Australian federal election: 7 September

[cobl04]

This is a hoot - Senate's 'average' guy Ricky Muir parks the enthusiasm

My seat of Lalor remained ALP - though with a big swing against of over 10% - by 62% TPP. Last election Julia Gillard had a positive swing of over 6%.

Ranked,

ALP (down 18%)
Libs (up 6%)
Greens
Palmer
Sex
Family First
Independent
DLP
Rise Up
Aus Christians
Stable Population

Bit of a sad result in that the Greens dropped more than 2,000 votes. Only ALP, the Libs and the Greens got quadruple-figure votes in 2010; Stable Population was the only one not to get quadruple-figure votes this time around. Enrolment was down by nearly 10,000 and turnout was down by nearly 13%.

I really don't see what was particularly inaccurate about Don't Be A Fucking Idiot and it even acknowledged that the ALP had some pretty poor policies - just not as indescribably shit as this wretched government we've just elected.

I guess I'm just not comfortable with the left painting the Libs as this extremist right-wing party. This is absolutely not personal towards you (or Charlotte), but that Buzzfeed article for example - I get the impression that some of the people whose blogs were lifted for that article aren't joking. I know the Libs have some horrible policies and ideas on things, but I like lefties when they aren't quite so knee-jerk.

I'm not really expressing myself well here.

It pretty much will if Tone is given free range on his approach to the climate. Seriously, do you want a Great Barrier Reef? Australia needs to act pretty quickly and pretty substantially on climate change. The ALP were half-arsing it, but at least they were sort of trying. The Coalition do not even begin to comprehend the significance of the environment and are openly dismissive of science that does not provide the conclusions they desire.

I totally concede this point.

Your right-wing Twitter dude is in about 1% of technophiles. There's a reason every ISP and IT consultant in the country is flipping their shit about FTTN replacing FTTP. There really is no competition; if we half-arse the NBN to save a few bucks in the short-term, we will only have to spend even more to re-do the system in a few years' time. It's actually cheaper to do the job properly the first time, no matter what bollocks the Liberals try to spin. If you think this policy is entirely Turnbull's or even largely his, you're kidding yourself. Here, good technological policy long since became subservient to a particular economic ideology that involves slashing public expenditure. The suggestion that major Liberal backers such as Murdoch/Foxtel are not keen on FTTP and have leaned on the party to promote FTTN to help protect their business model is not entirely baseless either.

Basically, if you are going to develop infrastructure, you aim to introduce the most comprehensive system possible. Any good project manager will tell you that you need to future-proof it and allow for demand far beyond the present. FTTN will barely even meet present demand, let alone future usage. In essence, the Liberals want to do with the NBN what successive Victorian state governments have done with the railways - run 21st century trains on 19th century track and alignments. The ALP's NBN is visionary and forward-thinking; it will serve Australia well for decades. The Liberals' NBN cuts corners to simply meet present demand; but then again given the profound lack of vision and imagination the Liberals show with most policy, it's par for the course.

Also happy to concede this one, as I know very, very little about it. From the tiny knowledge I have of the word "conservatism" and how it relates to the LNP, it would to me seem to make sense that they would, typically, look for a cheap, short-term option.

 

[cobl04]

I assure you, I'm not shutting up about these for the next three years.

I've just looked up the Melbourne AEC page (what a great website for us nerds by the way) and I'm super stoked to see Adam has done better than ever. Some were predicting the seat to fall back to the ALP but he got there on first preferences, as opposed to TPP in 2010. Awesome!

 

[intedomine]

Love how the AEC site has each polling place within an electorate. It showed me that my side of town Prahran/Windsor is actually quite decent and progressive (Greens/Labor) as opposed to Armadale Mums and the Toorak Toffs who voted 75% Liberal at the booths in their side of the electorate. Little bit frustrating that we should have to be associated with their shit values,

While Abbott is gonna have a hard time with the senate, his party's ascension to Government pretty much means that gays won't be getting marriage equality within the next 3 years and that Gonski won't go any further than it has. Some things are now off the table. A great shame for this country.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Is Toorak supposed to be Melbourne's equivalent of ultra rich people in ultra large mansions who are ultra insufferable?

 

[cobl04]

Toorak is one of Australia's wealthiest suburbs.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Buh.

 

[Axver]

Totally on the edge of my seat with the race for Indi. If Sophie Mirabella is turfed out, we will be rid of one of the most poisonous individuals in Australian politics. Come on Cathy McGowan!

This is a hoot - Senate's 'average' guy Ricky Muir parks the enthusiasm

Not to mention rather disturbing!

Bit of a sad result in that the Greens dropped more than 2,000 votes. Only ALP, the Libs and the Greens got quadruple-figure votes in 2010; Stable Population was the only one not to get quadruple-figure votes this time around. Enrolment was down by nearly 10,000 and turnout was down by nearly 13%.

I don't think the turnout figures are complete yet. The drop in Green primary votes was only inevitable with more options for protest votes this time around - especially Palmer, who ran a very effective campaign to capture protest votes. I didn't think he'd much dent the core Green constituency but it appears they were getting more of a disaffected, fairly ideologically-unaligned protest vote than I thought.

Here in Wills it appears Kelvin Thompson of the ALP has had a swing of less than 3% against him. Greens unfortunately won't be the second party; Libs have pulled ahead enough now. The Greens led on early counting but that must've been Brunswick electorates with places like Glenroy coming in later. Though as for my polling place, the Greens came within about 150 votes of Kelvin and doubled the Liberal vote! Kelvin actually got a swing towards him and Family First got only 17 of 2,100 votes hahaha. Fuck I love Brunswick.

I guess I'm just not comfortable with the left painting the Libs as this extremist right-wing party. This is absolutely not personal towards you (or Charlotte), but that Buzzfeed article for example - I get the impression that some of the people whose blogs were lifted for that article aren't joking. I know the Libs have some horrible policies and ideas on things, but I like lefties when they aren't quite so knee-jerk.

I'm not really expressing myself well here.

I see what you are saying, but I think it's entirely valid to paint the Liberals as extremists in light of their policies - I cannot think of any way to describe their policies on diverse issues except as extreme; climate change, the environment, and asylum seekers obviously being top of the list. Corners of the Liberal Party possess profoundly extremist views on almost everything, e.g. Cory Bernardi, and the attitude towards the economy and the working class from the likes of Christopher Pyne is at best disgusting.

I am in general alarmed by the global lurch to the right. The often-stated example is that, in Britain, the Labour Party since Tony Blair is more right-wing than the Tories were pre-Thatcher. Australia has been leading the world in this rightwards lurch too, led by the Liberals and with the ALP playing catch-up rather than offering a distinctly different, meaningful left-wing narrative.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Beyond questions of right vs left, how is it that the level of political discourse has actually declined in an era when the availability of information is probably greater than ever before? This sort of 'Little Australiander' bullshit, where tv and talking heads apparently feel compelled to speak to the populace as though they were mildly retarded children with the mental horizons of warthogs...

And if the average volk really are so overstressed and busy that they can't pay attention to public affairs in a way that their great grandparents apparently managed (not that they were always so well informed, except as members; of party branches, church organisations, unions, clubs)... what does that say for this fucking world we've built?

I can't decide if the global lurch to the right is the receding backwash of a wave that started gathering in the 1960s (and reached climax with Reagan and Thatcher and some of their hangerson), or something else. I wonder if beyond the simplistic appeals to base motivation in the electorate, the 'right' is a lot weaker than it looks. Not in relation to some imaginary old-school 'left' (both are creatures of the French and Industrial revolutions and predicated on a model of growth that is itself in the process of eating its own tail and not only for environmental/ecological reasons), but in relation to general societal values and whatnot.

Menzies would have expelled Cory Bernadi from the Liberal Party. Fraser probably would have too. Tony just, 'aw shucks, that's Cory, whatyagunnado?'

Speaking of lurches to the right (real or perceived) ever notice that budding rule of thumb with Labor's also-rans (I mean those who never tasted the top job)? Bill Hayden, last sighted on the board of Quadrant. Mark Latham, nuff said. Not true of Beazley, in fairness; despite his conservative-labor background he seems to have plumped for graceful silence. Look out for the Crean memoirs!

 

[Axver]

Beyond questions of right vs left, how is it that the level of political discourse has actually declined in an era when the availability of information is probably greater than ever before? This sort of 'Little Australiander' bullshit, where tv and talking heads apparently feel compelled to speak to the populace as though they were mildly retarded children with the mental horizons of warthogs...

In a qualified sort of way, I'm not entirely persuaded about the decline of political discourse. Certainly I would agree that the erudition and ideological focus of prominent politicians and newspapers has declined. However, there is also the reality that in the past, not everybody - not even most people - could readily put down their views in a way that ensured they would be transmitted to today. How much of the decline of political discourse is simply perception, due to every random moron being able to comment on newspaper articles or tweet or whatever, and how much of the decline is in response to every random moron now having a soap box, and how much is other factors? Let's be honest, the political discourse at pubs in Mildura and Fitzroy and Bundaberg and Coolgardie in the 1920s probably wasn't that flash either.

And if the average volk really are so overstressed and busy that they can't pay attention to public affairs in a way that their great grandparents apparently managed (not that they were always so well informed, except as members; of party branches, church organisations, unions, clubs)... what does that say for this fucking world we've built?

I think part of it is that nowadays community can be and is built around very different things. Social life once upon a time had inherent political overtones. You couldn't know what was happening in your town without showing up to town meetings, you couldn't know people without being involved in clubs and unions, etc. Now? So much different, and I think a lot of those political overtones of social life have been stripped.

I wonder if beyond the simplistic appeals to base motivation in the electorate, the 'right' is a lot weaker than it looks.

I'd like to believe this. I think the right is increasingly losing appeal on social issues, where fear is clearly failing to maintain a grip, but the public discourse of economics is in a dire condition and dominated by soundbites from the right. The left has not been able to sell a proper economic vision for decades - it doesn't help that the economics espoused by many leading right-wingers here suits electoral cycles better than your average left-wing ideal.

Look out for the Crean memoirs!

A thrilling read for one and all!

 

[Kieran McConville]

In a qualified sort of way, I'm not entirely persuaded about the decline of political discourse. Certainly I would agree that the erudition and ideological focus of prominent politicians and newspapers has declined. However, there is also the reality that in the past, not everybody - not even most people - could readily put down their views in a way that ensured they would be transmitted to today. How much of the decline of political discourse is simply perception, due to every random moron being able to comment on newspaper articles or tweet or whatever, and how much of the decline is in response to every random moron now having a soap box, and how much is other factors? Let's be honest, the political discourse at pubs in Mildura and Fitzroy and Bundaberg and Coolgardie in the 1920s probably wasn't that flash either.

I accept this. A lot of factors are in play, beyond what I acknowledged.

Though how it all feeds back into the behaviour and rhetoric at the top is something to consider too.

 

[cobl04]

Shorten vs Albo.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Hope it's Albo.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Shorten is as dull as a brick.

 

[intedomine]

Whoever has the best chance of returning Labor to government in 2016. I don't mind either of them.

Remember when Brendan Nelson was Leader of the Opposition. It was fleeting and felt interim, and I don't think the Libs had big ideas of him eventually leading them to government.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

All I remember is 'You and Brendan Nelson,' I don't remember if he did anything else.

 

[Axver]

I'm definitely in favour of Albo, but either way I'm just keen for the party to set itself up to knock off Tone in a single term.

Taking a longer perspective, hopefully one day we'll have a PM Plibersek and the country will behave in a more civilised manner.

Remember when Brendan Nelson was Leader of the Opposition. It was fleeting and felt interim, and I don't think the Libs had big ideas of him eventually leading them to government.

Oh glorious times, when we all thought the Libs were so utterly fucked post-Howard that Rudd would be PM for an easy three terms minimum.

 

[Axver]

Thoughts on Gillard's article for the Guardian?

Julia Gillard writes on power, purpose and Labor’s future | World news | theguardian.com

 

[Kieran McConville]

Well Gillard makes some good points... although I suspect Labor's winning the national debate on historic achievements like Medicare and workplace regulation (to an extent) is historically contingent. Nothing inevitable about it. The Liberals under Howard were still talking about winding back Medicare in the late 1980s. Conversely, we're stuck with the godawful Job Network (a 1998 or 2001 victory for Labor might have been the last time that egg could have been unscrambled). I realise that's only a minor part of the piece.

The tragedy of the late government was the inability to articulate purpose.

Labor must not make this error again. First and foremost it must claim and explain those legacy policies that have so profoundly shaped modern Australia, and that Tony Abbott, despite healthy and continuing poll leads, was too afraid to contest: fair work, education reform, disability care, health and aged care reform, the demands of the Asian century. These policies speak of our values and of our role as a social democratic party in the modern world. They show how we believe in sharing opportunity and sharing risk, how we are prepared to actively shape our future. They show we are a political party of purpose.

Funnily, it was only a matter of months ago that the Prime Minister was telling a union conference that this was a labour party, not a social democratic party. Still, I get that people have to tack to the prevailing winds of their audience.

Actually, that whole 'setting the alarm clock for 5am, work work work till you drop dead' rhetoric was one of the least attractive elements of Gillard's time at the top. What is the purpose of life, what constitutes the good life? Work for itself? Any work, as long as it's work?

About the task in opposition, Gillard is dead right of course.

But there are things that must be quickly thrown overboard. The bizarre flirtation in the campaign with “economic nationalism” and the cheap populism of appearing anti-foreign investment must be chucked out now. Poor policies like the different corporate tax rate for the Northern Territory and the hugely expensive move of naval assets from Garden Island should be ditched.

Ouch, Kevin. No great difficulty here, however; I'm unconvinced that some of the aforementioned policies ever saw written form. I'm not entirely convinced that they ever existed except in the caffeine-soaked minds of Rudd and Hawker.

 

[cobl04]

^ I think most politicians do 5am till you drop. I don't know how they do it.

I hope history is much kinder to Gillard. It seems like it already is starting to be. Such a shame she wasn't able to cut through, thanks in part to a) a terrific anti-ALP campaign by the Libs b) too much background noise from the media and members of her own party c) a disappointing decline in Gillard's skills. I remember one episode of Q&A she was on her own, and she was really great, talking mostly about the carbon tax and why we needed to do something on the environment. Or what about the misogyny speech, which was lauded worldwide. Sadly not enough people saw it and she moddycoddled and tried to pander to the wider public but not really being herself (in my view).

 

[Kieran McConville]

^ I think most politicians do 5am till you drop. I don't know how they do it.

No doubt, but that is a grim and dismal aspiration for an average member of a wealthy society.

I hope history is much kinder to Gillard. It seems like it already is starting to be. Such a shame she wasn't able to cut through, thanks in part to a) a terrific anti-ALP campaign by the Libs b) too much background noise from the media and members of her own party c) a disappointing decline in Gillard's skills. I remember one episode of Q&A she was on her own, and she was really great, talking mostly about the carbon tax and why we needed to do something on the environment. Or what about the misogyny speech, which was lauded worldwide. Sadly not enough people saw it and she moddycoddled and tried to pander to the wider public but not really being herself (in my view).

History will judge her well enough. Probably, if we are going to talk personality, she was most obviously herself on the floor of the house, where she basically owned Abbott, and not just that day.

 

[cobl04]

Probably, if we are going to talk personality, she was most obviously herself on the floor of the house, where she basically owned Abbott, and not just that day.

From what I saw of QT, this is very true. But I don't think she came off as good as that to the general public, which was certainly not entirely her fault.

 

[Kieran McConville]

That's the thing, yes.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Also I 100 per cent disagree with Gillard on the new leadershit election rules, whatever the wacky circumstances of their introduction. Neither Rudd nor Gillard have any say in that now, it's done.

Evolve and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[cobl04]

New cabinet. No minister for science. One woman.

Tony Abbott's first Ministry

 

[Axver]

I think you guys have largely covered my thoughts on Gillard's article. I know a lot of people who loved it - I liked it, but with some qualifications, and it would've been nice if she'd pursued some of the attitudes in that article whilst in power (don't we always say that about ex-leaders?).

As for the new cabinet:

No Minister for Science, for the first time in eighty years.
No Minister for Climate Change.
No Minister for Energy.
No Minister for Youth.
No Minister for Higher Education.
No Minister for Workplace Relations.
No Minister for the Disabled.
No Minister for Early Childhood.
No Minister for the Status of Women.
No Minister for Aged Care.
No Minister for Energy.

BUT!!!

There's a Minister for Sport!
There's a Minister and an Assistant Minister for Border Protection!
AAAND there's a "Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC"!

What a winner.

Welcome to Abbott's Australia, everybody.

 

[Axver]

I realise I repeated Energy. Replace that second one with no Minister for Water, because there's certainly no ministry for that either. Because managing water in this arid, dry, harsh continent is definitely not an increasingly pressing issue requiring federal co-ordination. River catchments acknowledge state borders, don't they? Don't they?!

 

[Kieran McConville]

A deeply unserious government.

The optimistic assessment might be that they're there now and everyone can just relax and go to sleep for three years (ie. them, the ones warming the benches). I doubt we'll be so lucky.

 

[cobl04]

Well I guess the counter argument is that it's a more streamlined cabinet, with several of those titles to fall under others like Environment, Health, etc. But yeah, it's a bit harrowing to see the portfolios that have been dumped. There was one for Mental Health with ALP.

Spoiler

I get all rage-y when people start belittling sport on a national, governmental level, so I won't start that argument.

 

[Axver]

Streamlining cabinet is one thing. Cutting a ministry for science is quite another. I don't see how cutting the Treasurer or the Minister for Defence would be any less absurd. A number of other missing ministries I named are also national priorities and/or their exclusion reflects a callous indifference to the poor, the marginalised, or the future in light of what industries have survived the "streamlining".

As for the sport matter, I mean not to belittle it - rather that promoting it to a ministry of its own when it has sat quite comfortably within other ministries, while turfing out issues relevant to the long-term sustainability of Australian society and economy, is a blatant example of misplaced priorities. This is especially the case when the government is meant to be the national leader in the promotion and implementation of science, while it does not and should not have that role in sport.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Good work keeping this the no. 1 FYM thread btw, guys. With your help, we can make this the best Kony 2013 ever!