• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: Australian Politics II

I just read the Courier-Mail. They repeat what the Liberals have said.

Deputy Opposition Leader Sussan Ley said Labor may have kept the seat, but the swing against the government showed Dunkley had sent Mr Albanese a “strong message”.

“And it’s not happy birthday, it’s do something about the cost of living crisis,” Ms Ley said.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news...n/news-story/cb13e12015d77af4528e332d79ec8a17

It is not just the Murdoch press who are publicly divorced from reality it is the Liberals themselves. The fact is that it tells the parties that the Liberals have made no headway. And the cost of living crisis is the fault of the Liberals. Labor has been in power for not much more than a year. And nothing much has changed economically since then.
 
I hoping that someone with a stronger stomach than me, will report on how the Murdoch press is spinning this as a 'massive loss for Labor' which means that 'Albanese must go'.
The Murdoch press is spinning this as a 'massive loss for Labor' which means that 'Albanese must go'.

(I'm pretty sure that I can say this without having to read a word of the Murdoch press).
 
The Murdoch press is spinning this as a 'massive loss for Labor' which means that 'Albanese must go'.

(I'm pretty sure that I can say this without having to read a word of the Murdoch press).

Innocent or well meaning lies are tolerable, but deliberate lies like this are not.
 
Seems all that frothing right Advance propaganda in Dunkley against Labor also failed miserably. All that money News Corp and Dutton and the Libs spent on them was totally wasted. What a pity...not.
 
Seems all that frothing right Advance propaganda in Dunkley against Labor also failed miserably. All that money News Corp and Dutton and the Libs spent on them was totally wasted. What a pity...not.

Interesting Sussssannnn Ley did not back away from the “refugees are raping Frankston women” line of attack even in the face of defeat.
 
Sure they are. They are deepening my hatred of them, which is quite a feat.
"This result is disastrous (for the other party)" has been recited by every person who ever contested a by election. I don't know why a media outlet doing exactly what you expected would change your opinion of them.
 
Peter Dutton's 'working-class' strategy didn't materialise a win in Dunkley, and Liberal MPs are seeking a new path

The relief among Labor MPs and officials was palpable.

Going into the Dunkley by-election they knew a swing against the government was the one certainty — governments at this point in the election cycle routinely face a voter backlash. But add to that 12 interest rate rises under their watch and a broader cost of living crisis and the conditions were ripe for the Liberals to exploit.

The only real question going in was the extent of that swing and whether it would be enough to deliver a loss to Labor and vindicate Peter Dutton's articulated strategy of taking the working-class suburbs from the Labor column.

That didn't materialise — the Labor vote held up, and Anthony Albanese and his treasurer both got the birthday gifts they were hoping for — a Labor win and the status quo.
The idea that the Liberals could appeal to the working class is laughable.
 

Sadly it is not.

The coalition would never get in if people understood enough to vote in their own, or society's self interest.

I believe I've already shared the tale about a former soldier's wife who always votes liberal because Labor 'blocked supply' in 1975 causing soldiers to not be paid.

(It was the Liberals in the Senate who did that, Labor were in government at the time.)

When her mistake was explained to her, she rejected it outright, and continued to try to convince all of her working class friends to vote Liberal.
 
The Liberal Party has always been the party for rich people, by rich people.

Keating, despite his upbringing, was as far from working party as you can be. So was Gough, if not more so. It’s no longer about class or even wealth in my opinion.

The Liberals are not chasing the working class in my view, but “aspirational” voters. These are what once were called the (now disused) middle class. But with the big difference that while middle class people often owned their houses, the affluence of aspirationals rests on massive debt. Add in that most are two income families (again unlike the old middle class) and are carrying large child care costs.

Given the rate rises, the swing in a place like Dunkley should have been huge. The reason it wasn’t is down to leadership. As much as Albo might be on the nose, Dutton, backed by Ley, is absolutely putrid. And an alternate Liberal leader does not exist. If all they can come up with is Dan Tehan, Karen Andrews and Ley, they are literally unelectable.

But if another Howard comes up with the ability to compromise and even sometimes vote with Labor; a bit of charisma and ability to ignore the right wing ideologues in the party, the coalition is electable.
 
Keating, despite his upbringing, was as far from working party as you can be. So was Gough, if not more so. It’s no longer about class or even wealth in my opinion.
Just because the Liberals are the party for rich people doesn't mean rich people can't be in Labor. I'd argue that there's nobody on either side who isn't rich.
 
Just because the Liberals are the party for rich people doesn't mean rich people can't be in Labor. I'd argue that there's nobody on either side who isn't rich.

I was really referring to supporters not MPs (and maybe shouldn’t have used MPs as my example).

My point is that while the generalisation that more rich people vote Liberal may be true, the battle over the aspirationals is where elections are won or lost. A Liberal leader who could resonate with this massive number of swinging voters would be hard to beat. There just isn’t one now, nor is there any sign of one.
 
The Liberals were always touted not so much as "for the rich" but as "for business". The inference being that if business was on the up then more people could have jobs and be able to afford the affluent lifestyles to which they would like to become accustomed.

This was (more or less) true up until about the late 1970's when Australia was still dinky-di mate, we rode on the sheep's back, we drank beer not wine, cappuccino was not a thing, Bali was unheard of, we had just started large-scale iron ore mining, and we made our own steel and motor vehicles.

Then business radially changed... But the Libs didn't. They are still pro-business, but don't know why. They just wanted stuff to go back to how it was before Gough. Which is why they are still led by a fire-hydrant who was a former Bjelke-Peterson on-the-take copper.
 
Last edited:
The Liberals were always touted not so much as "for the rich" but as "for business". The inference being that if business was on the up then more people could have jobs and be able to afford the affluent lifestyles to which they would like to become accustomed.

This was (more or less) true up until about the late 1970's when Australia was still dinky-di mate, we rode on the sheep's back, we drank beer not wine, cappuccino was not a thing, Bali was unheard of, we had just started large-scale iron ore mining, and we made our own steel and motor vehicles.

Then business radially changed... But the Libs didn't. They are still pro-business, but don't know why. They just wanted stuff to go back to how it was before Gough. Which is why they are still led by a fire-hydrant who was a former Bjelke-Peterson on-the-take copper.

Cynical, but still largely correct.
 
Then business radially changed... But the Libs didn't.
That's not exactly true. Business has been evolving (getting bigger) for decades and as it became more powerful, major political parties started kowtowing to it.

By the time Bob Hawke had become PM, Labor was no longer the party of the worker. Sure, they still talked the talk but their policies were all business friendly. They ended up taking the middle ground that the Libs claimed to represent and the Libs found themselves drifting further to the right to distinguish themselves from the ALP.
 
The Liberals were always touted not so much as "for the rich" but as "for business". The inference being that if business was on the up then more people could have jobs and be able to afford the affluent lifestyles to which they would like to become accustomed.
If I were to rephrase my statement to be a little more accurate, I would say that the Liberal Party were the party for the people who employ, and Labor are the party for the people who are employed.
 
If I were to rephrase my statement to be a little more accurate, I would say that the Liberal Party were the party for the people who employ, and Labor are the party for the people who are employed.
Totally agree for while Ming The Merciless was PM and leader of the Libs for the 20 years post WW2. By the 70's when Gough said "It's Time!", political party alignment to employer/employee definitely started to change as Australia's business operations evolved in different ways.
 
That's not exactly true. Business has been evolving (getting bigger) for decades and as it became more powerful, major political parties started kowtowing to it.
Not just bigger. Businesses changed HOW they do business, and with whom. There are a number of notable businesses who are clearly aligned with what can be fairly said to be "leftist" policies - environmentalism, fair trading, etc.

By the time Bob Hawke had become PM, Labor was no longer the party of the worker. Sure, they still talked the talk but their policies were all business friendly. They ended up taking the middle ground that the Libs claimed to represent and the Libs found themselves drifting further to the right to distinguish themselves from the ALP.
Agreed. Which is why from Howard onwards, the Lib leaders have been hard fiscal and social conservatives, but not necessarily captains of business. Of the recent Lib PM's, Howard was a trade commercial lawyer, Abbott was a (failed) journo, Scomo a lowly advertising wonk, and as noted above Potato-head was a humble policeman. The exception was Turnbull, a millionaire investment banker, who was rapidly hounded out of the position for being too sympathetic to "leftist" causes, i.e. not hard enough.
 
Last edited:
The exception was Turnbull, a millionaire investment banker, who was rapidly hounded out of the position for being too sympathetic to "leftist" causes, i.e. not hard enough.
Turnbull got "hounded out" because he was leading the Libs to a defeat in the polls. He squandered any good will the Libs had with the public by calling an early double dissolution election for no good reason.
 
Turnbull got "hounded out" because he was leading the Libs to a defeat in the polls. He squandered any good will the Libs had with the public by calling an early double dissolution election for no good reason.

Yes, he was a lot of things, but capable politician wasn’t one of them. It speaks volumes for the Libs that their only decent politician since Menzies has been Howard (I don’t rate Malcolm Fraser). Seriously go through them. Turnbull, despite his obvious flaws, stacks up well against that rabble.
 
Turnbull got "hounded out" because he was leading the Libs to a defeat in the polls. He squandered any good will the Libs Liberal machine had with the public by calling an early double dissolution election for no good reason reasons they could not abide.

No, Turnbull certainly wasn't a "politician" in the mould of Ming, whose motto for his team was "You don't **** up. Full stop." Being a Liberal politician requires checking you conscience and scruples at the door of Parliament House. Turnbull was, and is, a successful businessman with scruples, i.e. a Liberal failure.
 
Yes, he was a lot of things, but capable politician wasn’t one of them. It speaks volumes for the Libs that their only decent politician since Menzies has been Howard (I don’t rate Malcolm Fraser). Seriously go through them. Turnbull, despite his obvious flaws, stacks up well against that rabble.
And he was a slimy little weasel at the best of times. I was SO chuffed to see him as the sitting PM lose his own seat to an independent. Fair on the nose!
 
And he was a slimy little weasel at the best of times. I was SO chuffed to see him as the sitting PM lose his own seat to an independent. Fair on the nose!

Oh I was talking comparatively. I would have never have voted for him. But as slimy as he was, he was a capable (but not honourable) politician
 
Why do you think that the Libs care about anything other than votes? Turnbull became PM because the party thought he was a winner. He got ousted when they thought he was a loser.

1. What has that got to do with anything Norman Alexander said?
2. This could be said of the Labor Party too. They got rid of 2-3 PMs because they thought they could not win with these people.
 

Back
Top Bottom