Last edited by witherwings; 07-07-2016 at 21:50.
I just thought he said he wouldn't do any deals. But it's hard to find a quote because searching for Malcolm Turnbull hung parliament brings up only very recent articles.
I think it's good what has happened. Maybe all the politicians will sit up and take note. There's no way they can get complacent now.
The best thing about more votes for smaller parties means that it truly is a democracy. I'm glad we've got more than two choices - even if we don't like some of them
Last edited by BigRedV; 07-07-2016 at 21:59.
It's a little unfair to say people are too quick to judge what the coalition did (or didn't do) last term when the situation they were in was not too different to the previous government which you're very quick to criticise.
I've no doubt that if the coalition do get a minority or even majority govt and don't pass the legislation they've promised (which is what, by the way? #jobsandgrowth, that's right!) the blame will be placed squarely on the make up of the government and not the party in power, even if the opposite isn't afforded to labor.
I'm not defending any party, or government, merely pointing out something I've noticed since the election.
The other reality is that being a socially progressive is going to earn more favour with your people than only plowing through economic policies. Yes, they're important, but it's also important to remember that your average lay person doesn't necessarily have a proper understanding or even vested interest in the economy of their country. They do, however, have strong opinions on a plethora of social issues and if focussing on one of those social issues that your people have told you is important you are earning their trust, which is more likely to deliver you to a successful second term, and increase your majority in both houses, making it easier for other bills to pass.
The reason this election has turned out the way it has is directly a result of disillusioned voters who are ticked off that their government/s (for the last at least 6 years) are blatantly ignoring the things they've said they are concerned about.
We are sick of mud slinging. We want leaders with backbones, who will stand up for what is right and for what their people believe in. I believe that's why people looked to Turnbull when he ousted Abbott, and he's not offered any of what he's promised and people don't know where to turn.
Real proper acknowledgement of social issues is what's going to snag those people who don't really understand the economics behind it all.
Look at Trudeau in Canada. He's done far more for the Canadian govt than go to a pride parade but that's what has his people identifying with him, being proud of him as their leader and themselves as Canadians.
the problem with hung parliament is that watered-down compromised policies pleases no one.
The parties stauch supporters hate it because its watered-down, the other parties hate it because they oppose the policy in the first place ... and the middle hate it because half measures fail dismally.
essentially - bad policy decisions are made, and the party who forms a government is horribly compromised by it - and their record suffers.
Labor have to live with the record of what they acheived in their last government - and it cost them dearly.
If Libs do form a government, I honestly believe the results will be just as bad (if not worse) for both the next 3 years of government, and in the polls in the next election.
I think it's an absolute cop-out to excuse bad policies and bad governing on the fact that you don't have a majority government.
When Julia Gillard formed a "government" with less labor seats than the coalition had, she needed to convince the governor-general that she had enough support and stability for a government. If that meant she had to make deals with crossbenchers who's interests weren't aligned with the people who voted for labor, and the labor members themselves, they should never have made those deals. They should have conceded that they can't form a stable government and gone to a second election. The coalition had more seats to form government but would not make the same shady deals that labor made, that's why they "lost" the election.
But i wasn't referring to Gillard specifically - if you remember, labor was in government from 2007, not 2010. One of the absolute worst social policies that came from the Rudd government was to abolish temporary protection visas and dismantle the "pacific solution". How many lives could have been spared if the labor government had left the pacific solution alone? How many millions of dollars and resources wasted on detention centres in Australia, rescue missions at Sea and overall suffering could have been avoided? Now the situation is worse than ever, and all because Kevin Rudd abolished a system that had virtually eradicated people smuggling by boats to Australia. Under the labor government, there were about 13,000 asylum seekers in detention by the time they left office. At the start of their term in office, there were between 500-1000, and I think less than 50 of them were held in Nauru - the others were in Australia. About 70% of asylum seekers under the pacific solution were successfully resettled in various countries including Australia, Canada, Sweden etc.
overall, the labor government majorly failed with their immigration policy and this had absolutely nothing to do with the 2010 election.
Last edited by witherwings; 08-07-2016 at 01:35.
I'm a bit confused about your comment by the way - you say that the blame will be (unfairly, I assume) placed on the makeup of the government (I.e a dis functional house of reps and senate) not on the government's actual performance, but you used that exact same argument to excuse the labor government's performance in office... Also I much prefer the optimistic and positive slogan #jobsandgrowth to the deceitful and negative slogan #mediscare .. I haven't seen any labor supporters here mention that particular elephant in the room, but that's all done and dusted I guess.. Water under the bridge and all that... Whatever it takes to get votes etc etc...
Last edited by witherwings; 08-07-2016 at 01:34.
Anyway, you said "meanwhile our credit rating goes down".. I just read on the Australian that S&P is threatening to downgrade Australia's credit rating if they don't "repair the budget" within 6-12 months. That's a big ask for the coalition, I don't think they can achieve it in that time frame but under labor I doubt they could achieve it within an entire term in office.
I was specifically referring to 2010 onwards as that's when labor governed with a minority government. To be honest I don't remember 2007-2010 well as I spent those three years overseas as an 18-21 year old having lots of fun and drinking way too much. I do however remember labor getting in with a majority so it's not comparable. I was under the impression that labor managed well considering the GFC was going on at the time and they kept us out of recession, regardless of how they did it (spending choices), they did manage it.
I did say, I think twice, that I wasn't defending labor in my spiel - as a matter of fact, I didn't even vote for them for many reasons of my own - just that it seems like even if the situations end up similar you'll justify them both differently. And that's your prerogative of course.
The leadership spills in both party were seemly uncanny, although for different reasons, and the results of both elections - in my opinion - are a fine example of democracy allowing voters to express their unhappiness with the quality of the government in both situations.
I think Labor's was worse and upset people more because it came from within the party and the people felt it was unjust the way Kevin was ousted, especially when they thought he'd done a pretty good job, whereas the majority of people disliked Abbott and supported a leadership change if it meant getting him away from running the country. The disillusionment with the LNP from that change came from Turnbull representing a new kind of liberal leader, someone economically conservative and socially progressive, and ultimately he failed that test because he had too many fat, white, conservative men in the party room to appease.
As BRV said, the senate may be full of minor parties and be a a circus for the government to deal with but that's the only way the people really have to say "nah sorry government - I don't trust you, and I don't want to make it easy for you." I'm not a fan of Hanson or bloody Fred Nile's party but it speaks volumes if you ask me.
RE their two campaign messages: I absolutely agree that Labor's Medicare privatisation campaign was a scare campaign and I don't think either side campaigned well at all, however that kind of proves my point that you need to tap into your voters with things that resonate with them. A vague, broad three word slogan doesn't do that and it means nothing to too many people. Medicare is a concrete thing that people understand and appreciate so of course it's going to resonate more with people.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!