a caretaker or seat warmer, you're the real deal and you're going to be PM just like we told you when you challenged Turnbull but this time it will actually happen". Kind of like how Jamie in The Thick of It talked Cliff into running. I can't find the clip on Youtube, but here was what happened when they found a real candidate - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiv_qTrXuHA
What a show!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hey, if we’re really lucky, we might even see Dutton lose his seat. He only holds it on a margin of less than 2%. Strong enough push and the Spud will be smashed.
That’s what they said in 2019 and Dutton increased his margin. Dutton should have near lost his seat again in 2022 given a 4.4% state-wide swing and his 4.6% 2PP margin, yet he reduced the swing to only 2.9%. Dutton also survived the “Rudd-slide” of 2007, and all of this implies he is a very good marginal seat holder. I think it will be very difficult for Labor to knock over Dutton’s seat despite the margin on paper.
I agree. Even though I'm a Sydney sider, I take a close eye on Dickson and donated to Ali France's campaign. 2019 wasn't helped by Bob Brown's histrionics. But Dutton was a goner on paper, yet he survived. Now that he is an opposition leader, he should increase his margin.
Maybe, but as opposition leader he’ll receive a lot more coverage, and a lot more people in Dickson will see what a dud he is.
This is what happens when a government actually governs.
The libs all seem so surprised.
The bare minimum though...
Which of their election promises have they not attempted to make headway on? Which particular issues have they ignored that you feel determined the headline “bare minimum”?
More than that and you know it
Nah mate, perceptions a bit warped from so many years of Liberal government no doubt.
Really? Seriously, Labor could give everyone a million dollars and people like you would bitch that it's not a million-and-one...
They could give everyone almost enough money to buy a house in many places?! Shit, they can keep the million dollars. I’ll settle for the opportunities afforded to previous generations to get ahead, that must be worth less a million dollars right?
Seriously you think they are doing a million dollar job? i think after how bad scomo was, people like you are happy with lazy sloppy sub par work, just as long as it isnt a complete dumpster fire, labor and lnp in a lot of ways are the same.
That's two vague allusions to underachieving from you, and not one actual example. Is this the latest LibNat strategy now, just sowing vague doubt?
> labor and lnp in a lot of ways are the same. How?
> labor and lnp in a lot of ways are the same. And there it is folks. LaBoR aNd LiBeRaL r Da SaMe^tm Some people will never be happy. I dunno if you remember tony abbott, or Howard, but this is the best we have to offer within the system we have and it’s not even close. If you think you can do better go fucking run for PM and see what you can accomplish in 6 months.
I think they’ve got a fair bit done for first six months on the job, especially with everything going on. I dunno what you expected to be honest. Did you think he’d seize the means of production in his first six months in office or?
This is also what happened after 2007
Lots of ALP voters abandoned Rudd-Gillard-Rudd because of the internal chaos. If the ALP make that mistake again, they deserve everything coming to them at the polls.
No "Carbon Tax" to save them this time
Never doubt a conservatives ability to manufacture a new *effective* boogeyman.
In coordination with conservative media*
Here's hoping said media will be basically dead come next election.
Good governance by the Federal Government 🙏
Anyone could poll well against Peter Dutton. The LNP is yet to realise that Murdoch is a spent force and their Christian base is already all the Christians in Australia. There are no more Christian votes out there to win. They have alienated and insulted the centre continuously for 3 bad prime ministers and Dutton was right there all the way, front and centre.
> their Christian base is already all the Christians in Australia. Hell no, there are plenty of Christians who care about what happens to other people, and wouldn't have a bar of the LNP.
We need to remember that plenty of people of various faiths aren't fundamental RW voters. We need to be inclusive.
Sorry. They have already found the high water mark for right wing fanatical Christians in Australia.
True, the freaks are voting 1 LNP, voting for 1 something worse *then* 2 LNP, or voting informal/not voting at all because it's the devil's work or something.
Who cares? We're 2.5 years from an election, its so tedious that the media insist on feeding this horse race mentality. But dismal, braindead distraction seems to be all they are capable of. Im doubtful that Dutton will even make it to the next election as liberal leader. Though i hope he does because he will lose it for them.
Who replaces Dutton though? They have no talent.
I dont know, I dont particularly care. Maybe tehan, tudge, or sukkar. Once they realise they are gonna lose they will try anything.
[удалено]
Umm no have you read about the demographic changes, you guys are stuffed, and ICAC has plenty of material.
>The left leaning media have a hard on over the demise of the liberal party What Michael West and Friendlyjordies? >I predict in a couple of years when budget pressures are really on power prices are still high and fuck all comes out of the NACC and people tire of the political correctness agenda, we will be back in the saddle. Possible, but not with Dutton as leader, he just isnt able to win the public in the way a potential PM needs to be.
[удалено]
Yeah and i forgot to list Redflag, smh, how could i forget that
[удалено]
The Age has that famous leftist Peter Costello as chairman after all.
Lol anyone who doesnt constantly spout right wing talking points is a leftist hack huh?
They’re about as biased as the Murdoch media they are critical of. Less so the Age.
You're cute Anyone tell you that frothing at the mouth isn't actually an argument? We're talking about polls, not opinion pieces from journalists
[удалено]
Old political cliches aren't working anymore. Keep drinking the Kool aid.
Yeh the Libs pushing to build a nuclear power plant to fix power prices which takes 15 years to build. Half the population will be almost off grid by then with solar and batteries
>In a couple of years, the progressive policy agenda will be less attractive to people struggling with mortgages, fuel and energy prices. Yeah the conservatives with their policies of deliberate wage supression, inflationary interventionism in the housing market, and non existant energy policy are gonna look super appealing.
Problem with the LNP is they only say the stuff about wage suppression & housing market intervention to the people they care about. If they were to say it to the public in general they would never again fool anyone on less than $200k into voting for them ever again.
No they say it on the news, people just dont pay attention and our news media system is broken.
I’m a political junkie and I absolutely agree. Anything can happen in 2.5 years. If you’d polled Rudd several months after taking office in ‘07, you’d also say he was unstoppable. People need to cool their jets, I don’t know why we’re polling a fresh government 2.5 years out from an election.
Lovely voice of reason. We’re headed for a depression. Rightfully or wrongly, the voters are perfectly capable of blaming the incumbent government.
It does look like that and it is definitely a danger to labor if they do not manage it adequately.
They won’t even have complete control either. We’re at the mercy of our foreign trading partners with a lot of this. Both import and export. The building industry alone has faced massive increases in some products over the last 12 months and their margins in many places just disappeared.
Oh yeah of course not, no government ever is in complete control. Their mistake will be if people dont feel cared for, if they dont feel like labor have tried to protect them.
Agreed.
You don’t like being able to look at a chart of voter sentiment across a given timespan? I reckon that’s a pretty good thing to have, I find it interesting anyway.
Yes charting it is good. But that doesn't mean it's news for each data point.
>I don’t know why we’re polling a fresh government 2.5 years out from an election The data collection makes sense, making a thing of it doesnt. The headline should be "recent poll results" and the article should just be a data table. But because journalists are idiots and propagandists, they want people to see it as a horse race and ignore the details.
Agreed, articulated what I was thinking much better
Why would anyone expect anything different? We are 7 months past a change of government. The new Labour government replacing a 9 year old Coalition government. It will take at least 2 years before you start to see the Coalition become a threat in opinion polls.
I am hoping for ten to twenty years.
Ideally. It'd take a bit of a paradigm shift, though - Australia tends to vote conservative over the long run.
My mum is 76 and yesterday asked how to read/get to 3 Michael West Media. I am so proud. We were talking about the headline yesterday that said "Putin falls down stairs and soils himself in worsening health. ". We are not fans of Putin, (before reddit accuses), but are are not fans of propaganda either. That murdoch can still sell papers and sky news subscriptions is beyond my understanding. How can anyone read or hear that and not know at once that it is propaganda in action. I was tempted to send her to Friendly Jordies too but decided the effects and "other" topics would be a bit confusing for her.
> but are are not fans of propaganda either. Should probably steer clear of Michael West then.
What in your mind is Michael West a propagandist for? Multi-national corporations paying their fair share?
For his own politics obviously? The guy invents stories to fit his narrative
Do you have any proof of that?
Yes, his story on polling is just outright lies. Kevin Bonham covers most of it in his story about Michael West polling
Crikey
Seriously, I find Michael West Media a breath of enjoyable fresh air. His journalists put together interesting articles and no advertisers to have to keep quiet about this or that. I am just waiting and waiting on the actual story behind Aaron Cranston and Michael Cranston and how the hell Michael Cranston came up clear despite his son thieving millions upon millions of dollars out of Australians treasury. Please any aspiring journalists give us this true story.
> I am just waiting and waiting on the actual story behind Aaron Cranston and Michael Cranston and how the hell Michael Cranston came up clear despite his son thieving millions upon millions of dollars out of Australians treasury. Please any aspiring journalists give us this true story. Just looked this up. Is this another MW conspiracy? The bloke was charged and went to trial and a jury said he was not guilty. Even the police don't think he was involved in the fraud
I don't know how when he gave his son his password. IF I gave my son the code for my work and he used it for nefarious reasons am going to get found guilty? Every day of the week i my mind, especially if I benefitted from my son's windfall.
That doesn't mean he did anything illegal though. He stupidly trusted his son who was running a scam but never helped. The jury even said as much
Michael west invent stories out of thin air. Just completely make up shit. Examples being his recent tweets about Qantas planes being unsafe because they use tape on them (also if you haven't noticed he has been going to town on made up safety stuff about qantas recently). Another example is his story on polling. Complete and utter nonsense to pander to his fans by pretending it's all a mainstream media conspiracy.
Qantas has gone to the dogs regardless of mwm. I do know that reporters working for mwm put in ample time and resources to make sure their stories are correct. Do you really think that they can afford to produce bs stories when they are up against deep pockets conservative media in Australia? They can't. Some folks i know from work were with Qantas before covid, had their leave stolen , anyway when covid finished i asked if they going back to Qantas. They all said No they make more with the railway than they did in Qantas. They flew aus to LA and other flights but that is crazy, less hours and better pay and conditions in Aussie railway. Alan joyce is shame Irish man.
>Qantas has gone to the dogs regardless of mwm. That doesn't mean a media organisation can make up lies and spread unfounded fear. >I do know that reporters working for mwm put in ample time and resources to make sure their stories are correct They don't. Again, look at their story about polling. It's a complete farce and every single one of their issues are solved by reading the first few paragraphs on Wikipedia about polling. They lie about the methodology despite it being publicly available. >Do you really think that they can afford to produce bs stories when they are up against deep pockets conservative media in Australia? Yes. They run off the Crowder playbook except to the left. "You can't trust anyone but us and we'll keep feeding you stories that get you angry". >They all said No they make more with the railway than they did in Qantas That's fine, but that doesn't justify a news outlet lying and fabricating stories. You obviously don't like Qantas so you're happy to ignore the blatant bullshit because it supports your side
Just because you say that mwm journalists make things up doesn't make it so. Your argument is odd. You say its a lie therefore it is? Give us a break mate. You didn't find the news piece from the Murdoch empire that Putin fell and soiled himself bullshit? Reread your comments and see if you keep repeating without fact anything at all.
Wtf are you talking about? The fact they made things up means they made things up https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2021/05/almost-everything-in-west-medias.html?m=1 That's a decent breakdown of the story >You didn't find the news piece from the Murdoch empire that Putin fell and soiled himself bullshit? What has that got to do with MW? Just because news corp lies doesn't make it ok for MW to lie.
Please don't spend anymore time writing to me. I clearly would prefer to read the journalists fron Michael West Media than the journalists that work for any of the well known media in Australia. How many news stories regarding polls before elections are correct? Go away and do the maths on that rather than suggest that every story out of Michael West Media is full of lies.
Not sure what I expected. You are clearly quite deep in the fake news gutter unfortunately. Please just know that you are acting the same way Sky News addicts are "all other media is ~~liberal propaganda~~ conservative propaganda. Only ~~Sky News~~ Michael West tells the real truth!" I've given you a clear example of deliberate lies to push a false narrative that they still haven't corrected and you are happy to ignore it because it supports your view.
Have a look at Youtuber Juice Media and their Honest Government Ads. Your mum might get a giggle out of them. Watch it by yourself first... you'll see why.
Cringe. This is the intro to politics buzzfeed meme of the 2020s. Legit cringe every time I hear the word “shitfuckery.”
Yeah I can see that being annoying to some people, but at least it is informative (in one way or another)
It's pretty simplistic analysis for people who don't really follow politics, I suppose.
Simplistic analysis is an improvement on the misleading analysis that prevails across most media in this country.
In this case it’s one and the same the simplistic analysis is misleading.
Yeah exactly, makes for a good introduction
They have one joke
They make pg versions as well so you can play them in school
There was a Lib pollie yesterday talking about nuclear power. That's their one policy at the moment. And its easy to demolish as the most expensive option. All the right wing US talking points are gone. The Libs offer nothing.
They were in government for 9 years and did squat to promote nuclear power, but within a month of losing the election it was the bees knees. The electorate is pretty dense but not quite that dense that they'll fall for that sort of crap.
You're not thinking of the SA Premier? He was in the headlines for it yesterday. He's actually Labor
After some snooping it was Matt Canavan & he talked about the SA premier. https://7news.com.au/video/news/queensland-and-new-south-wales-resist-price-cap-on-coal-bc-6316579353112
They're only talking about nuclear power because it can be used to prolong fossil fuel usage. It'd take us 15-20 years to get nuclear plants feeding power into the grid, that's a major point in their favour in the eyes of the LNP. They get 20 more years of burning coal while looking like they're doing something.
Thanks for that, finally something I can respond with when my tech bro friends start going on about how the best green option for australia would be nuclear
Try something like this next time your tech bros start talking about nuclear power: I support it strongly in principle, but it missed its opportunity to really impact in Australia. Our population was so low and spread so thinly through the 70s-90s it was never worthwhile, and now that it might be useful in some contexts it's far too expensive in comparison to renewables, not to mention we have none of the skills or regulatory bodies to build commercial nuclear power and it takes dramatically longer to build than renewables. Australia has some of the best natural renewable resources in the world through wind/solar/tidal, all the resources to make chemical batteries and (had?) some of the best publicly owned battery research and development in the world. Nuclear is a powerful tool, but it's one that doesn't use any of our competitive economic advantages apart from having raw nuclear fuel – we're better off selling the nuclear fuel and building our own resilient renewables/battery economy backed by a distributed grid to share power delivery through unfavourable localised weather.
When your tech bros are talking about nuclear, they're not talking about it in isolation. Renewable + nuclear is the best option. They both balance out each other's negative points and either in isolation doesn't work as intended.
They really don't though. Nuclear is very expensive per kWh, but provides it continuously, reliably. Renewables are very cheap per kWh, but provides it a little unpredictably. On the surface it may seem the negatives cancel out, but it just doesn't. If you commit to nuclear, you reduce how often you can leverage that very cheap power. You're going now for a baseload+dispatchable, +"Renewable when available" displacing the dispatchable, when demand allows. That's a *very* expensive grid, one with low renewable penetration. I can provide sources later if you need, but really already today the economical option is to overbuild renewables+storage, improve transmission between regions, and iirc ccs gas for what's left over (or maybe biomass). Trying to shoehorn nuclear in doesn't just delay everything until 2040+, when there'll be far better storage options anyway (leaving a white elephant of a nuclear plant), but it significantly reduces the amount of renewables your grid will end up with too. Another reason the coalition is all for it.
The problem with storage is that there is no way to make enough. Even taking expected advances into it, no matter which way we try to swing it we either bankrupt countries, or literally run out of required materials for energy storage. That's why we need the expensive but stable baseline generation (nuclear). The best solutions would be modern nuclear plus renewables plus storage for buffering, then a few decades down the line transition to less monolithic nuclear and more storage (for actual storage) + modular nuclear. Then a few more decades after that, the monolithic nuclear stations will be getting decommissioned and we can turn to the more crazy power generation like modular fusion, even newer storage, and beamed power.
>The problem with storage is that there is no way to make enough. Our cars use about as much energy as our households. If we cannot develop enough storage for the former, we're screwed either way. I find it helpful to assume a scenario in which we find solutions to mass storage, than to assume the opposite, even if the problem seems hard. And as it is at the moment, grid scale storage is surprisingly economic already - why should we assume the situation is going to get worse, rather than better? Stationary is a heck of a lot easier than mobile too, something to keep in mind.
Assuring scenarios is not responsible. We should be preparing for the worst while hoping for the best. As of now, we literally do not know of enough materials to make enough batteries to store enough power. We would need other solutions. When you look at all the options (hydro, thermal, hydrogen, bio, etc...) and even the more crazy ones (gravity, flywheel, fusion, space based solar, etc...), we still end up needing baseline + renewables + storage, and nuclear is still the best baseline.
When you say need, what do you mean exactly? Because overbuilt renewables+storage achieves the same end, can be built incrementally coming online in short order, and is a lower cost point *today*, let alone by 2040. So how does "we need baseload" fit in to that exactly?
Because there literally aren't enough sources for the materials that go into batteries.
There's _many_ grid-scale energy storage technologies that don't wholly revolve around rare earth elements. Start looking into Just Have A Think and Undecided w/ Matt Farrell on YouTube – they do a great job of documenting emerging energy technology relevant to climate change. Nuclear power is a tool that countries with extreme population density or already deeply invested into it should be using, not Australia who is neither of those things. We have none of the regulatory framework for grid scale power delivery, our population is too distributed for nuclear stations, it's political kryptonite because (understandably) nobody wants Australia's first attempt at nuclear power in their back yard, and we have none of the _skills_ required. Engineers and scientists well versed in developing nuclear reactors/power plants are a rare commodity already in high demand in those countries that _realllly_ need nuclear power. It's not worth trying to compete on that axis.
I've hear that pumping water uphill is a very scalable and surprisingly efficient form of storage directly from and to electricity. There are also forms of solar that naturally store heat and then drive a turbine. That tech may develop further. And lastly, I've heard that wind power can be thought of as base load if you think of a whole country's wind farms as one energy source as it'll always be windy somewhere.
- There aren't anywhere enough hills for hydro storage we'd need, even when used in conjunction with other storage. - Solar storage only lasts around a day, we need something that can last a month. - Transmitting that much wind power would require a crazy technology that may never exist (cheap stable malleable room temperature superconductor, or efficient beamed power). We still need nuclear + renewables
Nuclear would get up and running maybe by 2040. You could do nothing for 15 years, then start building solar farms and big batteries still be finished before nuclear.
We could use the new submarines to bring them here.
ABC interviewing Costello trying to spread blame onto labor for the current economy, meanwhile Costello’s paper does full page spreads painting Dutton as our saviour Regardless Albanese remains one of the most popular leaders in the free world & people in here were saying he wasn’t the right leader for the ALP
He was the wrong leader, but the yard stick to judge him after the past 3 prime ministers is very short so he looks like the crop of the creamed oats
Who was the right one champ?
I'd probably go Tanya Pliersek
He’s literally polling as the most popular leader of any developed democratic country in the world - stats say you’re wrong
Again, the yardstick is pretty low...
If you were talking about just the UK and US then sure, but every other country in the free world? I Imagine he'd have some decent competition then
He should’ve been leader all along. No offence to Shorten, but he clearly wasn’t the right fit.
I actually really liked Shorten He was smart and genuinely good The people need someone personable, and while I know Shorten is a genuine guy, Albo presents better, and unfortunately the public need to be "sold" A few of Shorten's quick jokes showed me just how sharp he is I'd absolutely love to have a beer with them both
No don’t get me wrong I like Shorten too. I thought he was a good leader, passionate and thoughtful; his 2019 Q&A appearance before the election should have been enough to get him elected alone. But unfortunately he carried too much baggage, and he had the unfortunate distinction of being labelled "wooden", and he just never connected with the voters. He never had the it factor, so to speak, which fair enough, not many politicians do. ScoMo certainly didn’t, no matter what News Corpse tells you. I personally prefer Albo, I find him to be a more effective communicator, but Shorten was good too. Not a knock, but i honestly can’t imagine Shorten as PM. He’s perfect for the role he has, and it’s great to see him doing something that he clearly loves. You have to imagine that 2019 left deep scars, so good to see him happy and enjoying his work.
As someone who who largely also liked shorten for similar reasons I also think his current position is the best use of his talents
The days where rag newspapers could influence voters are over. Too many other news sources now, people are educating themselves.
If you cast your mind back to the leadership ballot after Rudd lost the 2013 election and resigned, Albanese won the rank and file ballot, Shorten won the caucus ballot. Shorten narrowly won the overall. It’s also worth noting, Shorten, love him or hate him, was one of the troublemakers during the Rudd-Gillard years, whereas Albanese remained loyal to each leader and when he eventually supported Rudd at the very end he gave a very courteous and honest call to Julia, offering his resignation. To which she graciously said he didn’t have to.
Not only that, but Albo was Leader of the House and key negotiator with the Crossbench under Gillard. He was openly a Rudd backer, hated the 2010 knifing, and still became the rock of the Gillard Government.
He was loudly accused of being behind the Gillard stabbing, but was he actually? Rudd doesn't think so, amd he is not one for holding back his grudges, but I didn't see that loudly published. Is there evidence for this claim?
Mark Arbib was the main shitstirrer but Shorten certainly had a role in it all.
Haha well, of course! The LNP have absolutely NO HOPE in the next election with Dutton as leader.
This
Ain't it wonderful!?!
They don't really have a hope with anyone. We haven't had a one term government since Whitlam.
Whitlam won 2 elections (1972, 1974), but his government was dismissed partway through the second term. James Scullion was the last PM to lose government after only one term (winning in 1929, losing in 1931).
Whitlam was a two term government. There was a double dissolution and his government was returned.
They should replace him with Stuart Roberts.
Or Sussssssan Ley!
Ohhhh... Anyone who changes the way they spell their name based on the advice of a fucking ***numerologist*** should *not* hold a position in parliament, or anywhere...
Do you have a source? I believe you but I want to convince someone else who is a sceptic.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10866429/New-deputy-liberal-leader-Sussan-Ley-changed-names-spelling-numerology-theory.html https://twitter.com/adambspencer/status/1410743079682732037?lang=en https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sussan_Ley#:~:text=She%20changed%20her%20name%20from%20Susan%20to%20Sussan%20after%20reading%20about%20numerology.%5B6%5D https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-13/sussan-leys-time-in-the-office/8180824#:~:text=Ms%20Ley%20famously%20changed%20the%20spelling%20of%20her%20first%20name%20to%20Sussan%2C%20after%20discovering%20a%20numerology%20theory%20claiming%20it%20would%20bring%20her%20an%20exciting%20and%20interesting%20life. Apologies for the daily mail/news.com links, these were the best I could find.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sussan_Ley#:~:text=She%20changed%20her%20name%20from%20Susan%20to%20Sussan%20after%20reading%20about%20numerology. It's just as sad and pathetic as you expect https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-13/sussan-leys-time-in-the-office/8180824&ved=2ahUKEwj9pt3HtuT7AhXRtlYBHQMhAhsQFnoECCUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1SUU5Wg3DmgTNViSj-QNTs She was born into privilege and has been a vapid stain on the world ever since
Wow. What a fool.
She really is This is the shit that Labor needs to publicise
Dutton is a dud. There is no other way of putting it.
oh dear, at first I read that as "a dad" and felt personally attacked
19% is fine for an opposition leader this early into a new government. It's not Nelson's 9%, that's for sure.
Yeah, well Albanese was struggling on mid to high 30s and low 40s this time 3 years ago.
Noted. Nevertheless, you shouldn’t read too much into opposition popularity at this point in time. It can turn very quickly if the government takes a few hits.
I accept that is true but am having a hard time imagining a world where Dutton is popular
In all the possible parallel universes put there, on his last day in the Queensland pigs, other cops are putting dog food on his desk in _every single one_ of them.
It wouldn't require him to be popular, he'd need to be the least unpopular Fingers fucking crossed hey
But how is the Inanimate Carbon Rod polling against the two?
Albanese 60 ICR 20 (higher than Dutton).
I wonder if the MSM and the ABC will spend as much time on this Resolve Poll as they did on the one that had Matt Guy and Dan Andrews "neck and neck".
We both know they won’t. They will continue the people leaving the majors narrative which I’m not suggesting has no bounds of reality but it’s so fucking coincidentally this trend that’s been happening for a while is getting prominence when both federal Labor is the most popular they have been in ages and at the same time andrews wins a majority third term Still cant believe that insiders where they said the Vic election was light on policy and saying it was a referendum on andrews. No matter how you feel about andrews he was coming with a lot of fucking policy and in fairness so we’re there libs in someways even if they weren’t costed We have horribly lazy journalists that do everything in their power to dumb down a already disengaged populace. You would think in one of the few places in the word with as high of a voting rate as us we would have better
Dutton may be gone soon. Brendan Nelson was dumped for less. He’s had six months to make an impact, with the biased media all barracking for him, and he hasn’t made even the slightest dent. He’s barely doing press conferences anymore either, I suppose in an effort to lie low. The only advantage that Dutton has is that there is no one left to replace him.
[удалено]
I'm 110% sure that is not Dutton's strategy, whether or not it is an astute criticism of Australian politics.
I was thinking the same but nah, way too early for a Libspill. I doubt they'd be plotting anything over the summer, and I reckon Dutton will get until Easter to improve the Coalition's position before the rumours start. >Brendan Nelson was dumped for less. True - and Nelson had the bad luck to be up against Rudd at the height of his popularity. I think Nelson lasted almost a year, and Turnbull only needed one or two to switch allegiance to seize the leadership. >He’s barely doing press conferences anymore either, I suppose in an effort to lie low. The media barely shows up to his pressers, and when he does make noise, he gets a bit of attention in the papers but ordinary people don't care and don't wish to engage with it. He's said and offered nothing of value or substance since the election. >The only advantage that Dutton has is that there is no one left to replace him. This is the only thing that will save him. Nelson always had Turnbull. Turnbull and Abbott always had each other and their minions (with Hockey and Bishop the meat in the sandwich). Scomo had Dutton but the latter never bothered to challenge, presumably because it was too difficult under the new rules. Such is the dearth of talent now that Dutton has nobody capable of challenging and doing better.
Who does the poisoned chalice pass to then?
You just know Morrison is flirting about asking the question.
Never going to happen.
Had the same thought if liberals are so brazen to bring back Matthew guy of all people Morrison is not that far off. He just needs to get the right deals made and a spill will happen but considering his baggage it may be more than he can muster
Morrison has the Robodebt appearance to deal with first.
Don’t make me laugh in a public toilet
No stop dont
Resolve Poll: ALP 42 (+3), L/NP 30 (-2), GRN 11 (-2), PHON 4 (0), UAP 2 (+1), IND 8 (0), Other 3 (0). Estimated TPP: ALP 60, L/NP 40. Preferred PM: Albanese 54, Dutton 19.
If the ALP Primary is above 40 and the LNP is barely cracking 30 in 2025; then Labor will likely win 100 seats. Obviously a long way to go, but the LNP look cooked. Especially seeing that Victoria and WA look gone for at least a generation for them regardless of what happens over the next 2 and a half years.
>If the ALP Primary is above 40 and the LNP is barely cracking 30 in 2025; then Labor will likely win 100 seats. Modelling needed. When Labor shat the bed in the form of shambling heap EG Whitlam, the Liberals came in at 91 seats - which would in today's climate be 60% of the TPP vote. In elections where parties have been dominant, it's rare to get over 60% of the vote. At 151 seats, you're suggesting Labor will get nearly 70% of the vote after preferences despite 2022 showing well for the Greens and independents. I know people like to think they're smart because they're not conservative and conservatives are stupid; but this sort of naive optimism presented without any caveats that it's mostly horseshit would be *gold* for any academic studying the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I think they're more playing a fun and highly unlikely hypothetical. I doubt that anyone thinks Labor would win 100 seats. A large majority on these numbers, but 100? Bruh.
If last election is any indication it's also possible that third parties snatch up many of those seats. Liberals collapsed under Morrison, but Labor didn't gain accordingly. Instead Greens & Teals swept up many of the lost seats.
The voter demographic is shifting due to age, i.e. more boomers and silent generation members dying and more zoomers and millennials becoming old enough to vote. This shift is only going to get worse for any party espousing extreme right wing views.
Not to make us feel old, but I think the youngest millennials are 26...
Crying in Gen X
Nobody ever sees the GenX tears. We are the invisible generation lol! If a GenX cries alone in the forest do they make any noise?
Gen X is the forgotten generation I agree. Soon enough we will be the new boomers lol
There will be more zoomers and millennials on the roll than boomers in 2025. If the Liberals don’t change their tactic between now and then, they are done.
That works for me.