Cuba, China, ..... Caustralia next?

[Hondo]

If Australia was anywhere near Cuba we would be lining up for bread!

If all States and Federal end up being labor after this election, then expect to see some labour states start to fall in the next 2-4 years.

As for the GST, the resources and consumer spending booms are ensuring more than sufficient taxation reserves already without needing to raise the GST rate. In fact, on top of the GST receipts being much higher than the Govt ever expected, the State Govts are still collecting their own taxes (such as stamp duties and payroll tax) that they were meant to abolish once GST came in.

[Sojourner]

For the last three elections, the Liberal party has won by more each time to the point where they are 16 seats in front. For Labor to win this time they have to make those 16 seats up and the Liberal party have to win no seats.

It isnt out of the question, it would make history if it did so though.

For Labor to win, they need Family First preferences, that is how the Liberal Party won the seat of Kingston last time by their flow of preferences.

The Greens will always preference the Labor party over the Greens no matter what they say, they will not ever preference the Liberal party over Labor in a Federal Election. The Democrats will likely be made extinct at this election, leaving Family First as the party that will pick up bigger percentage of votes being made up primaraly of the Christian vote and the Protest vote. If Labor can deal for those preferences they could well win it.

They wont do that however, as much as the Labor party might seem to have a conservative slant, there are enough people still involved in the ALP who dislike them enough not to do that.

I still think that Liberal will win, my reason is that for Labor to win, a larger portion of people that checked Liberal last time have to check Labor this time. What throws a spanner in the works of that is the minor parties who when people move away from the Liberal Party stand to pick up votes. Years ago the Democrats would likely have been sitting pretty this time around, I feel that this time the Greens and Family First will likely be the biggest winners made up of votes from people who dont like either of the first two choices.

Family First are the only real group that stand to White ant the Liberal Party as One Nation are a spent force in politics. The ALP have to contend with stronger white anting from the Greens, Democrats and the Socialist Alliance.

Where Rudd may struggle is with people thinking what difference is he really anyway, and should he earn his stripes by losing one like Howard did? Still Rudd is a breath of fresh air for the Labor Party and who knows, the old slogan of "It's Time" could well come around again!

[Wedgie]

Wedgie I'm not sure the money spent on the expressway will benefit the people of the South. In my experience using the expressway- and I use it reasonably often it is currently configured to benefit the people of the South. If anyone residing north of Darlington wants to use it- you can guarantee it is going the wrong way.

Crap, Im always heading into town as are all of my mates in the South on a Saturday or Sunday morning and coming home in th e arvo, its of no benefit to me at the moment.
Same for mates who come to my place for a visit, its heading the wrong way.

It currently caters for the non existent tourist trade on the weekends while shafting the residents of the south.

[noone]

For the last three elections, the Liberal party has won by more each time to the point where they are 16 seats in front. For Labor to win this time they have to make those 16 seats up and the Liberal party have to win no seats.

It isnt out of the question, it would make history if it did so though.

For Labor to win, they need Family First preferences, that is how the Liberal Party won the seat of Kingston last time by their flow of preferences.

The Greens will always preference the Labor party over the Greens no matter what they say, they will not ever preference the Liberal party over Labor in a Federal Election. The Democrats will likely be made extinct at this election, leaving Family First as the party that will pick up bigger percentage of votes being made up primaraly of the Christian vote and the Protest vote. If Labor can deal for those preferences they could well win it.

They wont do that however, as much as the Labor party might seem to have a conservative slant, there are enough people still involved in the ALP who dislike them enough not to do that.

I still think that Liberal will win, my reason is that for Labor to win, a larger portion of people that checked Liberal last time have to check Labor this time. What throws a spanner in the works of that is the minor parties who when people move away from the Liberal Party stand to pick up votes. Years ago the Democrats would likely have been sitting pretty this time around, I feel that this time the Greens and Family First will likely be the biggest winners made up of votes from people who dont like either of the first two choices.

Family First are the only real group that stand to White ant the Liberal Party as One Nation are a spent force in politics. The ALP have to contend with stronger white anting from the Greens, Democrats and the Socialist Alliance.

Where Rudd may struggle is with people thinking what difference is he really anyway, and should he earn his stripes by losing one like Howard did? Still Rudd is a breath of fresh air for the Labor Party and who knows, the old slogan of "It's Time" could well come around again!

what crap... your silliest point being socialist alliance, well they only run in the senate and all preferences will flow straight back to the alp. (I love how you say ON are finished by still include Socialist alliance, who will poll about 10% of what one nation get)

Secondly winning 16 seats is not breaking any records or history, it has been done numerous times.

Now to preferences, your right in that the greens will preference labor, however that dosn't matter, greens dont follow HTV cards nearly as much as other how to vote cards, and thus the number 2 on the greens htv wont move more than a couple of percent of the green vote.

Family first preferences break roughly 60-40 to the libs (from memory i could be wrong), and while they do follow htv cards more than the greens, seats where FF preferenced labor I think was closer to 50-50 split (once again from memory). It is worth noting that they usually did this because the liberal candidate was not family friendly enough, (although i think some where through a preference deal), but in cases where the lib candidate was not family enough that would naturally reduce the preference vote anyway.

So even the FF HTV card is only most only moving 10% of 2-3% of the national vote. Sure kingston was won by a tiny margin . But its like playing footy and kicking the final goal to win the game, your goal had the same impact as the 13 goals before it. It is far to selective to say kingston was won due to FF preferences, one thing of dozens.

Oh and preference deals are done on maths primarily, that was seen in victoria last federal election (albiet the maths went bad due to labor's bad vote).

sorry if i missed contradicting any of your points...

[Sojourner]

what crap... your silliest point being socialist alliance, well they only run in the senate and all preferences will flow straight back to the alp. (I love how you say ON are finished by still include Socialist alliance, who will poll about 10% of what one nation get)

Who votes for the Socialist Alliance, people that previousy voted Labor? Considering how far behind Labor are in the Senate, they face the very real possibility of needing a record number of independants and smaller groups to support them if they do win in the lower house to be able to pass legislation. Labor need first preference votes, not preference votes to break this situation.

"Secondly winning 16 seats is not breaking any records or history, it has been done numerous times.

Care to list exactly how many times this has happened since the advent of the Labor and Liberal parties in Australia?

Family first preferences break roughly 60-40 to the libs (from memory i could be wrong), and while they do follow htv cards more than the greens, seats where FF preferenced labor I think was closer to 50-50 split (once again from memory). It is worth noting that they usually did this because the liberal candidate was not family friendly enough, (although i think some where through a preference deal), but in cases where the lib candidate was not family enough that would naturally reduce the preference vote anyway.

Family First do not go 60/40 in the first instance, it varies state by state as to which gives them the best chance of winning. In S.A they went with the National Party which flowed then on to the Libs,

So even the FF HTV card is only most only moving 10% of 2-3% of the national vote. Sure kingston was won by a tiny margin . But its like playing footy and kicking the final goal to win the game, your goal had the same impact as the 13 goals before it. It is far to selective to say kingston was won due to FF preferences, one thing of dozens.

There is no way that Labor should have lost Kingston, that did not come up in any of the pre election polling radars at all. it came down to a few hundred votes with Family First having preferenced the Liberal Candidate on their HTV card. Family First scored the highest number of votes in the Elizabeth area followed by the Southern area. Clearly in this case it delivered Kingston to the Libs.

[noone]

what crap... your silliest point being socialist alliance, well they only run in the senate and all preferences will flow straight back to the alp. (I love how you say ON are finished by still include Socialist alliance, who will poll about 10% of what one nation get)

Who votes for the Socialist Alliance, people that previousy voted Labor? Considering how far behind Labor are in the Senate, they face the very real possibility of needing a record number of independants and smaller groups to support them if they do win in the lower house to be able to pass legislation. Labor need first preference votes, not preference votes to break this situation.

I dont think you know how the senate vote works, if the socialist aliance party get 123 above the line votes in the senate, they will all flow to the ALP. If the SA didn't run and all SA voters voted labor would get and extra 123 votes. The end result is exactly the same. Voting for SA is voting for the ALP with an inbuilt protest vote, but it does not change the result. Just like voting for the shooters party (or any other example) can be seen as a way to protest against the coalition, as it does not change the final result.

To get 3 senators labor need a certain quota, 1/7th+1 of the vote. The SA will not win a seat therefore the only thing that matters is who they preference. They will be eliminated fairly early on and the votes will bounce around a bit, but the ALP will be above the Libs on the SA HTV so it really dosn't matter.

"Secondly winning 16 seats is not breaking any records or history, it has been done numerous times.

Care to list exactly how many times this has happened since the advent of the Labor and Liberal parties in Australia?

Dont have it on me, but ill look it up tommorow.

Family first preferences break roughly 60-40 to the libs (from memory i could be wrong), and while they do follow htv cards more than the greens, seats where FF preferenced labor I think was closer to 50-50 split (once again from memory). It is worth noting that they usually did this because the liberal candidate was not family friendly enough, (although i think some where through a preference deal), but in cases where the lib candidate was not family enough that would naturally reduce the preference vote anyway.

Family First do not go 60/40 in the first instance, it varies state by state as to which gives them the best chance of winning. In S.A they went with the National Party which flowed then on to the Libs,

Well ok 60-70 with about 65 being the average (living in sturt that was the figure i knew). for information here are a few others.

Sturt: Liberal 61%
Adelaide: 64%
Kingston: 70
Boothby: 62
Pt adelaide: 58

This is in an election where labor got thumped, so if the labor vote goes up 5% this election, the preference flows will likely change in a similar way.

Family first preferencing the national party above the liberal party does not matter at all. When reading preference how to vote cards for the upper house one should ignore preferences given to anyone that does not have a chance of winning a seat. This is even more the case when the national party will be eliminated before FF. This more or less means that when reading a senate how to vote card the only thing that you need to look for are of the following parties which party has the highest priority;
Labor
liberal
National (nsw/qld)
Green
Family first

all the other information is pretty much useless. Sure it occasionally comes into play when a party manages to preference harvest (FF victoria 2004) but that is awfully rare and not really the issue here.

So even the FF HTV card is only most only moving 10% of 2-3% of the national vote. Sure kingston was won by a tiny margin . But its like playing footy and kicking the final goal to win the game, your goal had the same impact as the 13 goals before it. It is far to selective to say kingston was won due to FF preferences, one thing of dozens.

There is no way that Labor should have lost Kingston, that did not come up in any of the pre election polling radars at all. it came down to a few hundred votes with Family First having preferenced the Liberal Candidate on their HTV card. Family First scored the highest number of votes in the Elizabeth area followed by the Southern area. Clearly in this case it delivered Kingston to the Libs.

Did you read what I wrote? I didn't say FF didn't impact the result, i said it is silly to say that one thing caused the result in an election that close.

I just had a look, the donkey vote went to FF and then to the liberal party, that could easily explain FF higher than average vote in kingston and the higher preference flow to the LP. That makes it impossible to determine the effectivness of the FF HTV card as it is hard to know the impact of the donkey vote. I could just as easily say the donkey vote won the seat for the LP.

[Psyber]

When it really comes down to it does it really matter??

One of the major parties will win, and basically they are similar. One is to some extent in the pocket of big business and the other is to some extent in the pocket of big [union] business The unions are big business in their own right now, no longer close to the people they allegedly represent, as can be seen by the way they treat their own employees at times.

What matters is to change them periodically, preferably in a way that leaves neither one in total control of the country!

[noone]

nice concession

[Wedgie]

I wouldn't mind see Labor get in just for something different for one term so they can do some things that the Libs refuse to do (like saying Sorry, etc) and I think not even the Labor party could do that much damage in one term. As long as they dont get 2 or 3 terms as the country will be in the shit again if that ever happens.

[RustyCage]

What do you all think about the future fund stuff? For me, it seems like its done so when the opposition gets elected and does something with that money, they can say "oh yeah, but we created that fund so we will take credit for it".

[Wedgie]

What do you all think about the future fund stuff? For me, it seems like its done so when the opposition gets elected and does something with that money, they can say "oh yeah, but we created that fund so we will take credit for it".

Governments would be traditionally pretty poor planners and the last thing they'd create would be future funds as they would normally want to spend money while they're in government to help stay in government.
But the issue with paying out super in the near future to public servants and not having enough money to do it was getting to an absolute critical stage and the current govt knew something had to be done otherwise there would be a complete disaster happen soon. They wont admit it but its why Telstra was sold.
Glad to know my money will be there as I've already spent nearly 20 years in a govt job.

[Psyber]

What do you all think about the future fund stuff? For me, it seems like its done so when the opposition gets elected and does something with that money, they can say "oh yeah, but we created that fund so we will take credit for it".

Governments would be traditionally pretty poor planners and the last thing they'd create would be future funds as they would normally want to spend money while they're in government to help stay in government.
But the issue with paying out super in the near future to public servants and not having enough money to do it was getting to an absolute critical stage and the current govt knew something had to be done otherwise there would be a complete disaster happen soon. They wont admit it but its why Telstra was sold.
Glad to know my money will be there as I've already spent nearly 20 years in a govt job.

Absolutely, the big driver for the privatisation push in SA and Victoria was more than the state bank debt in both states - the money wasn't there to fund superannuation liabilities and privatising the various state industries got a lot of developing future liabilities off the books. Governments have always thought short-term - the span between elections, so it is good that one has made a long-term plan, instead of save early for a big spend up just before the next election.

I would be opposed to spending that money for short-term gain. I still remember Don Dunstan saying when challenged, "Yes, we have spent the superannuation investment but we are the government, we'll put it back when necessary." [And when the crunch came the Bannon government didn't have it to put back.]

It ranks along with, "Yes we have exempted the SA Housing Trust from the Land & Tenancies Act, but they are a state department and will always treat their tenants better than the Law requires."

[Squawk]

As for the GST, the resources and consumer spending booms are ensuring more than sufficient taxation reserves already without needing to raise the GST rate. In fact, on top of the GST receipts being much higher than the Govt ever expected, the State Govts are still collecting their own taxes (such as stamp duties and payroll tax) that they were meant to abolish once GST came in.

That doesn't mean that all the states and territories aren't still clambering for more. The eastern states complain that the GST collected there is not 100% returned there. The minority jurisdictions complain they never get enough.

Every time the state govt is caught short on $$$ they blame the feds - health, infrastructure to name just a couple of examples.

If the GST is gonna go up, it will do so under a national banner of a single ideology - whether that be Libs or Labor. In this case, it will be Labor's "turn" first.