The Australian politics thread

[Ausage]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Loving Malcolm's work today.

"Unless the PM and treasurer can dispel these allegations they must resign".

Lmao. That's not how it works Malcolm - you have to prove the allegation with evidence, then see what happens.

The idiot worked as a barrister FFS. You'd think he'd realise that

He needs some soundbites. Throw enough invisible mud and the public will see some of it stick.

[age_master]

He is aiming to shift public opinion which is, in the end, what it is all about.

[James90]

I know there's a long time to the next election, and the woman is a genius, but with the LNP leading 55-45 in the polls I can't see Bligh winning in 2012 if the conservatives don't implode.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by James90

I know there's a long time to the next election, and the woman is a genius, but with the LNP leading 55-45 in the polls I can't see Bligh winning in 2012 if the conservatives don't implode.

What is the main factors in the big swing to the LNP?

[James90]

Ok, don't get me wrong. I love Anna Bligh and think she has the conviction to lead this state long into the future. Unfortunately, the general public is unlikely to agree with me. Not now not ever.

Anna Bligh was not elected because of the record breaking capital works program. There was no ringing endorcement for the first female Premier elected in her own right. The public weren't convinced. In fact, perhaps the only ones that knew what she was on about were the Labor faithful who followed her on the campaign trail. It is only they who could actually hear what she had to say without the conservative media distorting the message. She won because of a blatant refusal to vote for a National Premier. While people had doubt that Bligh could lead this state in the direction they wanted, they knew that Springborg would send it backwards.

But why is there this perception? After all, the LNP did run a very strong campaign and managed to outspend the ALP significantly. I believe it can be broken down in two different ways:

---

1. DEMOGRAPHIC

a) There are the old bastards. Those that grew up with a White Australia policy. Those who seem to recall Sir Joh being some sort of saint. The people who wanted their little bubble protected from other cultures, their opinions protected from student protesters and their Premier to keep on keeping on, without the hassle of lawsuits or charges. If that meant blatant corruption and violence then so be it. They will vote National. Failing that they will vote Liberal.

b) There are the middle-aged. Those of the Bligh/Lucas/Beattie age groupthat grew up with a change of government. Those that were old enough to understand the consequences of historical landmarks disappearing in the night, the Koowarta case and the fact that the police force were protecting the government rather than the public.

They then saw it replaced by a government that legalised homosexuality, removed the Gerrymander and actively encouraged justice and democracy. In the 90s they could see the state catch up to the rest of the country, apart from the tragic capital freeze of 96-98. They will vote Labor.

c) There are the young voters. This is where the election could be won or lost, and where a Liberal government could make a lot of ground. I've said it before...the ALP needs to be more considerate of the youth voice and try to engage them in the decision making. Too many young voters feel disenfranchised by the whole process, and won't vote for a government that seems out of touch. It's one of the reasons Howard got voted out of government.

The youth vote is traditionally a Labor stronghold, and so it should be. Young people would be disgusted if they knew of the Bjelke-Peterson policies. They don't agree with the criminalisation of abortion. They believe in queer rights and indigenous land rights but the ALP aren't doing anything about those issues. They're not making it clear that that's what they stand for. You can tarnish the Nats with discriminatory images very easily, but the Libs are smart enough to distance themself from the issue. The branding of the LNP in the last election would have won a lot of votes from this age group, they just need a leader they can relate to.

2. GEOGRAPHY

It's what we already know. If the LNP want to win an election they've gotta make ground in Brisbane. 37/89 seats are in Brisbane and 52/89 are in the three major cities (Brisbane, Gold and Sunshine Coasts). These are the educated city slickers. They don't want to be lead by a slow-talking Stanthorpe farmer with a gap between his teeth.

---

It's there in the figures. The LNP have swapped to a SEQ Liberal and the numbers have turned. People aren't well informed of John-Paul Langbroek, they don't know what he stands for or where he's from. He's been in the job for two months yet he's already pulled the LNP out to a 55-45 lead in the polls. Admittedly this is a Courier Mail poll, the same idiots who were determined to get Springborg into office with their puff pieces and phony polls but the signs are ominous.

If Langbroek can make a name for himself within the next few years and the Nationals don't implode the party, I think we'll see a change of government in 2012.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by James90

I know there's a long time to the next election, and the woman is a genius, but with the LNP leading 55-45 in the polls I can't see Bligh winning in 2012 if the conservatives don't implode.

Yep, JPL will be the next Premier.

He comes across as competent and intelligent.

Something Springborg never did.

[howardj]

Swan is in massive trouble.

He's clearly mislead Parliament.

[James90]

Originally Posted by howardj

Swan is in massive trouble.

He's clearly mislead Parliament.

If it means that Tanner becomes Treasurer then I'm not complaining.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Seriously, what the **** is wrong with the Greens

I've become quite a strong conservationist/environmentalist in the last few years, but I would NEVER EVER EVER EVER vote for the Greens because along with their environmental policies they've got this ridiculous hippy, loony aspect to them, with some bizarre and ridiculous "social justice" agendas.

Bob Brown says that no workplace should force a parent to be separated from their child. Great, next time I'm on a 737 from Melbourne to Sydney, I'll be happy to know that the pilot's two year old is sitting up there with him pushing buttons. Of course, the Ashes will be interesting to watch with Ricky Ponting trying to bat with his little ones strapped to him in the baby sling. And hell, I'll just tell my boss that I'm taking my toddlers to meetings with clients from now on because its unreasonable to be separated from them. Or how about we'll all act like ****ing adults, accept that when you're at work, you're there to work and get on with it. Obviously there are issues of accessibility to childcare, and flexible work options to assist working parents get back into the work force, but the solution is not to expect the world to stop so you can be at work AND be looking after your kids.

I'd never take my kids to work, primarily because they would be bored/confused and upset because I wasn't paying attention to them. I'm fortunate in that my wife looks after them while I work, and we can (just) afford to live off my salary at the moment. But if for some reason she couldn't look after them one day and I had to, I'd arrange with my work to take the time off to do so. If I couldn't miss a particular event at work that day, I'd get my family to help out, or else get a bloody baby sitter. In short, I wouldn't sell short my obligation to my family and my employer by trying to do both things (inevitably badly) at once.

****ing hate the Greens, would probably leave the country if they ever obtained any real power.

My understanding of the situation was that she was caught short when the sitting was called and didn't have time to arrange another option. Not sure if this is true or not. I thought they were just calling for common sense to be used, not for a ruling where people would be allowed to take their children into parliament every day.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by James90

If it means that Tanner becomes Treasurer then I'm not complaining.

For sure.

Tanner has been an absolute star so far for the Gov.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

My understanding of the situation was that she was caught short when the sitting was called and didn't have time to arrange another option. Not sure if this is true or not. I thought they were just calling for common sense to be used, not for a ruling where people would be allowed to take their children into parliament every day.

So don't go to the sitting. Seriously.

[Redbacks]

dodgy e-mail - I smell Hamilton-Smith

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by howardj

Swan is in massive trouble.

He's clearly mislead Parliament.

So... You don't have a copy of this mystery email, howardj?

Lol Libs, keep finding ways to trip over your own feet.

[social]

Originally Posted by Craig

What is the main factors in the big swing to the LNP?

Pretty simple - JPL is the first LNP leader in eons to have an IQ above that of a banana and Anna Bligh is nowhwere near as good a politician as Beattie

[howardj]

Originally Posted by Matt79

So... You don't have a copy of this mystery email, howardj?

Lol Libs, keep finding ways to trip over your own feet.

The email is irrelevant to the case against Swan.