I don't think I've ever seen either of Labor or the Coalition not run a 'smash the other party' campaign. I figured they just recycled the ads every election period but updated the leader each time (or in the Coalition's case this year, kept the ads exactly the same).
So, how much of the outcome can be attributed to the Clive factor?
Don't think I heard one person at work mention the election today, and very little in the leadup either - guess that hospitals aren't noticeably political places (as long as their funding is guaranteed by both sides).
One doctor with stethoscope around his neck and one ICU nurse in the booth on Saturday morning. So at least the medical staff at QEII were at the polling station.
No one mentioned it at my work today. But I did discuss (briefly ) with one of the other people at the gym on the ECU trial who did seem happy his retirement tax was safe! Mind you he does have a $20,000 bill for specialist radiotherapy, go figure!
From Blair's previous post, and many media reports, it appears to have been the Queensland factor rather than Clive (though admittedly he is one of the more nutty banana-benders). Some media outlets are even saying that the Bjelke-Peterson factor lives on!
As for franking credits and negative gearing (not to mention tax-free retirement), they will all come back to bite us - very hard (well, maybe not Richard and me, but those 20 years and more behind us). Thanks John and Pete - and Scott!
Bob Brown's caravan thru Qld would have hurt Labour as banana benders (or anyone) dont like outsiders telling them what to do. Personally i dont appreciate the Get Up campaigns....though seeing Tony Abbott "retired" is a good thing.
Maybe people didn't like the 'in your face' and at times abusive pproach by GetUp in some areas.
Based on the relative share of "misleading" assessments on the ABC Fact Check site, I think the main lesson is not to fight with one hand tied behind your back. Lie and mislead if it will help you win an election. If the other side complains offer them a "truth in political advertising" bill in the next parliament.
I don’t really understand ‘Get up’. They appear to have policies in different areas- so why not either join the party closest to that set of ideas, or alternatively set up your own party?
A purely negative campaign to take out people you don’t like seems a bit personal: it shouldn’t be about personality just policies.
Negative campaigns are what politics is all about though isn't it? When elections come around I rarely see advertising from the major parties about how good they are; it's always about how bad the other party is.
Misleading statements, or implied outcomes in statements are common and at times reflect the fact that the news only presents short presentations and one-liners, and politicians and others assume most people never get into the detail. For example in Adelaide some commentary about climate change implies that the erosion of sand on the Adelaide beaches is due to climate change. The main cause is actually because the dunes that are the sand reserves for the beaches are all built on, and so no longer available to the beaches as the reserve during periods of erosion. No government would ever suggests all these houses are bulldozed and the dunes re-exposed. Easier to imply that a policy will change Australia's climate as if our climate and atmosphere are somehow ring-fenced from the rest of the world.
Its hard wired into our species to deal harshly with free-riders.
It's true that any Australian response to climate change is only a small part of a global picture - but I don't often see those people who note that Australia makes up only 1.5% of global emissions ever applying similar logic to Australian participation in wars. (And you're right about the Adelaide beaches as they currently stand, but Port Adelaide and surrounds are amongst the most vulnerable populated areas to sea-level rise in Australia - and Port Pirie, which escaped disaster by a few hours because the 2016 storm didn't hit at high tide, even more so).
The Adani convoy was spectacularly unhelpful. GetUp campaigned very effectively in Tasmania last time so they obviously can connect with a working-class community, which makes their failure to do so this time slightly puzzling. They have been able to energise supporters (and small donors) in a way that the major parties haven't, not that the major parties exactly help themselves in this respect - we had someone at our meeting tonight who finally succeeded in joining after 14 months of trying, thanks to all new membership applications being held up in some pointless factional fight or other.
And if people want to see less negative advertising, more parties running on policies rather than personalities, and less political brawling, then they probably should stop rewarding behaviour which is exactly the opposite.
I agree less ads attacking individuals e.g. the personal attacking ads, somewhat unpleasant ads, run by the Labor Party last week on TV against Nicolle Flint. Policies should be the focus.
And I think most of us wish to be environmentally responsible, not wasteful of resources, and contributing in various ways.
Please login to add a message.