The coalition will never win the federal government again.

[Footonddit]

Haha Birmingham - "I would have wanted to vote for it [43% target] in a heartbeat. However, it doesn’t require legislation”.

He is dragged out to soften the LNP's image whilst doing sweet * all to actually moderate them. Just the usual politician doublespeak.

 

[moistie]

Modern voters lol , Scomo was voted out because people had enough of him and the cost of living going up, lets not kid ourselves climate change and social issues were the reasons maybe for Greens voters, but they’re insignificant anyway who at the end of the day bent over to Albo.

Warringah, North Sydney, Mackellar, Wentworth, Kooyong, Goldstein and Curtin. Liberal heartland seats now held by conservative independents.

What's the one thing the independents policy platform had in common? Action on climate change.

But you keep telling yourself it's only Green voters that want action. Your party will listen and remain irrelevant, whittling away to a nub as a centrist conservative party takes its voters and seats.

Before long you will be the junior party to the Nationals and fighting One Nation and the UAP for the right wing nutter cross bench seats.

Sent from my SM-G990E using Tapatalk

 

[Evolved1]

I don't see the only issue as climate change. The center of politics has shifted such that climate response, gay marriage, womens rights, and anti-religious views are mainstream in Australia.

An economically conservative party with mainstream social views would do well. The LNP have shifted so far to the religious right that they surely must think they're in 'Merica. Fix that and they'll be ok. If not, it will be a slow death.

 

[QuietB]

The Liberals are all in on censorship now - not sure what core values - other than women staying in the kitchen - they have left to be honest

 

[Chief]

a) Nobody needs to hear the CCPs lies. Dunno why they would give them a platform.

b) The CCP has a pretty big audience. Not like anything they say is getting more coverage than otherwise.

 

[QuietB]

a) Nobody needs to hear the CCPs lies. Dunno why they would give them a platform.

b) The CCP has a pretty big audience. Not like anything they say is getting more coverage than otherwise.

You might not like what they have to say but you still have to hear it.

I think it is quite interesting China we’re so forward - it is clearly a hissy fit in response to Taiwan.

Denying them a voice because you don’t like what they are going to say is censorship.

And the irony of the LNP asking for anyone to be censored is hilarious.

 

[Donakebab]

You might not like what they have to say but you still have to hear it.

I think it is quite interesting China we’re so forward - it is clearly a hissy fit in response to Taiwan.

Denying them a voice because you don’t like what they are going to say is censorship.

And the irony of the LNP asking for anyone to be censored is hilarious.

I listened to it live. The speech was really friendly, fluffy with tones of cooperation. Meanwhile the Q&A spoke the cold hard reality.

It was important to hear and is pleasing that it is one thing that galvanises almost all political parties in Australia.

 

[Chief]

You might not like what they have to say but you still have to hear it.

Nope.

I think it is quite interesting China we’re so forward - it is clearly a hissy fit in response to Taiwan.

Denying them a voice because you don’t like what they are going to say is censorship.

And the irony of the LNP asking for anyone to be censored is hilarious.

Point is that it's not really going to make a difference to how many people hear the CCPs lies so, meh.

 

[Number37]

a) Nobody needs to hear the CCPs lies. Dunno why they would give them a platform.

b) The CCP has a pretty big audience. Not like anything they say is getting more coverage than otherwise.

It's a dangerous game to pick and choose who should and shouldn't be given a platform.

If the Chinese ambassador wanted to give a speech on how much more stuff they want to buy from us, would you want that speech given no platform as well?

 

[Chief]

It's a dangerous game to pick and choose who should and shouldn't be given a platform.

If the Chinese ambassador wanted to give a speech on how much more stuff they want to buy from us, would you want that speech given no platform as well?

They could ******* well post a video online.

 

[Number37]

They could ******* well post a video online.

So you're not wanting to de-platform what is said, just who says it?

 

[QuietB]

They could ******* well post a video online.

This is the second most powerful nation on earth and Australia's biggest trading partner by a huge margin. We need to find a way to coexist with them.

 

[Gethelred]

a) Nobody needs to hear the CCPs lies. Dunno why they would give them a platform.

Might be politics.

Us: "Last mob were massive thundercampaigners, we'd like to repair the trading relationship and for that we need to soften both the diplomatic and public conversations."
Them: "Alright. We'll keep doing our thing and we aren't apologising, what are you offering?"
Us: "We aren't really going to deny reality, but we'll make public statements in the direction of returning relations to pre-Covid levels, and as a show of goodwill we'll have someone - maybe Keating, he's good for a quote - speak to the Press Gallery about how vital our relationship with China is. How does that sound?"
Them: "Hmm... I like it, but I'm not sure it goes quite far enough. See, that last mob - I agree, massive thundercampaigners - really whacked the Leader's nose out of joint, and I don't think you lot wheeling out an Aussie's going to cut it."
Us: "Who would you suggest?"
Them: "I'm personally in decent standing with the Leader, and I'm a little ambitious; chuck me on instead of Paul. You get your softening, the Leader gets to control the message more visibly, and I get my face on a camera as the key agent in softening relationships. We all get what we want."
Us: shrugs "Works for me. Need any notes on what to say?"

 

[Number37]

Might be politics.

Us: "Last mob were massive thundercampaigners, we'd like to repair the trading relationship and for that we need to soften both the diplomatic and public conversations."
Them: "Alright. We'll keep doing our thing and we aren't apologising, what are you offering?"
Us: "We aren't really going to deny reality, but we'll make public statements in the direction of returning relations to pre-Covid levels, and as a show of goodwill we'll have someone - maybe Keating, he's good for a quote - speak to the Press Gallery about how vital our relationship with China is. How does that sound?"
Them: "Hmm... I like it, but I'm not sure it goes quite far enough. See, that last mob - I agree, massive thundercampaigners - really whacked the Leader's nose out of joint, and I don't think you lot wheeling out an Aussie's going to cut it."
Us: "Who would you suggest?"
Them: "I'm personally in decent standing with the Leader, and I'm a little ambitious; chuck me on instead of Paul. You get your softening, the Leader gets to control the message more visibly, and I get my face on a camera as the key agent in softening relationships. We all get what we want."
Us: shrugs "Works for me. Need any notes on what to say?"

Isn't the question, Who is his address aimed at?
If it's the govt or parliamentarians then it's shitty diplomacy and shouldn't be enabled.
If it's the Australian people then I don't see the issue with it.
Isn't he just saying that Taiwan is a part of China that they are aiming to reintegrate?

 

[Gethelred]

Isn't the question, Who is his address aimed at?
If it's the govt or parliamentarians then it's shitty diplomacy and shouldn't be enabled.
If it's the Australian people then I don't see the issue with it.
Isn't he just saying that Taiwan is a part of China that they are aiming to reintegrate?

I don't think it's aimed in any single direction. The speech is aimed at the people, the speech and the Q&A at the media, the Q&A at the CCP and the rest of the world. We get our diplomatic 'win', the wheels keep getting greased, we can continue to ruminate behind the scenes against China within the South Pacific and they get to appear strong and magnanimous to a world audience.

In truth, outside the foreign minister I really don't think the rest of the parliament would care beyond being briefed and ensuring the trade relationship resumes functioning properly. The spice must flow.

 

[QuietB]

Isn't the question, Who is his address aimed at?
If it's the govt or parliamentarians then it's shitty diplomacy and shouldn't be enabled.
If it's the Australian people then I don't see the issue with it.
Isn't he just saying that Taiwan is a part of China that they are aiming to reintegrate?

I'd suggest it was aimed squarely at the USA and Australia was simply doing is job as intermediary.

China would not speak that directly to the USA. But they will speak to the USA's sheriff however the hell they want.

 

[Number37]

I don't think it's aimed in any single direction. The speech is aimed at the people, the speech and the Q&A at the media, the Q&A at the CCP and the rest of the world. We get our diplomatic 'win', the wheels keep getting greased, we can continue to ruminate behind the scenes against China within the South Pacific and they get to appear strong and magnanimous to a world audience.

In truth, outside the foreign minister I really don't think the rest of the parliament would care beyond being briefed and ensuring the trade relationship resumes functioning properly. The spice must flow.

I'd suggest it was aimed squarely at the USA and Australia was simply doing is job as intermediary.

China would not speak that directly to the USA. But they will speak to the USA's sheriff however the hell they want.

IMO there is a difference between saying stuff to a group of people & the message to other people from the stuff you say.
Also IMO, China has always been very good at combining the 2.

I agree with QuietB to the extent that they're saying this stuff here, but the message is ultimately for the USA, coz we are not going to do s**t about s**t without the USA telling us/or leading us, with regards to China's actions.

I disagree with QuietB to the extent that they are clearly also sending a message to us...the message seems to be--- "we're not shying away from what we are doing and to be clear this is exactly what we are doing". It leaves us and the USA & pretty much anyone else with no room to later say "oh we didn't know they were going to do that, things have changed bla-bla-bla". China will just say, "we told ya, in your own press club, what we were going to do, it shouldn't come as a surprise".

For context, they did the same thing with the Uyghur issue. They told the world what they were going to do, after they did what they said they were going to do, people (political leaders) started saying we didn't know they were going to do that.

 

[Gough]

Perhaps the biggest loss for the Libs going forward is the perception that they're the safe set of hands.

 

[Rob R]

This is the second most powerful nation on earth and Australia's biggest trading partner by a huge margin. We need to find a way to coexist with them.

Doesn't mean we have to adopt their demands to kowtow or ignore the barbaric behaviour of the psychopath who has arrested and murder his way to being appointed ruler for life.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Festerz]

No wonder the Solomon Islands dumped Australia in favour of China...

 

[Kwality]

Warringah, North Sydney, Mackellar, Wentworth, Kooyong, Goldstein and Curtin. Liberal heartland seats now held by conservative independents.

What's the one thing the independents policy platform had in common? Action on climate change.

But you keep telling yourself it's only Green voters that want action. Your party will listen and remain irrelevant, whittling away to a nub as a centrist conservative party takes its voters and seats.

Before long you will be the junior party to the Nationals and fighting One Nation and the UAP for the right wing nutter cross bench seats.

Sent from my SM-G990E using Tapatalk

Interesting analysis of the conventional thinking post the election:

Tactical teal voters not 'disaffected Liberals' according to new election study

The same university study finds Scott Morrison the least popular leader since they started measuring popularity more than three decades ago.

www.abc.net.au

Teal voters at 2022 federal election were largely 'tactical', not disaffected Liberals, says a new Australian National University study​

Key points:​

• Almost a quarter of "teal" voters surveyed voted for the Greens at the 2019 election, according to ANU's election study
• The study says voters took to the polls with the intent to unseat the Liberal Party
• It also found Scott Morrison was the least popular party leader in its history

No doubt the independent candidates will have their own stories to tell, although Ms Ryan was exposed as a former ALP member before the election.

'Ms Daniel's initial analysis reflected the conventional thinking post election:
The study found the seats were won largely by uniting existing progressive voters in the seats, who were willing to abandon Labor and the Greens to support an independent candidate, rather than turning the votes of "disaffected Liberals".

Of those teal voters surveyed by the ANU, 31 per cent had voted for Labor at the 2019 election, 24 per cent the Greens, and 18 per cent for the Coalition, with 23 per cent voting for others.

"The Liberal Party lost its centre. People who would normally be small-l Liberals or who are potential swinging voters like me who sort of drift across the centre had no-one to vote for."
@zdaniel
analyses the Teal wave that has swept the country #Insiders #auspol'


The report found the seats were largely won through "tactical" voters, with the primary intent being the unseating of the Liberal Party.

 

[kranky al]

Interesting analysis of the conventional thinking post the election:

Tactical teal voters not 'disaffected Liberals' according to new election study

The same university study finds Scott Morrison the least popular leader since they started measuring popularity more than three decades ago.

www.abc.net.au

Teal voters at 2022 federal election were largely 'tactical', not disaffected Liberals, says a new Australian National University study​

Key points:​

• Almost a quarter of "teal" voters surveyed voted for the Greens at the 2019 election, according to ANU's election study
• The study says voters took to the polls with the intent to unseat the Liberal Party
• It also found Scott Morrison was the least popular party leader in its history

No doubt the independent candidates will have their own stories to tell, although Ms Ryan was exposed as a former ALP member before the election.

'Ms Daniel's initial analysis reflected the conventional thinking post election:
The study found the seats were won largely by uniting existing progressive voters in the seats, who were willing to abandon Labor and the Greens to support an independent candidate, rather than turning the votes of "disaffected Liberals".

Of those teal voters surveyed by the ANU, 31 per cent had voted for Labor at the 2019 election, 24 per cent the Greens, and 18 per cent for the Coalition, with 23 per cent voting for others.

"The Liberal Party lost its centre. People who would normally be small-l Liberals or who are potential swinging voters like me who sort of drift across the centre had no-one to vote for."
@zdaniel
analyses the Teal wave that has swept the country #Insiders #auspol'


The report found the seats were largely won through "tactical" voters, with the primary intent being the unseating of the Liberal Party.

Yeah saw that.

How on earth did people while always voted labor so didnt vote liberal - manage to erode the liberals primary vote then?


2019 - dave sharma gets 5000 less votes

And coincidentally the independent gets 5000 more?

That doesnt make sense whatsoever..

 

[Crankyhawk]

Yeah saw that.

How on earth did people while always voted labor so didnt vote liberal - manage to erode the liberals primary vote then?

View attachment 1568758
2019 - dave sharma gets 5000 less votesView attachment 1568757

And coincidentally the independent gets 5000 more?

That doesnt make sense whatsoever..

The ANU study could be identifying those teal voters by what their first preference was last time (not sure what they do with those who voted for an independent like Phelps who didn’t run again). So they do identify that some liberals did switch (17% of voters) it is fair to say more of the vote were tactical alp and green votes

(TLDR both you and kwality are correct, libs lost the moderate libs to teals as well as tactical votes by alp and green to eject liberals)

 

[Kwality]

Yeah saw that.

How on earth did people while always voted labor so didnt vote liberal - manage to erode the liberals primary vote then?

View attachment 1568758
2019 - dave sharma gets 5000 less votesView attachment 1568757

And coincidentally the independent gets 5000 more?

That doesnt make sense whatsoever..

One size does not fit all outside of Haccas money.

 

[Kwality]

The ANU study could be identifying those teal voters by what their first preference was last time (not sure what they do with those who voted for an independent like Phelps who didn’t run again). So they do identify that some liberals did switch (17% of voters) it is fair to say more of the vote were tactical alp and green votes

(TLDR both you and kwality are correct, libs lost the moderate libs to teals as well as tactical votes by alp and green to eject liberals)

Not to mention both major parties lost primary support (again).