It was more of a case that she wasn't elected on merit, more that she had a sporting background. In parliament you actually have to work.

I don't know the numbers but apparently her predecessor was significantly more active.

My point is celebs get into parliament because the lazy populace votes for them!
If people voted based on individual acumen, rather than 'make-up coverage', then these people wouldn't be put forward by parties

Even better that it came from The Terminator :lol:

-PB

David Pope's comics are great :lol:

Am interested what she was implying by this

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-26/nova-peris-passionately-defends-leaving-politics/7447882

Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 26/5/2016 02:36:28 PM

Exactly, hence why I'm curious about whether there is a racism issue in NT politics.

I wonder what the stolen generation has to do with it?

On face value (assuming no racism) she appears to be deflecting away from her poor effort as a politician.

Fiona Scott, the pollie with the "sex appeal" could lose her seat

The hell is wrong with the PC crowd crying outrage over Fiona Scott's sex appeal, im sure Fiona Scott is more than chuffed to be complimented

But no!!!! everyone should be a eunuch that allows gay transgender muslim terrorists to blow up the country because its PC, bro



Edited by condemned666: 26/5/2016 06:04:29 PM

Clive is really spilling his guts on the Liberal Party and their shady operations.


Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 26/5/2016 11:50:39 PM

And yet we have another Labour stooge in the news doing shady shit like giving out electoral roll information to Union reps so they can find people to threaten.

-PB

Clive on Lateline. Doesn't hold back on Turnbull's fraudband cost blowout and Turnbull's need to hide it

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2015/s4470196.htm

What would Clive Palmer know about the NBN let alone computers? He'd struggle to find the power button, you'd have to explain to him it's usually shaped a bit like a doughnut.

A big jump to Labor of 52-48 in the ReachTel Poll, since the previous poll (50-50 TPP), which would win them government outright, even allowing for marginals
https://www.reachtel.com.au/blog/7-news-national-poll-26may2016

lol that fella from Channel V and Australian Idol running against Tony Scabbot.

Don't think there's enough Gen Y millennials in that electorate to throw out a major party.

-PB

Fairly lacklustre from both leaders tonight.

Shorty just kept hammering the same shit.

Both danced around pinpointed questions.

-PB

How shit was the format tho. The scabs from the people's forum asked better questions than that lot.

Agreed, despite all its flaws there is a reason why people tune into Q&A...the format works as best it can. Tonight was just two press conferences held simultaneously.

All in all a draw with Bill feeling very thankful walking away unscathed facing questions more favourable to the Libs.

How many hundreds of millions did Shorten promise? :lol:

sky news poll showed convincing win for shorten
was my impression too.
Turnbull didn't look like he believed what he was saying
Turnbull seemed rattled a lot stumbling over his words
Shorten got through a slogan that could be effective "I lead my party, your party leads you"
Shorten turned a negative into a positive on asylum seekers: appearing bipartisan and using Turnbulls words to argue that liberal critiques of labour on this helps the asylum seekers*

Shorten has gone 3 years without a gaffe and stayed solidly on message winning now two debates with a formidable opponent. For better or worse if shorten wins one election he could win 4

*Im not a fan of Shorten's position on this. I'm just commenting on the aesthetics of the debate.

Tony Abott-lite was a good zinger too.

Have already heard a couple of other Labour pollies using it now.

-PB

Felt like Shorten won it, but I will say this. Even though Malcolm dosnt offer anything when he speaks - he speaks better and more confidently than Bill. Bill always looks like he is reading palm cards in a year 5 history oral exam

I know I'm biased so I won't comment on who I thought won the debate :lol:

Latest Newspoll has Labor 52-48 2PP. A uniform swing (yes I know) would lead to a result like this

[-o<

Both leaders played it extremely safe. Risking nothing, and gaining not much.

That ReachTEL poll showing 52-48 for the ALP is very interesting. From what I have seen so far, the ALP is winning, but not in Lib seats that are in the 5-7% swing zone that they need to pick up to get enough seats.

But if that 52-48 poll result is reflected in future polls, that margin is getting big enough where some of those seats do start to fall.

Beazley's ALP got about 51% of the 2PP vote in 1998, but Howard held on. But if that gets to 52%.... it really will be game on!

Were we watching the same debate? All the Sky commentators gave it to Turnbull (before you all whinge about bias they gave the first debate to Shorten).

Shorten IMO looked very small. He offered no substance to any of his answers just zingers, cheap shots and scare tactics. He is clearly aiming his pitch at voters who have no or passive interest in politics, who might be vulnerable to populist rhetoric such a tax cuts for millionaires and giving banks a $7.5 billion windfall, which is a pure lie (the government takes tax not companies)

Turnbull was much improved from the first debate but still needs to to better. I thought he appeared more presidential, clearly articulated his vision of an economic plan and established his economic credentials much better than Shorten, who is the master of cheap populist rhetoric and plays the politics of envy card very well.

It's quite feasible that Shorten would win the election but if so I think he would go down the same path of Abbott and get ousted first term. After all what does he have to offer besides, zingers, splashing money around, cheap populist rhetoric and class war envy?

I'd say any voting results that give the win to the Shorten is purely because left wingers are more likely to vote because they put more value in polls than they do in substance.

Where did you read that?

The latest Newspoll had some interesting info on a state by state basis

And also

On those figures Xenophon is a real chance to win a seat or two in SA.

Isn't this the same guy who got himself arrested for stopping trees from being chopped down?

There's enough trees in rabbits electorate that might give him hope yet

Shortbread is a career politician ...he should perform better than Turncoat, who isn't a career politician

I've seen in a couple of the talking head shows, and they were talking about it on Insiders yesterday - basically saying that a 51% 2PP nationwide for the ALP may not be enough because the primary vote is so low. There was also talk that the swing to the ALP was very uneven. And in some of the internal polling the parties have done in the key seats, the Libs seem to be minimising the swings against them.

But they were all saying that a 52% 2PP vote will likely result in an ALP win.



That is very interesting - particularly QLD.

That Newspoll is new right? I had only seen the ReachTEL poll putting the vote at 52-48.

Will be very interesting to see how Xenophon goes. They seem to be saying he needs to hit 23-25% in seats to push into 2nd place, and therefore potentially get up on preferences.

If the vote is 19-22% it might not be enough.

I reckon we will see some big surprises this election.

And with the lower Senate thresholds, Mr. X could end up being the key powerbroker in the new Senate.

Edited by AzzaMarch: 30/5/2016 10:18:34 AM

Both of them said exactly what they were gonna say regardless of who the leader was. Saying one won over another is just indicative of the political ideology you subscribe to

I thought Shorten won the first debate and Turnbull won the second. I think this is how most people see it. Lefties on the other hand would see Shorten as the comprehensive victor on both occasions.

The way I saw it was that Shorten won clearly in the first debate, whilst the second was slightly in favour of Turnbull.

But this had less to do with the performances of the leaders themselves, than with the topics being asked.

The first debate had questions that played to the ALP's strengths, whilst the second debate had some questions in areas the Libs are stronger on.

I think this summary from the Guardian is actually the most interesting in terms of what the debate revealed:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2016/may/30/australian-election-2016-newspoll-analysis-suggests-swing-against-coalition-live?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Politics+AUS&utm_term=174702&subid=8192625&CMP=ema_792

Before we move forward I think it’s worth sharing a few thoughts about last night’s leaders’ debate, which I characterised last night as a wrestle in quicksand that ended in a draw. While it was a deeply weird hour, there was evidence of message refinement, which tells you something about the contest. If you look at Malcolm Turnbull’s talking points, you can glean a couple of things – you can intuit the company tax cuts for big companies aren’t going down very well with the community. Turnbull had to reframe his explanation of them to be a tax cut for family-owned businesses, which is pretty telling. Also from Turnbull’s messaging, you can see that voters worry Labor hasn’t got a plan for growth. He kept hammering that point.

If you look at Bill Shorten’s talking points, you can see voters are concerned that Malcolm Turnbull isn’t the man of principle that they thought he was. (I lead my party, your party leads you. I liked the old Malcolm Turnbull on climate change, where’s he gone?) You can see the issue of asylum seekers has the potential to be dangerous for Labor from the speed that Shorten moved from defence to offence during that segment of the debate. Going on the attack was an effort to throw a fire blanket over the issue. And you can see Labor has done some work in recent days to refine its message on the economic growth question. Bill Shorten said last night economic growth wasn’t beneficial if it wasn’t fair, if the rising tide didn’t lift all boats. Labor has been presenting its social capital agenda as both an equity and an economic growth strategy, but it’s failed thus far to reduce the growth component into a soundbite. Last night we saw the soundbite. Fair growth, which is an adjunct of Labor’s formulation about fiscal management: budget repair that is fair.


Edited by AzzaMarch: 30/5/2016 10:47:17 AM