I'm interested to see just which taxes are going to be raised to have this 'fair' budget repair and exactly what the ALP think fair means. Does it mean negative gearing, corporate taxation, super changes for high income earners? Anything else or no details yet?

I will always maintain that everyone should pay their share rather than relying on the big end of town to pay for things that they don't use/need.

To the ALP and their stereotypical demographic, fair means high income earners are in for a shock.

Where did this come from?
The latest NewsPoll is 51-49
Only Morgan & ReachTel have Labor at 52 or above

Trying to find where I read it. Most articles are focusing on the state by state analysis which is far more interesting.

Ok yeah that's my understanding as well. Minimising damage in the marginals is something that SA Labor have been really good at over the last decade and it's why they're still in power.



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.[/quote]
The Newspoll is from this morning and as I mentioned to MR, i only saw that figure in one article which I'm struggling to track down :? Regardless, the state swings are the interesting figures.

I've also read there's a chance he might get that 25% threshold in a couple of seats, in particular Boothby and Mayo (not Sturt unfortunately).

Can someone explain Labor's position on tax cuts? On one hand they are a company tax cut is the same failed "trickle down" strategy advocated by Thatcher and Raegen that does nothing to stimulate economic growth. On the other hand they are going to cut tax for small business. Isn't this an inherent double standard? Why is it that tax cuts for small business are stimulate jobs and growth, while on the other hands tax cut for the "big end of town" are tantamount to a taxpayer funded windfall that does nothing for jobs and growth?

Wow! Sky don't even try to hide their right wing bias now. All their discussion shows are right wing hosts, stacked with right wing panellists!!

Then again you would consider anyone who doesn't vote Greens or the socialist alliance to be an extremist right wing fascist correct?

Bang on.

Wish pollies in general would just talk like standard human beings.

Shorty is one of the worst for that kind of robotic monotone talking.

Is not confidence inducing at all.

-PB

Shorten's debating style is pretty good. He actually manages to make the nonsense he continually spews sound half credible. Of course he's an intellectual midget compared to MT but he's obviously a seasoned politician and well practiced debater. Malcolm has a tendency to dither and provide long winded answers that fail to cut through, but he was a lot better last night.

Edited by rusty: 30/5/2016 11:55:03 AM

They publicly stated a couple of years back that the channel was to become centre right
I would say with their shock jocks & panellists that's an understatement.

Interesting

'Jobs & Growth'
'Innovation Nation'
'Continuity & Change' (WTF?)

Intellectual midget....:lol: :lol: :lol:

There's a fairly equal representation of both sides and politics. Of course the greens don't get a look in because their policies appeal mostly to Luddites and stoners. Sky news is ever so slightly right leaning however you still have shows and regular panelists who represent the labor perspective. The ABC on the other hand is choc full of left wingers and there is virtually no conservative representation at all. It's a despicable organisation dominated by left wing trendies who feel their ideological preferences trumps the ABC charter to be fair and impartial . It's understandable that they would highly attracted to a business model which relies on gouging taxpayers rather than being run efficiently.

I like malcom, but he does come across arrogant and smug. Shorten is the same.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but the definition of Luddite is not an intellectual.....:lol: :lol: :lol:

You don't even know what a luddite is.

do you have a poll to back that up

I only saw a sky news poll that had about 66-33 to shorten on the debate which is pretty comprehensive since it is probably biased since sky news viewers tend right.
That approximate number was on the tele last night so it might have changed if they kept polling
does anyone have a link to polls on who won the debate

meanwhile trying to find polls on last nights debate and I find articles from just after the first debate from sky news claiming turnbull won the debate and this time "narrowly won" the debate. If sky news pundits think shorten narrowly lost it means he flogged turnbull in voterland

Mate, you'd do well not to parrot the anti-ALP rubbish posted on this forum by a number of people. Both parties have their good and bad policies.

But you are just making pointless motherhood statements when you say things like this:



I'm not trying to be a d*ck to you, but... no sh#t! Who is arguing that the "big end of town" should pay for anything that isn't needed?

You need to get beyond this superficial level - you want to criticise policies etc, have at it.

The ALP has actually put forward many policies, far more than an opposition since Jon Hewson's 'fightback' package in 1993.

Not saying that all the policies are great, or that the Libs have none. But it's actually quite simple to find the ALP's policies - they are out there.

Do you have a poll to back that up?

Shorten won the first, Malcolm won the second. The format was shit, the questions were shit, in both debates. They need a debate about a two hours long where the participants debate major issues one at a time (1. economy, 2. education, 3. debt/deficit, 4. terrorism, 5. health, 6. superannuation, 7. tax avoidance etc), and have free reign to interrupt, shout at, talk over and be rude to each other as much as possible, no moderator takes a back seat and just lets them go at it hammer and tongs. That would bring out the fiery passion that's been lacking and be rather entertaining.

Much prefer this format. These guys need broad topics with the moderator and panel pushing them into areas they are uncomfortable in.

this is the only link I can find to the sky news poll. It was on the tele but they seem to not be printing much on it :-k

https://twitter.com/PMOnAir/status/736922133243170816?lang=en

turnbull was nervous and all over the shop

What does Murdoch Rags contribute to 442 from a football fan angle?:-k
If he likes football he should suck Sepp Blatters cock...since it would be the closest to politics he would get to football

Edited by Socawho: 30/5/2016 04:18:29 PM

Which political 'commentators' have Sky added very recently?
Peta Credlin
Who are they about to add?
Bronwin Bishop

'Slightly' right leaning?
Luddite.....:lol: :lol: :lol:

It's funny (hypocritical) how Turdball talks about the potential of a Labor/Greens government based on the past, when The Greens have only ever held one lower house seat, and only very recently!
Yet, the Libs have been in bed with the right wing nutters, the Nationals, for over 3 decades
Fuckwit, that only impresses the fuckwitted.

Anyone have a youtube clip of turnbull saying goodbye to the afl crowd on saturday night

He left somewhere in the middle of the 2nd quarter, which is all the afl you need to watch, actually :lol:

libs improve by between half a point and a point in a half in new morgan poll

their poll average is probably 51-49 behind which would be just enough to form government. A further half point swing to labour probably wins them government from here if the polls are on average accurate

reachtel 52-48
morgan 51.5-48.5 (averaging the two polls response allocated and last election preferences)
newspoll 51-49
essential 51-49
galaxy 51-49
ipsos 49-51

average is pretty much right on 49-51 which would win libs government by maybe 1 -6 seats

poll bludger and financial review averages, weights and biases the polls in different ways and the former is a little more optimistic for the coalition and the latter more optimistic for labour

I went through half the Greens policies and it got ignored.

I'll list the ones i'm concerned about from Labor's 100 positive policies and if you want to discuss further let's do it.

- High speed rail: unviable
- Non-government school funding. $82 for private schools that charge for entrance. Disagree with this.
- Targeted learning: Conditional funding? Not sure what is meant here. I'm all for getting the best but this seems to be a vague policy. Are teachers going to get freedom or not? If it doesn't get immediate results is the funding cut?
- LNG 'National Interest tests': Yeh no. The industry is on it's knees and yet labor wants to add more red tape and take more of a cut? This sort of policy is one of the reasons i do not trust major political parties.
- $168mil for the M1 in Brisbane. Why bother? You can't do anything to stop congestion with a paltry amount like that. I would love to see how they could deliver this without 3 more years of disastrous traffic delays.
AIP funding: Red tape that hurts the tax payer. It will blow out the costs of major projects, not that they ever need much help.
-

What I like:
- Committing to reducing smoking. Costs to the health system are 3 x revenue. Needs to happen.
- Medical cannibis. Welcome to the 2000's.
- Getting students to Graduate uni. Interesting points. 23% don't complete a degree in 8 years. I assume this negatively effects the economy as these people would not have jobs which would trigger the automatic repayment of a student's help debt. Cautious optimism. I hope they don't relax entrance. What we don't need is a glut of graduates who can't find jobs.
- Commitment to assisting with the cost of university degrees. $11,800 a student. Good work if it pays off.
- Capping VET help at $8000. Needs to happen. VET loans are a huge burden on our economy.
- $100mil for a stadium in Townsville. Nope, build a cheaper one ffs.
- In the 'Plan for our cities' part - creating alternate employment hubs. Brilliant. Big issues are having the majority of employment being in a 'city centre'. This creates a huge traffic/Public Transport nightmare. If you diversify the locations of these 'centres', you can manage the demand on PT. Good if they can deliver.
- Using australian steel for government funded projects. Good, but FFS can't polls drive Australian made vehicles while we're at it rather than Audi's?
- Animal testing ban
-50% renewables by 2030. Good if they can deliver. Need to bring in a law requiring all new homes to have a solar system capable of supplying 75% of the homes power. Bigger picture though is whether they can deliver the infrastructure for the 'mains' grid to run renewable. A lot of renewable infrastructure is and will be away from major centres (look up Glen Innes in northern NSW).
- The new Great Barrier Reef plan.

Those are my thoughts on some of the policies I actually understand (some of them I haven't the foggiest clue about).


Edited by bethfc: 30/5/2016 09:13:49 PM

probably got ignored because its too much for one post. But it sounds interesting if you break it up a bit

It was like 10 lines. It was a response to another post about me making unsubstantiated posts. Oh well. You can't say i didn't at least explain myself :lol: