Galaxy poll shows majority (52%) of voters want early election, including a fifth of Labor voters. Just three in ten would tick the ALP box. Labor's primary vote is at 30% and Coalition is just under 50%.

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TopStories/2012/04/30/Bring_on_an_early_election_say_voters_744945.html

A poll on the Daily Telegraph's website shows almost 3,000 people want an early election whereas just over 200 do not want an early election.

While it is obvious that Gillard will oppose an early election, one important thing is worth noting. Her lack of enthusiasm for an early election has nothing to do with her believing that Labor is better than the Coalition in running the country and everything to do with her desire to remain in the top job for as long as she possibly can, no matter what the consequences.

By all accounts, I think we can safely say that the majority of Australians are fed up with Gillard, fed up with the ALP, fed up with this incompetent, disfunctional, corrupt, self-obssessed government and want to vote now, not next year. Given what this country has put up with, I think we are entitled to a vote sooner rather than later.

Poll added.

No need for an early election.  Its not due yet, and should be at a time of the governments choosing.  See you in 2013.   :)

wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 7:33am:

No need for an early election.  Its not due yet, and should be at a time of the governments choosing.  See you in 2013.   :)

No need? Do you think the Gillard government is carrying out its job competently?

A lot of people would say no, a lot of people would say yes.  It depends on what side of the fence you are on, does it not?.   ;)

wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 7:37am:

A lot of people would say no, a lot of people would say yes.  It depends on what side of the fence you are on, does it not?.   ;)

Clearly far more people do not believe this government is doing a good job. Just a bare few rusted-on Laborites are happy to let this freak show continue.

A Straw Poll that becomes a news item.

The desperation of the right.

We will have an election when its due.  I think that's sometime in late 2013.   :)   

wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 7:42am:

We will have an election when its due.  I think that's sometime in late 2013.   :)

Its due. Its due because of how bad this government is.

But it is Abbott's fault for this government running it's full term.


Abbott is too gutless to call a No Confidence Vote.

Because Abbott is a coward.

Abbott has no policies

Abbott wants an election so to have another two after in quick succession because he can not govern. He will not govern, because he is a gutless twit.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 7:34am:

wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 7:33am: No need for an early election.  Its not due yet, and should be at a time of the governments choosing.  See you in 2013.   :) No need? Do you think the Gillard government is carrying out its job competently?

The majority of voters wanted an early election when Howard illegally invaded a sovereign nation too, but that little prick never gave us one, phony Tony's office skirt.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 7:29am:

Galaxy poll shows majority (52%) of voters want early election, including a fifth of Labor voters. Just three in ten would tick the ALP box. Labor's primary vote is at 30% and Coalition is just under 50%. http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TopStories/2012/04/30/Bring_on_an_early_election_say_voters_744945.html A poll on the Daily Telegraph's website shows almost 3,000 people want an early election whereas just over 200 do not want an early election. While it is obvious that Gillard will oppose an early election, one important thing is worth noting. Her lack of enthusiasm for an early election has nothing to do with her believing that Labor is better than the Coalition in running the country and everything to do with her desire to remain in the top job for as long as she possibly can, no matter what the consequences. By all accounts, I think we can safely say that the majority of Australians are fed up with Gillard, fed up with the ALP, fed up with this incompetent, disfunctional, corrupt, self-obssessed government and want to vote now, not next year. Given what this country has put up with, I think we are entitled to a vote sooner rather than later.

I doubt it has anything to do with anything else but the carbon tax. Ppl panicing and thinking to get rid of her before it can be implemented. Wont work anyway because abboott would bring in something just as bad and give it another name.

Also - how many ppl in that poll? Prolly what 3000? Big segment of our society?

SOB

____ wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 8:45am:

But it is Abbott's fault for this government running it's full term. Abbott is too gutless to call a No Confidence Vote. Because Abbott is a coward. Abbott has no policies Abbott wants an election so to have another two after in quick succession because he can not govern. He will not govern, because he is a gutless twit.

Please look at Hansard before making such a comment

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 8:48am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 7:29am: Galaxy poll shows majority (52%) of voters want early election, including a fifth of Labor voters. Just three in ten would tick the ALP box. Labor's primary vote is at 30% and Coalition is just under 50%. http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TopStories/2012/04/30/Bring_on_an_early_election_say_voters_744945.html A poll on the Daily Telegraph's website shows almost 3,000 people want an early election whereas just over 200 do not want an early election. While it is obvious that Gillard will oppose an early election, one important thing is worth noting. Her lack of enthusiasm for an early election has nothing to do with her believing that Labor is better than the Coalition in running the country and everything to do with her desire to remain in the top job for as long as she possibly can, no matter what the consequences. By all accounts, I think we can safely say that the majority of Australians are fed up with Gillard, fed up with the ALP, fed up with this incompetent, disfunctional, corrupt, self-obssessed government and want to vote now, not next year. Given what this country has put up with, I think we are entitled to a vote sooner rather than later. I doubt it has anything to do with anything else but the carbon tax. Ppl panicing and thinking to get rid of her before it can be implemented. Wont work anyway because abboott would bring in something just as bad and give it another name. Also - how many ppl in that poll? Prolly what 3000? Big segment of our society? SOB

Yea, lol, 3000 people that bother to get their news from  news lmd crap,and take part in their polls,pleeeeeeease. ::)

Yes skippy that is right. Howard never gave us the chance, with the illegal Iraq war.   :(

Maqqa wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 8:48am:

____ wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 8:45am: But it is Abbott's fault for this government running it's full term. Abbott is too gutless to call a No Confidence Vote. Because Abbott is a coward. Abbott has no policies Abbott wants an election so to have another two after in quick succession because he can not govern. He will not govern, because he is a gutless twit. Please look at Hansard before making such a comment

Why


Abbott is running around like a cut chook wanting a new election yet is gutless in refusing to call a No Confidence Vote.


It Is Abbott's fault this government will run full term.

Abbott's fault because he has No Confidence in himself.

____ wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 8:54am:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 8:48am: ____ wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 8:45am: But it is Abbott's fault for this government running it's full term. Abbott is too gutless to call a No Confidence Vote. Because Abbott is a coward. Abbott has no policies Abbott wants an election so to have another two after in quick succession because he can not govern. He will not govern, because he is a gutless twit. Please look at Hansard before making such a comment Why Abbott is running around like a cut chook wanting a new election yet is gutless in refusing to call a No Confidence Vote. It Is Abbott's fault this government will run full term. Abbott's fault because he has No Confidence in himself.

Yes so you keep saying. So what, we all know everything is Abbotts fault to a progressive. Nothing new to see there.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 8:55am:

____ wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 8:54am: Maqqa wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 8:48am: ____ wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 8:45am: But it is Abbott's fault for this government running it's full term. Abbott is too gutless to call a No Confidence Vote. Because Abbott is a coward. Abbott has no policies Abbott wants an election so to have another two after in quick succession because he can not govern. He will not govern, because he is a gutless twit. Please look at Hansard before making such a comment Why Abbott is running around like a cut chook wanting a new election yet is gutless in refusing to call a No Confidence Vote. It Is Abbott's fault this government will run full term. Abbott's fault because he has No Confidence in himself. Yes so you keep saying. So what, we all know everything is Abbotts fault to a progressive. Nothing new to see there.

clever pollies dont force a no-confidence motion until they are sure they can win.  isa there ANYTHING about practical politics that you actually understand?

We need an early election because the current situation is untenable.  The current government stance is anti-business, and we need to restore confidence to the economy, although the dollar needs to drop another 10 cents against the greenback to make any impact domestically.  

Environmental issues are important, but right now, we need to restore some stability, and I think the Libs have the ability to do that. If they can sort out their leadership issues, then that will also help. The Libs will find it difficult to dismantle the renewable energy legislation, which they themselves brought in. There are too many industry interests at stake here, even with carbon trading. 

The Australian market is crawling right now and it shouldn't be. The Dow is over 13,000 again, and the All Ords are stuck at 4400. It should be over 5000.  We had all the right conditions for a rapid recovery, but that isn't happening.  Now I tend to agree with PN that the long term outlook is grim, but if we don't restore confidence soon, we'll miss the last boat.

muso wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 9:05am:

We need an early election because the current situation is untenable.  The current government stance is anti-business, and we need to restore confidence to the economy, although the dollar needs to drop another 10 cents against the greenback to make any impact domestically.   Environmental issues are important, but right now, we need to restore some stability, and I think the Libs have the ability to do that. If they can sort out their leadership issues, then that will also help. The Libs will find it difficult to dismantle the renewable energy legislation, which they themselves brought in. There are too many industry interests at stake here, even with carbon trading.  The Australian market is crawling right now and it shouldn't be. The Dow is over 13,000 again, and the All Ords are stuck at 4400. It should be over 5000.  We had all the right conditions for a rapid recovery, but that isn't happening.  Now I tend to agree with PN that the long term outlook is grim, but if we don't restore confidence soon, we'll miss the last boat.

I don't think we need an early election, in fact I believe phony tony would stuff the economy beyond repair,and Hockey does not seem capable enough to run the economy,while Abbott is not smart enough.
What I do think is that Gillard's  leadership is terminal, she should stand down to save some face. In my opinion,Smith,Crean and Carr would all be much more credible PMs than Abbott, they should have the opportunity to prove that before the government is tossed out.

Your insincere comments are not welcome.

Prevailing wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 9:24am:

Your insincere comments are not welcome.

So your corporate whitey sock is still banned hey,prevailing? ;D ;D ;D

muso wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 9:05am:

We need an early election because the current situation is untenable.  The current government stance is anti-business, and we need to restore confidence to the economy, although the dollar needs to drop another 10 cents against the greenback to make any impact domestically.   Environmental issues are important, but right now, we need to restore some stability, and I think the Libs have the ability to do that. If they can sort out their leadership issues, then that will also help. The Libs will find it difficult to dismantle the renewable energy legislation, which they themselves brought in. There are too many industry interests at stake here, even with carbon trading.  The Australian market is crawling right now and it shouldn't be. The Dow is over 13,000 again, and the All Ords are stuck at 4400. It should be over 5000.  We had all the right conditions for a rapid recovery, but that isn't happening.  Now I tend to agree with PN that the long term outlook is grim, but if we don't restore confidence soon, we'll miss the last boat.

What would it change really? the faces.

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 9:01am:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 8:55am: ____ wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 8:54am: Maqqa wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 8:48am: ____ wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 8:45am: But it is Abbott's fault for this government running it's full term. Abbott is too gutless to call a No Confidence Vote. Because Abbott is a coward. Abbott has no policies Abbott wants an election so to have another two after in quick succession because he can not govern. He will not govern, because he is a gutless twit. Please look at Hansard before making such a comment Why Abbott is running around like a cut chook wanting a new election yet is gutless in refusing to call a No Confidence Vote. It Is Abbott's fault this government will run full term. Abbott's fault because he has No Confidence in himself. Yes so you keep saying. So what, we all know everything is Abbotts fault to a progressive. Nothing new to see there. clever pollies dont force a no-confidence motion until they are sure they can win.  isa there ANYTHING about practical politics that you actually understand?

A clever politician wouldn't make baseless threats.

Revealing Abbott as a stupid politician.


Come on Abbott, stop supporting Gillard and call a No Confidence Vote.

The reality is the longer this Government stays in power the better for the anti big business anti corporate cause...we are loving it, they are bringing the corruption out into the open and looking terrified.

This whole parliament now just has the feel of it of "hanging in there for the sake of hanging in there".

It's starting to feel like NSW.

"Just hang in there, something might change, anything, you never know...."

It's like delaying the inevitable.
The problem you get is that you start to make allowances for things you wouldn't ordinarily do.
If it wasn't a hung parliament, Thomson would have been hung out to dry months ago and he would have resigned altogether.

Now we just get more dirty politicians in there voting.

It just all stinks now and it needs a new parliament and whoever wins that election, good luck to them.

I have absolutely no party allegiance. I just think its all a bit rotten now.

The ALP power brokers must be scratching their heads now.

What to do, what to do?

Gillard will lead them to oblivion at the next election, the electorate will (have already?) stop listening to her (something I find very easy).

I bet all those that voted against Rudd in the leadership challenge wish they could vote again, at least O’Lemon has voter support. If they dumped Gillard (surely they must dump her ASAP and try to regain some lost ground?) would he challenge the newly preferred PM?

As for the Lib/Nat, imagine their lead had they had Costello or Turnbull as leader, people that the dithering independents would be more likely to support as well.

The Greens will win more support from this as well (the better half is a solid Green, makes for interesting debate at our joint)

:-/

Whichever power broker convinced Julia Gillard that running with the carbon tax policy would be a vote winner needs to be taken into the street and given a royally big kicking.

He was either deliberately setting her up or he is the worst reader of the political landscape ever.

FriYAY wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 9:52am:

The ALP power brokers must be scratching their heads now. What to do, what to do? Gillard will lead them to oblivion at the next election, the electorate will (have already?) stop listening to her (something I find very easy). I bet all those that voted against Rudd in the leadership challenge wish they could vote again, at least O’Lemon has voter support. If they dumped Gillard (surely they must dump her ASAP and try to regain some lost ground?) would he challenge the newly preferred PM? As for the Lib/Nat, imagine their lead had they had Costello or Turnbull as leader, people that the dithering independents would be more likely to support as well. The Greens will win more support from this as well (the better half is a solid Green, makes for interesting debate at our joint) :-/

If Labor had half a brain they would be throwing everything they had at attracting Turnbull to jump ship with the offer of the PMship if he did.
Lets face it, the Libs claim they dont want him, he's the best person from any party to be PM and imagine Turnbull lining up against phony Tony at the next election, it would give Labor a better than even chance. In fact Turnbull would beat Abbott, no question about it.
Lets face it, stranger things have happened, Billy Hughes springs to mind,and it would be Turnbulls chance to kick the bastards that dogged on him in his own party.

How much do they pay you to defend Gillard and portray Turnbull as some kind of a saint when its obvious they are all filthy.

Prevailing wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 10:34am:

How much do they pay you to defend Gillard and portray Turnbull as some kind of a saint when its obvious they are all filthy.

Not as much as they pay my good mate, corporate whitey. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

skippy. wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 10:24am:

FriYAY wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 9:52am: The ALP power brokers must be scratching their heads now. What to do, what to do? Gillard will lead them to oblivion at the next election, the electorate will (have already?) stop listening to her (something I find very easy). I bet all those that voted against Rudd in the leadership challenge wish they could vote again, at least O’Lemon has voter support. If they dumped Gillard (surely they must dump her ASAP and try to regain some lost ground?) would he challenge the newly preferred PM? As for the Lib/Nat, imagine their lead had they had Costello or Turnbull as leader, people that the dithering independents would be more likely to support as well. The Greens will win more support from this as well (the better half is a solid Green, makes for interesting debate at our joint) :-/ If Labor had half a brain they would be throwing everything they had at attracting Turnbull to jump ship with the offer of the PMship if he did. Lets face it, the Libs claim they dont want him, he's the best person from any party to be PM and imagine Turnbull lining up against phony Tony at the next election, it would give Labor a better than even chance. In fact Turnbull would beat Abbott, no question about it. Lets face it, stranger things have happened, Billy Hughes springs to mind,and it would be Turnbulls chance to kick the bastards that dogged on him in his own party.

That would be interesting.

Even with Turnbull I think the ALP is up poo creek now.

They needed to lower the $23 carbon tax IMO to help lessen the impact of the inevitable “lie” and “wealth distribution” calls that followed. A lower amount may have seen more companies absorb the cost, while building a future “renewables” bank account.

Like it or not the “boat people” issue has political clout and is too easy to pass off as big Rudd/Gillard failure.

The party that could really suffer from a massive swing to the coalition is the Greens, no friends there.

A while ago i thought that a new election might see the ALP loose a few seats but keep a hold of a minority government, but I think most incumbent independents will struggle to keep their seats now (Willkie the exception maybe).

FriYAY wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 9:52am:

The ALP power brokers must be scratching their heads now. What to do, what to do? Gillard will lead them to oblivion at the next election, the electorate will (have already?) stop listening to her (something I find very easy). I bet all those that voted against Rudd in the leadership challenge wish they could vote again, at least O’Lemon has voter support. If they dumped Gillard (surely they must dump her ASAP and try to regain some lost ground?) would he challenge the newly preferred PM? As for the Lib/Nat, imagine their lead had they had Costello or Turnbull as leader, people that the dithering independents would be more likely to support as well. The Greens will win more support from this as well (the better half is a solid Green, makes for interesting debate at our joint) :-/

Turnbull would make a lot of difference to the Libs.  The ALP has lost credibility, and I agree that they would have been better with Rudd. He has a lot more nouse. They shot themselves in the foot by not voting him in.   


Quote:

They needed to lower the $23 carbon tax IMO to help lessen the impact of the inevitable “lie” and “wealth distribution” calls that followed. A lower amount may have seen more companies absorb the cost, while building a future “renewables” bank account.

I can see the Libs keeping Carbon trading, but dropping the price. It's a compromise. A lot of industries have sunk a lot of funds into carbon abatement, and they stand to lose out big time. A colleague who specialises in carbon trading was telling me that it would be almost impossible to dismantle the legislation due to contractual obligations.

muso wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 11:17am:

FriYAY wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 9:52am: The ALP power brokers must be scratching their heads now. What to do, what to do? Gillard will lead them to oblivion at the next election, the electorate will (have already?) stop listening to her (something I find very easy). I bet all those that voted against Rudd in the leadership challenge wish they could vote again, at least O’Lemon has voter support. If they dumped Gillard (surely they must dump her ASAP and try to regain some lost ground?) would he challenge the newly preferred PM? As for the Lib/Nat, imagine their lead had they had Costello or Turnbull as leader, people that the dithering independents would be more likely to support as well. The Greens will win more support from this as well (the better half is a solid Green, makes for interesting debate at our joint) :-/ Turnbull would make a lot of difference to the Libs.  The ALP has lost credibility, and I agree that they would have been better with Rudd. He has a lot more nouse. They shot themselves in the foot by not voting him in.

I agree.
Turnbull would be my preferred PM but Rudd is better than both Abbott and Gillard.

The polling has always backed both of those assertions as well.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 11:20am:

muso wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:17am: FriYAY wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 9:52am: The ALP power brokers must be scratching their heads now. What to do, what to do? Gillard will lead them to oblivion at the next election, the electorate will (have already?) stop listening to her (something I find very easy). I bet all those that voted against Rudd in the leadership challenge wish they could vote again, at least O’Lemon has voter support. If they dumped Gillard (surely they must dump her ASAP and try to regain some lost ground?) would he challenge the newly preferred PM? As for the Lib/Nat, imagine their lead had they had Costello or Turnbull as leader, people that the dithering independents would be more likely to support as well. The Greens will win more support from this as well (the better half is a solid Green, makes for interesting debate at our joint) :-/ Turnbull would make a lot of difference to the Libs.  The ALP has lost credibility, and I agree that they would have been better with Rudd. He has a lot more nouse. They shot themselves in the foot by not voting him in.    I agree. Turnbull would be my preferred PM but Rudd is better than both Abbott and Gillard. The polling has always backed both of those assertions as well.

Its funny isn't it? it doesn't seem to matter if you're on the right,like Andrei, in the middle ,like muso, or from the left, like me, we all agree, Turnbull would be the best person in the country to be PM,closely followed by Rudd. What the hell is wrong with the Liberal and Labor parties?
\AND,as andrei said, EVERY poll ever taken says the same thing, the person on the street would prefer Rudd or Turnbull as PM over the fools that lead their parties.

skippy. wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 1:45pm:

Its funny isn't it? it doesn't seem to matter if you're on the right,like Andrei, in the middle ,like muso, or from the left, like me, we all agree, Turnbull would be the best person in the country to be PM,closely followed by Rudd.

Indeed.

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 1:57pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 1:45pm: Its funny isn't it? it doesn't seem to matter if you're on the right,like Andrei, in the middle ,like muso, or from the left, like me, we all agree, Turnbull would be the best person in the country to be PM,closely followed by Rudd. Indeed.

I suppose that must be shocking to you that some people agree on things from different sides of the fence, but to others, that is no revelation.

3 people agree that Turnbull would be the best. Wow.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 2:05pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 1:57pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 1:45pm: Its funny isn't it? it doesn't seem to matter if you're on the right,like Andrei, in the middle ,like muso, or from the left, like me, we all agree, Turnbull would be the best person in the country to be PM,closely followed by Rudd. Indeed. I suppose that must be shocking to you that some people agree on things from different sides of the fence, but to others, that is no revelation. 3 people agree that Turnbull would be the best. Wow.

No shock to me.

I'm on the far left of the political spectrum, and Turnbull has my approval.

I actually would consider voting Liberal if Turnbull was their leader....

skippy. wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 1:45pm:

Its funny isn't it? it doesn't seem to matter if you're on the right,like Andrei, in the middle ,like muso, or from the left, like me, we all agree, Turnbull would be the best person in the country to be PM,closely followed by Rudd. What the hell is wrong with the Liberal and Labor parties? \AND,as andrei said, EVERY poll ever taken says the same thing, the person on the street would prefer Rudd or Turnbull as PM over the fools that lead their parties.

It's about time politics was based on merit. It's hardly any surprise about Rudd. Even Bob Katter likes him.

Frances wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 2:20pm:

I actually would consider voting Liberal if Turnbull was their leader....

Same here.
Then again, I can't vote in Australia....  ;D

Frances wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 2:20pm:

I actually would consider voting Liberal if Turnbull was their leader....

I've said as much here before. Whereas with Abbott in charge, there's no way I'd consider even considering it.

Quote:

.........Most Voted Should Julia Gillard quit? Yes 81% No 19% Total votes: 43187. Poll closes in 10 hours. Will Thomson quitting ease the pressure on Labor? Yes, they have taken some action 15% No, the stench remains 85% Total votes: 28623. Poll closes in 10 hours. ..

http://www.theage.com.au/

well, looks pretty grim to me

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 2:50pm:

Quote: .........Most Voted Should Julia Gillard quit? Yes 81% No 19% Total votes: 43187. Poll closes in 10 hours. Will Thomson quitting ease the pressure on Labor? Yes, they have taken some action 15% No, the stench remains 85% Total votes: 28623. Poll closes in 10 hours. .. http://www.theage.com.au/ well, looks pretty grim to me

Pretty good numbers

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 9:53am:

Whichever power broker convinced Julia Gillard that running with the carbon tax policy would be a vote winner needs to be taken into the street and given a royally big kicking. He was either deliberately setting her up or he is the worst reader of the political landscape ever.

I suspect, without any definitive proof, that labors policy before the election was that they favoured co2 pricing as a way to reduce green house gases.  (Thats a given), but they werent really interested in implementing anything in this term (Maintaining rudd's position of wanting it, but not prepared to pull the trigger).

The hung parliment forced there hand. To get greens support they need to pull the trigger on a carbon price.

Its a simply as that. There was no single person who say "lets have a carbon tax", other than bob brown

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 2:54pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 2:50pm: Quote: .........Most Voted Should Julia Gillard quit? Yes 81% No 19% Total votes: 43187. Poll closes in 10 hours. Will Thomson quitting ease the pressure on Labor? Yes, they have taken some action 15% No, the stench remains 85% Total votes: 28623. Poll closes in 10 hours. .. http://www.theage.com.au/ well, looks pretty grim to me Pretty good numbers

Yes, that should 'shorten' the odds.

http://media.apnonline.com.au/img/media/images/2012/03/17/SCN_17-03-2012_EGN_06_aapone-2011092100034552692_t325.jpg

An online poll! Vote early, vote often eh?  I can see you rusted ons have been working hard. :)

skippy. wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 10:24am:

FriYAY wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 9:52am: The ALP power brokers must be scratching their heads now. What to do, what to do? Gillard will lead them to oblivion at the next election, the electorate will (have already?) stop listening to her (something I find very easy). I bet all those that voted against Rudd in the leadership challenge wish they could vote again, at least O’Lemon has voter support. If they dumped Gillard (surely they must dump her ASAP and try to regain some lost ground?) would he challenge the newly preferred PM? As for the Lib/Nat, imagine their lead had they had Costello or Turnbull as leader, people that the dithering independents would be more likely to support as well. The Greens will win more support from this as well (the better half is a solid Green, makes for interesting debate at our joint) :-/ If Labor had half a brain they would be throwing everything they had at attracting Turnbull to jump ship with the offer of the PMship if he did. Lets face it, the Libs claim they dont want him, he's the best person from any party to be PM and imagine Turnbull lining up against phony Tony at the next election, it would give Labor a better than even chance. In fact Turnbull would beat Abbott, no question about it. Lets face it, stranger things have happened, Billy Hughes springs to mind,and it would be Turnbulls chance to kick the bastards that dogged on him in his own party.

yeah because voters just LOVE a traitor.

idiot.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 3:48pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 10:24am: FriYAY wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 9:52am: The ALP power brokers must be scratching their heads now. What to do, what to do? Gillard will lead them to oblivion at the next election, the electorate will (have already?) stop listening to her (something I find very easy). I bet all those that voted against Rudd in the leadership challenge wish they could vote again, at least O’Lemon has voter support. If they dumped Gillard (surely they must dump her ASAP and try to regain some lost ground?) would he challenge the newly preferred PM? As for the Lib/Nat, imagine their lead had they had Costello or Turnbull as leader, people that the dithering independents would be more likely to support as well. The Greens will win more support from this as well (the better half is a solid Green, makes for interesting debate at our joint) :-/ If Labor had half a brain they would be throwing everything they had at attracting Turnbull to jump ship with the offer of the PMship if he did. Lets face it, the Libs claim they dont want him, he's the best person from any party to be PM and imagine Turnbull lining up against phony Tony at the next election, it would give Labor a better than even chance. In fact Turnbull would beat Abbott, no question about it. Lets face it, stranger things have happened, Billy Hughes springs to mind,and it would be Turnbulls chance to kick the bastards that dogged on him in his own party. yeah because voters just LOVE a traitor. idiot.

Well the Libs dont want him, idiot.
He may as well save Australia from that f wit phony tony.

skippy. wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 3:52pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 3:48pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 10:24am: FriYAY wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 9:52am: The ALP power brokers must be scratching their heads now. What to do, what to do? Gillard will lead them to oblivion at the next election, the electorate will (have already?) stop listening to her (something I find very easy). I bet all those that voted against Rudd in the leadership challenge wish they could vote again, at least O’Lemon has voter support. If they dumped Gillard (surely they must dump her ASAP and try to regain some lost ground?) would he challenge the newly preferred PM? As for the Lib/Nat, imagine their lead had they had Costello or Turnbull as leader, people that the dithering independents would be more likely to support as well. The Greens will win more support from this as well (the better half is a solid Green, makes for interesting debate at our joint) :-/ If Labor had half a brain they would be throwing everything they had at attracting Turnbull to jump ship with the offer of the PMship if he did. Lets face it, the Libs claim they dont want him, he's the best person from any party to be PM and imagine Turnbull lining up against phony Tony at the next election, it would give Labor a better than even chance. In fact Turnbull would beat Abbott, no question about it. Lets face it, stranger things have happened, Billy Hughes springs to mind,and it would be Turnbulls chance to kick the bastards that dogged on him in his own party. yeah because voters just LOVE a traitor. idiot. Well the Libs dont want him, idiot. He may as well save Australia from that f wit phony tony.

Well it is defacto almost, so yes I agree, but as LW said, he is doomed if he does and doomed if he doesnt. If he doesnt, then the liberal voters dont want him, some maybe, the labor voters on the left are all over him to try to get something left in power. But if he goes, he will be a traitor and not many will jump toward him.

You said it: Hey, Julia, call an early election

More than 92 per cent of readers want early election
Overwhelming result comes amid Labor turmoil


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/you-said-it-hey-julia-call-an-early-election/story-e6freuzr-1226342888205

[quote author=3E202E2A2421214D0 link=1335734974/50#50 date=1335769480]You said it: Hey, Julia, call an early election

More than 92 per cent of readers want early election
Overwhelming result comes amid Labor turmoil


quote]

Such a figure is almost worthless but only ALMOST. wil Galaxy poll - a reliable source - says that 60% want an early electio then it is clear that Gillard is truly on the nose.

borntorule wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 6:12pm:

[quote author=3E202E2A2421214D0 link=1335734974/50#50 date=1335769480]You said it: Hey, Julia, call an early election More than 92 per cent of readers want early election Overwhelming result comes amid Labor turmoil quote] Such a figure is almost worthless but only ALMOST. wil Galaxy poll - a reliable source - says that 60% want an early electio then it is clear that Gillard is truly on the nose.

Well if you took it as the same as the top 3 polls we take seriously, then that would be your problem.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 6:23pm:

borntorule wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:12pm: [quote author=3E202E2A2421214D0 link=1335734974/50#50 date=1335769480]You said it: Hey, Julia, call an early election More than 92 per cent of readers want early election Overwhelming result comes amid Labor turmoil quote] Such a figure is almost worthless but only ALMOST. wil Galaxy poll - a reliable source - says that 60% want an early electio then it is clear that Gillard is truly on the nose. Well if you took it as the same as the top 3 polls we take seriously, then that would be your problem.

The polls are truly telling Gillard something she is not listening to.

'we hate you'
'we dont trust you'
'we want you to go'

The last message will be delivered by a handful of her colleagues pretty soon.

I still want Abbott to finish the term off as the minority PM and see what every one thinks of him then.

I still want Abbott to finish the term off as the minority PM and see what every one thinks of him then.

nairbe wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 6:32pm:

I still want Abbott to finish the term off as the minority PM and see what every one thinks of him then.

As long as he can do it without aligning with the greens, then sure. Otherwise, go to an election. Tell you the truth though, I have had enough of this experiment of a lame duck PM from the start, sucking up to the minorities.

nairbe wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 6:32pm:

I still want Abbott to finish the term off as the minority PM and see what every one thinks of him then.

and you dont think that his FIRST act as minority PM will be to call an early election? of course he will! What does he have to lose? He can only win the election by a landslide and while he wont get control of the senate, he can close the gap. In the meantime the ALP can work out what to do about the Carbon Tax Repeal act when it comes to them in the senate. Pass it like honourable senators submitting to an unequivocal mandate or reject it and go to a DD and lose a couple of them and still watch the CT be repealed.

Interesting days if you are a liberal. Not so much fun if you are silly enough to support the red team.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 6:35pm:

nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:32pm: I still want Abbott to finish the term off as the minority PM and see what every one thinks of him then. As long as he can do it without aligning with the greens, then sure. Otherwise, go to an election. Tell you the truth though, I have had enough of this experiment of a lame duck PM from the start, sucking up to the minorities.

Abbott would have had to deal with the Greens in the Senate just as Julia has and if he wins the next election he will also have to deal with a hostile Senate.
He can have as many DD elections he likes until he loses power but it wont change the facts.

All the Lefties voting their little hearts out god bless 'em.

Not going to stop a Federal Election coming on soon though.

This is fantasy and out there the jungle drums are banging for an Election. 8-)

red baron wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 6:39pm:

Not going to stop a Federal Election coming on soon though.

Yep, 18 months will pass by pretty quick.

red baron wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 6:39pm:

All the Lefties voting their little hearts out god bless 'em. Not going to stop a Federal Election coming on soon though. This is fantasy and out there the jungle drums are banging for an Election. 8-)

The average punter hates elections..only nerds that vote in online polls or rusted on voters that don't tell pollsters to get stuffed when they interrupt their dinner give a toss.

borntorule wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 6:36pm:

nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:32pm: I still want Abbott to finish the term off as the minority PM and see what every one thinks of him then. and you dont think that his FIRST act as minority PM will be to call an early election? of course he will! What does he have to lose? He can only win the election by a landslide and while he wont get control of the senate, he can close the gap. In the meantime the ALP can work out what to do about the Carbon Tax Repeal act when it comes to them in the senate. Pass it like honourable senators submitting to an unequivocal mandate or reject it and go to a DD and lose a couple of them and still watch the CT be repealed. Interesting days if you are a liberal. Not so much fun if you are silly enough to support the red team.

No the whole point is i want to see how he handles minority government and the spotlight of one seat. He has already lost slipper to the party. He would wilt.

borntorule wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 6:36pm:

nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:32pm: I still want Abbott to finish the term off as the minority PM and see what every one thinks of him then. and you dont think that his FIRST act as minority PM will be to call an early election? of course he will! What does he have to lose? He can only win the election by a landslide and while he wont get control of the senate, he can close the gap. In the meantime the ALP can work out what to do about the Carbon Tax Repeal act when it comes to them in the senate. Pass it like honourable senators submitting to an unequivocal mandate or reject it and go to a DD and lose a couple of them and still watch the CT be repealed. Interesting days if you are a liberal. Not so much fun if you are silly enough to support the red team.

No the whole point is i want to see how he handles minority government and the spotlight of one seat. He has already lost slipper to the party. He would wilt.

adelcrow wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 6:37pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:35pm: nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:32pm: I still want Abbott to finish the term off as the minority PM and see what every one thinks of him then. As long as he can do it without aligning with the greens, then sure. Otherwise, go to an election. Tell you the truth though, I have had enough of this experiment of a lame duck PM from the start, sucking up to the minorities. Abbott would have had to deal with the Greens in the Senate just as Julia has and if he wins the next election he will also have to deal with a hostile Senate. He can have as many DD elections he likes until he loses power but it wont change the facts.

The hostile senate is hardly a new experience since only 3 post-war parliaments have had control of both houses. Most government learn to work with them and most senators learn to use their power a little more responsibly. The Greens however are quite different. They dont believe in negotiation or compromise or frankly, anything but their own agenda. The history of elections is that voters have a habit of removing genuinely obstructionist senators. The Greens act this way at their own peril.

nairbe wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 6:45pm:

borntorule wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:36pm: nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:32pm: I still want Abbott to finish the term off as the minority PM and see what every one thinks of him then. and you dont think that his FIRST act as minority PM will be to call an early election? of course he will! What does he have to lose? He can only win the election by a landslide and while he wont get control of the senate, he can close the gap. In the meantime the ALP can work out what to do about the Carbon Tax Repeal act when it comes to them in the senate. Pass it like honourable senators submitting to an unequivocal mandate or reject it and go to a DD and lose a couple of them and still watch the CT be repealed. Interesting days if you are a liberal. Not so much fun if you are silly enough to support the red team. No the whole point is i want to see how he handles minority government and the spotlight of one seat. He has already lost slipper to the party. He would wilt.

He isnt stupid enough to try. Why would you choose to work in a minority govt when you could choose a large majority? He will go for a new election and reap the rewards.

borntorule wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 6:46pm:

adelcrow wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:37pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:35pm: nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:32pm: I still want Abbott to finish the term off as the minority PM and see what every one thinks of him then. As long as he can do it without aligning with the greens, then sure. Otherwise, go to an election. Tell you the truth though, I have had enough of this experiment of a lame duck PM from the start, sucking up to the minorities. Abbott would have had to deal with the Greens in the Senate just as Julia has and if he wins the next election he will also have to deal with a hostile Senate. He can have as many DD elections he likes until he loses power but it wont change the facts. The hostile senate is hardly a new experience since only 3 post-war parliaments have had control of both houses. Most government learn to work with them and most senators learn to use their power a little more responsibly. The Greens however are quite different. They dont believe in negotiation or compromise or frankly, anything but their own agenda. The history of elections is that voters have a habit of removing genuinely obstructionist senators. The Greens act this way at their own peril.

Oh so that position would also have to stand for the liberal and national parties as well. They hold a hell of a lot more seats that the Green. Don't use weak excuses it makes you look silly.

borntorule wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 6:47pm:

nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:45pm: borntorule wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:36pm: nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:32pm: I still want Abbott to finish the term off as the minority PM and see what every one thinks of him then. and you dont think that his FIRST act as minority PM will be to call an early election? of course he will! What does he have to lose? He can only win the election by a landslide and while he wont get control of the senate, he can close the gap. In the meantime the ALP can work out what to do about the Carbon Tax Repeal act when it comes to them in the senate. Pass it like honourable senators submitting to an unequivocal mandate or reject it and go to a DD and lose a couple of them and still watch the CT be repealed. Interesting days if you are a liberal. Not so much fun if you are silly enough to support the red team. No the whole point is i want to see how he handles minority government and the spotlight of one seat. He has already lost slipper to the party. He would wilt. He isnt stupid enough to try. Why would you choose to work in a minority govt when you could choose a large majority? He will go for a new election and reap the rewards.

He desperately wanted to after the last election and has behaved like a spoilt brat that got told no ever since. If he does not have the courage then he is not up to the job.

The vast majority of Australians don't give a toss and if they were not forced to vote at the next election both major parties would be lucky to get a handful of votes between them
To say voters want an early election is rubbish because most voters hate Julia and Tony and think they are both incompetent.
The only reason anyone is going to vote at the next election is because they are forced to.

adelcrow wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 6:52pm:

The vast majority of Australians don't give a toss and if they were not forced to vote at the next election both major parties would be lucky to get a handful of votes between them To say voters want an early election is rubbish because most voters hate both Julia and Tony and think they are both incompetent. The only reason anyone is going to vote at the next election is because they are forced to.

And the only reason they will vote liberal is because they were forced to lol  ;D ;). Of course most care and they care because they may as well because they are forced to be there anyway.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 6:56pm:

adelcrow wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:52pm: The vast majority of Australians don't give a toss and if they were not forced to vote at the next election both major parties would be lucky to get a handful of votes between them To say voters want an early election is rubbish because most voters hate both Julia and Tony and think they are both incompetent. The only reason anyone is going to vote at the next election is because they are forced to. And the only reason they will vote liberal is because they were forced to lol  ;D ;). Of course most care and they care because they may as well because they are forced to be there anyway.

Make voting optional and see how many people turn up at any election

nairbe wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 6:50pm:

borntorule wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:46pm: adelcrow wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:37pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:35pm: nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:32pm: I still want Abbott to finish the term off as the minority PM and see what every one thinks of him then. As long as he can do it without aligning with the greens, then sure. Otherwise, go to an election. Tell you the truth though, I have had enough of this experiment of a lame duck PM from the start, sucking up to the minorities. Abbott would have had to deal with the Greens in the Senate just as Julia has and if he wins the next election he will also have to deal with a hostile Senate. He can have as many DD elections he likes until he loses power but it wont change the facts. The hostile senate is hardly a new experience since only 3 post-war parliaments have had control of both houses. Most government learn to work with them and most senators learn to use their power a little more responsibly. The Greens however are quite different. They dont believe in negotiation or compromise or frankly, anything but their own agenda. The history of elections is that voters have a habit of removing genuinely obstructionist senators. The Greens act this way at their own peril. Oh so that position would also have to stand for the liberal and national parties as well. They hold a hell of a lot more seats that the Green. Don't use weak excuses it makes you look silly.

There is a considerable difference between HOSTILE and OBSTRUCTIONIST. in a hostile senate the govt has to negotiate with the other party to get their vote and usually can but even in this case, cant always get their own way. govts of both persuasions have had wholesale rejection of legislation by the senate. OBSTRUCTIONIST is a different concept where the senate votes against proposals without any regard for whether they are good or not but according to their own ideology. The libs supporting the removal of WorkChoices was an example of a NON-obstructionist senate voting against their own wishes but out of respect for a clear mandate.

Politics is an adversarial game. it is played in a hostile environment and always has been. That is fine. It is when it becomes obstructionist that the real problems occur.

nairbe wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 6:52pm:

borntorule wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:47pm: nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:45pm: borntorule wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:36pm: nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:32pm: I still want Abbott to finish the term off as the minority PM and see what every one thinks of him then. and you dont think that his FIRST act as minority PM will be to call an early election? of course he will! What does he have to lose? He can only win the election by a landslide and while he wont get control of the senate, he can close the gap. In the meantime the ALP can work out what to do about the Carbon Tax Repeal act when it comes to them in the senate. Pass it like honourable senators submitting to an unequivocal mandate or reject it and go to a DD and lose a couple of them and still watch the CT be repealed. Interesting days if you are a liberal. Not so much fun if you are silly enough to support the red team. No the whole point is i want to see how he handles minority government and the spotlight of one seat. He has already lost slipper to the party. He would wilt. He isnt stupid enough to try. Why would you choose to work in a minority govt when you could choose a large majority? He will go for a new election and reap the rewards. He desperately wanted to after the last election and has behaved like a spoilt brat that got told no ever since. If he does not have the courage then he is not up to the job.

Abbott is probably thrilled he didnt get the job as minority PM. It has destroyed Gillard and will cost Labor the next 3 elections or more. All he had to do was sit and wait for Labor to self-destruct. And they did.

adelcrow wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 6:52pm:

The vast majority of Australians don't give a toss and if they were not forced to vote at the next election both major parties would be lucky to get a handful of votes between them To say voters want an early election is rubbish because most voters hate Julia and Tony and think they are both incompetent. The only reason anyone is going to vote at the next election is because they are forced to.

Wow, that sounds like the sore-loser argument you would hear in a play ground. Actually, it is pretty much EXACTLY that. Voluntary voting might give only a 75% turnout, but that still wouldnt save labor. it might in fact make it worse according to some analysts who have claimed that the traditional low-income groups that overwhelmingly vote labor are also the least politically engaged.

Anyhow, I support compulsory voting. its hardly a huge obligation on anyone.

borntorule wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 7:00pm:

nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:52pm: borntorule wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:47pm: nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:45pm: borntorule wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:36pm: nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:32pm: I still want Abbott to finish the term off as the minority PM and see what every one thinks of him then. and you dont think that his FIRST act as minority PM will be to call an early election? of course he will! What does he have to lose? He can only win the election by a landslide and while he wont get control of the senate, he can close the gap. In the meantime the ALP can work out what to do about the Carbon Tax Repeal act when it comes to them in the senate. Pass it like honourable senators submitting to an unequivocal mandate or reject it and go to a DD and lose a couple of them and still watch the CT be repealed. Interesting days if you are a liberal. Not so much fun if you are silly enough to support the red team. No the whole point is i want to see how he handles minority government and the spotlight of one seat. He has already lost slipper to the party. He would wilt. He isnt stupid enough to try. Why would you choose to work in a minority govt when you could choose a large majority? He will go for a new election and reap the rewards. He desperately wanted to after the last election and has behaved like a spoilt brat that got told no ever since. If he does not have the courage then he is not up to the job. Abbott is probably thrilled he didnt get the job as minority PM. It has destroyed Gillard and will cost Labor the next 3 elections or more. All he had to do was sit and wait for Labor to self-destruct. And they did.

Not sure where you get that information from ... I wouldn't say Abbott has looked thrilled at missing the top job , in fact, judging from his behaviour since the last election I'd say he was the opposite  to thrilled.. and since your first argument is obviously rubbish, your other points are also rubbish ...

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 7:13pm:

borntorule wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 7:00pm: nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:52pm: borntorule wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:47pm: nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:45pm: borntorule wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:36pm: nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:32pm: I still want Abbott to finish the term off as the minority PM and see what every one thinks of him then. and you dont think that his FIRST act as minority PM will be to call an early election? of course he will! What does he have to lose? He can only win the election by a landslide and while he wont get control of the senate, he can close the gap. In the meantime the ALP can work out what to do about the Carbon Tax Repeal act when it comes to them in the senate. Pass it like honourable senators submitting to an unequivocal mandate or reject it and go to a DD and lose a couple of them and still watch the CT be repealed. Interesting days if you are a liberal. Not so much fun if you are silly enough to support the red team. No the whole point is i want to see how he handles minority government and the spotlight of one seat. He has already lost slipper to the party. He would wilt. He isnt stupid enough to try. Why would you choose to work in a minority govt when you could choose a large majority? He will go for a new election and reap the rewards. He desperately wanted to after the last election and has behaved like a spoilt brat that got told no ever since. If he does not have the courage then he is not up to the job. Abbott is probably thrilled he didnt get the job as minority PM. It has destroyed Gillard and will cost Labor the next 3 elections or more. All he had to do was sit and wait for Labor to self-destruct. And they did. Not sure where you get that information from ... I wouldn't say Abbott has looked thrilled at missing the top job , in fact, judging from his behaviour since the last election I'd say he was the opposite  to thrilled.. and since your first argument is obviously rubbish, your other points are also rubbish ...

Dont give up your day job to be a political analyst. I was reading one article today that said exactly the same thing. Winning the last election was a poisoned chalice and it has certainly been proven to be so. Abbott will miss out on 2 years of difficult PMship and instead be granted a probable 10 years in the job.

He is probably laughing at Gillard and glad he missed out on drinking the poison that is Wilkie/Bandt/Oakeshott/Windsor.

adelcrow wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 6:58pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:56pm: adelcrow wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:52pm: The vast majority of Australians don't give a toss and if they were not forced to vote at the next election both major parties would be lucky to get a handful of votes between them To say voters want an early election is rubbish because most voters hate both Julia and Tony and think they are both incompetent. The only reason anyone is going to vote at the next election is because they are forced to. And the only reason they will vote liberal is because they were forced to lol  ;D ;). Of course most care and they care because they may as well because they are forced to be there anyway. Make voting optional and see how many people turn up at any election

Not a chance. Too much power to militant parties like the greens, ideologies of the left and the right.

I like the idea of forcing the sleeping giant to wake up for a day and be counted, instead of some minority militant group organising better than the other.

We will end up like America where community organisers end up as PM like the fail of the big O. No dam thankyou.

borntorule wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 7:16pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 7:13pm: borntorule wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 7:00pm: nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:52pm: borntorule wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:47pm: nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:45pm: borntorule wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:36pm: nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:32pm: I still want Abbott to finish the term off as the minority PM and see what every one thinks of him then. and you dont think that his FIRST act as minority PM will be to call an early election? of course he will! What does he have to lose? He can only win the election by a landslide and while he wont get control of the senate, he can close the gap. In the meantime the ALP can work out what to do about the Carbon Tax Repeal act when it comes to them in the senate. Pass it like honourable senators submitting to an unequivocal mandate or reject it and go to a DD and lose a couple of them and still watch the CT be repealed. Interesting days if you are a liberal. Not so much fun if you are silly enough to support the red team. No the whole point is i want to see how he handles minority government and the spotlight of one seat. He has already lost slipper to the party. He would wilt. He isnt stupid enough to try. Why would you choose to work in a minority govt when you could choose a large majority? He will go for a new election and reap the rewards. He desperately wanted to after the last election and has behaved like a spoilt brat that got told no ever since. If he does not have the courage then he is not up to the job. Abbott is probably thrilled he didnt get the job as minority PM. It has destroyed Gillard and will cost Labor the next 3 elections or more. All he had to do was sit and wait for Labor to self-destruct. And they did. Not sure where you get that information from ... I wouldn't say Abbott has looked thrilled at missing the top job , in fact, judging from his behaviour since the last election I'd say he was the opposite  to thrilled.. and since your first argument is obviously rubbish, your other points are also rubbish ... Dont give up your day job to be a political analyst. I was reading one article today that said exactly the same thing. Winning the last election was a poisoned chalice and it has certainly been proven to be so. Abbott will miss out on 2 years of difficult PMship and instead be granted a probable 10 years in the job. He is probably laughing at Gillard and glad he missed out on drinking the poison that is Wilkie/Bandt/Oakeshott/Windsor.

Nice thought, Abbott's personality just couldn't let the power pass he has to have it. See the poll isn't working to well for you.

nairbe wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 9:15pm:

Abbott's personality

:o

Funny how essential polling, the BS online polling, says that there is nothing to see here, people dont want a new election. Well that just says it all about the cred of that poll. Also funny how it is usually the left that use that polling business.

progressiveslol wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 12:28am:

funny how it is usually the left that use that polling business.

Armchair Politician is a leftie?????

It is not a matter of whether the people want an election or not.  It is up to the government to decide, when the election is.  At a time of their choosing.  Looks like 2013.   :) 

Any of you conga line dancers look at our own poll here?  ;D ;D ;D

wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 7:58am:

It is not a matter of whether the people want an election or not.  It is up to the government to decide, when the election is.  At a time of their choosing.  Looks like 2013.   :)

Born to rule types generally do have this attitude to the wishes of the people, thats why our born to rule Government keeps doing exactly what it wants to do and shuts Australians out of their own Government.

borntorule wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 7:16pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 7:13pm: borntorule wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 7:00pm: nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:52pm: borntorule wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:47pm: nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:45pm: borntorule wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:36pm: nairbe wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 6:32pm: I still want Abbott to finish the term off as the minority PM and see what every one thinks of him then. and you dont think that his FIRST act as minority PM will be to call an early election? of course he will! What does he have to lose? He can only win the election by a landslide and while he wont get control of the senate, he can close the gap. In the meantime the ALP can work out what to do about the Carbon Tax Repeal act when it comes to them in the senate. Pass it like honourable senators submitting to an unequivocal mandate or reject it and go to a DD and lose a couple of them and still watch the CT be repealed. Interesting days if you are a liberal. Not so much fun if you are silly enough to support the red team. No the whole point is i want to see how he handles minority government and the spotlight of one seat. He has already lost slipper to the party. He would wilt. He isnt stupid enough to try. Why would you choose to work in a minority govt when you could choose a large majority? He will go for a new election and reap the rewards. He desperately wanted to after the last election and has behaved like a spoilt brat that got told no ever since. If he does not have the courage then he is not up to the job. Abbott is probably thrilled he didnt get the job as minority PM. It has destroyed Gillard and will cost Labor the next 3 elections or more. All he had to do was sit and wait for Labor to self-destruct. And they did. Not sure where you get that information from ... I wouldn't say Abbott has looked thrilled at missing the top job , in fact, judging from his behaviour since the last election I'd say he was the opposite  to thrilled.. and since your first argument is obviously rubbish, your other points are also rubbish ... Dont give up your day job to be a political analyst. I was reading one article today that said exactly the same thing. Winning the last election was a poisoned chalice and it has certainly been proven to be so. Abbott will miss out on 2 years of difficult PMship and instead be granted a probable 10 years in the job. He is probably laughing at Gillard and glad he missed out on drinking the poison that is Wilkie/Bandt/Oakeshott/Windsor.

Abbott won't even be the PM at the next election ... the libs will throw him out long before then ... let alone wait ten years

corporate_whitey wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 8:44am:

wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:58am: It is not a matter of whether the people want an election or not.  It is up to the government to decide, when the election is.  At a time of their choosing.  Looks like 2013.   :)  Born to rule types generally do have this attitude to the wishes of the people, thats why our born to rule Government keeps doing exactly what it wants to do and shuts Australians out of their own Government.

Maybe you should be living in an unstable country where revolutions occur with reasonable frequency.  Somewhere inn Africa or Central America maybe?  Your outlook does not seem to be compatible with a Western democracy governed on Westminster principles....

Another boat carrying nearly 30 illegal immigrants was intercepted byt he Navy overnight. More than 300 boats and in excess of 17,000 people - that's one hell of a policy failure by Gillard and her incompetent Labor government. All attempts by Gillard and Bowen to blame Abbott for this repeatedly fail. Just one massive, epic fail by Gillard!

The Labor Party turned maggot back in the 1980's and joined the Born To Rule class, in fact they implimented all of the maggot policies ever since or engineered them.  The ALP are not the party of the Aussie battlers - they are too interested in "the best and brightest" overseas.  They can bullshyte all they like but they know they turned maggot and went to war against us and now its pay back time.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 10:39am:

Another boat carrying nearly 30 illegal immigrants was intercepted..... one massive, epic fail by Gillard!

Intercepting the boat is a failure?  Would you rather have the boat get through?

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 10:39am:

Another boat carrying nearly 30 illegal immigrants was intercepted byt he Navy overnight.

Nope, legal asylum seekers.

You really should learn the difference.

Asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat are not illegal immigrants.    ::)

Frances wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 11:23am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 10:39am: Another boat carrying nearly 30 illegal immigrants was intercepted..... one massive, epic fail by Gillard! Intercepting the boat is a failure?  Would you rather have the boat get through?

No, intercepting more than 300 boats is a failure of epic proportions! Howard had hardly any to deal with during the Pacific Solution because it was an extremely effective policy, while Gillard has the Navy run off its feet with a massively ineffective policy.

Voters want an early election?

Course they do

'Cos voters are morons.  Addicted to change and fantasy.  Addicted to being ping-pong balls batted back and forth by the two arms of the same faux party

Sure, give the idiots an early election.  Hasn't half been set up for one, has it, lol.  With Labor co-operating all the way through to the strains of  ' Oh, please don't toss me in the blackberry bush '

Frances wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 11:23am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 10:39am: Another boat carrying nearly 30 illegal immigrants was intercepted..... one massive, epic fail by Gillard! Intercepting the boat is a failure?  Would you rather have the boat get through?

It doesn't matter - they get through either way.  "intercepting" just means  they get a naval escort to shore.

... wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 11:55am:

Frances wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 11:23am: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 10:39am: Another boat carrying nearly 30 illegal immigrants was intercepted..... one massive, epic fail by Gillard! Intercepting the boat is a failure?  Would you rather have the boat get through? It doesn't matter - they get through either way.  "intercepting" just means  they get a naval escort to shore.

Yep.  Asylum seekers deserve to be treated with dignity. 
Nothing wrong with an escort.

Voters want early election

I doubt it very much.

Dnarever wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 12:45pm:

Voters want early election I doubt it very much.

And you reasoning for that is what? repeated polls that show huge numbers want a new election? Or is it the current voting polls that show Labor to be the lepers of politics?

Saying that voters DONT want an election is just head-in-the-sand denial.

Word from the bunker is that Stephen Smith has the inside running to replace Julia Gillard as P.M.

Curiouser and curiouser! ;D

borntorule wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 12:45pm: Voters want early election I doubt it very much. And you reasoning for that is what? repeated polls that show huge numbers want a new election? Or is it the current voting polls that show Labor to be the lepers of politics? Saying that voters DONT want an election is just head-in-the-sand denial.

How "huge" are the numbers?

I certainly don't want an early election (OK, I voted ALP).

I don't know anyone else who wants an early election, and that includes friends who are Liberal voters.

I acknowledge that many people do want an early election, but how many are we actually talking about?  How many people have been surveyed in these polls?  1 million, 2 million?

Uncle Meat wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 1:05pm:

borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 12:57pm: Dnarever wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 12:45pm: Voters want early election I doubt it very much. And you reasoning for that is what? repeated polls that show huge numbers want a new election? Or is it the current voting polls that show Labor to be the lepers of politics? Saying that voters DONT want an election is just head-in-the-sand denial. How "huge" are the numbers? I certainly don't want an early election (OK, I voted ALP). I don't know anyone else who wants an early election, and that includes friends who are Liberal voters. I acknowledge that many people do want an early election, but how many are we actually talking about?  How many people have been surveyed in these polls?  1 million, 2 million?

online polls which are by defininion pretty unreliable show figures of 85-95%. Galaxy polled this very question and found the result to be 60%. thats a pretty significant number. 60% of the voting population wanting a new election is a pretty huge indictment on the ALP considering that it includes actual ALP voters!

borntorule wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 1:09pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:05pm: borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 12:57pm: Dnarever wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 12:45pm: Voters want early election I doubt it very much. And you reasoning for that is what? repeated polls that show huge numbers want a new election? Or is it the current voting polls that show Labor to be the lepers of politics? Saying that voters DONT want an election is just head-in-the-sand denial. How "huge" are the numbers? I certainly don't want an early election (OK, I voted ALP). I don't know anyone else who wants an early election, and that includes friends who are Liberal voters. I acknowledge that many people do want an early election, but how many are we actually talking about?  How many people have been surveyed in these polls?  1 million, 2 million? online polls which are by defininion pretty unreliable show figures of 85-95%. Galaxy polled this very question and found the result to be 60%. thats a pretty significant number. 60% of the voting population wanting a new election is a pretty huge indictment on the ALP considering that it includes actual ALP voters!

Sorry, not those numbers.

How many people are actually being surveyed in the polls?

What percentage of eligible voters are being asked the question?

Answer: a very small percentage.

borntorule wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 1:09pm:

60% of the voting population wanting a new election is a pretty huge indictment on the ALP considering that it includes actual ALP voters!

No, that's not correct.

It's 60% of the people surveyed, not 60% of the voting population.

How many people do you think they are actually surveying?

" the poll of 1019 voters - taken over the weekend and ... "

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/bring-on-an-early-election-say-voters-20120430-1xtgt.html


I'm here to tell you, there are a few more than 1019 eligible voters in Australia.

::)

60% of 1019 is 611 people.

So, you're suggesting that we go to an early election based on the thoughts of 611 people?  Seriously?

Uncle Meat wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 1:17pm:

borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:09pm: 60% of the voting population wanting a new election is a pretty huge indictment on the ALP considering that it includes actual ALP voters! No, that's not correct. It's 60% of the people surveyed, not 60% of the voting population. How many people do you think they are actually surveying?

Oh, I get it! This is the classic 'shoot the messenger' ploy. If your argument is that polls are worthless, despite being exceptionally accurate then really, your opinion on the topic isnt even as good as an online poll. They at least have SOME value, if not much, while dissing professional polls has no value at all - a bit like your opinion.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 1:17pm:

borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:09pm: 60% of the voting population wanting a new election is a pretty huge indictment on the ALP considering that it includes actual ALP voters! No, that's not correct. It's 60% of the people surveyed, not 60% of the voting population. How many people do you think they are actually surveying?

The ALP are maggots, the only ones who say any different are paid to.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 1:19pm:

" the poll of 1019 voters - taken over the weekend and ... " http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/bring-on-an-early-election-say-voters-20120430-1xtgt.html I'm here to tell you, there are a few more than 1019 eligible voters in Australia. ::)

Really? Who would have guessed? I was sure that Galaxy polled every voter in the country. How could they otherwise be so accurate? Or is there a possible other explanation, known as 'sampling protocol'?

borntorule wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:17pm: borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:09pm: 60% of the voting population wanting a new election is a pretty huge indictment on the ALP considering that it includes actual ALP voters! No, that's not correct. It's 60% of the people surveyed, not 60% of the voting population. How many people do you think they are actually surveying? Oh, I get it! This is the classic 'shoot the messenger' ploy. If your argument is that polls are worthless, despite being exceptionally accurate then really, your opinion on the topic isnt even as good as an online poll. They at least have SOME value, if not much, while dissing professional polls has no value at all - a bit like your opinion.

    " the poll of 1019 voters - taken over the weekend and ... "

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/bring-on-an-early-election-say-vot...

1019 people surveyed.

611 said "yes".

Australian poulation = 22,892,632

Yeah, Australia wants an early election   ;D

borntorule wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 1:23pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:19pm: " the poll of 1019 voters - taken over the weekend and ... " http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/bring-on-an-early-election-say-voters-20120430-1xtgt.html I'm here to tell you, there are a few more than 1019 eligible voters in Australia. ::) Really? Who would have guessed? I was sure that Galaxy polled every voter in the country. How could they otherwise be so accurate? Or is there a possible other explanation, known as 'sampling protocol'?

"gul·li·ble/ˈgələbəl/Adjective: Easily persuaded to believe something; credulous. "

borntorule wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 1:09pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:05pm: borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 12:57pm: Dnarever wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 12:45pm: Voters want early election I doubt it very much. And you reasoning for that is what? repeated polls that show huge numbers want a new election? Or is it the current voting polls that show Labor to be the lepers of politics? Saying that voters DONT want an election is just head-in-the-sand denial. How "huge" are the numbers? I certainly don't want an early election (OK, I voted ALP). I don't know anyone else who wants an early election, and that includes friends who are Liberal voters. I acknowledge that many people do want an early election, but how many are we actually talking about?  How many people have been surveyed in these polls?  1 million, 2 million? online polls which are by defininion pretty unreliable show figures of 85-95%. Galaxy polled this very question and found the result to be 60%. thats a pretty significant number. 60% of the voting population wanting a new election is a pretty huge indictment on the ALP considering that it includes actual ALP voters!

Must have been a different poll to the one released by galaxy a couple of days ago, which had 52% wanting an election, which coincidentally happened to be the same percentage as those who say they want to vote Abbott in.

Maybe you go to the Hockey school of economics, and just make up a figure which sounds good for you?

mozzaok wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 1:27pm:

borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:09pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:05pm: borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 12:57pm: Dnarever wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 12:45pm: Voters want early election I doubt it very much. And you reasoning for that is what? repeated polls that show huge numbers want a new election? Or is it the current voting polls that show Labor to be the lepers of politics? Saying that voters DONT want an election is just head-in-the-sand denial. How "huge" are the numbers? I certainly don't want an early election (OK, I voted ALP). I don't know anyone else who wants an early election, and that includes friends who are Liberal voters. I acknowledge that many people do want an early election, but how many are we actually talking about?  How many people have been surveyed in these polls?  1 million, 2 million? online polls which are by defininion pretty unreliable show figures of 85-95%. Galaxy polled this very question and found the result to be 60%. thats a pretty significant number. 60% of the voting population wanting a new election is a pretty huge indictment on the ALP considering that it includes actual ALP voters! Must have been a different poll to the one released by galaxy a couple of days ago, which had 52% wanting an election, which coincidentally happened to be the same percentage as those who say they want to vote Abbott in. Maybe you go to the Hockey school of economics, and just make up a figure which sounds good for you?

So which part of 52% sounds like a minority to you? By any definition 52% is a majority plus, when taken in context, is a very, very significant number. firstly the Coalitions primary vote is 51% not 52% and the assumption that all Coalition voters want an early election is untested and highly unlikely. That leaves a very significant number of people who WONT vote Coalition, wanting an early election.

There is no way you can spin a poll like this as not meaning that the voters dont want an early election. It is quite clear that they do.

borntorule wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 1:32pm:

There is no way you can spin a poll like this as not meaning that the voters dont want an early election. It is quite clear that they do.

" the poll of 1019 voters - taken over the weekend and ... "

Clear as mud.

::)

The ALP needs to just wake up that there is nothing they can do right, nothing they will get -credit for and that they are maggots.  And before Aussie Joe Hockey pumps us with 15 years of Austerity measures, at least we will see the Carbon Tax repealed and most of these ALP Maggots gone from the Parliament.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 1:26pm:

borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:23pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:19pm: " the poll of 1019 voters - taken over the weekend and ... " http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/bring-on-an-early-election-say-voters-20120430-1xtgt.html I'm here to tell you, there are a few more than 1019 eligible voters in Australia. ::) Really? Who would have guessed? I was sure that Galaxy polled every voter in the country. How could they otherwise be so accurate? Or is there a possible other explanation, known as 'sampling protocol'? "gul·li·ble/ˈgələbəl/Adjective: Easily persuaded to believe something; credulous. "

Rather than just sit there stamping your feet like a petulant child, look up the Galaxy website and click on political polling. It will show you their accuracy rate for the past ten years.  Then come back and tell me why YOU are right and the most accurate polling group in the country is wrong.

Or is the real problem that you have actually succumbed to that juvenile affliction known as 'defining the universe by my own experience'? Because if you suffer from that affliction it would make sense because you dont know anyone wanting an early election therefore nobody does. But it is ok. There is a cure. It is called 'growing up'.

It doesn't hurt.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 7:34am:

wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 7:33am: No need for an early election.  Its not due yet, and should be at a time of the governments choosing.  See you in 2013.   :) No need? Do you think the Gillard government is carrying out its job competently?

http://content8.flixster.com/photo/12/88/69/12886986_ori.jpg


( ... not that you'd KNOW - from reading The Australian)




PM's disability announcement greeted with cheers
May 01, 2012

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/3980716-3x2-940x627.jpg


Melbourne's Federation Square was the centre of one of many rallies held around the country, calling for a shake-up of disability support services.

Many watched the big screens, as the Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced that the Federal Government would fund part of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), set to begin from July next year.

Among the hundreds at Federation Square was carer Matt McFarlane.

He says the NDIS is essential.

"It's a big struggle for some people and I think struggling is strength," he said.

"Strength should be respected and appreciated and supported. We all should support one another."

Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Graeme Innes, was also among the hundreds at Federation Square.

"If we want every Australian to count, including the 20 per cent of people with a disability, then a NDIS is critical," he said.

Ms Gillard says the scheme will operate in up to four locations across the country, helping 10,000 people in its first year.

Victoria's Community Services Minister Mary Wooldridge, welcomed the Government's decision.

She told the crowd the State Government was doing all it could to help the disabled.

"We will be with you every step of the way," she said.

"We are there, there is leadership, there is commitment, there is expertise," she said.

Ahead of the Melbourne rally, organiser James O'Brien, from the Every Australian Counts campaign, said the scheme was crucial.

"(It) ensures that people with disabilities, family members and their carers, get access to a decent level of care and support," he said.

"For too long, people with disabilities have missed out and have been let down by a system that doesn't work in their interests."


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-30/melbourne-cheers-as-the-pm-announces-disability-funding/3980976?section=vic

borntorule wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 1:38pm:

Rather than just sit there stamping your feet ...

Not stamping, laughing.

You can believe whatever you like.  I couldn't care less.

But, remember this:

1. There is absolutely no way of determining if that poll is accurate. None.  I invite you to argue to the contrary though.

2. Even if it was correct, it doesn't matter in the slightest: Galaxy polls do not dictate when Australia has a general election.  Sorry.

Still laughing, not stamping   ;)

borntorule wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 1:09pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:05pm: borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 12:57pm: Dnarever wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 12:45pm: Voters want early election I doubt it very much. And you reasoning for that is what? repeated polls that show huge numbers want a new election? Or is it the current voting polls that show Labor to be the lepers of politics? Saying that voters DONT want an election is just head-in-the-sand denial. How "huge" are the numbers? I certainly don't want an early election (OK, I voted ALP). I don't know anyone else who wants an early election, and that includes friends who are Liberal voters. I acknowledge that many people do want an early election, but how many are we actually talking about?  How many people have been surveyed in these polls?  1 million, 2 million? online polls which are by defininion pretty unreliable show figures of 85-95%. Galaxy polled this very question and found the result to be 60%. thats a pretty significant number. 60% of the voting population wanting a new election is a pretty huge indictment on the ALP considering that it includes actual ALP voters!

Wow,it was only 52% in the galaxy poll yesterday,must be inflation.
So who's banned sock are you,anyway?

skippy. wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 1:50pm:

Wow,it was only 52% in the galaxy poll yesterday,must be inflation. So who's banned sock are you,anyway?

I was damned certain that it was loserweekend hiding back there. But then I noticed the line about Galaxy being super accurate. Not Newspoll but Galaxy. And more importantly, it can spell!  ;D ;D

Gist wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 2:32pm:

skippy. wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:50pm: Wow,it was only 52% in the galaxy poll yesterday,must be inflation. So who's banned sock are you,anyway? I was damned certain that it was loserweekend hiding back there. But then I noticed the line about Galaxy being super accurate. Not Newspoll but Galaxy. And more importantly, it can spell!  ;D ;D

Good observations, I too thought it wrote like losersweekend,but the Galaxy line throws that off.OH, and the fact this sock has spell check,losersweekend spells like a 3rd grader.
That said this troll only registered yesterday arvo yet it has over 50 posts, sure sign of a banned member.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 1:48pm:

borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:38pm: Rather than just sit there stamping your feet ... Not stamping, laughing. You can believe whatever you like.  I couldn't care less. But, remember this: 1. There is absolutely no way of determining if that poll is accurate. None.  I invite you to argue to the contrary though. 2. Even if it was correct, it doesn't matter in the slightest: Galaxy polls do not dictate when Australia has a general election.  Sorry. Still laughing, not stamping   ;)

Well your comment that it is not accurate is just silly since the methodology virtually ensures it.  And it was an OPINION poll, not a referendum. That doesnt make it binding but it does make it important. When over half the voters want the govt out NOW, then it is something to mull over in the PM's suite as the caucus sharpens its well-used knives.

It seems irrelevant of the company, every opinion poll is showing Labor about as popular as a case of herpes.

skippy. wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 2:48pm:

Gist wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 2:32pm: skippy. wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:50pm: Wow,it was only 52% in the galaxy poll yesterday,must be inflation. So who's banned sock are you,anyway? I was damned certain that it was loserweekend hiding back there. But then I noticed the line about Galaxy being super accurate. Not Newspoll but Galaxy. And more importantly, it can spell!  ;D ;D Good observations, I too thought it wrote like losersweekend,but the Galaxy line throws that off.OH, and the fact this sock has spell check,losersweekend spells like a 3rd grader. That said this troll only registered yesterday arvo yet it has over 50 posts, sure sign of a banned member.

I remember Skippy the Bush Kangaroo. It was a silly program about a dumb animal that the cast was paid to think was intelligent, but was not.

Seems that you chose your ID perfectly. You make a perfect 'dumb animal'.

borntorule wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 3:07pm:

Well your comment that it is not accurate is just silly since the methodology virtually ensures it.

I can only reiterate:

There is absolutely no way of determining if that poll is accurate. None. 

It's completely different to a poll on voters' intentions.  The accuracy of those polls can easily be checked once the people have voted.

Not so with this poll though.

borntorule wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 3:10pm:

skippy. wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 2:48pm: Gist wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 2:32pm: skippy. wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:50pm: Wow,it was only 52% in the galaxy poll yesterday,must be inflation. So who's banned sock are you,anyway? I was damned certain that it was loserweekend hiding back there. But then I noticed the line about Galaxy being super accurate. Not Newspoll but Galaxy. And more importantly, it can spell!  ;D ;D Good observations, I too thought it wrote like losersweekend,but the Galaxy line throws that off.OH, and the fact this sock has spell check,losersweekend spells like a 3rd grader. That said this troll only registered yesterday arvo yet it has over 50 posts, sure sign of a banned member. I remember Skippy the Bush Kangaroo. It was a silly program about a dumb animal that the cast was paid to think was intelligent, but was not. Seems that you chose your ID perfectly. You make a perfect 'dumb animal'.

What did you get banned for,troll? ;D ;D ;D

Uncle Meat wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 3:14pm:

borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 3:07pm: Well your comment that it is not accurate is just silly since the methodology virtually ensures it.  I can only reiterate: There is absolutely no way of determining if that poll is accurate. None.  It's completely different to a poll on voters' intentions.  The accuracy of those polls can easily be checked once the people have voted. Not so with this poll though.

Never been anywhere near a research lab, have you? How do you think researchers make confident predictions on things they can not comprehensively prove? Yes, thats right! They extrapolate their findings in the KNOWN realm and push it out into the UNKNOWN realm. And then decades later, their research is PROVEN right by newer technologies.

The voters intentions is a PROVEN accurate methodology so by using the same methodology they ask questions that can never be proven but remain accurate. It is really quite simple once you dispense with intellectual bias.

borntorule wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 4:08pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 3:14pm: borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 3:07pm: Well your comment that it is not accurate is just silly since the methodology virtually ensures it.  I can only reiterate: There is absolutely no way of determining if that poll is accurate. None.  It's completely different to a poll on voters' intentions.  The accuracy of those polls can easily be checked once the people have voted. Not so with this poll though. Never been anywhere near a research lab, have you? How do you think researchers make confident predictions on things they can not comprehensively prove? Yes, thats right! They extrapolate their findings in the KNOWN realm and push it out into the UNKNOWN realm. And then decades later, their research is PROVEN right by newer technologies. The voters intentions is a PROVEN accurate methodology so by using the same methodology they ask questions that can never be proven but remain accurate. It is really quite simple once you dispense with intellectual bias.

Yes, I've done extensive research.  Studied it at uni too.

There is absolutely no way of determining if that poll is accurate. None. 

Your inability to understand this fact is really quite amazing.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 5:02pm:

borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 4:08pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 3:14pm: borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 3:07pm: Well your comment that it is not accurate is just silly since the methodology virtually ensures it.  I can only reiterate: There is absolutely no way of determining if that poll is accurate. None.  It's completely different to a poll on voters' intentions.  The accuracy of those polls can easily be checked once the people have voted. Not so with this poll though. Never been anywhere near a research lab, have you? How do you think researchers make confident predictions on things they can not comprehensively prove? Yes, thats right! They extrapolate their findings in the KNOWN realm and push it out into the UNKNOWN realm. And then decades later, their research is PROVEN right by newer technologies. The voters intentions is a PROVEN accurate methodology so by using the same methodology they ask questions that can never be proven but remain accurate. It is really quite simple once you dispense with intellectual bias. Yes, I've done extensive research.  Studied it at uni too. There is absolutely no way of determining if that poll is accurate. None.  Your inability to understand this fact is really quite amazing.

I find that claim non-credible. A university trained researcher would never fall for the nonsense you are sprouting.  Of course it is possible to know if the poll is accurate! It is called EXTRAPOLATION (look it up). You could also look at concepts like 'margin of error' and other protocols that a university trained researcher understands perfectly.

I doubt you ever entered a university except as an Arts or Music student. You certainly never went anywhere near a maths or science faculty except as a tourist.

borntorule wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 5:20pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 5:02pm: borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 4:08pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 3:14pm: borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 3:07pm: Well your comment that it is not accurate is just silly since the methodology virtually ensures it.  I can only reiterate: There is absolutely no way of determining if that poll is accurate. None.  It's completely different to a poll on voters' intentions.  The accuracy of those polls can easily be checked once the people have voted. Not so with this poll though. Never been anywhere near a research lab, have you? How do you think researchers make confident predictions on things they can not comprehensively prove? Yes, thats right! They extrapolate their findings in the KNOWN realm and push it out into the UNKNOWN realm. And then decades later, their research is PROVEN right by newer technologies. The voters intentions is a PROVEN accurate methodology so by using the same methodology they ask questions that can never be proven but remain accurate. It is really quite simple once you dispense with intellectual bias. Yes, I've done extensive research.  Studied it at uni too. There is absolutely no way of determining if that poll is accurate. None.  Your inability to understand this fact is really quite amazing. I find that claim non-credible. A university trained researcher would never fall for the nonsense you are sprouting.  Of course it is possible to know if the poll is accurate! It is called EXTRAPOLATION (look it up). You could also look at concepts like 'margin of error' and other protocols that a university trained researcher understands perfectly. I doubt you ever entered a university except as an Arts or Music student. You certainly never went anywhere near a maths or science faculty except as a tourist.

Heh. I did a bit of it @ uni too as part of a marketing course. And there are ways to get a more accurate reading but you cant get an accurate reading of what the public is thinking by 3000 ppl out of millions especially when those 3000 are the sort that answer these kind of polls. This poll and other rushed polls done by the media are not a cross section of ppl from different sectors of australia they are all from 1 place in 1 lump so they can get it done fast.

SOB

borntorule wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 12:45pm: Voters want early election I doubt it very much. And you reasoning for that is what? repeated polls that show huge numbers want a new election? Or is it the current voting polls that show Labor to be the lepers of politics? Saying that voters DONT want an election is just head-in-the-sand denial.

Every second week on here we have polls suggesting that many want the right to not vote at all.

We have polls telling us that many want the right to not vote at all and then 52% want an election as well as we know that the vast majority could not care less about politics.  The numbers do not add up.

I wonder what the question was and who was asked?

borntorule wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 5:20pm:

Of course it is possible to know if the poll is accurate! It is called EXTRAPOLATION (look it up).

LOL

No, it is not. 

I suggest you look up 'extrapolation'.  I'm fully aware of what it means.  You, ... not so much.

Here's a tip: look up 'infer' and 'estimate' while you're there.   ;)

Joe Hockey should get out of the Parliament,  in fact anyone from the Corporate business class should get out of the parliament, they should be banned!

corporate_whitey wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 6:25pm:

Joe Hockey should get out of the Parliament,  in fact anyone from the Corporate business class should get out of the parliament, they should be banned!

He can't fit through the door.
They built a bigger back door, but only certain mining magnates can use that

No thanks. Let the government run its term.

Simply, while far from happy with the party that betrayed the working class, I would be even less happy with the party that rogers the working class.

locutius wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 7:21pm:

No thanks. Let the government run its term. Simply, while far from happy with the party that betrayed the working class, I would be even less happy with the party that rogers the working class.

Well said....

Uncle Meat wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 6:10pm:

borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 5:20pm:   Of course it is possible to know if the poll is accurate! It is called EXTRAPOLATION (look it up). LOL No, it is not.  I suggest you look up 'extrapolation'.  I'm fully aware of what it means.  You, ... not so much. Here's a tip: look up 'infer' and 'estimate' while you're there.   ;)

Google and wikipedia are not a substitute for an education no matter HOW hard you try.

borntorule wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 9:04pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 6:10pm: borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 5:20pm:   Of course it is possible to know if the poll is accurate! It is called EXTRAPOLATION (look it up). LOL No, it is not.  I suggest you look up 'extrapolation'.  I'm fully aware of what it means.  You, ... not so much. Here's a tip: look up 'infer' and 'estimate' while you're there.   ;) Google and wikipedia are not a substitute for an education no matter HOW hard you try.

White flag accepted.

Next time, learn a little bit about the subject matter before making a fool of yourself.

You'll learn   ;)

borntorule wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 3:07pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:48pm: borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:38pm: Rather than just sit there stamping your feet ... Not stamping, laughing. You can believe whatever you like.  I couldn't care less. But, remember this: 1. There is absolutely no way of determining if that poll is accurate. None.  I invite you to argue to the contrary though. 2. Even if it was correct, it doesn't matter in the slightest: Galaxy polls do not dictate when Australia has a general election.  Sorry. Still laughing, not stamping   ;) Well your comment that it is not accurate is just silly since the methodology virtually ensures it.  And it was an OPINION poll, not a referendum. That doesnt make it binding but it does make it important. When over half the voters want the govt out NOW, then it is something to mull over in the PM's suite as the caucus sharpens its well-used knives.

This type of ignorance, as expressed here, by "borntorule"(how apt), would be laughable, if it were not for the fact that the mainstream media is shamelessly promoting the very same idiocy.

As if it is unheard of, or even uncommon, for an incumbent government to have less than 50% voter support, part way through it's term of office.

Now these Abbott supporters, stirred up, to a silly level of false expectation, by an unashamedly biased media,  seem to be saying that any time an opposition gains a higher percentage, in approval ratings, than the government of the day, that therefore the people have a natural right to demand a new election.

IF, that were the case, then we would end up with elections every five minutes, as well as having governments, making decisions based primarily upon immediate, short term, voter popularity, rather than long term plans, and aspirations to deliver a viable future for coming generations.

It is very much the thinking of selfish individuals, seeking instant gratification on all things, at all times.

Even though it has been stated here often enough before, in light of the current fact that Galaxy have a poll showing 52% (not the 60, 80, or 90 that some over exuberant Lib fanboys have claimed) of voters, do want a new election to be called, which they claim is really demanded by anyone with a passion for fair play, and democracy, (HAH! what a joke) perhaps we need to remind them of former Liberal governments winning office, and governing, with less than 50% of the general vote, and I am certain that NONE of them called for a NEW election at those times.

This seems to show me that rather than their feigned concern for principals of democracy, they once more display little more than partisan, political, opportunism, from, and for, the one Australian political party, which truly does appear to believe that, they were born to rule.

Spot-on, Mozzaok.

10/10.

Deleted by Kat

Reason: Redundant.

skippy. wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 3:34pm:

borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 3:10pm: skippy. wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 2:48pm: Gist wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 2:32pm: skippy. wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:50pm: Wow,it was only 52% in the galaxy poll yesterday,must be inflation. So who's banned sock are you,anyway? I was damned certain that it was loserweekend hiding back there. But then I noticed the line about Galaxy being super accurate. Not Newspoll but Galaxy. And more importantly, it can spell!  ;D ;D Good observations, I too thought it wrote like losersweekend,but the Galaxy line throws that off.OH, and the fact this sock has spell check,losersweekend spells like a 3rd grader. That said this troll only registered yesterday arvo yet it has over 50 posts, sure sign of a banned member. I remember Skippy the Bush Kangaroo. It was a silly program about a dumb animal that the cast was paid to think was intelligent, but was not. Seems that you chose your ID perfectly. You make a perfect 'dumb animal'. What did you get banned for,troll? ;D ;D ;D

It's longweekend, I'm sure of it. Have you seen any posts from him lately? And rabbiting on about extrapolation without having a clue what it means ... pure longloser...  ;D ;D ;D

Probably wouldn't take much to find a reason to ban him.

mozzaok wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 5:50am:

borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 3:07pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:48pm: borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:38pm: Rather than just sit there stamping your feet ... Not stamping, laughing. You can believe whatever you like.  I couldn't care less. But, remember this: 1. There is absolutely no way of determining if that poll is accurate. None.  I invite you to argue to the contrary though. 2. Even if it was correct, it doesn't matter in the slightest: Galaxy polls do not dictate when Australia has a general election.  Sorry. Still laughing, not stamping   ;) Well your comment that it is not accurate is just silly since the methodology virtually ensures it.  And it was an OPINION poll, not a referendum. That doesnt make it binding but it does make it important. When over half the voters want the govt out NOW, then it is something to mull over in the PM's suite as the caucus sharpens its well-used knives. This type of ignorance, as expressed here, by "borntorule"(how apt), would be laughable, if it were not for the fact that the mainstream media is shamelessly promoting the very same idiocy. As if it is unheard of, or even uncommon, for an incumbent government to have less than 50% voter support, part way through it's term of office. Now these Abbott supporters, stirred up, to a silly level of false expectation, by an unashamedly biased media,  seem to be saying that any time an opposition gains a higher percentage, in approval ratings, than the government of the day, that therefore the people have a natural right to demand a new election. IF, that were the case, then we would end up with elections every five minutes, as well as having governments, making decisions based primarily upon immediate, short term, voter popularity, rather than long term plans, and aspirations to deliver a viable future for coming generations. It is very much the thinking of selfish individuals, seeking instant gratification on all things, at all times. Even though it has been stated here often enough before, in light of the current fact that Galaxy have a poll showing 52% (not the 60, 80, or 90 that some over exuberant Lib fanboys have claimed) of voters, do want a new election to be called, which they claim is really demanded by anyone with a passion for fair play, and democracy, (HAH! what a joke) perhaps we need to remind them of former Liberal governments winning office, and governing, with less than 50% of the general vote, and I am certain that NONE of them called for a NEW election at those times. This seems to show me that rather than their feigned concern for principals of democracy, they once more display little more than partisan, political, opportunism, from, and for, the one Australian political party, which truly does appear to believe that, they were born to rule.

You seem to very conveniently MISS THE POINT. The fact is that there is even a call for an early election at all is what is important. Do you recall a general clamour for an early election before? Last time I am aware of it was in 1975 under Whitlam. Was there a public outcry and demand for an early election under Keating, Howard or Rudd? No. This is very similar to the public demands for an early election in NSW 2 years into their term. In that case there were no constitutional means of having one but the clamour was just the same.

You are trying to pretend that this isnt different - but it is. The polls are showing a MAJORITY of people want an early election, something that does not normally happen.

A majority opinionon something so unusual is significant and it tells us that there is a mighty groundswell of anti-govt feeling far in excess of the usual partisan bias. There are people demanding an election even though not planning to vote for the Opposition! There are labor members wanting an early election so they can get the disaster over and done with ASAP so they can start rebuilding. They fear - with justification - that the longer this govt stays in power the more seats they will lose.

So dont try and misinterpret a poll or a general community push for an early election. It smells very much of the Whitlam death-throes and I expect a similar electoral outcome.

borntorule wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 10:07am:

mozzaok wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 5:50am: borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 3:07pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:48pm: borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:38pm: Rather than just sit there stamping your feet ... Not stamping, laughing. You can believe whatever you like.  I couldn't care less. But, remember this: 1. There is absolutely no way of determining if that poll is accurate. None.  I invite you to argue to the contrary though. 2. Even if it was correct, it doesn't matter in the slightest: Galaxy polls do not dictate when Australia has a general election.  Sorry. Still laughing, not stamping   ;) Well your comment that it is not accurate is just silly since the methodology virtually ensures it.  And it was an OPINION poll, not a referendum. That doesnt make it binding but it does make it important. When over half the voters want the govt out NOW, then it is something to mull over in the PM's suite as the caucus sharpens its well-used knives. This type of ignorance, as expressed here, by "borntorule"(how apt), would be laughable, if it were not for the fact that the mainstream media is shamelessly promoting the very same idiocy. As if it is unheard of, or even uncommon, for an incumbent government to have less than 50% voter support, part way through it's term of office. Now these Abbott supporters, stirred up, to a silly level of false expectation, by an unashamedly biased media,  seem to be saying that any time an opposition gains a higher percentage, in approval ratings, than the government of the day, that therefore the people have a natural right to demand a new election. IF, that were the case, then we would end up with elections every five minutes, as well as having governments, making decisions based primarily upon immediate, short term, voter popularity, rather than long term plans, and aspirations to deliver a viable future for coming generations. It is very much the thinking of selfish individuals, seeking instant gratification on all things, at all times. Even though it has been stated here often enough before, in light of the current fact that Galaxy have a poll showing 52% (not the 60, 80, or 90 that some over exuberant Lib fanboys have claimed) of voters, do want a new election to be called, which they claim is really demanded by anyone with a passion for fair play, and democracy, (HAH! what a joke) perhaps we need to remind them of former Liberal governments winning office, and governing, with less than 50% of the general vote, and I am certain that NONE of them called for a NEW election at those times. This seems to show me that rather than their feigned concern for principals of democracy, they once more display little more than partisan, political, opportunism, from, and for, the one Australian political party, which truly does appear to believe that, they were born to rule. You seem to very conveniently MISS THE POINT. The fact is that there is even a call for an early election at all is what is important. Do you recall a general clamour for an early election before? Last time I am aware of it was in 1975 under Whitlam. Was there a public outcry and demand for an early election under Keating, Howard or Rudd? No. This is very similar to the public demands for an early election in NSW 2 years into their term. In that case there were no constitutional means of having one but the clamour was just the same. You are trying to pretend that this isnt different - but it is. The polls are showing a MAJORITY of people want an early election, something that does not normally happen. A majority opinionon something so unusual is significant and it tells us that there is a mighty groundswell of anti-govt feeling far in excess of the usual partisan bias. There are people demanding an election even though not planning to vote for the Opposition! There are labor members wanting an early election so they can get the disaster over and done with ASAP so they can start rebuilding. They fear - with justification - that the longer this govt stays in power the more seats they will lose. So dont try and misinterpret a poll or a general community push for an early election. It smells very much of the Whitlam death-throes and I expect a similar electoral outcome.

Its not a public clamour. Its a media and liberal clamour.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 11:38am:

Its not a public clamour. Its a media and Liberal clamour.

http://www.gtbingo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/MathBingo-Winner.jpg

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 11:38am:

borntorule wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 10:07am: mozzaok wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 5:50am: borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 3:07pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:48pm: borntorule wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:38pm: Rather than just sit there stamping your feet ... Not stamping, laughing. You can believe whatever you like.  I couldn't care less. But, remember this: 1. There is absolutely no way of determining if that poll is accurate. None.  I invite you to argue to the contrary though. 2. Even if it was correct, it doesn't matter in the slightest: Galaxy polls do not dictate when Australia has a general election.  Sorry. Still laughing, not stamping   ;) Well your comment that it is not accurate is just silly since the methodology virtually ensures it.  And it was an OPINION poll, not a referendum. That doesnt make it binding but it does make it important. When over half the voters want the govt out NOW, then it is something to mull over in the PM's suite as the caucus sharpens its well-used knives. This type of ignorance, as expressed here, by "borntorule"(how apt), would be laughable, if it were not for the fact that the mainstream media is shamelessly promoting the very same idiocy. As if it is unheard of, or even uncommon, for an incumbent government to have less than 50% voter support, part way through it's term of office. Now these Abbott supporters, stirred up, to a silly level of false expectation, by an unashamedly biased media,  seem to be saying that any time an opposition gains a higher percentage, in approval ratings, than the government of the day, that therefore the people have a natural right to demand a new election. IF, that were the case, then we would end up with elections every five minutes, as well as having governments, making decisions based primarily upon immediate, short term, voter popularity, rather than long term plans, and aspirations to deliver a viable future for coming generations. It is very much the thinking of selfish individuals, seeking instant gratification on all things, at all times. Even though it has been stated here often enough before, in light of the current fact that Galaxy have a poll showing 52% (not the 60, 80, or 90 that some over exuberant Lib fanboys have claimed) of voters, do want a new election to be called, which they claim is really demanded by anyone with a passion for fair play, and democracy, (HAH! what a joke) perhaps we need to remind them of former Liberal governments winning office, and governing, with less than 50% of the general vote, and I am certain that NONE of them called for a NEW election at those times. This seems to show me that rather than their feigned concern for principals of democracy, they once more display little more than partisan, political, opportunism, from, and for, the one Australian political party, which truly does appear to believe that, they were born to rule. You seem to very conveniently MISS THE POINT. The fact is that there is even a call for an early election at all is what is important. Do you recall a general clamour for an early election before? Last time I am aware of it was in 1975 under Whitlam. Was there a public outcry and demand for an early election under Keating, Howard or Rudd? No. This is very similar to the public demands for an early election in NSW 2 years into their term. In that case there were no constitutional means of having one but the clamour was just the same. You are trying to pretend that this isnt different - but it is. The polls are showing a MAJORITY of people want an early election, something that does not normally happen. A majority opinionon something so unusual is significant and it tells us that there is a mighty groundswell of anti-govt feeling far in excess of the usual partisan bias. There are people demanding an election even though not planning to vote for the Opposition! There are labor members wanting an early election so they can get the disaster over and done with ASAP so they can start rebuilding. They fear - with justification - that the longer this govt stays in power the more seats they will lose. So dont try and misinterpret a poll or a general community push for an early election. It smells very much of the Whitlam death-throes and I expect a similar electoral outcome. Its not a public clamour. Its a media and liberal clamour. SOB

52% calling for an EARLY election IS a clamour. Normally, next to nobody makes a demand for an early election. when a majority do so then something seismic has shifted.

You and the conga line of suckholes have been calling  for another election since phony tony was exposed as a poor negotiator that even former conservative members refused to back,banned longwhiner.Your opinions are worthless.

borntorule wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 12:33pm:

52% calling for an EARLY election IS a clamour. Normally, next to nobody makes a demand for an early election. when a majority do so then something seismic has shifted.

It's 52% of the people surveyed, not 52% of the Australian population (and the number of people surveyed was a very small sample) .  This poll is completely different to a 'voters' intentions' poll and thus the accuracy (amongst the unpolled population) can not be determined in the same way.  Pretty basic stuff.  It's a rough estimation, at the very best.

However, just for argument's sake let's say that 100% of the Australian population wants an early election.  Tough luck.

a) the Government is functioning perfectly well, and b) private polls don't dictate general election dates.

The media and the Liberal Party can make as much noise as they want, and good luck to them, but there is currently no valid reason for calling an early election.  Absolutely none.

"My party lost, and I don't like Julia" is not a valid reason.  Sorry.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 1:02pm:

borntorule wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 12:33pm: 52% calling for an EARLY election IS a clamour. Normally, next to nobody makes a demand for an early election. when a majority do so then something seismic has shifted. It's 52% of the people surveyed, not 52% of the Australian population (and the number of people surveyed was a very small sample) .  This poll is completely different to a 'voters' intentions' poll and thus the accuracy (amongst the unpolled population) can not be determined in the same way.  Pretty basic stuff.  It's a rough estimation, at the very best. However, just for argument's sake let's say that 100% of the Australian population wants an early election.  Tough luck. a) the Government is functioning perfectly well, and b) private polls don't dictate general election dates. The media and the Liberal Party can make as much noise as they want, and good luck to them, but there is currently no valid reason for calling an early election.  Absolutely none. "My party lost, and I don't like Julia" is not a valid reason.  Sorry.

The lying little rodent didn't give the people that demanded an election that option when he illegally invaded a sovereign nation, and WE HAD MILLIONS march in the streets against the little turd.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 1:02pm:

borntorule wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 12:33pm: 52% calling for an EARLY election IS a clamour. Normally, next to nobody makes a demand for an early election. when a majority do so then something seismic has shifted. It's 52% of the people surveyed, not 52% of the Australian population (and the number of people surveyed was a very small sample) .  This poll is completely different to a 'voters' intentions' poll and thus the accuracy (amongst the unpolled population) can not be determined in the same way.  Pretty basic stuff.  It's a rough estimation, at the very best. However, just for argument's sake let's say that 100% of the Australian population wants an early election.  Tough luck. a) the Government is functioning perfectly well, and b) private polls don't dictate general election dates. The media and the Liberal Party can make as much noise as they want, and good luck to them, but there is currently no valid reason for calling an early election.  Absolutely none. "My party lost, and I don't like Julia" is not a valid reason.  Sorry.

The only thing needed to discredit your entire post is the highlighted section. Even the govt itself doesnt say that! If you are so one-eyed and blind as to say that then nothing else you say could possibly have credibility and accuracy except by accident. And you arent that lucky.

borntorule wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 1:33pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 1:02pm: borntorule wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 12:33pm: 52% calling for an EARLY election IS a clamour. Normally, next to nobody makes a demand for an early election. when a majority do so then something seismic has shifted. It's 52% of the people surveyed, not 52% of the Australian population (and the number of people surveyed was a very small sample) .  This poll is completely different to a 'voters' intentions' poll and thus the accuracy (amongst the unpolled population) can not be determined in the same way.  Pretty basic stuff.  It's a rough estimation, at the very best. However, just for argument's sake let's say that 100% of the Australian population wants an early election.  Tough luck. a) the Government is functioning perfectly well, and b) private polls don't dictate general election dates. The media and the Liberal Party can make as much noise as they want, and good luck to them, but there is currently no valid reason for calling an early election.  Absolutely none. "My party lost, and I don't like Julia" is not a valid reason.  Sorry. The only thing needed to discredit your entire post is the highlighted section. Even the govt itself doesnt say that! If you are so one-eyed and blind as to say that then nothing else you say could possibly have credibility and accuracy except by accident. And you arent that lucky.

Oh dear, you really are confused, on a variety of issues.

Now you seem to be confusing popularity with functionality, and Government with Labor Party.

The Government is functioning perfectly well.

However, I invite you to give examples of where it isn't.

Over to you ...

Uncle Meat wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 2:16pm:

borntorule wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 1:33pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 1:02pm: borntorule wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 12:33pm: 52% calling for an EARLY election IS a clamour. Normally, next to nobody makes a demand for an early election. when a majority do so then something seismic has shifted. It's 52% of the people surveyed, not 52% of the Australian population (and the number of people surveyed was a very small sample) .  This poll is completely different to a 'voters' intentions' poll and thus the accuracy (amongst the unpolled population) can not be determined in the same way.  Pretty basic stuff.  It's a rough estimation, at the very best. However, just for argument's sake let's say that 100% of the Australian population wants an early election.  Tough luck. a) the Government is functioning perfectly well, and b) private polls don't dictate general election dates. The media and the Liberal Party can make as much noise as they want, and good luck to them, but there is currently no valid reason for calling an early election.  Absolutely none. "My party lost, and I don't like Julia" is not a valid reason.  Sorry. The only thing needed to discredit your entire post is the highlighted section. Even the govt itself doesnt say that! If you are so one-eyed and blind as to say that then nothing else you say could possibly have credibility and accuracy except by accident. And you arent that lucky. Oh dear, you really are confused, on a variety of issues. Now you seem to be confusing popularity with functionality, and Government with Labor Party. The Government is functioning perfectly well. However, I invite you to give examples of where it isn't. Over to you ...

That wouldnt be possible because as you have already demonstrated regarding polls, you dont accept the generally accepted meanings of words and concepts. 'functioning well' is hardly a term you can describe of the Gillard Govt unless you redefine it to mean 'operating at all' - which clearly you do.

The Governor General has grounds to act...if not now..when? 8-)

borntorule wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 3:28pm:

That wouldnt be possible ...

Yes.  That's the answer we were all expecting.

corporate_whitey wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 3:34pm:

The Governor General has grounds to act...

And what would those grounds be?

Please be specific, remembering that "I don't like Julia" is not sufficient grounds.

What specific reason, or reasons, exist for the GG to act at the moment?

What kind of poll is it when 59% DON'T WANT AN ELECTION. Of course, this flies in the face of real polls out there where about 70% of the people would have one tomorrow if they could..so they could kick Julia Gillard's sorry fat arse out of Parliament along with her sorry arsed bunch of pollies they laughingly call a Government. 8-)

corporate_whitey wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 3:34pm:

The Governor General has grounds to act...if not now..when? 8-)

The Governor General does not have grounds to act.

As far as the "Reserve Powers" are concerned, the Governor-General has the power to:
1. appoint a Prime Minister if an election has resulted in a hung parliament;
2. dismiss a Prime Minister where she or he has lost the confidence of the Parliament;
3. dismiss a Prime Minister or Minister when she or he is acting unlawfully; and
4. refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives despite a request from the Prime Minister.

Option 1 has already happened.
The circumstances concerning options 2, 3 and 4 have not yet arisen.

We'll see what happens during the parliamentary budget session. If Slipper and Thompson are charged in the next couple of weeks, they'll be out of the vote count. The vote then would be 74-74. With that, anything is possible.

borntorule wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 1:33pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 1:02pm: borntorule wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 12:33pm: 52% calling for an EARLY election IS a clamour. Normally, next to nobody makes a demand for an early election. when a majority do so then something seismic has shifted. It's 52% of the people surveyed, not 52% of the Australian population (and the number of people surveyed was a very small sample) .  This poll is completely different to a 'voters' intentions' poll and thus the accuracy (amongst the unpolled population) can not be determined in the same way.  Pretty basic stuff.  It's a rough estimation, at the very best. However, just for argument's sake let's say that 100% of the Australian population wants an early election.  Tough luck. a) the Government is functioning perfectly well, and b) private polls don't dictate general election dates. The media and the Liberal Party can make as much noise as they want, and good luck to them, but there is currently no valid reason for calling an early election.  Absolutely none. "My party lost, and I don't like Julia" is not a valid reason.  Sorry. The only thing needed to discredit your entire post is the highlighted section. Even the govt itself doesnt say that! If you are so one-eyed and blind as to say that then nothing else you say could possibly have credibility and accuracy except by accident. And you arent that lucky.

So the Government hasn't said it is functioning perfectly well?

Can you give examples of where this hasn't been said.
Afterall, that is a very strange thing not to say.

Charged?  Don't they have to be convicted?

Quote:

Voters want early election

The election is called on a Saturdy around 3 years following the previous election.

The Poling booths open at 8 am.

In my view that is early enough.

Frances wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 4:11pm:

Charged?  Don't they have to be convicted?

No. If they are charged, they are stepping down.

LOL

The one world government Greens don’t want an early election, do you fellow earthians?

The ALP? It doesn’t matter now, they’ll never recover and the way they are going will sink even further into the mire.

Abbott as PM……..oh crap, is that really all we got?

Dumb, dumb and dumb.

Hooray... :-/

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 4:19pm:

Frances wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 4:11pm: Charged?  Don't they have to be convicted? No. If they are changed, they are stepping down.

Besides the fact three police forces have investigated Thompson and none have found he has committed a crime your chances there are slim,swallow.
Sliiper looks like being cleared of any cabcharge fraud and the other accusation is he said he said like any lovers tif, good luck there, the only person that could be sacked there is Pyne or even phony Tony for their involvement in what could well be fraud.

AND, even if charged, I would say they would go no where until convicted, no donkey courts here,swallow. But, if you insist what you say is true, post up your evidence.

Shame...resign you toad... :(

Frances wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 3:53pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 3:34pm: The Governor General has grounds to act...if not now..when? 8-) The Governor General does not have grounds to act. As far as the "Reserve Powers" are concerned, the Governor-General has the power to: 1. appoint a Prime Minister if an election has resulted in a hung parliament; 2. dismiss a Prime Minister where she or he has lost the confidence of the Parliament; 3. dismiss a Prime Minister or Minister when she or he is acting unlawfully; and 4. refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives despite a request from the Prime Minister. Option 1 has already happened. The circumstances concerning options 2, 3 and 4 have not yet arisen.

You have interpreted 1 incorrectly. The GG asks both parties (the existing PM first) if they have the confidence of the house and if they do are appointed PM. The GG does not appoint on a whim.

2 has happened before when  a vote of no-confidence in the govt is won and the GG asks the oppsotion lead if he can forma  govt.

3 was actually done in the NSW parl in the 30s when the govt of the day refused to pay a loan to the UK

4 I am not aware that this power exists and if it does it has never been used.

Frances wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 3:53pm:

The circumstances concerning options 2, 3 and 4 have not yet arisen.

I had meant that they had not yet arisen during the course of this parliament.  I would have thought that was obvious but, given the limited intelligence of some of the members of this forum, maybe I should have been a bit more specific on that point.


borntorule wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 6:25pm:

You have interpreted 1 incorrectly. The GG asks both parties (the existing PM first) if they have the confidence of the house and if they do are appointed PM. The GG does not appoint on a whim.

I have not interpreted it incorrectly.  The appointment would, of course, occur after the discussions have taken place.


borntorule wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 6:25pm:

2 has happened before when a vote of no-confidence in the govt is won and the GG asks the oppsotion lead if he can forma  govt.

It has happened in the past and could happen again.


borntorule wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 6:25pm:

was actually done in the NSW parl in the 30s when the govt of the day refused to pay a loan to the UK

You are referring, I take it, to Jack Lang's dismissal in 1932.  I think you will find that it was Lang's decision to withdraw State funds from government bank accounts to prevent the Federal government having access to the money in order to repay the foreign loans that was deemed illegal by Game, rather than the non-payment of the loans.


borntorule wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 6:25pm:

4 I am not aware that this power exists and if it does it has never been used.

It does exist.

skippy. wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 4:31pm:

Soren wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 4:19pm: Frances wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 4:11pm: Charged?  Don't they have to be convicted? No. If they are changed, they are stepping down. Besides the fact three police forces have investigated Thompson and none have found he has committed a crime your chances there are slim,swallow. Sliiper looks like being cleared of any cabcharge fraud and the other accusation is he said he said like any lovers tif, good luck there, the only person that could be sacked there is Pyne or even phony Tony for their involvement in what could well be fraud. AND, even if charged, I would say they would go no where until convicted, no donkey courts here,swallow. But, if you insist what you say is true, post up your evidence.

You appear to have missed the polic raids on the HSU, the AFP investigation int Slipper and the VIC and NSW investigations into Thomson...

on what basis do you think there is no problem?

borntorule wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 6:25pm:

Frances wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 3:53pm: corporate_whitey wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 3:34pm: The Governor General has grounds to act...if not now..when? 8-) The Governor General does not have grounds to act. As far as the "Reserve Powers" are concerned, the Governor-General has the power to: 1. appoint a Prime Minister if an election has resulted in a hung parliament; 2. dismiss a Prime Minister where she or he has lost the confidence of the Parliament; 3. dismiss a Prime Minister or Minister when she or he is acting unlawfully; and 4. refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives despite a request from the Prime Minister. Option 1 has already happened. The circumstances concerning options 2, 3 and 4 have not yet arisen. You have interpreted 1 incorrectly. The GG asks both parties (the existing PM first) if they have the confidence of the house and if they do are appointed PM. The GG does not appoint on a whim. 2 has happened before when  a vote of no-confidence in the govt is won and the GG asks the oppsotion lead if he can forma  govt. 3 was actually done in the NSW parl in the 30s when the govt of the day refused to pay a loan to the UK 4 I am not aware that this power exists and if it does it has never been used.

Yes 4 does exist -  The GG can refuse to call an election if the reasons given are not sufficient for an election to be required.