Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[drron]

Some people vote for their local member, some for the party & some for the leader.

At the last election - Peter Slipper was loathed by the great majority of the voters in Fisher.....however, he won the day with 54.1 of the two party preferred. Slipper's name was mud after years of reporting by the local rag on his disgraceful spending habits. I assume most people closed their eyes, ticked the box & thought of replacing the current Gov FWIW I didn't vote for this scoundrel - I reside in another electorate.

IMO if people want to replace JG/ALP they wont give a stuff who the alternative is.

I am an elector in Fisher.Was a really rusted on Liberal voter.Voted for Slipper when he first stood in 1993.Have not voted for him since.I found it easy to sum him up.

 

[amaroo]

I am an elector in Fisher.Was a really rusted on Liberal voter.Voted for Slipper when he first stood in 1993.Have not voted for him since.I found it easy to sum him up.

Wouldn't expect anything else

 

[browski]

Which just goes to show you how statistics are manipulated.Our GDP is going gangbusters according to the official figures so why when I go to work in regional centres every time there have been more business closures?Maybe these figures from the ABS give some insight-
1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2012

See the graph for Real GDP and then GDP per person.At no time in the Howard years was the growth in GDP per person lower than it is now.Maybe that is why some people are really feeling pain.

Then there is employment.And boy aren't those figures manipulated.First you put people on all sorts of welfare so they are no longer counted.Then you base the figures on who has actively looked for a job recently rather than those who actually want a job.An interesting reference is the Roy Morgan polling and the unemployment rate they get compared to the "official" figures-
[Roy Morgan Research] Morgan Poll

Just look at the bottom of the table and the figures for unemployed-10.9% and underemployed-8.8%.That means that 19.7% of Australians are either unemployed or under employed.Seems a better explanation for the pain i see around regional Australia.That means January 2013 sees a record number of people unemployed or under employed.
So when it comes to the ballot box the thought of individual Australians will be with their personal circumstances not what the official figures say.This is reflected in the current polls of voting intentions.

And as to the low interest rates-well this is a sign that the country's economy is not going well.Here is the Governor of the RBA's statement this month-
RBA: Media Release-Statement by Glenn Stevens, Governor: Monetary Policy Decision

In particular see why he felt a need to ease monetary policy in 2012,ie reduce interest rates.


So interest rates were lowered to increase demand-not what you have to do if the economy is going gangbusters.

PS correction to ABS quote.

So, when the Libs are in Govt, then the official stats are to believed. But when they are not, the exact same stats are now fraudulent. Does that tin foil on your head allow you to feel hypocrisy?

 

[drron]

So, when the Libs are in Govt, then the official stats are to believed. But when they are not, the exact same stats are now fraudulent. Does that tin foil on your head allow you to feel hypocrisy?

Didn't look at the sources then did you?Roy Morgan has the unemployed + underemployed rate at-14.3,11.9,12.5 and 13.2% for each quarter of 2007 the last year of the Howard government.Still better than today's 19.7% dont you agree?

And where do I say that i believe official statistics when the Coalition is in government.I am a fully fledged skeptic and cynic.
Again remove the beam from your own eye before removing the splinter from your brothers.

 

[777]

But not a strong lead as you said.Many on here are also saying TA is doing apallingly as well.

You're looking at the head to head there and comparing him to one of the least popular PMs ever. Look at the raw approval/ is he doing a good job/ etc ratings and he is in near record lows. Or look at any poll that compares him to Turnbull/ Hockey/ Rudd or anyone other than Gillard and it's dire.

Also a two point lead is actually not that far off where the Libs are ahead of the ALP in the average of recent polls. No one is arguing they're not well ahead.

 

[777]

And we can say the same about Gillard. People voting labor but in spite of her. If people don't like negative oppositions then labor being negative about Abbott isn't going to work. As long as Albanese doesn't grace us with his whinge.

I haven't seen the stats recently but last i looked Gillard's popularity broadly tracked Labor's. Abbott's lags well behind the Libs.

 

[drron]

You're looking at the head to head there and comparing him to one of the least popular PMs ever. Look at the raw approval/ is he doing a good job/ etc ratings and he is in near record lows. Or look at any poll that compares him to Turnbull/ Hockey/ Rudd or anyone other than Gillard and it's dire.

Also a two point lead is actually not that far off where the Libs are ahead of the ALP in the average of recent polls. No one is arguing they're not well ahead.

And in the last Neilsen poll Rudd was up on Julia Gillard 58% to 34%.

 

[Simo]

And in the last Neilsen poll Rudd was up on Julia Gillard 58% to 34%.

Rudd has been ahead of Gillard in most of the polls if my memory serves me correctly.

 

[amaroo]

Great numbers here....

PM's poll pain: Abbott and Rudd more popular

 

[Simo]

IMHO Abbott would be more worried if Rudd or there was a new PM before the election.

Supposedly Rudd has said a big NO to having another run at PM's job.

 

[Deleted member]

So you have cough Type A and cough Type B and you choose B because you think A is slightly coughpier?

Our country is in trouble!

That's rich coming from someone who describes them self as a "Rusted on" labor voter. At least less coughpy is a positive choice.

 

[medhead]

And as to the low interest rates-well this is a sign that the country's economy is not going well.Here is the Governor of the RBA's statement this month-
RBA: Media Release-Statement by Glenn Stevens, Governor: Monetary Policy Decision

In particular see why he felt a need to ease monetary policy in 2012,ie reduce interest rates.


So interest rates were lowered to increase demand-not what you have to do if the economy is going gangbusters.

PS correction to ABS quote.

Yep, anyone with half a brain understands the reality of low interest rates. But it just makes the promise that "interest rates will always be lower under a coalition government" even more bizarre.

 

[Deleted member]

IMHO Abbott would be more worried if Rudd or there was a new PM before the election.

Supposedly Rudd has said a big NO to having another run at PM's job.

I think that even Kev O Lemon can see the writing on the wall.
He may do better than JG in the coming election, but I suspect even he doesn't have the electoral numbers to pull it off.
He can see the bigger picture. He could conceivably come back as leader after the election, let's face it he would help the labor party improve its popularity. It would be a great opportunity to deal with the knife in the back lot that pushed him out.
But then the carrot has already been dangled, the Lib's ate already talking him up as an asset to foreign affairs maybe ambassador ? A plum diplomatic posting would almost certainly be on the cards.

 

[drron]

Yep, anyone with half a brain understands the reality of low interest rates. But it just makes the promise that "interest rates will always be lower under a coalition government" even more bizarre.

But you need the whole brain to understand that under Howard interest rates were lower even when the economy was doing a lot better!

 

[Skyring]

Yep, anyone with half a brain understands the reality of low interest rates. But it just makes the promise that "interest rates will always be lower under a coalition government" even more bizarre.

You know, to be accurate, that wasn't the promise at all. Or a promise.

It was "Who do you trust to keep interest rates low?" and yes the payoff was that historically interest rates had always been lower under the Coalition. Voters remembered Keating all too well. And those with longer memories remembered Whitlam.

Howard fought that election on the issue of trust. And he won it. In hindsight, it was a term too long for Howard, and I rather think he was kind of relieved to lose in 2007 so that he could go off, put his feet up and write his memoirs while he still had a few marbles left. He was aging in that last term, whereas he seemed to be eternally youthful for the first three. Prime Ministers tend to get craggy and grim.

Labor shot themselves in the foot there in 2004, with Mark Latham as the leader. His behaviour during the campaign - and especially after - was quite bizarre. We all dodged a bullet.

Kim Beazley would have done a better job than either Latham or Howard IMHO. But he wasn't as ruthless as either. Too nice a guy to be in politics, really.

Just the sort of person we need.

 

[medhead]

You know, to be accurate, that wasn't the promise at all. Or a promise.

It was "Who do you trust to keep interest rates low?" and yes the payoff was that historically interest rates had always been lower under the Coalition. Voters remembered Keating all too well. And those with longer memories remembered Whitlam.

Howard fought that election on the issue of trust. And he won it. In hindsight, it was a term too long for Howard, and I rather think he was kind of relieved to lose in 2007 so that he could go off, put his feet up and write his memoirs while he still had a few marbles left. He was aging in that last term, whereas he seemed to be eternally youthful for the first three. Prime Ministers tend to get craggy and grim.

Labor shot themselves in the foot there in 2004, with Mark Latham as the leader. His behaviour during the campaign - and especially after - was quite bizarre. We all dodged a bullet.

Kim Beazley would have done a better job than either Latham or Howard IMHO. But he wasn't as ruthless as either. Too nice a guy to be in politics, really.

Just the sort of person we need.

To be fair a question is not a promise. I heard Howard or Costello utter the words I highlighted. It is a statement to support the question.

If you history only goes back to Whitlam that might be the case, of course didn't Fraser have a little interest rate problem? But a look at the full history of interest rates does not support the claim.

I hear tell that Keating used to make Beazley cry. But then I've also been told he (bomber B) was an absolute pig to staff on the VIP jets. I have no idea what to believe.

 

[Skyring]

The Federal Government's standing with voters has dropped again, while Julia Gillard has lost her lead as preferred prime minister, a new poll shows.
Labor's primary vote stands at just 30 per cent, according to a Herald/Nielsen poll published in Fairfax newspapers.
It is a dip of five points since the last survey in December.
Support for the Coalition has risen four points, taking its primary vote to 47 per cent - its highest level since just after the carbon tax began in July 2012.
On a two-party-preferred basis, Labor's support is at 45 per cent, well behind the 55 per cent for the Coalition.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has also overtaken Julia Gillard in the preferred prime minister stakes, with his support leaping by 9 percentage points to 49 per cent compared with Ms Gillard on 45.
The national poll of 1,400 voters found the gap between Ms Gillard and former prime minister Kevin Rudd has also grown, with Mr Rudd favoured by 61 per cent of respondents to just 35 per cent for her.

From the ABC, so you know it's good for you.

 

[medhead]

But you need the whole brain to understand that under Howard interest rates were lower even when the economy was doing a lot better!

I'm glad you agree with me. Which is why the unqualified statement that interest rates will always be lower is so bizarre. There was no caveat on that statement about economic conditions so whoever made it must have been operating with half a brain, or perhaps it was a disingenuous statement.

 

[777]

And in the last Neilsen poll Rudd was up on Julia Gillard 58% to 34%.

It's actually 61:35 as of this morning. But Abbott is behind Turnbull 58:35.

(and yes, as of last night Abbott pipped ahead of Gillard as preffered PM before you point it out)

 

[Skyring]

the unqualified statement that interest rates will always be lower is so bizarre

Citation needed.

I see that the statements Howard made before the election were qualified. He didn't say interest rates were going to fall. He said that they would be lower under a Coalition government.

"It is an historic fact that interest rates have always gone up under Labor governments over the last 30 years, because Labor governments spend more than they collect and drive budgets into deficit," he said. "So it will be with a Latham Labor government."

I think he was actually spot on in that prediction. Of course, it was a prediction incapable of testing, because we were never going to be able to compare the Howard government that won against Latham with the Latham government that won against Howard.

He went on to say, "I will guarantee that interest rates are always going to be lower under a Coalition government.".

Taking that statement out of context, when clearly he was comparing the historical performances of various governments, and implying something else - that interest rates would fall - isa not quite accurate.