The election thread - Medicare Vs cost of living Vs OMG China! Vs housing Vs I'm not Trump! Vs prehistoric fish Vs nuclear energy Vs tariffs Vs AUKUS

[al_]

My basis is that 99% of voters follow the how-to-vote cards handed out at polling booths.

That is just wrong. The VEC have said that only 39% of Liberal voters followed the HTV two elections ago, and that number has likely dropped since.

 

[Calvin27]

Yeah, the media is perpetuating it, fo sho. However there are a lot of backbenchers pushing it and you know that Turnbull, Bishop and Morrison will be considering their options, at least. If they think they can take it they most definitely will.

Not Bishop. She may want it and maybe some voters too, but the libs know better than to replicate the 'witch' situation that they pulled on Gillard.

My money is on Turnbull. Hockey is out and Morrison is a close second purely because he is the lesser known and they may want a fresh image. Turnbull is my bet though - is there any betting available on this? (serious)

 

[johnny]

YEah, smart money is on Turnbull but I would not count Bish out. If they think she will poll well then that will be more important than the similarities with Gillard.

 

[pink poodle]

I agree, but I view the 1993 election as notable for two other reasons:
- Hewson's press secretary was.......... Tony Abbott. I think Abbott was so fatally scarred by the Mike Willessee interview that he has pretty much refused to do any unscripted or potentially unfriendly interviews since.
- For me, the 1993 election also marked a (downward) turning point in the quality of politics because Keating campaigned so strongly against Hewson's GST, despite having championed one at the 1985 National Tax Summit. That blatant swing in opinion (I seem to recall Keating saying, "If you want a GST vote for him. If you don't want one vote for us.") to win an election is not on for me - if you believe in a reform measure so strongly I don't see how you can then argue so vigoriously against it a few years later. It comes back to the point about taking the best decision for the nation versus 'whatever it takes' to win an election. Principles/integrity - zero.

Now I'm too young to know whether prior politicians were more principled in their decisions (I was born in the 70s). But I mark that election as the point at which I think politicians became obsessed with winning rather than doing the right thing (although, in truth, it's probably been going on for ages).

You are kidding right. :lalala:

The one that sticks out is when he pauses for 30seconds or so.

Maybe you missed about 10,000 other interview gaffes from him along the way.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c3IaKVmkXukIaKVmkXuk

I know its a little old, but i do love the way Tony avoids potential problems in interviews.

 

[pink poodle]

YEah, smart money is on Turnbull but I would not count Bish out. If they think she will poll well then that will be more important than the similarities with Gillard.

Turnbull might be a people's choice at the moment...but didn't Abbott stomp in his position a few years back with a huge surge of conservative support in his ranks? Surely the power brokers in the party would be pushing for the continuation of this...

 

[Ivan]

Turnbull might be a people's choice at the moment...but didn't Abbott stomp in his position a few years back with a huge surge of conservative support in his ranks? Surely the power brokers in the party would be pushing for the continuation of this...

Abbott won the leadership spill against Turnbull by one vote. I still maintain that the public catalyst for that leadership spill, utegate and Godwin Grech, reeked of a political setup/takedown. Turnbull was knifed by the conservatives for his stance on carbon trading.

Turnbull's support within the party has lessened since then as the conservatives have gained power. I cant see him getting power, but stranger things have happened.

 

[pink poodle]

Abbott won the leadership spill against Turnbull by one vote. I still maintain that the public catalyst for that leadership spill, utegate and Godwin Grech, reeked of a political setup/takedown. Turnbull was knifed by the conservatives for his stance on carbon trading.

Turnbull's support within the party has lessened since then as the conservatives have gained power. I cant see him getting power, but stranger things have happened.

does a soufflé rise twice?

 

[pharmaboy]

I would disagree.

My basis is that 99% of voters follow the how-to-vote cards handed out at polling booths. Thus they are choosing to vote how the Party wishes, therefore affirming the party room selection of the PM. Plus also agreeing with Knuckles that 90%+ of people have no idea who their local member is anyway.

What you are saying is technically correct, but I would venture to say that is not what the vast majority of people are thinking when they place their votes.

What do you mean "technically" ! This idea that the public votes for a PM and therefore that person should also go the next election is an idea of the last few years only and not reflective of reality in any way whatsoever ( unless you are a complete egotist and want to try and use that excuse for not doing the best thing for your party )

The same system runs throughout the states, and no one complains when a state premier resigns - to only resign by losing is a rediculous idea

 

[pharmaboy]

Abbott won the leadership spill against Turnbull by one vote. I still maintain that the public catalyst for that leadership spill, utegate and Godwin Grech, reeked of a political setup/takedown. Turnbull was knifed by the conservatives for his stance on carbon trading.

Turnbull's support within the party has lessened since then as the conservatives have gained power. I cant see him getting power, but stranger things have happened.

That may have been the catalyst for the spill, but it was Turnbulls doorstops that morning where he made statements about carbon policy as if the vote was in the bag - he lost 1/2 a dozen supporters in an hour. Never take your colleagues for granted......

 

[pink poodle]

What do you mean "technically" ! This idea that the public votes for a PM and therefore that person should also go the next election is an idea of the last few years only and not reflective of reality in any way whatsoever ( unless you are a complete egotist and want to try and use that excuse for not doing the best thing for your party )

The same system runs throughout the states, and no one complains when a state premier resigns - to only resign by losing is a rediculous idea

I think the concept comes from the Howard era. He worked rather hard to create that continuous power hold ideal after the roller coaster of liberal leadership in opposition to Hawke/Keating. It worked well for him and has continued on since.

 

[slippy]

You vote for a person in a presidential election. Here in Australia we don't have presidents, you vote for a party not a person.

Like it or not, that's the system we have. If you think you voted for Tony Abbott specifically that was your mistake (and what a mistake it was). Once elected, the governing party can do whatever they like with their leadership.

 

[scblack]

We start getting in to making great assumptions here - likely accurate but these are big and complex issues where assumptions can have great consequence.

For instance, most people vote for a party, that much is pretty certain. However, how can we know that they voted for Abbott but would have preferred Morrison as leader, but will never vote ALP or IND? How can we know whether people voted for Abbott but are generally a swing voter?

I mean the gut says you're right and I believe that's conventional wisdom as well. But it's a real assumption that comes with serious consequences. With that in mind I'd err on the side of clarity and that is that the PM is elected by the party room and local reps are voted in by the people.

This is the problem with unwritten conventions.

Upon reflection, why the hell did I disagree with you here? Sorry mate, you're largely agreeing with me. Just being ultra pedantic.

Gah, I am a gumby sometimes.:tape2:

 

[Calvin27]

You vote for a person in a presidential election. Here in Australia we don't have presidents, you vote for a party not a person.

Like it or not, that's the system we have. If you think you voted for Tony Abbott specifically that was your mistake (and what a mistake it was). Once elected, the governing party can do whatever they like with their leadership.

Which is why people have issues running the country out of his PMO.

 

[Pastavore]

You vote for a person in a presidential election. Here in Australia we don't have presidents, you vote for a party not a person.

Like it or not, that's the system we have. If you think you voted for Tony Abbott specifically that was your mistake (and what a mistake it was). Once elected, the governing party can do whatever they like with their leadership.

No, to be truly pedantic you vote for a person to represent your electorate. They will usually support their party and leader, but can choose to leave the party and become independent, or even to support another party. I think it would do our democracy a great service if all of our elected representatives made representing their electorate their highest priority.

For example, I despise Bob Katter's views on just about everything, but he really does advocate hard for the issues in his electorate, and I respect him for that. (and that alone)

 

[redbruce]

No, to be truly pedantic you vote for a person to represent your electorate. They will usually support their party and leader, but can choose to leave the party and become independent, or even to support another party. I think it would do our democracy a great service if all of our elected representatives made representing their electorate their highest priority.

For example, I despise Bob Katter's views on just about everything, but he really does advocate hard for the issues in his electorate, and I respect him for that. (and that alone)

Agree with the last statement.

As for the first, although I'd really like to believe it's different, based on dinner party, social/community commentary suspect 90% of (city) voters vote on the overarching party ideology/figurehead (and therefore PM incumbent) basis.

My view is that despite the increasing improvement in education demographics, for too many, the predominant personal perception (it's all about me and my own) in the most influential electorates dominates and has lead too many down a path of political choice based on short term personal gain at the broader (national ) expense.

 

[scblack]

No, to be truly pedantic you vote for a person to represent your electorate. They will usually support their party and leader, but can choose to leave the party and become independent, or even to support another party. I think it would do our democracy a great service if all of our elected representatives made representing their electorate their highest priority.

For example, I despise Bob Katter's views on just about everything, but he really does advocate hard for the issues in his electorate, and I respect him for that. (and that alone)

Coming back to Johnny's post again - Kudos there Johnny.

It is the unwritten convention that you are voting for the party, not necessarily the candidate. Sure, maybe not every single person is voting in exactly that manner, but it is certainly the standard basis for our electoral system. People can and have changed parties, voted against their party line. But in general that spells electoral death for that candidate. The very large majority expect a Liberal/Labor candidate to toe the party line.

In my mind it comes down to Commitment. A candidate has Committed themselves to their party, the party policy/values and their leader. And the voters by and large voted you in on that basis.

 

[Pastavore]

It is the unwritten convention

Exactly. But it is only a convention, not a rule, or a law, or even a guideline. The reality can actually be quite complex, and is in the hands of those individuals that we have voted to represent our electorates.

 

[Pastavore]

As for the first, although I'd really like to believe it's different, based on dinner party, social/community commentary suspect 90% of (city) voters vote on the overarching party ideology/figurehead (and therefore PM incumbent) basis.

Sure, I don't disagree. The point I am trying to make is that while that is our intention as voters ( and a lot of people declaim that they voted for a PM), the way the system works is that we elect an individual member. While we may have expectations of them in terms of voting in parliament or a party room, it is in fact up to them.

 

[scblack]

Exactly. But it is only a convention, not a rule, or a law, or even a guideline. The reality can actually be quite complex, and is in the hands of those individuals that we have voted to represent our electorates.

Yup, but if a candidate does change over - the fact that is electoral death at the next election - means the population do take that unwritten convention pretty seriously.

 

[pharmaboy]

Yup, but if a candidate does change over - the fact that is electoral death at the next election - means the population do take that unwritten convention pretty seriously.

Electoral death?

So when Paul Keating took over from Hawke, did he lose the next election?

When Gillard took over from Rudd, did she lose the next election?


If the public deals out electoral death for these actions, they sure do hide it well. Now if you are going to say Gillarc nearly lost, you may do well to remember the reason for the challenges is usually because they looked like losing the next election.

So if you are heading for defeat, the height of stupidity is to keep going without changing anything. That's what a democracy is all about, leading the way the people want you to lead. Now we have polls you can monitor that success or failure along the way.

Gillard was going to lose her second election, and switching back to Rudd was a vain hope that it would turn things around, it might have, but not enough.

Frankly, Anyone could have beaten Rudd after that debacle