The Liberal Party - How long? - Part 2

[The Punter]

The Spartacist League of Australia welcomes you!

Is it OK if I politely decline the welcome?

 

[Seeds]

The poll released today is earth shattering for the libs and bad for Conservatives overall (media is missing this past point).

Libs primary vote down a massive 5 percentage points which means in one polling period they have lost 20 percent of there voters. And thats already after their smashing at the election.

One Nation gains 4 percentage points, labor gains 4 percentage points and greens lose 2.

That means progressive parties are up 2 percentage points and conservatives are down 1 percentage point.

Conservatives now only have 42 percent primary vote.

Liberals looked finished.

 

[nut]

Let me put it this way: the thought has entered my head more than once.

As I have also consistently said, the task of creating a new, viable, right-of-centre political party capable of consistently winning government is much, much, much, easier said than done.

Especially when resorting to lying, racism, anti-science, fear mongering, punching down….. and trying to appeal to idiots, …. have I missed any?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Did you ever consider that Albanese is a big part of why the Coalition is imploding?

All of those findings of the review were not ignored by the Labor Party - they were taken on board and define the softly approach being taken by the current Albanese Government.

And say what you will about the policy feebleness of that approach - it has had one major impact and that is to play a large role in the destruction of the Coalition as an effective political force in the cities.

Can you both please explain how exactly Albanese and his government's approach have caused the Coalition implosion? The causation isn't yet clear to me.

Remember that before this year's election, the Coalition were consistently leading the 2PP in opinion polls until early March. At that point, Labor took the lead and maintained it through to election day. I don't recall any big change in Labor's approach or messaging around that time. Rather, I remember Trump threatening to put tariffs on his closest allies, which severely dented the Liberals' popularity because of how much they were publicly brown-nosing Trump every week. (The same thing is often cited as the reason the Canadian Conservatives also collapsed in the polls around this time. They ended up losing their election just as badly, held a week before ours).

And I'd suggest the reason the Coalition is imploding now is due to being wedged on the issue of climate change action. But this isn't the result of some masterful ploy by Albanese to split the Coalition in two, it's a self-inflicted wound from the hard right of the Liberal Party, who have always been reluctant to do anything of substance on the topic. Net Zero by 2050 wasn't a policy that Labor created under Albanese and forced the Coalition to react to, it was a target established by the Paris Agreement, which Scott Morrison took as his government's policy without prompting from Labor. And its ditching looks like an ideological spat within the Coalition ranks rather than any response to action taken by the Albanese government.

If there's a smoking gun that I'm missing which demonstrates that the Coalition's year of failure is due to Albanese actively taking action to cause it, rather than Trump and the Coalition themselves being the cause, please let me know.

 

[The Punter]

Especially when resorting to lying, racism, anti-science, fear mongering, punching down….. and trying to appeal to idiots, …. have I missed any?

I have made every attempt to answer your "when did you stop beating your..." questions in good faith. We've reach the end of any productive outcome from this specific discussion me thinks. Have a pleasant evening.

 

[nut]

I have made every attempt to answer your "when did you stop beating your..." questions in good faith. We've reach the end of any productive outcome from this specific discussion me thinks. Have a pleasant evening.

No worries, I obviously struggle to understand the thought process that goes into supporting the LNP and I respect you trying to answer. But to be honest you have never really convinced me why you support them.

 

[Sphynx]

ON is, by nature, a polarizing party. That means you either love them, or hate them. So no, they are not getting a preference flow in the range of 20-30%.

Yeah, like most far right politicial parties.

Far right politicial parties whom have all gained power on mass in plenty of Western Countries the last decade.

Australia is and will be no different.

Im expecting ON to be bigger than the LP at some point in the next 25 years, the only thing preventing that will be the LP forming a coalition to try and keep it a big brother/little brother arrangement like the Nationals.

 

[B4Bear]

Is endless pissing and moaning a policy?

As a North supporter I can true it is.

 

[Fire]

Yeah, like most far right politicial parties.

Far right politicial parties whom have all gained power on mass in plenty of Western Countries the last decade.

Australia is and will be no different.

Im expecting ON to be bigger than the LP at some point in the next 25 years, the only thing preventing that will be the LP forming a coalition to try and keep it a big brother/little brother arrangement like the Nationals.

'Plenty' of western countries that don't have compulsory and preferential voting.

Show me a western country that has a far right government that was elected by 50% of the population. These parties only thrive when an engaged minority can decide a countries fate.

 

[RedOrWhite]

Can you both please explain how exactly Albanese and his government's approach have caused the Coalition implosion? The causation isn't yet clear to me.

Remember that before this year's election, the Coalition were consistently leading the 2PP in opinion polls until early March. At that point, Labor took the lead and maintained it through to election day. I don't recall any big change in Labor's approach or messaging around that time. Rather, I remember Trump threatening to put tariffs on his closest allies, which severely dented the Liberals' popularity because of how much they were publicly brown-nosing Trump every week. (The same thing is often cited as the reason the Canadian Conservatives also collapsed in the polls around this time. They ended up losing their election just as badly, held a week before ours).

And I'd suggest the reason the Coalition is imploding now is due to being wedged on the issue of climate change action. But this isn't the result of some masterful ploy by Albanese to split the Coalition in two, it's a self-inflicted wound from the hard right of the Liberal Party, who have always been reluctant to do anything of substance on the topic. Net Zero by 2050 wasn't a policy that Labor created under Albanese and forced the Coalition to react to, it was a target established by the Paris Agreement, which Scott Morrison took as his government's policy without prompting from Labor. And its ditching looks like an ideological spat within the Coalition ranks rather than any response to action taken by the Albanese government.

If there's a smoking gun that I'm missing which demonstrates that the Coalition's year of failure is due to Albanese actively taking action to cause it, rather than Trump and the Coalition themselves being the cause, please let me know.

Largely agree Johnny, especially the part about the LNP flunking it on energy policy by going so hard on nuclear (ironic that the Liberals would nationalise that part of the power grid btw ) and now abandoning net zero. So I put the abyss they're in down to self-inflicted errors of judgement more than Albo and Labor being any sort of master strategist.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

So how much more incompetence will it take to cancel your membership?

Punters St Kilda supporter habits are showing with their continued support for the Liberal Party.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Victorian Liberal Party is apparently going for a leadership spill. Again.

 

[Festerz]

In a move that will surprise no one - in a desperate bid to save her job Susssan Ley is trying to out-Hanson, Hanson. With a little help from the fossil Howard.

MMMSSSBop

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Yeah, like most far right politicial parties.

Far right politicial parties whom have all gained power on mass in plenty of Western Countries the last decade.

But they haven't really gained power en masse, because in almost all cases they've had to govern in a coalition with more moderate parties, with one of the conditions being the party can't supply the Prime Minister or President. The exceptions are Italy, where the centre-left parties weren't all united and split votes, and countries where the far-right take over the main centre-right party, like the United States.

And even in some countries where the far-right have governed in coalition, they have been thrown out within a few years due to poor governance, such as in Austria or the Netherlands.

 

[RedOrWhite]

Victorian Liberal Party is apparently going for a leadership spill. Again.

Time to get the popcorn out

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Yeah, like most far right politicial parties.

Far right politicial parties whom have all gained power on mass in plenty of Western Countries the last decade.

Australia is and will be no different.

Im expecting ON to be bigger than the LP at some point in the next 25 years, the only thing preventing that will be the LP forming a coalition to try and keep it a big brother/little brother arrangement like the Nationals.

Australia is and will be no different, but there will be a clear ceiling limit on it, because of compulsory preferential voting and an independent, apparently incorruptible AEC which constantly redraws electoral boundaries based purely on population shifts, not political pressure to gerrymander.

FMD, it's not bulletproof, and I'm sure Advance are scheming round the clock for how they can game it, but oh boy we landed on our feet with our electoral system.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Victorian Liberal Party is apparently going for a leadership spill. Again.

It's a revolving door.

"This one can't connect with the electorate (because they're trying to sell our policies) replace them with this one that the public seem to like"

Next minute...

"This one can't connect with the electorate (because they're trying to sell our policies) replace them with this one that the public seem to like"

 

[Cleavy]

It's a revolving door.

"This one can't connect with the electorate (because they're trying to sell our policies) replace them with this one that the public seem to like"

Next minute...

"This one can't connect with the electorate (because they're trying to sell our policies) replace them with this one that the public seem to like"

 

[Dont_be_a_Plonka]

Can you both please explain how exactly Albanese and his government's approach have caused the Coalition implosion? The causation isn't yet clear to me.

Remember that before this year's election, the Coalition were consistently leading the 2PP in opinion polls until early March. At that point, Labor took the lead and maintained it through to election day. I don't recall any big change in Labor's approach or messaging around that time. Rather, I remember Trump threatening to put tariffs on his closest allies, which severely dented the Liberals' popularity because of how much they were publicly brown-nosing Trump every week. (The same thing is often cited as the reason the Canadian Conservatives also collapsed in the polls around this time. They ended up losing their election just as badly, held a week before ours).

And I'd suggest the reason the Coalition is imploding now is due to being wedged on the issue of climate change action. But this isn't the result of some masterful ploy by Albanese to split the Coalition in two, it's a self-inflicted wound from the hard right of the Liberal Party, who have always been reluctant to do anything of substance on the topic. Net Zero by 2050 wasn't a policy that Labor created under Albanese and forced the Coalition to react to, it was a target established by the Paris Agreement, which Scott Morrison took as his government's policy without prompting from Labor. And its ditching looks like an ideological spat within the Coalition ranks rather than any response to action taken by the Albanese government.

If there's a smoking gun that I'm missing which demonstrates that the Coalition's year of failure is due to Albanese actively taking action to cause it, rather than Trump and the Coalition themselves being the cause, please let me know.

There are always wheels within wheels when it comes to politics.

Say what you like about his policies or his achievements so far but do not doubt Albanese is a political animal.
His dominance on the floor of parliament is second only to Keating in living memory.
His backroom success is evident in the split of the LNP (Rise and consolidation of the Teals was a coordinated plot ) and a united ALP.
Trumps re election was a boon for sure but that's mainly because of how Albo positioned himself and painted Dutton prior.

Even the Voice was a political success in as much as it gave the frwnjs a distraction and a focus that pulled resources time and planning away from the real ball game.

Obviously there is an entire party with strategists etc behind him, the whole thing isn't just Albo with a notepad but if you think the ALP isn't primarily responsible for the existential crisis that's gripping the LNP then you're just plain wrong.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yes individually we can all do our bit, asking governments or other countries to do it for us is not the answer.
By an EV charge during the day.. walk to work? Use public transport. Ride a bike.

The major problem is relying on governments.

Whilst many would agree, I don't need to tell you that these ideals would take a collective buy in from the populace.

For example EVs certainly have a stigma about them and are not practical in all situations. Need to convince everyone etc.

Now government could force the populace but then that'd be authoritarian not to mention political suicide.

Seems that the strive for net zero is also on the nose for some of the populace. 'Not doing it unless it's comfortable ' sorta thing.

Really, the libs should've taken their ' balance in between' position from the outset. Bit late now.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

His backroom success is evident in the split of the LNP (Rise and consolidation of the Teals was a coordinated plot ) and a united ALP.

So you're suggesting Labor were involved in the rise of the Teals? Could you please explain how exactly?

Trumps re election was a boon for sure but that's mainly because of how Albo positioned himself and painted Dutton prior.

How so? I'd argue Dutton himself tried very hard to link his campaign to Trump, believing it was a vote winner amid a global trend of shifting to the right.

Even the Voice was a political success in as much as it gave the frwnjs a distraction and a focus that pulled resources time and planning away from the real ball game.

Perhaps it had that unintended positive consequence for Labor in the end, but it's a stretch to suggest this was some cunning master plan from Labor or Albanese, to lose a referendum to win an election.

Obviously there is an entire party with strategists etc behind him, the whole thing isn't just Albo with a notepad but if you think the ALP isn't primarily responsible for the existential crisis that's gripping the LNP then you're just plain wrong.

I'm merely asking how Labor are primarily responsible.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

My biggest concern is we’ll see a greatly increased One Nation presence in parliament. Obviously not an actual opposition, but a cohort of nasties motivated solely by spite, who actually consider themselves competent human beings.

This seems like an equally valid descriptor for the right wing of the Liberal Party. One Nation just make the lack of education and critical thinking much more obvious, because they don't have the cover of the Liberal Party's money and history to couch their sentiments in.

And as much as I dislike that part of the political spectrum, that's democracy. Even the people we strongly disagree with on most things get a vote, and they can vote for as nasty a person as they wish. If it's any consolation, the groups that are most highly correlated with voting for these people are all in decline in some form or another: the boomers are beginning to die off and are being replaced with generations that grow conservative more slowly, the percentage of urban population has been rising for the past 24 years, the rate of religious belief is falling, and more and more people are enrolling in tertiary education.

 

[Dont_be_a_Plonka]

So you're suggesting Labor were involved in the rise of the Teals? Could you please explain how exactly?


How so? I'd argue Dutton himself tried very hard to link his campaign to Trump, believing it was a vote winner amid a global trend of shifting to the right.


Perhaps it had that unintended positive consequence for Labor in the end, but it's a stretch to suggest this was some cunning master plan from Labor or Albanese, to lose a referendum to win an election.


I'm merely asking how Labor are primarily responsible.

The Teals are the product of a number of things but not only did Labor deliberately and strategically 'run dead' in their gettable seats but was tactically involved in their inception and campaigning.

The Labor strategy on Trump/Dutton was Albo allowing himself to play the milksop to Duttons strongman.
This ended up being a trap Dutton couldn't resist nor escape from as in the light of the post US election chaos Albanese instead of looking weak now looked stable, instead of looking cowardly now looked sensibly cautious.

The voice was THE focus of every reactionary media personality and for more than half of Labors first term.
It was a loss for the 'bleeding hearts' for want of a better term and arguably cost Albo some political skin but mainly with people who were never voting for him anyway.
It also gave the Coalition a false sense of confidence and bravado with what they considered a 'huge win' and vote of confidence in them but most of the electorate considered a non issue and a distraction.
I do however think it was originally intended as a wedge for the Coalition to consolidate Teal support.

Most of this is quite obvious to even a casual political observer.
I get the impression you think parties release their strategic plans on their website?

Or possibly I'm wrong and Albanese is just the luckiest son of a bitch on earth who has never indulged in any political skulduggery and simply walked out of a You Am I concert and into the lodge?

 

[aCunningPlan]

I can tell you right now Labor don't have the resources the fund any other political party or set up someone else's campaign. Being a party of government they are stretched as thinly as they can possibly be.

You are right though that they made a choice to massively help the Teals by running dead in their seats...but to be fair in many of these seats they were never a realistic chance of winning anyway. Labor never put resources into seats where they need more than a five percent swing and always effectively run dead in those races.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The Teals are the product of a number of things but not only did Labor deliberately and strategically 'run dead' in their gettable seats but was tactically involved in their inception and campaigning.

Tactically involved how? I've certainly heard the attack line from the Liberals that Teal candidates were a Labor Party plot (or sometimes a Greens plot) but I've never seen actual evidence that Labor were involved in their creation or campaigning. Running dead by itself isn't a lot if we're talking about seats that Labor had little chance to win anyway, so I'm wondering what the substance of this is.

The Labor strategy on Trump/Dutton was Albo allowing himself to play the milksop to Duttons strongman.
This ended up being a trap Dutton couldn't resist nor escape from as in the light of the post US election chaos Albanese instead of looking weak now looked stable, instead of looking cowardly now looked sensibly cautious.

That sounds like it was banking on a lot, firstly Trump to win the election, secondly for him to turn on all of America's traditional allies including Australia, thirdly for him to do this before the Australian election.

I'm not sure I'd call it just post-US election chaos, as there was a three-month gap between the US election and the Liberals losing their 2PP polling lead. And in that time Dutton made a lot of unforced errors like trying to eliminate working from home.

Most of this is quite obvious to even a casual political observer.
I get the impression you think parties release their strategic plans on their website?

Or possibly I'm wrong and Albanese is just the luckiest son of a bitch on earth who has never indulged in any political skulduggery and simply walked out of a You Am I concert and into the lodge?

Mate, I'm just asking in good faith for an explanation so I can understand how Albanese caused the Coalition downward spiral. Why the hostility?