Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » Hitting the ground in a coma

Hitting the ground in a coma

should we turn off the machine that goes ping for the ALP?

should we turn off the machine that goes ping for the ALP?

With the change of government comes a very big change of role for the Australian Labor Party they must get over their well deserved  humiliating defeat and rally themselves to be an effective opposition and try to redeem themselves enough in the eyes of the voters to earn enough ticks on the green papers to once again do the “live at the Lodge” show.

Sadly for the true believers like our mate Ray instead of getting down to it they have hit the ground in a coma rather than even making any forward motion at all. There is only one person to blame and that is Kevin Rudd because his misguided attempt to “reform” the way that the parliamentary leader is chosen will mean that it will be weeks before we know who to laugh at as the ALP tries to look anything but silly.

The fourth estate has largely been made to look as irrelevant as they increasingly are and all that they have had to run on is the lack of vulvas in the Abbott cabinet, like who cares about the contents of the inner ministry’s underpants? I for one don’t want to see anything even approaching “affirmative action” in the way that key ministries are allocated. It has to be all about merit when it comes to picking who can sit on the big chairs or sexism wins. If being a man makes up the biggest qualification for high office its bad then so too is being a woman. Abbott has a good team here and their performance will vindicate his choice and we can leave the whining about the gender of cabinet ministers to the minions of the left.

Cheers Comrades

bloody-dropping-broken-heart-graphic

Advertisements

68 Comments

  1. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, it wasn’t a “humiliating” defeat. It was not a wipeout. What are the final numbers? They’re not overwhelming and not beyond being hauled back in a term or two. Rudd saved the furniture that Gillard was about to lose, and that’s the only reason Caucus put him back in. Labor expected to lose. They deserved to lose too, and they knew it. The rot started back in 2010 when Gillard destabilised the party by knifing Rudd in the dead of night then going on to win one less seat than the Coalition but scraping in with the support of 3 independents and one Green. Throughout her 3 years she continued to destabilise the party by claiming (without a hint of irony) that Rudd was destabilising her. She even blamed Rudd for the 2010 result. Unbelievable. She continually assassinated Rudd’s character and got her senior Ministers to do likewise. So much so that when Rudd was finally reinstated to save the furniture, he was tainted by all the white anting that had gone on. Rudd’s reform may prove workable yet and I think it gives stability back to the leadership. I just hope Albanese wins because Shorten is a lost cause.

  2. Tad Vinda (B. Bus) says:

    you leftard muppets are amazing. you had the choice of two leaders, a raving psycopath (rudd) or a whining fish wife and known fraudster (gillard). and even though rudd would have lost in 2010 you are still too busy playing the blame game, when in fact it is your whole party and their idiot green-socialist policies that are on the nose.

    from what i can tell rudd is an egomaniac and a trouble maker and just about every one in the a.l.p. hates his guts. whats more he is still in the parliament and will still be playing his kiddy games and reaming your party while the libs get on with the much more serious business of running the nation. you and your labor mates can look forward to 10+ years in opposition, and it will be well deserved too.

  3. Ray Dixon says:

    You’d rank as one of the most sour pieces of work ever to ‘grace’ these pages, Tad. No wonder you hide behind anonymity.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    To see how humiliating the defeat was you have to consider the combined swing against Labor from 2010 and 2013 and the fact that the coalition now holds close to 90 seats as well.
    There will inevitably be endless debates about the efficacy of the late change to Rudd from Gillard but unless we could gob back to an earlier save and replay the last couple of missions in the Game of Thrones down-under we will never know for sure. To be honest I don’t think that the result would have been that much different, except Labor would have been spared the humiliation of Rudd’s desperate moves (like promising Gay marriage, Garden Island or the NT tax thing. but the real rot started back in 2008 when Rudd utterly pancaked about the GFC, then he made the disastrous call on Asylum seekers, then he oversold the CPRS, worse yet even though he had the triggers he lacked the testicular fortitude to go to a DD. Had he done that then he would have kept faith with his rhetoric and Labor would not be where they are now.
    Frankly you can’t put all the blame on Gillard because they were both as bad as each other and worse yet the party has lost its entire Raison ‘detre with the collapse of the industrial model of society and no one really knows just what they stand for any-more.

  5. Ray Dixon says:

    the (Labor) party has lost its entire Raison ‘detre

    I don’t think so, Iain. It’ll only take a year or two of the directionless Coalition to prove that. Seriously mate, there is no plan and no vision in this new government – wait and see.

    As for the size of the defeat, of course it looks bigger if you combine the 2010 & 2013 swings but the reality is that 90 seats out of 150 is not a big margin. If we look at the opinion polling just before Gillard was dumped, the Coalition were looking at about 120 seats, and that would spell disaster for Labor.

    No mate, it’s very much game on and I think you’ll find Labor will be very quickly reborn, now that Gillard and her crazy cohorts are no longer part of it. This stuff we’re hearing from her and the likes of Emerson is sheer tripe and a big case of the real left wing side of Labor realising they’re no longer relevant. Not that they ever were.

  6. James says:

    now that Gillard and her crazy cohorts are no longer part of it.

    Hellow, two of her cohorts are now themselves standing for the party leadership. Some people wear blinkers or suffer from Alzhiemer”s.

  7. Iain Hall says:

    As James suggests its not just “Gillard and her crazy cohorts” who are/were the problem its Rudd as well, frankly its also the philosophy that is still steeped in Marxist thinking and notions of society that are an anachronism from the early twentieth century. We live in the age of a casualised employment and micro entrepreneurialism which just does not fit in at all well with visions of millions of widget installers standing cheek to cheek on the production line that seems to underpin Labor thinking.

    If the rejection of Labor proves anything it proves that they need to learn the same lessons that the Libs have got straight A’s for, namely how to promise less but to deliver more and just as important how to manage projects so they likewise deliver quicker and more economically any projects that they want to build.

  8. Iain Hall says:

    As the Abbott government is now duly sworn I wonder if we will see Richard Ryan do a runner so that he can avoid making good on his bet with me…
    To make life easier for him in his misery I will accept a five dollar instant lottery ticket rather than a bottle which should save him about $20 in postage

  9. Iain Hall says:

    I have been wondering jut precisely how this new system will work and I found this description that suggest to me that its a rather convoluted and difficult scheme:

    Even if by some miracle Albanese and Shorten do manage to keep the fight clean there are so many other ways for the process to go awry. Votes lodged by Caucus will be counted as 50 per cent, as will the votes of the 40-odd thousand eligible party members. This means that even a high party member vote for one candidate (eg. 70 per cent or 28,000) could still be beaten by a slightly higher Caucus vote (71 per cent or 57 out of 80) for the other guy.

    To complicate matters even further, Caucus members will not be told the outcome of the party vote before they lodge their own ballot – they will vote not knowing the broader party’s preferred leader.

    Keeping the results of the two ballots confidential would deflect such questions of legitimacy but that wouldn’t be very open and transparent, would it? Even now, at the very beginning of the leadership campaign, the media is being briefed that Shorten is more likely to have the majority Caucus vote while Albanese is the popular choice with party members.

    In short, Rudd’s party reform monster has arisen post-election to wreak havoc amongst the Labor party villagers.
    Source

  10. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain,
    Albanese was not a Gillard “cohort”. He was always in Rudd’s corner but, being the level & even sort of guy he is, managed to bridge the gap and be supportive of Gillard too, while she held the job. He’s a party man first & foremost – through and through – and that’s why he’s the best choice for leader. Shorten, on the other hand, is only about Bill Shorten. He certainly helped to bring Rudd down but then again, he was instrumental in finally reinstating him (for his own benefit no doubt). I reckon he’s not in anyone’s corner but his own and, as I’ve indicated already, it’ll be a shame if he wins the leadership because I don’t think he’s a unifying figure.

    But your references to Labor being entrenched in past thinking are a more apt description of Mr Abbott and his front bench. I kid you not, they just seem to think they have to be ‘good little accountants’ and all will be right, but that’s not leadership, Iain. Book keepers do not make for good leaders, and in any case, it remains to be seen if Abbott can manage the budget any better than Labor did. Somehow I doubt it.

    As for the opinion piece you quote on how Labor’s new leader selection process might pan out, well (and again, Iain), that is simply some nobody’s opinion and is mere speculation. I think it’ll be interesting but it’s easy to pick holes before it’s tried. I think you might be surprised with how it pulls the Caucus into line with the thinking and wishes of ordinary members. For instance, do you think the ordinary members would have ever endorsed Gillard over Rudd? Not a chance.

  11. GD says:

    Albanese…He’s a party man first & foremost – through and through – and that’s why he’s the best choice for leader.

    That’s well and fine, Ray, to say that Albanese is ‘a party man’. However, while his working class background echoes the Labor of old, it doesn’t in any way shape or form represent the Labor Party of today.

    Labor today is a grab-bag of old time union values and elitist ideals that alienate the majority of voters.

    Under ‘old time union values’ you can list the return to the 70s with Labor’s introduction of the so-called ‘Fair Work Act’.

    Today most tradies are self-employed businessmen, thanks to the introduction of the ABN system. Union membership is at an all-time low.

    Under ‘elitist ideals’ you can list almost every other initiative that Labor attempted.

    Conroy’s net censorship

    Roxon’s ‘offence’ legislation

    Rudd’s open border policy

    Rudd’s gay marriage thought bubble

    Combet, Gillard et al with the useless and damaging carbon tax

    These ‘ideals’ are more akin to the Greens than your traditional Labor Party.

    And therein lies Labors’ problem.

    The majority of Australians are sensible people. They can see that Labor has failed to rid itself of the damaging militant union element in their midst, while at the same time embracing ‘feel good’ policies that resonate more with academics, students and other fringe elements of society.

    And that is why Labor is in opposition and may well be for a long time.

  12. Richard Ryan says:

    Tad Vinda, Was your mum and dad also a brother and sister?

  13. Richard Ryan says:

    Iain—-you will get your drink, will send you $20, give me your post box again—lost it like the bet. Problems on this end with my computer, cost me $150 to have it repaired, kept shutting down, dust was the problem, I was told. Also when I email to certain newspapers, I get this reply, Action Denied: Blacklisted Item Found. So I have to make up a new address to get my message across. All these problems started since the change of government——I blame Tony Abbott. Tad Vinda? you will have problems with—he smells—he has uncontrollable flatulence—pooooh it stinks,

  14. Iain Hall says:

    Hi Richard
    Sorry to hear about your computer problems, I have had that one myself several times, If you have access to compressed air its an easy job to fix, essentially you take the sides of your tower and use compressed air to blow all of the dust out! failing that you can just work with a paintbrush and the vacuum cleaner in particular the problem would have either been dust stopping the ECU from cooling or the power supply being clogged up.Next time you have the same problem,( assuming you don’t have a compressor) I suggest that you buy one. Super cheap often have them on special for less than the $`150 you paid for the repair and you will also be able to inflate the tyres of your bicycle as well 😉

    That said my address is
    Iain Hall
    PO box 132 Dayboro
    Queensland 4521

    Cheers and thanks in advance

  15. Ray Dixon says:

    These ‘ideals’ are more akin to the Greens than your traditional Labor Party

    Conroy, Roxon, Combet & Gillard (as well as Emerson, Garrett and a few other duds) are no longer there. You might be surprised how quickly political fortunes can turn around, GD. I notice though that the Coalition still has pretty much the same set of yesterday men and women (oops … woman) on their front bench that took them to a big defeat in 2007. What were you saying about “the majority of Australians”?

  16. Richard Ryan says:

    Where Abbott is concerned, it will be a tough three years, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, and if you don’t have teeth—–teeth will be supplied. “Ye who have tears to shed, prepare to shed them now” But all is not lost, I see light at the end of the tunnel, I see Albo of the ALP with a torch, leading us out of the darkness. Shalom,Richard Ryan.

  17. Ray Dixon says:

    Btw, still waiting for GD to tell us which electorate he’s in so we can work out which genius Coalition candidate he voted for. He denies it was Jayme Diaz – the boy wonder who lost the unloseable – even though he’s lived in the Greenway electorate for quite some time. Must have been a recent move from Toongabbie, GD. Come on, who did you vote for, was it the certifiably insane Ray King (who also lost) or the totally uneducated and unworldly (not to mention unintelligent) Fiona ‘Sex Appeal’ Scott? We need to know.

  18. Iain Hall says:

    Richard
    I very much doubt that any leader chosen now will be the next Labor PM that person is probably not yet eligible to vote or stand for parliament that said I don’t rate either Shorten or Albinese as PM material. The sad thing is that real talents in the a party are in fact far from keen to put their hands up for the Poisoned chalice of the opposition leader gig.
    Ray

    You have some very strange ideas about what constitutes “intelligence” the simple fact is that no matter how good a candidate’s mind may be they can and often do get spooked by media interrogation. Even so the ALP have in their time picked some really dumb candidates and worse yet had them elected, Craig “happy endings” Thomson comes to mind here. I suspect that Fiona Scott is likely to be a good Local member b because she has done the hard yards at a community level. Only time will tell if she is talented enough for higher office.

  19. Tony says:

    Sorry Ray, but it WAS a humiliating defeat, no doubt about it.
    Considering gerrymandering, labor was bloody trounced, and everyone, including you could see it coming. Add to that, the universal trouncing of the Greens, (thank God !), it was a massive statement by the electorate at large.

    The article above, brings up three issues.

    1. The Labor Leadership ?

    I have been on this planet for a long time, and never, have I seen, a party, (labor or lib), after suffering a major defeat, as is the case here, choose a leader, that in fact manages to hold their position until, and into, the following election campaign ?

    So, on that basis, who the hell would want the leadership at this point ? Albanese ? Oh please, he has the leadership skills, and all the charisma, and politial talent of a door to door salesman ffs.

    Combet ? He would be a fool to take on the leadership now, and personality wise, is not much better than Albanese, at least public persona anyway ?

    He should leave it for at least two years, until the labor party sorts itself out, finds some policies to fight for, learn again/remember how to treat their supposed supporters, not alienating them, by foolish leadership games, and lead with a policy portfolio that is not on the nose ?

    2. The libs lack of policy ?

    That will be pretty evident, to all that have any idea as to how badly labor left the treasury, upon their exit ?
    That disaster has to be attended to first, and utmost.
    That is labor’s only chance. If Abbott and co do so, quickly, and brutally, then they will alienate themselves to the electorate very quickly, and may give labor a chance, at the next election. That is the only problem I can see, and one mistake, I don’t think liberal will make. After all, they have experience in this, after they won power after keating and co ?

    <strong< 3. Not enough women in the cabinet ?

    The reason as to why there are not more women in the cabinet, is due to the fact, that in the pool of talent, Abbott does not feel, that there are enough “knowledgable and talented women” to pick from. On this basis, there is nothing wrong with going with proven talent, rather, than proving to all and sundry, that he is acting with “political correctness” in mind.
    The basis for such ministerial selection, should ALWAYS be on TALENT, rather than pandering to minority groups on the basis of sex, religion, or whatever ?
    One only has to remember the words from Ray, about the incompetence of his local member, to reinforce that principle ?

  20. Tad Vinda (B. Bus) says:

    “You’d rank as one of the most sour pieces of work ever to ‘grace’ these pages, Tad. No wonder you hide behind anonymity.”

    there you go, a typical approach of leftist scum is that when called on their b/s they resort to sarcasm, abuse and personal attacks. ray dixon should re-read his efforts on this blog since the election. all he does is bag people, including abbott, mirabella and even members of his own precious a.l.p. other commenters here like byron, james, g.d., tony, etc. talk sense but no, ray knows better. whats more he has the cheek to demand that g.d. tell him who he voted for. breaking news for socialist ratbag ray dixon…. we have a secret ballot in this country and who someone else voted for is none of your damn business. you leftards might get away with that kind of totalitarian stand over routine in beijing or pyongang but not here.

    it is a bit sad that we cant celebrate the election of a sensible competent government without one sour bigmouthed lefty ruining the party. then again that is what they have always done.

  21. Tad Vinda (B. Bus) says:

    re: “not enough women in the cabinet”

    if having more women in the cabinet means having people like julia “slater and rortin'” gillard, tanya “i married a drug dealer” plibersek, penny “my baby has no dad” wong, macklin, roxon and others, then from my perspective that can only be a good thing. let some intelligent and experienced men get the nation back on track before we start even thinking about playing gender number games.

  22. Ray Dixon says:

    You have some very strange ideas about what constitutes “intelligence”

    …. Fiona Scott is likely to be a good Local member

    Fiona Scott claimed that boat people were causing traffic jams on Sydney Freeways and that if we “stopped the boats”, it’d solve congestion and other overcrowding issues. You have some very strange ideas about what constitutes “intelligence”, Iain.

    Tad, I don’t know why I bother responding to your ridiculous rants, rhetoric and insults but let’s get this clear:

    I am not a “leftist” or a “socialist”. Far from it, actually. Just because someone supports the ALP over the Coalition does not make them a “socialist scum”, nor does it make them a radical, a communist or a totalitarian as you infer.

    FYI, approx 50% of the population supports the ALP over the Coalition, give or take a few percentage points (depending on which election you take a look at) and they come from all walks of life and all types of background. Your left/right view of the world is just too simple/stupid for words.

    As for “abuse and personal attacks”, you’ve being doing nothing else yourself, so don’t expect any favours from me or anyone else.

    And as for GD’s vote, he has already said he voted for a Liberal candidate – I merely asked him which one. Big deal, none of YOUR business.

    Sorry to “spoil your party” but if you want blogs that are only frequented by your side of politics (you know, the far, far right) I suggest you Google:

    “Radical Right Wing Extreme Nutjob Hate Blogs”

    I’m sure you can find a blog that caters to your kind of vile and insulting celebrations of extereme right wing bigotry. Go for it – please.

  23. Ray Dixon says:

    Tony, the two-party preferred vote was something like 53 – 47. That’s not “a massive statement by the electorate at large”, it’s a shift of about 3 percentage points from equilibrium. You’re overstating the import of the result, which was largely due to Labor’s infighting. I’d suggest you wait, oh, 3 to 6 months and look at the opinion polling then.

  24. Tony says:

    Your 53-47 is just a tad understated isn’t it ffs ? Where are you getting that from, the labor website ffs ?

    The AEC, has the count currently, at 90-55, with 5 independents. Not exactly your 14 seat majority is it ?
    Certainly, there may be 5 independents, but even discounting any that may vote for labor in the new house, that is a 30 seat majority where I learned to count, and that isn’t even 2 party preferred, that’s final tallies, as they stand ? http://vtr.aec.gov.au/

    But, will grant you the point about in six months time though.
    Due to the massive f/up labor made with our economy, the libs, to try and scrape back the debt/deficit, are going to have to make some pretty unpopular decisions, as I was saying above, if you had bothered to read it ?

    But even if the worse happens, anyone with half a brain knows, that tough decisions are coming. They have to, so as to undo the massive economic disasters that were/are mainstream labor policy.

    Labor’s orgy of “looking after it’s mates” as well as frivolous spending cash slashes are over thank god.

  25. Ray Dixon says:

    Your 53-47 is just a tad understated isn’t it ffs ?

    No, it’s pretty close to the actual result.

    Where are you getting that from, the labor website ffs ?

    No, it’s from the Australian Electoral Commission: http://vtr.aec.gov.au/

      National Two Party Count Party

    Australian Labor Party: 5,469,095 votes, 46.53%

    Liberal/National Coalition: 6,284,599 votes, 53.47%

  26. Tony says:

    Give me a break.
    Typical labor supporter, looking, and quoting the figures least likely to cause you (and them) total embarassment ffs.

    If it was as close as you suggested, then why tf do the libs now have a thirty seat majority ?

    You are taking the final national vote percentage, a figure btw, that never indicates the true extent of any swing that is on.
    Look at the final tally of the seat count.

    There your whole argument goes down the c*apper.

  27. James says:

    So what you are suggesting Tony is that Ray should be ‘Flushed’ oops, all his comments should face the button treatment, sort like ‘Goodbye Cruel World’… that sounds pretty reasonable to me.

  28. Ray Dixon says:

    Tony,
    It certainly is as close as I suggested and the 53.5% does indeed indicate the swing, which was about 3.5% from 2010. I’m not sure what point you’re making or what it is you can’t understand. I’m also not sure why you’re getting so heated. Anyway, the “swing” is not measured in seats, it’s measured in percentage of votes, and it was 3.5% approx swing to the Coalition on a two party preferred, which is (quite obviously) not a “massive statement by the electorate at large” as you tried to say it was. It was, however, enough for Labor to lose 17 seats and that’s why the Coalition has a 30+ seat majority. Relax, man – take a Bex.

    And James, stop playing with yourself – it’s very unbecoming.

  29. Tony says:

    I don’t know James.
    It wasn’t as if it was anywhere near a close race was it ? I know it is hard, when you back a side for so long, and all of a sudden they start to do stupid, illogical things, and eventually lose ? Be sort of similar to baracking for Collingwood perhaps ?

  30. Tony says:

    The point I am trying to prove, that regardless of what you labor die hards attempt to rescue from the ashes, you will have to come to the realisation sooner or later, that ?

    Labor got bloody creamed !

    You’re the one who needs to relax Ray.
    It was no where near close, not by a long shot.
    All the pundits were in bed by nine o’clock. When was the last election night called that early ffs ?
    You can spin it anyway you like. Put up all the pretty graphs you like, but, when it comes down to the crunch, labor are thirty seats down the gurglur !

    That is the part I, and most serious voters see, and will continue to do so for at least the next six odd years ?
    No matter how you, and the other labor propaganda machines try to spin it, that’s reality.
    Must be a tough pill to swallow ?

  31. Tad Vinda (B. Bus) says:

    ray dixon, you do not own this blog and i will read it and comment on it at iain’s pleasure, not yours. so suck on that one. if any one is out of place here it is you. most of the commenters here are level headed calm conservatives. all except one, who is a ranting labor lover.

    as for g.d., i suggest that its none of YOUR business where he lives or who he votes for. like i said, those decisions are personal and we have a secret ballot so bully boys like you cant beat other people around the head if they choose not to vote for incompetent left wing governments.

  32. Tad Vinda (B. Bus) says:

    tony, labor muppets have spent the last three years trying to convince us that one of the worst governments in our history wasn’t actually that bad. now they are trying to tell us that a 25 seat thrashing wasn’t actually that bad. it is like saying that hiroshima was a small pipe bomb. they are delusional and have little or no self awareness.

  33. Tony says:

    Unfortunately, they are pretty sore losers Tad.
    For confirmation of that you only have to go back three years, and their coalition with the devil ? (greens ?)

    Just look back at political history over the last forty years.
    Whenever have labor done anything other than stuff the economics of this country ?

  34. GD says:

    Top quotes from the Sandpit:

    Labor won 9 seats outright in this election, 44 seats needed preferences to get them over the line. All seats bar 2 have had their margins reduced almost back to 1%.

  35. Richard Ryan says:

    Tony Abbott is a joke, in the political world, who will leave pussyfoot prints on the sands of times.

  36. Richard Ryan says:

    Along with Tad Vinda, who has no redeeming features, but then it’s not his fault, that his mother and father,were also brother and sister.

  37. Richard Ryan says:

    Ray will not be happy, rumors are doing the rounds, Sophie could be our next GG if Abbott has his way—we know he likes to have strong women around him, snigger, snigger.

  38. Tony says:

    Richard ?

    But all is not lost, I see light at the end of the tunnel, I see Albo of the ALP with a torch, leading us out of the darkness

    Yep, you’re right there, straight into the abyss !

    Ian ?
    Check this out, will blow you away !

  39. Iain Hall says:

    That is real cool Tony I wish that I could drive half as well as that!

  40. Iain Hall says:

    Now that would be an appointment to contemplate Richard 😆

  41. Tony says:

    me too, certainly blew me away ! 😉

  42. Ray Dixon says:

    Tony, I’m really not sure why you’re carrying on so much about this. Let’s just agree to disagree, eh? You say it was a “massive statement by the electorate”, I say that a swing of 3.5% is not “massive”. Nor is a 30 seat majority in a house of 150 members. The only thing I agree with you on is that it will take Labor at least two terms to win back office … which ain’t so bad.

    Tad, FYI, Labor lost 17 seats, not 25. And yes, I’m “out of place” here against one-eyed Coalition wingnuts like you, James, GD and even Iain. So what? Good to see you’ve toned down your insults though – keep up the good work.

  43. Tony says:

    Again you are looking at the national figures, instead of the seat count.
    But, I guess for a laborite, that is the only way to make the whole election process bearable ?
    I don’t know why you are holding on so tight, to those national figures ? Their irrelevent !
    The final seat count mate, that’s where it’s at !

    Tony, I’m really not sure why you’re carrying on so much about this. Let’s just agree to disagree, eh?

    I am still uncertain, as to why you continue to defend, the indefensible ?
    A majority of 20% of the entire population of the new sitting house, is a big deal.

    I don’t know why you continue to defend labor, and why you don’t just accept the gravity of labor’s loss, and perhaps attempt to come to grips with the fact, that labor is nothing but utterly embarrassed.

    That embarrassment will be reinforced, when the media take pictures, of the seating arrangements of the new house, when labor has the guts to walk in there, with their lower populace, on the first day ?

    That is when the reality of the next three years is going to hit them. For a party so entrenched in egos, it will be a pretty tough pill to swallow, that the entire labor caucus, is now irrelevent.

    They may as well get the cards out for all the effectiveness they will portray ?

  44. Ray Dixon says:

    The national figures are certainly not “irrelevant”. The fact is that in this election about 5.5 million voters preferred Labor while about 6.3 million voters preferred the Coalition to be in government. And that means Labor only lost about 400,000 votes to the Coalition … out of nearly 12 million. And that is not a “massive statement by the electorate” as you claimed.

    As for the final seat count, that result is clearly disproportionate to the overall vote and is only due to the quirks of electoral boundaries. And that’s because it only takes a small percentage of votes to tip seats over. I.E. The Coalition may have 60% of the seats but they certainly don’t have 60% support from the population … obviously.

    You are using a measure that distorts the electorate’s views of both parties, whereas I am simply being realistic. The reality of this election is that it was not a “massive” defeat (as you suggest) and with a popular vote of 46.5% (and with 55 seats in the house), Labor is still a serious contender at the next election.

  45. Tony says:

    And so are you Ray, real Alice in her wonderland stuff.

    Ok, just for laughs, lets do the maths here.
    You are quoting that 3.5% is the swing, and as such, not that substantial ?

    Ok, 3.5% of a total maximum of 150 seats ? that is ? wait for it folks…. 5.25 seats, round to 6 just to make it a whole number ?

    Um, just what is the liberal majority again ?
    wasn’t it thirty 30 ! seats ?

    Sort of blows your 3.5% out your a*se doesn’t it ?
    Every change of government, when they get in, one of their first tasks, is to get the AEC to shift the boundaries. Remember the term above, i.e. gerrymandering ?

    BTW, want to take a guess as to who the last party was, that sought to change/update those boundaries ?
    Um, wasn’t that labor back in Rudd Part 1 ?

    So even with gerrymandering, labor still lost by 35 seats, 30 if you don’t include the independents.
    Regardless of the propaganda you are swallowing Ray, a margin of 89 :54 indicates a bloody sight more than a 3.5% swing.

    As for being a serious contender at the next election, you forget history.
    Even after Rudd part 1, when Gillard took over, and gained power, that enforced the usual Australian tradition, of usually giving a party two terms, to do what they promised. I see no different here. If you honestly think that labor have a serious shot at the next election, then I’m sorry but, me, and every one else on this page, you have been arguing the toss over for the last couple of weeks, will say to you, that you are the one in fact seriously deluded.

    Howard was one of the most uneducated, lacklusture leaders we have ever had in this country.
    How long was he in power for agan ?
    Wow, there is something that you, and other labor voters really have to become accustomed to, and look forward to as well.

  46. Ray Dixon says:

    Tony, I will say this once and then I’ll leave this ridiculous argument with you:

    A “swing” is measured in terms of votes, not in terms of seats won & lost.

    The seats won & lost are NOT a true indicator of the swing, they simply reflect the quirks of the different electorate demographics and/or boundaries.

    The overall “swing” in this election was 3.5%.

    In some seats it was more and in some it was less, and that is why the final tally of seats is disprortionate to the overall vote.

    To claim Labor had a gerrymander is absurd. If that were the case, they’d have won a higher proportion of seats than their vote warranted. But they didn’t. They won 55 seats out of 150 – about 37%, which is far less than the 46.5% of votes (2PP) that they received. That’s just how it goes.

    And saying that Labor is still a serious contender does not mean I think they will win the next election – I agree that govts usually get two terms. But it is just a simple reality that they are not out of the running based on the polling. And the govt won’t be taking them lihghtly because, clearly, at 46.5% popular choice, they still have sizeable backing from the electorate.

    Now please, let’s drop it. And please stop your ranting and all your bolding of points! For God’s sake man, as I said earlier, let’s just agree to disagree. You stick to seats won and I’ll stick to actual votes as a real guide to how the population votes. Okay?

  47. Tony says:

    Holy cow, now you really are reaching ! And missing !
    If I want to use bold, then so be it, unless Iain tells me otherwise. So in that regard take your paranoid condascension and p*ss off with it ok ?

    Do yourself a favour and google when labor last had the boundaries done, and stop embarrassing yourself further.
    Your lack of knowledge regarding parliament is astounding. Speaking of rants, your above proves that very well ?\

    As for the rest of your dribble, well, you can stick to your votes if you like, it won’t change anythng, and like every other labor stalwart, you had better get used to the fact that, at least for the next six years at least, the labor party is irrelevent.
    Okay ?

  48. Ray Dixon says:

    You’re just losing control now, Tony, without any provocation. I strongly suggest valium.

  49. James says:

    Last Say Ray .. strikes again. oops, I used bold, oh well WTF

  50. Tony says:

    Gee Ray, you want to be careful, that condascension streak is flaring up on your back again.
    The personal shots have started, wait for the identity challenge folks.
    I win

  51. Ray Dixon says:

    You win? Are you obsessed with “winning” or something? We just have different opinions on the election margin and what it means, that’s all.

    As for “personal shots”, I’m sorry – which ones were those? Please quote them and I’ll retract anything “personal” I’ve said about you.

    As for “identity challenge”, sorry, not interested Tony (or whoever you are). I don’t care about that. Now get over it.

    James, you’re wasting cyberspace.

  52. Tony says:

    As for “identity challenge”, sorry, not interested Tony (or whoever you are)

    oh ha ha. what sort of sentence is that ffs ?

    If this is what you are like only after a couple of weeks of liberal government Ray, what tf are you going to be like after six years.
    Hell, your a basket case now, six years ?
    jelly with a plastic spoon ?

  53. Ray Dixon says:

    Tony, if you take offence at that, you’re really searching mate. Searching for attention perhaps? I’ve scrolled right through this thread to try to see where I might have offended you but I honestly can’t understand your response to our simple disagreement over the election margin and its significance. Perhaps you could enlighten me and point me to exactly where I’ve been personal and hurt your feelings so much.

  54. Tony says:

    Just like your inciteful election coverage Ray, you really have no idea do you ?
    Boy, that’s sad.

  55. Ray Dixon says:

    So there’s nothing specific I’ve said that you can point to, Tony? Nothing that provoked your anger. It sounds like you’ve just cracked the shits because I didn’t agree with your summary that the election result was a “massive statement by the electorate”. Sorry about that but people have different opinions and if you can’t handle that don’t get into a debate.

  56. Tony says:

    I am not angry, or have I cracked the s*its Ray, actually the reverse.

    We are all here, watching you unravel before our eyes, and we find it interesting, just how some people get themselves so hooked/deluded on the political theatre that comes out of Canberra, as if their entire lives depended on it. A city, btw, just like it’s inhabitants probably, constructed purely for show ?

    Other opinions are fine. Seen many whilst here not a problem with any of them. But, all here, except you are open to discussion, without ramming those opinions through as supposed fact. You are the one who can’t handle any sort of debate. Your failure to even accept the fact that no matter who leads your “wonder dogs” for the next three years, it will be irrelevent in the grand scheme of things.

    Sorry about that but reality bites hard sometimes, and if you can’t handle that, don’t get into a debate ?

  57. Ray Dixon says:

    Tony, I’m hardly the one who has got angry here – it’s clearly been you. And I realise you find the opinions of others here who agree with you “not a problem”, but the real test is how you handle opposing opinions, like mine. I haven’t rammed them down your throat – you’re the one adding “ffs” and “deluded” etc as well as bolding your points, not me. I’ve even suggested several times that we simply agree to disagree, but no, you have to come back with more angry shots. It all suggests you’re the one who can’t handle debate. Can we just drop it now?

  58. Tony says:

    If you want to resume the subject at hand, fine, I can do that.

    As to your opposing opinion ? your very first comment of the thread, where you said ?

    not beyond being hauled back in a term or two.

    How do you see Labor, being able to get back under those circumstances ?
    Abbott would have to make the most monumental of f/ups to do that.
    Granted, not impossible, after all, we are talking about Abbott, and we all remember what he did to the Federal Health bidget all those years ago.

    Even though it is Abbott, can’t see it ?

  59. Ray Dixon says:

    It probably depends what he does on the industrial front. That’s what undid the Coalition in 2007.

  60. Tony says:

    Another serious question for you, as you are “on the ground” in Indi ?
    Has Sophy demanded a recount yet ?
    Would be interested to see if she travels that route, especially after the news came out, about boxes of votes being found that weren’t counted ?

  61. Tony says:

    Granted there certainly. They shot themselves in the foot with the whole “work contract” fiasco ?
    If they try another stunt like that, especially with the senate being what we think (and don’t know that yet either, as the AEC won’t update the bloody count there ?), they would be even less than a one term government regardless of everything else.

  62. Ray Dixon says:

    Sophie Mirabella can’t “demand” a recount – she can only request one. And she announced on Wednesday when she conceded that she won’t be seeking one. Probably worried they’ll find even more votes for McGowan that were hidden away – tricky lot those Liberals.

  63. Ray Dixon says:

    Breaking news:

    Clive Palmer has won the seat of Fairfax. I wonder how long it’ll take before he’s thrown out of the House by the Speaker for unruly behaviour? I’ll give him about 2 hours into his first sitting.

  64. James says:

    There’s a recount starting Monday. So again, don’t count chickens before they hatch.

  65. Ray Dixon says:

    Are they counting chickens or votes? I hope he loses it actually.

  66. Tony says:

    Clive Palmer has won the seat of Fairfax. I wonder how long it’ll take before he’s thrown out of the House by the Speaker for unruly behaviour? I’ll give him about 2 hours into his first sitting.

    I think that is very magnanamous of you Ray.

    I give it half way through the swearing in ceremony, before he wigs out ?
    😉 😆

  67. Tony says:

    BTW ?
    At least it will mean that question time will start being a fun watch again ?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: