Throw in lower power prices and cutting immigration and it will. In a landslide.
Scott Morrison - How Long? (Part 1 - Continued in Part 2)
- Thread starter Fade to Gray
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
TheMase
Brownlow Medallist
No chance. You live in a world of delusion.
sherb
Hall of Famer
We are still waiting for the $550 power price reduction that Abbott promised us in 2013.
sherb
Hall of Famer
Therefore reducing the quality or availability of health care to people?
Even for a troll that's a nasty approach.
The question must be asked. Why isn’t it happening now? (Actually net immigration is down)
The landslide bit is true though
Problem is power prices will rise without a coherent power policy and we worked out the big stick was just a toothpick
GreyWind
Norm Smith Medallist
Not even a good troll at that.
sherb
Hall of Famer
Depends on you define a good troll I think, he certainly gets plenty of people to bite.
GreyWind
Norm Smith Medallist
Plenty of bites by saying stupid s**t. Working in health care it's hilarious reading what he writes.Depends on you define a good troll I think, he certainly gets plenty of people to bite.
- Dec 18, 2007
- 10,979
- 6,797
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Non that play Essendon
The Liberals could campaign on those issues but for a government seeking a third term they would be better to campaign on their record. Having a headline policy of cutting immigration runs the risk of further upsetting Wentworth/Hawthorn type Liberals and while it is good to want lower power prices but for a five year old government it will need to show what it has achieved up to date or runs the risk of being seen as all talk and little action.
- Jul 5, 2012
- 24,745
- 40,163
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Kidding, right?
The question is, what have they achieved? They haven't been particularly productive, they can't really run on trust ala Howard in 2004 because Abbott in particular broke too many promises and Turnbull himself was a big letdown, they can't really take credit for legalising gay marriage because the manner in which it was achieved (a costly plebiscite) wasn't particularly appealing for many and they can't claim to be any more stable than the ALP will be going forward.
Paul Keating's experience would seem to indicate that a scare campaign in which the ALP's proposed changes to immigration policy are portrayed as dangerously radical and unprecedented, presenting them as allowing in more immigrants than before regardless of whether or not that's really true, (not unlike the way the ALP portrayed Hewson's proposed GST) could work - if it's done wrongly it will alienate people, but many Australians do think that the immigration rate as it stands is too high and frankly I don't see too many other options for the LNP as it stands.
How liberal is it to tell people (immigrants) where they should live and work?
The rate is already lower than recently, it has gone up and down under all governments
If the ‘problem’ is the rate is too high, which government exactly has this been under?
They have no moral right to the argument, and the big cheese (potato) of the argument is visibly corrupt
The rate is already lower than recently, it has gone up and down under all governments
If the ‘problem’ is the rate is too high, which government exactly has this been under?
They have no moral right to the argument, and the big cheese (potato) of the argument is visibly corrupt
Moody Blue
Premiership Player
The Peoples Republic of the ABC would never permit such a debate or allow such information to be disseminated and logically debated.
Water vapor (clouds) is one of the most toxic greenhouse gases on the planet. Look at Venus. Yet Co2 which is a trace gas, is being blamed.
The whole system is dependent on the Sun. It is that, plus the interaction with the oceans on a millennial scale, that controls our planet's climate. For us to pretend we can contol this system by tweaking one trace gas like a thermostat is arrogance of the highest magnitude.
Moody Blue
Premiership Player
I dont think any scientist believes that one gas is the culprit
But CO2 is definitely one of the main ones, that has been released in a massive amount over the last 50 odd years,after millions of years of safely being trapped in fossil fuels and forests
Getting hung on climate change in a thread about a PM who would prefer it never mentioned. OK
- Jul 5, 2012
- 24,745
- 40,163
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Kidding, right?
OK 97% of the world's climate scientists are wrong, because anonymous Joe Schmoe of the internet believes he's thought of something that they haven't.
Never mind the fact that anyone who could prove climate change is wrong, or is a con-job, would be instantly rich beyond belief, and famous for all time.
Bit no, according to you, all these scientists are much more concerned about maintaining their modest research funding.
What do you think people are learning when they do a science degree at university these days?
Elroo
Premiership Player
- Jul 2, 2014
- 3,993
- 6,808
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
My go to people on the science of climate change would definitely be a group of people who think Noahs Arc is a real life story, and random dudes turning up with gifts and claims of immaculate conception are true!
Man-made climate change deniers invariably point to the few scientists who actually disagree with the concept.
Problem is those scientists are often either not specialists or have conflicts of interest RE ties to the mining industry (such as Ian Plimer).
I made the point to one such person that probably roughly the same percentage of medical professionals oppose vaccinations on the grounds that they cause autistic spectrum or other disorders.
He dismissed the latter as being a conspiracy theory (which it is) but failed to explain how the former was much different. After all, they are both fringe attitudes with dubious scientific grounding.
Do the Liberals even have an immigration policy? I listened the last time one of them talked about immigration and it seemed to be a whole lot of empty words and plans to think about it? They need to actually come up with a policy and more importantly how they will achieve it not just empty shallow slogans with no plan or follow through. If they truly are listening to concerns about the rate of immigration growth (which they have done nothing about for years) then announce a proper cut and contrast it to the ALPs stated policies eg. "The LNP will cut our immigration intake to no more than 100,000 people with priority being given to skilled migrants. As part of this we will be cutting our refugee intake to 5000 until the budget deficit has been paid off. "
At least then they will have a message people can consider properly, right now they have the ALP policy and a bunch of confusing words from the other side.
Making people live in a particular area as part of their visa sounds like something that would last about five minutes once the lawyers got involved.
What? Inconsequential and incompetent clap trap from you and completely devoid of reason.
And a one issue campaign with no actual plan to achieve it worked so well in Victoria didn't it? Cut immigration would win a few votes. Saying they will lower power prices will get some votes if they actually can come up with a believable way they would achieve it. But to win the election, they need a broad strategy covering how they will deal with climate; invest more in infrastructure; health; education; make sure they put up a lot of female candidates; and talk up their (Very very few successes) like getting back into surplus; the money they have spent on infrastructure; and stopping the boats.
More importantly, gag all the back stabbers and whingers and get the team on one message.
In other words, steal big parts of Dan Andrews campaign plan and just change a few policies.
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
With regard to last paragraph they do restrict medical immigration (doctors) to “areas of need” ie rural
- Status
Similar threads
