The Post-Election Political Fight: Anyone know what mandate the Liberals are asking for?

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Campaign spokesman Mattias Cormann just finished on the ABC saying that a vote for the Liberals is a vote for "stability", after Turnbull said on the weekend that a vote for anyone but the Liberals is a vote "for chaos".

The Liberals have sent us to an early election because they couldn't negotiate with the Senate. It has changed the rules for the Senate to make it harder for independents and via the double-dissolution trigger has put all the Senators up for re-election - directly threatening people like Jackie Lambie. However, all analysis points to the fact Lambie will be re-elected and may even get another Senator in Tasmania. Nick Xenaphon similarly will be re-elected with potentially a couple of other Senators on his team in SA. Andrew Wilkie should be re-elected. Etc. These are the people they will have to negotiate with, and these are the people they couldn't work with before, and whom they've directly threatened via rule changes and the double-dissolution election. The House of Reps also may be a minority government situation. How is all this going to lead to "stability" if the Turnbull/Abbott-divided Liberals are voted in again?

The Liberals might have more of an argument if they were asking for a mandate this election, but most of their policies haven't lasted long (like on state income tax or a GST increase) and they're releasing ads about Turnbull's childhood, rather than about policy. Their 'big' policy idea is to have a company tax cut, over the space of 10 years. In that time there will be three elections, so what's the mandate for the next term? The only thing they could claim to have a mandate on is the ABCC and we've heard nothing about it. If they don't win a majority in the House of Reps, do they even have a mandate for that?

So what is their policy plan? Anyone know what the Liberals' mandate is?

It seems like they just want to be elected to maintain the status quo. That's a bit hard to take after they spent 6 years before Abbott was elected saying that everything was doom and gloom, and the 2.5 years after he was elected not doing much about it. Turnbull has also done little since taking over last year. Having an election just for the sake of it wastes all our time.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

It's a party being ripped in all directions.

You've got the Bernardi fruit bats who are only concerned about where gay dudes put their peni.

You've got the HR Nicholls wing who are trying to shoehorn Workchoices back in.

You've got Turnbull's investment bank mates whose interests lay in global capital movement, not petty stuff like penalty rates or the 'gay agenda'.

You've got Howards battlers who've liked the UPF/ALA/One Nation facebook page and are convinced Turnbull is part of a globalist Marxist agenda.

And then you've got the Nationals who will always have an uneasy truce with the party of mobile capital.

They've settled on Turnbull because he;s the most electable, but it's a party in name only. They are pulling in so many directions that they will never be able to advance a coherent agenda.

 

[little graham]

Barnaby Joyce was bragging about a wind farm investment in NSW. They are speaking pure s**t.

 

[Pessimistic]

Jobson Growth

Specifically their own jobs and the growth of their entitlements

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Firstly, like Howard (when he was in opposition) I don't adhere to the mandate theory. Unless you take a specific question to the people you can'ty claim a mandate on any individual item. Sometimes an issue is front and centre, so it seems likely - but people vote the way they do across a range of issues. Its unlikely any person agrees with every item on any party's agenda. We have no way of knowing why people voted one or another, though can make reasonable guesses. The claim every government makes for a mandate on every item is complete bullshit.

That said, this DD election is weird even for a DD. The used and abused trigger, the ABCC only gets brought up when a journo specifically asks about it. A DD is expected to be fought largely on the trigger, even the party who pulled the trigger aren't firing any shots. [Do I win the "Bad Metaphor of the Day" trophy?]
Clearly they will claim a mandate for the corporate tax cuts, but its hard to see what else.

 

[Pessimistic]

Wikipedia suggests the DD triggers have always had low billing.

In a way its total abuse of process by both sides

 

[Nankervis brothers]

It's a party being ripped in all directions.

You've got the Bernardi fruit bats who are only concerned about where gay dudes put their peni.

You've got the HR Nicholls wing who are trying to shoehorn Workchoices back in.

You've got Turnbull's investment bank mates whose interests lay in global capital movement, not petty stuff like penalty rates or the 'gay agenda'.

You've got Howards battlers who've liked the UPF/ALA/One Nation facebook page and are convinced Turnbull is part of a globalist Marxist agenda.

And then you've got the Nationals who will always have an uneasy truce with the party of mobile capital.

They've settled on Turnbull because he;s the most electable, but it's a party in name only. They are pulling in so many directions that they will never be able to advance a coherent agenda.

Bingo. Very true.

Contemporary LNP is very fragmented, perhaps more so than any time in its history, which makes developing a coherent policy agenda (and implementing legislation) very difficult. Their problem isn't just a 'difficult senate', that is a convenient line. The LNP's ideological differences and different priorities aren't going to be resolved anytime soon, so we can expect more inaction, mixed messages, and dithering in their next term.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Clearly they will claim a mandate for the corporate tax cuts, but its hard to see what else.

Given Labor went to the last election with a 5% small business tax cut and have since said they will agree to any economically-sensible small business tax cut proposed by the Liberals, I don't think they'd even need to claim a mandate to get this through.

It seems the Liberals are pushing all the big business tax cuts to 8 years away, and so in the next electoral term it's unclear what might be debated. Maybe the Liberals will try to get a small cut through for some businesses with turnover above $2M. Maybe.

The thing is they haven't signaled any vision for the next term, and since they have p*ssed off the Senators they are meant to negotiate with, then I don't see them having much leverage with them based on the Turnbull-focusses personality politics they are going with currently.

Of course if they don't focus on Turnbull they may have to admit to all the gaffes and inaction over the last 2.5 years so they're in a tricky position. But Turnbull himself could do something. If he knew what he wanted to do, or knew how to deal with the Liberal in-fighting.

 

[Pessimistic]

Malcolm almost got there with the state taxes, but chose the wrong taxes and areas of spend.

Things like fuel taxes should be allocated to the states from whence the taxes came and used to fund infrastructure along with 'as fair' as possible user charges for things like transport and household services

Feds retain income taxes, capped GST for all the things they do now including health and education, although States get involved in building infrastructure eg schools and hospitals (should be funded from stamp duty, land charges)

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Ratts of Tobruk, Andrew Wilkie is a MP, not a senator.

 

[telsor]

Both parties are campaigning on the same basic platform....'look at them, they're worse'.

Not sure either of them has a 'mandate' for anything substantive.

 

[Fire]

Both parties are campaigning on the same basic platform....'look at them, they're worse'.

Not sure either of them has a 'mandate' for anything substantive.

Then vote third party.

But having said that, labor have impressed me with their substance. You at least have an idea about what they might try to achieve.

The liberals are talking about chaos in an Orwellian sense; they are the party engaged in civil war; even if they win does anyone seriously expect Turnbull to.be fronting them come 2019?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Both parties are campaigning on the same basic platform....'look at them, they're worse'.

Not sure either of them has a 'mandate' for anything substantive.

Untrue. Labor has led the policy debate for 7 years. Banking, Negative Gearing, Super, NBN, NDIS, Gonski, parental leave, climate change, etc, etc. Meanwhile the Liberals have made repeated proposals that they've dropped or altered massively so they aren't recognisable to the original proposal. What policy has been consistent from the Liberals over the last 7 years? The consistent thing has been unfounded comments that they're better with the economy and unfounded claims that they have a "plan" or that their Abbott-era glossy pamphlet is a "plan"?

The Liberals for 7 years have effectively been reacting to Labor and otherwise idly dreaming about potential policies that they then back down on due to unpopularity or disunity amongst their own mob. They saw Labor's Superannuation earnings changes, and tried to create the same thing but in a slightly less impactful way so they could win votes, but still managed to annoy most of their own supporters...

Ratts of Tobruk, Andrew Wilkie is a MP, not a senator.

Wilkie, the Greens and NXT will likely be in the lower house, alongside potentially Windsor and even Oakeshott - in a minority govt they'll have to negotiate here as well and they have shot themselves in both feet before the race was even organised.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Another debate come and gone and Turnbull's mandate for the next electoral term is still barely-there. He will create "jobs and growth" by providing a tax cuts to businesses of a turnover up to $10M. Labor's policy is the same but they limit it to small business - a turnover up to $2M.

We've gone to an expensive early election for no reason at all, other than Turnbull's falling poll numbers.

Of course the last time Turnbull's numbers were falling before an election, Abbott replaced him in the 2009 spill, so you can see where his focus is at.

 

[pjcrows]

They'll win but the fallout from the Right will be delicious.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

They'll win but the fallout from the Right will be delicious.

Now just trolling?

 

[JoseMourinho]

Untrue. Labor has led the policy debate for 7 years. Banking, Negative Gearing, Super, NBN, NDIS, Gonski, parental leave, climate change, etc, etc. Meanwhile the Liberals have made repeated proposals that they've dropped or altered massively so they aren't recognisable to the original proposal. What policy has been consistent from the Liberals over the last 7 years? The consistent thing has been unfounded comments that they're better with the economy and unfounded claims that they have a "plan" or that their Abbott-era glossy pamphlet is a "plan"?

The Liberals for 7 years have effectively been reacting to Labor and otherwise idly dreaming about potential policies that they then back down on due to unpopularity or disunity amongst their own mob. They saw Labor's Superannuation earnings changes, and tried to create the same thing but in a slightly less impactful way so they could win votes, but still managed to annoy most of their own supporters...

Wilkie, the Greens and NXT will likely be in the lower house, alongside potentially Windsor and even Oakeshott - in a minority govt they'll have to negotiate here as well and they have shot themselves in both feet before the race was even organised.

The liberal super changes go further than labors proposed changes who were focused on earnings purely.

1.6 million max in pension phase?
15% tax on ttrs?
Lifetime limit on nccs to 500k?
Cc cap to 25k?
Anti-detriment payments gone?

Basically gives a strongest indication that super is for retirement and not wealth creation.

Liberals super policy is the better policy in my opinion. I prefer labors policy with a few tweaks for negative gearing.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

The liberal super changes go further than labors proposed changes who were focused on earnings purely.

1.6 million max in pension phase?
15% tax on ttrs?
Lifetime limit on nccs to 500k?
Cc cap to 25k?
Anti-detriment payments gone?

Basically gives a strongest indication that super is for retirement and not wealth creation.

Liberals super policy is the better policy in my opinion. I prefer labors policy with a few tweaks for negative gearing.

Yeah, that's why I only mentioned the "Labor's Superannuation earnings changes", because I couldn't easily work-out how each policy worked out overall. The 1.6M tax-free threshold looked to me like a very deliberate attempt to create exactly what Labor had created but do it from a different angle and make it slightly less impactful so they could say people would be better off and use the large-sounding figure to suggest it was only hitting the very rich. The fact that senior figures like Bishop and Frydenberg couldn't explain anything about their super plans beyond that earnings change confirmed for me that it was a political play and they didn't understand what other things had been put in to try and make their bottom line look better.

I can't imagine that Super is as complex as everyone is making out, so it's probably worth a look at before the election.

 

[JoseMourinho]

Yeah, that's why I only mentioned the "Labor's Superannuation earnings changes", because I couldn't easily work-out how each policy worked out overall. The 1.6M tax-free threshold looked to me like a very deliberate attempt to create exactly what Labor had created but do it from a different angle and make it slightly less impactful so they could say people would be better off and use the large-sounding figure to suggest it was only hitting the very rich. The fact that senior figures like Bishop and Frydenberg couldn't explain anything about their super plans beyond that earnings change confirmed for me that it was a political play and they didn't understand what other things had been put in to try and make their bottom line look better.

I can't imagine that Super is as complex as everyone is making out, so it's probably worth a look at before the election.

Super is pretty complex when considering other investment vehicles

 

[tandino]

Here are the Liberal Party policies they are taking to this election - https://www.liberal.org.au/our-policies
And the policies the Nationals are taking to this election - http://nationals.org.au/our-policies/

On the other side, Should Labor win, here is the list of policies they will claim a mandate for - http://www.100positivepolicies.org.au/

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Here are the Liberal Party policies they are taking to this election - https://www.liberal.org.au/our-policies

That's even worse than I thought. A really weak list, which shows how little Turnbull has changed from the Abbott policies. At least they've copied some Labor policies to fill it out, but they aren't even mentioning things like Super. Are they for real? They're quite literally running scared.

This is seemingly their publicised policy list:

• Help Families with Diabetes (standard health funding bump: $54M to deal with the greater numbers of people with diabetes, i.e status quo)
  
• Protect Vulnerable Workers (a policy that follows the 7-11 scandal and Labor's push for more action, and a brief mention of the ABCC)
  
• Jobs and Growth through Increased Trade and Investment (company tax cut, and more marketing to get international students in, even though that has been booming already, so most of this is simply continuing the status quo)
  
• Support Your Local Parks and Environment (the so-so Green Army Abbott-era policy, $5M for community groups for renewables, $1M for lifesavers' outboards, and a brief mention of the $1B clean energy innovation fund - brief because they're just re-badging a Labor policy which they've cut)
• Encourage More Clinical Trials in Australia (they say "encourage" because it's only $7M, AKA status quo)
• Tackle Mobile Phone Black Spots (status quo)
• Develop Indigenous Business Opportunities (some ramping up of previous programs)
• More Sport in Our Schools (some ramping up of previous programs - hopefully spent on more things than posters telling girls to 'makeyourmove')
• Expand Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths Through P-TECH Style Pilot Schools (continuation of Abbott-era plan, promising "potentially improved STEM-related results")
• Develop Australia's Medical Research Capabilities (repeat of the clinical trial idea, attached to Abbott-era Pharma plan)
• Support Innovative New Businesses and Jobs (uh oh - you know all Turnbull's talk of innovation? It's only a $23M bump in funding)
  
• Safer Communities Fund (uh oh - you know how Turnbull doesn't talk about what Abbott talked about? These Abbott-era policies get a $40M bump in funding. And includes a reference to protecting "schools, pre-schools and community organisations that are facing security risks associated with racial or religious intolerance" - that sounds like the extra protection Jewish schools and organisations have, but I assumed that was all paid for by the Jewish community - I think it's been highlighted due to the strong Jewish community in Turnbull's own electorate)
• Protect Australia's Threatened Species ($5M)
• Invest in Our Great Barrier Reef (followed Labor's policy, but doubled the money because Ellen talks about it on her show)
• Protect the Rights of Older Australians ($15M plan to have a plan to deal with Elder abuse)
• Better and More Accessible Digital Services (AKA NBN-lite, AKA maintaining the status quo)
• Boost Tourism, Jobs and Growth in the Dandenong Ranges (local Vic policy)
• Jobs and Growth in South Australia (subs and industry bail-out money, plus some small education/employment funding)
• Build the Flinders Link Rail Project (local Sth Australia policy)
• Invest in Queensland's Water Infrastructure (money for State (Labor) plans to improve water sources)
  
• Upgrade the Cairns Marine Precinct (local FNQ policy)
• Build the Townsville Eastern Access Rail Corridor (local FNQ policy)
• Revitalise Jobs and Growth in Townsville (a stadium)

If they don't win a majority, I don't think there's anything here they can really say they fought hard for. No mention of the debt or the budget they didn't fight for after dropping it... It's almost like this list is about 'small target' politics and doesn't make much of a mandate at all...

 

[Bomberboyokay]

mandate is a thing the party in Government and career Canberra journalists who want predictability believe in but nobody else does.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

mandate is a thing the party in Government and career Canberra journalists who want predictability believe in but nobody else does.

Let's not forget that it is what gets referred to post-election when trying to get things through the Senate. It was the fact that Abbott had no mandate for his changes that caused the stoppages in the Senate and that caused this early and expensive double-dissolution election.

A mandate is what you get to say the people voted on.

If you don't actually argue your issue at any point (like on the ABCC), the Senators can turn around and say 'the election wasn't fought on that' and therefore they add their demands before saying they will allow a bill through. The only thing the Liberals have argued repeatedly is "jobs and growth" which is as meaningful as a motherhood statement. Everyone wants "jobs and growth". Their way of doing it is to give a company tax cut. Labor wants to do the same for small business. So the bulk of their mandate appears to be that companies with a turnover of $2M-$10M will also get that cut. What else?

 

[tandino]

Let's not forget that it is what gets referred to post-election when trying to get things through the Senate. It was the fact that Abbott had no mandate for his changes that caused the stoppages in the Senate and that caused this early and expensive double-dissolution election.

A mandate is what you get to say the people voted on.

If you don't actually argue your issue at any point (like on the ABCC), the Senators can turn around and say 'the election wasn't fought on that' and therefore they add their demands before saying they will allow a bill through. The only thing the Liberals have argued repeatedly is "jobs and growth" which is as meaningful as a motherhood statement. Everyone wants "jobs and growth". Their way of doing it is to give a company tax cut. Labor wants to do the same for small business. So the bulk of their mandate appears to be that companies with a turnover of $2M-$10M will also get that cut. What else?

It's disingenuous to suggest the Coalition won't have a mandate to reinstate the ABCC. Their stance on that would be pretty clear I would have thought.

 

[Pessimistic]

It's disingenuous to suggest the Coalition won't have a mandate to reinstate the ABCC. Their stance on that would be pretty clear I would have thought.

You dont think theyll keep the issue alive for another election? Pretty bad waste of taxpayers money if they wantq a royal comission into targetting labor every term of cogernment