Planet Rugby Forum

_fatprop wrote:

Burke's Boot wrote:Thought Abbott played for Sydney Uni fatty? I'm sure Slug could confirm one way or the other..

yeah, my bad, he actually played first grade for Uni which isn't shit and clearly relevant to planet RUGBY

grievous wrote:

_fatprop wrote:

Burke's Boot wrote:Thought Abbott played for Sydney Uni fatty? I'm sure Slug could confirm one way or the other..

yeah, my bad, he actually played first grade for Uni which isn't shit and clearly relevant to planet RUGBY

Idi Amin played rugbytoo, what's your point

grievous wrote:

_fatprop wrote:

Burke's Boot wrote:Thought Abbott played for Sydney Uni fatty? I'm sure Slug could confirm one way or the other..

yeah, my bad, he actually played first grade for Uni which isn't shit and clearly relevant to planet RUGBY

Idi Amin played rugbytoo, what's your point

_fatprop wrote:To keep the rugby factor high, Abbott played a few years as a prop at Waringah in the lower grades

Two peas in a pod of discontent

Date August 31, 2013

Peter Hartcher - Sydney Morning Herald political and international editor

The overwhelming view among voters is that Labor has blown it.

The opinion polls tell us who's winning the election and who's losing. Focus groups tell us why. The political parties rely on them heavily to guide strategy. This week, Ipsos Research convened groups in western Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne.

If Labor still likes to think of western Sydney as its heart, then it needs to get itself into the intensive care unit because it's in the process of cardiac arrest.

They invited me to sit and listen to a mixture of Labor, Liberal and uncommitted voters. They all earn low to middle incomes or, in the case of some of the Melbourne voters, they have retired.

Unlike most focus groups, these are largely undirected - participants are invited broadly to discuss the election and the economy so any of the specifics that emerge do so spontaneously.
Advertisement

The starting point is that neither Kevin Rudd nor Tony Abbott is liked or appreciated.

''I think Tony Abbott is a giant wanker,'' says Rose, a Brisbane woman in her 30s.

''I think Kevin Rudd is a bigger wanker,'' rejoins the woman sitting next to her, Nikki, around the same age. ''His own party doesn't want to work with him.''

With the exception of one Melbourne woman in her 60s, a devoted Liberal named Dorothy, no one had a kind word for Abbott except to compliment him on his physical fitness.

And even that is questioned as an unalloyed virtue. One woman points out the amount of time it takes to maintain high levels of fitness and Nikki wonders: ''Is he going to continue doing all that exercise if he's elected?''

And the kindest thing anyone has to say about Rudd is that ''I like him better than I liked Gillard'' and this is greeted with nodding all round.

At one point, an older Melbourne woman, Kathy, expresses her general frustration at the political situation by forcefully proposing: ''Let's get rid of all the men and put a woman in charge!''

''What, like Julia Gillard?'' counters Dorothy, to a chorus of ''I don't think so'' from the other women in the group, including the Labor sympathisers.

''The thing is,'' says Peter, a Brisbane man in his 40s, ''neither Rudd nor Abbott is actually dumb. They are both quite intelligent.''

''They are not likeable fellows,'' John chimes in, emphasising ''likeable''.

''I think you've hit it,'' says a third man.

It's ''who you hate least'', rejoins John, who identifies as a Labor supporter.

It is only the Queensland blokes who mention the Greens at all. And while they have kind words for Bob Brown, they can't remember the name of his successor: ''It's some lady.''

The next common theme that quickly emerges across all the groups in all cities is that voters have trouble finding compelling policy differences between the two main parties.

It's not so much that they don't know what the parties' policies are. The groups touch on quite a few. It's more a case that many of the parties' policies have converged to the point where they have become hard to tell apart.

Just as Labor toughened its policy on boat people to seem as muscular as the Liberals, so have the Liberals moved to seem as caring as Labor on school funding.

And where people in the focus groups bring up some of the specific policy ideas that the Coalition has pushed during the campaign, it turns out they don't much like them. The most vehement objections are the ones to Abbott's own signature policy, his paid parental leave scheme.

Sean, a 40-ish Sydneysider at a group gathered in the suburb of Smithfield, says: ''$75,000 for six months is a lot of dough to sit at home and have a kid. I never had that, my wife never had that.''

The women are harsher. ''I don't like Abbott's parental leave policy,'' says Divina in Brisbane.

''It's bullshit and it's unfair,'' Rose concurs with feeling, to agreement all round.

''They want to give people money to have babies,'' says Ruth, a Melbourne woman in her 60s, with some indignation.

''It's absolutely ridiculous,'' says Kathy.

Even the staunchest Liberal of the lot, Dorothy, won't defend this one: ''Tony will get my vote but he's made a blue on this one.''

And the Coalition policy to buy fishing boats at Java seaports, so they can't be used by people smugglers, is widely dismissed as silly.

''They're going to spend millions of dollars buying boats from Indonesians so they can buy more boats,'' says Will in western Sydney, although Dorothy insists that it's worth trying.

And in Brisbane and Melbourne, the groups express suspicion over the Liberals' decision to keep their budget costings a close secret to the final days of the campaign.

''They have the election in the bag so they don't have to bring out their costings,'' says Rose.

''They're keeping the smokescreen up. I'm scared it's going to be like Campbell Newman but on a bigger scale.''

The large-scale public service cuts imposed by Queensland's conservative Premier are not on the minds of the groups in Sydney and Melbourne. But they weigh heavily in Brisbane.

''Campbell Newman raped us [in Brisbane, where he was lord mayor] and now he's doing it to Queensland. He went to the election promising he wasn't going to cut,'' says John.

''How long do we have to accept this shit, as people? Why can't they be held accountable for what they say?''

Frank says: ''If we were Europeans, we'd be in the streets protesting. It's because we're Aussies that we just cop it.''

And there's deep concern and resentment across all the groups that both major parties carry on with an unaffordable and unfair system of government handouts.

The Coalition gets, if anything, even more criticism than Labor on this. Abbott's parental leave policy is part of it but it's much bigger than this.

After hearing of Abbott's policy to make payments to long-term unemployed people who take and hold a job for at least a year, Peter says: ''How come they give money to the unemployed - what about the people who've been working for 25 years?''

Barbara, in Melbourne, wants to know ''why are they giving money to a Cadbury factory in Hobart?'', a reference to Abbott's promise of a $16 million grant. ''Is it a government factory?''

In western Sydney, Josh, in his 40s, spoke for his group when he voiced resentment at their perceived position as the financiers of other people's handouts: ''We are all blue collar and all in the same class. We are in the class that gets bent over and screwed on tax.

''Everything we earn - wages, bank accounts - is out in the open,'' he says. ''We're not upper class that can hide stuff. We're not the class living off the government. We are the mainstream. We're the ones who pay for it all.''

And an exasperated Frank in Brisbane summed up the feeling of many: ''If the country's finances are so f---ed, why don't they stop giving away money?''

And yet, despite all of this, not one of the participants in any group suggested that Labor would be better to deal with any of the components of the problem.

No one defended Labor's handling of the budget, nor its performance on dealing with the handout mentality.

One of the self-described blue-collar workers of western Sydney is uncontradicted when he says: ''Labor is good if you wanna sit back and they'll look after you … The Libs are the ones who, if you wanna get up, work up a sweat, they'll look after you.''

Even the declared Labor sympathisers didn't try to defend its record or speak on its behalf. If Labor still likes to think of western Sydney as its heart, then it needs to get itself to an intensive care unit because it's in the process of cardiac arrest.

Labor has been largely written off. On its conduct, when discussion turned to Labor's leadership coups: ''We must look like a dickhead country when all that happens,'' says Ruth, who is otherwise restrained. Her comment meets general concurrence.

And, on its conduct of the national budget: ''When John Howard was in, the country was at its best, then Labor comes in and spends the lot,'' says Ian of western Sydney. An older friend had told him it was ever thus.

''It's been this way for 50 years. The Libs come in and build the bank account up, then Labor comes in and spends it all.''

And here is the reason that Rudd's scare campaign on Abbott's alleged secret plan for ''cuts, cuts, cuts'' isn't working. Even the Queenslanders who are angriest about the conservatives' cuts at the state level, even though they are apprehensive of Abbott, are resigned to an Abbott government.

They don't like or trust Abbott. Rather, they are putting trust in the Liberals' brand. It's product identification, a vote for the party of Howard and Peter Costello.

There is even an implicit assumption that it might be unpleasant but that it is necessary. The overwhelming sense, spoken and unspoken, is that Labor had its chance and has blown it.

''I do believe,'' says Bob in Brisbane, ''the Libs will slash and cut and the deficit will be reduced. We are in for that cyclic change now.''

John, a self-identified Labor man, reluctantly resigns himself: ''They will hurt lower and middle people as they do it, then we will change the government in six or eight years.''

Bob says: ''The Libs will get in. Does anyone here doubt that?'' Around the table in Brisbane, where the conservatives' cuts are still smarting, there is silence.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... z2dVD5odXf

Mat the Expat wrote:They deleted the Election thread?

indomite wrote:

Mat the Expat wrote:They deleted the Election thread?

I would think it was a piece of piss to restore a deleted thread. I'm assuming they back the data up.

Farva wrote:I can see the Greens doing better than they did at the last election.

kiap wrote:

Farva wrote:I can see the Greens doing better than they did at the last election.

Which extra seats? I suspect Hanson-Young is going to struggle in South Australia.

kiap wrote:

Farva wrote:I can see the Greens doing better than they did at the last election.

Which extra seats? I suspect Hanson-Young is going to struggle in South Australia.

Ali's Choice wrote:

kiap wrote:

Farva wrote:I can see the Greens doing better than they did at the last election.

Which extra seats? I suspect Hanson-Young is going to struggle in South Australia.

What number is she on their ticket?

kiap wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

kiap wrote:

Farva wrote:I can see the Greens doing better than they did at the last election.

Which extra seats? I suspect Hanson-Young is going to struggle in South Australia.

What number is she on their ticket?

One

Ali's Choice wrote:

kiap wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

kiap wrote:

Farva wrote:I can see the Greens doing better than they did at the last election.

Which extra seats? I suspect Hanson-Young is going to struggle in South Australia.

What number is she on their ticket?

One

You think their upper house vote will be that bad?

Ali's Choice wrote:I expressed my genuine disappointment yesterday when the original Australian Election thread was deleted. Seemed like a vindictive and cruel action which served no purpose. Regardless, I will continue to chat Oz politics on this forum so long as it is enjoyable to do so.

6roucho wrote:The Greens are the party of refuge for modern Australians. Without them we'd all have to vote for Bob Katter, or worse.

kiap wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

kiap wrote:

Farva wrote:I can see the Greens doing better than they did at the last election.

Which extra seats? I suspect Hanson-Young is going to struggle in South Australia.

What number is she on their ticket?

One

grievous wrote:Greens have no hope in SA, state is struggling they want to hear about manufacturing and mining projects.

Ali's Choice wrote:

grievous wrote:Greens have no hope in SA, state is struggling they want to hear about manufacturing and mining projects.

Even with ALP preferences?

grievous wrote:

6roucho wrote:The Greens are the party of refuge for modern Australians. Without them we'd all have to vote for Bob Katter, or worse.

I would have looked at them once upon a time but they are useless, grandstanding on peripheral issues and not having any real solid alternative to the refugee problem.
I would prefer they stick you their core, green issues. Look at protecting significant natuaral areas and work with agriculture, mining and forestry to find a working platform to allow conservation to be sustained. Coal mining seems to be out of control in this state with regards to threats to agriculture and water supply yet I dont hear the Greens bleating about it, they would rather spend too much time on gay marriage.

Stu Wilsons gloves wrote:looking forward to a coalition victory the wailing on here should be brilliant.

grievous wrote:

Stu Wilsons gloves wrote:looking forward to a coalition victory the wailing on here should be brilliant.

what a great reason to celebrate but when the real Abbott is revealed many of his suppoerters will be wailing

6roucho wrote:

grievous wrote:

6roucho wrote:The Greens are the party of refuge for modern Australians. Without them we'd all have to vote for Bob Katter, or worse.

I would have looked at them once upon a time but they are useless, grandstanding on peripheral issues and not having any real solid alternative to the refugee problem.
I would prefer they stick you their core, green issues. Look at protecting significant natuaral areas and work with agriculture, mining and forestry to find a working platform to allow conservation to be sustained. Coal mining seems to be out of control in this state with regards to threats to agriculture and water supply yet I dont hear the Greens bleating about it, they would rather spend too much time on gay marriage.

Rather than 'bleating', the Greens have run a sustained, well-organised decade-long grassroots campaign against the threat to agriculture from coal that has had real results in improved regulation. But that's of no interest to the tabloids, so your average blowhard never gets to hear of it.

grievous wrote:

6roucho wrote:

grievous wrote:

6roucho wrote:The Greens are the party of refuge for modern Australians. Without them we'd all have to vote for Bob Katter, or worse.

I would have looked at them once upon a time but they are useless, grandstanding on peripheral issues and not having any real solid alternative to the refugee problem.
I would prefer they stick you their core, green issues. Look at protecting significant natuaral areas and work with agriculture, mining and forestry to find a working platform to allow conservation to be sustained. Coal mining seems to be out of control in this state with regards to threats to agriculture and water supply yet I dont hear the Greens bleating about it, they would rather spend too much time on gay marriage.

Rather than 'bleating', the Greens have run a sustained, well-organised decade-long grassroots campaign against the threat to agriculture from coal that has had real results in improved regulation. But that's of no interest to the tabloids, so your average blowhard never gets to hear of it.

Im sorry but it really isnt very significant, Alan Jones has far more weight on the prime agricultural land issuies and its easy to blame the tabloids, I dont hear Young or Milne shaking their fist about it, old growth forests yes but that was Browns pets issue

6roucho wrote:

grievous wrote:

6roucho wrote:

grievous wrote:

6roucho wrote:The Greens are the party of refuge for modern Australians. Without them we'd all have to vote for Bob Katter, or worse.

I would have looked at them once upon a time but they are useless, grandstanding on peripheral issues and not having any real solid alternative to the refugee problem.
I would prefer they stick you their core, green issues. Look at protecting significant natuaral areas and work with agriculture, mining and forestry to find a working platform to allow conservation to be sustained. Coal mining seems to be out of control in this state with regards to threats to agriculture and water supply yet I dont hear the Greens bleating about it, they would rather spend too much time on gay marriage.

Rather than 'bleating', the Greens have run a sustained, well-organised decade-long grassroots campaign against the threat to agriculture from coal that has had real results in improved regulation. But that's of no interest to the tabloids, so your average blowhard never gets to hear of it.

Im sorry but it really isnt very significant, Alan Jones has far more weight on the prime agricultural land issuies and its easy to blame the tabloids, I dont hear Young or Milne shaking their fist about it, old growth forests yes but that was Browns pets issue

Their campaign isn't significant? Nonsense. Most of the agricultural activism standing between coal seam gas developers and the land now is the direct result of Green activism.

grievous wrote:

6roucho wrote:

grievous wrote:

6roucho wrote:

grievous wrote: I would have looked at them once upon a time but they are useless, grandstanding on peripheral issues and not having any real solid alternative to the refugee problem.
I would prefer they stick you their core, green issues. Look at protecting significant natuaral areas and work with agriculture, mining and forestry to find a working platform to allow conservation to be sustained. Coal mining seems to be out of control in this state with regards to threats to agriculture and water supply yet I dont hear the Greens bleating about it, they would rather spend too much time on gay marriage.

Rather than 'bleating', the Greens have run a sustained, well-organised decade-long grassroots campaign against the threat to agriculture from coal that has had real results in improved regulation. But that's of no interest to the tabloids, so your average blowhard never gets to hear of it.

Im sorry but it really isnt very significant, Alan Jones has far more weight on the prime agricultural land issuies and its easy to blame the tabloids, I dont hear Young or Milne shaking their fist about it, old growth forests yes but that was Browns pets issue

Their campaign isn't significant? Nonsense. Most of the agricultural activism standing between coal seam gas developers and the land now is the direct result of Green activism.

no their efforts

6roucho wrote:The worst thing Abbott will do will be to dismantle the NBN: a crime against progress that could take a generation to recover from. And he has no choice: he stood at the crossroads in his budgie smugglers and signed up with Uncle Rupe.

Ali's Choice wrote:

6roucho wrote:The worst thing Abbott will do will be to dismantle the NBN: a crime against progress that could take a generation to recover from. And he has no choice: he stood at the crossroads in his budgie smugglers and signed up with Uncle Rupe.

Yup, will be a sad day when he fina;;y passes his legislation and him and Turnbull stand before adoring News Ltd TV cameras toasting their success in effectively condemning Australia to the internet Dark Ages. Posters like shanky, Towny, fatprop et al will no doubt be proud as well.

grievous wrote:

6roucho wrote:The Greens are the party of refuge for modern Australians. Without them we'd all have to vote for Bob Katter, or worse.

I would have looked at them once upon a time but they are useless, grandstanding on peripheral issues and not having any real solid alternative to the refugee problem.
I would prefer they stick you their core, green issues. Look at protecting significant natuaral areas and work with agriculture, mining and forestry to find a working platform to allow conservation to be sustained. Coal mining seems to be out of control in this state with regards to threats to agriculture and water supply yet I dont hear the Greens bleating about it, they would rather spend too much time on gay marriage.

Abbott faces chaos in Senate

Date September 1, 2013

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is almost certain to face a hung Parliament of his own as he cruises to victory in this Saturday's election, with an unpredictable mixture of minor parties set to control the new Senate.

An extraordinary proliferation of microparties arranging tight preference deals with each other could see the Coalition lose seats in the Senate even as it wins a big majority in the House of Representatives.

The Fairfax Media analysis comes as reports emerge of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's behind-the-scenes fury at how events have soured for him. According to several sources, his travelling party has witnessed familiar outbursts of anger and a growing cranky demeanour from the PM, while campaign headquarters in Melbourne is at a low ebb. Staff members who have dared to voice opinions and challenge strategies have been removed, leaving a sense of distrust and insecurity among those remaining.

Frustration is also growing at how Mr Rudd and his pseudo campaign manager, Bruce Hawker, have been freewheeling on strategies and policy. "The mood is so depressed. It's like there is no reason left to keep fighting," one insider said.
Advertisement

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, meanwhile, has sparked debate while campaigning in Queensland, saying he found the burqa ''very confronting attire''.

The Coalition is certain to be well short of a majority in the new Senate, with a probable gain of a seat in Tasmania offset by losses elsewhere.

An Abbott government is likely to find itself faced with the need to negotiate with a range of senators from microparties, some with little or no political experience, to get each bill through the Senate.

The tight preference deals between the microparties also effectively remove the Coalition's option to seek a double dissolution if Labor and the Greens unite to block its legislation to repeal the carbon price.

At a double dissolution, a party would need just 7.7 per cent of votes after preferences to win a Senate seat, compared to 14.3 per cent at a normal half-Senate poll. Simulations based on voting at past elections suggest the Coalition would lose seats at a double dissolution, and allow alternative parties on the right to enter Parliament.

The Australian Electoral Commission reports a record 529 candidates have nominated for the Senate, more than half as many again as in 2010.

The surge comes almost entirely from microparties that have no track record, few resources and minimal media access, but rely on using slogans as names to attract voters on the ballot paper - and then tight preference flows between each other that shut out the major parties.

In Victoria and NSW, for example, voters will face a metre-long ballot paper with 45 columns in NSW and 40 in Victoria, including groups such as ''No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics'', ''Smokers Rights'', ''Bullet Train for Australia'', ''Stop CSG'', ''Stable Population Party'' and ''Animal Justice Party''. At least two of them appear to have been organised by the same person.

The record number of groups with no track record makes the detailed Senate outcome impossible to forecast. But simulations by Fairfax Media and online electoral watchers using ABC analyst Antony Green's online Senate calculator suggest that:

■ One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has a serious chance of defeating the Liberals' intended finance minister, Senator Arthur Sinodinos, for one of the two final seats in NSW.

■ Family First, which won a Senate seat in Victoria in 2004 with 1.9 per cent of the vote, could do it again, with their lead candidate Ashley Fenn rated a 50/50 chance of unseating Liberal senator Helen Kroger.

■ The Coalition is odds on to lose a further seat in Queensland, probably to country singer James Blundell of Way Out West fame, running for Bob Katter's Australia Party, but possibly to the Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party, One Nation or the Australian Christians.

■ In South Australia, the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics are given a strong chance of unseating prominent Green Sarah Hanson-Young, even if they get as little as 0.15 per cent of the vote.

Computer simulations by a professional financial modeller writing on online electoral sites as ''the truth seeker'' show that depending on the exact votes for each party and order of elimination, the Australian Democrats, the Sex Party, WikiLeaks, the Shooters and Fishers, the Liberal Democrats, and even the Stable Population Party have a chance of winning Senate seats.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... z2db8GmSI7

grievous wrote:

6roucho wrote:

grievous wrote:

6roucho wrote:

grievous wrote: I would have looked at them once upon a time but they are useless, grandstanding on peripheral issues and not having any real solid alternative to the refugee problem.
I would prefer they stick you their core, green issues. Look at protecting significant natuaral areas and work with agriculture, mining and forestry to find a working platform to allow conservation to be sustained. Coal mining seems to be out of control in this state with regards to threats to agriculture and water supply yet I dont hear the Greens bleating about it, they would rather spend too much time on gay marriage.

Rather than 'bleating', the Greens have run a sustained, well-organised decade-long grassroots campaign against the threat to agriculture from coal that has had real results in improved regulation. But that's of no interest to the tabloids, so your average blowhard never gets to hear of it.

Im sorry but it really isnt very significant, Alan Jones has far more weight on the prime agricultural land issuies and its easy to blame the tabloids, I dont hear Young or Milne shaking their fist about it, old growth forests yes but that was Browns pets issue

Their campaign isn't significant? Nonsense. Most of the agricultural activism standing between coal seam gas developers and the land now is the direct result of Green activism.

no their efforts

Stu Wilsons gloves wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

6roucho wrote:The worst thing Abbott will do will be to dismantle the NBN: a crime against progress that could take a generation to recover from. And he has no choice: he stood at the crossroads in his budgie smugglers and signed up with Uncle Rupe.

Yup, will be a sad day when he fina;;y passes his legislation and him and Turnbull stand before adoring News Ltd TV cameras toasting their success in effectively condemning Australia to the internet Dark Ages. Posters like shanky, Towny, fatprop et al will no doubt be proud as well.

Yeah I agree and all the unthinking sheeple whom don't watch Q&A won't even realise what they are missing.

grievous wrote:Saw a story about what the NBN had done for a small Tassie town virtually stopping many young people leaving for the mainland, this could be repeated x 1000 in the bush but as no party has discussed rural issues so far Im sure its nothing for the Libs to kybosh this.