Advanced  

Latest Result

Elimination Final Subiaco Oval
Thu, 08 Sep 2016 • 18:10 WST
West Coast Western Bulldogs
7.10 (52) 14.15 (99)
Game Focus

Next Game

Round 2 Subiaco Oval
Sat, 01 Apr 2017 • 17:40 WST
West Coast v St Kilda
Game Focus


EFH News

Round 1 Preview: North Melbourne v West Coast
Matt Quinn • 25 Mar 2017
Player preview 2017
Matt Quinn • 21 Mar 2017
Oh well, that's that folks.
Matt Quinn • 08 Sep 2016
Elimination Final Preview: West Coast v Western Bulldogs
Matt Quinn • 07 Sep 2016
Round 21 Preview: GWS v West Coast
Matt Quinn • 12 Aug 2016
Round 20 Preview: Western Derby 44
Matt Quinn • 06 Aug 2016
Round 19 Preview: Collingwood v West Coast
Matt Quinn • 29 Jul 2016
Round 18 Preview: West Coast v Melbourne
Matt Quinn • 23 Jul 2016
Round 17 Preview: Carlton v West Coast
Matt Quinn • 16 Jul 2016
Round 16 Preview: West Coast v North Melbourne
Matt Quinn • 09 Jul 2016


WA State Election 2017

Discuss whatever you like, whenever you like, however you like

Moderators: Streaker, Mr Q

Who will you be voting for?

Liberal
6
27%
Labour
6
27%
Green
2
9%
One Nation
6
27%
Nationals
1
5%
Shooters, Fishers, Idiots
1
5%
Other
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 22

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Mr Q on Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:53 am

WCE06 wrote:
farmer joe wrote:So PHON has failed but has still polled as well as the greens. You have to love political reporting in Australia. Dance on her grave Q, but isn't gone yet.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andre ... c64ac74a1f


Yep the One Nation calamity has been greatly exaggerated.


Well PH herself was saying that ON would win at least three upper house and have he balance of power and two lower house seats (they didn't make the 2CP in any seat, or even close). Which they won't have.

The Greens look like getting at least two seats (probably three and up to four) in the Upper House (at least maintaining their current position, albeit apparently *different* seats). No one though was talking about the Greens getting 20% of the vote, or threatening to take lower house seats off the major parties, or anything like that.

The One Nation threat was pretty mild in the end. Effectively they took seats off the Liberals.
"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilisation" - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Alternative facts, alternative facts, pants on fire....
User avatar
Mr Q
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:59 pm
Location: Block 314

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby farmer joe on Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:46 am

Mr Q wrote:Well PH herself was saying that ON would win at least three upper house and have he balance of power and two lower house seats (they didn't make the 2CP in any seat, or even close). Which they won't have.

The Greens look like getting at least two seats (probably three and up to four) in the Upper House (at least maintaining their current position, albeit apparently *different* seats). No one though was talking about the Greens getting 20% of the vote, or threatening to take lower house seats off the major parties, or anything like that.

The One Nation threat was pretty mild in the end. Effectively they took seats off the Liberals.

Yes. Agreed. They, PHON, did get ahead of themselves. That there is little doubt. But even 6 months ago that would have happily accepted 1-3 seats in the WA Upper House. It give the party a base to work with which they didnt have.
You are also correct in saying they took votes of the LP. This is where the LP has problems. It is losing one of its core constituency's, the small business sector. It has real problems articulating what it stands for and most people have worked out that they are captive to the banks, miners and supermarkets. Though this is no different to the ALP and Greens which are captive to the unions.
BIG AUSTRALIA = BIG FAIL.
farmer joe
Veteran
 
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:22 pm

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Mr Q on Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:46 am

farmer joe wrote:Yes. Agreed. They, PHON, did get ahead of themselves. That there is little doubt. But even 6 months ago that would have happily accepted 1-3 seats in the WA Upper House. It give the party a base to work with which they didnt have.

The way One Nation works, they'll be lucky if their elected candidates are even still part of One Nation by the time the next election comes around (look at their history in Queensland). They had to disendorse a bunch of candidates for this election, and others quit the party. Get three ON members in the room, and you'll have three wildly different policy positions, none of which are anything like Pauline Hanson's. They're a bunch of opportunists at best, and I suspect that ON's day in the sun will be short lived (the only ON Senator after the next Federal election will be Hanson herself).

farmer joe wrote:You are also correct in saying they took votes of the LP. This is where the LP has problems. It is losing one of its core constituency's, the small business sector. It has real problems articulating what it stands for and most people have worked out that they are captive to the banks, miners and supermarkets. Though this is no different to the ALP and Greens which are captive to the unions.
BIG AUSTRALIA = BIG FAIL.


The small business sector isn't that huge (in terms of voting power). They've lost all the "aspirationals" in WA - who've realised that those aspirations are bunk under a Liberal government.
"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilisation" - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Alternative facts, alternative facts, pants on fire....
User avatar
Mr Q
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:59 pm
Location: Block 314

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Peter_Melesso_Fanclub on Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:36 pm

farmer joe wrote:
Mr Q wrote:Well PH herself was saying that ON would win at least three upper house and have he balance of power and two lower house seats (they didn't make the 2CP in any seat, or even close). Which they won't have.

The Greens look like getting at least two seats (probably three and up to four) in the Upper House (at least maintaining their current position, albeit apparently *different* seats). No one though was talking about the Greens getting 20% of the vote, or threatening to take lower house seats off the major parties, or anything like that.

The One Nation threat was pretty mild in the end. Effectively they took seats off the Liberals.

Yes. Agreed. They, PHON, did get ahead of themselves. That there is little doubt. But even 6 months ago that would have happily accepted 1-3 seats in the WA Upper House. It give the party a base to work with which they didnt have.
You are also correct in saying they took votes of the LP. This is where the LP has problems. It is losing one of its core constituency's, the small business sector. It has real problems articulating what it stands for and most people have worked out that they are captive to the banks, miners and supermarkets. Though this is no different to the ALP and Greens which are captive to the unions.
BIG AUSTRALIA = BIG FAIL.


I think it fits with the general pattern of the election - which was people abandoning the Liberals in droves.
Those toward the middle of the political spectrum went left and voted ALP. The ones at the nutty end would of course never vote ALP (and most definitely not the Greens!), so they went ON.
The Libs will need to take that into account now for as long as ON stick around.

Personally I think the WA economy really needs some tough love right now. Unfortunately no one has the guts to go that way because tightening the belt is not what people want to hear. On top of that, usually the right are seen as better for the economy, but under their watch the deficit has ballooned, so it made it a tough decision for me this year.
Honestly as soon as the Libs got into bed with One Nation I just forgot about trying to weigh up left vs right this year. That was something I just could not stomach, and was the straw that broke the Libs back for me.
Peter_Melesso_Fanclub
Veteran
 
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:05 pm

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Mr Q on Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:22 pm

Crazy Dazz wrote:We have had fixed 4 year terms for some time now, but Carpenter called an election 6 months early, which gifted Col a 4.5 year term.
Unless something was changed more recently?


This election was the first one called under a four year fixed term (ie the 2013-2017 government was the first fixed term government). The legislation only passed in 2011, well after Carpenter called the 2008 election.

There is no point in fixing terms if the Premier can ignore it for their own benefit. The whole purpose of fixed terms is that the term of government is known.

Crazy Dazz wrote:There are of course circumstances when the Governor has (rightly) refused a request. I recall when Robin Gray lost power in Tasmania, he tried to continue with a minority government (the Greens had the balance of power). When he lost the confidence of the parliament, he wanted to call another election. The Governor refused and forced Gray to resign. (Which was weird because I would have assumed that is tenure as Premier ended with the election, but apparently is warrant was still valid.)


The tenure of the Premier always lasts until a new Premier is sworn in. Thus, on Sunday, the Premier was still Colin Barnett, who would remain Premier until he advises the Governor that he can no longer form government and tells the Governor who to talk to - in this case Mark McGowan.

Gray was within his rights to advise the Governor to hold fresh elections. The Governor was more than within his rights to tell him to go get fucked if his advice was that someone else could form Government (indeed it wasn't just the Governor's right, but also their responsibility). I'm thinking that the fact that no party had a majority in Parliament was his basis for this, in a period where minority government in Australia was unusual. Notably, since this time, ALP/Green Coalitions in Tassie are quite common, but that's a side effect of Tassie's unusual electoral system (for Australia) of five, five member electorates in the lower house - based on the five federal seats - rather than 25 single member electorates as per other states. Tassie *does* have single member electorates, but weirdly in the upper house, and elected on a rotating basis of some each year over a six year period.

Theoretically, an outgoing Premier (or PM) could hold on to the position until a formal test of the numbers when a new Parliament. It would be rather stupid politically to do so however.
"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilisation" - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Alternative facts, alternative facts, pants on fire....
User avatar
Mr Q
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:59 pm
Location: Block 314

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Crazy Dazz on Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:47 pm

Mr Q wrote:We have had fixed 4 year terms for some time now, but Carpenter called an election 6 months early, which gifted Col a 4.5 year term.
Unless something was changed more recently?


This election was the first one called under a four year fixed term (ie the 2013-2017 government was the first fixed term government). The legislation only passed in 2011, well after Carpenter called the 2008 election.

There is no point in fixing terms if the Premier can ignore it for their own benefit. The whole purpose of fixed terms is that the term of government is known.[/quote]
I don't recall exactly what happened after the 2008 election, I just know that Carps called it early trying to capitalise on Barnett's recent recent ascension.
The term of parliament need not correspond to the election date although for a lower house that is certainly highly preferable.
User avatar
Crazy Dazz
EFH Legend
 
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:18 pm
Location: Doing The Eagle Rock

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Mr Q on Sun Mar 19, 2017 2:25 pm

Crazy Dazz wrote:I don't recall exactly what happened after the 2008 election, I just know that Carps called it early trying to capitalise on Barnett's recent recent ascension.
The term of parliament need not correspond to the election date although for a lower house that is certainly highly preferable.


Actually, he called it early to capitalise on Buswell's problems. The Libs changed leaders the next day, and the rest is history.

The point though is that in that period, there were no fixed terms, the election date was effectively the perogative of the Premier to set, so Carpenter called it when he did. However, it is no longer so, the Premier does not have the right to call an election - either the normal term will run with elections on the second Saturday in March every four years (or the first available Saturday thereafter), or if a Government falls, then the Governor can call an extraordinary election.
"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilisation" - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Alternative facts, alternative facts, pants on fire....
User avatar
Mr Q
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:59 pm
Location: Block 314

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Ric on Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:28 pm

Deviating slightly, I notice that Scentre Group (owners of Westfield shopping centres in Aust and NZ) are embarking on a $1billion+ redevelopment of their centres in W.A. They've already started their $350nmillion spend at Carousel, Inalloo wil get a $600 million redevelopment and Whitfords, I'm not sure how much. According to their comments, they have no problem spending that kind of money in W.A.
Also, apartments are still being built, but who is going to buy them? Do those in power know something we don't?
Sydney has been having a property boom for a while now and a mate of mine there says the Chinese have been driving that boom.
Is it a case where those investing in Sydney will eventually back off from there due to prices making it no longer worthwhile and concentrate there spending in W.A.
If that were to be the case, Barnett could well become a hero for upgrading all he could while he could and would make McGowan's job easier and make him look good for the next 2+ terms.
If smoking is so bad, why does it cure dead fish?
User avatar
Ric
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:52 pm

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Fat Side on Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:40 pm

Ric wrote:If that were to be the case, Barnett could well become a hero for upgrading all he could while he could and would make McGowan's job easier and make him look good for the next 2+ terms.


Barnett will never be seen as a hero. The guy is an incompetent dud.
Make the switch now
2017 Sponsor of Willie (The Silk Solution) Rioli & Paddy (Irish) Brophy
User avatar
Fat Side
Veteran
 
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:52 pm

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Ric on Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:51 pm

Fat Side wrote:
Ric wrote:If that were to be the case, Barnett could well become a hero for upgrading all he could while he could and would make McGowan's job easier and make him look good for the next 2+ terms.


Barnett will never be seen as a hero. The guy is an incompetent dud.


that's your opinion, which in my opinion isn't worth shit.

What did Carpenter do with all the cash pouring into the state...oh, a rail line to Mandurah...big deal :lol:
If smoking is so bad, why does it cure dead fish?
User avatar
Ric
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:52 pm

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Fat Side on Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:27 am

Ric wrote:
Fat Side wrote:
Ric wrote:If that were to be the case, Barnett could well become a hero for upgrading all he could while he could and would make McGowan's job easier and make him look good for the next 2+ terms.


Barnett will never be seen as a hero. The guy is an incompetent dud.


that's your opinion, which in my opinion isn't worth shit.

What did Carpenter do with all the cash pouring into the state...oh, a rail line to Mandurah...big deal :lol:


He built the Mandurah line and established the Fiona Stanley Hospital and budgeted for it. Then handed over a $3billion debt. Barnett builds a stadium (4 years late), farcical children's hospital (sorry, a construction site), Butler rail extension, an incomplete royal quay and sinking the railway for 400 metres. He raises power by 85%, water by 60% all the while he is receiving record revenue. He then hands over a projected $41 billion debt. The only thing that stopped his outlandish spending was the election. Thank Christ for that.

That, in anybody's language is incompetent and the electorate know that, that's why his Govt was unceremoniously dumped. He has set this economy back at least a generation.
Make the switch now
2017 Sponsor of Willie (The Silk Solution) Rioli & Paddy (Irish) Brophy
User avatar
Fat Side
Veteran
 
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:52 pm

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Mr Q on Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:00 pm

Ric wrote:...oh, a rail line to Mandurah...big deal :lol:


Probably one of the most useful bits of infrastructure built in Perth in the last 30 years, alongside the equivalent line to Joondalup, also initiated by the ALP.

Of course, the Libs *were* going to build a line to Mandurah. That took 14 minutes longer each way to get there (so half an hour a day extra on the train), deviated massively out of its way, and would have missed the busiest stations outside of the CBD anywhere in the Metro area at Murdoch and Bull Creek. The Claytons line if you like.
"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilisation" - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Alternative facts, alternative facts, pants on fire....
User avatar
Mr Q
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:59 pm
Location: Block 314

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Crazy Dazz on Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:41 pm

Mr Q wrote:
Ric wrote:...oh, a rail line to Mandurah...big deal :lol:


Probably one of the most useful bits of infrastructure built in Perth in the last 30 years, alongside the equivalent line to Joondalup, also initiated by the ALP.

Of course, the Libs *were* going to build a line to Mandurah. That took 14 minutes longer each way to get there (so half an hour a day extra on the train), deviated massively out of its way, and would have missed the busiest stations outside of the CBD anywhere in the Metro area at Murdoch and Bull Creek. The Claytons line if you like.


The Liberal plan used more existing rail-lines, didn't steal space off the already constricted northern parts of the kwinana freeway, opened up rail service to a whole belt of suburbs that continue to be ignored, didn't require bridge modifications, hideously expensive tunnelling, or a whole new underground station built to service one line.

Murdoch was already well served by the Busport and Buslanes.

To be honest, I think whoever designed and built our rail networks, could have done a much better job. And I suspect that one of the problems is that whenever we change governments it seems their first order of business is always throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
User avatar
Crazy Dazz
EFH Legend
 
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:18 pm
Location: Doing The Eagle Rock

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Crazy Dazz on Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:08 pm

One thing that struck me about this election, was just how appalling the Libs were about managing their campaign, and getting their message across. It's all very well to blame negativity from the media, but now days with so many options available, a professional organisation should be able to manage the media and get their message out their.
User avatar
Crazy Dazz
EFH Legend
 
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:18 pm
Location: Doing The Eagle Rock

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Mr Q on Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:30 pm

Crazy Dazz wrote:Murdoch was already well served by the Busport and Buslanes.


If you think that, then you have absolutely no idea. The number of people using public transport services more than tripled by putting in that rail link - and putting it in running along the logical route, not the indirect one. That has a bigger effect on the northern reaches of the Kwinana Freeway than any buslane ever could. If you'd skipped the area where the single busiest suburban station in Perth is, those numbers would not have been comparable.

Peter Newman (from Curtin Uni wrote:The Southern Rail line was an immediate success. Within a year it was carrying
55,000 passengers a day when the buses in that corridor (including those using
the busway) carried just 14,000. The final cost of the railway came in at $17
million per km, which compares very favourably with infrastructure


I'd add, if you'd deviated that line, you'd have put more people on the roads, and for the areas still covered, there would have been less advantage to PT as the additional trip time would have resulted in less people changing from car to PT. And it's not like the Jandakot-Thornlie line can't or even won't be built in the future (when it's actually required, unlike the line through Murdoch that was already very much required.

Crazy Dazz wrote:One thing that struck me about this election, was just how appalling the Libs were about managing their campaign, and getting their message across. It's all very well to blame negativity from the media, but now days with so many options available, a professional organisation should be able to manage the media and get their message out their.


I can't argue they were useless, but I'd think that perhaps the message itself was quite a bit of the problem. It's like the Abbott squad who claimed that the reason the polling dived was that they couldn't get the message out - when most indicators were that the reason their polling dived was because the message *did* get out, and nobody liked it.
"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilisation" - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Alternative facts, alternative facts, pants on fire....
User avatar
Mr Q
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:59 pm
Location: Block 314

PreviousNext

Return to General Board, Suggestions and Problems

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron