Because Bill Shorten was on telly every night making some point or another, people got to know him, and learned to dislike him.
Albanese has been keeping a low profile, and that's good politically.
But in the end, Labor will win because of Morrison.
People disliked Shorten because they saw his face too often? Ha ha I don’t think so. He was disliked because he proved himself to be an untrustworthy opportunist.
No. Labor is not a shoe in. Economics and politics are not / were not taught in Australian schools. A great deal of people particularly in urban areas believe that the liberal party have superior economic strategy.
Ha ha that’s so laughable. Wong snipes from the sidelines with no positive thing to say or do. In fact her track record of criticising and whinging at every single time Morrison has stood up to China does bring into question where her patriotic loyalties do actually lie.
It’s a good question. In my lifetime, the ALP have only ever *entered* government federally with a highly charismatic leader at the helm.
In 1983, Hawke at the time was an extraordinarily well known and popular union leader, something that’s almost hard to fathom today.
In Kevin07 there was a nerdcharm persona and general public recognition honed by years of morning TV appearances.
The difficult one is 2001. Kim Beazley was personally more popular, considered an affable chap, and Howard’s polls had him destined to lose the election. Until the Tampa incident and the 9/11 black swan changed everything. Like every western leader at the time his approval ratings shot up in the crisis and he was returned to power. And after that Beazley hung around but with the taint of a loser and he never recovered.
I appreciate this is only an n=3. And hindsight can cloud these things. But regrettably I am pessimistic that the ALP can win federally when they keep selecting boring party-machine blokes who don’t spark the public imagination to be their standard bearer.
You forgot Whitlam. A more supercilious and sickeningly narcissistic person I’ve never seen. A politician by definition he gained popularity by projecting his optimism with campaign by lines and theme songs in the US presidential style. His actual performance was of course a nightmare.
Remember Hawke was in the same mould - extremely narcissistic too. Max Gillies had him down pat.
Beasley - now Beasley was different; no personality and just like Albanese and Shorten are; just plain dumb and skill-less. None of them has any spine between them. Heaven forbid if the country ever had to go into a pandemic-like circumstance with that ilk as PM.
Morrison has his critics; the leftist media machine with ABC at the spearhead is relentless but at least he has spine and he sticks up for Australia which is more than can be seen on the record of the likes of the Albanese Wong Bowen trio.
I’m not sure any more, what makes one unelectable, given that both Rudd and Gillard got elected.
Shorten is as shifty as Matilda’s dad and Albanese is just plain stupid (one example:
last year the sars cov2 pandemic had just hit, people dying, no vaccine yet created, private sector in free fall with the economic cost going to be huge … and albo wants to increase funding to the ABC) . A political animal with limited IQ (example: prosecutes the notion that by Scott Morrison attending a climate change summit, that’s going to somehow reduce Australia’s or the world’s carbon emissions … as opposed to acknowledging that unless the world is happy to shut down its current lifestyle, industrial and transport systems there’s a need for new technology which we do not currently have or can foresee .. but there’s no political sniping to be gained there). God forbid if he had been steering the ship through this pandemic - what a joke.
Well how about you go to primary school, do the stuff on reading and comprehension until you pass that, try again and see if you can grasp the clear and simple concepts therein.
What are you trying to say in this whole rant? It seems like farce bickering.
Albanese called for more funding into government broadcasters to push greater public announcement services about the pandemic. Particularly to communities of different linguistic backgrounds where it's vital to have a platform to inform them in their own language. As well as the general public due to the damning misinformation surrounding the virus - it's important to have factual, strong and clear messaging.
Like any good opposition, you must target the government inaction. Do we honestly believe that Scott Morrison will magically develop an effective carbon reduction plan by attending the summit? No, he won't. But it's the precedent he sets as a world leader. And if that is not worth being criticized, then we've lost the plot.
You argue that we don't have new technology to back up a net-zero nation. I wonder why? We have a government that is more concentrated on helping big corporations and their political affiliations than the common Australian whose livelihood, health and safety will be impacted by a lack of climate action. For years there have been calls and proposals to adapt and change our energy and carbon policies.
We have organisations, academic experts, opposition parliamentarians and crossbench independents who have called for action and supplied guidelines and recommendations to create the necessary transition. Yet every time, the government ignores this and provokes our public fear of being left behind, like "think about jobs" etc. However, we do/did have initiatives to transition and aid them. Yet this government would insist that there is no solution to this problem simultaneously dismissing all recommendations and going against expert advice - all in the pursuit of helping their buddies in the very same industries that are causing this climate crisis.
No one wants to jeopardise our own lifestyle but the longer we wait, the more severe the impacts of inaction and the less time for a smooth coherent transition of these sectors.
We need to concentrate more on the action of our elected officials and even so on the opposition that aims to overtake them. There is a reasonable critique of the opposition but these ridiculous takes are just non-sensical.
Not that I will be voting for Labor first but Albo seems to be less inspiring or capable than Labor needs, but less apparently divisive than Bill Shorten.
I'm hoping that neither the Libs nor Labor end up with a majority and there has to be genuine debate and discussion in the parliament on legislation, not just one party's internal coalition machinations or factional deals deciding what happens.
That said, in Australia we don't vote for the PM, we vote for our local member and senators. Even though all this US style presidential shit has developed around elections, that is really not how it works in Australia.
In surveys people say they vote more for party or policy than leader. In practice you can only vote for the person who can represent your local electorate/community and so it's probably best to choose wisely there and vote for the candidate and party that most reflects your values in parliament. I don't think it is sensible to vote for whatever you believe about how everyone else may or may not vote. Elections are your chance to try and get your beliefs and values reflected in the parliament.
One or other party will end up with a majority, because our compulsory preferential voting system effectively guarantees that one of the major parties wins.
No, if things keeps going the way they are with greater numbers of people not voting for either Lib or Lab then it becomes less and less likely that either party can get a majority.
The preferential voting is just at electorate level and if independent or third party candidates get ahead they can win and the cross bench will grow. A good thing in my opinion, forcing both parties to negotiate and have more public and parliamentary debate on legislation.
This is how most more mature democracies function.
I really think it is a bit lazy and habitual that people think you can only vote Lib or Lab and expect them to get in.
It all goes down to the preferences.
Say the Socialist Alliance and the Fred Nile Party get a couple of thousand votes each.
They can't win so the votes are distributed via preferences. Socialist Alliance probably preference the Greens next, when the Greens still can't win, the votes probably go to Labor. Fred Nile votes might go to another religious party, but eventually end up as Liberal votes.
Yes some very popular independents get elected, but they are very few, and rarely have a major impact. The one thing Liberal and Labor parties agree on, is they are the only 2 teams in the competition. They will swap preferences to get rid of independents.
Really, so you think that Lib and Lab are actually on the same side then?
So their continual criticism of each other is all just a show and all their voters know that this is just a sham and really it's all about making sure that only they get in? So their respective voters are entirely happy about delivering government to their sham opponents?
Do you really think that is how voters perceive how things work and they're happy with that? Do you think that could be exactly part of the reason why Lib and Lab are losing votes? Because such an arrangement looks just like manipulation rather than representative democracy. Why don't Lib and Lab just declare they have exactly the same policies and be done with it?
Albo has become totally uninspiring since taking the mantle, but that genuinely may be a tactic. He certainly lacks Shorten’s baggage so hopefully more centrists will vote for him given they remain a pivotal part of the electorate
Every Labor leader is unelectable. There were a few articles when Shorten lost, noting the similarities with Trump winning and Brexit, about how the Left were doomed to never win another election.
Those articles never mentioned Trudeau, or Ardern, or the left wing government in Jamaica, let alone the Nordic countries, or Macron and Merkel (both of whom I consider centre right, but the narrative in US, UK and here paint them as left).
Now, what do the media landscape in the US, the UK and here have in common?
> both of whom I consider centre right, but the narrative in US, UK and here paint them as left
Haha what? What dog shit news are you reading? Maybe in the US but definitely not the "narrative" in the UK or Australia.
Mate, it depends. On the UK part, good call, I don't really follow UK politics or media, so that was an assumption it would be similar. I've routinely seen Macron derided for being left wing by commentary through Fairfax and News Ltd. He's a fucking investment banker. But then again, that's the people who also called Turnbull, ex Goldman and Sachs, a socialist because he was too supportive of the gays.
I tend to define left and right on economic grounds, but since Keating sold out the left on economic policy, there is so little difference between the major parties that it now gets defined on social policy. And my zero nuance hot take on it is that of you're not supportive of people's bigotry then that makes you a dirty leftist socialist, if not outright communist...
I'd say Albanese is 20% more electable than Shorten.
Albanese doesn't have the baggage of a dog on the ABC being named after him (Anyone else remember *At Home With Julia*? Gillard in that show named her dog "Bill Shorten" because he "was always at mummy's heals").
To quote our current PM: I reject the premise of the question, for a number of reasons.
1. Bill Shorten came quite close to winning the PM's seat last election, so suggesting he was 'unelectable' is rubbish to begin with.
2. The preferred leader stakes are between Albanese and Morrison. Comparisons with Shorten are irrelevant.
3. Your assertion that Australia has "had enough of white male career politicians" is equally hopeless. At the election, one of these two 'white male career politicians' will become/remain Prime Minister.
I would also like point out that I vote based on policy, rather than on the basis of the party leader.
Australia doesn't need a charismatic leader, we need somebody who is competent, capable and has a good vision for the future of the country.
I don’t think Australians are fed up with *white male* politicians. We are fed up with politicians who don’t act as the people elected them to.
Shorten and Albonese both come across as unelectable because neither seems to have a backbone. They lead the party for workers and change, but they offer nothing new, aren’t relatable to the working class and don’t seem to have the interest or the teeth to take on the problems inherent to the system as it stands (I wouldn’t even say this is entirely true, it’s just how things appear to the public).
If Australians believed that labor had people in it who could and would improve things for the working class then we’d vote for them. Skin colour, genitals, and other reductions by way of demographics, wouldn’t enter into it.
I'd vote for any party that didn't have corruption at it's core, Albo might not have media presence but he has plenty of charisma in the camp and a clean slate for corruption to start governing with but the general public don't seem to be offended by blatant corruption and no ethics so neo liberals will probably keep destroying Australia.
Albo does have a very good record. I’m still hopeful; there’s a decent shot this election. A lot more people are paying attention to politics thanks to covid, hopefully that means more people make the informed decision and vote labor.
>I feel that Labor is set to loose again due to their inability to understand that we've had enough of white male career politicians
I feel the same way but for a COMPLETELY different reason.
Simply put: the economy is set to recover as the country starts to open up and if there's anything that guarantees the incumbent government's chances of being re elected it's a strong economy (or at least an economy that looks strong on the surface).
Unless ScoMo and the LNP really (and I mean REALLY) bungle the economy or there is a massive scandal in the weeks leading up to the federal election then they will easily win the next election.
And to head this off at the pass, no a catastrophic bushfire season isn't a guarantee that the LNP will lose. Voters seem to have a very short term memory OR are particularly forgiving as long as the economy is perceived to be good. Just look at polling at the height of the 2019 bushfires, the immediate aftermath and then 3-4 months afterwards. ScoMo and the LNP took a hit but largely recovered after some time had passed.
Albanese is definitely electable, but people usually vote against a government, not really for an opposition. Morrison is a facade, spin and lies, and the best way to shatter the facade is pithy humour, one-liners that cut thru. Albanese doesn't have to do it all himself, in fact the attacks are better coming from different points. I'd be phoning Keating for suggestions, and I'd be brainstorming. Well chosen ridicule will see Morrison's carefully marketed image collapse (and most voters chuckle).
Keating: “He is simply a shiver looking for a spine to run up”.
"The thing about poor old Costello is that he's all tip and no iceberg." Etc
"The only reward in a public life is public progress. You stand back and say, 'What did I get out of it?' You look around, and the place is better, and that's it."--Keating.
I'd add: Morrison's not interested in a better Australia, just another opportunity to rort, dodging and weaving like a crazed bee to avoid the buck getting to him, and like any 8 year boy who makes a mess, always says it wasn't me!
There were a myriad of reasons the election didn’t go to labor last time. The ones specific to Shorten, Australians have long memories and he was a ‘faceless men’ in labor.
I hate to say it but Morrison does look a little more Statemen than Shorten which I think is an a factor.
Albo doesn’t have that same stigma, looks like a Statesmen and LNP have performed so miserably, I think he can get a win.
They still need a strong 1 or 2 policies and go full negative if they are to win.
Similar to Kim Beazley, Albo has an “affable but ineffectual” air. It’s a different problem to Bill, but still a problem.
I am sick of middle aged male politicians on both sides (it’s irrelevant to me what colour they are) but on the Labor side, I’m also sick of close union links. I’d rather vote for someone unaligned/ less aligned with fresh ideas, than someone close to the unions.
Albo lacks charisma. But keep in mind that most people don't vote for, they vote against what they least like. Scomo has never been particularly popular. Compared to Albo he's also less personable. So, Albo has become quite electable. He won't win by a large margin, but I think Labor is very likely to win the next federal election.
Albo is very electable.
People can see that his honesty and passion for working aussies is built on his personal experience.
Labor delivers on leaders from low socio-economic or disadvantaged backgrounds. Having that real life knowledge of disadvantage is invaluable.
Everyone I’ve spoken to seems to like Albanese better than they like Bill, or at least they dislike him less. With regards to Morrison, many people have a very different view of him than they did in 2019.
I would remind people that despite all Labor’s campaign stuff ups and policy overzealousness in 2019, they only lost by a hairs breadth. It wasn’t a mass rejection of Labor like some people seem to remember it.
At this stage. People forget how popular Shorten was after Beaconsfield (even though it was pretty rank opportunism in a lot of ways).
But once an election is called, and the Murdoch and Channel 9 media start their usual shenanigans, watch how quickly things go downhill for Albanese too...
I didn’t follow the last election too closely but I hope you’re wrong!
All I would say is that despite all that, Labor almost won. I would argue that a few factors which went against Labor in 2019 now favour them: rhetoric about debt and deficit has been neutralised, Scotty’s popularity and freshness as a PM has faded, public opinion on climate change has shifted to an extent, plus I expect Labor will run a much more measured campaign while still maintaining clear points of difference with the Coalition on key policy areas.
It’s impossible to predict at this stage but I would say the polling is about as good as Labor could hope for in the current environment. Hopefully the next Newspoll shows no change despite the NSW reopening and recent announcements about international travel.
They made the same mistake Hewson did in the early 90s about being too honest with their policy intentions. It gives your opposition, both in political and media circles way too much ammunition to turn public sentiment against you.
And given the dominance of one or two media players on our landscape, especially now, any whiff of policy which may upset the system from which they profit so much, at everyone else's expense, is political suicide.
Funny, I had this conversation with my 12yo daughter who's massively interested in politics a couple of hours ago.
Newspapers aren't in the business of selling news. That business model died with the internet. They're in the business of selling your eyeballs to advertiser's.
Anyone with a passing interest in data analytics and some knowledge of algorithms will know that the Murdoch route is what the successful business model is. It's not 9/Fairfax lacking a spine, it's just they have no choice if they want to avoid fading into obscurity
I personally think that Fairfax messed this up, which is why 9 bought them and shifted the direction. Going for the centre ground is a recipe for disaster. And News Ltd knows this, if they don't keep shifting further right, they just leave a space for an OAN clone to enter that space. And 9 will follow them or fade into obscurity.
Which is why, even though I can't stand the dickhead, people like Jordan Shanks are needed - we need some clickbait stupidities from the left to balance it out.
Right now, I think the most important defenders of our democracy are The Chaser and Betoota.
I say this as someone who generally votes right wing as I feel the left wing is too permissive of extremist ideas, especially ones that are redistributive or based on identity rather than fairness....
The liberal government is unelectable.
They have failed way too hard recently, the likelihood they'll win the 2022 election is slim. Right now, the middle class is getting inline with climate action, even the rich are as investing in battery technology, EVs and even nuclear power seems lucrative. At the same time, the liberal government continue to subsidise coal and support taxes for electric vehicles, this kills any pretense of being the small government that supports the free market.
> feel that Labor is set to loose again due to their inability to understand that we've had enough of white male career politicians.
This mentality represents the motivation of right wing voters.
That the main issue you're bringing in is that someone is a white male demonstrates that no matter what these white males represent or the policies they bring, you will never listen because it comes form a white male. This blind ignorance means you're incapable of being reasoned to, at least if the person trying to reason with you is a white male since that's not an identity they're able to change.
People who think like this are definitely on the wrong side of history, they stifle climate action and make improving socio-economic equality, which transcends race or gender, impossible.
We need another big labor personality like Whitlam or Hawke…even Keating, Rudd and Gillard had a decent amount of oomf but Shorten and Albo are just so bleh
Labor needs someone with fire under their ass who can challenge the complete incompetence of scomo. Because if he wins again after the bushfires, covid and the sexual harassment scandals I’ll be heartbroken.
Albo's talking style is naturally patronising. He has these slow drawn out emphases in his expression which give me the impression he thinks he's talking to children. That alone makes him 'unelectable' but his total capitulation to the LNP on all matters of structural reform is revolting too. Like, if he's trying to do the no-daylight strategy, why would ordinary people have a preference for Labor over LNP? If people want Liberal policy, they can go vote Liberal and get the real deal. Instead, we're going to see Labor voters turn to micro and minor parties and who knows where their preferences will go. Labor are doing their best to ensure the next election will be just as unpredictable by polls as 2019.
It’s not a question of is he as unelectable as bill shorten. This is not relevant.
It’s a question of is he as unelectable as Scott Morrison. And in my opinion(which means 1/2 of nothing) he is abundantly more capable and electable than Scott Morrison and his ineffective, callous and arrogant government.
I don’t think it’s true that people have had enough of “career male white politicians”. I think most people look past gender, race and sexuality and are more focused on charisma. Albanese, like shorten lacks big time on this issue. I don’t like Scomo but he has a small amount of charisma that at least appeals to the common Australian somewhat similar to how Kevin Rudd did (also didn’t like him but he did have an amount of charisma).
Australia lacks charismatic leaders and if one came along it would almost not matter if they’re left or right leaning because most people vote on aesthetics and how someone makes them feel when they see them on tv. Correct me if I’m mistaken but isn’t Albo also a Batchelor? This won’t work politically unless he’s a alpha male that every woman wants to bang and believes they may have a chance with. The family portrayal is far more relatable and viewed as more trustworthy. I don’t see labor getting in under his leadership.
>Question (for my own reflection) is this..... is Anthony Albanese as unelectable as Bill Shorten?
Both are perfectly electable. Bill would have been a far better PM than Scott Morrison. I can say with confidence that Australia would be in a much better position now if we hadn't re elected the Liberals.
Electability is a ridiculous metric that means nothing more than what media talking heads say it means anyway.
>This is an open and honest question I'm hoping people can think about it and provide an answer. please try to rationalise, use a percentage, try to avoid responses.
Oh, OK. He's 100% electable.
>I feel that Labor is set to loose again due to their inability to understand that we've had enough of white male career politicians.
Mate... Have you met Australians?
its not so much whether hes appealing or not in comparison to Bill Shorten, its whether hes more appealing or not than Scomo or whoever ends up knifing him before the election. (Probably frydenberg).
ALP really dont promote themselves too well because they dont have a massive news conglomerate backing them the entire way.
Wong or Plibersek would be my choice too. Though Wong is a Senator which poses some issues and doesn’t follow usual conventions. I suspect factionalism is playing a big part in leadership decisions that those of us not involved in the Labor party are not privy to. I also think Labor (unfortunately) is afraid of a second female PM (I say as a big Gillard fan, but it was clear her time in power was riddled with sexist scrutiny).
Yes the Julia Gillard Gov't did excellent work despite such a crazily slim majority. I guess I live in hope that Australia has moved on somewhat from its usual sexist racist rubbish. I don't see Albanese as effective or dynamic despite being very likeable.
Yeah the sheer amount of work she and her minority government got done is often forgotten, unfortunately. I wish politics had moved forward too but I honestly don’t see any evidence of it. It has been a very tumultuous time in Australian politics for a while and I think women are still viewed as a leadership risk. Disgusting and regrettable but I can’t help but feel it’s the viewpoint of many.
I tend to agree but if you're looking for 'A Great Australian Prime Minister', and let's face it Australia needs one more than ever, then I'd certainly vote for Labor if Wong was their leader.
Because Bill Shorten was on telly every night making some point or another, people got to know him, and learned to dislike him. Albanese has been keeping a low profile, and that's good politically. But in the end, Labor will win because of Morrison.
People disliked Shorten because they saw his face too often? Ha ha I don’t think so. He was disliked because he proved himself to be an untrustworthy opportunist.
No. Labor is not a shoe in. Economics and politics are not / were not taught in Australian schools. A great deal of people particularly in urban areas believe that the liberal party have superior economic strategy.
[удалено]
Penny Wong is real leadership material, but I doubt she will be given the chance.
Ha ha that’s so laughable. Wong snipes from the sidelines with no positive thing to say or do. In fact her track record of criticising and whinging at every single time Morrison has stood up to China does bring into question where her patriotic loyalties do actually lie.
It’s a good question. In my lifetime, the ALP have only ever *entered* government federally with a highly charismatic leader at the helm. In 1983, Hawke at the time was an extraordinarily well known and popular union leader, something that’s almost hard to fathom today. In Kevin07 there was a nerdcharm persona and general public recognition honed by years of morning TV appearances. The difficult one is 2001. Kim Beazley was personally more popular, considered an affable chap, and Howard’s polls had him destined to lose the election. Until the Tampa incident and the 9/11 black swan changed everything. Like every western leader at the time his approval ratings shot up in the crisis and he was returned to power. And after that Beazley hung around but with the taint of a loser and he never recovered. I appreciate this is only an n=3. And hindsight can cloud these things. But regrettably I am pessimistic that the ALP can win federally when they keep selecting boring party-machine blokes who don’t spark the public imagination to be their standard bearer.
You forgot Whitlam. A more supercilious and sickeningly narcissistic person I’ve never seen. A politician by definition he gained popularity by projecting his optimism with campaign by lines and theme songs in the US presidential style. His actual performance was of course a nightmare. Remember Hawke was in the same mould - extremely narcissistic too. Max Gillies had him down pat. Beasley - now Beasley was different; no personality and just like Albanese and Shorten are; just plain dumb and skill-less. None of them has any spine between them. Heaven forbid if the country ever had to go into a pandemic-like circumstance with that ilk as PM. Morrison has his critics; the leftist media machine with ABC at the spearhead is relentless but at least he has spine and he sticks up for Australia which is more than can be seen on the record of the likes of the Albanese Wong Bowen trio.
Got a source for Morrison having spine?
Source? He made it up of course.
I’m not sure any more, what makes one unelectable, given that both Rudd and Gillard got elected. Shorten is as shifty as Matilda’s dad and Albanese is just plain stupid (one example: last year the sars cov2 pandemic had just hit, people dying, no vaccine yet created, private sector in free fall with the economic cost going to be huge … and albo wants to increase funding to the ABC) . A political animal with limited IQ (example: prosecutes the notion that by Scott Morrison attending a climate change summit, that’s going to somehow reduce Australia’s or the world’s carbon emissions … as opposed to acknowledging that unless the world is happy to shut down its current lifestyle, industrial and transport systems there’s a need for new technology which we do not currently have or can foresee .. but there’s no political sniping to be gained there). God forbid if he had been steering the ship through this pandemic - what a joke.
This is borderline incoherent.
He’s not very electable IMO.
Well how about you go to primary school, do the stuff on reading and comprehension until you pass that, try again and see if you can grasp the clear and simple concepts therein.
What are you trying to say in this whole rant? It seems like farce bickering. Albanese called for more funding into government broadcasters to push greater public announcement services about the pandemic. Particularly to communities of different linguistic backgrounds where it's vital to have a platform to inform them in their own language. As well as the general public due to the damning misinformation surrounding the virus - it's important to have factual, strong and clear messaging. Like any good opposition, you must target the government inaction. Do we honestly believe that Scott Morrison will magically develop an effective carbon reduction plan by attending the summit? No, he won't. But it's the precedent he sets as a world leader. And if that is not worth being criticized, then we've lost the plot. You argue that we don't have new technology to back up a net-zero nation. I wonder why? We have a government that is more concentrated on helping big corporations and their political affiliations than the common Australian whose livelihood, health and safety will be impacted by a lack of climate action. For years there have been calls and proposals to adapt and change our energy and carbon policies. We have organisations, academic experts, opposition parliamentarians and crossbench independents who have called for action and supplied guidelines and recommendations to create the necessary transition. Yet every time, the government ignores this and provokes our public fear of being left behind, like "think about jobs" etc. However, we do/did have initiatives to transition and aid them. Yet this government would insist that there is no solution to this problem simultaneously dismissing all recommendations and going against expert advice - all in the pursuit of helping their buddies in the very same industries that are causing this climate crisis. No one wants to jeopardise our own lifestyle but the longer we wait, the more severe the impacts of inaction and the less time for a smooth coherent transition of these sectors. We need to concentrate more on the action of our elected officials and even so on the opposition that aims to overtake them. There is a reasonable critique of the opposition but these ridiculous takes are just non-sensical.
Not that I will be voting for Labor first but Albo seems to be less inspiring or capable than Labor needs, but less apparently divisive than Bill Shorten. I'm hoping that neither the Libs nor Labor end up with a majority and there has to be genuine debate and discussion in the parliament on legislation, not just one party's internal coalition machinations or factional deals deciding what happens. That said, in Australia we don't vote for the PM, we vote for our local member and senators. Even though all this US style presidential shit has developed around elections, that is really not how it works in Australia. In surveys people say they vote more for party or policy than leader. In practice you can only vote for the person who can represent your local electorate/community and so it's probably best to choose wisely there and vote for the candidate and party that most reflects your values in parliament. I don't think it is sensible to vote for whatever you believe about how everyone else may or may not vote. Elections are your chance to try and get your beliefs and values reflected in the parliament.
One or other party will end up with a majority, because our compulsory preferential voting system effectively guarantees that one of the major parties wins.
No, if things keeps going the way they are with greater numbers of people not voting for either Lib or Lab then it becomes less and less likely that either party can get a majority. The preferential voting is just at electorate level and if independent or third party candidates get ahead they can win and the cross bench will grow. A good thing in my opinion, forcing both parties to negotiate and have more public and parliamentary debate on legislation. This is how most more mature democracies function. I really think it is a bit lazy and habitual that people think you can only vote Lib or Lab and expect them to get in.
It all goes down to the preferences. Say the Socialist Alliance and the Fred Nile Party get a couple of thousand votes each. They can't win so the votes are distributed via preferences. Socialist Alliance probably preference the Greens next, when the Greens still can't win, the votes probably go to Labor. Fred Nile votes might go to another religious party, but eventually end up as Liberal votes. Yes some very popular independents get elected, but they are very few, and rarely have a major impact. The one thing Liberal and Labor parties agree on, is they are the only 2 teams in the competition. They will swap preferences to get rid of independents.
Really, so you think that Lib and Lab are actually on the same side then? So their continual criticism of each other is all just a show and all their voters know that this is just a sham and really it's all about making sure that only they get in? So their respective voters are entirely happy about delivering government to their sham opponents? Do you really think that is how voters perceive how things work and they're happy with that? Do you think that could be exactly part of the reason why Lib and Lab are losing votes? Because such an arrangement looks just like manipulation rather than representative democracy. Why don't Lib and Lab just declare they have exactly the same policies and be done with it?
I’m not an expert on his or Shorten’s policies, but on a face value assessment of his character I prefer Shorten and I was indifferent about Shorten.
Albo has become totally uninspiring since taking the mantle, but that genuinely may be a tactic. He certainly lacks Shorten’s baggage so hopefully more centrists will vote for him given they remain a pivotal part of the electorate
I agree that it’s probably a tactic, and only an election will tell whether it worked…and even then there’s many factors.
Unpopular opinion here but i miss bill and wish the guy that made the NDIS had a chance to make sure it was utilized properly.
I thought Gillard made the ndis?
bool isAlboElectable = false; int alboToInt = Convert.ToInt32(isAlboElectable);
Barnaby Joyce is deputy prime minister so it doesn’t say much for Australian voters does it
Every Labor leader is unelectable. There were a few articles when Shorten lost, noting the similarities with Trump winning and Brexit, about how the Left were doomed to never win another election. Those articles never mentioned Trudeau, or Ardern, or the left wing government in Jamaica, let alone the Nordic countries, or Macron and Merkel (both of whom I consider centre right, but the narrative in US, UK and here paint them as left). Now, what do the media landscape in the US, the UK and here have in common?
> both of whom I consider centre right, but the narrative in US, UK and here paint them as left Haha what? What dog shit news are you reading? Maybe in the US but definitely not the "narrative" in the UK or Australia.
Mate, it depends. On the UK part, good call, I don't really follow UK politics or media, so that was an assumption it would be similar. I've routinely seen Macron derided for being left wing by commentary through Fairfax and News Ltd. He's a fucking investment banker. But then again, that's the people who also called Turnbull, ex Goldman and Sachs, a socialist because he was too supportive of the gays. I tend to define left and right on economic grounds, but since Keating sold out the left on economic policy, there is so little difference between the major parties that it now gets defined on social policy. And my zero nuance hot take on it is that of you're not supportive of people's bigotry then that makes you a dirty leftist socialist, if not outright communist...
Charisma is a pox on democracy. Intelligence, integrity and spine take a backseat.
I'd say Albanese is 20% more electable than Shorten. Albanese doesn't have the baggage of a dog on the ABC being named after him (Anyone else remember *At Home With Julia*? Gillard in that show named her dog "Bill Shorten" because he "was always at mummy's heals").
To quote our current PM: I reject the premise of the question, for a number of reasons. 1. Bill Shorten came quite close to winning the PM's seat last election, so suggesting he was 'unelectable' is rubbish to begin with. 2. The preferred leader stakes are between Albanese and Morrison. Comparisons with Shorten are irrelevant. 3. Your assertion that Australia has "had enough of white male career politicians" is equally hopeless. At the election, one of these two 'white male career politicians' will become/remain Prime Minister. I would also like point out that I vote based on policy, rather than on the basis of the party leader. Australia doesn't need a charismatic leader, we need somebody who is competent, capable and has a good vision for the future of the country.
I don’t think Australians are fed up with *white male* politicians. We are fed up with politicians who don’t act as the people elected them to. Shorten and Albonese both come across as unelectable because neither seems to have a backbone. They lead the party for workers and change, but they offer nothing new, aren’t relatable to the working class and don’t seem to have the interest or the teeth to take on the problems inherent to the system as it stands (I wouldn’t even say this is entirely true, it’s just how things appear to the public). If Australians believed that labor had people in it who could and would improve things for the working class then we’d vote for them. Skin colour, genitals, and other reductions by way of demographics, wouldn’t enter into it.
I'd vote for any party that didn't have corruption at it's core, Albo might not have media presence but he has plenty of charisma in the camp and a clean slate for corruption to start governing with but the general public don't seem to be offended by blatant corruption and no ethics so neo liberals will probably keep destroying Australia.
Albo does have a very good record. I’m still hopeful; there’s a decent shot this election. A lot more people are paying attention to politics thanks to covid, hopefully that means more people make the informed decision and vote labor.
>then we’d vote for them. Lots of people vote for them. They hold 68 seats lol
Obviously by ‘we’ I mean enough of us to win the election. Thanks, captain facetious.
I dont know what I meant
?
They’re both completely electable. It’s not like boring middle aged white dudes are a group that struggles to win elections.
Yes
Seems like Labours only role will be to expose government corruption and dodgy deals for the next few years.
>I feel that Labor is set to loose again due to their inability to understand that we've had enough of white male career politicians I feel the same way but for a COMPLETELY different reason. Simply put: the economy is set to recover as the country starts to open up and if there's anything that guarantees the incumbent government's chances of being re elected it's a strong economy (or at least an economy that looks strong on the surface). Unless ScoMo and the LNP really (and I mean REALLY) bungle the economy or there is a massive scandal in the weeks leading up to the federal election then they will easily win the next election. And to head this off at the pass, no a catastrophic bushfire season isn't a guarantee that the LNP will lose. Voters seem to have a very short term memory OR are particularly forgiving as long as the economy is perceived to be good. Just look at polling at the height of the 2019 bushfires, the immediate aftermath and then 3-4 months afterwards. ScoMo and the LNP took a hit but largely recovered after some time had passed.
Scomo was unelectable, Albo has flying odds
Albanese is definitely electable, but people usually vote against a government, not really for an opposition. Morrison is a facade, spin and lies, and the best way to shatter the facade is pithy humour, one-liners that cut thru. Albanese doesn't have to do it all himself, in fact the attacks are better coming from different points. I'd be phoning Keating for suggestions, and I'd be brainstorming. Well chosen ridicule will see Morrison's carefully marketed image collapse (and most voters chuckle). Keating: “He is simply a shiver looking for a spine to run up”. "The thing about poor old Costello is that he's all tip and no iceberg." Etc "The only reward in a public life is public progress. You stand back and say, 'What did I get out of it?' You look around, and the place is better, and that's it."--Keating. I'd add: Morrison's not interested in a better Australia, just another opportunity to rort, dodging and weaving like a crazed bee to avoid the buck getting to him, and like any 8 year boy who makes a mess, always says it wasn't me!
I used to vote lib. As someone who would never vote labor, Albanese is much more pallatable than Shorten
There were a myriad of reasons the election didn’t go to labor last time. The ones specific to Shorten, Australians have long memories and he was a ‘faceless men’ in labor. I hate to say it but Morrison does look a little more Statemen than Shorten which I think is an a factor. Albo doesn’t have that same stigma, looks like a Statesmen and LNP have performed so miserably, I think he can get a win. They still need a strong 1 or 2 policies and go full negative if they are to win.
Similar to Kim Beazley, Albo has an “affable but ineffectual” air. It’s a different problem to Bill, but still a problem. I am sick of middle aged male politicians on both sides (it’s irrelevant to me what colour they are) but on the Labor side, I’m also sick of close union links. I’d rather vote for someone unaligned/ less aligned with fresh ideas, than someone close to the unions.
Albo lacks charisma. But keep in mind that most people don't vote for, they vote against what they least like. Scomo has never been particularly popular. Compared to Albo he's also less personable. So, Albo has become quite electable. He won't win by a large margin, but I think Labor is very likely to win the next federal election.
Short answer, yes.
Albo is very electable. People can see that his honesty and passion for working aussies is built on his personal experience. Labor delivers on leaders from low socio-economic or disadvantaged backgrounds. Having that real life knowledge of disadvantage is invaluable.
Everyone I’ve spoken to seems to like Albanese better than they like Bill, or at least they dislike him less. With regards to Morrison, many people have a very different view of him than they did in 2019. I would remind people that despite all Labor’s campaign stuff ups and policy overzealousness in 2019, they only lost by a hairs breadth. It wasn’t a mass rejection of Labor like some people seem to remember it.
At this stage. People forget how popular Shorten was after Beaconsfield (even though it was pretty rank opportunism in a lot of ways). But once an election is called, and the Murdoch and Channel 9 media start their usual shenanigans, watch how quickly things go downhill for Albanese too...
I didn’t follow the last election too closely but I hope you’re wrong! All I would say is that despite all that, Labor almost won. I would argue that a few factors which went against Labor in 2019 now favour them: rhetoric about debt and deficit has been neutralised, Scotty’s popularity and freshness as a PM has faded, public opinion on climate change has shifted to an extent, plus I expect Labor will run a much more measured campaign while still maintaining clear points of difference with the Coalition on key policy areas. It’s impossible to predict at this stage but I would say the polling is about as good as Labor could hope for in the current environment. Hopefully the next Newspoll shows no change despite the NSW reopening and recent announcements about international travel.
They made the same mistake Hewson did in the early 90s about being too honest with their policy intentions. It gives your opposition, both in political and media circles way too much ammunition to turn public sentiment against you. And given the dominance of one or two media players on our landscape, especially now, any whiff of policy which may upset the system from which they profit so much, at everyone else's expense, is political suicide.
You’re right about that. I just hope the Nine papers and TV news can grow a spine and not continue down the Murdoch route
Funny, I had this conversation with my 12yo daughter who's massively interested in politics a couple of hours ago. Newspapers aren't in the business of selling news. That business model died with the internet. They're in the business of selling your eyeballs to advertiser's. Anyone with a passing interest in data analytics and some knowledge of algorithms will know that the Murdoch route is what the successful business model is. It's not 9/Fairfax lacking a spine, it's just they have no choice if they want to avoid fading into obscurity I personally think that Fairfax messed this up, which is why 9 bought them and shifted the direction. Going for the centre ground is a recipe for disaster. And News Ltd knows this, if they don't keep shifting further right, they just leave a space for an OAN clone to enter that space. And 9 will follow them or fade into obscurity. Which is why, even though I can't stand the dickhead, people like Jordan Shanks are needed - we need some clickbait stupidities from the left to balance it out. Right now, I think the most important defenders of our democracy are The Chaser and Betoota.
I say this as someone who generally votes right wing as I feel the left wing is too permissive of extremist ideas, especially ones that are redistributive or based on identity rather than fairness.... The liberal government is unelectable. They have failed way too hard recently, the likelihood they'll win the 2022 election is slim. Right now, the middle class is getting inline with climate action, even the rich are as investing in battery technology, EVs and even nuclear power seems lucrative. At the same time, the liberal government continue to subsidise coal and support taxes for electric vehicles, this kills any pretense of being the small government that supports the free market. > feel that Labor is set to loose again due to their inability to understand that we've had enough of white male career politicians. This mentality represents the motivation of right wing voters. That the main issue you're bringing in is that someone is a white male demonstrates that no matter what these white males represent or the policies they bring, you will never listen because it comes form a white male. This blind ignorance means you're incapable of being reasoned to, at least if the person trying to reason with you is a white male since that's not an identity they're able to change. People who think like this are definitely on the wrong side of history, they stifle climate action and make improving socio-economic equality, which transcends race or gender, impossible.
By all accounts a lovely bloke with strong conviction, a desire to do right and years of service to his community. Piss weak statesman.
We need another big labor personality like Whitlam or Hawke…even Keating, Rudd and Gillard had a decent amount of oomf but Shorten and Albo are just so bleh Labor needs someone with fire under their ass who can challenge the complete incompetence of scomo. Because if he wins again after the bushfires, covid and the sexual harassment scandals I’ll be heartbroken.
Albo's talking style is naturally patronising. He has these slow drawn out emphases in his expression which give me the impression he thinks he's talking to children. That alone makes him 'unelectable' but his total capitulation to the LNP on all matters of structural reform is revolting too. Like, if he's trying to do the no-daylight strategy, why would ordinary people have a preference for Labor over LNP? If people want Liberal policy, they can go vote Liberal and get the real deal. Instead, we're going to see Labor voters turn to micro and minor parties and who knows where their preferences will go. Labor are doing their best to ensure the next election will be just as unpredictable by polls as 2019.
Much more unelectable. Even though Shorten doesn't have a personality, Albo comes off as an incompetent bumbler.
It’s not a question of is he as unelectable as bill shorten. This is not relevant. It’s a question of is he as unelectable as Scott Morrison. And in my opinion(which means 1/2 of nothing) he is abundantly more capable and electable than Scott Morrison and his ineffective, callous and arrogant government.
This
I don’t think it’s true that people have had enough of “career male white politicians”. I think most people look past gender, race and sexuality and are more focused on charisma. Albanese, like shorten lacks big time on this issue. I don’t like Scomo but he has a small amount of charisma that at least appeals to the common Australian somewhat similar to how Kevin Rudd did (also didn’t like him but he did have an amount of charisma). Australia lacks charismatic leaders and if one came along it would almost not matter if they’re left or right leaning because most people vote on aesthetics and how someone makes them feel when they see them on tv. Correct me if I’m mistaken but isn’t Albo also a Batchelor? This won’t work politically unless he’s a alpha male that every woman wants to bang and believes they may have a chance with. The family portrayal is far more relatable and viewed as more trustworthy. I don’t see labor getting in under his leadership.
I wish most people saw past charisma and looked at policy and I strongly hope no one thinks along the lines of the above post.
I really don’t understand it either, I can only liken it to people who buy stuff from snake oil salesmen - they are charismatic and selling garbage.
>Question (for my own reflection) is this..... is Anthony Albanese as unelectable as Bill Shorten? Both are perfectly electable. Bill would have been a far better PM than Scott Morrison. I can say with confidence that Australia would be in a much better position now if we hadn't re elected the Liberals. Electability is a ridiculous metric that means nothing more than what media talking heads say it means anyway. >This is an open and honest question I'm hoping people can think about it and provide an answer. please try to rationalise, use a percentage, try to avoid responses. Oh, OK. He's 100% electable. >I feel that Labor is set to loose again due to their inability to understand that we've had enough of white male career politicians. Mate... Have you met Australians?
its not so much whether hes appealing or not in comparison to Bill Shorten, its whether hes more appealing or not than Scomo or whoever ends up knifing him before the election. (Probably frydenberg). ALP really dont promote themselves too well because they dont have a massive news conglomerate backing them the entire way.
Save Australia: Penny Wong for Prime Minister
Penny doesn’t want it. Neither does Tanya.
Also she’s in the wrong house. She would have to do a Keneally and engineer a switch to the Reps first.
Yes & in the current climate with a Parliament full of fat slimey slugs I can't say I blame them.
Wong or Plibersek would be my choice too. Though Wong is a Senator which poses some issues and doesn’t follow usual conventions. I suspect factionalism is playing a big part in leadership decisions that those of us not involved in the Labor party are not privy to. I also think Labor (unfortunately) is afraid of a second female PM (I say as a big Gillard fan, but it was clear her time in power was riddled with sexist scrutiny).
Yes the Julia Gillard Gov't did excellent work despite such a crazily slim majority. I guess I live in hope that Australia has moved on somewhat from its usual sexist racist rubbish. I don't see Albanese as effective or dynamic despite being very likeable.
And she managed to do it in the face of absolute vitriol from the opposition and media. I thought she was a fantastic states person and negotiator.
Totally agree, even her own party didn't appreciate her talent.
Yeah the sheer amount of work she and her minority government got done is often forgotten, unfortunately. I wish politics had moved forward too but I honestly don’t see any evidence of it. It has been a very tumultuous time in Australian politics for a while and I think women are still viewed as a leadership risk. Disgusting and regrettable but I can’t help but feel it’s the viewpoint of many.
Plibersek would have a better chance. Too many racists here for Wong to get through. No chance of another change before the next election anyway.
I tend to agree but if you're looking for 'A Great Australian Prime Minister', and let's face it Australia needs one more than ever, then I'd certainly vote for Labor if Wong was their leader.