The Politics Thread 2022

[Sid]

GOLD Dr. Zaius

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[Dr Zaius]

All right Begbie my old friend. Let's see if you have been paying attention. Which political party does this candidate belong to?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Well it has to be the liberal democrat candidate?

Yes indeed. Once you see it, it can't be unseen.

For bonus points, who does this candidate represent?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[Sterlk]

The senate was the worst though. It was slim pickings to find 6 parties to put a number against.

Little known fact - you don't have to go to six above the line for the Senate.

They tell you to on the ballot paper, though that direction isn't directly related to whether the vote is valid. There's a massive document on the website that explains it in detail.

I wouldn't recommend disregarding the instructions unless you know what you're doing, though. In any case, better to put a useless preference against a minor you don't really care for than confuse the oldies who've worked every election since the dawn of time with obscure rules they don't know.

[Sid]

All right Begbie my old friend. Let's see if you have been paying attention. Which political party does this candidate belong to?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Well it has to be the liberal democrat candidate?

Yes indeed. Once you see it, it can't be unseen.

For bonus points, who does this candidate represent?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

That'd have to be the One Nation candidate going by your description of them

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[Northern Raider]

This could be the fun way to kill time leading up to election day. Describing your local candidates head shots.

[Dr Zaius]

All right Begbie my old friend. Let's see if you have been paying attention. Which political party does this candidate belong to?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Well it has to be the liberal democrat candidate?

Yes indeed. Once you see it, it can't be unseen.

For bonus points, who does this candidate represent?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

That'd have to be the One Nation candidate going by your description of them

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Yes indeed!

Third and final. For the trifecta. Who do we have here?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[Northern Raider]

All right Begbie my old friend. Let's see if you have been paying attention. Which political party does this candidate belong to?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Well it has to be the liberal democrat candidate?

Yes indeed. Once you see it, it can't be unseen.

For bonus points, who does this candidate represent?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

That'd have to be the One Nation candidate going by your description of them

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Yes indeed!

Third and final. For the trifecta. Who do we have here?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

I assume that's not the guy who stuck his head in too many scrums so going for the UAP Christian cult leaders wife.

[Dr Zaius]

Well it has to be the liberal democrat candidate?

Yes indeed. Once you see it, it can't be unseen.

For bonus points, who does this candidate represent?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

That'd have to be the One Nation candidate going by your description of them

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Yes indeed!

Third and final. For the trifecta. Who do we have here?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

I assume that's not the guy who stuck his head in too many scrums so going for the UAP Christian cult leaders wife.

Three from three! Well done team.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[gangrenous]

https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-es ... b60902fc08

Quit trying to change things on the first home buyer side, jacking up prices and raiding their super.

Do something about reducing the attractiveness as an investment asset you bastards.

[gergreg]

https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-es ... b60902fc08

Quit trying to change things on the first home buyer side, jacking up prices and raiding their super.

Do something about reducing the attractiveness as an investment asset you bastards.

Hasn't this been proposed before and decided that it was a bad move to use superannuation for anything but retirement?

[T_R]

https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-es ... b60902fc08

Quit trying to change things on the first home buyer side, jacking up prices and raiding their super.

Do something about reducing the attractiveness as an investment asset you bastards.

Hasn't this been proposed before and decided that it was a bad move to use superannuation for anything but retirement?

Just about every study I've seen referenced says that the single best way to avoid poverty in retirement is to own your own home.

I don't think this is a terrible idea.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

[The Nickman]

Still calling an LNP win Nickman?

Based on ScoMo today you’re more confident than he is.

Yeah I do, but I’m nowhere near as confident as last time around.

I voted the other day and in the end I voted Libs, but like TR I actually really struggled this time, I actually came pretty close to voting Labor. Our seat is a safe LNP stronghold though, so it makes no real difference. And like Zaius I really struggled with the 6 votes for the senate!

This is one election that I don’t really care if Labor wins, I actually think Australia is very good at electing the correct government at the time. If the Libs retain power they deserve it, but if Labor gets up like everyone seems to think, then the country wants change.

I still think there might be a bit of an upset on the cards, but maybe that’s because I reside in central Queensland and most people seem pretty confident of an LNP win up here?

[gangrenous]

https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-es ... b60902fc08

Quit trying to change things on the first home buyer side, jacking up prices and raiding their super.

Do something about reducing the attractiveness as an investment asset you bastards.

Hasn't this been proposed before and decided that it was a bad move to use superannuation for anything but retirement?

Just about every study I've seen referenced says that the single best way to avoid poverty in retirement is to own your own home.

I don't think this is a terrible idea.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

That’s not really talking at all to the impact of the mechanism.

Why should that be achieved by undermining the point of superannuation in having your investment compounding? How is it not better to take the pressure out of investment side of housing to allow those people to afford a home and keep their super?

I see why the LNP love it, undermines super while keeping upward pressure on housing.

[gergreg]

https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-es ... b60902fc08

Quit trying to change things on the first home buyer side, jacking up prices and raiding their super.

Do something about reducing the attractiveness as an investment asset you bastards.

Hasn't this been proposed before and decided that it was a bad move to use superannuation for anything but retirement?

Just about every study I've seen referenced says that the single best way to avoid poverty in retirement is to own your own home.

I don't think this is a terrible idea.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

Super these days is pretty crappy, as in you only get out what you put in, so there is potential for people to severely impact any superannuation they may receive. I'm sure there are caps on how much people can draw down though? I remember reading a few years back an article that showed that most politicians have investment properties - that old Qld guy had over 30 properties, sorry name slips me now. Found it.

Edit... link didn't work, but the SMH article is titled - Houses of Parliament: politicians own an estimated $370m of property

[T_R]

https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-es ... b60902fc08

Quit trying to change things on the first home buyer side, jacking up prices and raiding their super.

Do something about reducing the attractiveness as an investment asset you bastards.

Hasn't this been proposed before and decided that it was a bad move to use superannuation for anything but retirement?

Just about every study I've seen referenced says that the single best way to avoid poverty in retirement is to own your own home.

I don't think this is a terrible idea.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

That’s not really talking at all to the impact of the mechanism.

Why should that be achieved by undermining the point of superannuation in having your investment compounding? How is it not better to take the pressure out of investment side of housing to allow those people to afford a home and keep their super?

I see why the LNP love it, undermines super while keeping upward pressure on housing.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about reality. I keep forgetting that this page is frequented by dormroom revolutionaries.

Of course, there's only two things that will take the heat out of housing - Substantially increasing supply or, probably, completely removing negative gearing. But since neither party have anything approaching a meaningful policy in regards either of those, then all I'm doing is comparing the silly little tweaks around the side of things that each of the majors are offering. In that context, this isn't such a bad idea - housing has performed at a similar rate to the super funds for many years, and the law requires capital gains to be re-deposited. Makes as much sense as anything else, which is very little.

But why get worked up on it? Shorten tried to make actual changes and lost an unlosable election. Nothing will change, no matter who wins.

[T_R]

https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-es ... b60902fc08

Quit trying to change things on the first home buyer side, jacking up prices and raiding their super.

Do something about reducing the attractiveness as an investment asset you bastards.

Hasn't this been proposed before and decided that it was a bad move to use superannuation for anything but retirement?

Just about every study I've seen referenced says that the single best way to avoid poverty in retirement is to own your own home.

I don't think this is a terrible idea.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

Super these days is pretty crappy, as in you only get out what you put in, so there is potential for people to severely impact any superannuation they may receive. I'm sure there are caps on how much people can draw down though? I remember reading a few years back an article that showed that most politicians have investment properties - that old Qld guy had over 30 properties, sorry name slips me now. Found it.

Edit... link didn't work, but the SMH article is titled - Houses of Parliament: politicians own an estimated $370m of property

Cap was $50k @ 40% of total holdings, I believe. Not really sure what your point about politicians and housing investments was about. I own a fair number of properties, too, and wouldn't be opposed to a winding back of negative gearing.

[gergreg]

https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-es ... b60902fc08

Quit trying to change things on the first home buyer side, jacking up prices and raiding their super.

Do something about reducing the attractiveness as an investment asset you bastards.

Hasn't this been proposed before and decided that it was a bad move to use superannuation for anything but retirement?

Just about every study I've seen referenced says that the single best way to avoid poverty in retirement is to own your own home.

I don't think this is a terrible idea.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

Super these days is pretty crappy, as in you only get out what you put in, so there is potential for people to severely impact any superannuation they may receive. I'm sure there are caps on how much people can draw down though? I remember reading a few years back an article that showed that most politicians have investment properties - that old Qld guy had over 30 properties, sorry name slips me now. Found it.

Edit... link didn't work, but the SMH article is titled - Houses of Parliament: politicians own an estimated $370m of property

Cap was $50k @ 40% of total holdings, I believe. Not really sure what your point about politicians and housing investments was about. I own a fair number of properties, too, and wouldn't be opposed to a winding back of negative gearing.

Politicians have too much to lose to make significant or effective change.

[gangrenous]

https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-es ... b60902fc08

Quit trying to change things on the first home buyer side, jacking up prices and raiding their super.

Do something about reducing the attractiveness as an investment asset you bastards.

Hasn't this been proposed before and decided that it was a bad move to use superannuation for anything but retirement?

Just about every study I've seen referenced says that the single best way to avoid poverty in retirement is to own your own home.

I don't think this is a terrible idea.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

That’s not really talking at all to the impact of the mechanism.

Why should that be achieved by undermining the point of superannuation in having your investment compounding? How is it not better to take the pressure out of investment side of housing to allow those people to afford a home and keep their super?

I see why the LNP love it, undermines super while keeping upward pressure on housing.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about reality. I keep forgetting that this page is frequented by dormroom revolutionaries.

Of course, there's only two things that will take the heat out of housing - Substantially increasing supply or, probably, completely removing negative gearing. But since neither party have anything approaching a meaningful policy in regards either of those, then all I'm doing is comparing the silly little tweaks around the side of things that each of the majors are offering. In that context, this isn't such a bad idea - housing has performed at a similar rate to the super funds for many years, and the law requires capital gains to be re-deposited. Makes as much sense as anything else, which is very little.

But why get worked up on it? Shorten tried to make actual changes and lost an unlosable election. Nothing will change, no matter who wins.

I’m frustrated by the situation that screws around the edges in ways that sound fair on the face of it but generally just makes things worse.

It’s clearly not an election issue. Since Labor just adopted this policy without evening knowing the details to avoid any point of difference.

[Sterlk]

Still calling an LNP win Nickman?

Based on ScoMo today you’re more confident than he is.

Yeah I do, but I’m nowhere near as confident as last time around.

I voted the other day and in the end I voted Libs, but like TR I actually really struggled this time, I actually came pretty close to voting Labor. Our seat is a safe LNP stronghold though, so it makes no real difference. And like Zaius I really struggled with the 6 votes for the senate!

This is one election that I don’t really care if Labor wins, I actually think Australia is very good at electing the correct government at the time. If the Libs retain power they deserve it, but if Labor gets up like everyone seems to think, then the country wants change.

I still think there might be a bit of an upset on the cards, but maybe that’s because I reside in central Queensland and most people seem pretty confident of an LNP win up here?

Weird they're so confident, unless you mean that the Coalition will win QLD specifically, which they almost certainly will. The fact that you struggled so much to do what you usually(?) do and vote LNP in an LNP stronghold, in the country's most conservative state, possibly says more than the rest of it.

From the confidence you're seeing I get a sense that QLD may be overestimating its own importance, potentially from QLD's repudiation costing Bill Shorten last time, and there might be a bit of a view from many a QLDer that they're kingmakers. At the end of the day though it's a numbers game, and while QLDs 30 seats aren't nothing, their likely continuing rejection of Labor probably isn't going to do it when there's 121 other seats out there and the general mood seems so volatile in a singular direction.

The Coalition currently has a majority of 1. On balance, they need to hold everything they've got, which seems an impossible task given current circumstances. I'll never say never, given 2019, but I'm not seeing it in the tea leaves.

Not long until we find out for sure.

[Sterlk]

Commentator's curse. There's some shifting sentiment on the wind.

There might be another 2019 "miracle" brewing. Watch this space.

[BJ]

I’m no fan of any party or politicians.

But we’ve had local ACT Labor candidates ‘rightly’ banging on for years about how badly the current Liberal government has pork barrelled their election commitments and not put the funding into where it’s most needed.

Then all the local Labor Candidates have promised millions and millions on a new bike path for the inner north, the Braddon bowls club, the Yarralumla croquet club, the Tennis Club, AIS Arena, playground upgrades for northern suburbs, City Arts precinct, etc , etc.

Surely if they’re focusing on investment where it’s most needed in Canberra, they’d be putting money into areas around Charnwood, Oakes Estate and across Tuggeranong. There’s no way the O’Connor cycle paths and the Croquet club need more support than the run down or non existent facilities outside of the inner north and inner south.

Talk about hollow claims from Katy Gallagher about pre election pork barrelling. She’s just as bad as the Coalition.

[The Nickman]

Commentator's curse. There's some shifting sentiment on the wind.

There might be another 2019 "miracle" brewing. Watch this space.

I see the coalition is shortening in odds again, back below $2.90 and appear to be dropping quite rapidly... what the hell is going on now?

[T_R]

Commentator's curse. There's some shifting sentiment on the wind.

There might be another 2019 "miracle" brewing. Watch this space.

I see the coalition is shortening in odds again, back below $2.90 and appear to be dropping quite rapidly... what the hell is going on now?

Too little, too late I would guess

[greeneyed]

Just voted for a new Canberra Stadium and against the government responsible for some of the worst failures of public policy I’ve ever seen.

[The Nickman]

Just voted for a new Canberra Stadium and against the government responsible for some of the worst failures of public policy I’ve ever seen.

I didn't even realise Dan Andrews was on the ballot this time around.

[zim]

I live in Scomo's seat. My vote won't really count.

[The Nickman]

I live in Scomo's seat. My vote won't really count.

You live in his seat?!?

What, like some kind of gnome?

[zim]

Do you have a better idea?

[The Nickman]

Do you have a better idea?

Well, I guess housing is no longer affordable because of ScoMo, so tute on, zim...

Tute on!!

[Sterlk]

Commentator's curse. There's some shifting sentiment on the wind.

There might be another 2019 "miracle" brewing. Watch this space.

I see the coalition is shortening in odds again, back below $2.90 and appear to be dropping quite rapidly... what the hell is going on now?

Probably this.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/fede ... 5am44.html

however:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... ction#2022

I think everyone's all abuzz about a single poll from Resolve Strategic, which might be much ado about nothing. It would need other polls supporting it before I take it too seriously; I think it might be an outlier.

The dates of the Resolve poll overlap significantly with the most recent ones from Essential and Roy Morgan, and each of those aren't too dissimilar from those companies' previous efforts.

Resolve is representing a big shift that two other companies with notably overlapping dates didn't detect.

[Sterlk]

Just voted for a new Canberra Stadium and against the government responsible for some of the worst failures of public policy I’ve ever seen.

Who's promising a new Canberra Stadium?

[Northern Raider]

Just voted for a new Canberra Stadium and against the government responsible for some of the worst failures of public policy I’ve ever seen.

Who's promising a new Canberra Stadium?

UAP

[greeneyed]

It is not the UAP.

[The Nickman]

Commentator's curse. There's some shifting sentiment on the wind.

There might be another 2019 "miracle" brewing. Watch this space.

I see the coalition is shortening in odds again, back below $2.90 and appear to be dropping quite rapidly... what the hell is going on now?

Probably this.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/fede ... 5am44.html

however:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... ction#2022

I think everyone's all abuzz about a single poll from Resolve Strategic, which might be much ado about nothing. It would need other polls supporting it before I take it too seriously; I think it might be an outlier.

The dates of the Resolve poll overlap significantly with the most recent ones from Essential and Roy Morgan, and each of those aren't too dissimilar from those companies' previous efforts.

Resolve is representing a big shift that two other companies with notably overlapping dates didn't detect.

Polls are always rubbish when it comes to elections, I wouldn’t put any weight in any of them

[Sterlk]

I'm certainly not writing the government's chances off after last time, as unlikely as their path to victory might still seem, but the polls were reasonably accurate for a good stretch before 2019 and they've made a fair few changes since from the lessons learned.

Imperfect, yes, but probably the best data we have to try make predictions from. The alternative is 'I feels it in mah belly', and I'll be damned if I'm going to instead subscribe to the sage advice of the psychic crocodile choosing between two slabs of meat.