It can’t last, but today in Australia we still have no government. Smile!
I’m enjoying this, brief, best possible outcome. I didn’t want either side to win, and they haven’t. Give us more. :- )
Latest Tally: Libs 72 — Labor 66. Others 5. Undecided 7.
Of the undecideds — five seats are leaning to Labor, two to the Liberals. But the Liberals need four more seats to hold a majority. (Turnbull may be the new Gillard.) Counting is still only at the 80% mark in these crucial last seats, and things are close — one is only “leading” by 150 votes or so out of 80,000. This could go on all week.
Two months ago, I estimated there were at least a million votes that “don’t matter”, but there turned out to be nearly twice as many — 1.7 million Delcon / Defcon type voters out of 12 million. These are people who voted for a conservative candidate outside of the Liberal party. That’s a force that needs galvanizing…
Cory Bernardi invites people to join The Australian Conservatives –– a grassroots movement (not a political party):
“If you believe in limited government, traditional values, defending our culture and heritage, lower taxes, a stronger nation, a stronger economy and plain old common sense, then you have a lot in common with millions of others. Now is the time to gather together.
“It’s the next step in making sure our voice is never taken for granted again.”
Polls and complacency
Yet again, the pollsters missed a big shift. It could be those questions that only allow you to say Lib-Lab-Nat-Green or “other”. I hear there is a Reachtel robo-poll today hunting for numbers to suggest that people want climate change policies and renewables.
Turnbull hobbled himself. He avoided mentioning most of Abbott’s successes (like stopping the boats) and didn’t campaign on the carbon tax (because he brought one in himself). Perhaps he didn’t want to give credit to Abbott and didn’t feel he needed to because the polls were predicting the Liberal Party would win the marginals. So much for the polls?
Spend a few minutes diving into the votes recorded at booths in your area. (Click on an electorate, then scroll far down and compare percentages in each booth. Credit to the AEC for making it all so transparent.) The numbers are all over the place (look at Batman). There is no consistent swing in each booth. Even polling the 2,000 people at one booth would not predict the trend at all the others in a single seat. A pollsters nightmare?
Informal votes are down in 2016?
Quite a lot of Defcons were planning to vote informal, but it’s far from clear how many did. There were another 600,000 voters who voted informal (which means “incorrect” votes that don’t count). But back in 2013, there were even more informal votes – 740,000. These are House of Rep numbers, so the new Senate style of voting does not count.
h/t Phillipa
The last Gillard government was Labor only 72 to the Liberals 74. Gillard formed a government from the independents, Oakshott, Windsor and Wilkie, two betraying their own constituencies to put in a Green/Labor government then dominated by Bob Brown and their first act was the Green’s Carbon Tax. So if the Liberals only get 74, there is no guarantee that Malcolm will hold onto his job.
However Malcolm without Abbott’s strong principles would have no trouble doing a deal with anyone Left or Green, as long as he stayed PM. It’s all about Malcolm and he could make all the Green’s dreams come true, another power at any cost opportunist like Gillard with the principles of a divorce lawyer. However he would have to rule the Liberal party room with an iron fist and stop Deputy PM Barnaby from walking. Power, privilege and cash are the ultimate aphrodisiacs for most non Abbott politicians, so it is all about what principle they have to drop. My guess is Malcolm would introduce his dream Carbon Trading scheme, the tax Abbott removed. He will tell us it is the price we have to pay. Maybe also the mad Very Fast Train. Destroying Abbot will drive Malcolm. His hatred and fear of Abbott is comparable to Gillard’s fear of Rudd and the need to destroy Rudd’s legacy.
So if the Liberals only get 74, it’s all on. The Liberal party room is already worried that Malcolm will give away anything to stay PM. They are absolutely right. Power at any price.
431
Barnaby and the National are the key. They wiped the floor with the treacherous Windsor and his sycophantic comrade Oakeshott.
The National are likely to gain a seat as well.
That puts them in a very influential position.
Now the question for the Liberal Party is who will replace the three time failure Turnbull?
Michaelia Cash would be good, but she’s in the Senate.
Christian Porter is in the Reps and has strong political experience. He’s be very good, although his profile needs to be lifted.
Tony Abbott. I’d like to see that, but it might be a bridge too far.
Any other thoughts greatly appreciated.
220
The whole country would like to see Tony Abbott back except they are scared to say so, except Andrew Bolt. Why did he lose the job anyway? No answer. He was doing a great job, apart from the personal attacks of Malcolm’s ABC. Winking on radio was a crime against humanity apparently. Peta Credlin, Joe Hockey were vilified endlessly. The opposition and independent stopped every bill in the senate and blamed everyone but themselves for the mess.
Now people are really intimidated at even suggesting Tony come back to finish what he started before he was removed without any reason by Turnbull who just wanted his job. He let Tony do all the work and stole the position. Most of Australia would grant that, even the opposition. They were not thrilled either when Rudd was ousted by Julia. This is a wrong which must be righted.0
Now Malcolm has failed spectacularly yet again, so why not offer the job back to the man who knows how to do it? As Peta Credlin says though, why should he accept it?
No one as experienced or appropriate. He should be allowed to finish what he started and who better to negotiate new deals with Britain than someone born there, educated at Oxford and well known with a degrees in Economics, Law and Politics? We would be well served to give him his job back, if he would only take it.
For those who do not want to have a carbon tax, a superannuation tax and runaway spending, there is only one person strong enough to do it. His problem would still be the Senate, but it has changed dramatically. There is some hope. With Malcolm, there is none.
311
I saw Peta Credlin. I knew who she was but had not taken much notice except a few comments online etc.(NB. I’m a Kiwi) I was extremely impressed by her political nous, her intellect and above all her integrity. Andrew tried to draw out her opinion on Turnbull etc. but she refused to be cornered and stayed loyal to the party with what she said. Although at times it wasn’t hard to “read between the lines”.
The Liberal Party need her back inside the tent in a high level strategy position at the very least, but it would seem that there would have to be a clean out at the top before that happens
181
Sorry should have been ” I saw Peta Credlin talking with Andrew Bolt ..”
20
I saw Peta Credlin with Andrew Bolt also and I agree, she is one savvy woman, clear concise answers only saying what she wanted and not letting herself be led. Clearly a PARTY FIRST attitude – no wonder she got knifed in the back!
Would Abbott come back to be PM? Possibly, BUT ONLY IF Turnbull resigned from the PM and the Liberal Party first! Would he do that? When pigs fly!
70
If a minority government can’t be cobbled together then there will be another election before Xmas. Ideally the Hansonites would run in lower house seats.
Peta kept Abbott out of touch, MPs had no chance to air their concerns, so Talcum’s coup was pulled off without a hitch. Who knew?
00
At this time of writing, the status for Waffle is 73 seats with two independents claiming for guarantee of supply and confidence but nothing else.
Worse, Katter (one of the two independents) has accepted CMFEU donations and is refusing to allow Waffle the ABCC – ostensibly the reason for the DD. The combined Reps and Senate numbers will not help Waffle here.
The saddest aspect of this is that Dyson Heydon’s good work in the RC on Union Governance is now completely wasted. He (Heydon) should have completed that address to the Lib dinner anyway, for all the good acting on principle did him.
00
Tony Abbott was the first prime minister I didn’t love to hate, much to my surprise as I was strongly prejudiced against him for various reasons when he got in. However despite becoming a strong supporter I have reservations about bringing him back.
First he made the huge mistake of making Turnbull in charge of the ABC thus allowing and supporting the white anting of his position. i’ve not really heard this as a criticism of Tony but to me it was a big one – he shouldn’t have the tax payer funding such attacks with a white anter in control. Second: Tony, with the strong media attacks against him he allowed the medicare sacred cow to be attacked in his first budget. You don’t kill sacred cows! It’s horrendous policy and even worse, do it when under a white anting attack by taxpayer funded media. Rather than going in and charging users it might be more useful to require various government departments to face increasingly stringent KPIs or they lose money. That is how New Zealand dealt with increasing bureaucracy and huge opposition to change in leftie feather bedded jobs.
When the KPIs were mooted the local health boards considered they were “aspirational”. When the top bureaucrats were informed they were required, not desired, it was a huge shock but within a short period these KPIs were able to be met. When they weren’t the money was given to another provider. They soon learned. Then each year the KPIs were screwed tighter, and surprise, surprise the jobs went to those meeting the KPIs, not to bureaucrats making ever larger departments they could be in charge of.
Then of course there was the ETS stuff and 18C.
Basically, while I still see much to admire with Tony he made too many mistakes to come back from, me thinks. Though I would love to be proved wrong and would be a supporter of him if he did make it back.
50
And who sets your KPIs? The CFMEU would love to. Check out the demise of the Rylstone Shire Council, and that was not a militant union.
As for Tony Abbott. He has an awful lump of lead in his saddle. He was the organiser of the push that put Pauline Hanson in gaol. That result required more villains than Tony Abbott, it was never anticipated by him, but he is stuck with it. It wasn’t Tony Abbott who got Pauline Hanson out of gaol, it was Chester Porter, who had observed from a distance this terrible injustice.
Tony Abbott cannot hold high office while Pauline Hanson is in the parliament. It’s a pity, that. But congratulations to Pauline. She is finally getting what Australia owes her.
30
So now it’s up to “Us”to get behind her,because the Politicians and the MSM will give her “Hell”if we don’t,as they are already doing.
00
The KPIs were set by the ministers – well at their instruction. The public sector unions had to lump it. i’ve been getting a running report over the last 3 years or so as they were ramped up for health in one of the more rural areas. What was perceived to be a total impossibility at the beginning is now accepted as routine.
00
No I don’t want to see Tony Abbott back. He exhibited appalling judgement in first making unnecessary promises the night before the election in 2013 and then breaking them in the 2014 budget. In consequence his standing with the public deteriorated and did not recover. Had he kept quiet none of the events following the budget including his removal, would have occurred. He is a good man but a poor PM. That said I was hopeful when Turnbull replaced Abbott as I’m a liberal not a Liberal and don’t subscribe to many of the so called “del cons” views. Turnbull however has proved as poor a performer as Abbott in selling his message and the despicable Shorten was able to run rings round the government with his Mediscare approach. It seems Turnbull, who is no fool. may get a majority of one seat or perhaps two and therefore should be able to govern in his own right. However if the destabilisation from the right side of the party continues, the chances of getting Australia back to economic stability seem very poor. Why “conservatives” want to see the ALP back in power is beyond me and I doubt that Abbott approves either. Why not drop the acrimony and pursue the future? Do you really want to cut off your nose to spite your face?
12
Scott Morrison by a length, he’s a clean skin on climate change.
70
Scott Morrison,I would have agreed with you,would have been the best,but not anymore.He sold Abbott out ,without even thinking about it.I agree with Peta,why would Abbott want to repeat what happened last year?Mind you ,I don’t see anyone else who could do the job.
70
Scott Morrison NEEDS someone to give him CLEAR directions…..and then let loose.
Tony Abbott did this. Turnbull changed his mind more often than a new-born
has their nappy changed. Which did not help Morrison one little bit.
Even though Tony set the wolves on Hanson, I still reckon he is the
only one with the nouse, and the will, to get Australia back on course.
Then he needs to rid himself of the bloke who knocks heads, the one
that brought the carbon dioxide tax back in.
Go Tony (and Peta). He sure needs her.
40
Scott Morrison’s greatest contribution to public administration in Australia is the “where the bloody hell are you” campaign when he was the head of Tourism Australia.
It should disqualify him from public office for life.
21
Scott performed well as Minister against Invading Boats, but had a smart Army general who provided the intelligence.
I would have supported him for PM then; I don’t blame him during the coup, probably between a rock and a hard place, but he could have supported PM Abbott more.
All leaders don’t seem to have an obvious heir apparent and give them the experience needed if they fall under a truck. Take the case of John Howard; he went an election too far and lost the lot. He should have called a party meeting early in his penultimate term and the meeting decided on someone, perhaps Costello, perhaps not, and give them the opportunity of running the next election campaign instead of hanging on too long and giving us the Rudd/Gillard years.
10
@Sceptical Sam:
“Tony Abbott. I’d like to see that, but it might be a bridge too far.”
Quite a few people are saying this, and I would dearly love to see him back in the Lodge myself. However, I doubt it would work out. All we would see, especially with an increasingly dysfunctional senate, is Round Two of the match between Tony and the combined might of the Left, most of the media, our ‘apolitical’ public service, the unions and, last but not least, their ABC.
I couldn’t wish that on the man. The screeching, wailing and OTT criticism, the hyperbole and lies, would all kick off again. For whatever reason, Abbott is Enemy No 1 to all leftists, and I reckon he would be unable to govern once again, even (especially?) if he swung back toward his conservative principles. This is the man who was pilloried for checking the time, accused of leering at a colleagues breasts (using a doctored photo), called an incestuous father for play-fighting with his adult daughter in the swimming pool, an ape in speedos, well……..you name it.
How could any person retain the required dignity to operate as PM under such circumstances? Add in the self-serving, principle-free nature of most of his colleagues, who would crumble at the sight of the first, inevitably negative, polling numbers, and we’re back watching poor Tony assailed from all sides.
I don’t want to see that.
150
You are right, but it was only because he represented the other side of the political spectrum to the very Green group think ABC. A married man with three daughters, a female chief of staff and even a lesbian sister was called a mysogynist by Gillard when she was defending the appalling Peter Slipper’s antics in gay bars? There was no logic to it except denigration of the opposition.
Joe Hockey was vilified for smoking a cigar and dancing with his wife and young child after weeks of isolation and hard work. The ABC show no mercy.
Whoever is leading the coalition will be assailed like this, except for Malcolm who has the ABC in his pocket. So it is unavoidable when the largest media empire in the country, media so large it would be illegal if private, wants their political friends in power, there will be trouble. They even helped organize a riot on Australia day with Abbott the intended victim. PM Gillard’s staff member fled the country and she clearly had to rescue Abbott from planned assault. This is stuff which you expect in the Balkans, not Canberra.
You cannot stop the ABC from attacking and in one case, violently. Ends justify the means. However only Abbott has proven he is up to the task. Others would crumble. If he get his job back, he needs to force the ABC to obey its own charter of strict impartiality, or sell it. The new conservatives in the Senate might applaud. Frankly it should be sold.
110
Spot on TdeF.
And it’s such a good analysis I would like to use it at some point in the future – with your permission.
And that too. But even if Tony Abbott doesn’t get his job back, a Liberal/National government needs to find ways and means to force the ABC (and SBS) to meet the requirements of its Charter. It may well be that some of the new groupings in the Senate would support such an action, as well.
50
I think the ABC is too far gone to be saved.Just have armed guards move in and clear out all of the “Inhabitants”of”Our ABC”
20
I suspect you are right. Cut the budget totally except, perhaps for some rural aspects – but don’t let the management make decisions of what to cut. It has to be a fait accomplis from the government – and keep all lefties out of the running. Lefties – SJWs always lie, so they can’t be trusted at all.
00
The ABC is only part of the huge media machine deployed against Abbott, albeit the most relentless. I can recall similarly partisan and OTT reactions from Channel 7’s Mark Riley with his despicable “shit happens gotcha”. Then there was the often unhinged Paul Bongiorno on Channel Ten. Last but not least, Channel 9 would frequently wheel out Laurie Oakes to put a negative spin on Abbott’s latest ‘failure’, or it’s attack bitch, Lisa Wilkinson. None of the FTA channels left him alone, or reported his words and deeds impartially. To all this we can add the Fairfax ‘newspapers’ who also laid into him with gusto, every……single…….day.
50
Steve, all that’s true. However, the ABC and SBS are the only broadcasters that are fully funded by the taxpayer. That’s the difference. That’s why there’s a Charter that they are required to abide by (but fail to).
The others that you mention are non-government funded. Private sector. They can do as they like. Turn them off or don’t buy them. They will suffer as their audience ratings fall away and hence generate less revenue income from their advertisers. Ask any shareholder of Fairfax how they see the future of that underperforming company?
On the other hand, if you turn off the ABC nothing happens to it. It still gets its $1 billion every year from the taxpayer. That’s the travesty.
50
Oh I know what you’re saying Sam, and I agree. I was merely pointing out that poor Abbott never stood a chance because he had so many enemies in the media, all ganging up on him. It seemed that all you needed to do in order to appear on Tv or radio – on any channel – was to mock Tony.
50
Yeah but seriously , who cares what the abc thinks…..
00
I was surprised last night when on television news Barnaby Joyce commented that Malcolm Turnbull is the right person to be Prime Minister.
Hopefully the comment was an expression of solidarity of Coalition to counter the never ending Shorten Union Labor campaigning?
60
These are statements people are expected to make. However what Barnaby is thinking is another matter. Does he really agree with new taxes on people’s savings for retirement and playing class envy to get approval? Does Malcolm really think Aesop’s grasshopper should tax the ants? Is he so out of touch with his own voters, or is his money safe in the Carribean?
50
The LNP needs to get their act together with their dual identity. Who exactly are they ? Are they the LNP or the new CoA, coalition party. This must confuse new voters
10
It was good to see Windsor gone in just a few hours, the voters must have good memories
70
Sam, we ALL know that Tony Abbott cold do it but, really, why should he? He worked so hard for six years, pulling his team together and, with Peta Credlin, maintaining discipline and forging ahead to get a 30 seat majority, only to be undermined by Turnbull and Lady MacBeth from day one and to be tossed out, just because the polls were against him, thanks to a vicious media and an ABC encouraged all the way by Turnbull. For goodness sake, they are already blaming him and Joe Hockey for loosing THIS election! Why should he do it again. If I was he, I would let it ride for a while and see what transpires. Perhaps the stars would alaign again, perhaps not. I bet Margie and the girls will be telling him to keep his head down.
60
As strong a man as Tony Abbott is, perhaps there’s only so much that a man can endure. Tony Abbott deserves an award for his political service to the nation in the face of media vitriol directed at him and his family.
He may not have been the smoothest talking PM we’ve had, but he sure talked convincingly enough when he addressed the refugee problem facing of Europe.
30
I trust the Coalition doesn’t get anymore than 74 seats and then we will see both leaders throwing away any principle they had, if any, to make a minority government with someone. Mr. Wilkie will not make a deal with anyone; remember that Ms.Gillard welched on her deal with him and he is a wiser person now, but could accept a job as speaker as could Ms. McGowan if offered. Bob Katter would support the Coalition, he did last time, but is somewhat erratic. Mr.Bandt would only back Labor, perhaps even as speaker, but there is no basis to see what “Ms. Xenophon” would do.
I would like to be a fly on the wall of the party rooms when the votes are finalised. Whatever the outcome PM Turnbull is badly damaged, as are his supporters, and another election has to be on the cards within a year or so.
There were originally 54 Quislings who supported Mr. Turnbull, so it gets down to many of them are left. If in the majority then PM Turnbull will remain leader, if not there could be a change and I guess Mr. Barnaby would support this despite what he was forced to say.
An ideal result would be a change to someone younger with potential with the support of Mr. Abbott in a senior role. I had hopes for Mr. Morrison but have changed my mind somewhat, I guess he was between a rock and a hard place last year. It would be a mistake to go back to Mr. Abbott, the press is still crucifying him and it would become relentless again and he would have difficulty in dealing with Pauline.
As PM Turnbull says “we live in exciting times”.
160
The AEC is ‘calling’ it as Coalition 74, Labor 71, Katter, Greens, Xenophon 1 each and 2 independents.
Malcolm should (if he doesn’t stuff up again) get support from Katter and McGowan (neither likely to be at his beck and call). It will be interesting to see how Rebecka Sharkie goes. Xenophon will want her supporting the Left, but she represents what is normally a very safe Liberal seat. Her chances of re-election will ‘do a Windsor’ if she goes for the Left.
If the Coalition gets 75 then Malcolm can hand the Speaker’s job to ? and continue until the polls turn his way or he gets dumped. I don’t think he has any idea how to handle recalcitrant backbenchers, except curiously, Tony Abbott who wouldn’t cross the floor.
110
Before anyone gets too excited about a new Senate YOU REALLY NEED TO READ THIS!! http://pickeringpost.com/story/prepare-for-a-new-election/6178
I checked the Amendment – section 269 and 272 are relevant https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016A00025
If you knew this would you have voted the way you did??
40
There will certainly be a ruckus!
10
how to we raise this? I want to make a BIG deal of this cock up!
we could have our revenge by having Mal loose his seat 🙂
– I’ll also be writing to Tony later and thanking him for all he’s done for Australia and I hope others here also take the time to do the same.. the poor guy has worked so hard, he deserves a few honest words of appreciation.
10
Nailed it in one TdeF
a slimey bloody crook
10
Scott Morrison was on Sky with Paul Murray tonight. Perhaps there is light at the end of the tunnel. Morrison is again sounding like he did when he stopped the boats. The points he raised tonight about dealing with the new senate were the first reasoned points I’ve heard on that issue. The incoming Senate will be comprised of less disparate voices than the previous one. Xenaphon and Hanson will have approximately 3 or 4 senators. He also reiterated the Libs policies on border protection and welfare reform. He didn’t once mention Malcolm!
Perhaps we should forgive Scott his rash judgement about Abbott. If there is to be a leadership change, and eventually there will be, Scott Morrison tonight spoke clearly, without waffle and without reference to ‘diversity, sustainability and equality’.
Under Morrison, there could be hope for the Libs. Under Turnbull there is only decline. He has reached his political apogee.
As an aside, let’s hope Malcolm Roberts (One Nation) gets up. While Pauline may not have a clue on detailed issues, she has a grasp of the zeitgeist. With Roberts as a senator, One Nation can have an educated vote on climate issues.
10
as sure as night follows day, Fairfax was sure to find someone to write the following. will ABC & The Conversation follow suit?
6 Jul: SMH: Piero Moraro: Younger citizens should have more votes than those over 60
We think that “one person, one vote” is the hallmark of any democratic election. However, the EU referendum and the Australian election suggest that, in the interest of democracy, we should grant more votes to younger citizens, and fewer to older ones…
The tens of thousands of pensioners, who, on the other hand, voted for Brexit, will have much less to lose from leaving the EU. Is it fair they all had the same say in such decision?…
Or consider the case of Australia. As we witnessed yet again on the lead-up to this election, the two major parties tend to ignore the interests of young voters in favour of those of the older ones…
Younger people (say under 60) should be allowed to cast more votes during elections, because they have much more at stake than someone who is already retired. And older voters (say over 60) should accept that the views of younger citizens should have priority over their own…
The “one person, one vote” system, however, treats people who have had their chances in life, and those who haven’t yet, identically. This is not fair, and plural voting would help redress this injustice…
The British philosopher John Stuart Mill, one of the fathers of liberalism, already defended it in the 19th century, though he wrongly focused on education rather than age (ignoring that someone with a university degree can be less politically savvy than the average Joe)…
(Dr Piero Moraro is a lecturer in justice studies at Charles Sturt University)
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/younger-citizens-should-be-allowed-more-votes-than-those-over-60-20160706-gpzq69.html
Charles Sturt University: Dr Piero Moraro
Piero has lived and worked in Australia since 2011, after studying in UK and in Italy. He initially joined CSU as a contract lecturer in Philosophy, and moved to join Justice Studies as a permanent member in 2012. He holds a PhD in Philosophy from the University of Stirling (UK), and a MSC in Philosophy and Public Policy from the London School of Economics. He wrote his doctoral dissertation on the relation between civil disobedients and the criminal justice system.
https://arts-ed.csu.edu.au/schools/humss/staff/profiles/lecturers/piero-moraro
130
Pat, many years ago we posted a big sign on the refrigerator door for our four teenage children :
“Teenagers Leave Home Now While You Still Know Everthing”
200
The original voting age was 30. A man younger than 30 was called a boy.
Cynically every time the franchise was expanded, people without money, people who did not own property, women, younger people, aborigines, it advantaged the party doing it at the time. I am surprised there is no move to changed the voting age to 16 or 14? Perhaps there is.
We are down to 18 years after conscription for Vietnam fundamentally because if you consider someone mature enough to be forced to leave the country to kill people and die for reasons which are not explained or explicable, he ought be considered mature enough to have a say in it. In all wars, soldiers are under 20 and invulnerable. However wisdom is acquired with time and there is a vast difference between an 18 year old conscript and an experienced 26 year old, if they last that long.
So the idea that young people who were not born when Britain joined the EU want to stay with what they know is not unexpected. Besides, they know better than the useless old fogies. It is why people vote Green and radical when they are young and idealistic and vote Conservative when they realise they have been used as cannon fodder. What was surprising was both the money men London and Senior Labor party stalwarts wanted to stay, for reasons young people would not understand at all and would not like if they knew.
161
Actually the people editing news.com.au and ninemsn.com.au give new meaning to puerile. It would be nice to be able to go to a web site for balanced news, especially as we pay $1,300,000,000 a year to have balanced, unbiased news. Tell me I’m dreamin’.
150
The old English saw: If you aren’t a socialist when you’re young there is something wrong with your heart, If you’re a socialist after you turn 25 there is something wrong with your head.
160
If you are not a Liberal by age 21, you have no soul. If you are not a conservative by age 40, you have no sense.
Having witnessed how the “Young”people behave today,who in their right mind would want them in charge of our country?
You only have to look at their behaviour after the Brexit vote came in,or have a look at what is coming out of our Universities.
Why remain silent and be thought a fool when you can speak out and remove all doubt?
101
16 was indeed mentioned lately.
However with no compulsory voting for Brexit, few under 25ers voted. Probably because they didn’t understand the issue or didn’t rate themselves as well enough informed.
And, Clive, many years ago my father told me: “‘Twas ever so”.
40
Not sure if you are right on either reason, Ted. I heard one young ‘man’ say he couldn’t afford the bus fare to the polling station, which was only 15 minutes walk away, and another said “I don’t get up till after 6:00pm and all the polling stations were closed”. And they are the ones who are complaining about it being “unfair” and wanting a new poll!
10
Brain washing works on young minds, obviously.
20
Viet Nam conscription age was 20. The voting age should go back to 21 at a minimum. I was a scrutineer last Saturday and Informal came fourth out of seven candidates at my booth. Some of the Informals were blank, some humourous and some very juvenile so I wonder if we should continue with mandatory voting. People at booths in Sydney reported the number of voters who had no idea why they were voting, how they would do it or who they were voting for.
40
It is hard to believe, but is true, that many people at certain polling booths were marked off the Roll and told that the Polling Booth had run out of Ballot papers, and they left without voting.
10
Another point, I recall that during the 1960s at a NSW state election, polling booth at Hollsworthy near the Army Base, voters were handed ballot papers that were not initialled as the regulations require and were therefore invalid votes.
Yesterday I heard that at some polling booths papers were not initialled, but the Electoral Commission advised ABC Radio that legislation of recent times gives the person in charge of a polling place the right to accept papers that were not initialed or to reject them … surely this is open to manipulation?
More examples of how our voting system is broken.
60
And you wonder why electronic voting is such a bad idea…..?
00
Yes, and I was conscripted.
However, if I recall correctly the way it worked was that you went into the ballot prior to that 20th birthday as being eligible.
That meant the notice of call-up arrived sometimes before your 20th and in my case it took them over twelve months to actually take me away. Testing the memory here.
Remember too that an employer was legally obliged to maintain your employment and also to re-employ you in a similar position upon return. That played havoc for both myself and my employer at the time. We were both put into limbo.
During my service time I had turned 21 and Gough Whitlam vowed to end conscription . . so I voted for him!
Of course, I had already served 18 months by then and it took a further two months to be discharged. Ha . . .
10
That must have been the second time that Gough ran, the time he was elected and then wreaked havoc on the economy. I was conscripted three years earlier and was in recruit training during the election. I voted against Gough even though he had promised to end conscription. Perhaps I could be so bold as to suggest that I put Australia ahead of my personal interest.
I had determined that I was going to complete my two years National Service, irrespective of whether or not he was elected.
10
TedM,
You certainly can make that suggestion, boldly or otherwise.
However, I’d suggest that Australia was in no peril, so perhaps the point is moot.
Remember too, the original point concerned Australia putting minors in harms way while denying them participation in the political process.
“All the way with LBJ” doesn’t quite have the same honourable Australian ring to it in that case.
10
@Raven
… Australia putting minors in harms way while denying them participation in the political process
That was Menzies’ cynical farewell to the people of Australia. I am old enough to remember the very nervous wait for details of the legislated age group to be “lotteried” for active Vietnam service. Myself and peer mates bought the afternoon Sydney papers for the 1st time in our lives that day.
I turned out to have been born one year too soon for the lottery. Not so lucky three of my friends, one of whom was killed in action.
00
I confess to voting informal on the green.
I put an 8 in each box (we had seven in my seat) and quoted Mark Textor in the margin.
On the plus side, I do live in safe Labor. It was a pure Anti Lib protest designed both to deny them my vote, to make it clear to any scrutineer why I was voting informal and to deny the buggers the $2 or so they get back for each primary.
Senate on the other hand I voted VERY carefully on.
Still, your point that masses of votes seem to have no idea who, why or how they are voting and clearly don’t understand how preferences work in real terms is completely valid. As I was shuffling forward slowly last Saturday the 20 something couple behind me were passing comment that they couldn’t understand why the ALP ‘How To’ had selected the order for preference 4 and 5 and were honestly confused and upset about it. It’s 2PP people! Preferences are for the minor parties. If you have every means to expect you will be top on the primary vote count then no one really cares where your 4 and 5 preferences end up.
Even worse are the people who ask for your parties preference guild for the senate or MLC.
– Who is your party preferencing in the senate?
– Ourselves. We’re intending to win all the seats available.
So yes, while I do believe a protest informal is a completely valid (and in some cases, to be encouraged) method, the fact that so many voting members of the public do not understand the system is disturbing.
40
It’s essential that we continue with compulsory voting.
10
I disgaree with compulsory voting, I think it continues a “best of a bad bunch” mentality that shows the requirement to vote, when clealry most people arent too interested.
I also think if people want to be elected, they actually *have* to have something going for them…with the existing system its a case of applying votes to what ever is available….
The other thing is that there are many clearly dim people who dont think and compulsory voting becomes an exercise about swaying the unthinking dim witted in the electorate ( not a hard task ) that make sit easy to put people in power who clearly shouldnt be there…..
10
watch out, I got some flack for having such a fascist opinion over at wattsup by a blow-in
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/04/green-panic-deniers-may-hold-the-balance-of-power-in-the-aussie-senate/#comment-2251843
However id did allow me to post ‘“Freedom House’s 1996-97 survey, Freedom in the World, has separate rankings for political liberties and civil liberties, which correspond roughly with democracy and constitutional liberalism, respectively. Of the countries that lie between confirmed dictatorship and consolidated democracy, 50 percent do better on political liberties than on civil ones. In other words, half of the “democratizing” countries in the world today are illiberal democracies.
Illiberal democracy is a growth industry. Seven years ago only 22 percent of democratizing countries could have been so categorized; five years ago that figure had risen to 35 percent.’
00
small point – something that’s often portrayed wrong is the ’67 referendum which people even now think gave aboriginals the vote and to be treated as people – these are myths.. http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2015/06/indigenous_recognition_and_con.html Aboriginals have been voting in Australia as long as anyone could vote.
10
If you are not a Liberal by age 21, you have no soul. If you are not a conservative by age 40, you have no sense.
00
Wow! Five whole years of life in Oz! Superb qualifications!
51
A SOROSBOT with a PHD!
The free stuff in the cereal packets must be really good where he comes from.
40
Philosophy. ie he has learnt how to make up B******T !!
50
How about this for a voting system, you get one vote for every year you have paid tax. This eliminates the worthless dregs who have contributed nothing to society in their lives.
40
If you’ve followed the fortunes of rural Australia you’re about to disenfranchise a lot of it with that move
20
I’ve long believed that everyone, regardless of age, should be given a vote.
Newborns would obviously be voted for by their parents, giving the producers of the next generation a bit of a boost, when they have so little else, and as their offspring age and mature they would demand their own right to participate. They’d be taking it from their parents, who would presumably make some effort to train them into it.
Problems, yes, advantages too. On balance I think it would be an improvement.
13
What an interesting idea.
Give parents a proxy vote for their children until they leave home.
Trouble with that is that leftists, who are all about “too many people on Earth” often have larger families… eg D Suzuki.
20
And their children are probably more likely to stay at home, molly-coddled.
10
Or locked in the basement.
10
From a UK perspective Australia without a govt makes good sense, just carry on with the basics: mining, agriculture, and use of local fuels to create low cost electricity, which will encourage other industries. All you need to do is stop “greens” from interfering in the basics, so a long period of no govt gives them no chance to do so.
Sadly, hung parliaments allow “greens” to wield an undemocratic level of influence.
200
The surprisingly large One Nation vote plus that for other right wing minor parties shows that conservatives are sick enough of the Marxist Green influence that they are willing to overlook fairly reactionary policies to provide some balance in the Senate
Cory Bernardi will have a strong base to work with if he can galvanize the conservatives and I hope his presents the message clearly and with conviction
200
Is it reactionary to want to live and thrive without the government meddling in things that are none of its business. Such as the full and untrammeled use of your own, life, life’s product, and earned property? Including association and interaction with whomever you please for your own reasons? As long as you respect those self same things in others? How can this be reactionary when it has happened only for a very short time in the history of man on earth? Roughly one century out of many thousands of centuries of human existence?
How can the micromanagement of government thrust into every aspect of one’s life be progressive? Especially since for all but that one glorious century, the individual was owned, used, abused, and disposed of by what passed for being a government? It is the [snip] green blob, anti human environmentalist who are reactionary and want to prohibit freedom, liberty, individual rights, and human thriving. Especially by turning back the clock on energy generation. Returning to the use of raw animal power with an intermittent and uncertain amount of sun and wind energy being sparsely used. Thereby destroying any possibility of maintaining a thriving and growing high technology civilization. A civilization which supports the vast majority of humans living today.
It is Orwellian New Speak in which progress means to regress to the state of man in his ancient prehistory and regress means to support, maintain, and advance a human and humane technological civilization that has only briefly existed in the experience of mankind.
If we are going to recover our individual rights based upon life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is our language that must be recovers along with the basic truths that language expresses. On the other hand, if you don’t want to live, do nothing and you will soon get your wish.
[I apologise for the editorial discretion. But Jo’s rules are Jo’s rules and we would rather not bring up what I snipped out.] AZ
150
[I apologise for the editorial discretion. But Jo’s rules are Jo’s rules and we would rather not bring up what I snipped out.] AZ
It is her blog so her rules apply. However, what you snipped is a prime example of one small part of the language we must recover. There is a clear connection between the ideas behind the forbidden word and the anti-human green blob and its consequent destruction of any reasonable semblance of human and humane society.
Political correctness is not only going to be the death of us but has caused (anti DTD for example) and is causing (unwillingness to identify clearly the ideology behind terrorism) the deaths of countless living rights holding human beings. I don’t know Jo’s reasoning behind her prohibition of the particular word but it is difficult for me to interpret it as anything other than part of the problem.
171
Lionel, if you saw my senate vote slip, you would almost certainly put me in the reactionary category.
While I do not endorse all the policies and positions of One Nation, Rise Up Australia, Christian Democrats, Derryn Hinch, Australian Christians, Family First and Australian Liberty Alliance, I find I agree with most of them. Those policies I disagree with are often conflicted amongst that group with some I find too far to the right and others too left (eg Hinch’s position on gay marriage). Nevertheless, they all ended up higher on my slip than the Coalition.
I would love to know what was snipped out of you original post as it may well be that I agree with you (as I do on the parts that got through). My comment was in recognition that my position would be viewed as reactionary by many in the general population and possibly even amongst conservatives. As such, I feel that the large vote for minor right wing parties shows that many conservatively leaning people who would normally accept a centrist government are tired enough of the left/green minority holding the swing position that they have overlooked some fairly reactionary policies (most of which I, personally, would support)
51
Since it is a forbidden word, I can’t use it.
It is the label for a very misbegotten political-economic theory developed by a very resentful small mind in the 19th century. The ideas were used as an excuse for liquidating well over a hundred million humans and the destruction of countless economies during the 20th century. It has re-emerged in the 21st century as an ecological extremism that demands we give up everything that makes life possible, meaningful, and worth having and return to the cold dark ages of human prehistory. It’s not so much they want to live, they want YOU to die and to suffer mightily in the process.
It makes as much sense not to use the name of this abomination as it does not to use the name of the so called religion that is behind modern day terrorism. If you can’t name the enemy, you have lost the war before the first battle. THIS is the ultimate cost of Political Correctness.
[Lionell, it is forbidden because Joanne cannot afford to defend against potential lawsuit(s). It is because of AU law and that AU does not have Free Speech. The forbidden subject desperately needs to be discussed! Just not here on this blog until the law provides for truly Free Speech. ] ED
61
Communist or Marxist?
Or maybe Keynesian?
30
There is a difference?
They are all based upon the notion that truth can be defined by force, that things become what they are called, and that only the collective matters but individuals don’t. The latter is presumed because who and what the individuals are is thought to be determined by the collective and has nothing to do with any attribute of the individuals themselves. The magic power by which all this is to happen is brute force applied, often, capriciously, in sufficient quantities, with sufficient violence.
Compare and contrast this with our current autocratic governments around the globe. It’s only a matter of degree but not of kind. They all want to have their cake and eat it too along with yours, mine, and everyone else’s.
It is unsustainable. Ideas matter and reality is their best defense.
21
Hmmm . . . I’m not sure I’d go that far.
The Green blob seem to be aiming for their version of a better world but this requires co-ordination, and therefor, conformity.
To achieve that aim, along the way, some of them and us will die. They consider that to be merely collateral damage.
It’s quite subtle in presentation, albeit with the same outcome.
11
I was just throwing around words which may have been the one you felt was forbidden. They are same, same to me.
Classing Keynesian along with the others may be viewed as reactionary by many but after reading some analysis of the 2008 Financial Meltdown, it is apparent to me that Keynesian style economic policies produces the same results as the other 2 only through a stealthy political process rather than upfront imposition.
BTW the very best layman’s book I have found on this matter is Alchemists of Loss: How Modern Finance and Government Intervention Crashed the Financial System Well worth the time to read thoroughly
10
Raven,
I suggest looking more closely at their policies and methods of implementation. Their so called “coordination” is heavy handed top down power and control over anything that uses energy or transforms the earth to make it better for living humans. The conformity is one of their way or no way at all. The consequence of this is the end of technological civilization and the lives of over 95% who depend upon the existence of that civilization to live.
That they say they only want a better world and a more equitable sharing of the world with every living thing is a misdirection of major proportions. Man is not to be permitted to have an impact upon the earth. Not even as much impact as ants or termites. Yet, the only way man can live is by transforming the earth into an environment that is conducive to his life and into products that can be used to sustain his life.
The result is that men cannot be human. They must exist as a wild animals living off of whatever scraps they might find with their minds forever unable to move beyond the level of a mouse. This is what I mean by they don’t want to live, they want YOU to die a very painful death.
The principle is that if you keep doing the same thing and get the same result and those results are what you say you don’t want, way down deep where it really counts, those are the results you really want. What you say you want is irrelevant.
There is an old Midwestern (USA) saying: “What you do speaks so loudly that what you say cannot be heard.”
32
“Since it is a forbidden word, I can’t use it. ”
Lionell. If it were my blog, it would be forbidden for people to talk about politics without having some understanding that politics today is governed by a privately owned banking system, both directly and indirectly. Look at Greece recently.
The seeming forbidden word/subject seen in so much political wiseacring is ‘finance'(Banks and the like). This aspect is absent over 98% of the time and it is disturbing in my view, not any political issue at hand.
It has almost become a religion to ‘not’ talk about finance with respect to politics.
How often does Turball talk about finance and the nature of private banking systems?
11
The greatest power in the world is not nuclear power stations, wind-power, atomic bombs, propaganda, religion, powerfull nations, electric cars, polititians, rebellion and on and on. The most powerful/great power is the power to print fiat/money and enforce its use.
The power to print money IS the greatest power currently in the world today, sitting above every other power, or, superpower.
No greater power has been dreamed up by man, and it subordinates and corrupts every other power.
31
Lionell,
Yep, I’m not actually disagreeing with you; in fact I largely agree. They quite happily rely on coercion as if it were entirely legitimate.
I’m just saying their tactics are subtle . . or to use another word, deceptive. That’s where the danger lurks with this creeping Marxism shrouded in environmentalism, as Tony Abbott put it.
This is of course why we rail against the euphemistic notion of “sustainable development”. It’s the “sustainable development” cause being more important that those it’s supposed to serve.
And yes, how we get to that “sustainable development” goal is quite irrelevant. That’s the problem.
21
Ed,
Thanks for the explanation. Her reasoning is because of part of the problem but she has no choice in the matter. In a rational world, truth is an absolute defense. When that is no longer the case, there is not much that can be said.
30
Thanks Lionel, yep, part of the reason I don’t comment much here anymore.
[Mike, Joanne has no legal defense fund to tap if she had to defend a suit. Australia does not have Free Speech. You should be working to change the law in AU not grumbling about moderation rules here. Your comments on other subjects are valued and missed.] ED
32
18c is “The”problem here,which the”Leftoids”use when they can’t control”We the People”Reminds me of Germany in 1939.
11
Yes, and where conservatives appear to fail is that they only vote in the “reactionary” parties when the LNP seem to lose their way.
When John Howard commandeered some Hanson inspired policies, we allowed One Nation to fade.
The left wouldn’t do that as easily perhaps because they see their participation more in terms of an overarching and ongoing cause?
Anyway, like many others I voted “reactionary” because I figured pragmatism was the first priority.
10
When my son was a teenager, he read to me a that we (in the States) had the most “do-nothing” Congress in recent history because of the relative lack of bills that were passed. I think I startled him when I said that was a good thing, we have enough laws already.
180
Thanks Jo,
Another provocative post.
Yes it is a great result for us Delcons. Far beyond my expectations. Turnbullism seems to have been neutralised.
We have a caretaker government until the vote is finalised and then I expect that we will have a minority Government with a problematic senate, so nothing much will be passed in the way of new legislation unless it has very widespread support, I think that is good. Controversial issues e.g. Climate Change and Immigration might actually get some discussion. Maybe there could even be a discussion about whether Parliament might spend it time repealing legislation instead of adding to it.
I have not yet responded to the Cory Bernardi appeal for interest in a new Conservative Party. It seems he is asking for expressions of interest, but not yet defining anything.
For those who want to support some of those ideas I suggest joining the Institute of Public Affairs.
http://www.ipa.org.au/
It is not a political Party. It is an organisation that seeks to promote debate in Australia about critical social ideas. Despite a tiny membership of about 4000 members it has quite a bit of influence on public debate.
I encourage everyone here to have a look, attend one of their meetings and consider joining.
121
@Peter C
“Turnbullism seems to have been neutralised.”
Hmmmm, don’t bank on it. I have often pondered the things that define progressives/people on the Left, versus the Right, many of which I cannot rationalise or understand. One such characteristic, of leftist politicians and public figures, is their relative lack of honour, which often manifests as a shocking reluctance to resign when caught out or having failed. While we see Liberal reps resign over a bottle of wine, we see members on the left stubbornly remain even when caught out cheating on their spouse by visiting prostitutes, paid for with stolen money. We also see the likes of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, who when called upon by the majority of his own party to resign, digging in his heals with shameless arrogance.
Because Turnbull is instinctively a progressive Lefty, I forecast that he will turn his fingernails bloody before he is driven out of the Lodge. He has already shown a Leftist’s disregard for honour and truth with his disgraceful attempts to pin election losses on Tony Abbott. This man will not go quietly.
71
Steve has it exactly.
Turnbull will not be neutralised until he is completely out of parliament. While ever he stays, even as a back bencher, he remains a focal point for the anti-Abbott horde and the green gang, both inside and outside the party. We have seen the devastation he wrought as minister and cheerleader for the ABC.
Abbott was no tactician. He was too nice a bloke to see the scheming, rat-cunning in those around him. I could never understand why he put Turnbull, his avowed enemy, in charge of his own private, taxpayer funded PR and propaganda machine. Talk about an own goal! Turnbull should have been made Minister for Turnips & Bunyips or something equally superfluous.
If Turnbull was suddenly out of the equation, what effect would that have on the press gallery’s rantings against Abbott? I pity Pauline Hanson if they ever decide to leave Abbott in peace. Six years of hell in the senate. It has already begun.
Turnbull should do the honourable thing, but he hasn’t a shred of honour – only conceit, arrogance and ego. As someone pointed out elsewhere, he can’t fall on his sword because it is still buried in Tony Abbott’s back, and as the satirical site The Shovel drolly noted, Turnbull has given us stability – he hasn’t knifed anyone for 9 months. He should go, and take his mates Bishop, Hunt and Sinodenos(sp??)with him.
I don’t think the wild horses have yet been born which could drag Turnbull kicking and screaming out of the Lodge. Wait and see.
30
I don’t know why you are worried about a couple of days, Belgium managed nearly 2 years!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/01/589-days-with-no-elected-government-what-happened-in-belgium/
60
I don’t want any government to govern. When they do I get worried, 1 trillion $ in debt in 8 years. Last time (just before Gillard eventually got in) we had 2 weeks or more of freedom . I remember that time very vividly as it was marked by a distinctive feeling of relief and safety.
I never miss their ABC, their newspapers. Got myself extracted from Oz media years ago and I am more aware than ever. Freedom of my mind I enjoy every day.
140
Thanks Jo, I am looking forward to hearing from the Australian Conservatives.
Listening to “our” ABC one would think that the swing to independents is all about racist red-necks protesting immigration policy. There are many people protest voting against the expensive mitigation of non-existent AGW , but the media is still not giving voice to the issue. At least Labor and the Greens stated openly that they wanted an ETS and other drastic measures to stop fossil fuel use, but Turnbull avoided discussion of the issue, giving himself room to move, but disenfranchising a lot of voters. Well $tuff you Turnbull (and Hunt), you are getting what you deserve.
I for one want cheap electricity generated by HELE coal fired power stations, built in each state to replace our aging more polluting ones. Those who want solar and wind generated electrons can pay for them . With computer technology it is possible to keep track of wind power in real time. If wind power is unable to supply those opting for renewables , smart meters can disconnect them. If they want to buy (unsubsidised) lithium batteries to tide them over, so be it. Rant over.
200
No rant there Rollo. Just plan common-sense.
Not something that Turnbull, the greens or Labor have much of regrettably. But that’s no surprise given their green-left ideologies.
The Nationals on the other hand seem to have it in spades.
How come Turnbull’s Economic Plan, wafer thin as it was, made no mention of driving industry growth and jobs through the provision of cheap, safe and plentiful coal or nuclear power? Does he know nothing about innovation?
120
Rollo production from the wind turbines have dropped from 2100 MW to under 1000 MW ( total capacity 3669 MW) over the last 24 hours. And it looks like it will go much lower for a day or so.
What do you do if you rely on renewables, put on half the lights? No solar input either and won’t be any until 10 am. and off again at 4 pm. unless it is cloudy.
The only practical answer is back-up generation, diesel/gas/coal, about 3/4 of the capacity of what you are shutting down to save the planet. Really an oxymoron methinks.
120
It’s down to 700 MW currently and a lot of the S. Aust. turbines are producing at around 10% capacity, so it’s Yallourn brown coal again for them. When Mr.Andrews shuts that down nowhere to go since has joined the 50% renewable club as well.
60
And yet the Marxist Victorian government has chosen to intervene in our state’s electricity market 😡
Victoria sidesteps utilities in deal for two new wind farms
The heart of the Otway Ranges will be ravaged for one of these worse than useless wind farms – I hope it costs Di Natale his senate seat when the locals experience the damage caused by this
60
Have a look at the wind turbine production now, about 400 MW and still heading south. I’ll have a look at 6 pm but there really is no technical basis to continue with renewable energy as it just doesn’t work. Politics is one thing but reality is something completely different. Seems you need about 3/4 of back-up thermal generation of what you propose to shut down.
30
South Australia wind farm total output has been basically ZERO since midday.
I’d say you can’t shut ANY thermal plants down for ANY amount of wind generation capacity. So why bother?
Let’s see how long the SA wind farms stay on holiday.
30
It’s still close to zero production for the S. Aust. wind turbines (1447 MW capacity) and it did go down to 300 MW overall but back to 400 MW currently.
At 6 pm. total consumption for the Eastern grid was 26,700 MW : Thermal 23,000 MW, Hydro 3,300 MW, Wind 400 MW and Solar 000 MW.
So with the political agendum of 50% renewable by 2030 or whenever, you would require 10,050 MW from wind since Hydro is limited. Based on today’s output this means 10,050 x 3669/400 MW or 96,311 MW of wind turbines to achieve this goal. This would mean somewhere between 50,000 and 70,000 sq. km. of suitable land.
Metro Sydney plus Melbourne is 20,000 sq. km. Not particularly practical, but that’s what the figures are.
So if one shuts down 11,500 MW of thermal generation to go 50% renewable you will still need around 6,000 + MW of back-up thermal generation, so why bother.
10
Rollo, I don’t know if you are aware of this,but Greg Hunt(a pox be upon him)snuck in an ETS in December ,last year.It came into effect on July 1 2016.
40
Clive I understand that legislation was enacted on July 1 allowing for a cap and trade ETS. What does this mean? Are Turnbull’s mates trading as we speak or is this yet to come? As PH would say “please explain”.
40
Apparently the ETS legislation leaves plenty of room for future amendments without needing to gain approval from the Parliament.
Tricky!
70
Wasn’t it done around the back door via regulation on some previous legislation and so not actually put to a vote?
Oodles of room for future amendments if that was the case.
20
Read again the Liberal Party’s Value Statements, and weep.
We Believe:
In the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative
In government that nurtures and encourages its citizens through incentive, rather than putting limits on people through the punishing disincentives of burdensome taxes and the stifling structures of Labor’s corporate state and bureaucratic red tape.
In those most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy – the freedom of thought, worship, speech and association.
In a just and humane society in which the importance of the family and the role of law and justice is maintained.
In equal opportunity for all Australians; and the encouragement and facilitation of wealth so that all may enjoy the highest possible standards of living, health, education and social justice.
Compare that with the policies espoused by Turncoat.
That, wherever possible, government should not compete with an efficient private sector; and that businesses and individuals – not government – are the true creators of wealth and employment.
In preserving Australia’s natural beauty and the environment for future generations.
That our nation has a constructive role to play in maintaining world peace and democracy through alliance with other free nations.
In short, we simply believe in individual freedom and free enterprise; and if you share this belief, then ours is the Party for you.
70
What a lie that know is.Under the Liberals,since Malcolm(lost my pants)Fraser we have had laws”Introduced”with-out consultation,at the behest of the UN,which is not in “Our”best interest.Many people consider Little Johnny Howard the saviour of the Liberals.He is and always was a closet “Lefty”Take a look at the “Land Clearing”laws or the “Gun Bye-back”scheme.All at the behest of the UN.Go read up about the UN’s agenda 21(now agenda 30)
30
The thought of having no government for a time seems very attractive, and as a Libertarian I am feeling a little jealous of Australians.
On another thought regarding Brexit, Osbourne the British Chancellor declared that in response to Brexit, he would have to raise taxes on income, alchohol, tobacco and gasoline.
My question is…
“Is this his only response ?? “
90
Please forgive an old professors ruminations.
I find the most interesting thing at this point the real-time comparison between a parliamentary system, and a republic that favors binary choice. It is indeed true that a dedicated minority can find itself at the fulcrum of power in parliament; it is delicious to think it could actually reduce government by saying no to both sides. Certainly a dedicated minority can gain concessions on its key issues. To a degree, this minority needs to share both geography and philosophy to be effective; but election of half a dozen like minded ‘trouble-makers’ (a compliment) seems likely in the Aus system.
The operation of similar minorities in the US is more subtle. There are perhaps a hundred counties that are likely to swing the presidential election one way or the other. The ideological hot buttons are probably neither uniform nor coherent. And party discipline seems to subsume most mavericks into the oobleck after the election. We get inaction from the girdlock of divided government, but seem to lately have settled for either executive abuse or a compromise on the worst possible solution.
The unholy trinity of terrorism, climate change, and deficit central bank financing have provided a common set of challenges to the world’s governments. Does any have a chance to do better than muddle through?
And, perhaps most telling, we implicitly accept an era of failed government by hoping for gridlock and inaction as the best outcome.
100
This election came about because the minority created a impasse. It refused to allow legislation to pass.
What you would I expect find interesting was that the minority had taken advice from Al Gore.
10
Do we get a tax refund for the government free days?
70
Probably that’s a very attractive idea. But don’t hold your breath waiting for it.
60
Perhaps elections would be over quicker and occur less frequently if politicians were not paid during caretaker periods. They certainly aren’t doing the job they were elected to do.
60
I’m beginning to wonder how anyone believes in political polls these days. We had a general election in the UK last year that was “too close to call” and resulted in one party having 100 more seats than any other. The Brexit referendum was another “too close to call” resulting in a 52:48 out vote. Roll on November.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/uk-election-2015-the-car-crash-of-the-chatterati-against-reality/
Pointman
80
Polling companies (or is that pole-ing companies) are no more or less corruptible than any other organization (think the major physical science societies and their AGW positions). If a politician wants to use the results of a poll to convince the general public that he/she is the odds-on winner and thereby increase his/her chance of winning, do you really believe polling companies won’t construct their poll to give him/her the result he/she wants? Maybe a few polling companies won’t, but IMO very few. If the polling company constructs a poll that doesn’t give their client what the client wants, no more polls from that client. Isn’t the disparity between polling data and actual election outcomes often as simple as that?
61
Even the “Bookies”got it wrong.Or were they also chasing the almighty dollar?
10
If the bookies are competent, they can’t get it wrong. Bookies adapt to how the money is being bet such that the bookies can’t lose. Take for example the point spread on a basketball game where team A is playing team B. Suppose the two teams are evenly matched. If you want to bet on either team, you have to bet $6 to win $5. If more money starts coming in on one team, say team A, a point spread starts to develop. That is, if you want to bet on team A, you have to give points, which means if you bet on team A, to win the bet team A has to win by the point spread or more. If the bookies set the point spread at say 100 points, money will pour in on team B. If the bookies set the point spread at 1/2 a point and more money still his bet on team A, the bookies will increase the point spread until equal amounts of money are bet on each team. Since you have to bet $6 to win $5, it doesn’t matter which team wins. Either way, the bookie collects $11 for every $10 he pays out. So in effect, bookies set the odds on how the money is being bet. They start the process by making their best estimate of not who will win, but who the bookies believe the betting public thinks will win. If the bookies are off, the point spread will be adjusted so that independent of which team wins, the bookies make money.
00
Expressed more succinctly, in the overall way of things, the house always wins. Odds are not about the lightly hood of a particular outcome, but of making money either way for whoever is making book.
Walk into any casino, and you’re automatically the mark.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/a-berlin-story-fast-eddie-the-dogs-bollocks-and-theres-always-more-pieces-to-the-story/
Pointman
00
Reading up on the procedures for preference voting, it came to me that this is basically the 6.0 ordinal majority system used in the bad old days for figure skating. The problem with ordinal based systems is that it fundamentally assumes that the “difference” between 1st place and 2nd place is the same as the difference between 2nd and 3rd. This leads to weird results (e.g. Kurt Browning at the Olympics) where one relatively unimportant result catapults much lower ranked people way above a 4 time world champion. In the strategic voting that seems to be commonplace in Oz, I suspect that it gives you some “interesting” Senators.
In response to some recent spectacular failures of polling organizations in recent elections around the world, many are turning to “market based” predictors, where people “invest” in various outcomes. They “vote” with their heads rather than their hearts because they have skin in the game ($$$).
I wonder if you guys might want to rethink your ordinal system, which appears to be as vulnerable to prankster voters as figure skating was to French judges, and replace it with a token-based investment model. Each voter would have, say, 100 tokens that they can “vote” or “spend” on different candidates. Or they can set some aside for none of the above if they are not thrilled by their choices. Such a system would weight enthusiasm for the candidates in a more realistic manner than the rather clunky ordinal system. Just a thought.
52
Interesting analogy except for the obvious flaw, figure skaters are talented……
90
You obviously have not been to many skating competitions! But I do think the preference system could be dramatically improved. Ordinal based systems are going to be very strange when you’re trying to pick the “top 6” or with double dissolution, “top 12”. You just can’t get a reliable selection with ordinals.
10
Hold on there Yonni.
Our politicians skate around plenty of things. 😉
20
The beauty of our preferential system with compulsory voting is that it not only elects the most preferred candidate, it also ensures that the least preferred candidate cannot get elected. A well organised minority cannot game the system.
21
My Dear Jo,
You are wonderful. I have been thinking for years that here in America we would not be any worse off if we fired everyone in DC and had no national government. In fact, we might come out being better off.
So now there are two of us insead of only one. It’s good to have a little company when you hold a very unpopular opinion, even if one is in Australia and one is in America.
My only problem has been what to call myself (us?). The Nihilist Party is the best I’ve come up with so far. But that’s not quite right. What do you think? Any ideas? 😉
80
Go with Heinlein’s tag – Rational Anarchist
60
Roy are you thinking of a Direct Democracy there?
The very early ideas of Anarchism had surprising similarities, but it got hijacked by the left.
50
Yoni,
I’m thinking of actually letting the states run their own affairs as our founders intended. I’d like to see what happens. And I think all 50 states (or 57 if your name is Barack Obama) would soon figure out how to go it on their own, would soon figure out how to cooperate with neighboring states and so-on and they would make it start working because they would have no choice. And a few election cycles would see the voters taking care of those who won’t get with the program.
In the meantime we could take a good hard look at what a mess the federal government has made of things, especially the courts, and decide to start back with the basics the Constitution dictates.
And yes, I know it’s an unworkable dream for many reasons. But I can dream, can I not?
50
And the Constitution would still dictate that the states be republics, so no direct democracy allowed. In my mind it allows things to be changed too fast.
30
But that would be like the UK leaving the EU….
20
… But they did not leave the debt. Won’t matter where on the planet these privatised countries go, unless of course the UK can go back to printing its own Pound, and the Greeks back to printing Drachma and so on in both cases by creating a government owned banking system shadowing the privately owned banking system. The two can coexist..
The subtle situation is that the power to print fiat currency has been taken away/sold for pennies. North Dakota still owns its own bank (Bank Of North Dakota) and is thus truly a sovereign state.
20
IMO (In My Opinion)
10
When did the UK abandon their pound and adopt the euro?
Somehow, I missed that
20
‘Somehow, I missed that.’
Hanging onto the pound was a sterling idea, allows for an easier exit.
00
“Another great day in a land with no government.”
‘Another great day in a government with no land‘.
“Somehow, I missed that”.
Nearly everyone missed it. The Australian/Greek/Uk continent is sold in discrete parts to fund those items that in government are called “promises” (Pro-misses). This continues quietly, bits sold off here and bits there, until the only sovereign wealth left is a credit rating.
Keiser Report: Oh my God, Brexit (E936)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYgg10Bsx3Q
00
Remember those computer software terms “feature” and “bug”?
A “Feature” is a “bug” being passed off as useful to avoid having to fix it.
So is Turnbull trying to pass himself off as a “feature”?
50
According to the code monkeys in my office, there are documented features, and there are undocumented features, but never any bugs…
I think Turnbull is an operating system update which was released after bypassing all the QA/QC processes, and has now finally made the Malware scanner sit up and take notice.
50
Ha Ha Bloody Ha!
In my experience
00
“As for any politicians who have ever believed in global warming, or supported the carbon tax, or a carbon-constrained economy, there is no hope for them.
They are either too stupid or incompetent to be taken seriously.
Make their lives hell too, just as they wished a diminished life on you.“
. . .
And, so we did.
30
“From science to industry to academia, the governing class is crawling with incompetents, fraudsters, and fakes — and people are beginning to notice.
The Brexit vote, suggests analyst Aaron Renn, demonstrated that arrogant urbanites, seeing themselves as the exclusive centers of civilization, ignore those who live outside the “glamour zone” at their own peril.”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/07/what-would-we-d-68.html
11
Interesting article on Andrew Bolt today………..
The Mufti warns: criticise the imam and risk death:-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_mufti_warns_criticise_the_imam_and_risk_death/
40
“Grant sees people “with more power than you can possibly imagine” as the ones responsible for experimental economics that led the world down a path of self destruction.”
“I don’t think there is any argument about whether or not the central bankers of the world should have done something in 2008. The question is ‘should they still be doing it 8 years later’?”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-06/crazy-story-debt-told-under-40-minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLQsT9BPHpg
10
Great video. Australian guy i think.
In my view, no point talking about politics without at least tripling talk about finance, the dark zone.
10
Take for instance Brexit. Without understanding finance, it is not possible to see in advance that Brexit will be used to further loot wealth and create ever increasing debt. With the accelerator pedal pushed to the floor.
“More Dominoes : Panic Withdrawals Force Three More UK Property Funds To Freeze Assets”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-06/domino-5-columbia-threadneedle-halts-trading-uk-property-fund
“It’s Not The Brexit Stupid!”
“Brexit is just a symptom of the disease eating away at the fabric of our global economy. Lehman’s collapse was not the cause of the 2008 worldwide financial crisis. It was just the excuse for something that was going to happen no matter what. Bad debt, bad bankers, bad regulators, bad politicians, media cheer leading, and a willfully ignorant populace were a toxic combination – and it’s worse today. ”
From: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-06/its-not-brexit-stupid
20
“Turnbull the neww Gillard” I did like that!
30
The terrible three: Rudd, Gillard & Turnbull.
Troubled minds think alike.
30
I’m going to mention this again, because this may take more than a couple of weeks to work out.
The Senate, and with respect to The Greens Party.
Look at this link, Senate results.
At the top is the National Overview.
Note there it has The Greens with 3 definite and 3 probable. 6 Senators.
Just ballparking here, I think they may get another two.
That’s a loss of two Senators.
However, the best part of it is that all of those Green Senators were the last elected, so all of them will be up for re-election at the next Half Senate election, where they will now need a double percentage to get elected, so there is every probability that only 6 will be elected next time around.
They will need to wait for two full Senate cycles to get back to where they were before this election.
It also looks likely that the Xenophon team took Greens Senators out of play.
At least this DD did achieve one thing. Reducing The Greens.
Tony.
120
That is why Tony might be able, against the odds, get some savings through the senate. On the other hand Labor will oppose everything Malcolm does except increase taxation and benefits to politicians or a very fast train or a new carbon tax. Like BREXIT, both side of politics want a carbon tax. It is only the people of Australia who do not want one.
41
TdeF
I visited a mechanic this morning to chase up some paperwork from a rego check yesterday.
I bumped into a bloke who was there still embroiled in an on going Common Rail Injection engine problem from the day before.
It occurred to me that a whole bunch of very expensive mechanical problems which have plagued newer cars have come about as a result of E10 emission standards.
Further, many of various motor company have been involved scandals proving that the requirements have not really come close to being met.
With Brexit possibly being the end of the EU, it will be interesting to see if these ridiculously expensive engine regulations persist.
61
original headline:
Smug PM returns as count firms
NEWS.com.au-2 hours ago
changed to:
7 Jul: news.com.au: Liz Burke and AAP: Federal election results 2016: Coalition could form majority government as count continues
WHEN Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull emerged from his Sydney mansion yesterday, he had smile across his face and a level of energy that we hadn’t seen since before Saturday’s poll.
When results poured in at the weekend, we saw a chastened Turnbull, but yesterday we saw the return a truly confident leader…
But yesterday he looked like he knew something we didn’t.
And now it looks like now Mr Turnbull was right to be smug.
With 10 of the 15 million votes now counted, the Coalition is edging towards retaining government by a slim majority…
The Coalition now looks likely to hold 76 seats in the 150-seat lower house, as postal votes and recounts of existing votes have favoured Liberal and National candidates over Labor…
But the PM is still preparing for a hung parliament, yesterday using time in his Sydney office to meet with potential kingmaker Nick Xenophon.
He’s expected to fly to Queensland today to meet with re-elected MP Bob Katter and other independents, although he may not need them to govern…
http://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/federal-election-results-2016-coalition-could-form-majority-government-as-count-continues/news-story/e0d2ebfef9165be7e6f89b9d61d67de5
10
posted 33 mins ago:
7 Jul: ABC: Election 2016: What’s Antony Green saying today?
‘We may not know today’
“I’m not sure we’ll get a better picture today because the key seats which are in doubt — Flynn, Herbert, Capricornia — are all looking like they’re good for Labor at the moment and all of them will narrow today,” he said…
Q: Do you think the Coalition will win 76 seats in its own right?
GREEN: “Not particularly. The Government, I said all along, would be aiming towards 73 certain. Beyond that is a bit more difficult.”…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-07/election-2016-what-is-antony-green-saying-today/7575892
00
6 Jul: CarbonPulse: COMMENT: What Australia’s election uncertainty means for climate policy
By Peter Castellas, Chief Executive Officer of the Carbon Market Institute
2. Are we more or less likely to have bipartisanship in the next parliament?
CASTELLAS: Both major parties took to the election a climate policy that forms the basis of a long term approach to meeting international commitments made under the Paris Agreement…
3. If the Coalition forms government will policy settings be tightened or loosened?
CASTELLAS: The key coalition climate policy includes the Emissions Reduction Fund and the Safeguard Mechanism, which began operation on July 1. With the uncertainty we are unlikely to see any additional funding to the ERF announced in the short term. The Safeguard has begun with, arguably, very generous baselines that will see very few companies exceed emissions baselines. We are unlikely to see any backsliding as the Safeguard Mechanism provides a pretty soft start to the kind of market-based mechanism that it could evolve into if baselines were set to drive emissions of covered entities below business-as-usual and correlate with international targets. It is important to note that adjusting or tightening of the baselines of the Safeguard Mechanism does not require a parliamentary vote. The wild card to this status quo would be if conservative forces within the ruling coalition try to unwind their own existing policy framework and commitments. This is unlikely as the policy was set by the Cabinet presided over by Tony Abbott. Conversely, there may be accelerated strengthening of the Safeguard Mechanism should the independents be united in that this was a high priority to secure their vote. This may be the case with Greens lower house representative Adam Bandt, but is not likely to be a major priority for other independents to warrant a major short term shift…
4. What would the Labor party do on climate policy if it formed government?
CASTELLAS: The Labor party took to the election a comprehensive platform of policies to tackle the impacts of climate change. If the Labor party were to form a minority government they would have to seek support in both houses for a two-stage emissions trading scheme, a separate ETS for the electricity sector and ambitious renewable energy and 2030 emissions reduction targets. The Greens are likely to support this policy suite, with modifications…
6. What impact will Pauline Hanson have?
CASTELLAS: The views of One Nation will galvanise sceptics, who will rejoice at the airplay of their views, but I contend that it will force the major parties to clearly differentiate themselves from her views. This will aid in the alignment of major party views at the opposite, progressive end of the climate spectrum…
http://carbon-pulse.com/22130/
00
Recent governments tried to combat lack of money by internal actions like fiddling with taxes and super. The problem is, this is a zero sum game. They have lamented income lost from lower resources activity.
The discovery and production of new resources is not zero sum. It is new wealth creation.
Rather than fiddle with internal super and taxes, intense activity should be towards making Australia again a top place for exploration and mining – including fracking and uranium processing.
But internationals will not come here unless there is abundant, reliable, cheap electricity. We have to go aggressive for nuclear power and shun renewables except for a few boutique applications.
Miners laugh at the suggestion of powering aluminium potlines with expensive intermittents. They will stay away from places that are increasing renewables,especially subsidised or policy-preferred ones.
This is economic realism. Mining is not the only activity in this category. Clean foods supply is another. There are more that are capable of contributing new wealth.
I write this after a career mostly spent in mining, so I might know a bit about it. We built towns and power stations and operated them so there was learning about electricity matters.
If readers of this excellent Jo Nova blog wish to do more than chatter about the status quo, do give a thought to original wealth creation. Use it as a meme in everyday life and hope that it will infect other voters.
Above all, drill it into your local politicians and into interest groups that can sway political direction.
Create new wealth. My mates and I contributed several billion to the Nation over 20 years of most enjoyable work and its place in national income is still adding in each year. Academics as a group seem not to know that our/my past work pays a part of their monthly pay. And funding for the ABC.
Remember, creation of new wealth, not zero sum games with existing. It creates jobs and better futures here.
Geoff.
102
All of those things like mining etc are funded by private banks in the main.
Why doesn’t the government just create a new sovereign bank similar to the once great Australian Commonwealth bank and then Australia can fund Australia again.
Make Australia Fund Australia Again would be a great slogan.
40
Private banks are not a problem if the monetary supply and interest rates aren’t continually fiddled with by the central bank to ensure “growth” at all costs plus the “too big to fail” syndrome that excuses extraordinary risk taking. Read the book I linked to above to learn how the integrity of banking has been destroyed by Keynesian economic policies – it really is one of the best (and most frightening) reads concerning economics.
You will see that most of the “scarey” stuff you’ve been referencing from zerohedge is a knife to a gunfight. And a plastic picnic knife, at that.
Pure trading activity for non-investment purposes and hence the development of highly leveraged products like CDO’s, CDS’s, etc is a highly damaging byproduct of the degradation but the root cause is Keynesian economic policies.
A sovereign bank is even more prone to political manipulation and distortion than a private bank (see Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in the US).
Here is the book again – Alchemists of Loss: How Modern Finance and Government Intervention Crashed the Financial System. I came across it at my public library
20
And if you aren’t tempted to liquidate your investment assets and take a position in gold after reading, then read it again.
10
The Bank of America is a private Bank?
Please get your facts straight.
Our mining projects are funded by foreign banks, but very rarely by private banks.
20
This is good news. It means that Malcolm will not be able to introduce any of his progressive initiatives hopefully.
50
While we’re waiting for yet another form of grabbermint, anyone who filled in a ballot with pencil can expect to have it “revised”, which is very likely what they’re busy doing right now..
33
Australian Electoral Corrections?
41
Always use a pen to complete your ballot paper…………….
41
All well and good, but I just stumbled over a news item which said that Australia is considering an online voting system
Given the level of corruption we already have, this would be every politician’s wet dream.
Of course, it would spell the end of democracy. The current Clinton corruption farce would be small potatoes in comparison.
31
If in the Senate we had ,say, four random lists of candidates (4 colours) and the folk ticked the SIX only they wanted, the ballots could be scanned and one would have a result in a day or so.
Those six with the most votes make it, and if two get the same number, just toss a coin.
It would be much simpler and far more democratic than the current circus, party deals, above/below line voting etc.
31
You’re forgetting the most imprortant things in life I learnt in kingergraten
Crayons
Or Textas these days
20
There is a somewhere I read about the Democrats ability to go round all the current voting systems in US. More research for tonight to see if it comes up
10
Pauline hansen’s One Nation has done well because of its strong anti CAGW and anti great big new co2 tax stand.
Suck it up Greens(closet Marxists)!
Suck it up Get Up (Get Lost)!
And as for Carbon Bill (bragging about coming second in a two horse race): Don’t forget to yell out ‘Austraya’ from the back of a ute.
Carbon Bill and Mr Goldman and Sachs of Carbon Credits Malcom , are both in urgent need of the Bum’s Rush Out.
41
…. And because Turnbull forced real conservatives away from the Liberal party.
40
“bragging about coming second in a two horse race”
Hopefully BOTH bound for the knacker’s yard. !!
21
Egor
Remind Bill that so did Hitler
21
Re: Counting preferences in House of Reps.
Does anyone know when preferences are tallied?
Do the current AEC or ABC tallies include properly counted preferences, or are the numbers just 1st pref counts with an approximation of how the preferences might flow?
Does anyone know the actual methodology?
21
When Billygoat Bill said “labor’s back”, the microphone was turned off too quickly.
He was actually saying ‘LABOR’S BACK IN OPPOSITION”.
30
Well, Malcolm’s back! “Up his nose with a rubber hose!”
10
By my count the coalition will end up with 78 seats, a small but workable majority without the need for crossbenchers.
Currently there are 5 seats that are really close. In the case of my own division of Forde in Qld the incumbent Bert van Manen was 200 votes behind when they started counting postals and is now 600 ahead. Based on the flow of preferences in postals as shown on the AEC tally room Bert is getting 2 out of 3 preference votes.
With 15000 plus votes to be counted, he should end up with about a 5000 vote majority.
Same thing with the others Hindmarsh, Capricornia etc. They all favor the coalition and all 5 will go to them (in my humble opinion).
The message was sent by all us DelCons and the results will allow Malcolm to claim his Pyrrhic victory. Now it will be up to the remaining Liberals in Parliament to rid us of the poser.
10
Carbon Bill’s …. ‘Real Action On Climate Change’…Code for ‘Great big new taxes using the climate change scam as an excuse’
This union lackey lies all the time.
When all else fails … tell heaps of lies,eh Bill? …. The Shorten Legacy….very Shorten on the truth.
Yep, ‘the Labor Party is back’….where it belongs: In opposition, or in jail with its CMFEU corrupt union masters!
I’ll bet the unions have more than just a finger in the Renewable Energy Rackets.
I like the idea of Hanson’s proposal of a Royal Commission into everything to do with the Climate Scams.
I would guess that such an investigation would need to run for years to uncover the army of crooks involved.
Good on Hansen…Just one of the very few that call it how it is.
Little wonder she and her party has had such a swing towards them…’Honesty’…the rarest of holy grails in politics!
31
I will go against the stream and nominate Andrew Hastie Canning as the best bet for PM
– Stands by Liberal Principles – a superb speaker and enunciates clearly the correct directions, and makes Lord Waffler of Wentworth Turnbull look the Bumbling Idiot that he is.
And I donated $100 to Andrew Hastie for the Canning By-Election although in Tony Abbott’s Electorate
Note waffler Turnbull negotiates with Bob Katter who took $225,000 from the Unions
Based on AEC Tally Room Returns Liberals Lost the following in AEC Funding under Turnbull and Mark Textor from losing the Conservative Voters who don’t count
From AEC
The amount of election funding payable is calculated by multiplying the number of formal first preference votes received by the rate of payment applicable at the time. This rate is indexed every six months in line with increases in the Consumer Price Index.
The election funding rate from 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016 is 262.784 cents per eligible vote. This is the election funding rate that will apply to the 2 July 2016 federal election.
Using that rate and the percentage swing suffered in each of the following seats
Turdbull and Mark Textor lost the Liberal Party the following Funds (no wonder they went with begging cap in hand to Jamie Packer)
Warringah – Tony Abbott swing against of -8.77% = 6580 Votes lost = $17,292 Funding lost Liberal Party
Mackellar – Jason Falinski (a Turdbull Plant) – swing against of -11.15% = 9052 votes lost = $23,787 Funding lost to the Liberal Party
North Sydney – Trent Zimmerman (another Turdbull Plant who lost 13.4% at By-Election) swing against of -9,13% = 7024 votes lost = $18,458 Funding lost to the Liberal Party
(the above figures calculated by taking current AEC Tally room 1st preference Votes – in the case of Trent Zimmerman 39,835 and diving by the percentage of votes – in this case 51.78% and multiplying the result by the swing, in this case 9.13& then by $2.62784
39835/51.78 = 769.3125×9.13=7034 votes lost x $2.62784= $18,458)
The 3 Liberal Electorates lost $59539 Funding from, according to Mark Textor “Conservatives who don’t count”
Taken at HOR at National Level – Liberals 5,193,865 Votes 50% swing -3.49% translates by the above calculations to a Liberal Funding Loss of $952,675.50 as at current counting
10