ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => News and Politics => Topic started by: vox nihili on November 02, 2018, 09:37:37 am
-
Victorian election is coming up on November 24th and the polls are reasonably tight.
So far in the campaign we've seen a pretty strong focus on public transport, with both parties trying to woo with big projects in this space. We've also seen crime bob up as an issue, but perhaps not to the point we've expected. The LNP was expected to run hard on that, but no doubt the allegations in the media regarding Matthew Guy's interactions with mafiosos will not have helped.
This thread will be for discussion of news regarding the election and debate.
Who will you be voting for and why? :)
-
Don't know who I'm going to vote for yet (no one has me completely sold yet) but just wanted to drop this PSA for other first time voters out there - never knew how it worked and thought it'd be worth sharing. :)
(https://external-preview.redd.it/Zozyu48U-vqNrhVzgTi3sYIYLWip0vQsTMgApXmN2aU.png?auto=webp&s=c991de02c498fb90a6af0ced70ab9f018e832674)
-
Also a good time to remind everyone that early voting started today, have a look at the VEC website to find out where to vote if you want to vote early: https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/
-
Think Labor will comfortably win again (only threat to that really is the loss of any further labor seats - could send them into minority next term).
I'm torn because the schools i've worked at are marginal Liberal seats and they haven't been in the best condition for some time - get promised loads of funds then the other side wins......... repeat.
I can't deny Andrews has done some pretty good work for our state - level crossing removals, not to mention the amount of new schools that have been built and opened in the last term. As you can probably tell, Education is my primary area i'm using to vote...
Everytime I consider voting Liberal I just look at Matthew Guy's face, remember the botched EW link business case and how rushed it was, and i'm just like.... you haven't done/said anything significant to win me over. I also strongly support Andrews' suburban loop (whatever they're calling it), there are some areas in metro that still haven't got decent PT. Given the metro hubs are going to fill up even more + quicker than regional centres, I think PT in the metro area is a significant priority that can't be delayed.
-
Think Labor will comfortably win again (only threat to that really is the loss of any further labor seats - could send them into minority next term).
I'm torn because the schools i've worked at are marginal Liberal seats and they haven't been in the best condition for some time - get promised loads of funds then the other side wins......... repeat.
I can't deny Andrews has done some pretty good work for our state - level crossing removals, not to mention the amount of new schools that have been built and opened in the last term. As you can probably tell, Education is my primary area i'm using to vote...
Everytime I consider voting Liberal I just look at Matthew Guy's face, remember the botched EW link business case and how rushed it was, and i'm just like.... you haven't done/said anything significant to win me over. I also strongly support Andrews' suburban loop (whatever they're calling it), there are some areas in metro that still haven't got decent PT. Given the metro hubs are going to fill up even more + quicker than regional centres, I think PT in the metro area is a significant priority that can't be delayed.
How do you (and others) feel about the Greens?
-
How do you (and others) feel about the Greens?
Not fussed really. I actually did a poll and it said my views align with the Greens the most, but realistically there's only two major parties in play here. Controlling the crossbench is a different story and I really hope there's a balance there of independents/greens etc. to hold whoever governs to account. If you vote green and your candidate wins, what do you get out of it? They aren't affiliated with one of the big two, so their opinions have less weighting... that's the way I see it anyway.
E.g. if a Labor MP wanted funding for their school and Labor was in power, you'd think that Labor would get it done. Liberals certainly wouldn't get it unless the school was crumbling beyond repair and the Greens.. perhaps it would get done if they sold themselves out on another issue they agreed to pass. Just a general issue I have noticed particularly during the campaign: It bloody frustrates me that funding for things / promises being made are primarily in marginal seats. I get the idea of why it occurs (to obviously win/snatch it from the other party) but ffs, those in safe seats miss out bigtime.
-
How do you (and others) feel about the Greens?
I like them, but to me voting them is more to say "hey Labor, the Greens are getting more of the primary vote - maybe look at their policies?" than out of expectation that the seat will be won (in my electorate at least).
-
How do you (and others) feel about the Greens?
I live in the inner city - Labor's always held it, but it's marginal enough that we get an article now.
My brain is pretty jumbled atm, so sorry if this is fairly incoherent. Some of these things are federal issues, or from different states, but imo it's fairly irrelevant. Presumably a party should have fairly consistent policies regardless.
-Labor wants to open new coal mines
-Labor wants to sell public housing land to private developers, which will result in an increase in available public housing, but it will be a small increase and no where near enough.
-I support heaps of the greens policies in regard to pill testing/legalising drugs/getting rid of pokies/political donation law reform/etc.
-Renewable energy is a big thing. Labor is far better than liberal on this, but still no where near good enough.
-Kids in detention. Nothing makes that acceptable.
-Greens are the only ones who support the Great Forest National Park and oppose Adani.
-Both labor and liberal want to improve roads. We're going to hit a point where the roads can't be 'improved' any further. Money has to be invested into public transport and cycling/walking.
imo labor is moving way too slow. Sure they've supported some good things (e.g. safe injecting rooms, marriage equality, level crossings, etc.) but they're doing it too slowly. They're not radical enough.
Also what mt said, even if a few greens being elected doesn't really influence decisions, it's still a pretty powerful way of showing what people support.
-
Originally coming from rural Victoria in a safe Nationals seat, I'm just excited that I now live in a marginal seat lol.
-
I’ll be back in Melbourne just in time to vote. Definitely going Greens although my electorate is a very safe Liberal seat. Honestly the whole Adani situation has made my blood boil and I just want as much investment in renewables as possible.
-
All of your thoughts on the Greens are interesting, though pretty consistent with how most people our age seem to view.
If there is no 2PP swing to either Liberal or Labor (i.e. neither outperforms the other), I wouldn’t be surprised if the Greens actually manage the balance of power. With Jane Garrett gone in Brunswick, it is very possible that it could go to the Greens for the first time. Likewise Richmond could also fall to the Greens. Should expect them to hold on to Northcote (which they recently won at a by-election), Melbourne and Prahran (this almost certainly won’t go back to the liberals since they’ve moved ever further right).
A lot of what the Greens campaign on is inherently misleading. Nearly all of the issues you’ve cited @PF are federal issues, which state Labor or indeed the Greens can do nothing about. Adani, for example, is in Queensland. The policy of the Victorian labor party is not to build new coal mines nor indeed coal or gas fired power plants; they’re also paying families to install solar panels. Likewise, children in detention is a federal issue and something against which Dan Andrews’ Labor left faction is actually opposed.
The Greens have been pretty effective at campaigning away on federal issues, which is a pity because the Labor party in Victoria is delivering a lot of the things Greens voters care about. Legalisation of euthanasia and medical marijuana, the safe injecting facility in Richmond, the single largest investment in public transport in Australian history in the 50 billion dollar rail loop, not to mention the metro tunnel and the level crossing removals, the introduction of the safe schools programme, making TAFE courses free, the reintroduction of tech schools, the first explicit campaign by a government in support of public schools in decades, raising standards for teaching courses in Victoria (now need at least a 70 ATAR), record investment in hospitals.
The reality is that we’ve already got a very progressive left wing government in Victoria. Having the Greens in the balance of power will only force them to find things to wedge the government on from the truly crazy left of policy ideas, tbh.
Obviously implicit in all of that is a fairly firm distaste of the Greens on my part. I really dislike that their policy output is really ill thought out and that they often will put ideological purity ahead of practical outcomes. Take two examples of this: the Greens held the balance of power in the senate during the first Rudd government and used their balance of power to vote against the emissions trading scheme, because they wanted something that was more stringent. At that point we were poised to be the major economy in the world with the most ambitious climate change policy, one that would almost certainly still be in place (unlike the carbon tax it had widespread support in the community), and would have served as a template for other countries to follow, but the Greens killed it because their political existence relies on them outdoing labor on climate change and they didn’t want the issue to go away by legislating, which frankly is morally vacuous.
Other example is refugee policy. Effectively the Greens policy is to take anyone who arrives by boat and massively increase the quota. No real practical concerns with the latter, but the former provides some issues. The reality of accepting boat arrivals is that it encourages more people to get on boats in the first place. As distasteful as the debate has become, the available evidence makes that conclusion unavoidable. The problem in this is, therefore, that more people get on boats to come to Australia and, consequently, more people die trying to come here. Sadly it’s not just fear-mongering on behalf of the liberals, literally 1000s of people died last time we had an influx of boats.
I’m not seriously suggesting that the current policy is acceptable—it’s not. It borders on a crime against humanity what we’re doing at the moment. But the Greens policy of accepting everyone is one that, whilst warm and fuzzy, is also one that would lead to the deaths of 1000s of vulnerable people. Again, the Greens would be aware of the evidence, but they choose to ignore it in advancing a policy position that is most palatable to their members and yet would so clearly lead to the deaths of refugees. In truth I think that’s just as bad if not worse than what’s currrently happening.
-
I'm really not sure who I'm gonna vote for. My views seem to align the most with the Greens but I'm pretty supportive of most things the Labor government has achieved and is planning to do.
-
As much as Matthew Guy is a bit of a dill. I will always back the libs and conservative/right-wing politics.
-
As much as Matthew Guy is a bit of a dill. I will always back the libs and conservative/right-wing politics.
Why do you think Guy is a dill? And what's behind your enthusiasm for the right? :)
-
As much as I don't side with labor. Dan Andrews does get things done and listens to the people. I'll give him that.
Why the right you ask? There values and beliefs embody my moral compass.
-
As much as I don't side with labor. Dan Andrews does get things done and listens to the people. I'll give him that.
Why the right you ask? There values and beliefs embody my moral compass.
Why does that make Matthew Guy a dill though?
What particular values?
-
Obviously implicit in all of that is a fairly firm distaste of the Greens on my part. I really dislike that their policy output is really ill thought out and that they often will put ideological purity ahead of practical outcomes. Take two examples of this: the Greens held the balance of power in the senate during the first Rudd government and used their balance of power to vote against the emissions trading scheme, because they wanted something that was more stringent. At that point we were poised to be the major economy in the world with the most ambitious climate change policy, one that would almost certainly still be in place (unlike the carbon tax it had widespread support in the community), and would have served as a template for other countries to follow, but the Greens killed it because their political existence relies on them outdoing labor on climate change and they didn’t want the issue to go away by legislating, which frankly is morally vacuous.
Other example is refugee policy. Effectively the Greens policy is to take anyone who arrives by boat and massively increase the quota. No real practical concerns with the latter, but the former provides some issues. The reality of accepting boat arrivals is that it encourages more people to get on boats in the first place. As distasteful as the debate has become, the available evidence makes that conclusion unavoidable. The problem in this is, therefore, that more people get on boats to come to Australia and, consequently, more people die trying to come here. Sadly it’s not just fear-mongering on behalf of the liberals, literally 1000s of people died last time we had an influx of boats.
I’m not seriously suggesting that the current policy is acceptable—it’s not. It borders on a crime against humanity what we’re doing at the moment. But the Greens policy of accepting everyone is one that, whilst warm and fuzzy, is also one that would lead to the deaths of 1000s of vulnerable people. Again, the Greens would be aware of the evidence, but they choose to ignore it in advancing a policy position that is most palatable to their members and yet would so clearly lead to the deaths of refugees. In truth I think that’s just as bad if not worse than what’s currrently happening.
I think, though, that it doesn't matter if the Greens' policies can achieve practical outcomes - the Greens aren't in a position where they would ever have to follow through on them. I think a lot of their policies exist purely so that people who preference Greens can say to Labor "hey, we're letting you know that there's a demand for policies that are more left wing than what you're currently doing." I'm not saying it's a good thing that the Greens (and other minor parties) can put forward unrealistic ideas, just that the Greens aren't as restricted in what they propose as the major parties are, because they will never really be in a position where they can totally implement their plan, or be forced to admit their plan isn't 100% feasible.
I don't align myself with any particular political party, because while I think both Labor and the Greens have some good stuff, they also have some stuff i'm not a massive fan of. At the last Federal election I preferenced Greens first, just because kind of why not? I'm in a very safe Liberal electorate which Labor knew they wouldn't win and they didn't really put much effort into campaigning here. At the state election i'm going to put Labor first. Our current local Labor member is great! A really nice guy, and he's done a lot of good and useful stuff in the area. While I'm not 100% pro- Labor, that's mostly to do with Federal issues!!!! At the state level, Daniel Andrews does so much, and so does my local member. No matter how much I agree with the Greens, it wouldn't make sense to me to preference whoever is running for Greens in my area, somebody who I've never heard of before and know nothing about, over the current member who is fab. Also, even taking in consideration voting Greens first to sway Labor more to the left, since the amount of election funding each party gets depends on first preference votes, I would rather give that first preference to Labor tbh!
Anyway, that's some of my thoughts on the State election!!!
-
I currently live in a safe Liberal seat at state level (will probably move soon after my exams since I don't like it much, only recently moved there recently). I used to live in one of the most marginal seat, currently held by Greens in by a tiny margin but Liberals and Labor have strong support in the area. Political campaigning in my area is almost non-existing so I do not know who the Greens and Labor candidates are apart from their names. Just 3 years ago though the current MP voted against banning anti-abortion protesters from protesting outside fertility clinics. MOD EDIT: removed racist comment. I not sure whether I'm going to vote for the Greens or Labor this election though, as it depends on Labor chances of winning the seat. Even if I like Greens, if it affects Labor chances of being in government, I wouldn't vote for them (assumption that a Labor government is better than a Lib at a certain point in time). If I were to vote in where I used to live, I would definitely vote for Labor as they have a strong chance of winning the seat and the candidate is better than the Greens one in my opinion.
On a federal level, where I currently live has traditionally been a relatively safe Labor seat but has become marginal in recent elections. In the last one, the sitting Labor MP of over 20 years only got like a primary vote percentage in the low 20s, slightly below the Greens, and only marginally got through on preferences. He has just said he was not re-contesting as the writing is on the wall and a 30 year only guy who used t be staffer was pre-selected. Hopefully he is different to the previous person, as the he was abysmal; undynamic, used taxpayers funds for anti-ABC ads, religion was always at the forefront of his positions and chose to preference a Liberal ahead of the Greens against part orders. Greens has earmarked my electorate to be one of their key areas and have placed a strong candidate (who did well at the last election especially for the first time that Greens had some sort of significant presence in the area) as have Liberal (a seemingly progressive 38 year old female lawyer). In such an instance, whether I vote for the Greens or Labor depends on how popular Shorten it and whether the can win whilst losing Macarthur. If so, and Di Natale doesn't slip up, I'll probably vote for the Greens candidate. As many people have said, Labor is great on state but leaves a bit to be desired on nationals.
Class identity-wise, I've always been Labor while my positions are a mixed of Labor and Greens.
Just curious, are local candidate important in who you choose to vote for?
-
Today it was revealed that the man at the centre of the Bourke St attacks last week was on bail and had skipped court appearances on multiple occasions. The charges for which he had received bail were related to minor driving offences, as I understand it driving without a licence.
The Liberals used the fact that he had been bailed to tout their own policy that if someone misses their bail appointment that they be chucked straight into gaol. We saw a pretty melodramatic display from the shadow attorney-general who said that under the Liberal's laws this attack would never happen. He also asked how much we needed to suffer before we changed the system.
imo this is politics at its absolute worst. Whether or not you agree with harsher bail conditions is neither here nor there. Implying that the government was responsible for the deaths of those people is reprehensible, especially when the link you're making is that if this bloke were chucked in the slammer for traffic offences he wouldn't have been able to attack anyone. I would argue that someone who skips bail on a background of traffic offences poses no risk to the community and that the idea they should be gaoled is absurd. Traffic offences are hardly a red flag for terrorist activity; pretending otherwise is gutter politics.
-
Only sort of relevant - I really hate the way labor advertises. I assume it’s targeted advertising so you guys probably haven’t seen it, but I’ve been getting ads from two different groups - I can’t remember what they’re called exactly. One is something along the lines of ‘the truth about the greens’ and the other is something like ‘staying on track’ (I think that’s wrong but it’s somewhat similar.
The truth about the greens one is just an attack on the greens history re: responding to complaints about sexual assault etc.
The other one is a bit more of a typical labor ad - ‘only a labor government’ etc.
Anyway, they’re both labor ads, but they don’t say that until the very end when it says ‘authorised by the labor party’ in tiny writing for about half a second. and I reckon that’s complete bullshit. They’re clearly trying to pretend that these ads are ‘independent’ and not claiming them as labor ads - compared to the greens ads I see that are mostly coming from Samantha ratnam’s page - very clearly ads for the greens.
As well as that, I’ve seen ads from Kotex (a pads/tampons brand) about the potential introduction of free sanitary supplies in public schools - as much as they also serve as an ad for the brand, I find it really hard to believe that there isn’t some shady deal going on there.
@Vox, I knew that was bait and I still replied to it lol.
I agree with you that some of the things they’ve done are bs - as well as the ETS they opposed the desal plant, it gets electricity from fossil fuels which was a crap decision but other than that I reckon it’s going to be needed.
Definitely think that the greens are big on advertising federal issues - but having said that, in the lead up to this election, the only stuff I’ve seen (either advertised or directly from Victorian greens FB pages) has been about state issues. I suppose I also don’t really mind that - it’s not like they can be talking about things they’re currently doing given they don’t have any significant power.
I think the greens do a very good job of making things personal - I’ve seen FB ads for the labor candidate in my area but that’s it (for local candidate ads, I’ve gotten labor party ads as well). Compared to the greens that have placards everywhere and are doorknocking etc. I remember at the last federal election I saw literally two placards for the labor candidate - sure I wasn’t voting, but I was paying attention to politics then - and I barely knew the guys name. So yeah, I think that the greens get a lot of attention from young people because they’re good at connecting with people and making them feel like it’s actually a personal issue/that they’re vote actually matters.
Re: legalising euthanasia & medical marijuana, the safe injecting room - they’ve been greens policies since before labor implemented them.
Re: the other things you mentioned - I don’t think it’s really fair to compare a government that actually has the power to do that to a party that doesn’t have any significant power.
I definitely agree that labor has done some great things - but there’s so much more they haven’t done, and so much they could have done earlier. E.g. a cash for containers scheme and a ban on single use bags are still non-existent in Victoria.
Sorry if there’s tons of typos in this - silly me wrote it on my phone.
-
Only sort of relevant - I really hate the way labor advertises. I assume it’s targeted advertising so you guys probably haven’t seen it, but I’ve been getting ads from two different groups - I can’t remember what they’re called exactly. One is something along the lines of ‘the truth about the greens’ and the other is something like ‘staying on track’ (I think that’s wrong but it’s somewhat similar.
The truth about the greens one is just an attack on the greens history re: responding to complaints about sexual assault etc.
The other one is a bit more of a typical labor ad - ‘only a labor government’ etc.
Anyway, they’re both labor ads, but they don’t say that until the very end when it says ‘authorised by the labor party’ in tiny writing for about half a second. and I reckon that’s complete bullshit. They’re clearly trying to pretend that these ads are ‘independent’ and not claiming them as labor ads - compared to the greens ads I see that are mostly coming from Samantha ratnam’s page - very clearly ads for the greens.
As well as that, I’ve seen ads from Kotex (a pads/tampons brand) about the potential introduction of free sanitary supplies in public schools - as much as they also serve as an ad for the brand, I find it really hard to believe that there isn’t some shady deal going on there.
@Vox, I knew that was bait and I still replied to it lol.
I agree with you that some of the things they’ve done are bs - as well as the ETS they opposed the desal plant, it gets electricity from fossil fuels which was a crap decision but other than that I reckon it’s going to be needed.
Definitely think that the greens are big on advertising federal issues - but having said that, in the lead up to this election, the only stuff I’ve seen (either advertised or directly from Victorian greens FB pages) has been about state issues. I suppose I also don’t really mind that - it’s not like they can be talking about things they’re currently doing given they don’t have any significant power.
I think the greens do a very good job of making things personal - I’ve seen FB ads for the labor candidate in my area but that’s it (for local candidate ads, I’ve gotten labor party ads as well). Compared to the greens that have placards everywhere and are doorknocking etc. I remember at the last federal election I saw literally two placards for the labor candidate - sure I wasn’t voting, but I was paying attention to politics then - and I barely knew the guys name. So yeah, I think that the greens get a lot of attention from young people because they’re good at connecting with people and making them feel like it’s actually a personal issue/that they’re vote actually matters.
Re: legalising euthanasia & medical marijuana, the safe injecting room - they’ve been greens policies since before labor implemented them.
Re: the other things you mentioned - I don’t think it’s really fair to compare a government that actually has the power to do that to a party that doesn’t have any significant power.
I definitely agree that labor has done some great things - but there’s so much more they haven’t done, and so much they could have done earlier. E.g. a cash for containers scheme and a ban on single use bags are still non-existent in Victoria.
Sorry if there’s tons of typos in this - silly me wrote it on my phone.
yessss take the bait!!!
On ads: I don't particularly like the personal attack ads either. They're tacky and they don't help advance the debate and contribute to a general sense of distrust in the political system. If you're attacking your opponents out of hand, you're attacking the system.
We've got them down here against Darryn Lyons, running the (admittedly) brilliant line "fake abs, fake independent, real liberal".
On the Greens: imo it's a cop out to say that they shouldn't have to think through policy because they're not going to be in power. The reality is that if they're elected to parliament, potentially with the balance of power, their policies will become a critical component of the next government. We saw that be the case when the Greens agreed to support the Labor government federally and we also saw that when the Greens formed government with Labor in Tasmania (highlighting this point, the Greens have actually been in government not just supported it...it was a coalition!).
The reality is there have been times where the Greens have made a tangible difference to policy, particularly federally. In most cases, those decisions have been foolish. As above, the ETS didn't pass the senate because the Greens used their numbers (which constituted the balance of power in the senate at the time) and voted against it. They then moved us to a straight tax under the next coalition government, which was both politically flawed (much easier to attack a tax) and, critically, projected to reduce emissions by even less than the ETS. So for all their grandstanding on climate change, they are just as culpable as the liberals in ruining climate policy in Australia because they failed to understand the politics.
Likewise, another example is when the Greens supported the campaign to allow conscientious objection to vaccines. Bob Brown, a GP no less, gave the Greens use of his office in parliament house for two weeks to an anti-vaccination lobby group, who successfully convinced the then Howard government to allow for conscientious objection. To put no finer point on it, this is morally, ethically and intellectually vacuous behaviour that cost people their lives, as conscientious objection and the campaign around it empowered parents not to vaccinate their children. In fairness to the Greens, their leadership now supports vaccination, but there are still anti-vaxx elements within the party, especially in the hard Left faction.
The short and sweet of it is that the Greens do have power when they're voted in and the way they have exercised that power has generally been to the detriment of Australia. I completely agree that their contribution to the debate has shifted policy to the Left, particularly in Victoria, and I think that that has been beneficial. I suspect the Labor government would have eventually brought about a safe injecting room, legalised medical marijuana and euthanasia on its own, but I do also suspect that the Greens probably helped to create a political environment that allowed it. On these issues the Greens have been good, but when actually charged with responsibility to make a decision in the national interest, they simply can't do it. They're too willing to play politics and would rather virtue signal than actually see good policy passed, and for that reason I couldn't ever in good conscience vote for them.
Also, any progressive who doubts that a Labor government can deliver progressive reforms should read up on the Whitlam government.
-
I believe I am situated in one of the top 5 safest Labor seats in the state.
I always find it peculiar that people are willing to always vote so heavily in one parties favour, as it ultimately means that nothing gets done by politicians in the electorate, unlike swing seats where politicians bend over backwards to persuade voters to vote for them.
-
I am still unsure who I am voting for this election. I wish there was a good independent candidate in my area and I could get on that bandwagon - otherwise im going for the animal justice party. It is a super safe labor seat though, literally everyone I have ever met could vote for the liberals and it would still be a very safe labor seat. Should be interesting to watch unfold anyway.
-
Went and early voted today. Took me 5 mins, in and out. Beats waiting in a line on Election Day. Past few elections where i've gone to vote, has been a long queue and have had to wait a long time.
-
Went and early voted today. Took me 5 mins, in and out. Beats waiting in a line on Election Day. Past few elections where i've gone to vote, has been a long queue and have had to wait a long time.
But did you get a democracy sausage?
-
Managed to evade the pack of people handing out how to vote cards at the early voting centre. The trick to avoid them is to walk quickly and make sure there's also a slow walker going into the voting centre to divert the attention away from you ;)
-
But did you get a democracy sausage?
Voted this morning and unfortunately not. The MP was at the voting booth and there was was this lady in the line (not a volunteer) who was continually bashing the left, verging a bit on harassment.
-
I have a question, so I am going to be away during the election so I need to go to an early voting center.
The only early voting centre in my electorate is over 30 minutes away. There is a closer early voting center in another electorate. Can I still vote at that location?
-
Yeah, you can vote anywhere in the state :) You'll just have to enter a different queue if you're voting in a different electorate but it's no dramas. I went and voted early today and there was a number of people voting for a different electorate. When you get to the centre the staff are really helpful with which line you need to be in and stuff
-
Yeah, you can vote anywhere in the state :) You'll just have to enter a different queue if you're voting in a different electorate but it's no dramas. I went and voted early today and there was a number of people voting for a different electorate. When you get to the centre the staff are really helpful with which line you need to be in and stuff
Ok thank you.
That sounds nice and easy. It's a little scary as this is my first time voting, I dunno what to expect.
I am still kinda unsure who I am voting for. But I am reading up on my local candidates and vote for whomever feels right.
-
Ok thank you.
That sounds nice and easy. It's a little scary as this is my first time voting, I dunno what to expect.
I am still kinda unsure who I am voting for. But I am reading up on my local candidates and vote for whomever feels right.
From my perspective it is 'bigger picture' (e.g. party rather than candidate). All the years i've voted, I have voted the party rather than the candidate (as we know, candidates can come and go). Definitely do what you feel is right and don't let anybody (e.g. person handing out flyers, family etc) influence your decision in any way. And please don't donkey vote. Seats are sometimes won on the slimmest of margins - it is critical to take the vote seriously especially in a marginal seat.
You get given 2 slips first one is a simple 1-6 preference list (depending on where you live, could be less/more) and the second is either writing 1 above the line or specific preferences below. That's it! Once done, fold it up and put it in the correct box.
-
Also, it’s totally fine to put someone first even if they’ve got no hope of winning - your vote will just keep moving down your list of preferences (sort of like VTAC applications actually hahahahaha)
-
From my perspective it is 'bigger picture' (e.g. party rather than candidate). All the years i've voted, I have voted the party rather than the candidate (as we know, candidates can come and go). Definitely do what you feel is right and don't let anybody (e.g. person handing out flyers, family etc) influence your decision in any way. And please don't donkey vote. Seats are sometimes won on the slimmest of margins - it is critical to take the vote seriously especially in a marginal seat.
The problem with the parties is that what I would prefer to vote for some hybird party. Both Labor and Liberal hav some good values/ideas, but then also some ones I don't particularly agree with.
At this point it is just super tricky to come to a decision of one.
Also, it’s totally fine to put someone first even if they’ve got no hope of winning - your vote will just keep moving down your list of preferences (sort of like VTAC applications actually hahahahaha)
Yeah I understand that. I'm not going to not vote for someone just because they have close to 0 chance of winning anyways.
-
I guess another consideration is the consequence of voting for a party that isn't one of the main two - you need to have an understanding of where their preferences are flowing as you may end up blindly voting for a party you didn't intend on voting for in the first place. It's very tough to find a party where you agree with absolutely everything that they are offering. My vote that I cast yesterday was for the party that I thought best offered policies that were of interest to me and the ones that didn't offer much / full of crap, they were towards the end of my pref list.
Don't let it sway you, i'm just saying be informed before you actually vote for x or y party. :)
also, can I just say that i am FREAKING over the 'what kind of guy is matthew guy' ads on TV. They are seriously shitting me.
Saturday cannot come quick enough.
-
Just a PSA that the VEC will have details about the candidates running for your seat/for your region in the upper house. Parties have to lodge their "how to vote" cards with them so you can have a look at them to see who the parties preference and all that.
RE: candidate vs party, I think it's important to consider both. Definitely research the policies of the parties, but also make sure you look at what the candidates are promising for your seat. The candidate I put as first preference isn't in the party I'd say my views align with the most, but I saw them as being the best option to do good things for my seat, so I decided to go with them.
-
With the Liberal's rhetoric on crime, police and youth justice, I feel very angsty about this election- I'm waiting for it to be over (thankfully I'm busy over the next few days, especially Saturday).
-
Also, it’s totally fine to put someone first even if they’ve got no hope of winning - your vote will just keep moving down your list of preferences (sort of like VTAC applications actually hahahahaha)
As I understand, the amount of public funding you get is determined by the first preference votes. So it actually makes sense to support whichever party you like best first and then preference the big party you like best second, unless of course you like the big parties.
With the Liberal's rhetoric on crime, police and youth justice, I feel very angsty about this election- I'm waiting for it to be over (thankfully I'm busy over the next few days, especially Saturday).
It has been an absolutely appalling campaign by the liberals. The way they’ve used the Bourke st events to their advantage is pathetic. Likewise, Labor hasn’t done a good job of handling it. All the grandstanding on this issue by the government has been ugly. Take for example the state funeral for one of the victims. As much as he was admired in his local community, he wouldn’t have had a state funeral outside of an election campaign. Ugly politics.
-
Less than two days until Election Day and the latest polls released tonight speak for themselves.
Highly doubt Matthew Guy will be premier on Saturday night...
The Age has it at 46-54
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/victorian-election-2018-this-is-one-poll-that-matthew-guy-cannot-wish-away-20181122-p50hqu.html
Herald sun has it 47-53
-
Less than two days until Election Day and the latest polls released tonight speak for themselves.
Highly doubt Matthew Guy will be premier on Saturday night...
The Age has it at 46-54
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/victorian-election-2018-this-is-one-poll-that-matthew-guy-cannot-wish-away-20181122-p50hqu.html
Herald sun has it 47-53
was never going to win it due to the catastrophe that is the federal government (whether we like it or not, performance at the federal level does have an impact)... along with (imo) extremely weak and minimal education policies.
- Declaring to remove the safe injecting room imo is a massive mistake
- Removing Safe Schools is a massive mistake. The 'Alannah and Madeleine Foundation' program actually already exists in alot of schools (branded as eSmart), given Guy said during the debate last night that 'cyberbullying' is the biggest form of bullying/discrimination.
- As soon as Guy mentioned the idea of religious instruction in secondary schools, it immediately made me not want to vote for the Liberals. I believe that given secondary schools are free, open and accessible to all, religious instruction has no place as part of the main program in any way whatsoever. If parents want their children to receive such instruction during school hours, they should be sending them to an independent school or a catholic school (depending on faith/beliefs and affiliations).
Guy has got no idea punnnnnnnn
-
Guy has got no idea punnnnnnnn
Still a bit nervous though because many people (from various parts of the political spectrum) seem very taken by the tough on crime and at-risk youth approach
-
was never going to win it due to the catastrophe that is the federal government (whether we like it or not, performance at the federal level does have an impact)... along with (imo) extremely weak and minimal education policies.
- Declaring to remove the safe injecting room imo is a massive mistake
- Removing Safe Schools is a massive mistake. The 'Alannah and Madeleine Foundation' program actually already exists in alot of schools (branded as eSmart), given Guy said during the debate last night that 'cyberbullying' is the biggest form of bullying/discrimination.
- As soon as Guy mentioned the idea of religious instruction in secondary schools, it immediately made me not want to vote for the Liberals. I believe that given secondary schools are free, open and accessible to all, religious instruction has no place as part of the main program in any way whatsoever. If parents want their children to receive such instruction during school hours, they should be sending them to an independent school or a catholic school (depending on faith/beliefs and affiliations).
Guy has got no idea punnnnnnnn
Agreed!
Matthew Guy is a conservative and also happens to be super religious, just like Morrison. I wouldn't vote for him as his religion impedes his judgement imo. That idea that he mentions, shows this, but I think he is trying to appeal to the "base" of the liberals.
As for Safe schools... lmao, he is such a massive hypocrite. Says one thing but does the other. Get out of here.
-
It's been a really bizarre approach by the Liberals tbh. Victoria has been a fairly progressive state for the best part of twenty years now, and that has been evident in both our Labor and our Liberal governments. As far as I understand it, but Baillieu and Napthine were well and truly moderate Liberals, and so was Guy at one point too. There's been a general shift in the Victorian Liberal party to the Right, largely because of Kroger and Bastiaan playing funny buggers in the party. Perhaps that's pushed Guy in that direction? Either way, it's a moronic idea.
Thought the Liberals might have got a good run out of the Bourke St attack but it appears not to have paid dividends for them.
Has also been a dreadful week for the Greens, who have been in a more realistic position to cause trouble for Labor than the Liberals have. Personally, I expected that the Greens would pick up more seats this weekend and potentially be rewarded with the balance of power if Labor didn't see a reasonable swing. The way they've handled the issues surrounding their candidate for Footscray (tl;dr he rapped about beating women and they were all like yeah nah that's ok people change) is mindboggling. For all my whinging about the Greens here, they've always been ahead of the curve as far as DV is concerned and in terms of women's rights (you could argue too much at times, seeing as the fact they're using their near total absence of male MPs as a positive), so I just can't fathom how a party built on that kind of core could vacate the space so cravenly when one of their candidates pulls a stunt like that. Compounding their problems last night are allegations that their candidate for Sandringham raped someone (he has been stood down).
Also, an aside on shoring up the base. The fact that that argument has currency in the Liberal party, and to a lesser extent in the Labor party (v Greens), really highlights just how moronic politicians can be at times. Shoring up the base is only useful insofar as it encourages people to get out and vote, which works fantastically well in the US where voting is optional, but not so much here when everyone has to vote anyway. The secondary argument that it is necessary to pander to the base to retain support that would otherwise go to One Nation is also absurd. One Nation isn't in a realistic position to take any seats in the Lower House (federally or Vic) and therefore the Liberals could expect those who defect to One Nation to come back to the Liberals by preferences in droves, making perhaps the most minute of contributions to the outcome. Meanwhile, the abundance of votes in the centre, that would otherwise end up with the Labor party are ignored.
-
Reminder that you can still vote even if you forgot to enrol.
https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/Enrolment/
-
does anyone know if you have to vote in your own electorate or can you go to a different one and do it?
-
does anyone know if you have to vote in your own electorate or can you go to a different one and do it?
I believe different is fine.
-
does anyone know if you have to vote in your own electorate or can you go to a different one and do it?
I think you go in a different queue if you're voting in a different electorate?
-
Can confirm.
https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/Voting/HowToVote.html
-
Antony Green has already predicted a labor majority government lol
-
Antony Green has already predicted a labor majority government lol
This is a great day.
Primarily from an education point of view (since that's the only area i've kept up to date with in detail), I am proud.
-
Bloodbath
-
As much as I dislike the liberals, I’m watching the ABC’s election coverage and John Pesutto actually seems like a pretty decent guy.
I take that back if he’s actually a bad guy and is just good at faking for the cameras
-
Even some areas which have been traditionally Liberal for some time have fallen. Sending a clear message here.
ABC has Labor winning 57 seats at the moment based on the current figures. A good 12 or so above the required number. That's amazing.
-
Definitley think liberal screwed up with their policies, think they would have done better appealing to undecided center voters.
-
ABC showing Labor likely to get to 60... 3x Libs at the moment
WoooW
-
Comprehensive, one might say!
-
Sorry about my absence here folks! Have been out tonight but have been watching the results closely.
Has definitely been an emphatic victory for Labor, surprisingly so. It's nice in a sense, as Daniel Andrews said, that Victorians were baited by the kind of ugly, divisive politics that we saw from the Liberal party. They took a really negative strategy to the election that, as above, probably didn't sit too well with the more moderate Matthew Guy. It's an interesting reminder that strongly progressive governments can actually be popular in western countries. As far as I'm aware, it hasn't been discussed a lot tonight, but the Liberals tried a populist approach at this election, whereas Labor were far less populist in their approach. A bit heartening given the events around the world.
Surprised by the lack of the swing against the Greens. I think it sort of proves that a lot of those Greens voters, once they've left, probably won't come back to the Labor party. Both federally and at the state level the Labor party has decisively shifted to the left and hasn't really picked up much support from the Greens. A shift of one percent is a fair chunk of the Greens support, but given their pathetic handling of the candidate for Footscray and the progressiveness of the current government, I'm surprised it was so little. Glad that Labor won back Northcote. Lidia Thorpe came to speak to us at our student conference and she was genuinely appalling. That's not, of course, to say that she's without talent; but her views were abhorrent. Don't mind so much about Ellen Sandell (Melbourne), who I've also heard speak and found quite convincing if I'm honest.
Interesting that the swings appeared to be largest in the inner east. Think seats like Caulfield, Hawthorn, Albert Park, Richmond and perhaps less so in the outer suburbs. Surprising given that the Labor campaign seemed to be geared so strongly to the outer suburbs (focusing on health, education and transport) and the Liberal campaign, really, should have hit harder in the inner suburbs, where crime rates are generally higher. It appears the reverse happened.
On a final note: Darryn Lyons was expected to give the seat of Geelong a good run. He didn't. There was a small swing against Labor towards Darryn Lyons in the seat; however, it was still an emphatic victory there. I cannot overstate how important this result is. Darryn Lyons has a lot of currency in Geelong and certainly has strong support. He's seen down here as an underdog who gets things done for the city. A more careful analysis of his record though reveals that he was a bully without the policy acumen to deal with the rigours of council let alone state parliament and who systematically abused his position to further his own brand, at the detriment of the city. Glad he got kicked to the curb.
-
Just a little update.
Although the Andrews' government announced its new ministry today (with parity for men and women no less), the count continues with 4/5 votes counted. According to the ABC, 8 seats still hang in the balance. On current numbers, it looks like most of these will go to the Coalition; however, that's a very unreliable prediction indeed. In Brunswick the Greens are leading, whilst the election computer has the Greens comfortably ahead in Prahran, which is rubbish. The winner of Prahran will be whoever finishes second: Labor or the Greens. That the Greens are ahead so far on this is based on the previous election's two-party-preferred, which was Liberal v. Greens. The ABC has done a fairly poor job the last couple of elections (this and Wentworth) by rushing at the gate a little bit with their predictions. For example, they called Caulfield for Labor early in the piece, whilst failing to appreciate that the Orthodox Jewish community can't vote on the Sabbath and that all of their votes (sitting in prepoll and postals) hadn't been counted yet. Needless to say, Cauflield will well and truly remain with the Liberals.
Results here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/vic-election-2018/results/
Matthew Guy resigned this week amidst fall out in the Liberal party. I've discussed that at length in the AusPol thread. The leadership election is expected to happen next week and is expected to include Michael O'Brien (shadow treasurer and former treasurer under Napthine) and John Pesutto. The complication here being that John Pesutto is potentially going to lose his seat of Hawthorn. With 12% left to count, he's less than 100 votes behind the Labor candidate. Expect a recount. It may actually be too late for him to stand up for the leadership election by the time the count is done, especially if there's a recount.
-
Just a little update.
whilst the election computer has the Greens comfortably ahead in Prahran, which is rubbish. The winner of Prahran will be whoever finishes second: Labor or the Greens. That the Greens are ahead so far on this is based on the previous election's two-party-preferred, which was Liberal v. Greens.
I was confused as well at the fact that Pharoah is currently 2nd in terms of primary votes but wasn't in the 2 party preferred (unless every voter that did not vote for a major party preferenced the Greens). That makes sense now that they relied on last election's two party preferred.
-
I was confused as well at the fact that Pharoah is currently 2nd in terms of primary votes but wasn't in the 2 party preferred (unless every voter that did not vote for a major party preferenced the Greens). That makes sense now that they relied on last election's two party preferred.
The Greens might still finish in second place. It looks as though the ALP will probably get more primary votes, but there are other more minor candidates in that election whose preferences might flow to the Greens and see them in second place.