Predict the results of the 2019 Federal Election

[Jpw22511]

View attachment 668177

Vote one sauage on bread.

 

[Adz]

Greens would never look that high. 10% is their ceiling and I suspect this election it’ll be at around 8.5%

 

[Jascave]

Has Bill Shorten been watching a replay of the late Gough Whitlam’s 1972 campaign launch speech, because there are similarities between Whitlam’s ‘72 lecture (which set Labor on the road to winning government in the 1972 election) and what Shorten said today in their 2019 campaign launch.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[blured]

Greens would never look that high. 10% is their ceiling and I suspect this election it’ll be at around 8.5%

I always look forward to reading the numerous well thought out and logical insights from adz

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Has Bill Shorten been watching a replay of the late Gough Whitlam’s 1972 campaign launch speech, because there are similarities between Whitlam’s ‘72 lecture (which set Labor on the road to winning government in the 1972 election) and what Shorten said today in their 2019 campaign launch.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

I imagine his speech writer and media advisers have. Closely.

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

Has Bill Shorten been watching a replay of the late Gough Whitlam’s 1972 campaign launch speech, because there are similarities between Whitlam’s ‘72 lecture (which set Labor on the road to winning government in the 1972 election) and what Shorten said today in their 2019 campaign launch.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

Are you earning over 200,000 a year?

No?

Then why do you give a s**t? You're voting for the LNP and they are legit just taking a massive dump on you.

How can people be this out of touch.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Paul Keating: "The economy is there for society. The Liberals have nothing to offer. I'm surprised how threadbare their program is. If you look, there is no panorama. There's no vista, no shape... And what's their plea? Trickle down economics & a tax cut 5 years away"

 

[Lebbo73]

FFS.......


https://www.theguardian.com/austral...sit-in-parliament-questioned?CMP=share_btn_tw

Liberal candidate Mina Zaki's eligibility to sit in parliament questioned

Piss poor but I imagine Canberra would be a safe Labor seat.
And so it is with a 12.9% margin to a retiring Labor MP looking for an early pension and probably a corporate gig on top.

 

[Lebbo73]

Interesting to see former PMs Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard sitting together at Labor’s election campaign launch today. Wonder if the Coalition will return the favour by having Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull sit alongside each other at the Coalition’s campaign launch next Sunday.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

I saw the bloke who knifed Rudd and Gillard shaking their hand on stage. Oh the ironing of it all.

 

[Lebbo73]

Vote one sauage on bread.

Sausages are for the poor!

I’ve changed my prediction:
Labor 85 seats
Coalition 58 seats
Greens 1
Indies 6

 

[Lebbo73]

Has Bill Shorten been watching a replay of the late Gough Whitlam’s 1972 campaign launch speech, because there are similarities between Whitlam’s ‘72 lecture (which set Labor on the road to winning government in the 1972 election) and what Shorten said today in their 2019 campaign launch.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

Gone in three years. What an idol to follow.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Paul Keating: "Here's the prime minister walking around with a lump of coal. He's a fossil with a baseball cap. The Liberal Party are absolute policy deadbeats"

 

[Pessimistic]

I saw the bloke who knifed Rudd and Gillard shaking their hand on stage. Oh the ironing of it all.

Whats your point? suggests no ones going to be knifing Bill, which destroys a few more theories.
No one would knife Scomo either, if he pulls this one off, they owe him bigtime.

Unless of course he tries to do anything effective in the climate/power space - than hes history

 

[Rotayjay]

Paul Keating: "The economy is there for society. The Liberals have nothing to offer. I'm surprised how threadbare their program is. If you look, there is no panorama. There's no vista, no shape... And what's their plea? Trickle down economics & a tax cut 5 years away"

Paul Keating is not perfect by any stretch but he is the best orator Australian politics has ever seen. And he's right here: right wingers like Scomo have no vision except a couple of roads and taxing the most well-off even more lightly.

 

[NSWCROW]

Murdoch narrative is clear.

Focus on Shorten.
Because * knows they can't point to any coalition ACHIEVEMENTS this past 6 years !!!

 

[GoldenSky]

Paul Keating: "Here's the prime minister walking around with a lump of coal. He's a fossil with a baseball cap. The Liberal Party are absolute policy deadbeats"

Lefties jerking over Paul Keating always makes me laugh. Let me point you to this article today. Look at how it's presented, in such glowing terms for the "slammer" Paul, and the "lying" Grattan Institute.

'Lies and distortions': Paul Keating slams claim super rise would cost workers $20b

Former prime minister Paul Keating has accused a top independent think tank of "distortions and lies" and told companies to redirect profits into funding the retirements of their workers.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...e-would-cost-workers-20b-20190503-p51jxd.html

But hang on..let's look at the actual detail here:

Defending his legacy as the architect of Australia's compulsory superannuation system, Mr Keating said a new report by the Grattan Institute that found a super increase from 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent would cost workers' wages up to $20 billion was "completely fallacious".

Mr Keating's views have evolved since 2007 when he said the cost of superannuation was never borne by employers.

"It was absorbed into the overall wage cost. In other words, had employers not paid 9 percentage points of wages, as superannuation contributions, they would have paid it in cash as wages," he said.

The Henry tax review and the Parliamentary Budget Office found super increases were more likely to come out of wages than profits.

So, instead of the article being presented as "double standards Paul Keating is found out to have flip flopped on superannuation policy", he's instead a "slammer". But let alone Paul being found out as saying two things to two different audiences (maybe that's the lie and distortion) - what does the evidence say? Well Henry tax review and PBO found that Paul is now incorrect.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

 

[Chameleon75]

Lefties jerking over Paul Keating always makes me laugh. Let me point you to this article today. Look at how it's presented, in such glowing terms for the "slammer" Paul, and the "lying" Grattan Institute.

'Lies and distortions': Paul Keating slams claim super rise would cost workers $20b

Former prime minister Paul Keating has accused a top independent think tank of "distortions and lies" and told companies to redirect profits into funding the retirements of their workers.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...e-would-cost-workers-20b-20190503-p51jxd.html

But hang on..let's look at the actual detail here:

Defending his legacy as the architect of Australia's compulsory superannuation system, Mr Keating said a new report by the Grattan Institute that found a super increase from 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent would cost workers' wages up to $20 billion was "completely fallacious".

Mr Keating's views have evolved since 2007 when he said the cost of superannuation was never borne by employers.

"It was absorbed into the overall wage cost. In other words, had employers not paid 9 percentage points of wages, as superannuation contributions, they would have paid it in cash as wages," he said.

The Henry tax review and the Parliamentary Budget Office found super increases were more likely to come out of wages than profits.

So, instead of the article being presented as "double standards Paul Keating is found out to have flip flopped on superannuation policy", he's instead a "slammer". But let alone Paul being found out as saying two things to two different audiences (maybe that's the lie and distortion) - what does the evidence say? Well Henry tax review and PBO found that Paul is now incorrect.

You didn’t see the interview did you

 

[Adz]

Higgins to Green?

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

I'm not sure the Libs campaign launch being in Melbourne will endear them to Melbourne.

 

[GoldenSky]

You didn’t see the interview did you

Hehe love these situations where you catch the left out, and they say "but you didn't watch all of Q&A or XYZ did you!1!!", as if it's a gotchya moment, you've caught me cheating the system. Somehow I've lied!

Yeah, I didn't see the whole interview. That's because I read a Fairfax article and quoted it here.

 

[campbell]

I'm not sure the Libs campaign launch being in Melbourne will endear them to Melbourne.

Ya.

Why did they not have it on Saturday?
Why ruin Mother’s Day?


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Chameleon75]

Hehe love these situations where you catch the left out, and they say "but you didn't watch all of Q&A or XYZ did you!1!!", as if it's a gotchya moment, you've caught me cheating the system. Somehow I've lied!

Yeah, I didn't see the whole interview. That's because I read a Fairfax article and quoted it here.

You misrepresented the article, he did slam the report. The quotes you presented were selective, you ignored the others. And rather than hypocrisy the point he was making was they were using economic conditions from 25yrs ago to reach a conclusion for today.

 

[GoldenSky]

You misrepresented the article, he did slam the report. The quotes you presented were selective, you ignored the others. And rather than hypocrisy the point he was making was they were using economic conditions from 25yrs ago to reach a conclusion for today.

Yeah we know he "slammed" the report - the point was the report was aligned with what Keating himself has said in the past. The quotes I presented were not selective, I actually LINKED to the article so you could read it yourself, I pulled out the main point which was that Keating was contradicting his own previous statements on super.

 

[Lebbo73]

Whats your point? suggests no ones going to be knifing Bill, which destroys a few more theories.
No one would knife Scomo either, if he pulls this one off, they owe him bigtime.

Unless of course he tries to do anything effective in the climate/power space - than hes history

I will never vote for anyone that believes that a gas that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere is a driver behind climate change. Every prediction from professors and climate change supporters has been wrong. You can’t base your support around phoney science. List just one prediction that has been right? Otherwise, give it a rest ffs.